I'm no expert on this sort of relationship, but I think this breakdown is somewhat true, and somewhat false. Probably skewing more heavily toward true, though.
But the idea that the upper-middle-class (I'll use his UMC term) are pretty much opposed to drugs and vices is absurd. Both young people and career people in the UMC are still very likely to lean in to the drugs and booze, and it's not really taboo. I'm not a member of this class myself, but I've known people that are and...boy, rich kids love to party. And the stereotype of driven successful people going crazy with all sorts of drugs and degeneracy is probably a stereotype for a reason too.
The attitude is different, and the reasons are different, but both groups are likely to indulge. I agree with the family thing, though. Since it's different and probably less common in the UMC, the point this tweet is making still holds generally true.
You might be able to find that cute Applebee waitress who actually lives the kind of vice-free life...and these things are awkward first date questions...
Eh. If you're looking for a serious relationship, first date questions should be a little awkward, or at least probing. There's nothing wrong with asking how someone feels about drugs and alcohol.
That said, like I said, I do think this whole thing probably is more true than false. People date/marry within their class/social status for a reason.
But the idea that the upper-middle-class (I'll use his UMC term) are pretty much opposed to drugs and vices is absurd. Both young people and career people in the UMC are still very likely to lean in to the drugs and booze, and it's not really taboo. I'm not a member of this class myself, but I've known people that are and...boy, rich kids love to party. And the stereotype of driven successful people going crazy with all sorts of drugs and degeneracy is probably a stereotype for a reason too.
That's a good point. I would say that those types are good at turning on a degenerate persona, but also turning it off when they need to (until they can't).
One of those guys might have a one night stand with a waitress, but wouldn't date her.
And overall, UMC is somewhat less likely to do drugs, though I don't know by how much.
And the stereotype of driven successful people going crazy with all sorts of drugs and degeneracy is probably a stereotype for a reason too.
There is probably a lot of fractalization based on just how they got successful and how it correlates here.
Like, the older guy who started his own business with his brothers and just made a lot of money the "good ol' fashioned" way likely has a solid chance of being clean compared to the guys who made it off "imaginary money" like stocks or other investing who probably started a drug addiction just to stare at their line going up all night.
And both of their children who gained it through nepotism and inheritance have a much higher chance of being degenerate because they never had to develop any positive discipline skills at all. Most of our "elites" aren't 1st generation and fall into this group even if they pretend otherwise and are the source of said stereotypes even if we imagine young/middle aged dudes as it.
Absolutely. Not saying all of them are druggy degens, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the nepotism; that almost certainly plays a big part.
Yeah, it (like many things) is a U-curve. The upper class has enough stimulation in their lives, enough social support, and enough self-control that they can experiment with drugs and be fine. The middle class, on the other hand, recognizes that drug addiction is a serious threat, and rigidly avoids drugs (creating a cultural conflict between the two classes over legalization - a lot of social issues are like that). The lower class, of course, has neither the support to use responsibly nor the self-control not to use, and has accordingly been eaten alive by drug addiction.
Basically it comes down to education and income being a proxy for social class. It takes a lot of effort for people to form relationships across social classes, let alone romantic ones, and even if it happens there are dozens of barriers to a long-term relationship.
Anecdotally, I've seen this with most married people I know. You're more likely to see people from your social class and more likely to have good conversations with them. You can extend somewhat and this isn't set in stone, but the farther apart the harder it gets.
I'm aware of one famous exception, which is the champion strongman from Game of Thrones (Hafthor) marrying a waitress he met while traveling, but athletes are an exception since they don't have to be intellectual to make big money.
You could also argue that rich men marrying models is another exception, but I would argue a Trump/Melania relationship isn't actually that common, especially for a first wife. Also, some models are nepo products from rich families.
Next week maybe I'll take on the myth of moving to a small town and marrying a trad farm girl tomboy.
TLDR your average Applebee's waitress is most well-versed in smoking weed and TikTok reels so if you want to talk with your girl about other things then look for an accountant or something
Please crush that myth too. I have lived in rural areas and all the tomboys are hard partiers who date simps they control, and often have tats and drinking problems themselves.
Yeah, a tomboy can be disagreeable and aggressive like a guy, not to mention having a subpar standard of grooming and potentially a male sex drive. Maybe sounds hot, until it breaks against you.
People think all tomboys are like Tifa Lockhart, and they should be, but they need a classy family to get there.
Its literally impossible for them to not be massive whores after a certain age, and then all the consequences on their psyche that come downstream from that.
