Posted on 10/11/2019 4:52:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
Successful women face special barriers in love and marriage, according to one relationship coach. But that doesn’t mean they can’t still strive for a happily ever after.
On October 9, the Washington Examiner published an opinion piece on, “Why super-successful women struggle in love.” Relationship expert and author Suzanne Venker claimed that “few, if any, women” can have both “power in the world” and “power in bed.” While she backed up her arguments, her piece left something to be desired by women: encouragement.
Venker began by referencing a Wall Street Journal piece, arguing that “As women have become more and more rich, love has indeed become more and more elusive.”
She pointed to an email about one of the women dealing with this very problem – written by the woman’s mother.
“I’d like to talk to you about my daughter who’s a high achiever,” the mom began. “She’s a thirty-eight-year-old, well-educated (two Ivy League schools), creative, intelligent, sophisticated, loving, successful, attractive, with a model-like body, and surprisingly can’t find a desired partner.”
While previously “she wasted many years on several senseless relationships,” her daughter is “extremely unhappy that she doesn’t have a partner,” or children.
In response, Venker urged that not only do successful single women struggle, but also women who serve as the primary breadwinner. There are many reasons why “love becomes a struggle the more successful women become,” she said, including the “pursuit of a post-secondary education and career.”
“Jumping in full throttle and making work the center of one’s life, as young women are encouraged to do, invariably means this group will be unable to take advantage of their greatest marital bargaining power,” she said.
That main “bargaining power” appeared to be beauty.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I agree 100%.
Any man who looks at a woman as being anything less than an equal partner in a relationship is setting it up for failure.
I was lucky-I was raised this way, to respect women and treat them with respect.
I got married a bit later, and before we got married, I told my future wife that I needed straightforwardness. I would not participate in any head games.
I told her that if I asked her how she was doing, and she said “Fine” then I wasn’t going to play mind games, read her body language, or anything else. I would accept her at her word and assume she was “fine”.
That has serve me well.
All those things you state are true in my estimation.
The dirty little secret is, men don’t care what a woman does for a living.
Being “successful” doesn’t necessarily make them more attractive to a man. I mean who would want to be married to somebody like the Meryl Streep character in “The Devil Wears Prada”?
One of my best friends portrayed the exact same scenario, she was thin, long hair, college degree in textiles, sewed wedding dressed, stayed home, husband worked at being a business executive, she home schooled, beautiful home and kids, six of them and the whole thing spun apart because he was an abusive jerk who picked her up and threw her on the floor, bashed her head into the brick hearth and told her if she ever left him it would be without a penny to her name. She had to divorce him to save her life and found out during the divorce he had a rental house, complete with a girlfriend. Hope your ms America is not living a nightmare.
Amen to that...
It is.
"The Wall" is still undefeated today. CH gave some great advice to young women once; when you find a good guy lock him down. Do not be caught without a chair when the music stops.
Years of riding "the carousel". Probably has the crazy eyed stare too.
And I say the same thing right back to you.
Yes. 28 most certainly is the wall.
That's why you see woman at that age talking about settling down.
They're being outcompeted by younger and hotter women. They're not "done with their partying years", the party is done with them. And every year past the wall, it only gets worse.
Damn straight.
A department store opened in New York City that sold men and a woman decides to visit it in search of a husband.
At the store’s entrance, there’s a sign outlining the department store policy.
The first rule states that you can only enter the store once.
There are six floors and on each floor you can choose a husband or elect to move on to the next floor.
You cannot visit a floor more than once other than to leave the building.
The woman visits the first floor.
The sign reads:
· Men with jobs.
She moves on to the second floor:
· Men with jobs that adore children.
She moves on the the third floor where the sign reads:
· Wealthy men that adore children and are very handsome.
She thinks to herself, “that’s a very good deal” yet moves on to the fourth floor:
· Wealthy men that adore children, are very handsome and help with the household chores.
She decides to move on as things are constantly improving:
· Wealthy men that adore children, are very handsome, help with the household chores and are very romantic.
The woman is about to make her purchase but can’t resist moving on to the sixth floor.
There the sign reads:
· You are visitor number 31,456,012 on this floor.
· There are no men here.
· This floor exists as proof that it is impossible to please women.
Opposite this department store, another department store opened that sold women. The sign on the first floor reads:
· Women that love sex.
On the second floor the sign reads:
· Women that love sex and are wealthy.
On the third floor the sign reads:
· Women that love sex, are wealthy and have large breasts.
Not a single man has visited the fourth floor.
Called hypergamy.
If you treat this place like a toilet, you kill the high potential of intelligent debate.
It also reduces greatly support for our site and therefore, the support of free speech.
Any halfway intelligent person can find words to convey their opinions without being bathroom talk.
We don’t need to imitate the liberals in their talking or actions.
Slut shaming was also good for society.
There are many, many women in their 30s-40s in my suburban neighborhood on their 2nd husbands. They are certainly not trophy wives and don’t seem to have a problem finding men for themselves and their kids. This “women can’t find men” is all an urban myth. Sorry.
So your horn-dog ways are reducing your castoffs and you into bringing into future relationships the oozing profits of your past ‘substantive’ encounters.
Keep Buggering On!
So in the case you describe, what is it about her that makes that all work?
In spite of her looks, she’s got good character. She’s obviously grateful. She’s a full partner.
There is an exception to every rule.
Camels and the eyes of needles.
While men also become physically less attractive over time, their “power and status rises,” which continues to attract women. Men, on the other hand, could care less about a woman's socioeconomic status, she added.
Powerful men can marry their secretary and no one blinks an eye. It doesn't work the other way around only because women care so much about society's opinion. Women just have to readjust their thinking and look for a good man, not the prototype perfect man, and stop worrying about what others think.
Quite.
My line: when one realizes he can do nothing right, he will do the one thing he _can_ do right - nothing.
Adding to your point: not only does she nitpick, she does not express any indication that _she_ will correct it (to any degree). She expects everything will be made better just because she did, or will, express dissatisfaction.
He’s ok with most of the “problems” because he’s standing there mentally evaluating the time/money/effort required vs all the other issues, and knows there’s only so much time/money/effort _he_ can commit to improvement - after already committing to a million-dollar purchase.
“First of all, who do you think the author is? Micky Mouse?”
The point is she is not a successful women.
Even Micky Mouse would know that if he thought about it.
That also depends on the tone of voice in which she says it.
If it’s clear she gave it away to several other men before you, but with *you*, she’s suddenly Polly Purebred, it’s possible that she sees you only as a meal ticket, or her last gasp at avoiding spinsterhoid. And a marriage where the woman doesn’t tingle for the man, or worse, still tingles for past lovers, is a recipe for infidelity or divorce rape.
It's not Mr. Non-Commitment any more.
80% of women on dating apps find only 20% of men acceptable.
If you are a man in that 20%, you will discover that women only want you to get their panties off (to start), and for a very substantial fraction of that 20%, that's an OK way to live.
For a woman sharing a man with four others (80-20, remember), that becomes the very definition of "senseless" at some point, but by then, again if you are a man in the top 20%, the replacement supply (since you can date down 15+ years) is nearly endless.
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.