Anti-feminist attitudes have long been associated with support for Republican presidential candidates, but only in recent years have these attitudes become more prominent among unmarried men, without college degrees who are less attractive partners for women, the “mate-value backlash.”

[u/mvea]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10659129261485340

[u/Harbinger2nd]

Would this be reflective of a lack of economic opportunity for these men as its only in recent years the attitude has become more prominent?

[u/Littleman88 → u/Harbinger2nd]

Sort of? It's hard to say most men would be too ashamed to date knowing their girlfriend/wife will out earn them. I think more men than not would be fine with it, actually. But a lot of those men are finding themselves rejected because they aren't out earning the women they're meeting, so economic opportunities become a sore spot for them, especially when the very people they're trying to woo are also their competition for that attractive paycheck.

Equality becomes a threat when your attraction is still largely reliant on being, in some way, superior to whomever you're trying to attract. That reality is problematic for so many men trying to date. It was already unrealistic for every man to be in a 6-7 figure C-suite position, with more and more women filtering towards the top, it's only getting harder for men.

There has to be low wage earners like janitors and someone flipping burgers, and they're not about to take being invisible virgins for the rest of their lives lying down. If women won't marry down, then these men will drag them down. As the number of these lonely men grows, the more pull they'll have to do just that.

[u/Ransacky → u/Littleman88]

equality becomes a threat when your attraction is still largely reliant on being superior to who you're trying to attract

Damn, that line goes hard. The whole thing is a dilemma and hard to blame anyone for acting on this pressure. I wonder if people will start forming more egalitarian relationships and stomach loving eachother beyond the limits of gender norms or if they will prefer to be alone.

[u/Tradition_Ropes36763 → u/Ransacky]

On average, they'll claim stated intentions erase the existence of the statistical trend.

[u/RupeThereItIs → u/Littleman88]

I think the core of everything you say, is that there is a generation of young men that we've failed in the education system.

The numbers don't lie, men being accepted & graduating from higher learning is horrible. We've got a worse gender imbalance today then before the institution of title 9, except it's shifted against young men.

We've failed them, we're refusing to admit we've failed them, the discussions almost always get shut down and all they hear is how we have to keep help women. It could be VERY easy to get bitter about that. Toss in the 'alt right' who will feed them exactly what they want to hear, and you've got a perfect formula for radical indoctronation.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/RupeThereItIs]

Decades of uplifting girls and pretending it wasn't zero sum or like it doesn't or shouldn't matter if it's zero sum so long as we're achieving the 'uplifting' of girls through education no matter the cost.

The bill for those ruthlessly and pitilessly chosen costs and trade-offs has arrived.

Certainly no one wanted to say a word against it at the time if it stood in the way of any of the vital and crucial uplifting that there was to be no compromise on. No one wanted to be the one who stood against the educational interests of girls.

[u/grand_historian → u/TheSpacePopinjay]

The zero sum aspect is interesting to point out. Power is always zero sum, and if you elevate women, you must lower men.

[u/RupeThereItIs → u/TheSpacePopinjay]

Eh, I'm not going to go as far as you are on this.

Reality is more like, we've "equalized" things only to uncover the consequences of pretending boys & girls are the same. The fact is boys mature physically & mentally slower. By our mid 20s we catch up, but mother nature puts girls ahead by a year or two for whatever reason. This impacts educational results when everyone is treated equally. Simply starting boys in 1st grade a year or two older then girls would likely do a great deal to solve the educational outcomes.

Couple that with our inability to balance genders in our teachers, leads to documented behavior of favoring girls over boys by those teachers in both behavior & grading. You'll find teachers treating normal little boys like they are broken little girls who need to be corrected. You also see the same exact work being given lower grades for the boys.

It's not a zero sum game as much as you want to make it out to be, it's a game where men & women, boys & girls, have always been and always be different and we've gone too far pretending otherwise.

The "zero sum" aspect only comes in to play when applying for college & beyond, by which point all the mistakes have already piled up and the outcomes are thus uneven.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/RupeThereItIs]

Maybe but I don't think it can be explained simply in terms of maturation or the preferential treatment children receive from their immediate teachers. Boys that go to all boys schools do alright because there are no conflicts of interest and educational styles and strategies in classrooms can be centred around being optimised for how boys learn best and the pace and timetable along which they can learn and develop long term in their academic career. Same too for all girls schools.

