CMV: Rejecting men because they doesn't earn enough is not "shallow"

Glass_Bucket · 2025-03-15T16:37:08+00:00

It depends a lot on the why. Are you rejecting a man who doesn't make enough money because you're worried he won't able to put your kids through college or because you want your man to buy you a new gucci bag every month?

leosandlattes · 2025-03-15T16:50:16+00:00

It depends on his social class and educational background for me. I would rather date some broke PhD student making 35k a year on his stipend and comes from a good family, rather than some low class lottery winner who’s got criminals and druggies in his family.

justdontsashay · 2025-03-15T16:39:45+00:00

Dating someone because he’s rich and buys you things is shallow. (there’s nothing wrong with it, any more than there’s something wrong with dating people only for looks. But both are shallow)

Not wanting a relationship with a man who is broke, not trying to better his situation, and wants me to pay for things so he doesn’t have to work harder, isn’t shallow.

KyleKingman · 2025-03-15T16:38:58+00:00

How is anyone supposed to change your opinion on this? It’s just a statement that you feel is true. There’s no evidence that someone can point to.

Whiskeymyers75 · 2025-03-15T16:45:20+00:00

As long as she doesn’t mind going to the streets when she can’t carry her own weight.

thapussypatrol · 2025-03-15T18:02:53+00:00

I don't think they're talking about cooks, delivery drivers and janitors - a lot of women these days' standards is like '$100,000 at minimum' - also: men and women care about physical attraction - the fallacy here is that just because men have fewer criteria than women for attraction (including physical looks) that must mean that they care a lot about looks - no, in fact, women actually care far more about looks, objectively speaking, than men do - they care about EVERYTHING more than men, basically.

Feisty-Saturn · 2025-03-15T18:07:12+00:00

Everyone should be dating people they are attracted to. Not doing so ultimately will just lead to relationships that lack intimacy. And that might be ok for some, asexuals do exist. But it won’t be for most. So what the guy is saying isn’t ridiculous.

What’s ridiculous is expecting men to find jobs that don’t exists. Most men will not find a job or have access to a job that he can fully support himself and another woman on completely. Especially a woman who wants brand name items, wants to be taken out on dates frequently, wants the latest technology, etc.

Remarkable-Salt1074 · 2025-03-15T17:48:35+00:00

They are both shallow. I’m in the position where barring life ending injury I will be top 1% in income. I’m not saying this to brag, just if someone only liked me for that aspect I don’t want them. I value being supported along the way and offer it in return. If either of us got hit by a bus tomorrow what is the relationship. She’s probably “ugly” post injury and I’d be crippled and jobless. That’s a business relationship and I’m not interested.

However, if a man can’t support a family and that’s what you want, reject that man. You also can’t have a sexual relationship with someone you aren’t attracted to physically unless you are demi. This applies to both genders.

Fantastic_Draft8417 · 2025-03-15T19:11:20+00:00

There’s no version of dating that isn’t “shallow”. People who promote this idea of certain requirements being shallow are usually stuck on the holistic “true love, compatibility” version of dating we pretend to have. That’s not dating. Men select women for fertility, women select men for resources and protection. For men, that means looks and lack of previous children, and for women, that means money and masculinity. That’s it. That’s what the whole song and dance is about. Courtship and dating are just pretty coats of paint and glitter we put on this process, so we feel like we’re above our base instincts and that we aren’t really animals. That we’re “better” than others who prefer more “shallow” criteria. People who don’t have what others want: Poor men or submissive men, and undesirable women or single mothers, designate the things that we really want as shallow, because they don’t have it. The idea that selecting men for wealth is shallow is created by men who don’t have wealth, and perpetuated by men who create romance stories. Storytelling is one of the most powerful influences on our culture, and men have had virtually complete control over stories for nearly all of human history, up until maybe 200 years ago give or take. Romance stories then, go against the natural order by depicting poor or unmasculine men winning a woman’s heart through emotional favors. Women are then shamed by society into accepting this narrative. It’s effectively a mass stockholm syndrome on women. Women are being forced to get with men they don’t want (aka nearly all men to ever exist) by societal pressures. There’s no benefit for a woman to be with a man in the modern age, really. Previously women tolerated it because it was essential to their survival, then because of societal restrictions on their wealth, but now women are walking away. They have 4B and KillAllMen, and are expressing their true feelings towards men en masse, aka hate. So the only reason that a woman would ever tolerate a man is if what he had substantially, and I mean SUBSTANTIALLY improved her life. Like, genuinely made it 1000x better. But then men come in not getting the hint that maybe women just aren’t that into them, and they come up with this “shallow” bullshit. This is shallow, that’s shallow, everything’s shallow, pick me pick me pick me. And women hate it, women hate them, women see through it all but they have their voices kept silent by shame, because women are more socially oriented than men and are more prone to being shamed. This is how they truly feel.

