Are Asian men only valued for their money? If so that sucks!

[WanderingProtagonist]

What exactly would men expect to be valued for by females if not resources and/or protection? That is what females value in real relationships with men. That's the deal. The fact that the communist regime usurps the provider position in the West is why proper relationships are not generally possible.

Protection? You make it sound like women can't fight or are incapable of using firearms.
Do you guys ever read any history books at all? You do realize there are women in the world armed and it doesn't require any skill to fire a gun at someone that's a threat to your safety. women don't need protection other than elderly ones. In the U.S. almost everyone is armed, and that includes women. So I wouldn't' go around assuming they are all incapable of self defense. Guns don't require any skill to save your life against a threat. And in the U.S. alone almost everyone is carrying. When people say protect, they aught to define the meaning of the word protect. Men endure violence more so than women do. If anything we're the ones that need to be protected from society, not women who are sheltered, coddled, and have hordes of white knights on stand by ready to play hero.

[Cornfed]

What exactly would men expect to be valued for by females if not resources and/or protection? That is what females value in real relationships with men. That's the deal. The fact that the communist regime usurps the provider position in the West is why proper relationships are not generally possible.

Protection? You make it sound like women can't fight or are incapable of using firearms.
Do you guys ever read any history books at all? You do realize there are women in the world armed? And I hate to say it, but those Turkish females were making a fool out of Isis. They literately got their asses kicked by women.

The argument is silly, but if you were right and females in question don't need you then there is no basis for a relationship.

[WanderingProtagonist]

What exactly would men expect to be valued for by females if not resources and/or protection? That is what females value in real relationships with men. That's the deal. The fact that the communist regime usurps the provider position in the West is why proper relationships are not generally possible.

Protection? You make it sound like women can't fight or are incapable of using firearms.
Do you guys ever read any history books at all? You do realize there are women in the world armed? And I hate to say it, but those Turkish females were making a fool out of Isis. They literately got their asses kicked by women.

The argument is silly, but if you were right and females in question don't need you then there is no basis for a relationship.

I never said that they didn't need me. I'm saying they shouldn't be entirely relying on me for things they are able to do themselves. What do they need protection from? A guy ten times my size that can kick my ass? And make a fool out of me for being dumb enough to fight a guy I'm destined to lose against anyway?

Are you going to go around fighting physically with every man on the block over a damn woman with men
just to prove you are her protector? Do you expect her to fight every woman that starts trouble with you?
The only women I'll fight for are my sisters, cousins, mom, aunt, grandmother. But defending the honor of a woman that will just forget about me in a couple of days the moment she finds someone? yeah right, that's a worthy reward for proving my toughness. You got people who won't even fight for this country, why would a woman be all that important that you will defend and protect, but can't even stand your own nation to do the exact same thing for?

[Cornfed]

I never said that they didn't need me. I'm saying they shouldn't be entirely relying on me for things they are able to do themselves. What do they need protection from? A guy ten times my size that can kick my ass?

The general idea is that the female is on balance safer for being in a relationship with you then not. If that is not the case then that is problematic for the relationship.

[WanderingProtagonist]

I never said that they didn't need me. I'm saying they shouldn't be entirely relying on me for things they are able to do themselves. What do they need protection from? A guy ten times my size that can kick my ass?

The general idea is that the female is on balance safer for being in a relationship with you then not. If that is not the case then that is problematic for the relationship.

Maybe, but its been years since I even pursued a woman so I rarely even care what women today want or seek out in a man. If they want to feel protected, they can just do like my cousin did. Purchase a firearm. Problem solved. I for one won't fight every man that makes a pass a girl I'm dating, for one it makes you look like a jealous idiot. Two if she had sense she would tell the other guy she's not interested and the both of you walk away. If she giggles and acts like a dumb whore to his gestures, then you know you're being tested by both him and her. That's when you walk the F off and dance with another girl in front of her to teach her sorry ass a lesson for trying to get a conflict started. On a personal note, I believe couples should work together when it comes down to resources and all that stuff in a relationship. And you honestly can't always be around to protect her from every threat either. So, she should obviously know and understand some survival abilities with or without you. Even basic stuff like rationing food in case of emergencies, knowing some medical techniques, things like that. It doesn't have to always be conflict related when it comes down to protecting someone.

[Lucas88]

I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage.

This is the crux of the problem, you defined a man's earning ability as his "greatest bargaining chip" but it isn't and never has been, a man's greatest bargaining chip is his masculinity and charm and basic appeal to a woman, that is always going to be his greatest bargaining chip, not his $$$.
Being a successful capable provider is a positive masculine trait because it probably indicates he's been charting a course for himself and has his own goals and is driving forward toward those (which is usually attractive to women), but the verdict is already in bigtime that a bunch of beta males prioritizing a good job and then expecting the women to show up is not a good strategy.

