Posted on 06/13/2012 6:02:36 AM PDT by C19fan
They will have to do the same thing that men, who can’t get pretty women for wives.
Do without or settle.
What I do see happening here is a development of classes. Rich people will preserve and enhance their wealth by marrying other rich people and those with less will be marrying amongst those who also have less.
It could be harmful for those who are trying to improve their opportunities in life.
In terms of classes I think that is already happening.
“So welcome back baby, to the poor side of town.”
When I was in law school, the women’s law student organization scheduled only one mixer that I knew of, with the med school!
Why do you have to be a success before you get married? I suppose that I married 'down', I had more money and education than my husband to be. Yet, 20 years later, he has a very well paying career, and I am a stay at home wife with everything I want, including children, a home, and my beloved sport ute.
As more people drop out of the middle class, there are fewer men in the middle and upper-middle classes to marry. I’d venture to guess about 80% of my town is lower-middle class or poor, about 15% well off and about 5% middle class. The well off mate with each other for the most part or mate with someone outside town while in college. That leaves 80% of the women pretty much competing for the 5% of men that would be a move up. Thus, most women have no choice but to mate with their own class.
I’m not saying that you have to be a success to be married. I am saying that when it becomes a norm for rich people to only marry other rich people, and the lesser amounts of wealth also marry their wealth equivalents, society begins to stratify.
As society stratifies, it gets harder to move up the wealth scale, regardless of your efforts. At some point, permanent inequalities becomes the norm and, unless you’re born wealthy, you’ll never see the day when you can become wealthy.
Almost reminds me of the reacher and settler theory.
This article is silly. First off, the Middleton family isn’t exactly poor. The Middletons support themselves with a thriving small business. Although she wasn’t an aristocrat at birth and the Middletons have new money, the Duchess of Cambridge was fairly high up on the socio-economic scale.
Yes doctors might be marrying doctors, but those same women were probably nurses two generations ago. It was the Mrs. degree if you wanted a doctor and those women came from as many upper middle class families as poor families. Lawyers have been marrying each other for 40 years.
The wealthy have been marrying their kind FOREVER. Search Kennedy on this sight and see the wheel of friendships, affairs and marriages.
There was just a study made regarding this.. the new trend is successful women are marrying men who are not as successful or educated as they are but the men are the handsome and many are becoming house husbands. It's the trend of the past-the 1950'/60's when successful men married beautiful wives with no education/money just with gender roles being reversed.
If two OWS types marry, who are children of rich parents, that is no guarantee that they themselves will be high earners. Also, two dirt poor kindred spirits who both have a good work ethic could still become wealthy in this country.
Ride the carousel until they hit cougardom, then try to find a sucker.
If two OWS types marry, who are children of rich parents, that is no guarantee that they themselves will be high earners. Also, two dirt poor kindred spirits who both have a good work ethic could still become wealthy in this country.
I agree with you that there’s no guarentee that being born into wealth means you get to stay wealthy. And it should be that, if you’re of good character and are willing to work hard, that you’ll have greater opportunities.
I am saying that it’s much more difficult to improve your situation than it used to be and that those in elite positions seek to keep their elite positions and your expense. San Francisco or New York are examples of this. Unless you’re earning a minimal of $250 grand, there is no way you can afford to live in the city. You get to leave far away and commute.
And a guy who knows how to swing a hammer, is comfortable with the physical world, is probably not neurotic and like those neurotic, overachieving professional men who talk-talk-talk and complain all the time.
It is simple sociobiology: females tend to seek males who have the resources necessary to provide for their infant offspring.
Just as with many animals, human females may select indirectly, and (of course) unconsciously. The female robin selects a mate with the reddest breast-feathers, without knowing what she is doing: but the finery of her mate is an indication of health.
Similarly, a human female will be attracted to things which are good predictors in a mate. This why dinner dates are still common: they enable a prospective mate to show off by conspicuous consumption, and by mutual feeding (a mating ritual in many species).
When females are forced to marry down, the result is easy to predict — and I have seen it in several cases myself. The marriage will be unstable. In one case, a woman with an office job heartlessly dumped her husband, a truly fine fellow and a successful and skilled carpenter. Why? She wanted someone with more “status.”
Another woman I know, approaching the end of her fertile years, married a fellow well bellow her educational status, got pregnant (as desired), and then dumped the bipedal sperm-doner when the baby was only three months old.
Marriages downward do not last long. This will be an increasing result of a growing educational disparity of women over men. Just what we need: more single-parent families.
Tall people tend to marry and/or mate with other tall people.
Smart people tend to marry and/or mate with other tall people.
People with degrees tend to marry and/or mate with other people with degrees.
The wealthy tend to marry and/or mate with the wealthy.
Etc, etc, etc.
Geneticists quickly realized that you can NOT assume to married people are going to be as genetically distinct as two strangers.
People mate associatively for MID DIGITAL HAIR and INCISOR LENGTH for God's sake!
Now I admit that, along with most people - I think women who look somewhat like women in my family are attractive - I am about to marry a gorgeous woman who is a tall brunette with curly hair and glasses (very common in my family); but not ONCE did I think “check out the incisors on THAT babe!”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.