Women: Would You Date an Unemployed Man?

[marcshoe]

Originally Posted by GAC

All the Alpha males ran them off.

Particularly true since when I asked the question, I thought this thread was on the Politics and Religion board.

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Interesting post from a woman on another message board about stay-at-home-husbands.




http://www.city-data.com/forum/relat...usbands-4.html

This sounds like a pretty ridiculous relationship model, no matter which gender is doing which. Not to slam anyone, because everyone's relationship is different and people are happy with different things, but that scenario sounds like keeping a slave more than a stay at home husband.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

This sounds like a pretty ridiculous relationship model, no matter which gender is doing which. Not to slam anyone, because everyone's relationship is different and people are happy with different things, but that scenario sounds like keeping a slave more than a stay at home husband.

Slave? Really?

All it tells me is that properly maintaining a household requires a heck of a lot more work than most Men care to admit. One isn't just sitting on the couch eating bon-bons all day. There's plenty to do, kids or no kids.

Also, think of it this way-- If one doesn't have to go to a job and the other doesn't have to do housework/yard work, both have much more free time. I'm guessing that she doesn't wish to spend what little free time she has scrubbing floors, grocery shopping, doing laundry etc..

Good for her.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by Rojo

I don't think "materialistic" but I think women are more social and by extension more concerned with their place in the social hierarchy. A lot of us dudes just want to say f it and do a Jeremian Johnson.

Men are attracted by physical appearance, and women are attracted by a guy's social standing. Jeremiah Johnson was an alpha male at some point in the past, which is why low-status betas who can't cut it in a complex modern world get nostalgic about simpler times when somebody like them could have ruled.

As far as the whole "materialistic" thing goes, I'd say women are naturally more concerned with hearth and home, which implies a certain amount of consumer materialism. But beyond comfortable living, where wealth becomes an avenue for power and influence more than creature comforts, I see men as more materialistic. Look at the Forbes 400, it's dominated by men. Women quit working when they get that much money, and I don't think I've ever seen a woman get all wide-eyed and hyped up over her investment portfolio, the way some men do.

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Slave? Really?

All it tells me is that properly maintaining a household requires a heck of a lot more work than most Men care to admit. One isn't just sitting on the couch eating bon-bons all day. There's plenty to do, kids or no kids.

Also, think of it this way-- If one doesn't have to go to a job and the other doesn't have to do housework/yard work, both have much more free time. I'm guessing that she doesn't wish to spend what little free time she has scrubbing floors, grocery shopping, doing laundry etc..

Good for her.

My wife stays at home and I still do plenty of housework. I'd be a pretty cruddy partner if I made her do 100% of everything since I was the only one working. Just my opinion.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

My wife stays at home and I still do plenty of housework. I'd be a pretty cruddy partner if I made her do 100% of everything since I was the only one working. Just my opinion.

Point taken.

FWIW, I never believed that you are one stuck in the "stone age."

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

Men are attracted by physical appearance, and women are attracted by a guy's social standing. Jeremiah Johnson was an alpha male at some point in the past, which is why low-status betas who can't cut it in a complex modern world get nostalgic about simpler times when somebody like them could have ruled.

Maybe. But I think there's more to it than "not cutting it". We have 100,000 years of hunting and gathering. And hunting and gathering tribes were often more egalitarian. There are many reasons why people want to drop out.

As far as the whole "materialistic" thing goes, I'd say women are naturally more concerned with hearth and home, which implies a certain amount of consumer materialism. But beyond comfortable living, where wealth becomes an avenue for power and influence more than creature comforts, I see men as more materialistic. Look at the Forbes 400, it's dominated by men. Women quit working when they get that much money, and I don't think I've ever seen a woman get all wide-eyed and hyped up over her investment portfolio, the way some men do.

Anthropologically, men have acquired money as a means to acquire social power and women (which in turn is social power). A man can acquire lots of money, lots of women and lots of children. There's a biological bottleneck on women's reproductive capacity. No matter how many men she get's, she's going to have the same amount of babies.

[Orenda]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

Men are attracted by physical appearance, and women are attracted by a guy's social standing. Jeremiah Johnson was an alpha male at some point in the past, which is why low-status betas who can't cut it in a complex modern world get nostalgic about simpler times when somebody like them could have ruled.

Not sure if I'd agree with you that the story of a man abandoning society and heading into the wilderness alone qualifies as a good example of a man trying to "rule" over anyone.

Understand my point?

