why men don't chase rich women

Page 6 of 8 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jan 2014, 8:46 am

Eureka13 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
There IS a difference between "someone who earns less money than me" and "slacker," my definition of "slacker" being "someone who doesn't work because they've found they can always find somone else to mooch off of." I wouldn't date a slacker (at least not on purpose), but I can't remember the last time I went out with or got involved with someone who had the same earnings level (or greater) than me (and it's not like I earn oodles - but I do earn enough to support myself). I don't care if someone earns less than I do, so long as they contribute in some way to the relationship.

And there's also a difference between unemployed and unemployable.

Someone who is legitimately unemployable is probably so because they have other issues. The reason I wouldn't want to go out with them would most likely be because of those other issues, not because they didn't have a job.


Eureka13, we know the difference, we're not that ret*ds.


But you can't deny the tendency of hypergamy in women, and it's not only wealth wise.

For example, (for the majority of women at least), women no matter how tall they are, still prefer men taller than them.
No matter how high their IQs are, they still prefer men smarter than them.
No matter how educated they are, they still prefer men more educated than them.
etc...

Hypergamy is so real.


How much is a majority? More than half. It could be 51% of women who feel this way. Which means you're pissing off the other 49%. :lol:

Why wouldn't a woman want a man taller than herself, when the average man is taller than the average woman?
Since men are always claiming they are smarter than women, why wouldn't a woman want a man smarter than herself?
I don't actually believe there are statistics that "prove" that women want men more educated than themselves. Equally educated, perhaps.

To the extent that hypergamy exists on the female side, it exists to a much greater extent on the male side. Even the men on this forum with above-average intelligence often seem to view women as commodities, not as individuals.

I don't disagree that the "average" woman may have a slight preference the paradigm you keep touting as "what women want." What you keep failing to take into account (from my perspective, anyway) is there is not one single "average" woman on this forum. If we are autist and Aspie women, we already have a tendency to think more like a man (according to research that I believe you yourself have linked to).

So why the overweening female objectification from the guys around here?


A majority about more than 70% of women I know in real life (yes, I took time to use memory and count) and like 90% of women I knew online from other Arab, Middle East and Latina countries, and like about half of those from West (not WP).

As for sex objectification, you can also see it common among married NT men, it's not just a bitter single aspie thing, a rape culture thing and not related to pairing or hypergamy.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

17 Jan 2014, 1:30 am

LKL wrote:
I would want to date a man within five or 10 IQ points of me, in either direction; given a choice between a smarter man and a stupider man, *of course* I'm going to choose the smart one, all other things being equal. All other things being equal, I'd hope that a man would do the same.

I would want to date a man with a similar level of education to me, all other things being equal. Likewise, I would hope that a man would choose a woman with a similar or higher level of education as him, all other things being equal.

People of both genders pick the best partners that they can, and in *any* pairing there will be elements where the woman is 'higher status' than the man and elements where the man is 'higher status' than the woman; people who go on and on about the supposed greater "hypergamy" of women than men only look at the latter component.


Yes, they pic the best partner they can... but not using the same parameters than you hope they would.

From a man's perspective: (Personality aside...lets say both girls are equally agreeable in that regard)

1- Choose the smarter or dumber girl?

The male will almost always choose whichever is more appealing to him physically. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of brainpower.

2- Level of education? As in the previous choice, it matters not. This one we can even go into polar opposites. The gorgeously attractive one that is illiterate or the decent looking one that holds three PhD's?

The male will gain almost always choose the one that is more physically attractive to him. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of education.

When it comes to making the choice of a mating partner each sex has its priorities. The male goes for the physically attractive because they are the best gene-choice he can make.

For a female the choice is a lot more complex... its partly his looks (genes) but his resources weigh in significantly because from her perspective, for her genes only get passed on if the children survive. She can only bear children once a year and its her one, very energy and time consuming (18yrs if preggo!) and clock-is-ticking choice (fertile years are numbered).

For this you can say the wealthier he is the higher her tolerance for his lower rating in the physical attraction indicator.

But you will not find the same tolerance scales on the opposite sex unless it was overwhelming. A man would hardly choose an ugly yet wealthier woman as his mate unless his financial situation wasn't good and she was a millionaire in comparison...nor would a woman choose an extraordinarily handsome and manly man that comes from extreme poverty unless her financial situation was very independent and secure enough to support her kids and that man.

You really can't approach this from a politically correct or 'modern morality' perspective. This is hard wired primate behavior.



