|
|
|
|
|
| | Women's Financial StatusPage 23 of 27 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) |
As far as the poster who says she won't marry down, well her reality is her preference. Her life experience has taught her that she needs a man who is at least an equal contributor and that is what the majority of the posters on this thread is saying. For some reason, I interpret what she is trying to say differently than some of you.
The issue is not with her preference, it's the criticism of men for having the same preference. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/17/2012 8:01:12 PM | | I do understand that. I did think that not everyone understood her message, but she thinks she articulates herself perfectly so apparently it is me who misunderstood. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/17/2012 8:13:45 PM | The issue is not with her preference, it's the criticism of men for having the same preference.
-------------
I think there's a difference in somebody wanting their partner to make the same 13.00 bucks an hour or better (me)than somebody wanting their partner to make the same 80,000 a year or better. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/17/2012 8:42:10 PM |
I think there's a difference in somebody wanting their partner to make the same 13.00 bucks an hour or better (me)than somebody wanting their partner to make the same 80,000 a year or better.
What is the difference? Both are seeking a equal partner. One that makes the same income as they do.
Or do you think once past a certain income level they should just accept someone that earns much less than them? | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/17/2012 8:45:21 PM | No one has mentioned numbers. The numbers are irrelevant really. And no, you still don't get it. What is being said is - folks have preferences, they are allowed these preferences and if one of those preferences is that someone make relatively equal to them, so what - it's what they prefer. You're saying it shouldn't matter and that they may pass up some wonderful person that makes less. Again, it's their preference. Just the same as someone who doesn't want to date someone who is fat or bald or 15 years older or has children at home.
And what Paderic is pointing out is that you, who say it shouldn't matter what someone makes, won't go out with someone who makes the same or less than you. This is the hypocracy in it all. Duh. And as usual you're taking a knife to a gunfight. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/17/2012 9:54:02 PM | | I'm sure that I'm not the only one who is worried that if you meet the wrong person, they might drive you broke. Or you would have to change your life style soo much cause they have no idea how to handle there own money and you start losing your money. I see so many people men and women who have no idea how to handle money. They see they want they buy. I guess Im one of guys who have lots of red flags when I meet people. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 12:09:13 AM | Now, I do want to bring up the point that sometimes a person may bring some specialized skill, ability or talent to a relationship...
Like when that Anna Nicole Smith brought "specialised skills" to Howard Marshall II...  | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:03:51 AM |
I will keep my house and she can keep hers, my bills will be mine and hers will be hers.
-------------
Maybe you should have put this in your profile.
It is in my profile. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 1:12:28 AM | Like when that Anna Nicole Smith brought "specialised skills" to Howard Marshall II... . LOL
A lot of men, even older guys, will accept a woman of little or no means, as long as she does the woman's work...cooking, cleaning and satifying her man...looking after him in all ways and being 'sweet' woman who never gives any trouble. I couldn't do that.
I did have a long term relationship in the long ago past where the man made a lot more than I did and took care of a lot of the expenses...but he was very generous and never made me feel he was doing me any favors or that I owed him anything. He still did a share of the housekeeping and never expected me to be mealy mouthed and 'sweet' all the time--a total impossibility for me in any case.
But, I think, in most cases where one partner is more dependent than the other, a relationship exists where one is more dominant than the other, and I wouldn't like that, which is why for me, it's important to be equals, or pretty damn close, and to be able to carry the financial load for myself at least. Being subservient in any sense is something I can't do. I let my boss at work boss me around, that's about it. And if that person is too aggressive, I'll just go out and find a different place to work. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 2:34:16 AM |
A lot of men, even older guys, will accept a woman of little or no means, as long as she does the woman's work...cooking, cleaning and satifying her man...looking after him in all ways and being 'sweet' woman who never gives any trouble.
Or...looks like Anna Nicole Smith | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 5:47:45 AM |
I think there's a difference in somebody wanting their partner to make the same 13.00 bucks an hour or better (me)than somebody wanting their partner to make the same 80,000 a year or better.
But you've made it clear that the same $13 an hour isn't enough for you, and you seem troubled by the idea that a man could have the same criterion. That's the rub.