It takes a lot of effort for people to form relationships across social classes, let alone romantic ones
I find this to be somewhat untrue among men. Granted I'm still sampling mostly from college-educated, but from underpaid gov jobs to lucky/unlucky cryptobros, to dynastic wealth all seem to get along with one another just fine. It's not that big of a deal when no one is flashy or a braggart like "influencers." Or maybe I'm off base and "male nerds with BS degrees or dropped out" is a wealth-agnostic social class of its own, especially with gaming having such a low barrier to entry that there's a social activity anyone can afford.
A romantic relationship is an entirely different thing because your finances likely get comingled. If someone can't manage their own money, why on Earth would you ever give them access to yours?
No, I think you're on point. If men have a common hobby, they can bond pretty well. There's a few scenes that have a pretty high diversity of income, like car modding or even Warhammer 40k.
The central point he's replying to is a guy saying high-powered women exec types are not very attractive, which is true. The two of them take this and somehow use it to stumble into false points, like 'waitresses are better' vs 'akshully upper middle class men prefer upper middle class women', when the debate should be about how feminism has ruined all women, which I think the original point comes closer to addressing.
You can't tell me that upper-middle-class men are comfortable making a move on womanbosses when HR departments and 'power imbalances' have become a thing that can ruin your life and career after a word from her. What 'culture' does he think is instilled into an empowered working woman, who headhunts wealthy men, that isn't further served by a nice big lucrative divorce? Like, yes I'm sure many waitresses see the world that way too, but why pretend the execs aren't even more cutthroat. Both pools are fucked, that's the point.
You can't tell me that upper-middle-class men are comfortable making a move on womanbosses when HR departments and 'power imbalances' have become a thing that can ruin your life and career after a word from her.
Definitely true. But if that type of guy marries, the girl will usually be much closer to the corporate class than the waitress class.
If you're working class with a gorgeous daughter isn't this what finishing school or charm school was for? To this day there are social climber or gold digger women who insert themselves into the country club scene to learn how to act in order to land a rich husband. It works much better if they get started in their teens,
It would he difficult for a billionaire to date a broke waitress without thinking she wants him for his money, just as it would be impossible for the waitress to not factor that in, too.
I worked in Investment Banking and dated MDs, lawyers, accountants, bankers, engineers, psychiatrists, compsci girls, waitresses, hair dressers, social workers, nursers, HR Managers, etc... you name it.
I've been to parties where the average salary was probably $500k/yr. I've also been to parties where some people literally couldn't afford a drink because they had $0 to their name.
This guy is wrong, IMO, and is way oversimplifying the issues.
Class is related to genetics (nature) and this is closely related to how compatible you'll be with someone. It's not really about the "culture" so much as it's about genetics.
There's also a myriad of other factors that make "cross-class" dating difficult. A lot of upper-class people (esp men) think that by dating lower-class women they will be able to be the authority and dominant one in the relationship. They bring their attitude with them and the women aren't naive to the fact that this is likely why an upper class guy wants to date them in the first place. That'll never work. An Applebees waitress is going to consider herself your equal, welcome to modernity, but how many C-Level men want to have to deal with the Applebees waitress telling him he's wrong and she's right after every little argument they get into in a relationship. He'd rather date the psychiatrist woman who at least is right when she tells him he's wrong. Most men I knew who dated down struggled with this. They'd be making $300k/yr year, masters in some STEM field, killing it at life and the waitress who failed high school thinks she's just as smart as him and that he's wrong in whatever tiff they get into. A lot of guys can't handle this. A lot of women refuse to date men who are so obviously superior to them because women don't want to be the "lesser" in the relationship. They want to participate 50/50 in the relationship and if the guy is so much superior to her, she knows it's going to be difficult for her to contribute anything of value so she won't even bother getting into the relationship with the guy.
Now, arguably the last part is "culture" but I think this is more genetic compatibility. I'd wager most people date people around their IQ level and there's likely a bit of a correlation between class and IQ.
A lot of wisdom here, and yeah, I consider culture a strong (if imperfect) proxy for IQ, so whenever someone talks about culture in these contexts I just read it as that.
The original post isn't talking cross class dating. It's asserting that, everything being equal, a woman with an exec position is less attractive that a waitress.
I agree that is the case, for the reasons in the twitter OP, but there's another one: network. The exec is set in her ways, has friends and family that will back her horseshit, and she's likely been educated in the means to destroy a family.
The waitress doesn't have the means to trans your kids. And the fact that she's working an entry-level, unskilled job means she's willing to change her lifestyle. That's what makes her more attractive: malleability is feminine. You will have an easier time leading her.