My uncle is living proof that masculinity (primal) and charm are a far greater bargaining chip for men than earning ability. My uncle works as a humble garbage collector while his attractive wife of more than two decades is the headteacher of a prestigious academy and earns a much higher salary. Needless to say, my uncle is an absolute stud. Even in his late 50s he is in phenomenal physical shape with biceps like Popeye, has a strong masculine jawline and a tanned Italianesque phenotype somewhat like Robert De Niro, always displays rugged masculine behavior and is a legitimate tough guy with the ability to fight, and is blessed with a whole lot of charm and charisma. He was always loved by the ladies but settled down with his wife who, despite being a successful professional woman, chose to marry him over any wealthier or more professionally successful man. She loves my uncle for his primal masculinity, sexy male physique, unusual charm, fun-lovingness, and heart of gold. My aunt doesn't care about my uncle's low salary. She would rather be plowed by a primally masculine, exciting alpha male to whom she is genuinely attracted and who turns her on in the most primal sense than by an unattractive beta male who happens to be wealthy and professionally successful. She has her own money after all.

I agree that relying on a good job and a high income is not a very good strategy (much to the chagrin of many professionally successful yet not very attractive betas) and stand by my assertion that gym maxxing and the cultivation of primal masculinity (as well as learning what you call "dating skills") are a much better strategy. I mean, many women earn their own money in this day and age and don't even need a guy to support them. I know that plenty of "RedPill" men want us to go back to a time in which men alone dominated the workforce and most women stayed at home, but I always got the impression that a subset of those men (mostly sexually unsuccessful betas or sometimes outright incels) simply desired to push women into a state of financial dependency so that they may have more power over them and force them to date/marry them. I understand that they want to shift the power dynamic in men's favor but at the same time I've never felt comfortable with the idea of a woman being with me simply because she depends on me out of financial desperation and needs me for my resources. If a woman chooses to be with me, I want it to be because she is genuinely attracted to me, not simply due to a situation of financial dependency as was often the case in previous times.

[WanderingProtagonist]

I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage.

This is the crux of the problem, you defined a man's earning ability as his "greatest bargaining chip" but it isn't and never has been, a man's greatest bargaining chip is his masculinity and charm and basic appeal to a woman, that is always going to be his greatest bargaining chip, not his $$$.
Being a successful capable provider is a positive masculine trait because it probably indicates he's been charting a course for himself and has his own goals and is driving forward toward those (which is usually attractive to women), but the verdict is already in bigtime that a bunch of beta males prioritizing a good job and then expecting the women to show up is not a good strategy.

My uncle is living proof that masculinity (primal) and charm are a far greater bargaining chip for men than earning ability. My uncle works as a humble garbage collector while his attractive wife of more than two decades is the headteacher of a prestigious academy and earns a much higher salary. Needless to say, my uncle is an absolute stud. Even in his late 50s he is in phenomenal physical shape with biceps like Popeye, has a strong masculine jawline and a tanned Italianesque phenotype somewhat like Robert De Niro, always displays rugged masculine behavior and is a legitimate tough guy with the ability to fight, and is blessed with a whole lot of charm and charisma. He was always loved by the ladies but settled down with his wife who, despite being a successful professional woman, chose to marry him over any wealthier or more professionally successful man. She loves my uncle for his primal masculinity, sexy male physique, unusual charm, fun-lovingness, and heart of gold. My aunt doesn't care about my uncle's low salary. She would rather be plowed by a primally masculine, exciting alpha male to whom she is genuinely attracted and who turns her on in the most primal sense than by an unattractive beta male who happens to be wealthy and professionally successful. She has her own money after all.

I agree that relying on a good job and a high income is not a very good strategy (much to the chagrin of many professionally successful yet not very attractive betas) and stand by my assertion that gym maxxing and the cultivation of primal masculinity (as well as learning what you call "dating skills") are a much better strategy. I mean, many women earn their own money in this day and age and don't even need a guy to support them. I know that plenty of "RedPill" men want us to go back to a time in which men alone dominated the workforce and most women stayed at home, but I always got the impression that a subset of those men (mostly sexually unsuccessful betas or sometimes outright incels) simply desired to push women into a state of financial dependency so that they may have more power over them and force them to date/marry them. I understand that they want to shift the power dynamic in men's favor but at the same time I've never felt comfortable with the idea of a woman being with me simply because she depends on me out of financial desperation and needs me for my resources. If a woman chooses to be with me, I want it to be because she is genuinely attracted to me, not simply due to a situation of financial dependency as was often the case in previous times.

