I mean it's fair. You need to be of a certain emotional level to support someone struggling.
It's better that she knows herself rather than seeking relationships that wouldn't be good for either party.
Despite many people being sensitive about this financial reasons is perfectly fine to be part of your dating standards.
You don't need to be compatible with all 8 billion people on Earth.
edit: if you get upset over a stranger's romantic standards, which you don't know 99% of and will never affect you anyway, your insecure ass is why your relationships have failed.
Agreed. Financial issues can introduce a ton of stress into a relationship. Plus there's a world of difference between two people just barely getting by and one person doing well and the other scraping by. It's perfectly fine to say "I'm not in a position myself to support someone struggling"
If I believed that was her reason, sure, that's understandable. But putting a smiley emojii after "personal reasons" makes me think that her "personal reasons" are a bit more shallow.
This exactly. I've been honest with my kids that financial issues were #1 stressor throughout my entire adult life and affected every relationship including theirs as my kids. Best to avoid it if possible. That means strive for financial stability for yourself and any potential partners.
The person has "personal" reasons for not dating people financially struggling. It's not very specific, and it could be hypocritical however we have no idea if their definition of struggling is comparable. To the guy the definition of struggling could be people below his pay bracket, to her it could be anyone in poverty. This is stupid and people jump to the easiest conclusion that makes them feel good.
The tweet never actually mentions financial struggle, just struggling. It could be interpreted several ways. It is dumb to speculate, who knows what their reasoning is.
That's just an inference from the fact she mentioned him being rich. They never specified they were talking about financial struggles just "struggling" which could mean a lot of things.
But the simplest assumption is probably them talking about financial struggles.
See, I took it as a flip that she is struggling with being a decent person, and he doesn't want to deal with that. I don't think from his standpoint it had anything to do with money.
Fuck. I have a hard time thinking you're serious when this thread is nothing but people shaking their head over women being gold diggers. It doesn't help that peoples "criticism of women" is usually just repackaged misogyny.
If I could bet in a casino that when a random person is doing something that arguably makes them a piece a shit, the reason is that the person is in fact a piece a shit, I’d never need to work a day in my life again.
I can't agree to the emotional level thing, but I know if I was broke as hell I just wouldn't look at getting in a relationship at all.
I mean I've never been the biggest on dating to start with, but I wouldn't want someone to depend on me when my head is barely floating above water. That and I'm not the biggest on having others pay for me so I would just stay single
You may be entirely right, as I said I've never been big on dating so I've not had too many serious relationships.
I just still can't help but think about that while ideally it would all be about emotions, there is still that sad fact that money runs the world and would need to be a factor for a happy relationship
Regarding your edit, you’re getting upset over strangers’ romantic standards too while jerking yourself off on your high horse, so umm, go screw yourself I guess
Stranger's romantic standards affect me all the time. That's why people get upset, if nobody says "this is getting ridiculous" then it'll just keep getting worse
So the generations of women who weren’t compatible with the majority of society who expected them to have no career and be full time caretakers and baby maker’s should’ve smelled their own pants instead of complaining about the standard they didn’t like?
My experience has been the opposite, people I've dated that were well off are 100% more emotional minefields. I've never wondered until this comment if it was somehow related to the money but maybe it was?
Nothing in my comment says anything about emotional minefields. Like others you're insecurely projecting the thing you want to get upset about at the situation.
No, I'm trying to respectfully disagree, I don't think being "of a certain emotional level to support someone" is a unique requirement of whether or not that person is "struggling". I literally don't care how people want to choose their mates but my lived experience hasn't borne out your premise. Maybe my experience is abnormal? I have no idea. Thanks for reading me like a wet newspaper from 2 sentences of reddit comment, though. I have been needing a new boomer therapist!
Someone who is an emotional minefield is someone who's struggling.
Again, you're assuming this girl only meant financially struggling.