Sounds good in a vacuum, but that's not how it usually plays out. Working an entry level job doesn't signal willingness to change at all. It just means you're most likely the type of person to work an entry level job.
At the same time, that's an accurate picture of a lot of execs. So men in that position find maybe a somewhat less prominent professional woman, or don't marry.
I'm no expert on this sort of relationship, but I think this breakdown is somewhat true, and somewhat false. Probably skewing more heavily toward true, though.
But the idea that the upper-middle-class (I'll use his UMC term) are pretty much opposed to drugs and vices is absurd. Both young people and career people in the UMC are still very likely to lean in to the drugs and booze, and it's not really taboo. I'm not a member of this class myself, but I've known people that are and...boy, rich kids love to party. And the stereotype of driven successful people going crazy with all sorts of drugs and degeneracy is probably a stereotype for a reason too.
The attitude is different, and the reasons are different, but both groups are likely to indulge. I agree with the family thing, though. Since it's different and probably less common in the UMC, the point this tweet is making still holds generally true.
Eh. If you're looking for a serious relationship, first date questions should be a little awkward, or at least probing. There's nothing wrong with asking how someone feels about drugs and alcohol.
That said, like I said, I do think this whole thing probably is more true than false. People date/marry within their class/social status for a reason.
That's a good point. I would say that those types are good at turning on a degenerate persona, but also turning it off when they need to (until they can't).
One of those guys might have a one night stand with a waitress, but wouldn't date her.
And overall, UMC is somewhat less likely to do drugs, though I don't know by how much.
There is probably a lot of fractalization based on just how they got successful and how it correlates here.
Like, the older guy who started his own business with his brothers and just made a lot of money the "good ol' fashioned" way likely has a solid chance of being clean compared to the guys who made it off "imaginary money" like stocks or other investing who probably started a drug addiction just to stare at their line going up all night.
And both of their children who gained it through nepotism and inheritance have a much higher chance of being degenerate because they never had to develop any positive discipline skills at all. Most of our "elites" aren't 1st generation and fall into this group even if they pretend otherwise and are the source of said stereotypes even if we imagine young/middle aged dudes as it.
Absolutely. Not saying all of them are druggy degens, and I think you hit the nail on the head with the nepotism; that almost certainly plays a big part.
Yeah, it (like many things) is a U-curve. The upper class has enough stimulation in their lives, enough social support, and enough self-control that they can experiment with drugs and be fine. The middle class, on the other hand, recognizes that drug addiction is a serious threat, and rigidly avoids drugs (creating a cultural conflict between the two classes over legalization - a lot of social issues are like that). The lower class, of course, has neither the support to use responsibly nor the self-control not to use, and has accordingly been eaten alive by drug addiction.
Rich guys definitely want wives who won't create problems, but they also want to conserve social/biological capital. It helps that sincere feminism doesn't really exist at the top.
"Applebees" is doing a lot of work in the tweet linked in OP. Generalizing all waitresses as potheads reeks of east-/west-coaster.
I like how you imply things are much better in between. They're not.
edit: I was overgeneralizing. More like to be ketamine or X than weed
Basically it comes down to education and income being a proxy for social class. It takes a lot of effort for people to form relationships across social classes, let alone romantic ones, and even if it happens there are dozens of barriers to a long-term relationship.
Anecdotally, I've seen this with most married people I know. You're more likely to see people from your social class and more likely to have good conversations with them. You can extend somewhat and this isn't set in stone, but the farther apart the harder it gets.
I'm aware of one famous exception, which is the champion strongman from Game of Thrones (Hafthor) marrying a waitress he met while traveling, but athletes are an exception since they don't have to be intellectual to make big money.
You could also argue that rich men marrying models is another exception, but I would argue a Trump/Melania relationship isn't actually that common, especially for a first wife. Also, some models are nepo products from rich families.
Next week maybe I'll take on the myth of moving to a small town and marrying a trad farm girl tomboy.
TLDR your average Applebee's waitress is most well-versed in smoking weed and TikTok reels so if you want to talk with your girl about other things then look for an accountant or something
Please crush that myth too. I have lived in rural areas and all the tomboys are hard partiers who date simps they control, and often have tats and drinking problems themselves.
Yeah, a tomboy can be disagreeable and aggressive like a guy, not to mention having a subpar standard of grooming and potentially a male sex drive. Maybe sounds hot, until it breaks against you.
People think all tomboys are like Tifa Lockhart, and they should be, but they need a classy family to get there.
Tomboys have mostly guy friends.
Its literally impossible for them to not be massive whores after a certain age, and then all the consequences on their psyche that come downstream from that.
