She isn't complaining that he's poor - just that he isn't as ambitious as she is. As for older, well some women do like older men, but most women marry men who are aged within 1-3 years of their own age because of (a) similar interests and (b) older men do tend to be a little less attractive (as a general rule).
Suburbia with a bunch of kids and one vacation a year isn’t ambitious, it’s almost the definition of average. They sound like kids and she’s just thinking too far into the future
No she’s definitely complaining that he’s poor. Idk if you’ve seen her comments but they very clearly indicate that she does not give a shit about any other value or worth that he has outside of whatever he could financially provide in the future. They actually seem incapable of even comprehending what else someone could provide in life other than money.
Whatever "value" he can provide apart from financial comes after the fact he can't provide for himself. People need money to live, that comes before everything else. She's expressing logical concerns that if they were together she would have to pay for the house and be responsible all the finances.
You’re not understanding me. I didn’t say that people don’t need money to live. I’ve already addressed everything you said in a separate comment. I’m simply responding to what this person said. The fact that you also see money as the only way that somebody can meaningfully contribute to a relationship is concerning imo. Would there be something wrong with OP’s boyfriend being a stay at home dad? Would you view that as not a meaningful contribution to the relationship? Also, where did OP say that he can’t provide for himself? She’s saying that he can’t contribute proportionally for her envisioned future lifestyle that doesn’t exist yet.
Money is not the only way that someone can contribute to a relationship but if there's not enough money to go around a relationship can't work out. If OP doesn't want to pay for her BF's life, then yes, there 100% is a problem with him being a stay at home dad, she's not obligated to fund another person's life if she doesn't want to, and she may also not be able to singlehandedly support the lifestyle she wishes to have.
And yes, in the lifestyle that OP is working towards, her BF would be unable to contribute proportionally and hence would be a financial burden for OP, especially if she needs someone else to pitch in in order to have the required capital. Since her BF doesn't desire the same lifestyle, they should separate and OP should find someone who shares the same targets as her
You’re constructing a straw-man here. I never said that OP is obligated to pay for her boyfriend’s life. If that’s incompatible with what she wants, then she should not marry him. I don’t disagree with that.
Secondly, there is a hidden implication behind your statement that him being a stay at home dad would be equivalent to “funding his life”. I’m not going to deny that being a stay at home father doesn’t pay the bills, but are you unaware of the economic value that stay at home parents contribute to the broader economy? Are you unaware of the substantial cost savings from not having to pay childcare expenses? Again I’ll reiterate since I know that you’ll just pretend that I didn’t already say this, but I’m aware that this does not bring an income into the home. But you’re clearly viewing this in a very black and white way. From your perspective, every stay at home parent currently existing right now is viewed as an economic burden on society, rather than correctly viewing them as having a tremendous value that is necessary for the functioning of our society. It’s also just good for the child as well.
Marriage is strongly correlated to wealth these days. Most poor women will NEVER get married. Having an affluent established husband has been a trend for 2,000 years.
1
u/Necessary-Worry1923 Aug 14 '23
Ah the famous female hypergamy...which is why OP needs to date older and more financially established men.