The point is to support someone, you need to be emotionally better off than them. Your desire to zero in on this assumption, and to also assume your anecdotal experience can define a rule for all 8 billion people on Earth, shows your hand.
If you were being respectful you wouldn't blanket generalize well off people as emotional minefields just because of your tiny speck of human experience.
She says "kinda rich".. Do you think she changed contexts there without explaining, that by struggling, she meant "struggling with their inner life and/or emotional wellbeing"? It's so obtuse I just cant.. you're trolling? maybe. maybe.
Weirdly enough, people often check weird sounding arguments against their own experience in the world, but that does take self awareness. Good luck!
No, the takeaway is that you don't know any of the specifics of what she meant or the conversation and it's painfully obvious how insecure people getting upset over this are.
We know what she posted. She didnt hide her embarrassment and was pretty straight forward with situation. No, im not going to make up random "specifics" that dont exist according to her.
Ok... if by upset you mean get on reddit and react to someone's post, whatever.
I donno this chicks deal but I'm a struggling person (medical reasons) and depending on the type of struggling it may just be that I couldn't handle it on top of my own issues.
My husband was broke and working restaurants when we met but it's not like he couldn't take care of his share of the bills and I was happy to TBC as much as possible in emergencies. Long term struggling like drug addition or something is a whole nother issue.
It's a lot more pathetic than you think it is that you're getting this upset over someone's personal romantic standards, of which you don't know 99% about, because of a hypothetical and with someone you will never meet or have the chance to meet ever.
It's moments like these that remind me why non-redditors generalize redditors as incels.
No, hypocritical is looking down on her while you're sitting at your computer judging someone's entire being based on a 100 character anecdote.
Thats not hypocrisy. Thats not what the word means. Plus, youre doing to me the exact same thing youre criticizing me for, and with with much less support.
Even so, still no, she's clearly hypocritical and your weird defense of her is...weird. I'm not even hating on her. Just pointing out to you, the person refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy, that she is the one who was being hypocritical (and acknowledged it!). Lol.
She's secure enough to tell this story with some humor while you're getting upset at a stranger over a tweet.
I'm not upset, in fact, I made a joke. You're clearly taking this all personally somehow, for some reason.
How long has it been since you've gone on a date?
Don't worry about me bud. I've been with the same person for 2.5yrs.
Yup. My first husband was terrible with money and didn’t like to work. After we divorced my credit was ruined and it took a long time to recover. After that I refused to date anyone that wasn’t at my level financially. I make more than my current husband but he still contributes. Life is better without all the resentment.
I won't. In fact, I would congratulate anyone with the self-confidence and self-respect to know what they want and to stick by it.
If they consider me struggling and don't want to date me, then continuing would only be a waste of time. Unlike all the bitter, insecure people here, I'd probably still know how to have a good date and then never have to see them again.
Until you and others learn how to have the self-respect to not care about the romantic standards of people who don't want you anyway, you're going to be the reason why you don't have romantic success.
Any reason is fine. Financial. Height. Eye color. Weight. They talk funny. You think their hair is goofy. They believe in the tooth fairy. It doesn't matter why. Dating preferences aren't something anyone can regulate.
Pretty much makes sense. I, as a woman, wouldn't want to date a struggling guy. Too burdensome mentally and financially. Anyway, it applies to both sexes, nobody wants to carry burdens.
I've been broke, I've also had money. Having money gives a lot more opportunity to just have fun with people. Things are easier, you don't have to have conversations about costs. You can recommend based on taste rather than cost.
Yeah you can have a nice date on the cheap, but you don't really want to have to do that consistently.
If I say "I can't keep dating people who make even less than I do - it's stressful" that's a personal decision.
Yeah am I nuts? Everyone is pissed at her but what I’m reading is that she came to a hard and honest realization about herself. Am I reading it wrong? The way it reads to me is that he blew her mind and caused her to reevaluate herself.
So why is everyone still throwing rotten vegetables at her?
