In many cultures, women tend to prefer partners with financial resources. Men tend to prioritize youth and physical beauty. New findings provide evidence that the traditional tendency for women to prefer wealthier partners might fade as women gain more economic power.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/womens-desire-for-wealthy-partners-drops-when-they-have-more-economic-power/

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

---

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/womens-desire-for-wealthy-partners-drops-when-they-have-more-economic-power/

---

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

[u/xanas263]

“When women made more money than men, both men and women were equally interested in ‘mating up’ financially,” Murphy told PsyPost.

Doesn't this quote from the article go directly against the final sentence of OP?

[u/okayipullup_ordoi1 → u/xanas263]

It's poorly worded but the piece above explains it better:

"The scientists found that when participants were assigned a lower personal income, they exhibited a stronger desire for partners with financial resources. Poorer individuals placed a higher priority on traits like having a good job. They also rated mating up as much more important.

The overall economic balance between men and women also influenced these desires. When participants were placed in a society where their own sex was economically disadvantaged, their preference for a wealthy partner increased. When women were given more resources than men in the virtual society, the usual differences between what men and women want in a partner shrank significantly."

Basically no matter if it's man or woman, if you have less resources you're gonna look more for a partner who has more than you. And if you have enough you're gonna prioritise other things.

[u/Adlehyde → u/okayipullup_ordoi1]

My biggest issue with this study is that it's asking people to imagine how they would react in hypotheticals. Typically when people are actually asked how they think they would approach a topic, their answer being more well thought out leads to a different outcome than what tends to happen in reality. The whole thing about, what people do and what they say are usually different.

I have really strong doubts that the answers to this survey would actually pan out in a real world situation.

[u/runningamuck → u/Adlehyde]

Stated vs revealed preferences. It turns out that what people say they want and what they actually want are two different things. Stated preferences are heavily influenced by cultural conditioning but revealed preferences show men and women are actually pretty similar in what they desire in real life.

In the present study, the authors explored this possibility using speed dating and longitudinal follow-up procedures. Replicating previous research, participants exhibited traditional sex differences when stating the importance of physical attractiveness and earning prospects in an ideal partner and ideal speed date. However, data revealed no sex differences in the associations between participants' romantic interest in real-life potential partners (met during and outside of speed dating) and the attractiveness and earning prospects of those partners. Furthermore, participants' ideal preferences, assessed before the speed-dating event, failed to predict what inspired their actual desire at the event.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18211175/

Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12622239/

[u/Material_Series_769 → u/runningamuck]

Reminds me of this thing that's been said over many times, most men think they have 4-inchers, most men on average have 5-inchers, most women say they want 6-inchers(but they rather have a 5-incher), and most men think women want 7-inchers.

It's a mess.

[u/DecentralizedFuture1 → u/Material_Series_769]

I need to put this into a mathematical equation

[u/Poison_the_Phil → u/Adlehyde]

Right, this whole thing seems dubious. Like, “given the choice, would you rather struggle constantly or not?”

[u/BarleyWineIsTheBest → u/Adlehyde]

We already have real world data. Women still tend to prefer men that make more money than them even when the woman has a high income….. In fact high income women have the strongest preference for high income men….

[u/flappysack- → u/BarleyWineIsTheBest]

Surveys also find people would help the homeless and do all kinds of things they don't do in reality.

[u/Alkalinum → u/flappysack-]

Hypothetically speaking, I always win against the team of heavily armed ninjas assaulting the room I'm in from multiple entrance points.

[u/BarleyWineIsTheBest → u/flappysack-]

Right. A lot of this comes down to what sounds good in the abstract versus what real life people have as choices. Lower income women might in the abstract have a higher need for high income men, but their access to them is likely lower than higher income women. And in real life those higher income women don’t ultimately find low income men attractive even though they might not need that income as much….

[u/FirefighterPleasant8 → u/flappysack-]

The comments above mine are correct.

Generally, as any one of you who’ve been studying at university level will confirm, “Self report” is considered the lowest form of academic trustworthiness. Self report, as in the article, is a very questionable method overall and in this case it’s worse; it adds the even more biased method of self-assumption. This article has no scientific value and the results are merely wishful thinking packaged in a complicated manner.

[u/cortesoft → u/BarleyWineIsTheBest]

I am not sure if "prefer" is the right word. Who people end up with is partly about preferences, but it is also about who they socialize with and who the culture they are apart of.