Gloomy-Internal6837 · 2025-03-15T19:17:48+00:00

if women want a man who makes money, even if she makes her own money (because lets face it, she'd rather save hers and spend his) then that isn't a partnership, its a sponsorship and the man is her leading investor and by the nature of that dynamic, she is obligated to perform or get out. The term "modern woman" does not apply to her and she is his property. Hopefully the guy is just treating her like a holding option and will upgrade when something better comes along. Men always pay for sex either indirectly or not. Hiring an escort is a way more honest transaction. there's a fixed rate for services rendered and not a "monthly retainer" for services not rendered as in the modern relationship.

OriginalThought171 · 2025-03-15T19:30:00+00:00

I feel like the argument doesn't work because if a man rejects a woman based on her appearance it is definitely considered shallow.

Imo rejecting someone based on any surface level trait (looks, money, status, height etc.) is shallow.

So rejecting someone based on money is also shallow.

ChadChasingBReturns · 2025-03-15T22:55:44+00:00

It’s not shallow for a man to reject a woman for having a sexual past or for a man with money to treat her like a whore for expecting her to be his walking wallet by the same logic.

StockHamster77 · 2025-03-16T00:52:02+00:00

Both sides are shallow, and they’re allowed to be, but the guy doesn't mind women looking for money, while the woman’s complaining about guys looking for looks. So I’d say it’s the woman who's being hypocritical here

Barely-moral · 2025-03-16T00:15:01+00:00

I have no issue.

That being said if she picks me from my money which is understandable I will make her earn every cent. Which is also understandable.

I have no problems with transactional relationships. Everything has a price. My money included. Lets see if she wants to pay.

UndeniablyGone · 2025-03-16T00:40:07+00:00

Lady, if you're genuinely getting your love advise from a TikTok video then I'm afraid the brain rot has really burrowed too deep. It's straight-up terminal at this point and it SHOWS, believe me. If you're lucky enough to find a good partner in this life, you'll weather many storms with each other. Who you are coming into the relationship is rarely the person you end up being after. You learn to balance it all together. It's not a fucking competition, you nitwit.

Elliejq88 · 2025-03-17T15:48:58+00:00

Rejecting men because they dont earn enough to be financially stable (in combination with my income) for a future family is NOT shallow. It is imperative a woman does this. Women who dont look at this are unwise and are setting themselves up to be stressed out beyond measure if they procreate with this man and to have worse outcomes for their children. Children do MUCH better in financially stable households.

Example: Where I live, you need a combined household income between two people of 150,000 to be comfortable (not rich) with 2 kids. Since I make 85k, it would be unwise of me to marry someone who makes less than 65k. The average income where I live is 85k. So I would be fine marrying someone who makes the average amount, assuming he is fine with SPLITTING household/childcare duties (another hurdle as alot of men want to split bills but not work at home).

If I wanted to work part time or stay at home (to offset the costs of childcare which are insane where I live and many women do this), the guy would need to make around 100k for me to work part time or around 150k for me to stay home and not work at all.

If I did not want children, I could date a guy who makes 25k at the poorest, because for a childless couple to be comfortable its around 110k needed.

All of this is for non bougie women too.

