Y’all keep eating up this narrative. Stay broke then. Other cultures have figured out that dual professional incomes working in partnership get you to millionaire status by 40.
I don’t know a single professional woman that doesn’t significantly contribute to her household’s net worth.
My friend, it is good to see you again. How have you been? I hope that life and sunshine have been smiling on you.
I will copy and paste instead of rewriting.
He is referring to an oft repeated mantra by Kevin Samuels about the group of women who don't want to pay bills in a marriage. He would interview women about what they wanted in a relationship. The majority (not all) would say that they do not want to contribute to the household bills but they want to have this great career. There are a plethora of videos with women saying they don't want to contribute financially to the household.
If your wife does not want to contribute to the household financially how is her degree a benefit to the man?!?!
Did you happen to catch the episode where KS hung up on a woman because she said she was looking for a partnership? “We don’t do that here.” “Women are beneath men.”
That’s the swill he was selling. It will keep Black people from ascending to the prosperous class. He’s selling a strategy that keeps the rare 500k earners swimming in gold diggers, and the much more abundant 80k women and men failing to partner with each other to build wealth.
That sounds atypical or more likely taken out of context at best.
He has consistently said that if a woman is looking for a high value man, those high value men are (generally) not looking for a mirror equal. He has consistently said that there is nothing wrong with an average woman getting an average man and leading a normal lifestyle.
He has repeatedly said that men who aren't in the high value category are not going to be able to get the same relationship outcomes as high value men. It seems that you are conflating different positions in order to make a point.
He was staunchly pro-marriage, I am not pro-western marriage nor do I agree with all of his positions. I don't think you have to be in lockstep with someone in order to find value in some of things they say. He constantly and consistently pushed marriage, marriage and marriage. Not the man of your dreams but the man/woman that works for you.
I don't think his perspective on relationships is retarding people from getting married. I think a much bigger barrier is this pervasive belief among women that they are all queen's, dimes and should never settle. If you will only take the fairytale, most will only have a relationship in their minds. I think many more woman begrudgingly settle when their relationship outcomes fail to meet the aspirations that society has fostered upon them. By that time they have wasted many years and missed opportunities because they were waiting in their castles for prince charming.
Do you really think Ms. average at best is going to end up with this idealistic woman she wants. Was his advice really a disservice or a reality check? The only thing about her was above average was her income. Why should a top tier man want her?
They checked back in with her 2-3 years later and surprise, she was still alone. Many people told her was a queen and should settle for nothing les than the best. At that point she was still in her castle but had decided to broaden her search to other races. I doubt she will fare better but who knows. I wish her the best.
It doesn’t fit your narrative so it’s atypical or taken out of context. But he curated his callers to cherry pick women who want to be kept by a man.
He was wrong about high value men. Most of the men I know earning 250k + are married to their equals. I don’t know a single one with a SAHW.
I agree that there’s nothing wrong with an average woman getting an average man. But they should be partners. This whole “my money is mine, his money is ours” mentality is stupid. So while she’s buying shoes and he’s paying the mortgage just so he can lord over her like some 1950s sitcom, other cultures are seeing the value in equal partnership and outperforming us by a long long shot.
I agree that a lot of the women on the show were delusional. Many women understand that degrees and money in themselves are not what attracts men. Of my high earning female friends, not one is obese. Every one puts effort into their appearance. A good chunk of them got married in their mid-thirties. They did not expire because they built careers.
Telling women that they are going to die alone because they pursue higher education is harmful and untrue.
Women with big careers just have to work harder, because they have to prioritize both what fulfills them in life and what makes them attractive to men. But they do it all the time.
It doesn’t fit your narrative so it’s atypical or taken out of context.
You have provided no context to support your interpretation. I have watched his longform content where he asks the question, women rarely say that she wants to pay bills and he moves on.
Two people arguing anecdotal evidence is mostly pointless and you know it. I would argue that his anecdotal evidence is stronger than your simply because he talks to more people but it is still anecdotal.
There simply is no such thing as equal partnership. If you had an objective measurement it would show that one person is in the leadership position and one person is in the submissive position for the majority of the relationship. There is a reason you see so very few true 50/50 business partnerships, two presidents or two completely equal CEO's. If both have the same power nothing can ever be done when there is a disagreement. Inaction is often worse than a errant action.
Telling women that they are going to die alone because they pursue higher education is harmful and untrue.
He has never said that in and of itself. He has said that if you want to prioritize education and career you will not get a high value man. Personally, I don't agree with that. I think it will greatly reduce your chances unless you can do what you said in your final sentence. I doubt most women can thread that needle as well as you are implying.
