Ever since the existence of homo sapiens, the attractiveness of men as come from how well they appear to provide. If a man is upfront about not being a provider, that's going to be a big turnoff for women. Ask men if they would date a fat woman, and then ask women if they would date a fat man. There's a huge difference there, and it's not tied into money. It's tied into the fact that healthier women produce healthier babies. If you're going to think less of a woman who won't date an unemployed man, then maybe you should think less of yourself if you're unwilling to date a woman who appears unattractive. Or is one better/worse than the other?
So I may have a few years to wait but when my 5-1/2 week old daughter is old enough to date [in 25 years ] I wouldn't want her dating an unemployeed man. Now there is a huge difference b/w a guy who is capable of maintaing a job, has a solid nest egg built up and is living well w/n his means and is just waiting for the right opportunity to come around, and the typical vision you get when you think unemployeed man.
So while I joked about the 25 year wait, I'd give her the same advice when she approaches dating age. You want to date a guy who's involved in various activities, if not working wome menial teenage job. You don't want to date the guy who's always bumming a few bucks, doesn't appear to have any activities other than slacking off, etc.. Its not so much about him having the ability to support her, I hope and pray she's able to support herself in the future. She may choose/have the ability to be a stay at home mom, or take a job lesser than her skills to help fill the time if her future husband has the ability to cover the bills, but I'd like her to have the skills in place to support herself if need be.
Take the typical stereotype of the unemployeed male, and you probably tag along with it the typical stereotype of a guy that is not only unable to provide for his family, but has problems helping with the emotional sides of raising kids, taking care of things around the house, can be counted on to perform simple day to day tasks, etc... That I think is at the heart of the survey, each situation is obviously unique, but a poll like that deals in stereotypes.
Considering the US economy is more and more seeing high school educated men as superfluous, we are going to see (even more) women deciding they don't need to get married because all they want is the baby, and the man is just a path to that door and marriage is more trouble that it's worth. It's not good for society, ultimately. And a lot of those unemployed men would probably settle down and do better once they got married. It made all the difference in the world for me.
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
When it comes to a marriage, kids and what not, I hope that neither of them have kids outside of marriage (or at least a serious commitment should they end up being the "we'll be girlfriend/boyfriend for forever type, but don't believe in marriage" type, which I'm not a fan of, but that is a conversation for a different topic). When it comes to marriage, the person you marry will be the biggest source of both enjoyment and/or fustration in your life. Which bring me back to the stereotypical unemployeed male. If he's a slacker in his approach to working, he's likely going to be a slacker when it comes to working on his marriage, raising any kids, taking care of things around the house, etc...
And yes, I would feel the same way about my son. I wouldn't want him marry someone that would sit around the house all day eating bon bons, watching soaps, sending the kids off to daycar, hiring cleaning sevices, partying all night, etc... Most stay at home moms work their butts off, b/w running erands, cleaning, shuttling kids around, managing the household budget, etc.. they make their end of the commitment work. I can say the same thing about the 2 guys I know who are stay at home dads. If both people aren't fully involved in the commitment and share in all of the overall responsibilities that go into a marriage, that marriage is going to struggle, if not fall apart.
I think people think differently about young men and women. I have a daughter and I hope she finds a career where she can comfortably support herself but I don't think in terms of her supporting a family. If I had a son, I'd want him to be able to support more than just himself.
I'll use an example that had nothing to do with me. My wife graduated college with a degree from a very good business school in accounting. She got a nice job right away with a major corporation in downtown Cincinnati. She wasn't happy with the corporate life, working in a corner cubicle, etc so after a couple years she goes to travel agent school and eventually leaves her corporate job at the cost of a huge paycut to become a travel agent. Her salary as a travel agent was less than $10K/yr, but she was happy. Because she was happy her parents were pleased as well. This has nothing to do with me because this was long before I knew her
Now what do you think her parents' reaction would have been if she were a son and not their daughter? Do you think they'd be OK with their son spending 4 yrs of college money only to turn it into a travel agency career? No way! Double standard indeed
I'm a 25 year old male and I wouldn't get into a relationship with an unemployed female, no matter how attractive she was. Now, I wouldn’t kick her out of bed but I’m not trying to support someone that doesn’t have anything going on for themselves.
This strikes me as another study designed to try and tell us that Men do X, and Women do Y. In reality individuals generally act the way they do based on prior experience, not because their chromosomes magically tell them what’s right and what’s wrong.
The fact is we (men & women) analyze our relationship prospects much like we do our baseball prospects.
It's rational, however un-romantic it may seem.
I'm guessing it's worth looking at this same study from the opposite side of the coin. i.e., the rational human perspective is to date someone who is stable, but the reason men are more willing to date unemployed women than the other way around is because of a societal standard that has made men feel disempowered if their female partners make more than they do. Thus they take less issue with a woman being unemployed because she's not a threat.
I have to say I'd be hesitant to date someone who was unemployed when I met him. Not because of the financial caveat (the occasional unemployed is unemployed because he doesn't need to work, and frankly a trust fund kid is pretty much the last person on earth I can ever see myself having a relationship with), but because work is so vital to my own well-being that I have a hard time seeing the perspective of someone who doesn't feel that way. Of course, it would depend on the person. Many (most?) unemployeds are the victims of temporary circumstance and are working to get out of it. I think I would just need to date someone who values work generally. And of course I would never dump my own partner if he were suddenly unemployed, no matter how it happened.
It might be worth noting that I do not, and have never had, any expectation for a man to "provide" for me. I can count on one hand the amount of times a guy has ever picked up a full check in my presence. And I've never been in a relationship where I wasn't the bigger breadwinner or at least an equal one.
Last edited by vaticanplum; 07-02-2012 at 05:02 PM.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.