4 ms·

Unfortunately most women, even the most feminist and empowered ones, would refuse to marry a man that makes less than her. That being the case, if it comes time

Unfortunately most women, even the most feminist and empowered ones, would refuse to marry a man that makes less than her. That being the case, if it comes time for one to quit their job, it usually makes sense for it to be the lower earner. Not sure if there’s a way to really square that circle without restructuring male/female psychology.

igetspam 3y ago
You have data to support this claim?
- sgerenser 3y ago
  It’s pretty self evident as a member of society, but there’s a number of studies as well, e.g. https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefe...
  - igetspam 3y ago
    Ooh. That's credible. A right wing think tank! I'll see you and raise you "single women are happier"' https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-so-many-single-women-without-children-are-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2...
    - tzs 3y ago
      > Ooh. That's credible. A right wing think tank! Does that really count as coming from a right wing think tank? The article there just cites a paper, "Gender Asymmetry in Educational and Assortative Marriage", that was in the Journal of Marriage and Family, and has a short interview with one of the paper's authors. That journal is from the National Council on Family Relations. I can't find anything that suggests they are conservative. If anything what I'm finding in Google tends to have them more on the liberal side of things. E.g., their board's statement against anti-trans legislation [1]. > I'll see you and raise you "single women are happier"' I don't think you are using "I'll see you and raise you" correctly. It's suppose to be followed by something that contradicts what you are replying to. What your link and his talk about are orthogonal. https://www.ncfr.org/news/ncfr-board-directors-statement-response-recent-anti-transgender-legislation https://www.ncfr.org/news/ncfr-board-directors-statement-res...
      - igetspam 3y ago
        It does because the site is a right wing think tank but I will give that my link is more about "women are happier when they get to be people first" and it doesn't contradict the "women often marry up in income." The problem with starting with a place like a right wing think tank's evaluation of a study is that the goal is to sell a narrative that aligns with their existing bias. See the use of the word "prefer" which is only used once in the interview and it's from a leading question that asserts the preference to be true. It's easy for women to marry up economically: find a man doing your same job, marry him and he'll likely get paid more. Additionally, it's easy for better educated women to do that same. Find qualified women in various industries and review the educational qualifications of their male peers who are making more than them and... same outcome. So yes, I find the source to be problematic. I have not read the cited study itself but I did see that fun Q&A.
bee_rider 3y ago
This doesn’t fit what I’ve personally seen, it is basically random among my friends. But we’re unusually progressive people in an already progressive state. That said, the Overton window only goes so far, so I think it will be widespread next generation.
itishappy 3y ago
I strongly disagree with your framing that this is "women refusing to marry." Here's a few excerpts from the article you linked: > On one hand, women’s advantage in education may enable them to be more economically independent and thus put less emphasis on economic traits when evaluating potential spouses (Press, 2004). On the other hand, evidence suggests that men may still feel uncomfortable forming relationships in which they have lower status than their female partners (Bertrand, Kamenica, & Pan, 2015; Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006). > From men’s perspective, although men have placed more importance on the financial prospects of a potential spouse over time (Buss et al., 2001), they may value women’s high status only up to the point when women’s status exceeds their own status (Bertrand et al., 2015; England, 2011; Graf & Schwartz, 2011). For example, a speed dating study found that men did not value women’s intelligence or ambition when it exceeded their own (Fisman et al., 2006). Psychology experiments showed that men’s self-esteem was lower when their partners succeeded than when their partners failed, whereas women’s self-esteem was not affected by their partners’ performance (Ratliff & Oishi, 2013). Although these studies did not directly test men’s reaction to their partners’ education or income, they suggest that men may avoid a potential spouse who has both higher education and higher income than themselves. > Given a shortage of more-educated men, women may seek to maximize gains from marriage by evaluating potential spouses more on the basis of income. Because mate selection is a two-sided process, it is equally possible that men hesitate to form marital relationships with women who have both more education and higher incomes than they do.
- sgerenser 3y ago
  Sure, it takes two to tango, and some of the effect may be on the man's side as well. But if you're at all tuned into popular culture, it's pretty clear that from a dating/marriage perspective, a lower earning man is at a huge disadvantage. Whereas this isn't really the case for a woman. Setting studies aside, just look at what people say in the real world: https://www.reddit.com/r/dating/comments/154w09d/do_women_find_it_unattractive_when_their_bf/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dating/comments/154w09d/do_women_fi...
BobaFloutist 3y ago
> Unfortunately most women, even the most feminist and empowered ones, would refuse to marry a man that makes less than her. {{citation needed}}
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I disagree TBH, haha. Regardless of historical trends, I think, but mostly hope, that we’re heading toward equality. I don’t need a citation to see that we’ve still got work to do—I believe it!