Flyer
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: Lithuania

17 Jan 2014, 3:02 am

If it's about genes then your current situation wouldn't change a thing. A rich woman would still want a richer man. If a woman changes her priorities based on her financial situation then those priorities aren't hard wired. Are they?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Jan 2014, 4:08 am

Dantac wrote:
LKL wrote:
I would want to date a man within five or 10 IQ points of me, in either direction; given a choice between a smarter man and a stupider man, *of course* I'm going to choose the smart one, all other things being equal. All other things being equal, I'd hope that a man would do the same.

I would want to date a man with a similar level of education to me, all other things being equal. Likewise, I would hope that a man would choose a woman with a similar or higher level of education as him, all other things being equal.

People of both genders pick the best partners that they can, and in *any* pairing there will be elements where the woman is 'higher status' than the man and elements where the man is 'higher status' than the woman; people who go on and on about the supposed greater "hypergamy" of women than men only look at the latter component.


Yes, they pic the best partner they can... but not using the same parameters than you hope they would.

From a man's perspective: (Personality aside...lets say both girls are equally agreeable in that regard)

1- Choose the smarter or dumber girl?

The male will almost always choose whichever is more appealing to him physically. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of brainpower.

2- Level of education? As in the previous choice, it matters not. This one we can even go into polar opposites. The gorgeously attractive one that is illiterate or the decent looking one that holds three PhD's?

The male will gain almost always choose the one that is more physically attractive to him. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of education.



I don't relate but I don't disagree either, I did see much emphasis on the physical part from males but I don't think it is that simple.
I knew a great number of very handsome and very smart/successful guys (Senior Engineers / Project Managers) who ended marrying very very average-looking women, ALL of them. And it's not just me, their female friends said they went for significantly less goodlooking partners with surprising tone - they are often called ugly by them, btw, not only men put much value on women's value but women too put even more value on it. These engineers aren't the most socially skilled tho, they didn't have a high record of gfs.

However, I knew quite few socially skilled guys back in college who were very successful in dating, one them was a close friends of mine and despite him being fat he was a successful player, and always had serial short-term relationships and sex with the very "hot" gorgeous-looking girls, he had a very cute long-term interest (college colleague) apart who also wanted to be his gf - he actually admitted his love to her (and despite me advising him to stop fooling around and stick to that one girl, he didn't listen and he screwed it eventually after she found out).

It's not just one case or two, most men I knew who had very good-looking gfs, ended up with wives very average looks-wise, some of them are houswives but others are career women too, it is obvious that they emphasis on things other than looks: mostly on loyalty and being as issues-free as possible.


Quote:
1- Choose the smarter or dumber girl?

The male will almost always choose whichever is more appealing to him physically. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of brainpower.

Based on my observation, the male basically chooses whichever who accepts him, he wouldn't be able to pick the hotter who rejects him after all even if he wanted her more than the other. Of course, he would have asked women out based on some criteria so they are already being filtered, but they are usually wide.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 17 Jan 2014, 10:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

Uprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,908

17 Jan 2014, 4:20 am

So you people are saying that there is no single rich and great-looking woman in this world whatsoever who would date a guy who is less rich and worse looking than her?



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Jan 2014, 9:02 am

Quote:
It's not just one case or two, most men I knew who had very good-looking gfs, ended up with wives very average looks-wise, some of them are houswives but others are career women too, it is obvious that they emphasis on things other than luck: mostly on loyalty and being as issues-free as possible.


I have been told by many men that bimbos are for chasing when you're young and to have brief flings with and to treat as sexual objects, but the woman they want to marry is the sweet "girl next door" who may not necessarily be beautiful.

Conversely, I think it's primarily the bimbos (not the "girl next door") who are after men for their money, because they know how easily they can manipulate a man into parting with some of it.

For women, the superficially attractive type may be the "playah." Again, someone to go out with and let him lavish her with expensive dates for awhile, but no one that any woman in her right mind would want to settle down with for a lifetime.

I don't see many people on this forum who fall into either of those extremes.

When very little to none of it applies to the people here, what's the point of continuing to harp on the far ends of the gender spectrum, the extreme, shallow, stereotyped behavior of men and women, not what is really the norm. I'm not sure why you want to foster gender wars on here, but it seems to me it's doing more harm than good - serving only the purpose to make each gender more and more bitter about the shortcomings of the other. I hear a lot of people say on here after one of these discussions "I might as well resign myself to being alone forever." What is the purpose of fueling that sort of feeling here?



BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,343

17 Jan 2014, 9:25 am

^
Eureka, are you saying that all or most good looking/beautiful women are "bimbos" and at least potential gold diggers? If I'm misunderstanding something here would you care to elaborate as the post you quoted addressed mostly looks, not behaviour?