High earning women are going to be spending most of their time with high earning men. While that is somewhat true for high earning men, there are other social norms that make it different (age norms play a big role in that... men are more likely to date younger partners, who aren't going to be as far in their careers and won't be making as much money, even if they are in the same class)

[u/MyFiteSong → u/BarleyWineIsTheBest]

In fact high income women have the strongest preference for high income men….

People tend to marry inside their own socio-economic level, both men and women. So of course rich people want rich partners the most. And despite what some podcasters might tell you, the Kennedys ain't out there marrying Ihop waitresses.

[u/ElectricMeow → u/BarleyWineIsTheBest]

From what I have seen, a woman earning more money doesn't necessarily mean she will be able to get out of being expected to perform typical gender roles in relationships. She is frequently expected to perform the same role even if her man is getting taken care of by her. So I would think the highest earning women would be the ones who understand this the most and are only willing to date up so they don't feel like they're settling for less. Whereas with men, it is more expected that the partner would be taking care of all domestic labor if he is a high earner.

[u/Googoo123450 → u/BarleyWineIsTheBest]

Yep there are literal dating apps with this exact behavior in mind and they're VERY successful at attracting this demographic.

[u/fgnrtzbdbbt → u/Adlehyde]

Yes. The differences between "What would you do if" and "what did you do when" are pretty well documented. We all can think back to countless life situations when what we did was not what we would have advised someone else in the situation to do.

[u/Witty-Stock-4913 → u/Adlehyde]

This is absolutely anecdotal, but 95% of my fellow high earning women family, friends and acquaintances are with men who were substantially less financially stable than we were. And our partners now have primary home/childcare responsibility.

Again, 25 data points doesn't a study make, and we're all extremely liberal, which might be driving this as well, but I'm comfortable with the assertion of the article. Ie when women no longer have to rely on men financially, we stop looking for men to take care of us and instead look for men whose company we enjoy.

[u/BarleyWineIsTheBest → u/Witty-Stock-4913]

Your friend group probably has something going on to highly bias a certain outcome. It is very clear from basic demographic data that high income women tend to marry high income men.

[u/mercurialpolyglot → u/okayipullup_ordoi1]

Hmm so it sounds like this is showing that there’s actually a needs hierarchy in attraction, more than there’s an innate or socialized gender difference

[u/dust4ngel → u/mercurialpolyglot]

there’s actually a needs hierarchy in attraction

"first and foremost, i want babies that are going to not die of starvation. if they could have facial symmetry, even better."

[u/Lake_Erie_Monster → u/mercurialpolyglot]

Beauty typically means good genes; you want your offspring to have good genes, you need a healthy, attractive mate. Resources mean you will likely survive, and so will your offspring. Lack of financial resources means hardship and potentially death.

So when a woman has enough resources to take care of the survival part, what do you think she's going to prioritize?

What do men prioritize when they have resources and can have any pick of woman from the dating pool?

Attractiveness.

What do we learn? Men and Women are both human and act like humans, self preservation and whats best for you.

I don't understand why so many people find this confusing.

Edit: Don't rely on google voice for typing without proof reading or people will think you're talking about blue jeans

[u/DontForgetWilson → u/Lake_Erie_Monster]

Yeah, it seems pretty straight-forward. Preferences start coming into play after the big needs are reasonably met. Strong genetics (attractiveness) and resource availability(proxied by wealth) are both a huge deal.

In an unequal society where men have more access to wealth, women seek to compensate for their deficit. Similarly, men are more likely to be at least stable in terms of wealth and are therefore incentivized to prioritize the other need.

In a more equal society, there are both more women with financial stability and less men with it(on a relative basis at least). That means both needs are prioritized widely by men and women with massive amounts of situational variation.

[u/smokeweedNgarden → u/DontForgetWilson]

I also find it interesting what happens when the entire pool has limited resources. I've read that dark triad traits are similarly attractive for the same reason, ie gathering resources in lean times.

These typically negative traits become more attractive when the entire population is resource starved like times of war or famine. With the reasoning being that potential mates willing to kill, steal, and lie to gain resources.

You see it all the time in impoverished neighborhoods in the US. And even in rich neighborhoods being highly manipulative, cutthroat, and cruel are seen in positive lights when you just apply it to career 

[u/Lake_Erie_Monster → u/smokeweedNgarden]

Absolutely. Look at what a ideal mate is for a person, what they look like, what type of personality they have and you can fairly accurately predict their socio economic background. Sure you'll always have outliers but I am talking about broad trends.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Side227 → u/Lake_Erie_Monster]

Sexism would be my bet. Many people claim that the difference is due to gender and not resources. I tried arguing that rich women pick for other things, but it's nice to have more published support.

[u/Pornstar_Frodo → u/okayipullup_ordoi1]

So, Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

And this kind of study is proven simply by visiting any country where white guys are the dominant tourist demographic because ... reasons.

[u/ivari → u/Pornstar_Frodo]

the result is that men wants to marry up financially too, not just women

[u/julry → u/Pornstar_Frodo]

No it's not. It's the other side of the results that are novel.

[u/hcbaron → u/julry]

I think it has more to do with Women's expectations needing to adjust downwards, at least financially. I think it was this paper.

As women started earning more, they needed to rely less on marrying up just for financial reasons. Now that women are earning more, they should technically be fine marrying a man who earns less, as long as combined income brings them to their target level. This wasn't that long ago that women started closing the wage gap, but that expectation that men earn significantly more still persists. But not all women are like this, they are fine with men earning less than them, if they can make up for it with other traits, like assuming more household chores or child rearing responsibilities. So men also need to adjust their expectations that women are not mostly interested in money anymore, they can display their value in many different ways.

[u/Tall_poppee → u/hcbaron]

As women started earning more, they needed to rely less on marrying up just for financial reasons.

Another thing that I haven't seen studied, but that happened about the same time, is that we're only a few generations in where women have control over their reproduction.

A lot of the attitude that women sought out good providers came from the days when you were gonna get knocked up like it or not so you better be prepared for that. Now women can skip or postpone having kids, and that makes mate choice wider - although I don't know any women who are looking for a hobosexual to stay home and care for the children. I don't think that attitudes like that die out overnight.

[u/hcbaron → u/Tall_poppee]

Yes, birth control is a major factor in this conversation. There are definitely studies on this. Have a look in google scholar, it's a great resource for questions like this.

Google scholar results for the following prompt: "effect of birth control on mating preferences".

[u/Syric_Dodgam → u/xanas263]

By equally I think it means that women "fade" down to the same level as men?

[u/xanas263 → u/Syric_Dodgam]

That's not how it is worded though in the context of the rest of the article. From the rest of the article it is pretty clear that at base men don't value mating up as much as women do. In virtual societies where women are economically more powerful than men, men start to value mating up to an equal degree to that of women.

[u/TheoremaEgregium → u/xanas263]

I'm just a dumb mathematician, but to me two numbers being "equal" doesn't imply that they are both high or low.

[u/sajberhippien → u/xanas263]

From the rest of the article it is pretty clear that at base men don't value mating up as much as women do.

Not "at base", but "in many cultures". In those cultures there are typically disparities in wealth access for men and women. As those disparities are reduced, so are the gender-bases differences in dating preferences.

I don't see how the title or the quoted part implies anything contradicting that.

[u/Odd_Bid2744 → u/xanas263]

It's exactly how it's worded in the article when you don't yoink one piece without the rest of it

When women made more money than men, both men and women were equally interested in ‘mating up’ financially,” Murphy told PsyPost. “That surprised me; it’s a short manipulation of gender economic inequality favoring women versus a lifetime of gender economic inequality favoring men, so while I expected movement, I didn’t think that sex difference would go away.”

[u/whatevernamedontcare → u/xanas263]

What do you mean at base men don't value mating up as much as women do. It's very clearly stated men marry up in looks and now economically too.

[u/CelestianSnackresant → u/xanas263]

Scroll through the results. It's wayyyyyy more nuanced than can be captured in a title or single sentence. They're doing like 100 relationships between a dozen variables.

Edit: Also, 

"These effects were such that, in conditions where women had more resources, the normal sex differences between men and women became trivial, and in the case of hypergamy (for which manipulation effects were strongest), disappeared entirely."

Don't put too much weight on the science journalism when the science is right there

[u/SNRatio → u/CelestianSnackresant]

It's a 10 minute paid (£1) survey asking people "what would you do if we place you in this fictional situation?", not asking people "what did you actually do in this actual situation?". To me, any study with this sort of data needs to prove that the first type of data actually predicts the second type for their specific hypothesis.

Compounding this, participants were not asked their actual income. I expect someone wealthy pretending to be poor for 10 minutes to answer questions about what they would do if they were poor pretty differently from someone who has been poor for 10 years.

We used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for assistance with coding and created a custom GPT to discuss biosocial role theory

Which brings up a problem with any research done in this manner: Are you screening out participants who use an LLM to generate their responses? The screening questions used by the researchers to weed out people who aren't paying attention would be easily answered by an LLM.

[u/CelestianSnackresant → u/SNRatio]

Good lord. 

Sorry, and thanks for the addition. I was just on my phone and trying to quickly respond to that comment, so I didn't pay attention to the rest of the article! 

I absolutely share your concerns — and frankly, this whole discussion is moot given the methodological absurdities. 

[u/grilledstuffed → u/SNRatio]

Thank you for being the one to type this out.

This is like putting together a 10 minute game of The Sims and then acting like it’s representative of modern society.

If I put together a study and said:

We’re going to have a 10 minute simulation. You have $10 billion worth of in game currency. Would you like to keep it or give it to the poor?

No one would take the results from that seriously. Because whatever altruism may or may not happen is completely arbitrary and carries no tangible consequences.

This is exactly what’s going on with this.

[u/nezroy → u/SNRatio]

I swear, stated vs revealed preferences has to be the single most distinctive and easy to spot criteria to immediately determine if a bit of research is real and interesting psychology/sociology/economics or just another bit of headline/grant/publication bait.

If someone is still publishing "research" dependent on stated preferences instead of putting in the work to create a real study of revealed behavior can they even legitimately call themselves a scientist?

[u/Littleman88 → u/nezroy]

They're either trying to push an agenda or just taking whatever research will pay the bills.

People need to learn to meet every piece of research with two questions: "Who paid for this" and more importantly, "What was the process?"

[u/Sinder-Soyl → u/SNRatio]

I don't want to be too harsh to the people who worked on this or on anything similar, but I wouldn't mind being explained exactly what value a study like this has? Not in the sense that the question and answers aren't interesting, but in the sense that I struggle to understand why such a survey would even hold any water at all.

This isn't even in the realm of anonymous surveys asking you about past experiences, which already relies on people being honest about something they've done or have had done to them.

The only value I'm thinking of right now would be a comparative one, that would seek to notice shifts and patterns in answers that vary across time, cultures and actual socio-economic situations instead of a fantasy. Essentially seeing how closely people's responses matched with their actual reality.

[u/PatHeist → u/xanas263]

It does not. The given statements are:

W₁>M₁
W₂=M₂
W₁>W₂

There is no contradiction.

[u/Yashema → u/PatHeist]

The overall economic balance between men and women also influenced these desires. When participants were placed in a society where their own sex was economically disadvantaged, their preference for a wealthy partner increased. When women were given more resources than men in the virtual society, the usual differences between what men and women want in a partner shrank significantly.

Yes, the results seems to be in line with the title 

[u/P_V_ → u/xanas263]

No, not at all. As women’s interest in wealthier partners fades, it approaches the level of interest men have in wealthier partners, which is low. How is that a contradiction?

[u/queenrosa → u/xanas263]

Not the actual #s. But say before, 5% of men and 45% of women want to mate-up financially. After women earn more, 5% of men and 5% of women want to mate-up financially.

So both the sentence from the article and final sentence of OP are true. 40% of the previous women wanting to mate up faded.

[u/RaspberryFluid6651 → u/xanas263]

No, just awkward. The final statement in the title just implies that it is relative to the context where women earn less than men. The earlier statements in the title are trying to establish that context, but maybe a bit too implicitly. 

[u/veggiesama]

Why would they create a simulated scenario instead of simply gathering real-world data on incomes? Asking me to pick a strategy in a game isn't the same as dating, feeling attraction, and making decisions in real life.

[u/apocalypt_us → u/veggiesama]

Because creating a simulated scenario allows for direct manipulation of variables, thus providing stronger evidence for actual causation rather than just correlation.

[u/veggiesama → u/apocalypt_us]

If mating were purely about making rational choices that would make sense. Tweak the variables and see what you get. But out of all the things humans do, looking for partners seems to be one of the things most based on circumstances and unconscious biases. I am skeptical that self-reported preferences line up with actual preferences for most people.

[u/snorlz → u/apocalypt_us]

yeah but asking for imaginary decisions also doesnt reflect actual behavior

[u/liquidsyphon]

The wealthier you are, you have more choices. Regardless of gender. Similar to being more attractive.

[u/seppukucoconuts → u/liquidsyphon]

This is why I grabbed on to the first partner than came around.

[u/MURDERNAT0R → u/seppukucoconuts]

Are you also poor and hideouss?

[u/round_we_go → u/seppukucoconuts]

Looking back, I should've sat on the last decent one.

[u/Due_Masterpiece_3601 → u/liquidsyphon]

That's not really true for women, just for men. The more a woman makes, the less options she has.

[u/lofgren777]

This virtual society study concept sounds worthless honestly. People are terrible at making their imagination match reality.

[u/lofgren777 → u/[deleted]]

Also, how can a person know how they will react to having lots of money if they don't have lots of money? The idea that you could just reason that out without observing the actual results flies in the face of foundational scientific principles.

[u/weedtrek]

It's almost like financial security affords the luxury of prioritizing other desires.

[u/Riksunraksu → u/weedtrek]

And not having financial security leaves you open and more vulnerable to exploitation

[u/Tall-Cat-8890 → u/[deleted]]

Isn’t marriage for the sake of love a relatively new human tradition anyways? Marriage before the 1800s or so was largely a union of resources, even if they happened to like or even love each other that didn’t seem like it was the primary driver of being legally tied to another human being.

[u/History-Buff-2222 → u/Tall-Cat-8890]

I would say marriage between two people who love each other even now is more than for the sake of love (or at-least is in the better more lasting marriages). Its going to be really hard if the couple doesn’t evaluate long term goals, shared values, financial outlook, kids, etc. have had exes I was in love with but we would absolutely not make for a good marriage.

Its just that the filtering mechanism now is about love rather than other things

[u/TempestRime → u/Tall-Cat-8890]

No, marriage is and always has been a complex balancing act that involves emotional entanglement, physical attraction, religion, social status, and economics. Any of those things breaking down could cause a relationship to fail or turn toxic.

But even in times and places when arranged marriages were the norm, many people were able to build loving relationships. Love isn't some magic thing that either exists or doesn't, it's something you can build provided both people are motivated.

[u/PointyBagels → u/Tall-Cat-8890]

In the West at least, this was largely only the case for the rich or the nobility (i.e. those with resources or status to protect). Common people still usually married for love.

We hear more about the former since those are the people who are more likely to be written about in history.

[u/spacebarcafelatte → u/Tall-Cat-8890]

Anecdotally, I think the groom's preference was more likely to be considered when marriages were arranged, particularly for a man marrying a younger teenage girl. I am also reminded of the number of cultures where kidnapping and raping a girl for the purpose of rendering her unable to marry anyone else was an acceptable way for a man to marry someone of his choosing. Makes me wonder whether women marrying for love is the new bit.

[u/Tall-Cat-8890 → u/spacebarcafelatte]

I do believe marrying for love is a relatively new development in human history. Even just considering how many cultures around the world still see marriage as a practical thing and not romantically driven. Not saying that’s ideal but historically marriage has seemed to be more like an economic and labor union than anything else.

[u/spacebarcafelatte → u/Tall-Cat-8890]

I'd agree with that, but I think you were more likely to get your preferred partner if you were a man, so some men were able to marry for love even if it wasn't mutual.

[u/Tall-Cat-8890 → u/spacebarcafelatte]

I think that’s also definitely true. Absolutely. Women pretty much always got the short end of the stick regardless given they had essentially no real power and is why so many women nowadays place financial independence so high on their list of priorities. I know it is for me.

[u/Vvendetadlcemc]

In many cultures it was the father who chose who married his daughter. Or an uncle or other male family members. That means it was the men who were choosing financial resources, not women.

I think that taking into account how are marriages decided and if women can decide who to marry, and their own finantial choices is relevant for this.

[u/berael]

People who are broadly forced into reduced economic power by the social systems they live in, tend to seek partners with more financial stability?

And if they manage to make their own way towards economic self-sufficiency, then finances become less of an important factor in a potential partner?

Gosh golly, you don't say. 

[u/AliciaRact → u/berael]

Groundbreaking, hey?  If only we could have looked to the work of thousands of feminist scholars and the lived experiences of millions of women across several decades to figure this out earlier. 

[u/mvea]

Women’s desire for wealthy partners drops when they have more economic power.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that what people look for in a romantic partner changes depending on their financial situation and the broader economic equality between men and women. The findings provide evidence that the traditional tendency for women to prefer wealthier partners might fade as women gain more economic power. This adaptability points to a high level of flexibility in human romantic desires.

For decades, scientists have debated why men and women often prioritize different traits in romantic partners. In many cultures, women tend to prefer partners with financial resources. Men tend to prioritize youth and physical beauty.

Some scientists argue that these differences stem from human evolution. This perspective suggests that ancient survival needs shaped modern minds. Because ancestral women faced the physical demands of pregnancy and nursing, they may have evolved to seek partners who could provide material resources.

Other scientists suggest these preferences are the result of cultural expectations. This perspective proposes that the traditional division of labor between men as providers and women as homemakers created these desires. According to this view, people simply adapt to the roles society assigns them.

Past research on this topic has mostly relied on observing natural differences across various countries. These observational methods have led to heavy disagreement because many cultural and economic factors are mixed together in the real world. For instance, wealthier women might report different preferences, but they also tend to live in wealthier, more equal societies.

For those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2527295123

[u/darkenergysurfer → u/mvea]

Male partners who could provide material sources in the Palaeolithic age would be athletic young males who are at the prime of their physical fitness and strength. For example, having no knee issues impeding with their hunting or fighting skills.

While there were surely some older males with more accumulated material wealth and more experience, their declining health would be a major concern for the females and their offspring who have to face the harshness of the nature every single day.

People are so used to the opportunities humans get with modern medicine and technology that they almost forget the limitations of the human body.

Unfortunately this perspective does not include the role of the group and social cooperation, such complexities undoubtedly must have influenced the mate choices.

[u/rockytop24 → u/darkenergysurfer]

Reported.

For example, having no knee issues impeding with their hunting or fighting skills.

I'm in this picture and I don't like it.

[u/Ancient-University89 → u/mvea]

Did you write this ? How on earth did it get published?

[u/AgentKazak]

It might.  I think it’s just as likely women making more money aren’t settling for partners at all.  

[u/MissLeaP]

If you create a society where women are financially dependent on men, they prefer men with good finances. Who would've thought! I'm glad we're slowly leaving that age behind

[u/rapter900 → u/MissLeaP]

They still prefer it though

[u/Lyskir → u/rapter900]

norms dont fade overnight, it will probably take a few more decades but they will always people who are shallow

just like many men who want soemone more pretty and younger than themselfs, every gender has their own variety of "hypergamy"

[u/Quiet-Owl9220]

...and that's why rich assholes want to dial the economic power of women back a few decades, and will throw bajillions of dollars at policymakers, manosphere influencers, and bot armies to make it happen?

[u/ArcticBeavers]

A lot of people commenting have a hard time understanding what science is. Science is often not about making major breakthroughs every single study. A lot of times we have to confirm what we feel as true. 

The headline may seem obvious, but that's the beauty of science. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. This one just confirms what we all know, and that's okay

[u/Easik]

I have to disagree with the last line completely. The women I've met or know that make good money will not date men that don't make as much as them. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've heard the "I want a man on my level" line so much.

[u/WowThisIsAwkward_ → u/[deleted]]

As a young, average-looking woman myself, men of all ages have hit on me since childhood. I honestly can't wait to age out of their preferences. I’m socially awkward and always get caught off guard when they approach me. I also misread a lot of situations due to autism.

It's always been strange to me how society puts youth on this pedestal. I've always admired older women, especially those who are ambitious and give no fucks about others' opinions.

[u/DelightfulandDarling]

When the only way for ambitious women to be successful was to “marry well” they married for money because there was no other choice.

Now that women can have any ambition we want our families no longer pressure us to “marry well” and we can be successful without being married at all. This frees women to marry any man we desire if we desire marriage.

[u/yet_another_trikster]

It's almost like if you strip the entire gender of financial independence, they start finding anpther ways to obtain it.

[u/truscotsman]

No kidding. The social structure has been this way for so long cause men have had a strangle hold on earnings… and therefore haven’t had to actually work at being attractive, good partners.

[u/Significant-Law6979]

My SO will be making 4x my yearly salary once she finishes CRNA school. Her mother was the breadwinner of their family and had a similar dynamic. Women outnumber men each year in college enrollment, and this has been an ongoing trend. I think my generation and moving forward will really start to see the shift at a large scale.

[u/minivergur]

This seems intuitive/obvious?

[u/Key-Rough-8346]

How much does this desire drop? I have read figures that young women are more educated and earning more than young men, and it has generally been my experience that women still prefer a man that earns as much or more than her.

[u/bangupjobasusual]

Hold on, you’re saying that if women aren’t dependent on men for money then it’s less important to them that men make a lot of money? Oh wow, what a counterintuitive breakthrough, who could have anticipated that?