TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

71

DISCUSSION[Video] "When Men Make Less, Women Don't Want to Marry Them." (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by Daktush

"When Men Make Less, Women Don't Want to Marry Them."

It both provides statistics about marriages where women earn more (how likely are they to form/divorce, how do their partners act) and gives advice on do's and don'ts to keep such a marriage stable.

Thought this sub would enjoy


[–][deleted] 71 points72 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Great video. My thoughts:

I think that there are two groups of men to discuss here. My initial reaction to this video was "Man, if my wife could earn more than I do, I would quit my job and start a business tomorrow." I think most guys who think that way would have no trouble maintaining their marriage through the economic disparity. Hell, a lot of women would probably love the idea of "investing" in their husbands financially. Particularly if their husband is uniquely intelligent, charming, well-educated, whatever.

However, most of the guys I know personally who are outearned by their wives suffer from a tremendous lack of ambition. They're the kinds of guys who have a skilled labor wife (Nurse, IT), so they shrink from trying to have a career and instead do a half-assed job of cleaning house before spending most of the day on Netflix or XBox live. I wouldn't expect a relationship like that to last. It's just too hard to work all day and come home to a disgusting house, make your own dinner, do your own dishes, then collapse in a heap on the bed and listen to stories about video games.

I suppose there is an element of a double standard in that case, because I also know plenty of women who half-assed clean a house before diving into Instagram for several hours. When a man does this, he's a "loser" or a "bum". When a woman does it, there just isn't that same social pressure. Still, if you're an asskicking entrepreneur, your wife outearning you will probably never make her think you're a loser. I think it's the perception of "wasting time" that leads to the social pressure that causes these types of relationships to end so much more frequently.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You bring up a really good point. Income isn't always the key factor, it's ambition. I have a guy friend who worked full time and worked on his side hustle (80 hours a week total) for two years before he started making the money he is now. He was living with his parents and wasn't making much money during those two years but it was obvious he was a hard worker and it paid off. He just bought a house earlier this year.

There's a big difference between this and a guy living with his mom working minimum wage, laying around watching Netflix. I dated the lazy bum. The difference is the lazy people talk about improving themselves, hard workers take action.

[–]ragnarockette5 Stars14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I know a couple who is exactly the first couple you described! She’s a partner-track attorney and he founded a startup which she helped invest in and provides legal counsel to. They are super happy and have a ton of mutual respect for one another.

Of course I think it helps that they are expecting an eventual payoff when he sells the company.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I say this at the office all the time: hard work covers a multitude of sins. If they see you busting your ass all the time, it's hard to be too critical. I'm sure she sees how much work it is to start a business, and for people who are used to punching the clock 40-60 hours a week, it's a wake-up call.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think most guys who think that way would have no trouble maintaining their marriage through the economic disparity.

This is what happened with my boss and his wife. He spent his 30s building up his book of business while his wife supported the family. With that support he was able to be quite successful and now out earns her.

But I think these cases are rare.

[–]Daktush[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The video talks about this. Says these kind of relationships are better if the women feel respected and valued for what they bring to the table.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

these kind of ALL relationships are better if the women feel respected and valued for what they bring to the table.

Fixed it for you. A woman needs to be respected and valued, albeit in different ways from how a man does.

[–]Wolfssenger24 points25 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Which is exactly why I think it's a poor idea for women to default to pursuing a career as a life focus. It's a net negative for their happiness on average and it's not a sustainable societal model.

[–]Daktush[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's a poor idea for women to default to pursuing a career as a life focus.

Let's not forget individuals when talking about groups. It can be a good in individual cases, they just have to have the personality for it and find a man that has the personality required. Both are rare though and it will attract unwanted social pressure. In general the reverse situation puts much less strain on a marriage (which is not to say there aren't individual cases that can handle that stress well and would prefer it to a traditional structure, just that those cases are exceptions to the rule)

[–]Wolfssenger1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

to default

This implies I am speaking about the average woman. On average women are more happy doing traditional feminine things which at most entails a career in a more feminine field, and more often constitutes not pursuing a career very far.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm inclined to agree. I think of it a lot like I think of something like becoming a professional singer. Unless you're able to objectively evaluate yourself as being so absolutely good that your talent is undeniable, you should probably plan on something more mathematically likely to make you happier.