As far as I'm concerned, I never had any kind of interest into the "girl next door" stereotype, especially as a wife and I'm not alone in my preference. Fortunately, most women are far more diverse and faceted than "nice girls" and "bimbos" and none of my girlfriends or my wife would fit these labels.

It's still very confusing to me to see this subject represented in such extreme, black and white terms. Hell, I'm so grateful most people are actually much more complex and interesting than this! :lol: Life and especially love would be so drab and boring otherwise...


_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley


BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,343

17 Jan 2014, 9:39 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I knew a great number of very handsome and very smart/successful guys (Senior Engineers / Project Managers) who ended marrying very very average-looking women, ALL of them. And it's not just me, their female friends say they went for significantly less goodlooking partners with surprising tone - they are often called ugly by them, btw, not only men put much value on women's value but women too put even more value on it. These engineers aren't the most socially skilled tho, they didn't have a high record of gfs.


Sure, when you're very young and interested mostly in sex or casual relationships, you will most likely focus on looks, especially if you can choose.

As you grow older, at least if you had any experience, you figure quite quickly you might not want to spend the rest of your life with a beautiful imbecile, lust in itself doesn't last that long if it's not fuelled by other factors. So priories will change, and while most of us are still reacting to "hot" women, other things will take precedent over looks. If you're not completely inexperienced or out of touch with reality, by then you know that looks won't make or break a marriage and other factors will play a much bigger part in how a relationship endures.


_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Jan 2014, 10:10 am

Eureka13 wrote:
Quote:
It's not just one case or two, most men I knew who had very good-looking gfs, ended up with wives very average looks-wise, some of them are houswives but others are career women too, it is obvious that they emphasis on things other than luck: mostly on loyalty and being as issues-free as possible.


I have been told by many men that bimbos are for chasing when you're young and to have brief flings with and to treat as sexual objects, but the woman they want to marry is the sweet "girl next door" who may not necessarily be beautiful.

Conversely, I think it's primarily the bimbos (not the "girl next door") who are after men for their money, because they know how easily they can manipulate a man into parting with some of it.

For women, the superficially attractive type may be the "playah." Again, someone to go out with and let him lavish her with expensive dates for awhile, but no one that any woman in her right mind would want to settle down with for a lifetime.

I don't see many people on this forum who fall into either of those extremes.

When very little to none of it applies to the people here, what's the point of continuing to harp on the far ends of the gender spectrum, the extreme, shallow, stereotyped behavior of men and women, not what is really the norm. I'm not sure why you want to foster gender wars on here, but it seems to me it's doing more harm than good - serving only the purpose to make each gender more and more bitter about the shortcomings of the other. I hear a lot of people say on here after one of these discussions "I might as well resign myself to being alone forever." What is the purpose of fueling that sort of feeling here?


So me saying that a lot of men don't go for looks is fueling gender war here?
Seriously, what's wrong with you?

It's you who's fueling gender war by categorizing women into two narrow groups.



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Jan 2014, 11:12 am

Nope, I was wondering why you seem to keep pushing the gender stereotypes (your insistence on the paradigm of hypergamy, for example), if the part of your post that I quoted has been your experience.

My experience is that there is a bell curve of personality types for both men and women - a few who fit the extreme gender stereotype of each gender at the top end of the curve, and a few who fit the extreme anti-gender stereotype at the bottom end. The vast majority of everyone else falls somewhere in the middle, so anyone who believes that ALL members of a gender are somewhere at either extreme is, IMO, horribly misguided.

I don't think anyone can ever be happy in a relationship until a) they accept and love themselves for who they are, and b) they treat every other person as an individual and stop tarring them with the brush of bad past experiences.

YES, there are a few bad apples in both genders (the bimbos/golddiggers and playahs/PUAs), but until any given individual stops blaming his/her own bad luck with dating/love/relationships on gender stereotypes, that person is going to be miserable and alone. Period.



tarantella64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,850

17 Jan 2014, 10:42 pm

Dantac wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Cynic wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
Men are attractive for their manlihood, the ability to provide for a family and serve himself. The ability to come off better in a fight. It's engrained into our genes.

That's the 100% truth. Females seek males for money + power. End of story. Males seek females to enhance their status. End of story. Many deny it, but the truth is staring you in the face. Get over yourselves.


No you get over yourself and go out and get to know some real human beings. Not all people are shallow self obsessed morons. I feel sorry that you don't know any nice well rounded people with interests and aspirations other than money and showing off. They are out there. Ugh!