igetspam 3y ago

You have data to support this claim?

sgerenser 3y ago
It’s pretty self evident as a member of society, but there’s a number of studies as well, e.g. https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefe...
- igetspam 3y ago
  Ooh. That's credible. A right wing think tank! I'll see you and raise you "single women are happier"' https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-so-many-single-women-without-children-are-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2...
  - tzs 3y ago
    > Ooh. That's credible. A right wing think tank! Does that really count as coming from a right wing think tank? The article there just cites a paper, "Gender Asymmetry in Educational and Assortative Marriage", that was in the Journal of Marriage and Family, and has a short interview with one of the paper's authors. That journal is from the National Council on Family Relations. I can't find anything that suggests they are conservative. If anything what I'm finding in Google tends to have them more on the liberal side of things. E.g., their board's statement against anti-trans legislation [1]. > I'll see you and raise you "single women are happier"' I don't think you are using "I'll see you and raise you" correctly. It's suppose to be followed by something that contradicts what you are replying to. What your link and his talk about are orthogonal. https://www.ncfr.org/news/ncfr-board-directors-statement-response-recent-anti-transgender-legislation https://www.ncfr.org/news/ncfr-board-directors-statement-res...
    - igetspam 3y ago
      It does because the site is a right wing think tank but I will give that my link is more about "women are happier when they get to be people first" and it doesn't contradict the "women often marry up in income." The problem with starting with a place like a right wing think tank's evaluation of a study is that the goal is to sell a narrative that aligns with their existing bias. See the use of the word "prefer" which is only used once in the interview and it's from a leading question that asserts the preference to be true. It's easy for women to marry up economically: find a man doing your same job, marry him and he'll likely get paid more. Additionally, it's easy for better educated women to do that same. Find qualified women in various industries and review the educational qualifications of their male peers who are making more than them and... same outcome. So yes, I find the source to be problematic. I have not read the cited study itself but I did see that fun Q&A.

bee_rider 3y ago

This doesn’t fit what I’ve personally seen, it is basically random among my friends. But we’re unusually progressive people in an already progressive state. That said, the Overton window only goes so far, so I think it will be widespread next generation.

itishappy 3y ago

I strongly disagree with your framing that this is "women refusing to marry." Here's a few excerpts from the article you linked: > On one hand, women’s advantage in education may enable them to be more economically independent and thus put less emphasis on economic traits when evaluating potential spouses (Press, 2004). On the other hand, evidence suggests that men may still feel uncomfortable forming relationships in which they have lower status than their female partners (Bertrand, Kamenica, & Pan, 2015; Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006). > From men’s perspective, although men have placed more importance on the financial prospects of a potential spouse over time (Buss et al., 2001), they may value women’s high status only up to the point when women’s status exceeds their own status (Bertrand et al., 2015; England, 2011; Graf & Schwartz, 2011). For example, a speed dating study found that men did not value women’s intelligence or ambition when it exceeded their own (Fisman et al., 2006). Psychology experiments showed that men’s self-esteem was lower when their partners succeeded than when their partners failed, whereas women’s self-esteem was not affected by their partners’ performance (Ratliff & Oishi, 2013). Although these studies did not directly test men’s reaction to their partners’ education or income, they suggest that men may avoid a potential spouse who has both higher education and higher income than themselves. > Given a shortage of more-educated men, women may seek to maximize gains from marriage by evaluating potential spouses more on the basis of income. Because mate selection is a two-sided process, it is equally possible that men hesitate to form marital relationships with women who have both more education and higher incomes than they do.

sgerenser 3y ago
Sure, it takes two to tango, and some of the effect may be on the man's side as well. But if you're at all tuned into popular culture, it's pretty clear that from a dating/marriage perspective, a lower earning man is at a huge disadvantage. Whereas this isn't really the case for a woman. Setting studies aside, just look at what people say in the real world: https://www.reddit.com/r/dating/comments/154w09d/do_women_find_it_unattractive_when_their_bf/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dating/comments/154w09d/do_women_fi...

BobaFloutist 3y ago

> Unfortunately most women, even the most feminist and empowered ones, would refuse to marry a man that makes less than her. {{citation needed}}

bee_rider 3y ago
I disagree TBH, haha. Regardless of historical trends, I think, but mostly hope, that we’re heading toward equality. I don’t need a citation to see that we’ve still got work to do—I believe it!