How important is a man's job when it comes to dating?

So that would be a "no" to my question then :p

I think it was said well earlier in the thread. That it appears someones "job" is only one of many variables. And context is everything. Two people can have the same job but be in it for very different reasons and be in a very different place in their life while doing it. I would expect that what someones job is tends to come into WHY they happen to be in that job.

But it seems regardless of job that people seem to end up in relationships anyway. There are doctors in relationships and not. There are McDonalds people in relationships and not. And everything in between. So it does appear that job really comes into it. People end up in relationships regardless of what jobs they are in.

You clearly didn't check. 🙄

Yeah, job is a variable, thats been established. Thats what OP is asking, check the title of the thread.

Women find a mans job/finances to be important. Men may too but to a far lower extent. A woman's job title doesn't come up in playboy. There is no male mills and boon with a fancy title female character. On average we don't care. We dont experience pregnancy so we don't have to rely on a partner for 9 months. Part of anthropology, women have historically needed a resource rich man if they're to procreate safely and successfully.

Somebody earlier said that Merkle is chancellor but still a lardass, and that being chancellor doesn't mean men will be more attracted to her. And they were right, it wont make her more attractive to men....but what they didn't say was that a far lesser title wont make her less attractive to men, on the visceral level. Merkle as an Ikea worker and Merkle as chancellor are effectively equally attractive, some small variation. The weather girl will have far more men chasing her.

I can not check what is not there. The liar accusation simply did not happen. Quote it if it did.

I think everyone has already agreed that its a variable sure. But it doesnt seem to be as large a variable as many people want to make out. It's just one of many. Even within a single job for example.... two people as I said could have the exact same job but the context of that can differ widely between the two. A person can be working in McDonalds and be totally with it and have their life together. The next guy in McDonalds might all over the place and not have it together at all. So if a person dating is being asked what their job is.... there is likely a lot more going on there than just trying to find out their earning potentials. What a person's career is can often but not always be a window into what makes them who they are. It's not their job thats important therefore... but what their job says about them too.

The article you linked to of course says a lot of that too. Gender role expectations seem to play a bigger role than anything else in what the study was saying. It seemingly was not saying that the earnings or different jobs were a predictor of divorce rather than the effect of feeling like gender roles are being affected. If men are unhappy because they feel like they are not being "real men" (whatever that means) then an unhappy marriage will certainly be a potential result then.

No evidence for this of course but I have always had the FEELING that gender roles as a concept is dying off. I would not see that as a bad thing at all. The expectations that being a man means something silly like having to be the main earner.... is just toxic. And if it is making men suffer needlessly or harming marriages.... we should undermine the narratives that got them there.

That was me, I was responding to a guy who had already made your point, effectively rounding it out. He quoted this piece of wisdom, in slightly edited form:

Halle Berry's p***y is the same as the b***h that works at McDonald's p***y.” - Patrice O'Neal 

I think the point of the quote is if the 'McDonalds b***h' is young and hot she's just as as good as Halle Berry on a visceral level...

Not any time recently, although rumour has it she was a bit of a goer in her younger day, when she was between marriages. Doubt she'd find too many male takers even if she did want to revisit that lifestyle in her retirement...

There could be something implied in post 85. Why are you laboring this irrelevance. Focus on the topic instead of weirdly obsessing over pedantic nonsense.

Hypergamy is a visceral thing. Its instinctual. Part of nature. Other male species develop elaborate plumage, un-necessarily large tusks and various other displays of resourcefulness. And the female looks for these signs. We do this with various status symbols like cars and titles. And human female nature is to look for these things. Women normally mate up and across. Visceral desires are for reliable resourceful dependable men to be there to provide during pregnancy and to bring home the bread for the children.

Plenty of other things will factor in, but OP's question is 'how important' and the answer is that it is certainly an important factor. Hypergamy, or this reliance by women for a dependable, resource rich man has made its way through thousands of years of evolution, so life itself is telling us that yeah its definitely important.

Well there's different kinds of tall. I don't think gawky/geeky tall of the Peter Crouch/Steve Merchant variety would generally be perceived as a great look...

what never happened? what are you even talking about? do you even know any more?

All I ever asked was why do women who earn more divorce at a higher than average rate. Which they do.

Women's propensity to date up has made it through centuries of human evolution, so yeah its important. Anything on the instinctual level is.

Which liar claim?

The university article of the aforementioned study did not reach a definite conclusion, it merely suggested possible explanations. What was definite within the article however was the following "Women outearn their husbands in nearly a quarter of households with spouses between 18 and 65 years old, according to data from the 2010 American Community Survey"

Or for the context of this thread "Women outearn their husbands in ONLY a quarter of households with spouses between 18 and 65 years old, according to data from the 2010 American Community Survey.

Pregnancy is expensive. And through evolution the hypergamy instinct has survived. And it points women towards men who can provide. 'No romance without finance' as the song goes. 'Women date up and across the hierarchy' as the professor says. If you're looking to date a woman your job will be in some way important, and theres no escaping down the 'subjectivity' black-hole on that.

There is a slang term for a fancy car, salesmen use it when selling to men. Pussy magnet. There are no dick magnet cars.

OP I would point you to the various doctors in the fields of human psychology which I've provided, there are documentaries out there on human mate selection which bring up career and earning potential, and reach the same conclusion as the mythbusters. Pay attention to clichés, you dont necessarily have to believe them ... but clichés often exist for a reason, not always, but often. They can contain grains of truth. And artistic expression can be a window to the mind of the artist, I dont want no scrubs. I got money in the bank.

Bill collectors at my door.

What can you do for me.

There seems to be two different things being discussed then. The question was how important it is. For many people it's not. Just like height, or weight, or breast size, or sense of humor, or any other subjective measure. People are diverse and complicated. What is important some will not be important to others.

The relative numbers of women out earning their partner is a different thing. That does not answer the question asked by the OP as to whether it's important or not. That's just stating what the current state of affairs happens to be. There are all kinds of explanations for that kind of thing too. Some people would want to suggest that it is related to "gender pay gaps" for example. Others deny any such thing exists.

Other than that it's going around in circles though. The study in question was about gender roles and their effect. Which is again different to what the OPs question is. But the navel gazing keeps missing the fact that people of all walks of life and all earning levels end up in relationships. Which begs the question of how "important" it is overall. Not very it seems to many such people.

In social interactions though, not just dating, career is quite relevant. It tends to be one of the first things people ask about when you meet new people. Not because they are evaluating your earnings.... but because our career can be a large part of who we are. So it's an easy go to ice breaker.

Anyhoo I will bow out at this point. I am not really adding anything to the thread not already said, and not getting much out of it any more either. So will move on.

"keeps missing the fact that people of all walks of life and all earning levels end up in relationships"

and while on their way into that relationship, the males will face an obstacle which filters on the basis of earning potential.

so in general you will end up with women dating ... in the words of the professor ... across and up.

you will have exceptions. But on average the high earning female graduate won't end up with the blue collar guy.

Prof Saad has shown that in clinical studies you can make female respondents see a man as more attractive by putting him in a fancier car, a fancier apartment, or as per the question of this thread by giving him a fancier title. Mythbusters replicated this, and I've seen it replicated in a third documentary. Its evolutionary, its important. Thank you. Adios.

No Punt no ****.