Read up the David Buss study on female vs male (what each prioritizes in the other). Essentially the study covered cultures world wide, from extremely poor and undeveloped villages in the middle of Africa to people in large cities in 1st world countries...of all economic and social status. Regardless of culture, women always sought the male with better resources as priority, looks/personality came after. Males sought looks/beauty first, everything else after.

People are shallow self obsessed beings. No matter how you want to give yourself a moral high ground the truth is you won't be asking out the superbly charming/handsome yet also superbly homeless guy asking for money around the corner. You're far more likely to go out with the decent looking PhD guy that drives that new high end Mercedes. 'tis how things are.


So the guy who's correct ("go out and get to know some real human beings") is answered incorrectly by the guy citing a study.

Certified woman who turned down a real live millionaire speaking: Hale_Bopp et al, you have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest meeting some actual women. Primary sources & all.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Jan 2014, 2:01 am

Dantac wrote:
LKL wrote:
I would want to date a man within five or 10 IQ points of me, in either direction; given a choice between a smarter man and a stupider man, *of course* I'm going to choose the smart one, all other things being equal. All other things being equal, I'd hope that a man would do the same.

I would want to date a man with a similar level of education to me, all other things being equal. Likewise, I would hope that a man would choose a woman with a similar or higher level of education as him, all other things being equal.

People of both genders pick the best partners that they can, and in *any* pairing there will be elements where the woman is 'higher status' than the man and elements where the man is 'higher status' than the woman; people who go on and on about the supposed greater "hypergamy" of women than men only look at the latter component.


Yes, they pic the best partner they can... but not using the same parameters than you hope they would.

From a man's perspective: (Personality aside...lets say both girls are equally agreeable in that regard)

1- Choose the smarter or dumber girl?

The male will almost always choose whichever is more appealing to him physically. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of brainpower.

2- Level of education? As in the previous choice, it matters not. This one we can even go into polar opposites. The gorgeously attractive one that is illiterate or the decent looking one that holds three PhD's?

The male will gain almost always choose the one that is more physically attractive to him. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of education.

Did you miss the "all other things being equal" part? That means equal hotness, equal physical attractiveness.
Quote:
When it comes to making the choice of a mating partner each sex has its priorities. The male goes for the physically attractive because they are the best gene-choice he can make.

What, women's intelligence and ability to be educated don't affect the intelligence or ability to be educated of their children? Men's physical hotness doesn't affect the physical hotness of his children?
Quote:
For a female the choice is a lot more complex... its partly his looks (genes) but his resources weigh in significantly because from her perspective, for her genes only get passed on if the children survive. She can only bear children once a year and its her one, very energy and time consuming (18yrs if preggo!) and clock-is-ticking choice (fertile years are numbered).

Two points: one, men's genes don't get passed on if the kids die before producing grandkids, either. Second, in the ancestral environment, excluding only the last few hundred years, nobody lived much beyond 40, including men. They had a ticking clock, too.
Quote:
For this you can say the wealthier he is the higher her tolerance for his lower rating in the physical attraction indicator.

Wait, now we're talking about wealth? I thought we were talking about intelligence and education.
Quote:
But you will not find the same tolerance scales on the opposite sex unless it was overwhelming. A man would hardly choose an ugly yet wealthier woman as his mate unless his financial situation wasn't good and she was a millionaire in comparison...nor would a woman choose an extraordinarily handsome and manly man that comes from extreme poverty unless her financial situation was very independent and secure enough to support her kids and that man.

If she's ugly (say, 50 lbs overweight) but young and healthy, you might find that the decision matrices are actually pretty similar.
Likewise, the decision's going to be different if the woman already has kids, or if she doesn't; she might choose a wealthy old curmudgeon if she's already had kids and doesn't want any more, but she's less likely to go for him if she doesn't have kids, and wants them.

In any case, very few people are going to marry someone of any gender, unless it's someone whom they feel that they can understand, and be understood by, and someone whom they can get along with at the end of the day. There's very little that's worse than hating the idea of going home because you can't stand the person there.

Quote:
You really can't approach this from a politically correct or 'modern morality' perspective. This is hard wired primate behavior.

eyeahh, it's kind of funny how many people think that they know more about evolution than a trained biologist on this board. No matter how many popular science articles you read, it doesn't make men and women as different as you'd probably like to think.

Also, even if it were true that men are always and only ever concerned with "hotness" in a mate, how does that not count as a form of "hypergamy" as well?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Jan 2014, 5:54 am

^ because by definition, hypergamy doesn't include hotness, hotness can be hardly measured while wealth, age, education level, height are easily measured.

"Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is the act or practice of marrying someone of higher caste or status than oneself.[1] Although the term is not gendered, it is generally used by social scientists to refer to women marrying higher-status men, rather than to men marrying higher-status women.[2]"



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Jan 2014, 5:59 am

tarantella64 wrote:
Dantac wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Cynic wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
Men are attractive for their manlihood, the ability to provide for a family and serve himself. The ability to come off better in a fight. It's engrained into our genes.

That's the 100% truth. Females seek males for money + power. End of story. Males seek females to enhance their status. End of story. Many deny it, but the truth is staring you in the face. Get over yourselves.


No you get over yourself and go out and get to know some real human beings. Not all people are shallow self obsessed morons. I feel sorry that you don't know any nice well rounded people with interests and aspirations other than money and showing off. They are out there. Ugh!


Read up the David Buss study on female vs male (what each prioritizes in the other). Essentially the study covered cultures world wide, from extremely poor and undeveloped villages in the middle of Africa to people in large cities in 1st world countries...of all economic and social status. Regardless of culture, women always sought the male with better resources as priority, looks/personality came after. Males sought looks/beauty first, everything else after.

People are shallow self obsessed beings. No matter how you want to give yourself a moral high ground the truth is you won't be asking out the superbly charming/handsome yet also superbly homeless guy asking for money around the corner. You're far more likely to go out with the decent looking PhD guy that drives that new high end Mercedes. 'tis how things are.


So the guy who's correct ("go out and get to know some real human beings") is answered incorrectly by the guy citing a study.

Certified woman who turned down a real live millionaire speaking: Hale_Bopp et al, you have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest meeting some actual women. Primary sources & all.


Hale_bopp is a certified woman too.



tarantella64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,850

18 Jan 2014, 11:59 am

Then she's universalizing her view inappropriately. I work with many women whose careers are more successful than their husbands', and make more money. I make quite a bit more than my boyfriend does, a situation to which his ASness has no doubt contributed. That millionaire of mine also happened to be smart and goodlooking, and he had a swell mom, with whom I'm still friends 20 years later. I just didn't want to go live in his world, and he wasn't going to leave it.

Not all that many capable women are looking for save-me-protect-me-support-me men, partly because too many of those men rely on "Me big strong save lady" for a sense of identity and self-worth and status among other men, and get all dejected (and sometimes angry) if the woman demonstrably looks after herself and enjoys doing it. You ought to look into the notion of companionate marriage.

The other thing is that a really accomplished or successful woman isn't likely to have a lot of patience with men who don't bring much to the table in terms of energy, accomplishment (which doesn't necessarily mean money), interest in life, intelligence/curiosity, etc. Because he'll mostly get in her way. Same is true when high-powered men go shopping for wives: they want someone who'll improve their life, not be someone who has to have everything done for her. Rich men's wives are some of the most ferocious managers I know, really get s**t done.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

20 Jan 2014, 3:40 pm

tarantella64 wrote:
Then she's universalizing her view inappropriately. I work with many women whose careers are more successful than their husbands', and make more money. I make quite a bit more than my boyfriend does, a situation to which his ASness has no doubt contributed. That millionaire of mine also happened to be smart and goodlooking, and he had a swell mom, with whom I'm still friends 20 years later. I just didn't want to go live in his world, and he wasn't going to leave it.


More a quite bit doesn't really count, do some of your friends make a LOT than their men?

Quote:
Not all that many capable women are looking for save-me-protect-me-support-me men, partly because too many of those men rely on "Me big strong save lady" for a sense of identity and self-worth and status among other men, and get all dejected (and sometimes angry) if the woman demonstrably looks after herself and enjoys doing it. You ought to look into the notion of companionate marriage.


Well true, I didn't say they would be after traditional men.

Quote:
The other thing is that a really accomplished or successful woman isn't likely to have a lot of patience with men who don't bring much to the table in terms of energy, accomplishment (which doesn't necessarily mean money), interest in life, intelligence/curiosity, etc. Because he'll mostly get in her way. Same is true when high-powered men go shopping for wives: they want someone who'll improve their life, not be someone who has to have everything done for her. Rich men's wives are some of the most ferocious managers I know, really get sh** done
.

Ok, now here when things can get blurry, unless the man has some .....great talent, and does non-lucrative painting, writing...etc or does a lot of humanitarian non lucrative activities (but those people are exceptional and rare), how else a man can demonstrate his accomplishments without being manifested by money?