I wouldn't say they are betas or incels. For one thing beta's are the kind of guys that get off on being cuckold, they love the idea of giving power to women not taking it away from them. In all fairness I wouldn't mind being the dominant one in the relationship at all, but the thing is women will always have jobs/careers. If a man want a woman that is depended upon him, he'll have to find himself a poor girl or someone with little to no education. Because women that have careers and earn their own money will most likely not depend on you.

I don't want a woman that;'s with me for resource reasons, because then she would just betray and walk out on me the moment I start struggling and I don't want this insecurity on my mind worrying all the time about losing someone I'm attached to all because I failed. Some men believe in the old ways, and I call some of those ways old fashioned because of the simple fact. Too many women in the world make their own money, sometimes even more so than the men that want them.

For what it's worth I do want to be needed and depended upon. Just not financially, and I want someone tough enough to stand by me if I hit rock bottom or even ended up homeless. There are women like this in the world, and I'd like to believe they are genuine to turn down someone that could keep a roof above their heads vs betraying someone based on her survival needs. Otherwise that would make it harder for the man to even recover knowing he lost his work, home, and now the woman he thought loved him but didn't because she refuse to struggle side by side with him.

[Cornfed]

My uncle is living proof that masculinity (primal) and charm are a far greater bargaining chip for men than earning ability.

Some female keeping you around as a housepet does not constitute bargaining ability.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

@WanderingProtagonist
I agree with you 100% on pretty much all that: Whether a woman wants to value a man's earning ability is her business, and I can see it makes sense if a woman is poor or not very financially secure if she wants her man for a serious relationship to earn adequately well, but for those of us who aren't scared of professional women who ALREADY have enough money or sometimes more then enough, where's the problem? I come from a poor background (way under poverty line) so I'd be open to a woman from a poor background for sure so we'd have some things in common (also good because women born into way higher living standards theoretically might be taking it too hard if times got tough), but in some ways a fully independent career woman is a better prospect since you know she's interested in you for other reasons than money, since she already has plenty of her own.
Obviously it's better for the sake of our own personal goals as men to have $$$ and be successful on our own terms for our own reasons (not just to flash $$ around at women to try to act "high status"), but I don't see it as relevant where romance with women is concerned: If a woman earns and is fully financially self-sufficient and even more successful than me, great, it shows she actually values something else about me and is not gold-digging. (And it's not just "lust", like the other guy said, a lot of women are still interested in romance and love too even if making it last is often easier said than done for most people.)

Also, in some countries (China for example) there's some highly successful professional women who are frustrated because the men want them to quit their own successful jobs because the men are also obsessed with "status" they don't want their woman earning more than they do because they think it'd be a loss of face. So the women they'd otherwise want are trying to get with them, yet the men want to make her quit her job so she isn't earning more than him. *face-palms*

There's also the issue of some tradpill and redpill types making a mistake (IMO) when they're obsessed with wanting women to be in a position of economic dependency. Not necessarily the CE guy you were responding to (I don't know what his opinion would be on that), but a lot of the guys who think they're supposed "traditionalists" pretty much flat-out state they want women to be in a position of economic dependency on them like used to be the case in some time periods they think were more ideal. At those times jobs weren't as open to many types of women, but also something they overlook when I see guys saying women supposedly had it easy was that taking care of the home and just preparing food and everything was WAY harder and more time-consuming in those times, so a stay-at-home wife actually had a challenging fulltime job doing that in days where there were just local food markets, no refrigerators or other conveniences like that, etc.

But also proving that the "SMV" game some redpill types play with money is off the mark: Tons of the PUAs are !@#$in' terrible with money and include both young ones who are barely employed, or older ones who have already failed in business and sometimes are up to ears in debt as a result of previous business failures, yet both groups still clean up with the women.
And last but not least: Some of us who gave ground our way up to having some successful business ventures of various sorts (even if modest ones) and also guys who are flat-out earning six figures mostly passive and have got rich but know what they're doing with women, will all actually playfully dissemble a bit and claim to have less $$$ than they actually do have, not to be dishonest, but to deliberately scare off gold-diggers because romantic guys don't want to try to be attracting women who are just after our $$$.

