polymoog
Superstar
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,213
any traditional minded man would not care at all since making money is the mans job.Or, from another angle, would a man date a broke woman?
any traditional minded man would not care at all since making money is the mans job.Or, from another angle, would a man date a broke woman?
Unfortunately not in this day and age. The elite have made sure of that. Courtesy of the moneychangers.any traditional minded man would not care at all since making money is the mans job.
Oddly though, many will still consider taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, fixing the sink, etc. to be the man's job.Unfortunately not in this day and age. The elite have made sure of that. Courtesy of the moneychangers.
Well, I figured people would be smart enough to know what the fuck broke means??! (maybe that was a mistake on my part). Everyone knows that if you waste all your damn money, it's gonna leave you broke, which is essentially what you said. So your comment wasn't some sort of huge revelation or anything...you're just arguing semantics.You implied in your original question that a man should be "well off". As in, has a high yearly income. You didn't ask about dating someone who was "smart" with money.
It's always the elites fault tough. Men have always claimed to be the providers so they gotta deliver if they want to be resepected and taken seriously. Not being able to provide renders men obsolete.Unfortunately not in this day and age. The elite have made sure of that. Courtesy of the moneychangers.
Ahh this is the game you want to play. I'll bite. Let's start off with your hypocrisy. Not too long ago you were crying about the patriarchy and how men shouldn't be running society but yet you're here in this thread encouraging the patriarchy through men working and taking care of women. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one.It's always the elites fault tough. Men have always claimed to be the providers so they gotta deliver if they want to be resepected and taken seriously. Not being able to provide renders men obsolete.
I agree.Oddly though, many will still consider taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, fixing the sink, etc. to be the man's job.
There's no semantics here; it's more like you are avoiding the more significant issue. People aren't that smart, and the word "broke" is pretty loaded, especially in the broader context of perception and sociology.Well, I figured people would be smart enough to know what the fuck broke means??! (maybe that was a mistake on my part). Everyone knows that if you waste all your damn money, it's gonna leave you broke, which is essentially what you said. So your comment wasn't some sort of huge revelation or anything...you're just arguing semantics.
I don't remember saying that but OK.Not too long ago you were crying about the patriarchy and how men shouldn't be running society
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one.
Actually women can have their cake and eat it too. Even high earning women can still find partners who make more than they do (the wage gap, anyone?). And, you seem to forget that women had no choice but to depend on men for financial securtiy because they couldn't enter the workforce. Feminists gave women more freedom, can't blame them for the fallout of a society that men (your brethren) designed.Second, if it wasn't for the feminists falling hook, line, and sinker for the elites garbage in the 60s and adding surplus labour into the market perhaps you women would be able to stay home with men taking care of all the expenses. If all you can find are broke men than blame women for putting us in the situation we are now. Can't blame the elites for everything , right?
indeed.People aren't that smart
No need to lie and try to back paddle. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.I don't remember saying that but OK.
Okay, if they can why are you complaining about women getting with broke men? If feminism gave you the freedoms that you wanted than move on and stop complaining about men. You are responsible for your own life. But if you still want to live a life where a man has to take care of you financially but can't because of the day and age we live in please direct your complaints to the feminists of the 60s. Surplus labour equals lower wages.Actually women can have their cake and eat it too. Even high earning women can still find partners who make more than they do (the wage gap, anyone?). And, you seem to forget that women had no choice but to depend on men for financial securtiy because they couldn't enter the workforce. Feminists gave women more freedom, can't blame them for the fallout of a society that men (your brethren) designed.
Her sparkling personality?However if you're insisted on wanted a man to take care of you financially you'll have to bring something to the table.
If a woman wants a financially secure man which allows her to live freely and be taken care of financially than she better have the personality of an angel, be funny, look like a supermodel, and or etc. My point is it takes two and so if she's not providing the money she better be providing something else, which the man in question values.Her sparkling personality?
I think it, but I don't remember saying it.No need to lie and try to back paddle. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.
Ever notice that rich men often settle for women who aren't rich but the opposite is rarely true?Okay, if they can why are you complaining about women getting with broke men? If feminism gave you the freedoms that you wanted than move on and stop complaining about men. You are responsible for your own life. But if you still want to live a life where a man has to take care of you financially but can't because of the day and age we live in please direct your complaints to the feminists of the 60s. Surplus labour equals lower wages.
Oh and 1st and 2nd wave feminism didn't fought for more freedom, but for more equality. Which I think is an important distinction.Feminists gave women more freedom,
Tell us why rich men settle for women who aren't rich but the opposite to be rarely true? I want to know your reasons before I address it.I think it, but I don't remember saying it.
Ever notice that rich men often settle for women who aren't rich but the opposite is rarely true?
Again men designed the institution of marriage, let's not act like women aren't doing most of the emotional labor, child rearing, housework, etc...that's what men are paying for. Any woman on earth will be hard pressed to find a man who can cook himself dinner. So to any woman reading: if you gonna get you a household dependant, be smart and choose one who makes at least more money than you do.
Depends on whether the Italian is allowed to use their hands or not, during the grudge match.My bet is on the Italian catholic..not that anyone was asking
There are many reasons, which I've already expanded on that in my previous posts.Tell us why rich men settle for women who aren't rich but the opposite to be rarely true? I want to know your reasons before I address it.
I also listed most of the child rearing and emotional labor which you conveniently ignored but can't be overlooked.The institution of marriage, at least from an Islamic point of view, was not created by man but God. Also, women doing housework in the past might be true but that's not the society we live in at the moment, at least for a good chunk of people. Men do just as much housework now or at least more than they used too. Perhaps the men you have been with couldn't cook but that doesn't apply to all men.
In this day and age if you want a man to be able to take care of you financially you better be a supermodel or have some other valued traits because if he's well off he can just hire a maid so what would he need you for lol?