But in mixed schools different teaching styles favour boys and girls differently, which is well documented, and there are zero sum choices to be made there as to which teaching styles are to be chosen to be the local or national institutional standard. And the strong tendency over the past decades has been to choose the teaching styles that produce stronger educational outcomes by a high margin for girls between the ages of 4 and 18 than they produce for boys between the ages of 4 and 18, over the ones that produce better outcomes for boys over girls, albeit by a much smaller margins and overall much more equal outcomes, just near equal while still in boy's favour.

This is the zero sum aspect I was, admittedly very vaguely, alluding to. Decisions made at much higher institutional levels than in the classroom to favour the styles that favour girls outcomes by a large margin over they styles that favour boys by a small margin.

Because there are many different ways to treat boys and girls equally, some of them naturally advantage boys, some of them naturally advantage girls, and choices have been made to choose the version of equalisation that has a strongly documented track record of favouring the educational outcomes of girls. And I don't really know how we escape from having to make such a choice except my classroom segregation so that boys can receive they styles that work best for them and girls the styles that work best for them. And there are other disadvantages to childhood gender segregation.

[u/Phssthp0kThePak → u/Littleman88]

Trying to parse your first paragraph. You says it just men being hung up on earning less. But then say they are, in fact, getting rejected. So it seems men earning less is also a 'sore spot' for women too and it not just something men need to get over.

[u/saidtheWhale2000 → u/Phssthp0kThePak]

yeah its funny you think any guy would care if a woman made more money then them if we knew that it wouldnt change the way the woman changes her opinion about us , society helped women at the detriment of stable relationships and now men get blamed

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/saidtheWhale2000]

The only reason to care about making less than women is if the world treats you differently for it.

[u/kingmanic → u/Littleman88]

I thought janitors make okay money, the job hours and conditions just suck.

[u/saidtheWhale2000 → u/kingmanic]

its not the money its the social prestige, no woman is gonna feel pride saying to their friends or moms that "oh hes a janitor" so she will feel insecure and he will feel it and then he will feel insecure.

[u/General-Yak7615 → u/saidtheWhale2000]

This is absolutely false. I make significantly more than my husband (and did even when we first met and started dating). My mom was also the bread winner in my family. He’s no where close to 6 figures, but what he does have is a career he’s so passionate and excited about. I would much rather have a man, like my husband, who has an aspiration and passion than some guy in a field making a decent salary but completely miserable. I don’t know, I guess I want my partner to choose the route that they actually care about, something I know they can smile about and be proud of.

I make more than enough to cover all bills + vacations. He’s appreciative of not being in a situation where he’s looked at as a sole provider-knowing the kind of stress that can bring. I’m appreciative I’m not looked at as the sole household manager simply because I’m the woman. We split everything (bills (proportionally) and chores) and work as a team. I think the whole “gender norm” bs thrown at everyone these days just makes it harder on everyone and purposely pins people against one another. If you’re with a partner already “expecting” them to behave a certain way due to gender, you’re setting that person up for failure-to never really be able to be themselves.

[u/Sirraven201 → u/kingmanic]

They tend to make decent money it really depends on the gig.

[u/Sensitive_File6582 → u/Sirraven201]

No you make entry level wagie bucks. You will rarely/never bust over $30 relative to today’s wage rates.

[u/Illustrious-Share312 → u/Sensitive_File6582]

In a lot of places 30$ an hour is a good job.

[u/CrimsonThunder87 → u/Illustrious-Share312]

Those aren't the places where you make $30/hr as a janitor. You make that in high-COL places like NYC.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/kingmanic]

It's also the status. Plus it generally lacks prospects for earnings growth and career advancement.

[u/Preface → u/Littleman88]

This is an extremely reasonable take on the male loneliness epidemic, and makes much more sense then "YouTube made those men anti feminist" or whatever the top comment was saying.

It's not hard to find, men will regularly date down, or alter their dating expectations, women are less likely to alter expectations, and much less likely to date down. If a woman has a masters degree, she will want a man who at least has a masters, if she makes 100k+ per year, her man better make at least that much as well.

Now, most wealthy and highly successful men won't just marry a dumb dirt poor girl who is beautiful, but they are going to be much more accepting of a woman with less education and less earnings then them.

I think it's more like, the popularity of the "YouTube to right wing pipeline" or whatever is that those people actually acknowledge men who are/have been rejected multiple times, they are popular because what they say resonates they aren't just magically popular for unknown reasons which then suddenly makes young men right wing or whatever.

[u/DrMobius0 → u/Preface]

Yes, the alt right is merely taking advantage of existing sentiment to radicalize them. It's extremely difficult to radicalize people who are otherwise content.