Eww, I honestly hate Career driven women. I can't stand them at all. Plus I understand how those Chinese men feel, I mean a lot of those women act so damn stuck up and won't even date a man if she earns more than he does. So really that's their society being shitty like that about dating. Women in China won't settle for a man that has less so it would make sense as to why the men don't want them working. Some of these societies are lonely as hell and I wouldn't be bothered with them. Women thinkin because they make more than me I'm beneath them. f**k that bitch. I honestly prefer average girls. If she lived at home with parents, had a job working at target or something I would not even care. I can date a jobless girl too that also wouldn't bother me. I just don't want to be a provider type of lover in someone's life, because it would feel as though I'm being used. If I had kids with someone then it would make sense depending on where we live to both provide. It's impossible in my state for a man to do all the providing while the woman does nothing, both would have to tag team and even then this state will still kick their asses financially.

Maybe I'm just someone with semi-reasonable standards than most men. I've never been attracted to the hyper sexy types, I find them boring and uninteresting people in general. I remember the first time I watched Three's Company and saw Joyce Dewitt with her hair cut short, and that's been the type of girl I've gone for ever since. The sweet looking tom girl types. Ones that look just like her, average, little to no makeup, probably worked an average job. The only thing I hated about her is that she often gave off feminist vibes sometimes in that show based on how she acted toward certain men. But I definitely can't do the career women types, just hell no. Career women are the type of women you normally have to compete with between who holds the power in the relationship. I just can't do it. I don't want someone married to their work life period. Yet at the same time I don't want to be a provider since I know that being a provider means that if you can no longer provide for her, she might go to someone who can. And that's not a relationship, that's a damn contract deal.

[Outcast9428]

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

You are thinking like a man… You think the man being the breadwinner is simply a matter of practical application. It is not. It is tied to deeply biological instincts in women. Lots of guys who don’t understand women’s nature intentionally go for girls they see as self-sufficient, thinking she won’t need him to make money if she’s got plenty of her own. Big mistake, if your woman earns $75,000 you better earn $100,000 or your chance of divorce goes way up.

There are studies showing that if a woman gets promoted at her job, that her chances of divorcing her husband in the next five years are doubled. Basically the simple act of earning more money makes her twice as likely to want a divorce. If the man gets a promotion on the other hand he is slightly less likely to get divorced. This is why I despise the “womens empowerment” movement. If you have a man and a woman competing for the same job it should always be given to the man because there’s no practical benefit to financially empowering women unless you like splitting up families. Explain how a woman getting a promotion would make her lose attraction to her husband using man logic. Of course homosexual men are not like this because they are wired differently from women.

The truth is, a woman who earns nothing at all sees you as the most attractive because you are her caretaker. It’s not about how many $$$$ you have it’s about you fulfilling your role as her caretaker which in the modern era means making the bread. You don’t have to be rich but it is very helpful to earn enough money to provide a middle class lifestyle on your income alone.

If I went to Japan, the Philippines or Thailand, plenty of girls would be happy not to work. Even in Japan only 38% of women actually say they want to work. The reason there aren’t more housewives in Japan is because the government is pushing them into the workforce and because a lot of the men there can’t afford to let his wife stay at home. The same applies to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines but lots of women there who are married to wealthier men are stay at home moms. The ones who aren’t are usually too poor to be stay at home moms… It’s not because they oppose the idea. Women like that in Asian countries are a minority except in Korea.

The dependency of the arrangement makes your relationship stronger. When you have both the morals and competence to be a girl’s caretaker that is what makes her fall in love with you. If your wife is not dependent on you, the bond simply isn’t as powerful. Unfortunately so many White women have been so brainwashed by feminism they think this is oppression now but with Latina, Black Arab or Asian girls it is still something that makes a man very desirable to them.

[WilliamSmith]

Also, in some countries (China for example) there's some highly successful professional women who are frustrated because the men want them to quit their own successful jobs because the men are also obsessed with "status" they don't want their woman earning more than they do because they think it'd be a loss of face. So the women they'd otherwise want are trying to get with them, yet the men want to make her quit her job so she isn't earning more than him. *face-palms*

Eww, I honestly hate Career driven women. I can't stand them at all. Plus I understand how those Chinese men feel, I mean a lot of those women act so damn stuck up and won't even date a man if she earns more than he does. So really that's their society being shitty like that about dating. Women in China won't settle for a man that has less so it would make sense as to why the men don't want them working.

Ah, sometimes what you say is true for sure, but you missed the twist with the story I was telling in this case, which was the reverse situation: What I was saying is that the woman DID want to date the man in question, yet it was the man who wanted her to quit her own job because he didn't want to lose face by having her by the higher earner. So it goes both ways.

