Money was supposed to liberate women. Reason would dictate, that a woman?

Question

who has an good income (say 100k a year) increased her pool of potential mates, because money should no longer be a factor for her since she can support herself AND her mate. However, for some odd reaon, a woman who makes that kind of money has a hard time falling in love with a man driving a ford while she drives a Porsche and earns only say 20k against her 100k. Therefore the pool of mates to pick from shrinks for a career woman since she restricts herself to those men who make at least slightly more than she does, better is substantially more.
Why is that so ?

KA you are assuming that that a man who earns less is also less educated ? Nice way to be in denial that it really boils down to money and power. Interestingly I work in a profession where some of my very rich collagues are neithier sofisticated nor particularly well educated.

KA you are assuming that that a man who earns less is also less educated ? Nice way to be in denial that it really boils down to money and power. Interestingly I work in a profession where some of my very rich collagues are neithier sofisticated nor particularly well educated.

Answer 1

The male provider idea is so deeply ingrained in our culture. You say "a woman who makes that kind of money has a hard time falling in love with a man driving a ford while she drives a Porsche and earns only say 20k against her 100k" but it goes the other way too. A man is unlikely to be comfortable with that situation himself.

Answer 2

You've made a lot of assumptions there... the major one being that the woman is seeking a mate at all. One of the most liberating things about financial security is that it allows a woman to NOT get married if she chooses. She has the means to provide for herself, and does not require a husband for financial support.

Now, assuming she WANTS a partner, I'm going to guess that she will seek a person of similar education and economic status because these factors play heavily into compatibility. The reason it's hard for a person who makes $100K to fall in love with a person who makes $20K is that they have no common life experiences. Yes, there is the fear that the person who earns less will turn out to be a gold digger, but really... what every day experiences will these folks have in common?

Edit: Yes, I did make that assumption. In general, the more education a person has, the greater the earning potential. Of course, there are exceptions to generalities, and that is what you pointed out in your industry.
If a person had a lot of eduction and was only earning $20K, I would suspect some motivation problem or other "undesirable" issues. If I were to consider dating (which I typically don't, since I am married) I would certainly want to know WHY he settled for a $20K job with advanced education.

Answer 3

Hypergamy. A phenomenon known as "mating gradient".
Women marry up in 90% of cases, men marry down. It rarely gets reversed except in high-profile or celebrity cases. Women will rarely marry a man beneath her income/status (hypogamy) while men almost always do.
The woman driving the Porsche will be interested in the man driving the Rolls but she may settle for a man also driving a Porsche, it will be a newer/more expensive model.

This is also why divorce laws have become such a gold mine for women. They cannot lose. Even if they get less than half of the proceeds of the marriage, they usually come out ahead of where they would be if they had remained single because of this phenomenon.

Women want access to the three options available only to women who marry up:
1) To stay home to parent
2) To mix work and parenting to their liking
3) To work full-time, but with the option to switch to either of the first two options at any time.
This is only possible if the woman is married to a man who financially subsides these choices. Then there's the after marriage option:
4) If she gets bored of him, divorce and rape him in court.

Answer 4

Because too many men are sponges. Not that a good man earning a blue collar living is a sponge, but that many of them, if they think the woman will earn a living will stop working and sponge. Why would a woman want a man to do that, when we have such a difficult time getting to that higher bracket ourselves, and the more powerful men make more money? Besides, the point of "liberation" is that the women who earn a good living no longer are required to latch onto a man at all. The feild opens up for them to play as well.

Answer 5

In many cases, men are intimidated by women of higher power or earning. They're not sure whether to respect this hard worker- or to turn away from her. Historically, men are the provider. When this begins to change, and women become more empowered, her mate can no longer be the breadwinner he wants to be. Some men just wont accept that (in some cases) they cannot be that provider, and thus shun the woman for her successes.

Answer 6

Let them have their money, career, and sports cars. If that means they can't find a "suitable" man, who cares? Thats their problem.

Bed. Made. Lie.

Answer 7

Mabye this will get you notice about money! really great

v7v.blogspot.com