Male friend sees romantic relationships as transactional and thinks lower and middle class men should go to Asia to find wives

[Primrose86]

I am 33 and have been married for 10.5 years with a 7 month old son. When we married, my dh was a poor student and we supported each other through unemployment, burnout/sickness, family drama, 3 year stint of living with his mum in our 20s (to save a deposit to buy a london flat) etc. There has been times when our disposable income was great and we could afford lots of holidays and weekend breaks plus overpay 1k into our mortgage. Other times less so.

My friend is in his early 30s and is convinced that women only like rich men (he thinks my dh is rich because he has an income of 75k which isnt that amazing in London). He thinks that another guy we both know (let's call him Friend A) who has been unlucky in love, would be much more successful on dating apps if he wrote ' I have a mortgage free 2 bed house in North London, no student loans, a car paid for in cash and am a lawyer'. All true BTW but of course Friend A is still single and has been single for most of the 11 years i have known him. He thinks that it is because Friend A is much too modest about his money or the women would all be lining outside his door.

Is this why so many younger men struggle now with relationships. Cos they have this view that they need to be the provider and women are only attracted to providers. He thinks love marriages are the minority. And says he would encourage all lower and middle class men to go to Asia to find a wife cos they have more economic power in Asian countries. When I tried to counter with examples, he thinks I am in denial and cited that men in the top 20% of the income quintiles are mostly in relationships but most in the poorest quintiles are single (i think personally its because higher earning men can afford to go on lots of dates which increases their chances; also attributes that command a higher salary are also attributes valued on the dating market like charisma/emotional intelligence).

Its honestly quite warped because most married men are not millionaires and marrying someone solely because they aren't high earning isn't even that lucrative anyway given frozen income tax thresholds and also job insecurity (many HENRY jobs can be lost during redundancy or are very high stress leading to burnout). Also this is based on the assumption that he will share his money with you...

He also sounds like he hasn't met many East Asian women - all of DHs cousins/friends our age work and don't seem particularly submissive.

OK, but the things you cited as "wtf" claims there are:

1. women seek high-resource men for evolutionary reasons linked to protection;
2. in a capitalist society, wealth is the main resource that affords protection.

They might be over-simplified but they aren't crazy beliefs.

Then things like: "therefore men who go somewhere where they will be relatively richer will have better prospects" doesn't seem crazy either (i.e. make yourself richer and you will be more desirable).

He may well be a total fool, I don't know him. But at least with those three, you're holding up claims that are pretty mainstream and reasonably evidenced as if they are extreme conspiracy-theory stuff.

Your counterpoint (he is wrong because many men who aren't millionaires are happily partnered) doesn't seem to refute his claim at all.

As several posters have said, the only mysterious thing here is why you’re still friends with Mr Incel101, and advertising his reactionary brand of misogyny at such length on the internet?

He can’t get a girlfriend because he’s a misogynist. He’s come up with a ‘theory’ that makes this women’s fault. It’s not that complicated.

Yes I think there are lots of factors to people who think like this, and they're not just men

There are thread after thread after thread on here of the so called 'traditional set up' where its clear the woman is not the higher earner and in reality probably does rely on her partners income. That may not be the sole reason they are together but she is at a disadvantage and somewhat reliant financially on her partner. If they live happy ever after thats no problem. If they split up, that can be a problem.

Modern relationships (and by that I mean over the last 100-150 years or so) are predicated on romance and shared values more than they used to be and its more of a Western concept but in other countries and during other time periods it wasnt always this way. For some societies and personalities that works. Its unusual now in our society.

He doesnt fit in our society for that reason and therefore wont attract but then probably doesnt seek a modern British woman, he wants a different set up. It allows people (of both sexes in the relationship) to be less than fully formed in many ways. The male doesnt need or want to be able to be emotionally intelligent and possibly not attractive or competent socially. The female doesnt need or want to be able to work and be financially responsible. Thats very black and white and there will be layers of nuance within it but both might be seen to be fairly inept in a number of ways.

Of course neither of them would see it that way and feel that what Ive said is quite patronising, perhaps they really are capable competent people that have just made a practical choice in life.

It isn't ridiculous at all.

I think you are minimising what a misogynistic arsehole this guy is. I couldn’t be friends with someone like this

Also for awareness that transactional approach to relationships works for some people but makes others run a mile.

I have out earned every man I have ever been with and I would give a wealthy man a wide berth. I would hate to be with someone who thought they could use money to control me. Its my biggest nightmare.

Oh dear. The Manosphere strikes again. Be careful.

Of course it is.

Most people in London do not earn £75k. The median is about £50-65k which is indeed higher than the UK median which is £40k.
Obviously this median is skewed by those London-centric careers which are high to stratospheric but the majority of people in London earn the same salaries as the majority of people outside London.

Public sector salaries are the same plus a London Weighting/ High Cost Area Supplement. So nurses, doctors, teachers, job centre workers, social workers, police, fire service, RAF etc etc etc are nowhere near thinking that £75k is "not great".

That's before we start on private sector staff. Tesco, hairdressers, cleaners, plumbers, clerical staff, book-keepers ... i mean, just think of any profession that isn't finance or law or premier league footballers, and they will be just as unlikely to reach £75k as their counterparts in Birmingham.

You're not getting it.

"Higher", "lower", "great standard" etc. are all relative terms. Your standard of living doesn't seem luxurious to you, but it probably would to someone dirt poor on a housing estate, with zero family money AND a job on minimum wage with little chance of progression.

