Are the authors of this study crypto-manospherians?
Did it not dawn on the authors of this study that by declaring that women only marry men for their resources they’re reinforcing “negative gender stereotypes” that all women are gold digging prostitutes?
Thanks cucks! HAHAHA!
Marriage rates have steadily declined over the past few decades, and now researchers from Cornell University are offering up a possible explanation: there just aren’t as many economically-attractive men for unmarried women to meet as there used to be.
So the shortage is with “economically attractive” men. There are currently no shortages of gold digging whores seeking to marry “economically attractive” men.
Previous studies had attempted to answer why marriage rates are on the decline, but most focused solely on gender ratio discrepancies as opposed to looking into the specific socioeconomic characteristics that make a particular man and woman a good match.
We know that a “good match” for a woman is a man who brings home serious bacon. Anything else is a “bad match” because there is only one main factor motivating women in relationships and marriage: cash.
First, the study’s authors examined data collected on recent marriages between 2007-2012 and 2013-2017, gathered as part of the American Community Survey’s cumulative 5-year marriage statistics. That data was used to estimate the financial and sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential husbands by creating economic profiles that resembled real husbands who had married comparable women. These potential husband estimates were then compared to actual population data on unmarried men across national, state, and local locations.
Researchers found that these estimated potential “dream” husbands had an average income about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women. These synthetic husbands were also 30% more likely to be employed than real single men and 19% more likely to have a college degree.
So most women’s “dream” husband makes more than double that of an average joe! And these are the same feminist cunts demanding that the government intervene in the free market to artificially elevate women to the level of men in the workplace, even though they don’t deserve it.
So we can see that “equality” is a one way gravy train for these money-hungry shebeasts.
It was also observed that many racial and ethnic minorities, specifically African American women, seem to be dealing with especially low numbers of economically attractive potential mates. Additionally, women on both the low end and high end of the socioeconomic spectrum face a harder time finding an economically compatible mate.
“Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men–men with a stable job and a good income–make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs,” explains lead author Dr. Daniel T. Lichter of Cornell University, in a media release. “Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.”
I love how it’s totally okay for these gold digging whorish women to objectify men as money objects. A man is only “marriage material” if his income hits a certain dollar amount.
Does this study not prove that most women are sleazy gold diggers who trade sex and affection for financial resources? Does this not prove that all women are essentially prostitutes trading sex for money? Marriage is little more than a long-term contract between a prostitute and a paying customer.
Now that women have been “liberated” and can have careers and earn their own living, their standards for men have increased exponentially. Instead of things leveling out where a woman didn’t mind marrying a partner with the same or lower income, most of these soulless shebeats have simply upped the ante, demanding a “prince charming” with a six figure (or more) salary.
The low marriage and high divorce rates are the exclusive culpability of women, folks. Women bring about 75% of all divorces in the West. And women apparently will only marry men who are loaded, thus leaving large scores of men out in the cold.
On top of this, most women have adopted toxic personality traits and attitudes, egged on by satanic feminism. Most Western women have become incredibly entitled, greedy, and egocentric. These women want to be dominant over their male partners, despite being the lower bread winner. They want to call all the shots. Sex is merely a tool which females use to control the men in their lives – or, more accurately, to control the bank accounts of those men. Principally, the woman wants control of how men’s money is spent because they are psychotic materialists.
As I’ve said many times, the modern world has killed relationships, dating and marriage. The power dynamic has shifted dramatically in favor of the inferior female, which has led to complete and total disaster. Narcissistic female whims are now what guides the trajectory of all relationships between men and women.
Here we have another commentary of the authors Mother. He must be proud of her.
Not an argument, bucko!!
I like the way the book’s author, after presenting so much data confirming that women take to prostitution as readily as ducks take to water, nonetheless says that LOL “Marriage is still based on love….” That makes sense only if he means “Marriage is still based on love–on men’s love of intimacy with the female and on women’s love of money.”
Lichter is a male feminist, perhaps?
In any case, Brandon’s “Marriage is little more than a long-term contract between a prostitute and a paying customer” is most apt and full of hard-nosed realism. It requires courage both to write and to face it, because unless one is a born woman-hater one feels nothing but chagrin in having to acknowledge such facts about women, about how little they’re able to love. One loves them and supposes, evidently unwarrantably, that they’ll love one in return.
I knew an old Chinese oyster shucker when I was in the seafood trade in San Francisco, decades ago. In his heavily accented English, he told me, a youngster, “Don’t get married. Go to whore. Cheaper.”
Yeah, ol’ Harry had seen what marriage, at least in the West, has become.
“No te cases. Ve a la puta. Más barato “.
So true funny how it seems
HAHAHA–Si, Trajano Emperador…. Mucho mas barato
Aw Francie, doncha have any contrary voluminous EVIDENCE to offer? Cancha do better than a silly cheap shot? Oh, I forgot: girlies aren’t so good at arguing in terms of advancing reasoned arguments and adducing evidence. They’re good at insults, snide remarks, nagging–and let’s not forget lying! That’s why in all the 2700-year history of philosophy there hasn’t been ONE great female philosopher, and only a couple of quite minor ones.
There is nothing funnier–and at the same time sickening–than you women complaining that MEN don’t and can’t love. You say that invariably because men value you so much for your body. But even if it WERE true that men loved you only for your body (and it isn’t), they’d still be loving people for themselves more than you do, because your body is you, part of you, while a man’s money is extrinsic to him, not part of his being.
I speak as a man who has been attracted to girls and women since age five, who’s had more than his fair share of them, who’s had them in three continents, and who, being a born romantic, has tried to experience true, reciprocal LOVE and passion in most every case. I’ve every reason to believe I’ve had relations in which women loved me for myself; but they were deplorably few in comparison to the relations whereby women tried to use my sex instinct as a weapon with which to rob me. And throughout my travels East and West, I’ve encountered countless Western men singing a familiar song–about how through marriage they lost their house, children, cars, money, future income through alimony.
And mind you: most of my liaisons occurred some good while back. These Western women of today do seem more corrupt, heartless and treacherous than previous generations. I’m proud of the younger fellows today who see them for what they are and refuse to be suckers and victims.
This is some low level type of bullshit: Trying to anger the author with cheap insults etc, to make him lose his cool and appear as an angry barbarian (Brandon doesn’t eat that bullshit).
It appears that this is the second time this “type” of “response” happens.
One might wonder then: Do we have someone who came two times on the site, obviously ‘disagreeing’ with the points on the site, just to do the precisely same lame crap? A repetitive objector?
There are all types of shills around. We have to logically assume that a site named martinezperspective.net (very straightforward) would naturally attract some of these anti-white anti-male shills.
P.S. When I look at a site I disagree with, I won’t bother making a comment to insult them. Let alone do this two times, let alone using almost the exact same words (I have more imagination than that).
Conclusion? It’s yours folks!
Since you’ve been in Spain did you ever meet up with your buddy gauliter?
I vaguely recall who that is. The weird Spaniard obsessed with prostitutes? If so, nope. Not sure where he lives.
attractive conservative women do this too. Its not a liberal she beast thing. its all women. and to go even further, everyman would up the looks of a woman and go for the hotter girl. Its not a liberal or a woman problem exactly. Its that all humans are opportunistic and would like to have the better option. Everybody wants the better thing, its human nature. yin yang, son.