Rejecting men because they arent rich is shallow.

jazzmaster1992 · 2025-03-15T16:41:10+00:00

I think it's shallow, and I don't think it's a bad thing. Dating is inherently shallow. You can say you don't care about money but just want him to be a little taller than you, or have a "good sense of humor", or whatever surface level trait even if it seems reasonable. At the end of the day it's all shallow in that it lacks depth, because you can't have depth until you get to know someone and build a meaningful relationship with them. Pretty much all relationships have to begin with a place of liking how someone looks, their overall vibe and just generally having qualities you're attracted to. I think being shallow is perfectly fine in the world of dating, because nobody has to be with anyone so you might as well only ever choose someone you're excited to be with.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2025-03-15T20:30:44+00:00

It is shallow. Maybe it's reasonable but if you choose according to money you are basicaly a type of prostitute.

missmireya · 2025-03-15T21:02:02+00:00

If you're a young girl who wants to get married & have kids- NEVER EVER DATE A BROKE ASS MAN. Especially if you're a young pretty girl who wants marriage and kids. Take your time and choose wisely. These guys deserve nothing if they can't provide. Re-read the last sentence over & over again.

Downvote away.

ku-rosh · 2025-03-17T07:57:12+00:00

I've come to find women actually don't care at all about money when looking for a partner.

AutoModerator · 2025-03-15T16:35:14+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2025-03-15T16:35:15+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Illustrious_Wish_383 · 2025-03-15T17:24:13+00:00

UPS delivery driver top pay is $49 an hour (plus subsequent contractual annual raises after reaching top rate) at the end the 4 year progression period according to the current contract. They also have union benefits including excellent insurance that has zero monthly premium (including spouse and child coverage) and low copay. They get pensions, vested after 5 years. max pension after 35 years of service is IIRC around 4-5K per month, depending on region, with option to keep your insurance if you're at least 55. That $49 an hour doesn't count time and a half after 8h and drivers usually work around 9-10h days. Source: UPS employee for 19 years.

growframe · 2025-03-15T18:37:14+00:00

It is shallow. Rejecting someone for what society publicly deems to be a superficial trait is shallow. That's what "shallow" in terms of dating means in the first place.

However, I don't think being shallow is a bad thing. Rhetoric that uses language like shallow is ultiimately just a bunch of virtue signalling that aims to guilt-trip people into surrendering their standards, which is complete nonsense.

EugeneCezanne · 2025-03-15T18:51:45+00:00

I think it's more accurate to say they're both shallow, and that that's actually ok.

At the end of the day, we have very little control over what attracts us. Even if we think things through and wish we weren't powerfully influenced by certain features, it usually has no immediate effect on how we instinctively feel.

So what are we to do, live our entire lives denying our feelings and abstaining from otherwise obtainable pleasures? For what? Better to just accept that our feelings are authentic and ethically seek partners who are compatible.

Clean-Luck6428 · 2025-03-15T20:21:44+00:00

Depends if you have a consumption or investment mindset. If all you want to do with his money is spend it on yourself then you’re a shallow parasite.

But lots of women pick wealthy men because they make good use of his money.

Artistic_Speech_1965 · 2025-03-15T21:03:13+00:00

i do agree. Women looks for specific lifestyle, so there is no problem to have this kind of standards. Just be careful not to use the exact number or job title as a proxy.

Mysterious-Solid-646 · 2025-03-15T21:49:30+00:00

Huh, a surprisingly not deranged take from u/Windmill_flowers. Good for you.

The only reason I agree with this is because of the key word “enough.” If you can’t provide to support a family, you don’t need to be getting into relationships and potentially having children.

Usually the men who fall into this category are ambitionless losers drifting through life with no plan for the future. If this is the type of man you are talking about, then yes, I agree.

But the same should go for women. Not that a woman needs to earn enough to provide, but they can’t be a pathetic, ambitionless loser either. Men should demand that their woman get a job, an education, a profession, etc.

