Now that women can go to college and expect to earn wages that are almost at parity with men who are similarly qualified, has the need to couple with "underachieving" men been eliminated? Now that a woman can make her own way in the world and no longer need rely on a poor provider to have anything at all?
2007-11-01 23:23:45 · 10 answers · asked by Twilight 6 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Perspective honey.
I'm interested in what a man does more than how much he makes doing it. "Underachieving" probably has a different meaning to me.
btw women often couldn't rely on a "poor provider" in the past either..they often had to work too...
Re coupling .. well .. I would Much rather mix my fluids with someone who is interesting and intelligent. Can't put a price on that!
2007-11-02 05:57:40 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ ~Sigy the Arctic Kitty~♥ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. The fact that I make a good professional income means that, unlike in the early part of the century, I can choose a mate solely based on love and attraction. Since I don't need him to support me, I don't have to marry a dull, ugly guy just because he has a paycheck.
2007-11-02 10:35:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
where do i begin?
It's a good idea for a child to have two parents. And I say that as someone with 4 female grandparents, so it's not a 'moral majority' thing.
The 'male provider/ female housemaker' model dates from 50s America & Britain. It is parochial to regard that as the norm! It's *so* not! For example, I grew up in a society where most women had at least one job, possibly two, and many men couldn't find work. Most women 'coupled' as you so romantically put it, with the guys they fell in love with...
Sorry if that destroys your cold theory, there!
Helen
2007-11-02 06:42:07 · answer #3 · answered by cinnamonbrandy8 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think income matters to some folks more than others. It certainly doesn't hurt in the list of overall plusses to know there may be two good salaries coming in, but looking at income alone isn't wise when indulging in the 'natural selection' you suggest!
2007-11-02 06:29:35 · answer #4 · answered by Bart S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll gladly be his sugar-mama, but the underachiever must be hot, not some ugly underachiever.those are undesirable.
2007-11-02 06:40:16 · answer #5 · answered by polly-pocket 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only the most shallow women base their choices on how much he earns. High-earning women don't need anyone to take care of them, so it has less of a chance of mattering to them.
2007-11-02 09:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
nope. i make most of the money in my marriage. it makes being married to a guy that can barely get a job above minimum wage easier to deal with.
2007-11-02 13:35:41 · answer #7 · answered by Ember Halo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that matters is looks.
2007-11-02 07:06:03 · answer #8 · answered by spamdumpuk2003 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes for many it does. Women look for material gain in a relationship, that eventually benefits her and her offspring. Thats why she wants a man that shares his with her and not one where she has to share hers with his.
The situation is very welcome to solve the problem of overpopulation, since Prince Philip is unlikely to reincarnate as a deadly virus.
2007-11-02 06:28:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Only in US where everything is materialistic driven .
2007-11-02 06:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by I Speak the Truth 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