[guttle11]

I speak from the perspective of a man who has been unemployed in the not too distant past. Between spending hours upon hours looking at various job postings and sending my resume/cover letter/recommendation, to being out networking and attending career fairs, to working odd jobs painting and landscaping (which is a complete 180 from my career field) just so I could pay my bills and have a little bit of spending money, I didn't have the time or energy to even think about meeting a woman and beginning any kind of relationship.

So I can't see a woman actively starting a relationship, casual or more, with an unemployed guy. He shouldn't have the time to put in the effort of dating. If he does, current unemployment probably isn't his biggest issue. The same goes for men dating unemployed women. If someone doesn't have the work ethic and desire to pull themselves out of a tough spot, why should someone take an interest in them?

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by guttle11

If someone doesn't have the work ethic and desire to pull themselves out of a tough spot, why should someone take an interest in them?

Because they're hot.

[Redsfaithful]

I can't say I ever considered a woman's work ethic before dating. There were always, um, other considerations.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I can't say I ever considered a woman's work ethic before dating. There were always, um, other considerations.

How awesome her fashion sense was?
How nice she smelled?
Her taste in movies?
Whether or not she was into 'Redsfaithful'?

[vaticanplum]

I'm unemployed and there's no way in hell I'd start a new relationship right now. Being without daily work and an income, provided you need it, is demoralizing, frustrating, limiting, and guilt-inducing. It makes you unable to plan for the future in any clear way and makes you question past decisions. It clouds your perspective on the present. It tends to make you short-tempered and short-sighted. It forces you to completely evaluate and re-evaluate your skills, your priorities, your self-worth, your threshold for humiliation and which things that are important to you you're willing to give up; in short, it makes you completely temporarily self-centered. That's a horrible state to start a relationship in.

edit: also, clearly, when you are unemployed, you are a barrel of sunshine and a beacon of romance.

[Larry Schuler]

Your relationships with family/friends/spouses don't have to suffer in order to "earn" unemployment work ethic kudos. There is a time to job search & (if you are open to the idea) there is a time to put worries & stress on hold and enjoy your life & the people in it. Easier said than done but "I'm working too hard searching for a job to allow myself a healthy, balanced life" is not necessarily the greatest ideal to strive for, in my opinion. There is an hour somewhere in your day that you can shut off the voices & devote yourself to enjoying relationships & personal connections.

A woman or man who is ready to have a mature, adult relationship won't pass you by because you can't take them out for dinner every date. In my opinion, people hate being vulnerable and are always looking to say "No" to protect themselves from their own insecurities, fears, inabilities, worries, etc...and money/jobs is a really great excuse to say "No" to someone. Glitzy dates and loud music and expensive visual/aural distraction are attractive when you're trying your hardest to avoid being vulnerable & honest & intimate with others but they become not-so-attractive when you are looking for an actual person to connect with & be open/honest/intimate with. No matter how poor or unemployed you are, you are yourself & that can be a non-expiring treasure to the right man or lady once you find them. The best dates are about people lost in each other's company...not great sushi.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Larry Schuler

Your relationships with family/friends/spouses don't have to suffer in order to "earn" unemployment work ethic kudos. There is a time to job search & (if you are open to the idea) there is a time to put worries & stress on hold and enjoy your life & the people in it. Easier said than done but "I'm working too hard searching for a job to allow myself a healthy, balanced life" is not necessarily the greatest ideal to strive for, in my opinion. There is an hour somewhere in your day that you can shut off the voices & devote yourself to enjoying relationships & personal connections.

A woman or man who is ready to have a mature, adult relationship won't pass you by because you can't take them out for dinner every date. In my opinion, people hate being vulnerable and are always looking to say "No" to protect themselves from their own insecurities, fears, inabilities, worries, etc...and money/jobs is a really great excuse to say "No" to someone. Glitzy dates and loud music and expensive visual/aural distraction are attractive when you're trying your hardest to avoid being vulnerable & honest & intimate with others but they become not-so-attractive when you are looking for an actual person to connect with & be open/honest/intimate with. No matter how poor or unemployed you are, you are yourself & that can be a non-expiring treasure to the right man or lady once you find them. The best dates are about people lost in each other's company...not great sushi.

I'm not saying you have to let your current life go to pot if you're unemployed, especially not relationships you're already in. But starting a *new* relationship under those circumstances? I just don't think it's a great idea. I'm speaking emotionally, not financially. I'm sure it's an individual thing. A lot of people are more romantic than I am: relationships help them get everything else in order. I'm very pragmatic; I work mostly the other way around.