[WilliamSmith]

My uncle is living proof that masculinity (primal) and charm are a far greater bargaining chip for men than earning ability. My uncle works as a humble garbage collector while his attractive wife of more than two decades is the headteacher of a prestigious academy and earns a much higher salary. Needless to say, my uncle is an absolute stud. Even in his late 50s he is in phenomenal physical shape with biceps like Popeye, has a strong masculine jawline and a tanned Italianesque phenotype somewhat like Robert De Niro, always displays rugged masculine behavior and is a legitimate tough guy with the ability to fight, and is blessed with a whole lot of charm and charisma. He was always loved by the ladies but settled down with his wife who, despite being a successful professional woman, chose to marry him over any wealthier or more professionally successful man. She loves my uncle for his primal masculinity, sexy male physique, unusual charm, fun-lovingness, and heart of gold. My aunt doesn't care about my uncle's low salary. She would rather be plowed by a primally masculine, exciting alpha male to whom she is genuinely attracted and who turns her on in the most primal sense than by an unattractive beta male who happens to be wealthy and professionally successful. She has her own money after all.

I agree that relying on a good job and a high income is not a very good strategy (much to the chagrin of many professionally successful yet not very attractive betas) and stand by my assertion that gym maxxing and the cultivation of primal masculinity (as well as learning what you call "dating skills") are a much better strategy. I mean, many women earn their own money in this day and age and don't even need a guy to support them. I know that plenty of "RedPill" men want us to go back to a time in which men alone dominated the workforce and most women stayed at home, but I always got the impression that a subset of those men (mostly sexually unsuccessful betas or sometimes outright incels) simply desired to push women into a state of financial dependency so that they may have more power over them and force them to date/marry them. I understand that they want to shift the power dynamic in men's favor but at the same time I've never felt comfortable with the idea of a woman being with me simply because she depends on me out of financial desperation and needs me for my resources. If a woman chooses to be with me, I want it to be because she is genuinely attracted to me, not simply due to a situation of financial dependency as was often the case in previous times.

Great example story supporting the point @Lucas88.
I agree on all of it 100%, but will just add the note that even though I also am preoccupied with muscle and macho stuff too, I also observed tons of physically unimpressive guys who know how to lay on the charm and get women crazy about them who take a more suave/seductive/charming approach as well, so the gym maxxing is great, but not absolutely essential.

Basically, each thing a man can do that makes him internally and externally attractive to the type of women he likes is like it adds to some total score (not something to actually cerebrally imaging we can tally up, because of course we can't), but even though it's true being an independent leader type who is successful in business is one thing that can be attractive about you to women, it's one of the less important things + creates problems if the women are mingling a desire for your $$$ with other factors about you they find attractive. That's why IMO you should playfully brush them off and not tell them your income level at all, possibly even claiming to be less successful than you actually are.

But so many of these other guys just can't de-hypnotize themselves from this beta male or retro redpill societal programming bullshit saying you have to actually try to attract women by having "a good job," it's just such folly. @Outcast9428 even tried to argue that employment earnings supposedly make you primally attractive to women (total hogwash because that won't work unless you are already attractive to them for other reasons), and yet he says himself if the woman's salary goes up then odds of her divorcing him increase by orders of magnitude, which is proving we're right and debunking their own position, yet they're still trying to tell us we're the ones who have got it wrong.
Obviously, what he said is proving our point and showing they're the ones who don't get it when they confused earnings with what really gets the women attracted on a deeper level, yet even men in the tens of thousands wasting money on women, attracting gold-diggers, then getting cuckolded while he's working 70 hours a week, then eventually divorced and getting his clock cleaned, and they're still saying this stuff. Also, the large numbers of men who do get financially successful and then waste time trying to get sexy young women to go for them by offering to fly them to beach resorts and stuff like that prove this all the time, because the chicks will try to rationalize and become attracted to them at first sometimes, but usually find they just can't do it, so a lot of them will get stop seeing the rich guys (while others will cheat but try to keep spending his $$$).

Then meanwhile other guys who can get more women than they have time for won't even divulge their earnings (I won't either) and may even dissemble claiming we're less successful than we actually are to make sure we're charming the womens' pants off, and not being a dumbass who actually imagines himself to be internally attractive based on his income or financial assets.

In my case, I'm all for true romance and would even stick by a woman for life if she was giving real love back, but no way in hell would I ever marry a woman unless SHE made way more money than me, unless we had a 100% bulletproof prenuptial contract in a place where those were actually enforced + kept all accounts separate with no co-ownership of financial assets.
Those last points are also even more important for tradpill hodlers who are going to delude themselves about how they're supposedly internally attractive to women based on earnings, because in reality they are not (unless like I said they are for other reasons, but a lot of times those honeymoon chemicals from the best part of an early relationship fade off), so if they get married they're at maximum risk of the chicks getting them by the balls and cleaning their clocks in a divorce later, and walking away with his $$$ and financial assets unless they protect themselves against it with the prenup and asset protection program, regardless of what chicks told them in the honeymoon phase or earlier about supposedly sharing "traditional values" or whatever.

