Survey: American Women Are ‘Ashamed’ of Earning More than Their Boyfriends and Husbands

Article here. Excerpt:

'According to a report from Refinery 29, young women are uncomfortable navigating a relationship in which they out-earn their significant other. A survey revealed that many American women would be uncomfortable being the breadwinner in a relationship, citing concerns that the responsibility of providing for their partner would be tiring.

When asked how they would feel if they knew right now that they would always be the breadwinner in their current marriages and relationships, words like “tired,” “exhausted,” and that special one, “resentful” turned up over and over again. One woman responded, “It’s stressful. It’s a huge responsibility. I pressure myself to stay in the job I’m at even if I’m unhappy there.” Another wrote, “I kind of assume this will be the case, just based on our past jobs and strengths/interests. It makes me feel a little weary sometimes, like I may never get a break, or get to pursue something I might really love, but if I COULD do something I really loved while making enough money to support us, I would be perfectly fine with that.” This was a common theme in the responses. Most of these women didn’t mind being the breadwinner as long as they eventually had the option to make less, their partners contributed equally in the household, and it didn’t trap them into jobs they no longer wanted.

One commenter on the Refinery 29 article condemned the attitudes of the women who participated in the survey, arguing that at no point was it mentioned that men must have historically experienced similar stress over having to provide for their wives: “The primary revelation of this article seems to be the stress and pressure that results from supporting another individual and a family. It’s curious that no observation is made that this is what men fulfilling this role for hundreds of years prior must have felt.”'

up
51 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yep. Women paradoxically reduce...

... their likelihood to find a mate THEY consider "suitable" the more economically valuable their skillset becomes. And it isn't evil sexist men doing this to them, it's THEM doing this to them. Because of their own tastes/sexist dbl-stds, women reduce for themselves their range of potential mates by discarding from consideration men who earn less than they do, an increasingly more common phenom. that looks like it'll only become moreso the way things are going.

In the state of nature, the creatures who are more intelligent/competent of either sex are more likely than less-intelligent/-competent members of their own species to reproduce successfully and rear their young to reproductive maturity. Yet in the human race, that equation has flipped under our current social constructions. Intelligent/competent men capable of outearning most other men now wisely avoid reproducing b/c of the social hazards associated with it. More intelligent/competent women because of their own attitudes and choices are likewise less likely even to reproduce b/c their scope of available mates is unnaturally curtailed by their own bizarre counter-evolutionary desire to be rendered LESS competent relative to their mates all so they can, in essence, be lazy and under-perform relative to their abilities.

We are indeed skipping toward Idiocracy.

up
15 users have voted.
I like this

Paradoxically, average IQs have been rising

Paradoxically, average IQs have been rising over the last several decades in spite of what you've just mentioned (Flynn Effect). It's something like 3 points per decade. Whether this has been due to an improving environment or genetics is debatable. And whether this can continue is also uncertain.

up
15 users have voted.
I like this

Gotta laugh

"Most of these women didn’t mind being the breadwinner as long as they eventually had the option to make less, their partners contributed equally in the household, and it didn’t trap them into jobs they no longer wanted."

Welcome to the role of breadwinner. You don't get to quit just because you don't like the job. And as to partners who "contribute equally," well, one of the privileges of being the non-breadwinner is you don't have to contribute equally. These women say they'd like the option to "make less"--in other words, not contribute equally--but also want their partners to contribute equally.

Under the old rules, when men were the breadwinners, women had the option to work or not work. Under these new rules, that option is being taken away. Women find they have to work or else. That's called "male privilege." Funny how women don't see it as such a privilege when they have the obligation to work.

So I gotta laugh.

up
11 users have voted.
I like this

Technology early in life?

That is paradoxical. Could it be early-life exposure to technology like smart phones and Internet search results are exercising young brains much earlier on, driving up the measurable IQ average? Just speculating.

up
14 users have voted.
I like this

It's hard to say

It could be that improved nutrition, protection from diseases and exposure to information and stimulation helps children develop higher IQs than in the past. It could also be that there is an undercurrent of declining genetic IQ at the same time due to more intelligent people not having as many children. Whether one trend starts to override the other is uncertain. I'd hate to see the world heading for Idiocracy.

up
16 users have voted.
I like this