The Metro is a daily free newpaper found in many major eastern cities at public transportation stations. Though I often read the Philadelphia edition, I saw some angry letters to the editor responding to this article. I didn't remember reading it, but it apparently was published in the New York edition.

Things like this are becoming more common out there. though the piece isn't a real rant, it nevertheless is getting the message out:

http://ny.metro.us/metro/blog/my_view/entry/Beware_the_pitfalls_of_a_rich_woman/12250.html


Beware the pitfalls of a rich woman
my view by j. shawn durham

APR 16

You can’t afford her. Trust me, my man, I know. Yes, I am single. Yes, I like to wine and dine a woman I’m interested in courting. Yes, I make decent money. So I don’t have too much problem with popping the bill for chivalrous activity. But for the upwardly mobile woman (UMW), it may be a hard reality to face: Your pockets may be fat, but they may not be fat enough.

Frustrating, huh? You make decent money and you live a comfortable life. But there’s a difference in making $50,000 and dating someone pulling in, say, $150,000. And brother, if you are on that $50,000 end of the equation — no matter your looks or charm — you’re likely swimming upstream in your efforts to reel in that professional skirt at the other end of the bar. You can marvel at the four-figure balance in your savings account, but she stacks her dough in a lofty, five- and six-figure Roth IRA and has diversified her stock portfolio.

There’s nothing wrong with women making dough. But nowadays, women are earning more money than ever before, which means their mate-vetting process is likely to get a bit more finicky. Why? Because unlike in the olden days, UMWs don’t have to seek a mate for her own survival. (A note here: A recent British study revealed that 59 percent of wives said they would divorce immediately if their future economic security was assured.)

So now that women are earning more, they are dating Average Joes less. According to an analysis of 2005 census data by sociologist Andrew Beveridge, women age 21 to 30 are earning higher wages — between 15 to 25 percent more depending on the city — than men in the same age range in cities like New York, Chicago and Boston.

Many UMWs feel if they earn a lofty salary, they should be with someone who earns an equivalent or higher wage. And no matter what feminist mantra they chirp to you, fella, many UMWs want a man secure enough fiscally to take care of her and maintain her comfortable lifestyle, even though she may not look to surrender her self-reliance (or her own wealth).

In short, man, it’s all about her option. Many UMWs want the option for it all: to keep, not spend, their money on anyone but themselves. Many want a man in control to take care of the bills and make all the decisions. Others reserve the right to claim independence and do whatever they want when it’s convenient.

No one said dating was easy.


The great un-fairness with women is that they by en large do not date down-wards with men who are social-economically in a lower position. Men on the other hand don't shun partners with a lower social-economic position.

The overpaid bitches can stay home and sit on it until they get a new program.

Blessings

Bob

HA HA, let them grow old alone and childless, that is feminism's gift to women.

usually fat and ugly anyways....

I HAVE NO PROBLEM MEETING WOMEN WITH MONEY. They are like any women . If you tell them what they want to hear . They will do anything you want . Like a dog . No matter what they look like. They all like to be controlled and told they are good girls.