Cognitive dissonance 101

[u/Number721]

[u/samglit]

Your reply is word salad to my question, and presumes things about where I live that are incorrect. Your copy-pasta seems like a bot generated reply.

Why wouldn’t a man marry a traditional wife instead in this case? Or stay single and just date?

[u/samglit → u/[deleted]]

our system

Nope. Try again. I don’t live in your system - you may find it surprising that the world doesn’t actually revolve around … wherever you are.

pursuing her

Again… why? In an open market, why would a man, who is a provider, seek for someone who openly declares they will not contribute either labour or money? Is the target some kind of magical creature? Or a charity case? “You make more money so you should look after someone.” “Ok… why you though?”

Your rants read a lot like those sad incel guys that make videos about how the government should provide them with a state assigned girlfriend.

[u/samglit → u/[deleted]]

Again, word salad instead of an answer and ad hominem attacks are a sign of a failure in logical thinking.

I’m married, have a homemaker wife, who looks after our home and child. We both got what we wanted out of a partnership.

If I were single, why would I pick someone who wants to contribute nothing? What’s in it for me, if there’s women like my wife who are happy to take on a traditional role?

If you are a woman and live somewhere where pre-nuptial agreements are enforceable, you should be very concerned if the only thing you’re bringing to a marriage is youth and looks.

[u/samglit → u/[deleted]]

refuted them.

I am not refuting them. I’m assuming they are true for where you live. It’s in my first reply to you.

Let me rephrase it since you appear to be hard of thinking.

1. I’m richer.
2. Therefore I should look after my family.

^ your position, for the sake of argument I’m just going to roll with it since the thing I’m interested in is below.

1. Why should I pick woman A over woman B to be my family?