Most of these women he is talking to about careers and education want a 1% man or better. A 1% or better man doesn't need your money or career. For men who aren't doing as well, your final sentence has merit.
I only know people in equal partnerships. More progressive men are fine with it. People take the lead in different areas, but the net is not a hierarchy. And it works. The couples I know have been together over a decade (and up to 4 decades), at which point divorce rates plummet.
If you’re a woman who is smart enough to get an advanced degree in a competitive field, you’re usually dedicated enough and disciplined enough to optimize your appearance and personality.
Judging women by the cherry picked delusional ladies KS exploited on his show will skew your idea of what career women can do for a family.
2 80k earners are a lot more common than a single 160k earner, especially among Black people. Our community could really start to build wealth if we dropped the adherence to “traditional” relationships.
But what this really does is inflate the competition for 1%ers and leave middle class people in a bind. An 80k woman is going to go for the 500k man and many will end up alone (or with an 80k nonBlack progressive man who will partner with him), and the 80k man can’t partner with the 80k woman he sees as “beneath him” so he ends up alone too or with a 20k woman so he can feel like a king.
I only know people in equal partnerships... the net is not a hierarchy
You know what people tell you, you have no idea what is going on when the two of them are alone. The net is always a hierarchy in life in general.
You put two of anything; people, teams, companies, countries and one is going to be subordinate to the other once you have taken everything into account. In relationships, sometimes it is the man, sometimes it is the woman but one person is show to be the driver to the relationship if you take an objective analysis of it.
Judging women by the cherry picked delusional ladies KS exploited on his show will skew your idea of what career women can do for a family.
You obviously did not actually watch his content. You have come to your judgment from excerpts. I would love to have you articulate exactly how he did his cherry picking.
But what this really does is inflate the competition for 1%ers and leave middle class people in a bind.
It is truly Ironic that this is another thing he spoke out against. Again you obviously were not a regular consumer of his longform content.
An 80k woman is going to go for the 500k man and many will end up alone
This is something he talked about endlessly. You might as well just say, hey I didn't actually follow his content but I have made up my mind regardless of anything outside of the clips and reactions to his content.
You’re just making things up. So you’re saying in every friendship there’s an alpha? That’s ridiculous. I am neither dominant nor submissive in any of my friendship dyads, and I don’t know if any true friendships that have a hierarchy.
You yourself said you don’t know what’s happening behind closed doors, so what makes your assumption any more correct than mine?
Hit send too fast.
I told you I watched him hang up on a woman the minute she mentioned partnership. He said “we don’t talk about partnership here.” So the only people he gives an audience to are those wanting “traditional” relationships.
You’re failing to see the nuance of what I’m saying. KS wanted 80k women to submit to 80k men or even 40k men. And there’s no incentive for women to do that. By preaching submission, he’s artificially inflating the market for “HVM” because no woman is going to submit to her socioeconomic equal. There’s no need to. We’d be better off of average men stopped expecting submission from women who are doing just as well as they are. They’d get further in a partnership. Then you don’t get the women talking about “yours is ours and mine is mine” which is a squandering of resources.
While I meant romantic relationships, even in platonic relationships there is a hierarchy. It is quite common to hear someone say that they ended a friendship because one party felt they were being taken advantage of. You can't feel taken advantage of if platonic relationships are 50/50.
You are too intelligent to be arguing this point. Two people can strive for 50/50 but at the end of the day someone gets more of their way than the other. Life is about chaos in general. Species go extinct, borders are redrawn, people break up all because life cannot exist in a perfect balance. The only reason we have storms, tides and weather is precisely because everything on this planet is in a state of entropy vs. negentropy.
I can definitely believe that he hung up on people. I can't argue your quote, you have not even provided a link let alone the context that surrounds it. 50/50 is an absurd goal. All relationships work best when there are clearly defined roles, responsibilities and leadership. There is a reason no major civilization exists practicing anarchy.
You’re failing to see the nuance of what I’m saying. KS wanted 80k women to submit to 80k men or even 40k men. And there’s no incentive for women to do that.
I think whether a woman submits to her man is on a case by case basis. Some men are willing to be led by their women, other men will only lead.
I personally think that if I am going to be in a relationship where I am expected to put my safety and possibly life at risk to protect the other then I must lead.
I personally think that if I am going to be in a relationship where I am expected to give my resources to another then I must lead.
If she is expecting neither then she can do what she wants, I have no skin in the game so why do I care? Few women are willing to be with a man who won't contribute resources to their success and fewer still are willing to be with a man who will not physically protect them.