Junior_Ad_3086 · 2025-03-15T22:34:16+00:00

i think both genders generally date people they're physically attracted to. it's not really shallow unless you go to the extreme, like guys only wanting to date victoria secret models or a certain cup size. plenty of guys are attracted to women who are about average or maybe slightly above. the women who prioritize money are usually not looking for a guy who's earning around average or a bit more, they go for doctors, lawyers and so on. basically, there are levels to this - not wanting to date a guy who delivers pizzas in his 30s is reasonable but dismissing any guy who earns less than 100k is pretty shallow i think. i make decent 6 figs but i avoid women like this like the plague for anything serious. nobody wants to be a glorified wallet to an entitled woman. the ones who do usually go for way hotter and younger women than in this video example or they don't have much else to offer.

No-Past7721 · 2025-03-15T23:33:12+00:00

I've worked a fast food job. It's definitely unpleasant coming home smelling the way those jobs make you smell. And the shift work and how it destroys any semblance of a routine lifestyle and makes weight control extra difficult. Wouldn't for a moment have blamed a man with a less gross less disruptive job for not being interested. He's worked hard to not have that bullshit in his life, if he has the option of continuing to not have that bullshit in his life through his choice of mate of course he may take that option.

Didn't see many of my fellow fast food workers... male or female...dating well off professionals. That's life.

People have every right to choose from their available options. That's normality. That's the complexity of choice we all live in. It's only a problem to the sort of people who indulge in splitting as a psychological defence mechanism. Everyone else has the good common sense to realise that the world is not compromised solely of people who don't care if he's an eyeball on a plate if they maybe could learn to love him and people who would fuck an eyeball on a plate immediately if he had a billion dollars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Proudvow · 2025-03-16T14:10:54+00:00

If it's not considered shallow for men to only date women they're physically attracted to, then they should not complain about "shallowness" when women have standards around income.

Both are shallow regardless of how much anyone whines. Looks and money have nothing to do with character. The term "shallow" refers to a fixation on superficial non-character-related traits.

What in blue fuck do you think "shallow' is supposed to be referring to instead, if not scenarios like this.

starbetrayer · 2025-03-16T17:13:06+00:00

I'll bring my scale to weight your princess.

On a more serious note, It's absolutely shallow and you know it.

UnpredictableDemise8 · 2025-03-16T23:48:48+00:00

Unfortunately, many essential jobs are seriously underpaid. Imagine a world without mail carriers, janitors, construction workers, cleaners, garbage collectors, etc. These people have just as much right to enter into relationships and start a family. So, yes, it is reprehensible and shallow to reject someone as a partner just for financial reasons. Exception of course for people who make absolutely no effort to earn money at all and just lie around doing nothing.

wizardnamehere · 2025-03-17T10:57:05+00:00

It's shallow. Appearance, height, and income are shallow features of a person.

What's at issue is if we should care or have some social panic about it. We don't.

burneraccountguydude · 2025-03-17T21:16:54+00:00

Ok it’s because you’re not attracted to a poor man. That’s fine if wealth is attractive to you. It’s the same when a man doesn’t want to date a women who is fat, they arnt attracted to fat chicks.

Intelligent-Insight · 2025-03-18T18:25:50+00:00

If it's not considered shallow for men to only date women they're physically attracted to, then they should not complain about "shallowness" when women have standards around income.

That's not how logic works. One doesn't follow from the other and you can't use "if-then" here. Just because one thing is not considered shallow it doesn't mean that men shouldn't complain about the other thing that is shallow. Not to mention, that many do consider the former thing shallow and they definitely do complain.

It would maaaybe work if you replaced shouldn't complain with "shouldn't be considered shallow", but then you wouldn't be able to prove that both should or shouldn't be considered shallow. That's because they are very different things. Looks are literally who you are while the bank account, job , etc is what you do or can do for them. Many would agree that picking people for what they can do for you is shallow while appreciating them for who they are is not.

3ONEthree · 2025-03-23T03:24:45+00:00

Two different matters, once is biological while the other is conditioned by society

Title	CMV: Rejecting men because they doesn't earn enough is not "shallow"
Author	Windmill_flowers
Upvotes	0
Comments	87
Date	March 15, 2025 4:35 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1jbz33l/cmv_rejecting_men_because_they_doesnt_earn_enough/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-rejecting-men-because-they-doesnt-earn-enough.1546625 https://theredarchive.com/post/1546625

Comments