The big problem with that line of thinking is that a hell of a lot of people gas themselves up and inflate their own talent level. It makes the whole "objectively evaluate" part of that equation super difficult. With professional singers, that means we have a glut of baristas trying to make it big. In this case, that probably means we have tens of thousands of women making 80k a year while simultaneously ruining their relationships.

[–]ragnarockette5 Stars16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it is fine to have a career you’re passionate about, and smart to have skills.

However, if I was advising a woman whose ultimate goal was to be a wife and mama, and who didn’t have an specific career aspirations, I will always suggest either teaching or nursing.

Those jobs pay decently enough to support yourself, are always in demand, allow for flexibility if you want to work part time, but aren’t so powerful that you’re going to be in the “no one is good enough for me” income bracket.

[–]Wolfssenger15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. I think the majority of women should default to feminine occupations first(be it nursing, home making, etc.) And then pursue a more masculine career if they discover they truly do not fit the mould(which is far fewer than many women seem to think, especially in regards to themselves).

The current mode of being is analogous to telling all men they need to be homemakers despite the clear mismatch in toolsets.

[–]ragnarockette5 Stars15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. If a woman has a passion for software engineering or being a general contractor or defense attorney then you go girl!

If a woman is ambivalent about her career then I will recommend “feminine” careers every time.

[–]drigsbythekitty7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe this goes against RPW philosophy but I outearn my husband by 25% and he probably outhandles random household responsibilitys over me by 25%. We both do an equal share of parenting.

We are very happy and the money thing has never been a problem. We earn enough so that money is never a reason to argue or have a bad day and I am incredibly grateful for his support in parenting and household responsibilities.

I just add that there are a lot of ways to marital happiness.

[–]liquidswan6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a man, I would love if my wife made more money, but to be perfectly honest, I’d prefer to work two jobs or a job and a half because I want to provide for my family as best as possible and I want my kids to have a parent at home at least while they are young.

[–]TheLaughingRhino 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

While those statistics are interesting, I don't think they cover the deep rooted issues involved.

Fighting/conflict/stress over money is the NUMBER #1 reason for divorce and breakup of relationships.

How people handle money is based on their FINANCIAL VALUES

Nearly all people form their financial values from their "imprint" during their FORMATIVE YEARS ( Basically what they saw Dad and Mom do, they are likely to do, and this covers things like smoking, college, single parenthood, etc, etc, lots of issues)

If you are a man and you don't at least EQUAL the woman's financial lifestyle growing up, you are done. It's over. It means you cannot at least equal what her father/dominant male figure in her life gave her. This is a woman's hard baseline to money.

If you are a man and you are not the most financially successful man within the male mates in her female social circle AND her biggest female rival, then you are done. The least successful male in the male group is cannon fodder.

If she has to work a job she hates and there's no choice, you are done.

If you cannot survive on 30 percent of your income to a lifestyle YOU WANT, happening AFTER taxes and AFTER you've been divorced, which includes child support, alimony and sustaining an entire 2nd household, then you have no financial business getting married as a man. Any man marrying today, esp a Western/American man, should assume divorce. Someone will say he can get a prenuptial agreement and many of those don't hold up in Family Court. Once you marry, the PRIMARY BREADWINNER ( can be a man or a woman, but usually it's the man) has no protection. You can also NOT contract for any type of provisions for child support in a prenuptial agreement. Child support can be whatever the Family Court says it will be. Child support is overwhelmingly paid for by men to women, there is no formal standard to have anyone actually account how the receiving parent is spending it. The men who have no children and are not married are paying taxes. Those tax dollars support the social welfare system. EVERY WORKING PERSON IN AMERICA PAYS CHILD SUPPORT INDIRECTLY. To avoid paying child support, either for kids that are yours or the aggregate of kids who are not yours, is simply to be homeless.

If a woman is constantly complaining about needing more money to outsiders, esp other men, it means she's prime to branch swing if she can.

If you can sustain the above financially but are never home, because you have to commit to a career and holding your ground against rivals/competitors, then you are done.

I'm sure someone will say what I posted is pretty draconian in nature. Well, ladies, the NUMBER #1 conflict in relationships is money. You do the math.