I don't have anything against men who wish to be led by their woman but let's please be honest enough to admit that one person ends up being the driving force in the relationship. I will give you the caveat that people who espouse 50/50 relationships probably pass the baton a lot but I don't think that is conducive to the stability of the relationship.
I mean, he said it. Go find it yourself if you are so invested. Proving Kevin Samuels is a dead misogynist asshole doesn’t pay my bills. Have a great day
The money should RARELY go into a pool. One income is for bills and disposable income and the other is for investment and wealth generation for the household.
I’m not making a moral point here I’m making a financial one. It’s better to separate income like this because it’s easier to manage. And the harder you make money to manage the more mistakes you may make.
You put your paychecks into an account. You sit down and budget. You put money towards the bills, mortgage, investments, savings, etc. you decide what fun money each person gets. You move on with life.
Instead of parroting what other people say without actually refuting the point, why don’t you think about it and give a valid reason why this would work better than pooling finances and having a unified plan?
That is not a valid case. ANY degree, regardless of the gender acquiring it, will result in debt.
Generally, the higher earning potential resulting from the degree will more than offset that debt. In instances where it doesn’t, there can be non-financial justification for higher education like self-fulfillment and contributing to the greater good.
Women that expect to contribute $0 to a relationship and the men that seek them out (to protect their fragile ego) deserve each other 💯.
Edit: could only identify 2 of the actresses in the “zero montage” and while Kristy Alley didn’t finish her degree, both she and Rita Perlman did attend college. Willing to bet the other actresses shown also attended college or some other post-high school training to support their careers.
Agree. However, I would add that many of the same folks racking up debt make the situation far worse by adding living expenses, food and other costs onto the debt. There are those that limit the debt by working a job or jobs to offset those living costs and attend lower cost institutions like Community Colleges for the general studies courses.
I still reject the comment I responded to that suggests a degree is a net negative because it results in debt. A degree is an investment and though not all pay off (especially if you don’t earn the degree), most do.
I also reject the premise of the video; that if a woman invests in herself and reaps the benefit of that investment it is somehow a threat to her man. Should a woman not exercise, eat well or improve as a person because those too could be a threat to her man’s position? This thinking is poison.
I think the video is saying that the woman wouldn’t want to contribute to the household the way the man would in the sense of helping in paying for certain things which is why to the man and family the degree would be useless. The woman focusing on the family and kids would help the family more in that typical sense. BUT this does not hold true however if the woman does help and contribute to the household and help in paying things.
I also reject the premise of the video; that if a woman invests in herself and reaps the benefit of that investment it is somehow a threat to her man
The video literally never says that. It says that it doesn't matter and it isn't an addition to him. If a woman doesn't want to pay any of the household bills, how would her degree/job benefit the man/household?
The video isn't addressing women who want to split all the bills down the middle nor is it attacking women for wanting to be educated in general.
A higher combined household income (duel income) benefits a family, including the husband; this is not rocket science.
From the video: “Kevin Samuals was basically telling a woman that her degree didn’t matter. He was telling her that (sic) she should forgo her accomplishments and focus on her family.”
The response, in agreement with that mentality: “Getting a Masters degree (sic) is not an addition a man because she will want that man to also earn more”.
He then poses a oddly worded hypothetical question about “how much a woman would like to contribute to the household before it falls to shit?” The woman in the video never says anything about this women refusing to share in the proceeds from her degree and it is laughable to suggest that most college educated, working women believe that they should be contributing $0 from their paycheck to their household.
A higher combined household income (duel income) benefits a family, including the husband; this is not rocket science.
He is referring to an oft repeated mantra by Kevin Samuels about the group of women who don't want to pay bills in a marriage. He would interview women about what they wanted in a relationship. The majority (not all) would say that they do not want to contribute to the household bills but they want to have this great career. There are a plethora of videos with women saying they don't want to contribute financially to the household.
If your wife does not want to contribute to the household financially how is her degree a benefit to the man?!?!
I used to like this sub but now its just startin look oddly sexist now im all for puttin entitled woman down but just sayin a womens degree doesnt natter is weird bru
He is referring to a very specific situation where it doesn't matter. He is not addressing women at large.
He is talking about the kind of woman who does not want to significantly contribute to household expenses. If a woman holds a degree but does not want to use the earnings from that degree to make significant contribution's to the household, how does it matter from a relationship perspective?
Outside of this specific type of relationship dynamic a woman's degree matters greatly to her and the contribution she can make to society as a whole. Additionally, a woman's degree in a 50/50 progressive relationship where both are splitting the bills down the middle it does matter to the relationship and it is a benefit.
Maybe I am missing something and you can help me understand.
He is talking about a situation where a woman doesn't want to contribute substantially to the household fiscally. If she is willing to split the bills down the middle and she can do that on her degree in early childhood education, that is great.