[Outcast9428]

My uncle is living proof that masculinity (primal) and charm are a far greater bargaining chip for men than earning ability. My uncle works as a humble garbage collector while his attractive wife of more than two decades is the headteacher of a prestigious academy and earns a much higher salary. Needless to say, my uncle is an absolute stud. Even in his late 50s he is in phenomenal physical shape with biceps like Popeye, has a strong masculine jawline and a tanned Italianesque phenotype somewhat like Robert De Niro, always displays rugged masculine behavior and is a legitimate tough guy with the ability to fight, and is blessed with a whole lot of charm and charisma. He was always loved by the ladies but settled down with his wife who, despite being a successful professional woman, chose to marry him over any wealthier or more professionally successful man. She loves my uncle for his primal masculinity, sexy male physique, unusual charm, fun-lovingness, and heart of gold. My aunt doesn't care about my uncle's low salary. She would rather be plowed by a primally masculine, exciting alpha male to whom she is genuinely attracted and who turns her on in the most primal sense than by an unattractive beta male who happens to be wealthy and professionally successful. She has her own money after all.

I agree that relying on a good job and a high income is not a very good strategy (much to the chagrin of many professionally successful yet not very attractive betas) and stand by my assertion that gym maxxing and the cultivation of primal masculinity (as well as learning what you call "dating skills") are a much better strategy. I mean, many women earn their own money in this day and age and don't even need a guy to support them. I know that plenty of "RedPill" men want us to go back to a time in which men alone dominated the workforce and most women stayed at home, but I always got the impression that a subset of those men (mostly sexually unsuccessful betas or sometimes outright incels) simply desired to push women into a state of financial dependency so that they may have more power over them and force them to date/marry them. I understand that they want to shift the power dynamic in men's favor but at the same time I've never felt comfortable with the idea of a woman being with me simply because she depends on me out of financial desperation and needs me for my resources. If a woman chooses to be with me, I want it to be because she is genuinely attracted to me, not simply due to a situation of financial dependency as was often the case in previous times.

Great example story supporting the point @Lucas88.
I agree on all of it 100%, but will just add the note that even though I also am preoccupied with muscle and macho stuff too, I also observed tons of physically unimpressive guys who know how to lay on the charm and get women crazy about them who take a more suave/seductive/charming approach as well, so the gym maxxing is great, but not absolutely essential.

Basically, each thing a man can do that makes him internally and externally attractive to the type of women he likes is like it adds to some total score (not something to actually cerebrally imaging we can tally up, because of course we can't), but even though it's true being an independent leader type who is successful in business is one thing that can be attractive about you to women, it's one of the less important things + creates problems if the women are mingling a desire for your $$$ with other factors about you they find attractive. That's why IMO you should playfully brush them off and not tell them your income level at all, possibly even claiming to be less successful than you actually are.

But so many of these other guys just can't de-hypnotize themselves from this beta male or retro redpill societal programming bullshit saying you have to actually try to attract women by having "a good job," it's just such folly. @Outcast9428 even tried to argue that employment earnings supposedly make you primally attractive to women (total hogwash because that won't work unless you are already attractive to them for other reasons), and yet he says himself if the woman's salary goes up then odds of her divorcing him increase by orders of magnitude, which is proving we're right and debunking their own position, yet they're still trying to tell us we're the ones who have got it wrong.
Obviously, what he said is proving our point and showing they're the ones who don't get it when they confused earnings with what really gets the women attracted on a deeper level, yet even men in the tens of thousands wasting money on women, attracting gold-diggers, then getting cuckolded while he's working 70 hours a week, then eventually divorced and getting his clock cleaned, and they're still saying this stuff. Also, the large numbers of men who do get financially successful and then waste time trying to get sexy young women to go for them by offering to fly them to beach resorts and stuff like that prove this all the time, because the chicks will try to rationalize and become attracted to them at first sometimes, but usually find they just can't do it, so a lot of them will get stop seeing the rich guys (while others will cheat but try to keep spending his $$$).

Then meanwhile other guys who can get more women than they have time for won't even divulge their earnings (I won't either) and may even dissemble claiming we're less successful than we actually are to make sure we're charming the womens' pants off, and not being a dumbass who actually imagines himself to be internally attractive based on his income or financial assets.