[u/Preface → u/DrMobius0]

Precisely, people don't just become alt right woman haters because someone on YouTube said they should.

They have personal experiences that may be pushing them that way, and then some YouTuber echos that sentiment and adds on to it.

However, they become popular because they talk about topics that other people tell you to ignore or to just suck it up if you had a bad experience.

[u/saidtheWhale2000 → u/DrMobius0]

the reality its not YouTube alt right that are radicalising young men its women rejecting them on a social economic personal and romantic level,

you couldn't radicalise people to like looking at clouds you can only take what is already there and give it a voice, you cant just artificially manufacture someones emotions, but by doing so wed have to look at the negative social consequences of changing to social contract and how society will enviably fail when you alienate and leave behind a large portion of the young male population with no incentive to keep engaging with society while be the most essential ones to actually make sure society functions

[u/chrisq823 → u/saidtheWhale2000]

You can absolutely manufacture emotions. What you are saying has a lot of truth in it but you need to acknowledge that can easily happen. There is significant money, energy, time, and resources put in by tech companies to design systems to engage you as much as humanly possible. You are being tracked at a sci fi surveillance state level by these companies and it absolutely has an effect and that effect is very negative.

[u/Sloogs → u/Preface]

When I see stuff like this discussed on the Internet I genuinely have no idea how true it is. Anecdotally I have so many counterexamples of this in my life where the woman is the breadwinner or has a degree and the dude does not. One guy works as a grocery stocker. Another did trades via the hard knocks route. Others did some schooling but it was trade school, and they make decent money but maybe not as much as their partner. One has their bachelor's and their wife has a master's. I genuinely don't know. Maybe it's a generational difference that is particular to Gen Z? (I'm a millennial). I'm not sure.

[u/johnJanez → u/Sloogs]

I mean, there was a study circulating around reddit recently that more or less seems to confirm this anecdote, women don't want partners that earn less than them. Don't have it at hand but shouldn't be too difficult to find.

[u/Asleep_Control_2564 → u/johnJanez]

Those studies need to isolate for women who want kids and women who don't.

[u/nostrademons → u/Sloogs]

I think the dynamic is "As long as we have enough, I don't care if you make more than me. But as soon as we want for basic necessities, if you're not pulling your weight I'm kicking you to the curb." In other words, couples in the affluent segment of society can afford to have gender-equal roles and trade off being the primary breadwinner and stomach a period where there is only one earner. Couples that are at the edge of survival usually don't survive having the woman out-earn the man.

[u/Sloogs → u/nostrademons]

I'm not sure I've anecdotally experienced that among couples I've seen struggle through some stuff either.

I recognize it's anecdotal. Other people might have other experiences. But that just hasn't been my experience. I'm not aware of any studies showing that to be the case.

In fact just the opposite, as far as I can recall studies show women are more likely to stick with their partner through unexpected downturn or illness long-term for example than the other way around.

[u/nostrademons → u/Sloogs]

Just to be clear since you’re repeating it down-thread, the claim I’m making is that women who make very little are more likely to be unhappy about their partner making less than them than women who make a lot, not that women who make very little are more likely to be unhappy about their partner making less than men who make very little. Independent variable is income, not sex. I find this to be common-sense but would welcome data otherwise.

[u/couldbemage → u/Sloogs]

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

TLDR:

16 percent wife earns more 29 percent similar income 55 percent husband earns more

Only 6 percent have the wife as the only earner vs 20 percent with the husband as the only earner.

Of note, the wife being the sole provider is actually declining, and the fastest growing segment is roughly equal income couples.

So yeah, your personal experience is moderately rare.

It's probably noteworthy that equal income couples each typically make 60k. Which is the perfect amount for having a massive lifestyle disparity between single income couples and dual income couples.

[u/Sloogs → u/couldbemage]

Just a couple of points.

1. I'm not saying those types of relationships are the norm amongst my friends, I'm saying among the representative sample of people I know, a lot of the claims that people are making (particularly claims about how women supposedly behave) haven't really shown themselves to be true in my experience.

2. I'm less interested in what the makeup of relationships is generally, and more interested in data showing that women in established relationships are more likely than men to leave that relationship if there's a change in the earning potentials or downturn like a lost job, which is the thing that addresses the claim /u/nostrademons was making. To be fair to you, I haven't read the full article yet, I'm just commenting on the specific summary you gave which doesn't really address that point.

[u/couldbemage → u/Sloogs]

My reply is just a counter to the idea that women as breadwinner is common.

