Posted on 06/30/2012 5:42:52 AM PDT by JoeProBono
SAN DIEGO, -- Thirty-three percent of U.S. women say no to dating an unemployed man, but 42 percent would consider it if the man had a plan, a survey indicated.
The survey of 925 single women by specialty dating service It's Just Lunch found 4 percent of women responded with an unreserved yes to dating an unemployed man, while another 21 percent said they would, but they wanted to know how the man was keeping occupied if not working.
"Not having a job will definitely make it harder for men to date someone they don't already know," Irene LaCota, spokeswoman for It's Just Lunch, said in a statement.
Many women said they fear there will be a financial obligation if they dated someone who is out of work, while others said they feared their activities would be constricted by an unemployed man's financial limitations.
It's not just about money, life coach and filmmaker Patricia Weaver said, it is about being with a man who is engaged in something.
"Even at my age, 75, and dating if you can believe it, if a man is not employed, volunteering, involved in life -- it's a deal breaker," Weaver said.
Vincent Turner, of San Francisco, said women are subtle when they discover a man is living off his savings.
"No one's going to say, 'I'm not going to date you because you don't have a job," Turner said. "You usually get the first date. But you don't get a lot of callbacks."
An NFL player or NBA player put on waivers will still have a line of women who want to bop him.
Men are better off without such women.
Its not about the blacks, but about the decision making process of many women. They tend to make decisions using emotion rather then logic and facts. Her point was the number of women who voted for Bill Clinton, solely on the point they thought he was good looking. About the same stupid logic as blacks in large part admitting voted for Obama only because he is black, and only half so.
To your point about blacks not being able to vote from , of all placed, Wikipedia;
"When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with property were permitted to vote (freed African Americans could vote in four states)."
Females are attracted to men who can provide for them. Equal load bearing is a minimum. No sane woman is attracted to a man she is expected to support long term or forever.
Ladies, a plan doesn't pay the rent.
It's the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle of dating. If you have a job and money, you don't have the time to date. If you have the time, you don't have the money to date.
“Of course it depends on certain details but it’s completely understandable that a woman wouldn’t want a parasite attached to her wallet.”
Men have gotten used to it.
"Tend to," "mostly," "largely," etc. are words that betray those who stand in exception to the claims made, and making blanket decisions or laws based on such claims points toward collectivist / socialist groupthink.
If even one woman existed who stood to contradict the claim endorsed by your wife, and if she was denied the right to vote as a result of the law following as a consequence of such thinking, how would it be justice to that individual woman?
No one wants to marry “women” these days because even if they do have a job they also have HUGE credit card bills.
Most children are unable to make informed decisions about voting, and use emotion rather than logic and facts...
If even one child existed who stood to contradict the claim endorsed by me, and if that child was denied the right to vote as a result of the law following as a consequence of such thinking, how would it be justice to that individual child?
Females have two powerful biological imperatives. The first is to find the best potential sperm donor for their offspring. The second is to bond with the best available provider male to help her raise her offspring.
When there are a lot of available males, these two are unlikely to be the same male.
Males have the single biological imperative to produce as many offspring with their DNA, with as many different females, as they can.
However, this is at a basic biological level. Humans innovated monogamous, socially enforced marriage, which offers females, males, and especially their offspring, a much better deal than just basic reproduction.
(They also then innovated a way to ruin the system, called dowry, which defeated the purpose of quality reproduction.)
In any event, these biological imperatives, along with the others, like the female imperative to “display” herself to potential mates, and the male imperative to act like lions gazing at gazelles when females do this, lend themselves to social extremism.
The display thing and the male reaction to it is the fundamental reason for pornography. The male desire to spread around his DNA means that males are often Lotharios. And females will “date” the most hideous males who somehow have “interesting” genetics, and become downright mercenary when looking for a provider male.
The treatment for a lot of these social ills is first and foremost, to socialize children to the opposite gender throughout their maturation, so they see each other with clarity, not as enigmatic alien beings.
Second is to revitalize socially enforced marriage, by discouraging hasty marriage and divorce, and to inhibit those that would violate that marriage.
Third would be to create social alternatives for those who are not intended to be “breeders”. Some of these already exist, such as prostitution, and post-menopausal sexual activity. In many places, lifetime military service for males.
Unfortunately for your point, 'female' is a permanent condition, whereas age definitely isn't. Unless you can stop Time, that is.
:^)
I didn’t know any women who voted for Bill Clinton because he was supposedly good looking.
Lots (though not nearly the same proportion as black voters) voted for him because they are liberal Democrats.
It's a misandrous double-standard.
The single man is likely having a hard enough time finding employment in this economy without the likes of you and others saying he's not allowed some semblance of a social life. Is a newly hired suddenly more attractive as a date? How about one who has returned to school full time? Maybe one already dating or married with kids? They're good bets as husbands! Does the nature of his unemployment matter? Health, recent deployment, etc.
There is almost no American woman who wouldn't feel entitled to the double-standard of the man must have a "good job" for a date but I don't.
I have been employed unceasingly for 20 years, and over 6 figures for the last 10 of them. I have the money, and the time.
I have not had a date in about one hundred and eleventy billion years. It is like the job market, if you are not currently employed, potential employers see you as unemployable. If you have a job, headhunters call you constantly. Similarly, if you do not have a girlfriend, women see you as undateable. If you have a girlfriend, you have a flood of suddenly interested women.
eleventy billion is more than umpteen thousand. Re brand yourself.
In the past when I was single and between jobs, I’d stop dating until I was employed again. Just didn’t want to have to tell a woman I didn’t have a job and don’t like to BS people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.