I've noticed that men with good careers are much more likely to marry than the average man, while this trend is the exact opposite for women: women with good careers are much less likely to marry. Ironically enough, feminism has created a reduced number of women who are looking for relationships with men at any given point in time, but the women who do make themselves available to men still want men with money, making it harder for all but the rich men to have families these days ... notice the number of non-nuclear families, and kids without both parents while they're growing up.
At any rate, there's only so much room at the top, and it would seem to me that a woman with a higher-paying job (living all by herself in a big house in a nice neighborhood) is just taking up a space that could have went to a man supporting his family.
Your thoughts?
2007-02-11 14:45:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
No. Many of your perceptions are flawed and seem biased and based on what you "want" to believe.
Education is giving women more economic opportunities not feminism. Women are becoming more self sufficent and that troubles many men who believe it is a "man's role" to be the breadwinner. In many families both parents work to sustain a certain lifestye.
And it is a fact that when women become more educated they have less or no children. Which in todays world in not a bad option.
Fact is there are more women than there are men and I don't see why a person "should" look for a relationship if they do not desire one.
Taking up space? Why shouldn't a single woman who has the income live where and how she wants to. Would you say the same about a batchelor who has the income to live where and how he wants?
Or is he just taking up a space that could have gone to a man or woman supporting a family as well?
2007-02-11 14:47:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
so a techniques as i'm worried any woman who's drawn to a guy purely for funds isn't worth having. in actuality if i became wealthy, i might conceal the vast majority of my wealth whilst searching for a women folk - because it'd be the only way for me to appreciate if she easily loves me. As for the 'social' ingredient, i'm an introvert who prefers to spend his time at domicile with relatives and a few close associates. What I get excitement from the main is enjoying video games that use my ideas. Does that make me socially 'decrease' then a an extrovert? relatively, I hate how materialistic the trendy international has improve into.
2016-12-17 14:35:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. It might be very crowded in the middle class level, but at the top (as you put it) there's a lot of room.
Personally, I've never had any trouble finding women, or being found by women, and my financial status, as large and endowed as it is, was never the primary consideration these women showed me. I think women with careers and a big house are very sexy and appealing. Of course, having said that, some of my most cherished memories of love are with women who had little or no money and who were impressed equally by my large bank account as well as my sensitivity to their station in life.
2007-02-11 14:53:25 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The traditional family is mostly destroyed in today's world; there are only a few pockets of them left. Our civilization is dying as a result.
2007-02-11 15:23:05 · answer #4 · answered by Brigid O' Somebody 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your suppositions aren't supported with any real data - only some personal ranting. Your question, therefore doesn't make sense.
2007-02-11 15:14:45 · answer #5 · answered by S Q 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My thoughts are that you are biased -- possibly beyond repair.
I'm with G Rain on this one.
2007-02-11 14:55:06 · answer #6 · answered by chequamegon 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ditto to the first guy. No.
2007-02-11 14:48:33 · answer #7 · answered by Laura 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How sexist...
2007-02-11 14:48:35 · answer #8 · answered by Nikki 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