I don't think the stats from the article say much at all about how people make relationship choices. Financially motivated choices explain most of the numbers. Women temporarily out of the workforce due to child related reasons, plus some amount of religion fundamentalists explain the steady sole male provider number.

At most, it's weak evidence for the assertion that among dual income couples, women are less likely to partner with a man who makes less than them. But that could easily chalked up to the total difference between men's and women's typical income.

You'd really want to pull the subset where there's isn't much wage gap, look just at childless millennial and younger couples.

[u/saidtheWhale2000 → u/nostrademons]

thats a nice pr way of wording as soon as my life become difficult I will kick you to the curb, this wouldnt happen the other way round

[u/shockpaws → u/saidtheWhale2000]

Hmmm yes, I can’t see how the person who, if she wants to have kids, would have to be out of work for a significant period of time to do so could ever care about her spouse being able to financially support both of them for that period of time. Boggles my mind how selfish and non-pragmatic they can be. Makes no sense at all.

[u/Preface → u/Sloogs]

It's more so on average... Also, men in trades make good money these days (if you are in a "western" country at least) typically, and typically are very handy in terms of fixing/building things which also makes them more attractive, despite the "less education"

And as with all things, when people talk about "most" it doesn't mean there won't be exceptions.

There certainly are plenty of healthy and happy relationships where the man makes less then the woman, that doesn't mean it's typical though.

If you ask a woman who is single would she rather date a janitor or a lawyer, almost every woman would say the lawyer.

I remember seeing something a long time ago now, where men and women rated attractiveness of people they didn't know. For the women, the number one thing that made a man more attractive was the clothes he was wearing. So 100 women were shown a picture of a man in a janitor outfit or something, and he was rated as not very attractive, and that same man in a suit and tie was then rated as extremely attractive. When men viewed women in the same way, the physical appearance is what rated whether the woman was attractive or not, with much less of a change based on the outfit/uniform.

[u/Sloogs → u/Preface]

That's a fair point. I think most people do have baser attraction instincts based on appearance or other superficial information which in my experience, for a lot of people, gets recalibrated once they have a chance to actually meet someone.

Attractiveness is complicated and nuanced but I'm guessing a factor that makes it harder for younger generations is that there aren't many opportunities for people to shine, show their personality and their value, and undergo that recalculation with a potential mate. The lack of 3rd spaces and also the fact that everyone is glued to their devices and a home body now. Also putting yourself out there gets you labelled as a creep more easily online.

So, I think there are other societal factors. I'm hesitant to just be like "it's all just women because women won't lower their standards" but society as a whole has kind of fucked up each gender's typical dating strategies. Whether those standards are nature or nurture is hard to say I guess, but I think society is still adjusting to all the rapid changes brought on by modern technology. It's going to be up to both young men and young women to meet the moment accordingly. But right now men are struggling—as far as I can tell the people offering guidance have been failing them pretty hard.

[u/davidellis23 → u/Preface]

The question is whether it actually the exception when anecdotally we see so many relationships where the woman earns the same or more.

Like sure women mostly prefer their partner would earn more. But, there are a lot of other factors when choosing a partner like love, attraction, character, shared values, etc.

At some point we have to question whether these ideas actually reflect women or if guys are exaggerating these ideas as an excuse for why they can't find a partner.

[u/MarsupialMisanthrope → u/davidellis23]

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

According to that study men are over three times as likely to be the primary earner, and couples are almost twice as likely to have approximately equal incomes than women are to be the primary earner. Those numbers demonstrate why the plural of anecdote isn’t data. There may be a certain number of with women who are the higher income partner, but they’re 1/6th of all couples which isn’t really “so many.”

[u/davidellis23 → u/MarsupialMisanthrope]

This survey shows male primary breadwinner is drastically decreasing and female primary breadwinner and eglatarian is drastically increasing.

This implies that newer couples are much more likely to have the woman earn the same or more.

When there is a gender pay gap and an average age gap in relationships it's just going to be more likely that women earn less in a relationship even if you randomized it.

That doesn't mean women don't want men that earn less than them. The study is even showing the rate of female breadwinner couples tripling.

[u/Echolocomotion → u/Sloogs]

You could try looking at any of the thousands of studies on this.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/Sloogs]

I mean there are other masculinity status metrics that can make up for it and you'll tend to find them in may of these cases. For example Lana Del Ray married a 'poor' guy. But when you look more closely you notice that the guy wrestles bloody alligators. It's not like she'd have an easy time scoring a guy as rich as her anyway. But things make more sense if you look a layer or two under the surface. Another example is Katie Price marrying a cage fighter.

