Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Is having a job important in a relationship?If so, why?

Page 2 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

08 Dec 2016, 3:35 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.

goldfish21 wrote:
I know people who don't care what someone does for work so long as they're in x-y income range, comparable to their own, so that they're able to keep up with a similar middle class lifestyle. They wouldn't want to date someone operating at a lower level as they wouldn't want the financial burden of paying their way for a night out or a weekend getaway. This makes sense to me for their lifestyle and goals & I don't find it rude or tacky at all.

I agree. No man would want to always pay for a night out, but sadly that's still a norm today.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

08 Dec 2016, 3:39 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.
If a jobeless woman around my age chats with me, I would quickly assume she's either a gold digger or wants to be a housewife:
Not interested.


Yes but it's normal for someone who's only 18 to not have a job. If she wants a boyfriend, maybe she should look for someone who has similar age, not 30 years older.



Catmagic101a
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 25
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2016, 3:52 am

goldfish21 wrote:
To most people, yes.

Why?

Because it shows you're able to provide for yourself/be self sufficient/earn your way through life etc vs. expecting someone else to pay your way for everything from basic needs to a night out. Also, people may have life plans that include the working capital from theirs and their partner's incomes in order to achieve certain financial or lifestyle goals - ie buying a house together, vacations, a certain quality of life in retirement etc. It also is a very quick assessment of one's ability to manage adult responsibilities. So many reasons, really.

I know people who don't care what someone does for work so long as they're in x-y income range, comparable to their own, so that they're able to keep up with a similar middle class lifestyle. They wouldn't want to date someone operating at a lower level as they wouldn't want the financial burden of paying their way for a night out or a weekend getaway. This makes sense to me for their lifestyle and goals & I don't find it rude or tacky at all.

For me, it's important they're at a level in life where they're doing something whether it's full time work or full time school or some combination regardless of whether they have much disposable income or not. This is especially since I'm attracted to people younger than me and don't expect college aged people to have career type incomes. Further, we live in a very expensive city with very low wages so most regular working class people are broke, anyways. Money to pay for things is nice, as as much as I like to treat someone I don't want to always pay for everything forever. They wouldn't have to necessarily pay half all the time or anything, especially if I like to treat them to something out of their income bracket, but it'd be nice if they chipped in their fair share here and there.. fair share varying, but adjusted to an appropriate amount depending on what they earn vs. what I do.

But yeah, in general people want to date someone to form a relationship as well as financial partnership with, not to adopt a dependant they have to pay for.


I suppose in a nutshell we were looking for two different things, I probably should only be talking to guys closer to my own age so as to eliminate the ''different stages of life'' issue. Relationship wise, I wasn't even looking for something serious, it was going to be a short term thing over the internet that would be practice for a real life relationship. For such a thing, things like a job and money would be irrelevant. In hindsight, somebody who's 48 probably can't ''waste time'' doing something like that so to speak, when they are likely looking to settle down. I don't want to settle down with anyone for a longtime to come.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,451
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Dec 2016, 3:53 am

314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.


Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 08 Dec 2016, 4:21 am, edited 5 times in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,451
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Dec 2016, 4:01 am

Jono wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.
If a jobeless woman around my age chats with me, I would quickly assume she's either a gold digger or wants to be a housewife:
Not interested.


Yes but it's normal for someone who's only 18 to not have a job. If she wants a boyfriend, maybe she should look for someone who has similar age, not 30 years older.


Tell that to those who reject jobless 18 yo guys and go for older guys for that very reason. ;).



Catmagic101a
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 25
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2016, 5:05 am

Personally, I don't have a very materialistic view of love, so I would never reject somebody because they didn't have a job. I wouldn't let a societal thing like that get in the way of any romantic feelings I had, but that's just me and I'm what you could describe as a ''romantic''.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

08 Dec 2016, 5:14 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.

Actually, that would benefit women too. For example, it would decrease the pay gap, because employers would feel less presure to pay married men more, and it would be easier for women to leave a bad relationships, because they would be less dependent on their husbands. It's a feminist idea really. :D



Sabreclaw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,971

08 Dec 2016, 5:15 am

A potential partner not having a job doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm happy to pay for everything, just so long as she actually values me as a person and isn't just using me.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,451
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Dec 2016, 5:40 am

314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.

