politicartoons | (no subject)

also, 75% saying they wouldn't marry someone without a job, is a pretty damn clear indicator to me

maybe i'm not romantic enough, but what the hell does money have to do with love? (i dont consider an expensive wedding to be at all important--or even a big wedding for that matter)
ya love him/her, ya love him/her, why the hell does a bank account have a damned thing to do with it?

65% said they also wouldn't marry if they themselves didn't have a job.

So a strong majority of women would not get married if either they themselves or their partner did not have a job.

Sure, it's romantic to get married when you're broke (hey, my parents pulled it off!) but to support a family these days it often takes two income earners. This is why ladies like everyone to be employed before getting hitched. It's practical and kids are expensive.

Edited 2013-08-29 18:58 (UTC)

"support a family"

Woah there; are you jumping from marriage to babies? Cause it sounds like it!

It's a jump that isn't rare.

They are different words for a reason.

If I don't want babies that means nothing about if I want marriage.

The economic cost of a child and the economic cost of a marriage are unequal.

It's funny, when I was younger I was always more comfortable with the idea of having children than getting married, and I saw myself marrying a woman more than I could a man. But my partner of 9 years is male, we're gearing up to get hitched, and I don't plan on having kids for at least another 4 years....

So here I am.

There's that leap of logic....

Children are wildly over-rated.

Marriage and kids = not much of a leap for most people.

While I see where you're coming from, having kids is the most direct way to have a positive influence on future generations, although this positive influence is less evenly distributed than it would be if one were to run a nonprofit children's hospital, or become a public educator, etc.

That's another debate for another time though.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion.

VHEMT asks a very simple question:

Is the current strain on the worlds resources helped by bringing another person into the world?

Also, I understand there is a connection between the two, but it's a mistake to conflate them into one thing.

I'd prefer to adopt.

Nevertheless, I can't say I'm in agreement with VHEMT as of yet. I'd like to believe humanity can still evolve beyond our petty, violent bullshit. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but that's part of who I am:

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.” ~ Howard Zinn *** "Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, it’s unlikely you will step up and take responsibility for making it so. If you assume that there’s no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there’s a chance you may contribute to making a better world. The choice is yours." ~ Noam Chomsky

I'm totally childfree, but even I am aware that it is MORE common for a marriage to lead to children than not.

That being said, it can be hard to support yourself and a spouse/partner these days without both people being employed. And if both are underemployed (as my partner and I am), it can be tough to support yourself even with both people working.

Marriage does not alter how difficult it is for two adults to get by.
I am trying to understand but this doesn't make any sense.

Of course marriage alters how difficult it is for two adults to get by. If one partner is unemployed and receiving aid for food or housing, getting married would eliminate that assistance and require the financially stable partner to support them both on one income. A tax write-off doesn't necessarily offset the extra mouth to feed.

In my case, my partner is unemployed and has poor credit with old collection accounts. Until he gets his stuff cleaned up, I won't be tying my financial life that closely to his. I love him, but I'm also practical since I look at credit reports and tax returns as part of my job. He isn't on the title to our new house, either.

just because YOU don't want kids doesn't mean its the norm to not associate the two "what if"s - most people DO

For you to pretend that's asinine is just.... silly

I think there's a TV show about just how inter-twined the two are.

"Married with children"

But there is a reason that we do not consider the two identical.
To consider the two as identical is also silly.

nobody said it was identical. Why are you pretending to be so obtuse? its really out of character for you... are you just trying to make a child-free statement? Okay okay we get it; child-free is awesome and marriage isn't just for producing kids WE GET IT

I think dating and marrying are two very different things, especially these days. Marriage is not, and has really never been, a purely romantic consideration. It's an economic partnership as well. And as the stigma against unmarried cohabitation erodes, so that you don't HAVE to be married to live with the one you love, I can really see the logic behind making sure you get married at a time that is most economically beneficial to you.

This coming from the girl who got married exactly when I did for affordable health insurance, of course. Not that I didn't want to get married, but the timing of the wedding was strictly economic.

I'd be waaaaaaay more worried about a study showing that people would refuse to date someone without a job, or that they would leave their partner if their partner become unemployed, or something.

There are economic advantages to marriage; so if anything, it helps the financial situation when people get married, it does not make it worse.

Children make economics harder, but marriage ain't children!

Eh, that depends. If you're madly in love with someone with a ton of student loan debt or something, it would make better economic sense not to have your credit history intertwined with theirs until they can get on their feet.

For that matter, for some people the wedding is really the only reason to get married, because why not just live with someone unless you really want the big party and the white dress. For those folks, being able to afford the wedding really is a crucial prerequisite for marriage.

And as

mzflux has pointed out, most of the women surveyed don't hold a double standard in this. They're not gold-diggers looking for a man to support them, they're people who believe that a steady job is important groundwork for a big responsibility like marriage - for both parties.

how can you assert there are economic advantages to getting married then seem offended by the notion that a woman might look at a prospective marital partner with a practical eye? Just because economic stability is a consideration doesn't mean its the ONLY consideration. Having been married to a gadabout with big dreams and little follow-through then married to a man who has a solid career in IT no matter what, I totally don't have a problem with anyone making employment one of their metrics

I'm not telling you what to base your interest in a partner on.

I am merely pointing out that, as a matter of statistics, humans do consider the size of a potential partners bank account. And that the first post that started this little thread is, I believe, accurate.

Have a big bank account, and you will be forgiven more physical faults than someone with a smaller bank account.

no, a couple of us are asserting that just because having a job gives you a couple more marks doesn't mean it forgives bad traits. that's an assumption you are making all on your own.

I give points for lots of things and steady employment is one of many possible points. It doesn't replace other traits any more than having a clean shaven face replaces other traits but it does rack points. Obviously in the dating game you try to get with the person who racks the most points on your system. I include employment (not income per se) in my system. It doesn't rate as high as kindness or intelligence but it rates higher than black hair and green eyes.

Research has shown that it is not merely employment, but it is amount of income that people will award "points" for when looking at an online profile of a potential date. It's not a matter of "unemployed" = lazy

There's a fairly obvious connection, that's about income and not about effort.