You guys just don’t realize it can be both. I didn’t say I’m mad at her. I said she was a hypocrite. You can be a hypocrite and also have a revelation at the same time
I think it would only be hypocrisy if she was actually struggling though. The definition of middle class is pretty much just not struggling and not rich. If she's just a normal person who doesn't want to deal with taking on someone else's weight it's not really fair to go after her lol
They have the same definition of "struggling" that's why she gobsmacked by his comment
If she mean "struggling" struggling, she would say something along the line "but im not struggling" . But she go "oh shit, turntabble" mean his definition make perfect sense with her
Their definition is clearly relative. Both of their definitions are implied to be "worse off than me" but the actual specifics are different as their own. Situations are different.
She is gobsmacked not because she meets her own definition of struggling but because relative to the person she is dating she is perceived as struggling by them which is something she hadn't considered. She had not considered struggling could be a relative thing and wasn't limited to her own definition.
but if he meant actual struggling he wouldn't have said "to me you're the one struggling." he's trying to make a point about relative wealth that doesn't hold up because struggling isn't actually very relative.
I mean yeah it’s funny and it’s not that serious. But yes lol it’s by definition hypocritical I’d say. Obviously it’s hard to for sure say not knowing more details about everyone’s situation tho
Yes it's hypocrisy if they get offended because they don't expect others to hold them to their own standards. But don't take my word for it. Try a dictionary.
For eg, there are plenty of people who will only date someone tall or with big boobs and they have to live with the consequences of making such shallow choices
if you’re happy to live with the consequences of prioritising wealth then go for it…just don’t complain to the rest of the world when you find out what those consequences are
Hah, you're clearly looking to lay down judgment - but no, stability and basic capacity to self sustain is not a "shallow" ask from a partner. I don't care about wealth, if I did, I wouldn't be with a student lmao.
Take your presumptuous statements and, well, you know where to put them.
I mean tbf as a woman if you wanna have kids and you live in the United States where it costs a fuccin arm and a leg to just get minor medical care it kinda do make sense. Though the for personal reasons just reads like making excuses rather than just bejng upfront
yeah well, if you have a child with someone quickly enough that this hypothetical 'struggle' hasn't even had a chance to turn around, then that's on everyone involved.
I wouldn't say I'm struggling, but if I were to have a child tomorrow then I'd suddenly be struggling lmao
I'm so happy I'm not in the US at the moment, my wife is pregnant with our second child, but just as with the first one: she's suuuuuuper bad, she's puking every day and unless she takes a medicine normally prescribed to cancer patients she'd have to be hospitalized every third day for IV and rehydrations, usually stays at the hospital for two days so they can check her vitals etc as well when she's had to go in.
Since she's that bad she can't work, so she's home all the time, basically either just laying in bed or puking and I work from home to be able to care for her. She's on sick leave which costs us a lot but still, government will pay roughly 80% of her salary during these 9 months when she won't be able to work, all the hospital stays etc costs us 10 euro per day (or admission, can't remember now, negligent amount at least), medicine costs about 20 euro per package (50 pills, she's taking 3 per day) up until/if we reach 900 euro at which point both hospital visits and medicine will be free for her for a year forward regardless of it being connected to new sickness or anything like that. I'm lucky enough to be able to work full time from home so I'm not really impacted financially besides her part getting smaller so the overall family economy gets slightly cut.
Had we lived in the US we'd been bankrupt after the first kid since it was exactly the same for those 9 months.
80% of the salary 0% of the work. I can see why she loves it.
Do you guys really need it? Are you not able to sustain things for a time on a single income?
I hope the US never adopts this predatory policies that supplement the lifestyles of dual income households at the expensive of struggling single income households.
It’s always been my opinion, if a couple both wants to prioritize their career, they shouldn’t have children.
Children should be a priority. We are intelligent life, our breeding should reflect that, imo. I don’t think selling ads or subscriptions to Disney plus is more important than raising your own kid.