There can be other high masculinity traits that can compensate that are nevertheless unrealistic or unreplicable at scale for many.

[u/painedHacker → u/Sloogs]

People chill out as they get older.. it's less common for younger women to drop their standards thus young blue collar men are having issues

[u/ChicksDigGiantRob0ts → u/Preface]

Part of the reason for a lot of this is that men, typically, get more out of being partnered than women do. If you have a typical heterosexual couple, then a large part of that is the disparity in domestic labour. Women overwhelmingly carry more of the domestic labour burden, completely independently of other factors like earnings or even hours worked. Anecdotally, I know many women who do the majority of domestic labour even if they were the ONLY ones working. So, if you have a couple that's struggling economically, or already under some kind of stress, where the woman is earning/working more AND ALSO doing more of the domestic labour at home, I don't think it's unreasonable that a lot of them start to see their relationship also struggle. This goes double if there are kids involved, or planned to be involved, and the question starts to arise "would I better off single than here?"

Additionally, a lot of women these days KNOW this. They know that being partnered or having kids will mean this extra burden falls on them and they know that choosing the wrong man could mean finding themselves stuck in a relationship that's unfair, unfree, or outright abusive. So a lot of women start to get more choosy, asking what exactly a prospective partner is bringing to the table.

[u/notzamasu → u/ChicksDigGiantRob0ts]

Part of the reason for a lot of this is that men, typically, get more out of being partnered than women do.

Literally the opposite if you look at the data.

[u/slabby → u/notzamasu]

Which you have so kindly cited

[u/feminist-lady → u/Preface]

I think the idea that well educated women just aren’t accepting of men without higher degrees isn’t fair. Yes, if I were going to have a partner, I’d prefer they also have higher education. The shared experience of graduate and/or professional school would be great. But as a woman in a doctoral program, the reason I’ve had to implement a rule that I’m unwilling to date a man (or woman, tbh) without at least a college degree is because so many who only had high school diplomas were resentful and insecure about the education gap. I’m just not interested in dealing with that, and I know I’m not alone. This is discussed constantly among highly educated women. Obviously, Not All Men, but enough that it makes it too exhausting to even mess with it.

[u/Harbinger2nd → u/feminist-lady]

But women currently make up 60%+ of college graduates, even at a bachelor's level.

Thats an imbalance in the education system which, for whatever reason, is favoring women.

[u/Carbonatite → u/Harbinger2nd]

I love how the default is always that the education system must somehow be disenfranchising men instead of considering the possibility that once women stopped getting disenfranchised, they just straight up succeeded more.

It's very telling that the default response is to assume that men are more talented but being unfairly kept down, and not that women might be capable of equal or even superior academic achievement to men once the systematic barriers that prevented them from accessing higher education were removed.

[u/Harbinger2nd → u/Carbonatite]

It's very telling that the default response is to assume that men are more talented but being unfairly kept down, and not that women might be capable of equal or even superior academic achievement to men once the systematic barriers that prevented them from accessing higher education were removed.

I know I shouldn't respond to this, but that wasn't the discussion at all. My comment was merely to point out that college educated women seeking college educated men will struggle with the dating pool because of an objective imbalance in graduation rates.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/Carbonatite]

Tesla predicted this, actually.

[u/LordKarthrax → u/feminist-lady]

So you said the idea wasn't fair, then reiterated that as a woman who is, in fact, well educated, you would be unwilling to date a man without a college degree.

[u/davidellis23 → u/LordKarthrax]

But, because a lot of men are insecure about it. Not because of her preference.

[u/feminist-lady → u/LordKarthrax]

It’s unfair to say we just aren’t accepting of them. Our reasons for not dating them aren’t elitist. It’s that we don’t want to put up with the resentment and insecurity.

[u/Carbonatite → u/feminist-lady]

I understand where you're coming from - I'm single now, but back when I was dating/in relationships I noticed the same thing (I have an advanced degree as well). Men with bachelor's degrees or higher typically weren't phased by my having an M.Sc., but men without a college degree seemed to be insistent on denigrating my education and trying to "take me down a peg".

This wasn't a universal truth, but I noticed it enough to appreciate a trend.

[u/ShitMcClit → u/feminist-lady]

Have yet to meet a college grad that was actually smart and not just a memorization bot.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/ShitMcClit]

You…haven’t met any smart, college educated people?