In my case, I'm all for true romance and would even stick by a woman for life if she was giving real love back, but no way in hell would I ever marry a woman unless SHE made way more money than me, unless we had a 100% bulletproof prenuptial contract in a place where those were actually enforced + kept all accounts separate with no co-ownership of financial assets.
Those last points are also even more important for tradpill hodlers who are going to delude themselves about how they're supposedly internally attractive to women based on earnings, because in reality they are not (unless like I said they are for other reasons, but a lot of times those honeymoon chemicals from the best part of an early relationship fade off), so if they get married they're at maximum risk of the chicks getting them by the balls and cleaning their clocks in a divorce later, and walking away with his $$$ and financial assets unless they protect themselves against it with the prenup and asset protection program, regardless of what chicks told them in the honeymoon phase or earlier about supposedly sharing "traditional values" or whatever.

It’s not disproving my point at all. Women are notoriously fickle. The reason divorce happens more likely if the woman gets a promotion is because you can’t earn the same amount or less then the woman or she will lose attraction.

The Chinese guys you mentioned are being smart. You should never let your woman make more money then you do. It’s a threat to your marriage.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

You are thinking like a man… You think the man being the breadwinner is simply a matter of practical application. It is not. It is tied to deeply biological instincts in women. Lots of guys who don’t understand women’s nature intentionally go for girls they see as self-sufficient, thinking she won’t need him to make money if she’s got plenty of her own. Big mistake, if your woman earns $75,000 you better earn $100,000 or your chance of divorce goes way up.

There are studies showing that if a woman gets promoted at her job, that her chances of divorcing her husband in the next five years are doubled. Basically the simple act of earning more money makes her twice as likely to want a divorce. If the man gets a promotion on the other hand he is slightly less likely to get divorced. This is why I despise the “womens empowerment” movement. If you have a man and a woman competing for the same job it should always be given to the man because there’s no practical benefit to financially empowering women unless you like splitting up families. Explain how a woman getting a promotion would make her lose attraction to her husband using man logic. Of course homosexual men are not like this because they are wired differently from women.

The truth is, a woman who earns nothing at all sees you as the most attractive because you are her caretaker. It’s not about how many $$$$ you have it’s about you fulfilling your role as her caretaker which in the modern era means making the bread. You don’t have to be rich but it is very helpful to earn enough money to provide a middle class lifestyle on your income alone.

If I went to Japan, the Philippines or Thailand, plenty of girls would be happy not to work. Even in Japan only 38% of women actually say they want to work. The reason there aren’t more housewives in Japan is because the government is pushing them into the workforce and because a lot of the men there can’t afford to let his wife stay at home. The same applies to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines but lots of women there who are married to wealthier men are stay at home moms. The ones who aren’t are usually too poor to be stay at home moms… It’s not because they oppose the idea. Women like that in Asian countries are a minority except in Korea.

The dependency of the arrangement makes your relationship stronger. When you have both the morals and competence to be a girl’s caretaker that is what makes her fall in love with you. If your wife is not dependent on you, the bond simply isn’t as powerful. Unfortunately so many White women have been so brainwashed by feminism they think this is oppression now but with Latina, Black Arab or Asian girls it is still something that makes a man very desirable to them.

Then why don't those Asian women abandon Asia? They obviously want to work other wise they would move to a country where they are less likely pushed into being in the work force. Women everywhere have careers, @WilliamSmith would know something on this matter. We live in a world where men cannot force women not to work. Try that and you will be called an oppressor. When Islamic women move here to the U.S. what is the first thing they do? They don't become stay at home mothers, they go straight to school and get careers. I know it because I see a lot of them in the medical field even holding positions as doctors. It's nonsense to make this claim that women want to be stay at home just because of some , they don't. You also seem to believe that all women will have a man to support them. They do not. Nor do every woman even want let alone desire this either. The empowerment movement isn't that strong to convince women globally to get careers, women have the ability to object to it. But there are women in the world that view the whole stay at home thing boring.

And you cannot force every woman to be okay with accepting this because they would spit in your face if you did. Take my cousin for instance, my oldest. She never studied feminism a day in her life, yet she still always wanted to be a nurse. So that's what she became. Besides I'm never getting married anyway, I honestly hate the crap heterosexuals have to deal with just to keep a woman.

It's garbage, tiresome, and stressful too. I hate sounding like a gay ass liberal on this one but if I had a choice? I'd rather just be gay than to put up with all this nonsense about me having to earn more money than a woman. As a man with disabilities, there's no way I would ever get a high earning job to begin with. All my life I worked low pay jobs because it's the only thing I qualified for. if that makes me less of a man in the eyes of women because of nature. Then f**k them, I don't want them.