I understand why you want a partner that earns a good living. Money enables us to live a nice lifestyle. What confuses me is why you can't see that a man would also want that and if it's OK for one gender, it's OK for the other. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 6:47:55 AM | I didn't say a 13.00 hr match wouldn't be good enough for me, hell if I had that these many years of being single, I'm sure I'd be better off-IF he were financially responisble.
A man who makes 80,000 a year plus combined with 13.00 hour should still have a nice lifestyle if they had minimal expenses and were responisble. But I guess some men would feel slighted in the disparity-but not all. | |
|
| |
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:03:46 AM | | Most men expect the woman to match them "dollar for dollar." If you don't, or can't, then they aren't interested. Combine that with the way a lot of them carry themselves, you can understand why there are so many more men actively seeking relationships than there are women. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:12:47 AM | ""A man who makes 80,000 a year plus combined with 13.00 hour should still have a nice lifestyle if they had minimal expenses and were responisble. But I guess some men would feel slighted in the disparity-but not all.""
I think by our age a charming smile and the odd b.j. doesn't go as far as it used to. Many men in our age range have gone through a divorce or two, supported families and maybe given up half of everything they worked for in the last 20 to 30 years. They can be battered, bruised and starting over as well and less willing to "support" someone else. Hence looking for someone self supporting, can share in whatever lifestyle they have chosen and able to match them in the expenses department. I don't think this is unrealistic or an uncommon expectation. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:18:55 AM | Most men expect the woman to match them "dollar for dollar." If you don't, or can't, then they aren't interested. Combine that with the way a lot of them carry themselves, you can understand why there are so many more men actively seeking relationships than there are women.
O.K. I will grant you that the more money a woman earns, the less likely she is to turn to a "relationship" in the hopes of securing a financial future. Does that mean that a man who seeks a high income woman may be left out in the cold? I think a woman who is comfortable with her financial future is less inclined to want to jeopardize it through a poor financial pairing. However, the same rings true for men. WHY (over 45 - since that is the point) would anyone who is in a "financially stable" position want to risk it by marriage to a person in a less solvent position?
That is my point.
There have been comments calling men a snob or chastising men for protecting their financial security as if they are to be pitied for having the consideration of $$$$ impinge upon the true love fantasy. Yet, the concept that a commitment to a person who earns more is not limiting the fairy tale aspect of "true love" (defined by immature people as throwing caution to the wind and overcoming all obstacles based on the pure power of emotion) is seen as a VALID premise.
I just have a hard time understanding how this perspective can be based on anything other than having the rules made to suit someone and mocking others whose individual choices threaten the other person's goals. 
It just smacks of a certain infantile level if expectation, in my opinion.
I didn't say a 13.00 hr match wouldn't be good enough for me, hell if I had that these many years of being single, I'm sure I'd be better off-IF he were financially responisble.
A man who makes 80,000 a year plus combined with 13.00 hour should still have a nice lifestyle if they had minimal expenses and were responisble. But I guess some men would feel slighted in the disparity-but not all.
mjinict - you said in an earlier post that "financial responsibility" did NOT equate to the amount of money a person earned. You claimed a lower wage earner could be more fiscally responsible than a higher wage earner. Now you seem to use it to mean someone who earns more.
Also, why do you presume to know what an acceptable and/ or "nice lifestyle" is for another person? I have paid for luxury vacations for BFs in the past, because I wanted them to go, and they could not afford it. At this point (over 45), I am unwilling to do so, as my retirement years are n the horizon and my planning does NOT allow for subsidizing another. I can see how men would feel a woman who could not be an equal contributor would be a DRAIN on their lifestyle. I just don't understand how someone can pronounce how someone else should perceive their own level of personal enjoyment should still be "nice" if they are forced to shell out a subsidy for meals out, upscale events (charity, concerts, plays), travel, perhaps also being expected to subsidize the groomng habits that could go along with it (spa, hair, nails, clothes).
If he buys fine wine for dinner, won't you be drinking it? Maybe a woman with higher income would bring a bottle home on her own. A lower income person cuts the higher income person's disposable income by whatever proportion they are NOT contributing. :bye: | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:19:02 AM |
Combine that with the way a lot of them carry themselves, you can understand why there are so many more men actively seeking relationships than there are women.