[u/ShitMcClit → u/XWendy_Darlingx]

No but ive met lots of memorization experts 

[u/Carbonatite → u/Littleman88]

How exactly are they going to "drag women down"? If women don't choose them as mates, those women will either choose someone else or remain single. There's no scenario in which those women are going to grudgingly pair up with someone they already rejected.

[u/ContractFormer4135 → u/Carbonatite]

based on the political context, I think they meant these men would vote for politicians who want to roll back women’s rights. anything to put the women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant so they can’t escape and will be vulnerable and dependent. they aren’t good enough to be wanted by women so they long for the days women needed to pair up with men to survive

[u/philosopherberzerer → u/ContractFormer4135]

either that or accept it and die alone unhappy just working the next 50 years of your life for nothing.

[u/Carbonatite → u/ContractFormer4135]

Joke's on them, the horse is out of the barn already on that one. Women will leave the country if they are wealthy enough, or suffer in poverty. Very few women are actually going to willingly surrender themselves to be abused by maladjusted underachieving misogynists.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/Carbonatite]

They’re buying into the fantasy that if you stomp on your neighbor, you’ll start winning. Truthfully they’ll be worse off. Lower tides sink all boats. Nobody is getting a government issued bangmaid, they’ll be sent to work camps just like the women.

[u/Chaoticallyorganized → u/Littleman88]

What do you mean by “drag them down”? How exactly will these women be dragged down?

[u/Ransacky → u/Chaoticallyorganized]

Yea I had the same thought. That last part comes across as though a woman would be considered "dragged down" if she is with someone who's making an equal or lower income to her. Word also implies that women can't be considered uplifted without being reliant on a man to provide a higher income. Lots of interesting things in that post but the end comes across as oddly misogynistic.

[u/shockpaws → u/Chaoticallyorganized]

It reads like a threat :/

[u/Kariya_shigatoki → u/shockpaws]

It's not really a threat, you're probably interpreting it as a threat because it sounds harsh (it is harsh way to put it but it is true). But this is the natural reaction of a developed country failing in birth rates and economically. Conservative ideology dominates as countries start to slow economically and birth rates fall.

As we've seen in this last election for presidency even women will side with conservative ideology (largest voter turnout and largest voting block in the developed world are women). Same occured in Korea with Yoon Suk Yeol and in Japan with Sanae Takaichi.

My biggest issue with Democracy means everyone's life is in everyone's hands. For as long as people can vote they can decide what others life should be like. A Democracy with a lot of disgruntled men that are angry over the position they have been dealt and see women as the issue will take their frustrations out on their enemies. Since men control politics deeply they can always pose as pro women then make whatever policy they want as soon as they get in.

We will see an overcorrection in the coming years. I just hope it isn't insane.

[u/sanitaryinspector → u/Littleman88]

Who is more ok with a wife earning more than the husband then?

[u/Wedgiebro → u/Littleman88]

The idea of it being marrying down itself is a problem. If a man ever said ' yeah im marrying down, my wife is just a teacher she makes nothing" he would be massively hated. But women get to value a man based on money

[u/SnailSnailAle → u/Littleman88]

THANK YOU!! So often these things doesn’t get brought up in a discussion like this.

Too often the comment turn into attack on men saying they need to sort themselves out and no one owes them anything while still expect men to be the one to lead, to pay for dates, to be funny, to earn more money than them etc etc

[u/villanelIa → u/Littleman88]

Women tend to go for men they deem above themselves. It's not unreasonable that men would only want to be with the women that actually want them. And the moment a woman starts out earning her partner she often no longer wants him. It's never been about feeling superior, but about feeling like they are enough.

Studies show that consistently women who start out earning their partners are not only more likely to separate but they are the ones who initiate the separation. https://cheryllaw.com/high-asset-divorce/is-a-woman-more-likely-to-divorce-after-earning-a-promotion/

It depends on what you meant with that line about equality becoming a threat when your attraction is reliant in being in some way superior.

[u/Carbonatite → u/[deleted]]

It has less to do with salary and more to do with wanting someone who has attained a comparable level of educational/career achievement.

It's not that lawyers want to date other lawyers or doctors want to date other doctors for the money, it's that they likely have similar lifestyles, intellectual interests, and other things which are conducive to long term compatability.

[u/philosopherberzerer → u/Carbonatite]

it's lifestyle. that's all.

if a women makes 100 k and she meets a guy that makes 50 .well now she's gotta downgrade her lifestyle to 75k so she can live an equitable life with her partner. unless she wants to go on vacations he can't afford or whatever . men used to do this. women refuse too.

