Is she wrong? Being a housewife was supposed to be a testament to a MAN’s success. He was so well off that his wife just got to play and socialize all day.
If a woman is putting in overtime hours per week cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, making appointments, wrangling toddlers, and managing the household budget she is simply an employee of her husband, not a housewife. A housewife is supposed to be a pet/trophy. Not a working animal.
If a man making $65k asks one individual woman to be his nanny ($35k), housemaid ($30k), personal assistant ($40k), and sex worker ($50k-75k) on his budget then he is delusional or trying to scam her.
who the fuck still "goes to the post office" as a regular chore in current year
She'd do it for a white man making $65k, no questions asked.
65k is good money if we're talking the average man. She's average looking at best so she should settle for an average man.
What does she have to offer a rich guy other than the bare minimum of taking care of his and their children? Boo hoo, life is hard.
I've known Mexican grannies who slave away at cleaning jobs and have like 6+ kids at the same time with a house. This sheboon should grow the fuck up and stop living in fantasyland.
>65k is good money if we're talking the average man.
Why would you ever settle for an average man if you have access to a superior man?
>She's average looking at best so she should settle for an average man.
Why? An average woman is much more valuable than an average man.
>What does she have to offer a rich guy other than the bare minimum of taking care of his and their children?
Can a man bear children?
>if you have access to a superior man?
She doesn't. There's no way. If she can get it then good for her, but there's no way she looks like that and bags a rich dude.
>An average woman is much more valuable than an average man
To men, yes. She's free to be as choosy as she wants but if she holds on to those standards she's going to have a rough time. There's plenty of women to choose from and if they're not even hot then why would a man, let alone a rich guy, tolerate her over a more submissive woman who's also average looking?
>Can a man bear children?
Plenty to choose from, why choose her?
> Why settle for average man?
https://igotstandardsbro.com/
You totally missed the point
>Can a man bear children?
Yeah
also, news flash: you can't be a nanny, housemaid, personal assistant and PROSTITUTE all at the same time in real life. Delivering a letter is not a full time job and you can't seperate "nanny" from "housemaid" really. It's redundant. What's more, why should fucking your husband once in be the same thing as a job, a chore?
Nothing in life is free, dude, the #1 cause of woman-initiated divorce is money/status. The #1 cause of man-initiated divorce is sex.
You can dress it up however you want. Marriage is not charity.
I'm not saying it has to be a fairy tale, but if you want to go the transactional route then that goes both ways. You better be prepared to offer something of equivalent value as a woman - which would be looks and willingness to have and raise children full time. The woman in the OP image has neither so it's unlikely she'll ever be satisfied. That's my only point.
Duh? Most rich guys and their model wives have no illusions about why they are together
>you can't be a nanny, housemaid, personal assistant and PROSTITUTE all at the same time in real life
Sure you can. It’s called being a wife. All those things are job duties.
Nah, that's an exaggeration and the point was you can't do all those jobs together outside of being a wife unless they're all part time anyway. So you can't add up the earnings for doing all those jobs full time, that's ridiculous.
Correct. That’s why marriage contracts exist. Nowadays people don’t think much about them, but historically it was a serious business agreement.
How many blowjobs per week? How many vacations? Basic allowances? Joint bank accounts? Guidelines on children and future prospects? How many nights per week consoling baby at 3am? Do fees get reduced with her declining looks? Can she reject anal felching if he misses 3 promotions at work in a row? What stake does she have in their investments? Will his parents live with them when they get old?
This may sound crazy but some people actually like each other and don't see their relationship as transactional. That being said, if you want to talk historically - that's not how it worked. The woman had zero say over anything money related. They had no prospects other than to get married since women didn't work, and so they couldn't afford to be this choosy.
and of course they couldn't own property, or vote etc. etc.
Eh, that depended wildly across era and culture.
But women absolutely had a say. Marriage was often more broadly a business agreement between FAMILIES in order to make both wealthier and more powerful. Does her family have high social status in the the tribe? Does his family have lots of wealth in the tribe? Why not combine them and become superior to everyone?
>Marriage was often more broadly a business agreement between FAMILIES in order to make both wealthier and more powerful
Yeah but you're forgetting that the woman really has no say here either, it's a contract between the MEN of the respective families. The women are really just bargaining chips, currency. Grim way of putting it obviously, but that's how it was (in western society anyway).
Yes and no.
Men always wield the OVERT power in social dynamics. But women wield all the COVERT power in social dynamics. Women are vastly superior social chess players than men are. Bar none.
Women are and were experts at convincing men to act according to their private ambitions, and making them feel like it was their idea too.
“Rome rules the world, but women rule Rome.”
>Women are vastly superior social chess players than men are
What a load of shit male sociopaths are the masters of social chess since the dawn of society. Women cant manipulate male sociopaths because sociopaths are incapable of simping they can only see a woman as object meaning they can easily ignore their attempts to control them or just beat the shit out of them
Sociopaths are dumb as fuck on average and their charisma is a shallow facade that breaks easily.
Stop watching movies.
Nope. Women manipulate their friends, sons, fathers, brothers, nephews, husbands, lovers, bosses, colleagues, and so many more into doing what they want. Sex is only one tool of many for them.
The only way a woman can control a man like that is through marriage or selling herself as his lover.
Caring for and nurturing her children is not a job with a salary. It's not that she doesn't want to take on a domestic role, if that she doesn't want to be a mother. You've got to learn to spot these broken women and stay away from them.
You think women should have families and care for them for free?
The point is that employment and family life are not comparable. It's apples and tampons.
Yeah well she's right. Being a housewife for a rich man is a hobby. Being a housewife for a poor man is a job.
>If a man making $65k asks one individual woman to be his nanny ($35k), housemaid ($30k), personal assistant ($40k), and sex worker ($50k-75k) on his budget then he is delusional or trying to scam her.
Missing the fact that she's not doing all of that full time and doing half of it for herself. Most
One could compare being a housewife(/husband) to having a job. You do the housework, you get half the salary of your spouse in goods and allowances. One reason housewifes are common and househusband are rare - half of the mans salary is usually more than half the womans salary. A rich spouses houseperson has a higher effective wage than a poor spouses houseperson.
She's complaining about having to do normal human things (like cooking and cleaning) instead of being rich enough to pay somebody else to do it for her. Idk if she's so obsessed with wealth then maybe she should have looked for it herself instead of just expecting to marry a rich man.
Also imagine complaining about having to take care of her children, I'd hate to be her husband.
And it's not for free, she's getting "paid" a part of the salary her husband's earns in the form of food, clothing, a place to live, etc... it's just payment in specie instead of cash.
It’s wrong to turn down or quit a job that doesn’t pay you enough?
Bro
She is asking for a cuck to pay her to spend the day doing nothing but leisure, offering nothing in return but sex maybe?
And? If he’s not down for that he can keep looking for another employee
No, but if no one hires you because you think every job is beneath you then that's now a problem for you.
The woman in the OP image is not a model. That's the point. That kind of picky attitude only works if you can actually back it up with something.
Marriage is not a job homosexual.
It literally is. You are providing a woman with your money, social rank, and physical protection in exchange for open access to her reproductive capabilities over a prolonged period.
She's right so the logical conclusion is for women to exit the workforce and put a 10 year moratorium on immigration (100k per year maximum or so). Wages will skyrocket.
That wouldn’t make any sense economically. There is not a limited lump of labor that everyone must fight over.
More workers means more demand and more demand creates high paying opportunities for more workers.
Behold a vagina ape proving its incapable of love and devotion to her husband