Many have noted that men are not particularly enthused by a working girl’s accomplishments. Women call this “being intimidated.” Men usually insist this is not the case. It rarely goes much further than this. So, let’s go further.
- She Isn’t Going To Like You. Every man knows, consciously or intuitively, that women are “hypergamous.” They seek out men with higher social standing, better looks, an appealing manner, and of course, more money. There are good reasons for this; and anyway, it probably isn’t going to change. In practical terms, women want a man that makes significantly more — perhaps 50% more — money than her; 200% more would be better. This has a practical aspect. For example, if a woman wants to become a full-time mother with children (which is a sensible thing), then a man’s income must support the whole family, which might have 3x the expenses of a single working person. If a woman marries a man that makes less than 3x her income, her lifestyle would probably take a step lower, compared to if she spent all her income on herself. If she likes to spend a week in Paris in April, spending her own money, then she looks for a man that can afford a week in Paris with a family of four. Or, she would have to become a working mother.
Men understand this, and sense that, whatever their accomplishments may be, this particular woman will not appreciate them, and instead will be rather bitter that you do not live up to her “standards.” Wouldn’t you rather spend time with a woman with some respect and appreciation for you — especially if you are going to be paying for her the rest of your life — rather than a constant undertone of resentment? In any case, men understand that they might not get very far along the process, and are probably headed for this particular woman’s discard bin, and begin to steel themselves for rejection.
Let’s take a man and a woman who both have an income of $150,000 per year — pretty good. Of roughly equal background and socioeconomic status, they would seem to be a good match. But this man can find many women who will consider him an appealing life partner. He doesn’t have to waste his time on some testy bitch who is seething with resentment that she couldn’t find someone making $450,000 a year who would have her, and instead has to settle for this third-rate loser.
There is an exception to the “hypergamy” rule: hookups. When it is established at the outset that the purposes of the “relationship” are sexual thrills only, then women are not so picky. Thus, when a man meets a woman who makes more money than him, the logical approach is to send her straight to the “hookup” bin, where he has a higher chance of success. Here, wealth and status are not very relevant to a woman, as anyone can see when they consider the sexy broke losers that so many women hook up with. The main factors are physical looks and PUA skills. A woman can be very picky looking for “Mr. Right,” but is not so choosy regarding “Mr. Right Now.” Of course there is “hypergamy” here too, but it has a much more limited scope. To take one example: hardly anyone would consider themselves a viable marriage/LTR candidate for Charlize Theron (the actress who recently lamented about her singlehood), nor has anyone appeared in that role (she is still publicly single), but something tells me that Charlize Theron is not a celibate.
The natural effect of this is: men will offer hookups instead of relationships, and women will take it. Not a very good pattern overall.
- Men are naturally hypogamous. Just as a woman seeks a man who she can look up to (has higher social standing), and who can serve the role of her leader, so too men look for women who have the potential to follow his lead. This is often called being “submissive,” although that is a rather poor term. Mostly, it means being cooperative — working together, without conflict. A wealthy man, with choices, would rather marry a simple and sweet 18-year-old girl, rather than having to deal with some worn-out bitch with a bad attitude and an impressive resume. If the 18-year-old girl came from a wealthy family, all the better.
- Women will not respect a man that does not take the leadership role. If a woman who makes a lot of money were to take the leadership role in a family (as often does happen to women who marry men who make less money than them, and continue working), that woman will eventually become disgusted with the man she married. A marriage in which a man takes a leadership role can function well; one in which the woman takes the leadership role is inherently unstable and will likely break apart. This dynamic is behind female hypergamy/male hypogamy.
Another version of a similar thing is the idea that a woman can either be in the role of a wife or a mother. A wife takes a cooperative/subordinate position to the man that she has chosen as her leader. A mother is in a leadership position with respect to her children. A man can lead other men, as a man among men. General Patton, of the Third Army in World War II, or Julius Caesar, were leaders of men. They did not treat their soldiers like children; and the soldiers knew that they were also men among men, who, to accomplish anything worthwhile, must have a leader. However, when a woman takes a leadership role, she often slips into the role of the mother, and treats her subordinates as children. Thus, a woman in a leadership role in the family soon considers her husband “like a child,” is revolted at his “man-child” behavior (his agreement to acquiesce to her leadership, even if only as a means to reduce conflict), and perhaps soon refuses to have sex with him, as any mother would refuse to have sex with her own children. The husband, who might be perfectly willing to have a subordinate role as a man among men, as is common in any corporation, does not want to be treated like a child; is puzzled why his wife is so angry with him although he acquiesces to all her demands; and is soon considering all the younger, hotter women who seem eager to accept his leadership, including sex.
- Women who make more money are usually a loooong way down the feminist/SJW/Leftist indoctrination hellhole. A lot of feminist/Leftist/Cultural Marixist indoctrination happens in universities. That’s one reason why the professional classes of San Francisco and New York City are so deeply Leftist, while the working classes of flyover country are generally conservative. SF/NYC/DC/LA are where all the graduates of the better universities end up after their four-year indoctrination. Men who have also gone to a better university often know what a load of crap this all is, how unfeminine and unattractive such women are, and also, how rare it is for a woman to ever recover from this indoctrination procedure. Or, what is also common, men who have also absorbed this toxic filth become “male feminists,” who are as revolting to women as female feminists are revolting to men.
- Women with professional accomplishments are older. The purpose of marriage, and relationships, is basically: to provide a framework for begetting and raising children. A woman has limited fertility, and every man has an intuitive understanding of how much fertility a woman has left, no matter what her accomplishments or physical attributes. Even a supermodel with a hundred magazine covers to her name, a 1-in-100,000 beauty, at age 35 will not seem as “sexy” to a man as a nineteen-year-old girl who is a 7/10. A man can appreciate her beauty at age 35, much as he can admire a fine horse, or the winner of a dog show, but in terms of raw sexual attraction, the fertile nineteen-year-old with a good ten years of childbearing potential ahead of her gets more of his attention.
If a man is going to hire a lawyer, he would rather have one that is thirty-five than one who is nineteen. But, marriage is a different matter.
This is long enough for now, so perhaps we will continue later.