MSN Covers Men and the Lack of Desire to Marry

A woman responded:
"I have lived with my boyfriend for eight years. We share everything, but he will not take that last step and get married. If something was to happen to him today, I would be out in the cold. I have helped him establish a home, fixed it up, and take care of it, but my name is nowhere on anything."

The main problem is her attititude..about what would happen upon his death; she is more worried about her possible financial situation - like there is no emotion involved. Of course she is not obligated to share her emotions with the readers.
Anyhow...maybe she can add her name to the mortgage. You can share a mortgage with someone without being married. She is admitting almost TOTAL dependence on the man. Is that the 'new liberated woman'? Like I have always said, women are only liberated when they feel like it, like when they are younger. Later, when they feel like stopping working so they can raise a family, they are more than happy to have financial dependence on a man (even if they get divorced later, they will still have that support of course.
It even sounds to me like she doesn't work. So if her state has any kind of "palimony" laws, she might come out ahead anyway, if they break up, even without being married).

-Axolotl

By not having her name on the mortgage, she isn't financially responsible for it, though I'll bet she runs the roost all right. However if her bf dies, she can still probably get first dibbs on the house at a cut rate from the bank under the circumstances. [Obviously the house is all she is really concerned with, as you pointed out.] At the same time, she gets to claim she is 'dependent'. Ahem, that is a wayyy outdated whine. If any adult who is able to get and keep a job (ie, is not mentally impaired, etc.), any 'dependence' they have on anyone else is purely voluntary.

A female in this day and age who whines of being "financially-dependent" chooses to be so and is merely trying to make herself more pitiable and eventually, give herself an upper hand in any legal matters (just check with men like Donald Trump on this one). Meanwhile, the fool of a man she is with is paying for her to breath.

There is no excuse, short or mental incapability or incapacity, that any able-bodied person should allow him or herself to "become financially-dependent" on anyone else. When you hear someone complain they are 'financially-dependent' on someone else, 99,999 times out of 100,000, you are listening to the prattlings of an immature, lazy con-artist. Such a person is a leach on society and a leach on their S.O., and they have nothing but contempt coming to them.

Of course there are also "men of liesure" (playboys) who are financially independent, but still a leach on society. I wonder if there is a name for a female equivalent.

I heard a female psychology teacher say once, "there is no such thing as laziness..just different levels of interest." Statements like that are made by people who fear "labeling", that is assigning a descriptive word or phrase to a person which has a negative connotation. Unfortunately, the statement is wrong on at least a couple of levels. First of all, the person saying it does not really understand what the common man means by the word "laziness". To me at least, it means UNWILLING to do work of ANY KIND..unwilling, though able, to contribute to society.
But to a psychologist it means something like, "well if Joe is moving a little slow on the assembly line, he is not really lazy, just uninterested in his job." But that is always a self-evident possibility. What is at issue is a more general "life attitude".
It is typical of psychologists, and psychotherapists (many of whom are female), to say things such as this, because they live in a separate universe in which reality is of little consequence. They must also live in a world where there are no panhandlers, and if they did encounter any, would merely decide that that person had not yet found his life's calling.
But I digress.
-Axolotl

"The majority of the men [studied] are employed full-time with reported annual incomes between $21,000 and $35,000. Most have had some college or hold a BA. None of the men were married; three had children."

These men are not even dry behind the ears yet!! No self-respecting man with a brain would try to raise a family or attract a mate with this type of income.

This is "part time" or "marginal" employment.

Shame on the investigators for not having a clue.

When men establish a SOLID income track record, they become more interested in wives and kids. Any woman that tries to trap a man with a kid while he is making this kind of income is stupid and is bound to end up with kids on welfare and child support. This type of income barely pays for one person, let alone a family.

It is an entrenched bias in our society, that the man has to earn more than the woman, that his income alone must provide for support. I think I see where you're coming from, but what is so wrong with the guy marrying a woman with MORE income than his? In theory there should be nothing wrong with that, but in reality it is true, not too many women would be interested in him.
But certainly he can attract a mate with equivalent or slightly less income? It is my impression that lot's of couples do this in the income range you mention, or at least the upper end of it. I don't know that the woman always ends up on assistance in that case. Maybe you have more knowledge in this area than I do.
I think that these days, a man would have to be crazy to marry a WOMAN who ALREADY HAS kids, partly because he opens himself up to alienation, jealousy and even possible child abuse charges if something goes wrong. Plus there will always be the nagging thought in hes mind, "does she really love me, or was she just looking for a father for her kids?" But I guess if they are really in love, it could work out.
-Axolotl