Life to me isn't about money, you'll die someday and when you do you won't be able to take any of the profits with you to the next life if there is a next life. All I know is there are a lot of unhappy heterosexual men in this world due to circumstances. Some men are judged for being too short, others because of money, the list is quite endless. I just don't have the energy anymore to keep women from constantly plotting to abandon me because she isn't strong enough to face life challenges together along side of me. "Nature" to me tells me that women expect life to be constantly easy and they never have to face any struggle at all.

[Outcast9428]

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

You are thinking like a man… You think the man being the breadwinner is simply a matter of practical application. It is not. It is tied to deeply biological instincts in women. Lots of guys who don’t understand women’s nature intentionally go for girls they see as self-sufficient, thinking she won’t need him to make money if she’s got plenty of her own. Big mistake, if your woman earns $75,000 you better earn $100,000 or your chance of divorce goes way up.

There are studies showing that if a woman gets promoted at her job, that her chances of divorcing her husband in the next five years are doubled. Basically the simple act of earning more money makes her twice as likely to want a divorce. If the man gets a promotion on the other hand he is slightly less likely to get divorced. This is why I despise the “womens empowerment” movement. If you have a man and a woman competing for the same job it should always be given to the man because there’s no practical benefit to financially empowering women unless you like splitting up families. Explain how a woman getting a promotion would make her lose attraction to her husband using man logic. Of course homosexual men are not like this because they are wired differently from women.

The truth is, a woman who earns nothing at all sees you as the most attractive because you are her caretaker. It’s not about how many $$$$ you have it’s about you fulfilling your role as her caretaker which in the modern era means making the bread. You don’t have to be rich but it is very helpful to earn enough money to provide a middle class lifestyle on your income alone.

If I went to Japan, the Philippines or Thailand, plenty of girls would be happy not to work. Even in Japan only 38% of women actually say they want to work. The reason there aren’t more housewives in Japan is because the government is pushing them into the workforce and because a lot of the men there can’t afford to let his wife stay at home. The same applies to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines but lots of women there who are married to wealthier men are stay at home moms. The ones who aren’t are usually too poor to be stay at home moms… It’s not because they oppose the idea. Women like that in Asian countries are a minority except in Korea.

The dependency of the arrangement makes your relationship stronger. When you have both the morals and competence to be a girl’s caretaker that is what makes her fall in love with you. If your wife is not dependent on you, the bond simply isn’t as powerful. Unfortunately so many White women have been so brainwashed by feminism they think this is oppression now but with Latina, Black Arab or Asian girls it is still something that makes a man very desirable to them.

Then why don't those Asian women abandon Asia? They obviously want to work other wise they would move to a country where they are less likely pushed into being in the work force. Women everywhere have careers, @WilliamSmith would know something on this matter. We live in a world where men cannot force women not to work. Try that and you will be called an oppressor. When Islamic women move here to the U.S. what is the first thing they do? They don't become stay at home mothers, they go straight to school and get careers. I know it because I see a lot of them in the medical field even holding positions as doctors. It's nonsense to make this claim that women want to be stay at home just because of some , they don't. You also seem to believe that all women will have a man to support them. They do not. Nor do every woman even want let alone desire this either. The empowerment movement isn't that strong to convince women globally to get careers, women have the ability to object to it. But there are women in the world that view the whole stay at home shit boring.

And you cannot force every woman to be okay with accepting this because they would spit in your face if you did. Take my cousin for instance, my oldest. She never studied feminism a day in her life, yet she still always wanted to be a nurse. So that's what she became. Besides I'm never getting married anyway, I honestly hate the shit heterosexuals have to deal with just to keep a woman. It's garbage. I hate sounding like a gay ass liberal on this one but if I had a choice? I'd rather just be gay than to put up with all this nonsense about me having to earn more money than a woman. Life to me isn't about money, you'll die someday and when you do you won't be able to take any of that shit with you to the next life if there is a next life. All I know is there are a lot of unhappy heterosexual men in this world, people say the same thing about women. But I don't believe this.

Japan doesn’t put anymore pressure on women to work then the US and Europe does. They’re just catching up to us now. Traditionally half of women with children were stay at home moms and 35% of all women overall were. As far as traditionalism goes it’s either Asia or the Middle East. Nowhere else is it normal for women to not have careers.

Although Hungary and Poland might change that . Viktor Orban is pretty much doing exactly what you said, he is openly attacking the women’s independence movement. His government recently said that the education system needed to be redesigned so that they wouldn’t get so many women going to college .