Actually, that would benefit women too. For example, it would decrease the pay gap, because employers would feel less presure to pay married men more, and it would be easier for women to leave a bad relationships, because they would be less dependent on their husbands. It's a feminist idea really. :D


Of course, actually there's a very minimal pay gap between single men and women (both single and married), it's the married men who are more likely to get an extra premium out of company's salary budget.
The persisting of the social acceptance for the housewife role is also keeping male employers to think that way. ie. let's say you have a budget of 80K for two equally competent senior employees: Employee 1 is a man married to a non-working housewife and has a baby: Let's give him salary with a premium of 45K out of the budget because they assume he needs more money to motivate him to stay, employee 2 is a woman married to a well-off man, no need to give her a premium, she gets 35K- because they assume she's more likely to afford a lesser share.

Don't ever think that male employers and HR managers don't think like that, I have seen it first hand many times, and it's hard to prove before the law that they're discriminating (they can dilute it with other reasons).



Lunella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,067
Location: Yorkshire, UK

08 Dec 2016, 7:30 am

Depends on either of the people involved really.
There are guys out there who are happy to support their other half, but you're essentially relying on someone else for money. A lot of guys who are into the whole equality thing won't bother unless you work. Often you get guys who are like "well I can support you for a bit but you'll have to get a job eventually".

My experience with guys in really high paid jobs are just like "MY WOMAN WOULD NEVER WORK IN A s**thole LIKE THAT" and just gave me like grands to go shopping with so, you also have to consider how big (or little) their ego is too. Too much ego is usually bad, stay away.

There are people who will just assume you're a bum right off the bat if you say you have no job.

For me personally I think it's better to just get with someone you like rather than basing it off money cause at least you'd be happy.


_________________
The term Aspergers is no longer officially used in the UK - it is now regarded as High Functioning Autism.


Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

08 Dec 2016, 7:32 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.


Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.


It is actually balanced because men are more picky about physical features. I enjoy how you just ignored my studies in other posts because they don't support your truth

Very trump like



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,451
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

08 Dec 2016, 7:47 am

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.


Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.


It is actually balanced because men are more picky about physical features. I enjoy how you just ignored my studies in other posts because they don't support your truth

Very trump like


It was unintentional, I am not on WP 24/7, but....

...the more you throw names and drama at me, the more I will purposely ignore your posts.



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

08 Dec 2016, 7:56 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.


Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.


It is actually balanced because men are more picky about physical features. I enjoy how you just ignored my studies in other posts because they don't support your truth

Very trump like


It was unintentional, I am not on WP 24/7, but....

...the more you throw names and drama at me, the more I will purposely ignore your posts.


Many would seem it as a compliment :P. I was making a joke and you see drama :roll:



Sabreclaw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,971

08 Dec 2016, 9:34 am

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think women should be housewives. It's just that I feel that somebody I care about shouldn't be forced to work in a job they hate if I've got the money to support us both.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Dec 2016, 10:37 pm

Having a job really is that important. Having a job means financial freedom, which means you have more options in dating and long-term.

I don't feel it's a dealbreaker for a female partner to not have a job in the short-term. Long-term it means I have to carry the FULL burden of meeting our basic needs. With both of us working, we get more margin in our lives and can enjoy a more secure lifestyle.

It's also important because a single-earner household has to assume greater risk than a double-earner. I'm a musician, so obviously I don't have much to offer. I work three part-time jobs and am trying to break into the music licensing business (to little avail at the moment). For now I'm ALMOST competitive with my wife who has a full-time and is trying to grow a potentially lucrative MLM business on the side. But, let's be honest, the money sucks right now.