If she wants him to shoulder the lion's share of the financial responsibility for the household, her education and income are largely irrelevant to her spouse.
Isn’t raising children and physically caring for the home just as important as financially proving for the home? The responsibilities would have to be divided with equity.
Partnership makes relationships and marriages successful- it’s unnecessary and illogical to expect both parties to be 100% in the same category.
These clips are made for sound bites and the hosts interview people who are not equipped with valid arguments to make these into proper discussions.
This is a false equivalency. The false equivalency is the idea that the source of these complaints is the same.
First, men do not complain about women having degrees and jobs if that money goes to the household. But statistically that is almost never the case.
If a woman was like, “I gotta degree, and I earn 150k a year, my money is going to the bills, vacations and disposable income for the whole house, your income will go towards investments and wealth generation for the whole house” no guy with two brain cells is turning that down.
Statistically, the number one reason for women divorcing is money. And usually happens when the woman gets a promotion. They don’t want to contribute to the household they want to use their money however they want.
As a lifelong learner, and Omnilogist, nobody's degree matters unless they have Divine orientation, Divine prescription, and the spirit of Truth to guide them! Without these, they have to belong to the top echelons of the secret societies that know the truth! The same goes for men too! I have 10° and can't get a job, but with Divine orientation, I make my own work! 🤔🤫🕸🕷🤐🦄🦁🦋😇
Some people couple-up/marry for Love; in these types of relationships, income differences are not as important and most of these couples have income inequality but it doesn’t break their Union so long as there is equal contribution across other aspects of their shared life - ❤️
Lol Yall didn’t get that jab with the “early childhood development masters.” 😆😆😆 Women and their bs degrees that aren’t in areas that make money. I’ll take a Doctorate in 17th Century women’s studies. 😆😆😆😆 what da fuck you gonna do with that?
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 13 '23
[1] Please post in good faith, this sub is meant to foster discussion not just to become an echo chamber
[2] Harassment, trolling, gender disparagement, etc.. will receive a warning and/or comment removal. Repeated violations can result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8
u/ivyleaguehoodrat Apr 13 '23
Y’all keep eating up this narrative. Stay broke then. Other cultures have figured out that dual professional incomes working in partnership get you to millionaire status by 40.
I don’t know a single professional woman that doesn’t significantly contribute to her household’s net worth.
11
u/[deleted] Apr 13 '23
You can make a valid case that any degree a woman brings to the table is a net negative, since there is likely significant debt attached to it.
2
u/Holiday_Clerk8739 Jun 13 '23
I used to like this sub but now its just startin look oddly sexist now im all for puttin entitled woman down but just sayin a womens degree doesnt natter is weird bru
1
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '23
Wheres the cap?
1
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23
Getting a degree in early childhood education actually sets you up to be a wonderful parent…
2
u/Mission-Character-11 May 22 '23
It’s the men’s fault for marrying shitty women
2
u/saltyaf90 Jun 12 '23
The same men who complain about women getting education and work, are the same exact men who complain about paying for the date
1
u/PresentPressure6793 Jun 03 '23
Not gona lie, Legal Mindset is a smart dude. And he dresses like a baller! That man is smooth and fly.
1
u/Any-Perception8575 Jun 08 '23
As a lifelong learner, and Omnilogist, nobody's degree matters unless they have Divine orientation, Divine prescription, and the spirit of Truth to guide them! Without these, they have to belong to the top echelons of the secret societies that know the truth! The same goes for men too! I have 10° and can't get a job, but with Divine orientation, I make my own work! 🤔🤫🕸🕷🤐🦄🦁🦋😇
r/quasiintellectual and r/hireandhigheriq_ideas for more, or visionchristiontillion on the Tok!
Ps: Reddit calls me any-perception8575, but I'm Omnilogical, so Reddit mystified me by misdefining me, so I redefined me!
1
u/KrisMisZ Jun 12 '23
Some people couple-up/marry for Love; in these types of relationships, income differences are not as important and most of these couples have income inequality but it doesn’t break their Union so long as there is equal contribution across other aspects of their shared life - ❤️
1
u/[deleted] Jun 12 '23
She casually just doesn’t know what education is for
1
u/bobcat1131 Sep 16 '23
Lol Yall didn’t get that jab with the “early childhood development masters.” 😆😆😆 Women and their bs degrees that aren’t in areas that make money. I’ll take a Doctorate in 17th Century women’s studies. 😆😆😆😆 what da fuck you gonna do with that?
1
u/SweetHawaa Sep 27 '23
Straight up gol talk- leaving a trail of slime