I know a single mom who just got married. Her child is about 7 years old now. The new husband works hard, but can't afford to buy her a house. She grew up in a house. Done. Over. Not going to happen right this minute. But the guy is cooked.

I know a woman who works part time but her boyfriend is the primary breadwinner. They rent an apartment together. Not enough to buy a house, and never will at their current rate. Her "best friend" just bought a nice house in the best part of town with her new husband, who owns several local businesses. This woman grew up in a house and went to private school, funded by her loving good old Dad. Guess what? Her boyfriend is done. Over.

I know a woman who had a child get old enough to not need her full time care. Her choices were to go back into the workforce or get pregnant again. She can't get pregnant again. She is now hunting for a branch swing for someone to take care of her and her three kids. Her husband can't swing it for her to become a SAHW. Her biggest female rival is a SAHW. Her husband doesn't see it, but he's done. Over.

They may not leave. These situations. But they'll just take it out on the guy. Less sex. No sex. Nagging. Shit tests. Jabs. Less care to their appearance. Letting hypergamy take hold.

But it's all relative. I know a woman who was not a US citizen. She worked in a food service job and me her future husband. Who came from an upper middle class family. She went from sharing a room with her 6 siblings in a bad part of town to living in a house and the guy has a timeshare at a winter lodge.

It doesn't have to be lifestyles of the rich and famous, it just needs to be equal or better to what she had growing up and equal or better than her social female peers/rivals. That could be a guy who is a billionaire. It could be a guy working 30 years working for a state university in a stable job with good medical insurance.

Any marriage is only stable as long as the woman gets what she wants or what she thinks she wants when she wants it and exactly how she wants it without ever saying any of it out loud, in so much as she is the gatekeeper of sex. This could be finances, validation, attention, vacations, whatever.

I have never seen a stable American marriage in my entire life. I have seen some pretty good actors and actresses though. Elite thespians really.

Alice: Where is this love? I can't see it, I can't touch it. I can't feel it. I can hear it. I can hear some words, but I can't do anything with your easy words. Do you still fancy me?

Dan: Of course.

Alice: You're lying. I've been you

Patrick Marber's Closer

[–]BewareTheOldMan7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Key Line: "If you are a man and you don't at least EQUAL the woman's financial lifestyle growing up, you are done. It's over."

The rest of your commentary is also chock full of great talking points.

It's too bad a lot of men don't understand this reality. Hypergamy floats.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's not about provision, just that he makes her feel safe(-r than she used to). Money is just a large part of that, much more so in countries like the U.S., where getting cancer can render you homeless. You need to be filthy rich to get a sense of security, there, I think.

For me, my husbands calm and composure in the face of every storm is what makes me feel safe. I grew up rich, and for most of our life together it looked like I had financially downgraded and that would remain so. He even had a period where he was quite depressed. I had plenty friends with better-off men. That was always okay with me. My childhood was stressful, mostly because my dad was, though rich, not the kind of rock that makes sure everything will work out. My friends' husbands and boyfriends were richer, but not as strong and comforting. Even when depressed, my husband never seems to freak out or get scared or worry. He just gets on with things. And that is sexier than a fat wallet.

[–]Santaball 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

OMG stop with the facts! I can only get so erect!

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the women's sub. Learn to read the room. Removed.

[–]The_gray_ghost-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Please explain the whole female rivals thing. How does it effect their lives? Do they compare themselves to women they dislike? What makes another women her rival?

[–]TheLaughingRhino 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll take this in a couple of different angles.

From a biological imperative/survival adaption view ( i.e. our instinctive hardwiring to survive and procreate), women would compete for the strongest hunter. The most dominant male in the cave. Women who were altruistic in that timeline, if anything close to that could approximated, died. Her children died. Her gene pool died. In terms of material wealth/resources, nearly all women don't operate to abundance. This is NOT the optimal survival strategy. Abundance would mean there is enough food for everyone. How women operate, to the benefit of their children, is every spoonful of food in the mouth of your child is NOT a spoonful of food in the mouth of my child.

Instinctively, "Better than what you have" = "Enough for my kids to live"

Since we live in a modern time where most Americans are relatively safe ( relatively) from immediate starvation and harm, that instinct shifts to "Well that woman at work who gave me all that crap when I started, her husband just bought her a house, why don't I have a house?"