Several years ago, we were both full-timers. I thought I had a very secure teaching gig, and it turned out to be not-so-secure. After 3 failed classroom gigs I felt it was time to get out of the classroom. About that time I got a very good church gig and helped start a band, played a few bars, etc. Got fired from the school, started a private piano studio at the same school, picked up non-credit students at a community college. Lost our house at the beginning of the recession, ended up homeless. Time passes, bought a house (paid cash), had to give up teaching so many piano students when my 3rd child was born, ended up on a reality show. Wife lost two jobs when the babies came, lost two bank jobs after that. Drummer with my band was involved in a scandal that caused us to lose our practice space. Started posting music to Youtube.

Next thing I know the school we sent our kids to wanted to hire us. BOTH of us. Which NEVER happens. Worship leader at our church leaves rather suddenly, I take over as interim choir director, start working on Christmas presentation, start earning the occasional bonus. Then the lead singer of a locally-famous party band calls. Needs a keyboard player. Wedding receptions. High school reunions. Costume parties. Outdoor festivals. Playing Blues Brothers, Sam & Dave, Otis Redding. Wife gets addicted to the Younique "uplift serum," promos the stuff to get discounts, ends up selling the full line "because it's fun." Then we get into motivational videos and books. Church hires new worship leader, so I'm winding down, cleaning out my desk, going back to writing music again. We feel great about life. Our struggles are far from over, but we are excited moving forward. Just ran our first 5k fundraiser last weekend, conducted my first choir Christmas presentation, planning a worship ministry social in a couple of weeks, looking forward to parties and 2 week vacation. Things are looking up.

Point? You don't get that working alone. Bear in mind I'm talking about the long haul. If I were single and no kids I'd barely be making rent right now. If I had the time to cash in on the licensing industry, I could probably support my entire family alone, which is ultimately my goal. But that assumes a tremendous risk in a fame-or-famine business. If my wife had insisted on staying at home, we'd never have made it. We survived by both of us working together. Even when we were living out of a motel, we had at least SOME money coming in even if it wasn't much. When she lost 4 jobs, the meager income I had kept us from starving. Single-earners have to bear a huge amount of risk their family might not be prepared for. You have to be careful. Accumulate enough surplus income to make it through 6 months of expenses. Cut costs every chance you get. Get plenty of exercise. Make new friends. Mitigate risks. Work together.

Yeah, money really is that important!



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,451
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

09 Dec 2016, 1:48 am

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Well, yeah...it's about time for men to also start reject women with no job, and that's the right path to equality.

That's a good idea, but only works when there's a lot of potential women around. You can't protest non existing women.


Men should become as picky as women when it comes to jobs, education, cars and housing - we should elevate our standards more materialistically; otherwise we will remain "the lapdog gender" seeking for women's approval all the time, as men are like today. Today women have the total upper hand in dating, they're the total choosers - because men allow it to happen due to their very few and low standards, look at Tinder analysis where men swipe right on almost all women while women only swipe 14% - that's pathetic on the men. If men collectively decide to rise their standards, to start refusing dating women who are jobless or who earn significantly less, to start refusing dating women with less significant education , to start refusing the housewife arrangement totally, to start expecting explicitly for them to reciprocate paying for dinner => then men vs women value in the dating market will get balanced.

In other term, men should imitate women in that regard.


It is actually balanced because men are more picky about physical features. I enjoy how you just ignored my studies in other posts because they don't support your truth

Very trump like


It was unintentional, I am not on WP 24/7, but....

...the more you throw names and drama at me, the more I will purposely ignore your posts.


Many would seem it as a compliment :P. I was making a joke and you see drama :roll:


Besides I am encouraging men to be like women in mate selection, in everything.

And it doesn't require a study to know that there are higher percentage of women seen as attractive by guys than vice versa. And with all these cosemetic products and plastic surgeries that help to hide physical flaws.... AND there's a growing pressure on men too look fit too, that's why about 5% of men end up using steroids (vs 3% women ending up having anorexia), fat acceptance doesn't include men too at all.

So no, currently the way things are, is not balanced at all and is not fair. Men should become as picky as women to fix this.