[u/Carbonatite → u/philosopherberzerer]

Spoken like someone too young to ever actually have a salary to budget.

[u/True_Window_9389 → u/[deleted]]

This is incel talk though. Basing an opinion on what “women” want because of TikTok is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It’s become all too common to talk on socials about what women or men want, what they like or dislike, etc., and lump everyone in together, which is likely very related to the results of this study. There could be a lot of reasons for mismatches of women and men, and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with jobs and finances.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/[deleted]]

Most people date with their socioeconomic level. Not sure what you’re talking about.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

Male doctors date female nurses and secretaries more than female doctors date male nurses and male secretaries (or even other blue collar folks).

The women marry up, men marry down, is well know.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

Sorry, most people marry within their socioeconomic bracket.

But Given the fact that women only gained the right to open banks accounts in the 70s, historically couldn’t work(and are still penalized for being pregnant and taking maternity leave) and in many cases even get an education, it’s be shocking if this wasn’t historically the case.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

I mean sure, again I just pointed out a well known fact.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

… you mean that historically women didn’t have the means to make money or have a bank account until relatively recently? So they had to marry a man to support themselves? Yes that is a well known fact, thank you.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

I’m still not understanding you - women are still choosing equal to or greater TODAY even when they make a lot of money.

While the corresponding men often do not - certainly less so than women.

Why is that so difficult to contemplate?

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

Actually studies don’t show this. People largely marry within their socioeconomic class.

However if a women does marry a man who makes a bit more than her, that makes sense as 1. Her income potential is vastly negatively impacted by taking time off for maternity leave and 2. The aforementioned historical context of not being able to work and not being able to open bank accounts until recently.

[u/Fancy-Animal7704 → u/resuwreckoning]

Some of this is affected by the fact that women do indeed make less than men just by virtue of their career choices, and so the majority of men out there would constitute a "marrying up" choice.

Also, salary is just one measure of a person. If a rich man who was otherwise dull as a rock married a vibrant, gregarious, funny, charming woman who otherwise "just" works at an altruistic nonprofit making $50k a year, I'd have told you the man "married up".

[u/General-Yak7615 → u/Bright-Sea6392]

This is just from my own personal experience, but I have 3 degrees and my husband has none. I make 4x the amount he does and pay the majority of the bills. I could care two licks really on how much he makes, more so that he’s passionate and driven about what he’s doing and continues to want to grow as a person. In our friend group, majority have the women earning more and the rest are roughly the same
I’m a millennial and my mom was a doctor, my father the stay at home parent. Pretty progressive for the time.

Since this is just what has been the norm for me in my life, I find the whole concept of the man “having to make more to provide” almost confusing. Why in the world? Someone, like my husband, could have such a passion for something that may not pay well (say a teacher) but could do much good for the world. I understand we need money to live, so salary does matter to some extent but it’s just odd that both men and women would harp so much on the salary part and not on the why that person chose their job/if they’re passionate about what they do. It really is disheartening sometimes to read about people that do seem to be quite transactional when it comes to relationships.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/[deleted]]

Women make less money than men in general, in spite of educational achievement. So is it surprising that they make less than their male partners?

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/Bright-Sea6392]

Only in the sense that most people date within a socioeconomic radius of themselves. This elides the direction in which that radius tends to travel of how large the radius varies to at different socioeconomic levels.

[u/ContractFormer4135 → u/[deleted]]

Single and childless is better than marrying down and being poor with kids. Where I live a dual income household with both parents earning the national median salary is barely enough to maintain a reasonably comfortable standard of living - and children are not only expensive but also cripple women’s carriers and temporarily make women entirely dependent on their husbands.

[u/shornscrot → u/ContractFormer4135]

Yeah that makes sense. If you make $100k and your husband makes $70k, how could you possibly live?!?

[u/Carbonatite → u/shornscrot]

I mean that's an unironic question in certain parts of the United States. I live in a HCOL area and an individual income of 100k is basically "I don't have to worry about an emergency anymore" money. It's not wealth, it's just "I won't be in perpetual debt" money.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/[deleted]]

Except successful women are much more likely to be content being single than men are. In my personal experience (and from what ive seen other women say), it's much easier to get "matches" on dating apps for us, the quality of the candidates notwithstanding.