Everyone competes. This is a survival strategy. The emotionally healthy way, the pathway to INTERNAL VALIDATION and good self esteem is to only compare the current you, to the past you, to see how far you've gotten with hard work and discipline. Other people don't matter. Comparing to other peoples timelines or resources doesn't matter. Security comes from the confidence you can create abundance when needed.

The unhealthy way is based on EXTERNAL VALIDATION. The person can't feel right unless everyone else has less than them. Security only comes when you can push yourself up while dragging everyone else down.

The pathway to true internal validation is what people talk about when they say to "Be the best version of yourself"

The more classic example is two women work together. They neither love nor hate each other. Both are just there. Sharing the same bit of carpet and office space because that's just how it worked out. Then a man gets hired who they are both attracted to and want for themselves. Now they hate each other. BUT, if the company hires another woman, Woman C, and the man shows interest in her and her alone, the two women to start will join up, forego their earlier conflict and find a way to sabotage Woman C. If Woman C is out of the picture, the first two women will resume their hostility with each other.

Women today live in abundance but instinctively cannot process abundance.

Chris Rock says when a man meets his best friends girlfriend and thinks she's cool, he thinks "I need to meet a girl like that"

Then he says when a woman meets her best friends boyfriend and thinks he's spectacular, she thinks "I need to get THAT man"

When women associate, when they get some of their needs/wants met by another woman, they are "friends" When they get nearly 100 percent of those wants/needs met, they are BFF. If they get zero or the situation declines to zero or there is strong doubt of it heading to zero, then the person is jettisoned. Briffault's Law doesn't just happen to women to men, it happens to women to women too, but harsher. Women who didn't apply Briffault's Law in a cave died. Her children died. If her male mate was a hunter and broke his leg and couldn't provide and hunt, well she's be better off cutting his throat in his sleep. Then cutting the throat of the sleeping cave woman whose male mate was the best hunter.

Female competition is survival adaption. What Third Wave feminism has done is say you can take that survival adaption and just act like a total asshole about it. If a woman wants a man to take her out to dinner on the first date and pay, I get that on some level. She wants to know if he can provide. Show signs of provision. But if she goes, orders the most expensive thing, spends all night on her phone texting other guys then never says thanks for dinner, then she's graduated to just being a total asshole.

This is why part of vetting, esp men to women, is to see how that person treats someone who can DO NOTHING FOR THEM, and this happens when they think you are not looking.

If a woman has something/some resource that appears to be abundance that you want/envy/covet for yourself but don't have, she is your rival.

Most people will think, "I don't have that kind of trait in me!" Well, guess what? The people who survived in caves in hard times were the murderers, the rapists, the thieves, the ruthless, the cunning, the savage. We came from them so what does that say about what's in us?

Nearly all women pick to status first, not character, in mate selection, and much of the above is why and much of the above is why nearly all relationships fail horribly.

[–]ZegiknieEndorsed Contributor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good thing we're never done evolving, then. The one too busy gathering trinkets to breed will go extinct soon enough.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have seen a marriage work fine when the wife earned three times as much as the guy, but he had to pick up the slack by covering a lot of the typically feminine jobs. He worked from home so could be with the baby more while she was a lawyer frequently away on business trips. He would be responsible for a lot of the home care, cleaning, and maintenance jobs. He also had to take care of cooking dinner every night. It worked for them and she showed him respect and deference but I think a lot of men would find it immasculating. For me personally, it is just mentally easier to stay in my place and show appropriate respect when my partner out earns me. I have yet to meet a man that could do the traditionally feminine tasks better than I can and my fiance certainly can not match my home making and cooking skills. It would lead me to have less respect for him if I out earned him and he had to pic up slack with these others tasks but could not do them all as competently as I would like. It would be so easy for the dynamic we love a lot to go to garbage and I think it can play out like this in a lot of marriages. I had planned to get an advanced degree and pursue a lucrative career when I met my fiance. We both came to realize that if I did that and made more money than him, odds were high my respect and admiration for him would plummet. I chose to not get the advanced degree (which will spare us from having bunches of student debt to deal with) and he took me ring shopping not long after. No regrets here, but I feel like I may have had serious regrets if I stuck to my original plan and tanked this wonderful relationship by not being able to stifle the empowered harpy.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter