Legitimately try to treat women as equals my entire life

>legitimately try to treat women as equals my entire life
>broke up with someone I thought I was getting along with because she outright told me she will never work unless she has to and her plan is to marry someone and live off of their labour
We weren't togethat that long but I still think about it. Are men just expected to sacrifice their time and energy to be with someone who's not bringing much, if anything, into the relationship?
Every time I remind myself of this I'm momentarily filled with regret but when I think about it rationally I can't help but conclude that it was the right choice. Yet I can't let go, what always strikes me is how shocked, outraged even, she was when I said I find the idea to leech off of someone like that disgusting, like that was the fist time she heard it and I was demanding something unbelievable from her. Was I somehow in the wrong but can't see it?

Attached: 1569285658141.png (878x881, 1.11M)

At least you dodged a bullet

>she will never work unless she has to and her plan is to marry someone and live off of their labout

So what you're saying is, she could live entirely off of your labour but if your labour was worth more to society. . .

>but if your labour was worth more to society. . .
I legit have no idea what you're saying.
I have a job if that's what you're asking.

The problem that you're experiencing here apparently that you're stupid and believe that because you had this experience with one woman, that all women must be the same.

There are plenty of losers who want to do nothing, and who hope to find someone to sponge off. This isn't something that's specific to gender.

How is it related to women and why would you be outraged over someone acting rationally?

If you can avoid wagecuckery by marrying someone rich, why wouldn't you? Due cultural norms it's easier to do for women but in >current year, a decent guy can find a rich chick too.

> I find the idea to leech off of someone like that disgusting,
Our current economical system is build around "leeching off" someone and the point of marriage for millenia was improve your economical/social position. Unless she's overly progressive, it would make no sense for her to see things differently.

Hes saying that if you made good money, it wouldn't be an issue if she didn't work because you would make more than enough to support you both. In other words, you dont deserve a good wife because you're low on the social hierarchy.

I guess I've just never seen this work the other way around, but there's plenty of examples both in popular culture and in my family where the husband works while the woman doesn't. This isn't the case with my parents but a lot of my uncles and cousins are like this.
That's what I keep thinking but then it strikes me again, she didn't prepare me or anything when she told me this, it wasn't a reveal or something that was hard to say for her, she just brought it up out of nowhere like she just remembered and it wasn't a big deal.
I work as a janitor. Above minimal wage but not by much.
Should I just stop seeking out relationships?
You ask how is it related to women yet you said yourself women do this all the time and it works out for them more often...
What you said is just depressing if it's true. How am I supposed to trust any potential partner if it's basically confirmed they're only in it for the money?

Men are stronger than women. Men lead women follow.

The sooner you get this through your thick skull the happier you will be. Life is very different from how movies and TV portray it.

Why would I want to be with someone who has no agency of their own and who will take half my earnings for almost nothing in return?

>Was I somehow in the wrong
Depends if she was holding up her end of the bargain by not being a degenerate. I'm almost certain she was fucking you, and by extension she would have no qualms about fucking anyone else outside of marriage; in which case, no, you're not wrong for bailing on a leech.

>How am I supposed to trust any potential partner if it's basically confirmed they're only in it for the money?
Most of them aren't in it "for" your money. They simply have it as a prerequisite of sorts, which is reasonable. Women can and should expect a man to be financially stable and able to provide for a family, rather than just himself. This is distinct from women seeing a rich guy and chasing him because he's rich. You aren't rich, so you don't really have to worry about gold diggers.

>I'm almost certain she was fucking you
Closest we've been was hug, but what you're suggesting is glorified prostitution.
>They simply have it as a prerequisite of sorts, which is reasonable. Women can and should expect a man to be financially stable and able to provide for a family, rather than just himself. This is distinct from women seeing a rich guy and chasing him because he's rich.
I fail to see the difference, sure the scale is different but this is more akin to robbing a petrol station as opposed to a bank, if you know you aren't equipped for a big heist you take what you can get, it's still a robbery.

>will take half my earnings for almost nothing in return?
First of all, your delusion of equality is seeping in by you assuming she'd get half. You're still the one working and you're still the one with the power of the purse. She wouldn't get that much in terms of discretionary spending if you're already providing housing, paying bills, and buying food/supplies.
Secondly, it's not "nothing in return", as she could be the mother of your children. That's a burden which would mostly fall on her, especially early on.

Granted, in your specific case, it sounds like she really is just lazy, but that is hardly the case with every woman with a similar preference for household arrangements.

I don't want children.
Wouldn't want them anyway but I have a lot of bad shit they could inherit so it's not like I even have a choice really.

Also assuming we share a bank account, how does this work exactly? I'm a frugal person so I can hardly imagine someone spending less than me on a day to day basis (not including bills)

>I don't want children.
Then why are you surprised when your dating pool consists of mostly selfish degenerates?

You dodged a bullet. A buddy of mine is married to a girl that has never worked a day in her life after graduating college and he's fucking miserable.

>How am I supposed to trust any potential partner if it's basically confirmed they're only in it for the money?
Life isn't a Disney movie, bro. Relationships depend on partners providing something to their partner. Most people want far more than money and if you're a somehow decent person, you have more things going for you; but depending on the partner certain aspects will weight more.

As for the how, just don't rush and make sure you're on the same wavelength.

You don't need to share a bank account. Not to mention that you'd probably be able to declare her as a dependent and get a tax break.
I don't know how you tend to communicate about these things, but if I were put into a situation like yours, I would just try to work out a 'discretionary budget' of sorts that she could make use of. Cash only might be viable, but you could also create a separate checking account you fill periodically with an amount you deem reasonable.
Be sure to be clear about your expectations from the beginning, though, and obviously you want to watch yourself if the person is just a bum looking for a handout.

I'm sorry I don't want to curse another generation of kids with chronic diseases. How selfish of me.
And where are you getting this shit about degenerates from? We haven't even kissed at that point.
You say this but the rest of the thread says otherwise. If it's as bad as it seems why do so many people do it?

Men and women are equal in value as human beings. This does not mean they are interchangeable. Women mostly staying at home and working with the kids and housework is a perfectly reasonable and sane arrangement, and it might even be what best for families (though women pursuing part-time careers on the side is also perfectly reasonable). That said, if you legitimately want your woman to be in the workplace just as much as you, that's your call. Assuming she was happy and willing to focus on the kids and keep the house in working order, I'd be ecstatic if my woman told me she didn't want to work.

But then again, I'm not a degenerate who wants to marry/be with a woman permanently but not have kids. Ultimately you just need to make up your mind about what you want out of a woman and a relationship.

>and obviously you want to watch yourself if the person is just a bum looking for a handout.
But that's the thing, how do I know this is or isn't the case?
I really fail to see how someone who refuses to work could provide enough for me to benefit from the relationship. I guess they can double as a therapist?

Because a lot of people don't have standards and just go with the flow, even if it washes them down the drain.

He's still in his 20's and once they get near 30 he'll realize that she does 0 lifting in the relationship aside from her legs once or twice a week.

This is the second time someone says this ITT, how is not wanting to have kids when you know they will inherit your problems "degenerate"?
No, scratch that, how is not wanting to raise kids bad in the first place? Why should I be forced into a parental role when I'm not and will never be comfortable in it and will probably do a terrible job?

>could provide enough for me to benefit from the relationship
The super big key part being ME. Some people would be happy with a stay at home partner who takes care of their home/cooking and then their tired partner; other would rather prefer the extra money from work. The only "right" way is one that fits you both.

funny that after this post almost every reply is about how all women are like this

>legitimately try to treat women as equals my entire life
That was your first mistake, women are mental children

Attached: 1568038620707.jpg (1125x1225, 458K)

I mean, if you have kids that's totally reasonable, but I mean outside of having kids I think it's very hard for a couple to justify living off of only one source of income. I mean, hell, if the other even picked up a few hours working at a supermarket they'd be much more comfortable having another few hundred coming in each week.

Having kids is half of what marriage is for. If you don't like that, then maybe marriage in general isn't for you

OK, so maybe not a marriage, but should I just plainly abandon all relationship prospects all together? I mean isn't a relationship where you live with someone basically the same as a marriage but without the legal protection?

Depends. The husband of my bestie was basically an emotional support animal and fucktoy while he finished his degree and then looked for a job for two years, but she earned enough for both of them not needing to worry about money, nor ever pressured him to get a job, due the whole arrangement working fine.

If both are poorfags it obviously makes sense to work, since it's unlikely the person can brig enough positive qualities to the table to justify being a money drain when money is an issue.

The key part is always that it works for both in the end.

I honestly don't support it unless one of them is just making ludicrous money. I don't understand why you wouldn't have both partners trying to achieve the best standard of living possible in the absence of any real limiting factors.

After a certain amount money doesn't do much to improve your living standard, and that amount isn't anything too crazy. (If I recall right it was 150k in Burgerstan, so should be far lower in Europe due the lack of hidden costs for health care or debt from education)

Not many decent paying jobs have the option to work for 20h (in which case two working part-time would be a big pro). and if you want to retire faster, both working for as long as possible for a few years is the best strategy but otherwise, there is simply no real benefits. Sure, 150k won't allow you to buy a new Rolex and Maserati every year but life isn't too bad without these.

Ever heard of "savings"?

Unless he has health problems (mental or physical) I see no reason why he shouldn't take a job.

Unless you rent a massive loft in Cali, you'd have more than enough to put into savings without an impact on your lifestyle.

>you're stupid and believe that because you had this experience with one woman, that all women must be the same.
They literally are though, at least 99% of them are.

What for? Money was never an issue for them. By not having one, he could be fresher and do stuff like cooking for her from time to time.

I don't get the whole Arbeit macht frei mentality yo.

>and the point of marriage for millenia was improve your economical/social position.
Literally impossible for both parties to improve their position unless the bride's family pays you to take her.

Yeah I guess growing up poor made me this way, if she's making more money both of them could possibly need on her own and she isn't overworking herself it's fine I guess.
It's just wasteful in my opinion.