The mathematical fact that only a minority of people, even in London, earn £75K or more, means that there will be plenty of people for whom, if they were interested in marrying for money, it would be well worth marrying someone on that income (and they may well figure it's more realistically possible than trying to bag a billionaire).

I'm not saying that many people are, as my post above makes clear.

But you're completely failing to imagine how it looks to people on a lower income than yourselves.

Men have been telling themselves forever that women only look for rich men. Some do, most just want someone they find attractive both physically and emotionally.

I think women do the same with age. Women have been telling themselves forever that men only look for younger, submissive women. Some men do, but most also want someone they find attractive both physically and emotionally.

Both are excuses each sex makes as to why they are single. Obviously this is an over simplification.

A large chunk of London lives in social housing(20%)- so they have substantially lower costs that mean they have more disposable income that someone paying private rent . A large chunk of Londoners are immigrants and they have long term plans to move and only live in London for a few years (so london rent is only a temporary issue)

A significant chunk are also generational londoners and may live with family for long periods of time which mean that they can save or they inherit some money from selling their family's london property- lowers overall housing costs..

So whether someone has a good life in London or is able to manage is more nuanced than their earnings and it has been for a while. This all flips when you earn a certain level (all these non income related advantages don't matter) but 75k isnt it.

And yet the OP didn't say anything about unambitious, lazy, workshy or cocklodging men. Indeed she said the "Friend A" being discussed is a lawyer with a mortgage free 2 bed house in North London, no student loans and a car paid for in cash. She just said he was modest about money so didn't advertise this information to attract dates.

Do you also think women who don't brag about their financial achievements are unambitious, lazy, workshy cocklodgers?

I would run a mile from any bloke with these values tbh. These type of guys are breeding in the internet aren’t they?

Lol at the man who perpetually single thinking it's women's fault - can't possibly be anything to do with him or his personality.

You just have to look around to see many many many men in relationships. Including Men who aren't wealthy or jobless , Men who aren't conventially attractive. Men who are unemployed, drunkards, drug addicts, physically abusive, verbally abusive etc.

It's definitely women's fault your friend hasn't got a girlfriend!!

Double lol at your for not seeing that he is indeed an incel.

Well, they certainly aren't breeding in real life if they can't even get laid because of their generally repulsive attitudes towards women, are they?

😀

So what you're saying is he's incredibly racist and stupid as well as in incel.

I fear your friend has fallen into that toxic masculinity funk that actually makes him quite dangerous around women. He’s a misogynist if he defines women like this.

The reason all this is being propagated in the US and percolating to the UK is that in the past, due to societal inequality, women had little way of gathering their own resources and were rarely afforded the luxury of genuinely choosing for love but were also expected to marry; being an unmarried woman was a luxury few could afford for either practicality or reputation.

Whilst not perfect, women now have choice. They have the opportunity to be financially independent and with that comes the choice to not partner with men who don’t offer a positive relationship. This is not about the earning potential but about bringing what each woman wants to the relationship including being present and engaged with home and children.

This leaves men who would have got a women by default in the days of marriage being expected having to work to find someone and finding they don’t have the intelligence, emotional breadth, or interest to accomplish that.

They then seek reasons and blame a symptom of being less appealing (being less employable) rather than look deeply at the cause.

My husband has an old friend with similar views, who is weirdly single too 🤔🤔🤔

He had a girlfriend at one point, but happily declared to DH that "he doesn't need to bother doing anything for her when having sex, because you just lie back and let her do all the work,". And how he laughed every time she came over"well, she had to make the dinner for us, that's her job"

Funnily enough he's only ever had 3 girlfriends and none lasted more than a couple of months. But he'll go on about how women are so needy, so demanding, so fussy etc

We own a small 2 bed flat and I dont have a car. I buy all my clothes on vinted now for £5 a piece for nursing dresses. Even at our pre baby earnings (now on maternity leave) which was 120k combined, we had a lot of holidays but mainly stayed at Premier inn or other budget hotels in European cities though we would fly to asia to visit family. This was with a £1000 mortgage BTW..

I was perfectly happy but it wasnt much more luxurious than many people in London on lower incomes. Many people in london on lower income also have cheap European breaks/occasionally fly to Thailand, rent a 2 bed flat with a mate. The one thing that was different was we owned our property but that was because we didnt pay rent for 3 years so saved up 60k. Its because that income isnt large enough to buy more luxuries than the median.

Yes I agree with all that.

I think what prompted me to respond to the OP was her idea that this guy’s premises are self-evidently stupid. It’s the moral or social implications that are usually objectionable not thr premises.

Like: “Women are weaker than men therefore they should not be police officers”. “Wtf, women aren’t weaker than men?!?”

It’s objecting to the wrong bit, and thereby by omission perhaps suggesting that if the premises were true then the conclusion would indeed follow.

I know lots of women who specifically look for men with good jobs and yes whilst jobs can be insecure a lot of the time people in certain fields come from a particular background so they have a safety net.

Honestly, some of the tripe you read on here.

What he is saying is that it is impossible for poor or middle income men to find a woman.

I think poor men are most likely to be single & childless

But still full of people for whom £75k is an unachievable dream. And who don't have family money

Well the ones who own homes would have secured them a while ago. The young ones buying homes now will very likely be high earners &/or have family help.