Well, spend a few weeks as an available man that is polite, smells nice and has an income, and you would quickly get the impression that the number of women actively seeking a relationship is almost unlimited....... | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:21:00 AM | | Maybe they'd rather have a scraggly, overweight, ****y old broad...To each their own. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:27:52 AM | I think a woman who is comfortable with her financial future is less inclined to want to jeopardize it through a poor financial pairing.
--------------------
I guess I don't get that connection. If there's a great difference in income and assets, by all means draw up a prenup!! | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:43:03 AM | Maybe they'd rather have a scraggly, overweight, ****y old broad...To each their own.
So ... This is the bottom line, really.
You feel that you have beauty in your corner as the bargaining chip.
Perhaps you are inspired by multiple viewings of the movie "Pretty Woman."
Sad, really. Because if that is primarily what you bring to the table, I can guarantee that the type of men who would trade a level of financial security for "beauty" can always find a younger, more attractive, and less encumbered specimen of the female type - keep looking over your shoulder.
Sad ... 
Also, just because someone may not be what you consider "attractive," that does not mean she is b1tchy, any more than a woman who may be attractive is kind and compassionate.
I am overwhelmed with all the false dichotomies you have expressed in this thread. 
P.S. When proclamations are made regarding how others (of a higher income bracket) should still be able to enjoy a "nice lifestyle" when pairing with a highly discrepant partner, do you not see how that reeks of an entitlement perspective? | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:54:10 AM | I didn't say a 13.00 hr match wouldn't be good enough for me, hell if I had that these many years of being single, I'm sure I'd be better off-IF he were financially responisble.
So your idea of "marrying up" is marrying someone with the same income as you?
A man who makes 80,000 a year plus combined with 13.00 hour should still have a nice lifestyle if they had minimal expenses and were responisble.
But not as nice as if they both made $80K. ($80K isn't all that much, by the way).
Most men expect the woman to match them "dollar for dollar." If you don't, or can't, then they aren't interested. Combine that with the way a lot of them carry themselves, you can understand why there are so many more men actively seeking relationships than there are women.
I doubt you have data or a reliable source to cite for the statement that there are many more men actively seeking relationships than there are women.
Maybe they'd rather have a scraggly, overweight, ****y old broad...To each their own.
I can say that wouldn't interest me, but that certainly isn't the only alternative.
| |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 7:57:53 AM | | Ya know, if its about the money, then yes it should be an issue. Everyone is different. I never thought about it, and I know my threshold for supporting another, I raised my kids, I'm done lol | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 8:10:30 AM | I can guarantee that the type of men who would trade a level of financial security for "beauty" can always find a younger, more attractive, and less encumbered specimen of the female type - keep looking over your shoulder. Generally speaking, if you want to sell yourself to the highest bidder (for marriage), you are going to need to look for a man significantly older. Ten years minimum. As this post says, a man "who would trade a level of financial security for beauty can always find a younger, more attracive, and less encumbered ...female." Why would a man who can 'buy' a good looking woman take on one who is middle age and with a daughter who is a single mother & grandchildren, all hoping to be subsidized? He's going to go for someone much younger and who doesn't come with a lot of excess baggage. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 8:53:13 AM | ""Why would a man who can 'buy' a good looking woman take on one who is middle age and with a daughter who is a single mother & grandchildren, all hoping to be subsidized? He's going to go for someone much younger and who doesn't come with a lot of excess baggage.""
Another person who "gets" it and calls a spade a spade. | |
|
| Women's Financial Status
Posted: 6/18/2012 10:07:11 AM | I don't know guys who pick and choose women they fall in love with using any type of game plan.. It's not the same as looking to buy a vehicle.
It 'just happens'...younger or older, kids, not kids, well off or poor, serial killer or saint. The chemistry happens and 'that's it' .
I can fall head over heals crazy for the cashier or the lawyer next door.
There's roughly the same number of males and females..most of us live comparable lives. Perhaps there's a couple percent of people who are pursued by flocks of members of the opposite sex but even they tend to marry the man or woman they fall in love with. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
23
of
27 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
|
|
Home
login 
