(05-10-2022, 07:39 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(05-10-2022, 07:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: We should not assume anything about how human mate selection worked before we were born.
We didn't observe it, and our parents didn't give us a full unvarnished set of facts.
We also should not underestimate the task of rewiring the next generation of young lovers to make more socially productive choices.  None of the Disney princesses fell in love with men their parents set them up with.  Sleeping Beauty did, but she didn't know it was him.  That was an accident.  The others actively avoided their parents in the process of finding a mate.  So that's just one set of stories advanced by one corporation, but think of all the other love stories floating out there that would need to be rewritten. Do we need to put high caste Indians in charge of all romantic entertainment?
That's all sarcasm of course.
I think we need to deal with the society and culture we have via the laws, tax policies, and welfare qualification requirements we can actually change.

I'm not talking about a caste system.  I'm talking about viewing matting through an economic lense.  On average women make more than men until they are 35 years old.  For women to view men as suitable long term partners they want guys that make around 50% more than them.  That math doesn't work!  Right now. We designed a system to waste guys time.  If the goal is to become an economically attractive man with a family the displacement of men till their mid thirties is a recipe for disaster.

There are some areas where women under 30 earn slightly more than men under 30. In most of this US this is not true.
But now you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First you said women need to avoid deadbeats.
Now you're saying that women should accept men who earn about the same amount as them, rather than holding out for someone who earns 50% more.
Which is it? What did I miss?

---