to think a lot of men will not marry if they already get everything?

[Pinkshocks]

If he is already getting everything on a plate, a committed partner, a sexual relationship, children, someone to split the bills with, emotional support and a family life, all without making any legal or lifelong commitment, why would he change anything?

I know this does NOT apply to every couple or to ALL men. Some people genuinely do not want to marry and both are happy with that. But if one person wants marriage and the other keeps putting it off year after year, are they really going to change when they are already getting everything they want?

Why would someone buy the ticket when they are already getting the whole show for free?

Gosh that went over your head didn't it?

I'm really surprised that you admit that. I suppose anonymity has its benefits. It's a really unpleasant view - and fyi, calling people "crippled" is offensive.

@ClarkeandNewman calling people "crippled" is offensive.

No, it may be an outdated term, but not offensive.

What word would you use in this context?

I don't agree with that entirely, although I like that you say everyone rather than it being only women who are desperately seeking marriage and men are looking to get what they want for 'free'.
I don't think people generally are looking for something that is 'free or as cheap as possible. I think people in good relationships who are good people want an equal give and take. They want to provide (not only financially) for the person they love as well as receive.

Take a guess.

As a disabled person, I’d say crippled IS offensive sorry.

Well nice to see you are admitting to
1- knowing nothing about disability at all bar that one case you found awful
2- being fully ableist too

The link you’re making between being selfish agd an awful partner agd being disabled is just 😂😂
And if you knew about disabled people you’d see many of them are stuck at the hands of abusive family members (parents, partner etc…).

I have to say, unfortunately, your views are not uncommon. Ableism is pretty common. And unlike racism, people aren’t shy to say it aloud

Omg this binfire of a thread gets worse and worse! I'm out.

I see things differently.

Men are encouraged to chose their partner in looks - young and beautiful. Not on how much the woman earns, what job they have, if they have an interesting conversation etc…
They are also used to have the power. Your manager, surgeon etc…. Are less likely to appreciate someone who can stand up to them and match them culturally, on income etc….

Women are more likely looking for an equal partner. which means the ability to have similar conversation, interests etc…it’s harder to do in a porter- surgeon set up than in a surgeon-surgeon set up.
I also feel that with a higher income/status, women are much more free to be choosy.

That's interesting.

You make some good points.

I don't think there's a need to say sorry when challenging discriminatory language. Most people alive know that using the word "cripple" to describe someone is offensive. I wonder if they'd be so unashamed about using other bigoted terminology? I guess not because they know it would get them banned from any halfway decent forum.

Treating this pattern as some sort of immutable natural, biological fact rather than social conditioning is how the patriarchy continues to be propped up.

These are the sorts of cliches that we should be encouraging women away from.

Marriage as we know it isn't even an immutable part of human history. None of your bonkers (and very shallow) claim would stand up to even the slightest bit of cultural or historic analysis.

They're not lovely, kind or decent people.

This is genuinely one of the contenders for the nastiest thing I've ever read on MN.

I'm not saying whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' but that it exists.

So you are saying that a woman with very little education or prospects should "stay in her own lane" ?

You may think it's "nasty" but it's true.

Our King (when he was Prince Charles) was expected to marry a titled lady not the palace cleaner.

Yes, if the poster was so sure that nobody, including their "lovely, kind, decent" friends would ever want or consider a relationship with a disabled person, why did they ask for that comment to be deleted?

How do we know that the poster asked for their comment to be deleted ?

Whether it's right or wrong is actually the key.

Women shouldn't have to "marry up" in order to have a good life. That's the fundamental driving force behind over a century of women's emancipation and education. And it's largely succeeded in the UK, because no woman my age thinks in those terms. This is called progress and is something to be celebrated. The dynamic you describe is dying out, and I'm thankful for that.

With respect that doesn't answer my question.

Do you think that women should marry among their own "class/social group/type" (whatever you want to call it) or aspire to better by their own efforts?

I have worked in large organisation that employ loads of women and few men. The men seem to have all the higher-paid jobs and the lower paid women seem to be always out to snag themselves an executive.

Your company has a sexism issue. I've never worked anywhere with such a grim dynamic.

Anyone prioritising social class or wealth when they choose who to marry is playing stupid games and will win stupid prizes. If you want certain material things out of life then the best - and safest - way to achieve them is through your own efforts.

What advice would you give low-paid men with little education or prospects?

"Message withdrawn at the poster's request" is a giveaway.

Why are you so interested in division? You talk as though people who aren't high paid or from middle/upper class backgrounds (Our King!) are, by default, lesser human beings. Patriarchy is inextricably linked to class systems, and I see no reason to advocate for perpetuating that, no matter how aspirational you think you are, or keen to be accepted by those you see as your betters.

"Why are you so interested in division?"

I am giving my experiences of real life. I'm sorry that doesn't fit with your idealized notion of how society ought to be. Maybe when you have more life experience you'll realize that Marxism has many flaws.
Marxism offers powerful insights into class inequality and capitalism, but it’s far from perfect. It is too deterministic, ignores gender and ethnicity, and is outdated in a postmodern world

And you still haven't answered my question "do you think women should stay in their lane and not aspire for better?"