It is hard to tell if the reveal came late or if the people were deluding themselves about what the other wanted or was willing to do. Friends of ours got divorced after over 30 years of marriage. She finally woke up to the fact that he was not very ambitious. He wrote for a small town paper and played guitar, and was like that as long as we knew him. This was not a change of circumstance - she seemed, as she neared retirement, wake up to the fact that he wasn’t going to change. So this was a problem in the opposite direction from your examples.
Bingo. This seems to be the number one complaint similar to the nice guy complaint. This seems to be the number one complaint in the agony Annie columns
He doesn’t work, and he wastes my money, and he stays out all night and tells me I’m stupid and ugly, but I loooove him. What should I do?
I guess the nice guys don’t read those columns.
I think desperation/neediness can be a result of a history of putting up zeroes in the dating department. Related to this is the severe fear of rejection I felt. I’m sure many potential dating partners pick up on it, and it becomes a vicous circle. The longer it goes the harder it is to break out of it. I went for over three years without a date in my twenties, incuding the entire time I was in grad school. When I moved from Tennessee to New York right before I turned 30 I started attracting a little interest, but I had less daing experience than many high schoolers. Not realizing what the opposite sex finds attractive/unattractive came into play as well; I was convinced well into my twenties that I was horribly unattractive physically, but what was really unattractive was the absence of confidence and social skills.
Males AND females have got to be aware that social skill is a skill set that has to be learned and practiced. It’s not absorbed by osmosis from the atmosphere.
Actually the Nice Guys[sup]TM[/sup] do read that and find in it proof of “see?? they can’t resist the bad boys!!”
Could my lack of success with romance, mathematics, and all things mechanical have sprung from a common source? My wife would probably say, “yeah, giving up too easily.”
True. I brought those examples up in this thread and in response to your comment about smart men not wanting dumber women. I’m sure those particular males would have been offended if someone had told them that they were afraid to pair with a woman of equal or greater intellect (“I’m dating one, right?”), yet they were not willing to treat a spouse as if she had equal or greater intellect.
The difference is that the former men are Darwinistic failures because they fail to reproduce whereas the latter women - assuming they have children - are successes.
Going back to the OP, there have been a couple of articles like this one in the British press recently about highly educated women being single because they won’t settle for men of less education or achievement.
In the couple with two fancy careers there’s always the undercurrent about having and raising kids.
I was in exactly that situation and when push came to shove we sacrificed having kids in favor of two fancy careers. Others may come to different conclusions.
IMO: Few men actively want children although most will have them happily enough. Far more women actively want children. The percentage of women for whom kids are a nonnegotiable life goal is fewer amongst the hard core careerists than women in general, but IMO is still far more than amongst the hard core career men.
As such in many couples there’s two careers *and *1 to 1.1(?) sets of kid-wanting to be traded off. In that three-way trade space more than 1/3rd of the time the woman’s career takes it in the neck. Not for the man, but for the kids.
Even if we assume kids and desires for kids completely out of the picture there’s still this:
For hardcore corporate climbers (which was neither of our careers), the first time someone turns down a promo/move for family reasons is the last time they’ll ever be offered such an opportunity. That may be less true for middle management in 2015 than it was in the 80s & 90s for us, but I rather doubt it’s much different now at the higher levels.
In that case the fuze was lit as soon as they were married and they collectively were simply awaiting the random chance of who first was offered the make or break promo/move the other couldn’t / wouldn’t follow. Maybe it’ll be he; maybe it’ll be she.
I don’t think that would be borne out by stats.
We did two careers and kids. I did backburner my career for orthodontist appointments, but I still have a tidy six figure professional career where I’m in a room with CIOs for major companies - as opposed to my husband who was a VP for a major company before he decided to trim back and now consults (and still makes nearly twice what I do working not quite full time). But there was also professional choice there, not just the kids. I don’t LIKE working more than 40 hours a week and I don’t LIKE managing people.
I’m not suggesting its impossible to do both, as you and countless other two-big-careers-and-kids families prove.
The poster who originally brought up the scenario of a high powered couple splitting over their diverging careers painted the whole thing as a simple case of premeditated male chauvinism paying lip service to his future wife’s career aspirations from the git-go.
Which could certainly have been true in that instant case of those two particular people. But which IMO, is not the case in general. There *are *tradeoffs to be made. That does not prove chauvinism.
This is only true if someone is trying to climb within a single company. Company B doesn’t give a rat’s patootie that Professional X turned down Company A’s offer to move her to Cleveland. The “work for a single company and then retire with a pension” model is pretty well dead at this point, at least in the U.S.
If I made it sound as though I thought it was premeditated, I apologize. In the cases I mentioned, I don’t believe it was premeditated.
Not my college. I mean I did all right and all. But judging by the number of girls coming and going (or not) from my dorm floor and the amount of complaining the guys did, there wasn’t a whole lot of getting laid. And it was a pretty big party school. Problem was:
- There were a lot more guys than girls in general
- EVERY guy was in good shape. Everyone wrestled or played football or hockey or lacrosse or did crew or whatever.
- EVERY guy was in one of 30-something fraternities (there were like 8 sororities).
- The only “professional” women in town were typically the ones whose profession involved sex.
- The only place to go “out on the town” was a couple of local college bars with the same crowd you’d see at the fraternity parties anyway.
Plus it’s kind of an elite engineering and business school. I think it’s harder to get laid in an environment where everyone thinks they are awesome because their parents bought them a BMW for Christmas.
Job, gym, job, gym. If your means of support and/or exercise are at all weird, you had better be an obvious alpha-plus monster at those things. Shuttling back and forth between stuffy, fluorescently lit arenas of competitiveness is about as much social proof as most of us can manage.
We don’t just need each other to be decent, fun, and companionable. We need to cultivate superficiality, and it has to go beyond dressing well and speaking well. We need to show we do some things simply to belong.
There’s your problem right there, Bub. Fix that and you’da been in like Flynn. 
Not that I think you don’t already know that, both now and back then.
‘Violent abusive men stalking and assaulting’ women is actually the fault of, um, the men who do these things, not the women who date them.
Yes, of course, but I think Jackmannii’s point is that some women are drawn to the violent/abusive type of men. Perhaps because of a dysfunctional upbringing themselves, or thinking they can heal the man, or perhaps being (subconsciously) attracted to drama or trouble.
Who cares? The fault here is entirely with the people who choose to stalk / abuse.
Yes, you said that before, but there’s enough fault to go around:
Men should not be douchebags.
Women should have better sense than be drawn to douchebags.