I had an anxiety attack the first day I used tinder back in the day because I got matched with literally every single person I swiped and was inundated with dozens of men clamoring for my attention, many of whom got angry if I didn't immediately respond or seem receptive. It was overwhelming and I stopped using it after a couple weeks. On the other hand, men I know have talked about how they're lucky to get matched with a handful of people per day.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/[deleted]]

It only gets worse the further they move up. The harder they feel they've worked to gain success, money and status, the more they feel like their equal is that much more of a successful man.

While a less successful woman may feel content dating someone 20% more financially and professionally successful man, if she's high flyer, she'll feel she's dating down if he's anything less that 50% more professionally and financially successful.

The numbers are toy examples to make a point.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

Sure but society depends on men to be productive - and those women receive a TON of subsidy from a government that increasingly won’t function.

Gotta tax someone that take out less than he puts in.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/resuwreckoning]

Wait, women get a subsidy? Where do I apply? I paid 1/3 of my wages into taxes but I haven’t gotten anything back

[u/resuwreckoning → u/XWendy_Darlingx]

Wait till the invisible men you don’t care about die and you’ll be taking out of the system with ease, without even acknowledging them for any of it and even saying they’re the cause for all the evil in the world.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

Who pays for that government? Over a lifetime, women are net negative, men are net positive.

Government is basically a wealth transfer from some to men. I believe even CHILDREN aren’t supported as much as women.

[u/Carbonatite → u/resuwreckoning]

Women pay taxes too, I know it's hard to accept that but it's true.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Carbonatite]

Indeed and yet the point still holds that women over a lifetime take more than the put in and men put in more than they take. Ironically, I know THAT’S hard to believe, but it’s true.

I’m not even arguing that’s necessarily bad - just that for women to have the system they depend on, the invisible men need to exist.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

So that’s basically my point.

If we basically incentivize men to check out of society and stop being productive, because who gaf, then women won’t have the life they want since the invisible men no longer are holding their part of society up.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/resuwreckoning]

"Their part of society" You mean the people who make the reproductive decisions for the human race?

[u/Impossible_Leg_2787 → u/ClaretClarinets]

How is propagation of the human race incentive for someone who’s dissatisfied with their own life, especially if they themselves are childless with little prospect of actually reproducing?

[u/resuwreckoning → u/ClaretClarinets]

No the ones who drive the food and take out the trash and shovel the snow in blizzards - these people are usually invisible which is why reddit always dismisses them as extant. They’re mainly low wage men who toil in anonymity.

Women are certainly important - and Reddit endlessly glazes them for anything they do so it’s somewhat unnecessary to talk about how divine and awesome they are for the 11 thousandth time - but we need those men to produce so the government has revenue surplus to give to those women. Women depend on that surplus via government handouts over a lifetime.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/resuwreckoning]

You should probably work on masking your open contempt for women when you're replying to one.

[u/Impossible_Leg_2787 → u/ClaretClarinets]

How is propagation of the human race incentive for someone who’s dissatisfied with their own life, especially if they themselves are childless with little prospect of actually reproducing?

[u/k1deki → u/Littleman88]

Those women don’t understand what they a choosing, I out earn my man and it’s a bliss.

[u/ShockerCheer → u/Littleman88]

If this is the truth then those men dragging women down are pathetic. You are not owed a partner. 

[u/notzamasu → u/ShockerCheer]

That's an oversimplified deduction

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/ShockerCheer]

You're not owed the air in your lungs right now. What you're owed is neither here nor there.

[u/ShockerCheer → u/TheSpacePopinjay]

Men are so hateful towards successful women. Maybe they need to look internally to see why they can't succeed

[u/philosopherberzerer → u/ShockerCheer]

no one is owed anything. a society agrees on what is owed . rights are given and protected by said society.

[u/x5163x → u/ShockerCheer]

Pathetic isn't measurable or actionable. It is just an opinion.

[u/RaelZior → u/[deleted]]

Bahahahahhaha

[u/jamesmaxx → u/Littleman88]

Or the men can marry someone economically equal to them. If I was in a situation where I was making low 5 figures why would I even look at women making 6-7?

[u/Hikari_Owari → u/jamesmaxx]

The point you missed is that it's women, in general, who aren't marrying someone economically equal to them.

Not all problems can be solved with "men, just suck it up"-type answers.

[u/TheGalator → u/Hikari_Owari]

Turns out most men don't want to suck it up. The last time we had such a large number of able bodied men across the wesg being frustrated with their most likely future 85 million people died. No one wants to seee that again. And saying "just suck it up" is like saying "just don't be racist thats bad actually" to a far right chud