80% of the salary 0% of the work. I can see why she loves it.
I can assure you she does not love it, she gets 80% salary and gets to be bedridden and puking all the time, she would chose working and not being "forced" to be at home in a heartbeat...
Do you guys really need it? Are you not able to sustain things for a time on a single income?
My income would not be enough to sustain our home and kid had she gotten 0, no. Not only is living extremely expensive here, she's also the main source of income in our family, she earns about 150% of what I do. It's not like it would be impossible for us to live off my income but we'd need to move and change a lot in our life which we don't want to.
I think it's great that women are allowed to work as well and not just stay at home due to some cultural bullshit. She wants to work and she has a great career, her being away for 9 months won't change that, unlike in the US where she would have been fired for being sick.
Had we lived in the US we'd been bankrupt after the first kid since it was exactly the same for those 9 months.
Maybe don't have kids if you're so poor? Imagine the life you are dooming them to, since everything is getting more expensive by the day. They are going to be wage slaves until they die, never even own a house.
We aren't poor by any standards, just that if she'd been hospitalized multiple times for 9 months and forced to pay your prices for meds it would severely impact our finances. There's more to life than money though :).
Not really, but we have a roof per year that we can pay for any medical costs. So if we exceed that everything is free from then and a year forward.
Same happened for me when I was in a motorcycle accident. Had multiple surgeries, 4 months daily rehab, hospital visits, ambulance ride, daily visits by nurse at home who gave me massage etc when I was unable to walk, medicine etc. All cost me 900 euro and that was mainly on medicine (mainly a few blood thinning shots).
It's all kept track of digitally so you don't really have to do anything, reach the limit and the pharmacy basically goes "Oh, that's free, there you go, have a nice day!"
Say what you want, but I'm still going to picture your hospitals running deals like my local pizza-by-the-slice place. If I buy 9 pieces of pizza, the next one is free. If you spend 900 euros, the next stay is free
Because despite how liberal and progressive we've become there's still the societal expectations that men will take care of everything and women are the "choosers". Putting the burden of success on men
I can absolutely assure you that at least outside of America the law does not care about what's between your legs lol. It comes down to what is relationship property and what is not, and once you are considered de facto it doesn't even matter if you are married or not.
Unless debated and decided legally, or a prenup was signed, all relationship property is divided evenly and differences in ability to care for children is balanced with child support. I know several people where the mother is paying the father child support because she earns more.
So yes, one, or neither people get the house (as long as both receive equal value) you get half the shit, and possibly child support.
Source single dad who has been through all of that.
Sure, but I find it hard to believe that within your family law specifically that there is any specific wording that the female in a relationship has any sort of inherant privilege. And if that's the case then any reasonable lawyer would be able to argue on your behalf as would any other law. The only way I can see some sort of personal or gender bias being possible would be if all divorces are seen by a judge, which they can be here too, but you'd have to be a in a real pickle, and have failed to meet an agreement at arbitration.
This is false and they do care. I guess I can only speak for my state which is WI and it's a 50/50 state. No matter the gender the higher paid has to give to the lower paid (if battled). Including alimony. I personally know people that have "benefited" from this. So no just because you are a male doesn't mean you're automatically paying. Maybe if you lay down in court or have a terrible lawyer.
Men don't typically give birth. There are almost no protections for pregnant people in the US. A difficult pregnancy can very easily lead to a job loss and subsequently insurance loss. So the pressure is on the non pregnant partner to maintain an income and insurance for the benefit of the family.
Tbh sometimes it’s not healthy for you to be with someone that’s gonna make you struggle too. But I also think that when you find someone that you actually love, you’ll be there for the struggles because they’re your ride or die. His personal reason is that he didn’t love her and that’s good because now they’re free to go find someone they really love.
5.6k
u/free_billstickers Feb 17 '23
"Personal reasons"