I find this to be somewhat untrue among men. Granted I'm still sampling mostly from college-educated, but from underpaid gov jobs to lucky/unlucky cryptobros, to dynastic wealth all seem to get along with one another just fine. It's not that big of a deal when no one is flashy or a braggart like "influencers." Or maybe I'm off base and "male nerds with BS degrees or dropped out" is a wealth-agnostic social class of its own, especially with gaming having such a low barrier to entry that there's a social activity anyone can afford.
A romantic relationship is an entirely different thing because your finances likely get comingled. If someone can't manage their own money, why on Earth would you ever give them access to yours?
No, I think you're on point. If men have a common hobby, they can bond pretty well. There's a few scenes that have a pretty high diversity of income, like car modding or even Warhammer 40k.
All women are worthless sluts if given even the slightest amount of freedom, they need to be made property.
Besides that money is the only way to even have a chance with a woman and women are only willing to date upwards.
Men date & marry down all the time.
Women never do because they will regret it.
What you really have to watch out for is wether her parents are divorced and if she has self esteem/worth issues.
Divorced parents mean divorce is always an option for them. Low self esteem/worth means they will cheat on you with a loser like them.
The central point he's replying to is a guy saying high-powered women exec types are not very attractive, which is true. The two of them take this and somehow use it to stumble into false points, like 'waitresses are better' vs 'akshully upper middle class men prefer upper middle class women', when the debate should be about how feminism has ruined all women, which I think the original point comes closer to addressing.
You can't tell me that upper-middle-class men are comfortable making a move on womanbosses when HR departments and 'power imbalances' have become a thing that can ruin your life and career after a word from her. What 'culture' does he think is instilled into an empowered working woman, who headhunts wealthy men, that isn't further served by a nice big lucrative divorce? Like, yes I'm sure many waitresses see the world that way too, but why pretend the execs aren't even more cutthroat. Both pools are fucked, that's the point.
Definitely true. But if that type of guy marries, the girl will usually be much closer to the corporate class than the waitress class.
If you're working class with a gorgeous daughter isn't this what finishing school or charm school was for? To this day there are social climber or gold digger women who insert themselves into the country club scene to learn how to act in order to land a rich husband. It works much better if they get started in their teens,
Private school and college is the most common form of current female social climbing imo.
I'd love to see this faggot hanged.
It would he difficult for a billionaire to date a broke waitress without thinking she wants him for his money, just as it would be impossible for the waitress to not factor that in, too.
I worked in Investment Banking and dated MDs, lawyers, accountants, bankers, engineers, psychiatrists, compsci girls, waitresses, hair dressers, social workers, nursers, HR Managers, etc... you name it.
I've been to parties where the average salary was probably $500k/yr. I've also been to parties where some people literally couldn't afford a drink because they had $0 to their name.
This guy is wrong, IMO, and is way oversimplifying the issues.
Class is related to genetics (nature) and this is closely related to how compatible you'll be with someone. It's not really about the "culture" so much as it's about genetics.
There's also a myriad of other factors that make "cross-class" dating difficult. A lot of upper-class people (esp men) think that by dating lower-class women they will be able to be the authority and dominant one in the relationship. They bring their attitude with them and the women aren't naive to the fact that this is likely why an upper class guy wants to date them in the first place. That'll never work. An Applebees waitress is going to consider herself your equal, welcome to modernity, but how many C-Level men want to have to deal with the Applebees waitress telling him he's wrong and she's right after every little argument they get into in a relationship. He'd rather date the psychiatrist woman who at least is right when she tells him he's wrong. Most men I knew who dated down struggled with this. They'd be making $300k/yr year, masters in some STEM field, killing it at life and the waitress who failed high school thinks she's just as smart as him and that he's wrong in whatever tiff they get into. A lot of guys can't handle this. A lot of women refuse to date men who are so obviously superior to them because women don't want to be the "lesser" in the relationship. They want to participate 50/50 in the relationship and if the guy is so much superior to her, she knows it's going to be difficult for her to contribute anything of value so she won't even bother getting into the relationship with the guy.
Now, arguably the last part is "culture" but I think this is more genetic compatibility. I'd wager most people date people around their IQ level and there's likely a bit of a correlation between class and IQ.
A lot of wisdom here, and yeah, I consider culture a strong (if imperfect) proxy for IQ, so whenever someone talks about culture in these contexts I just read it as that.
The original post isn't talking cross class dating. It's asserting that, everything being equal, a woman with an exec position is less attractive that a waitress.
I agree that is the case, for the reasons in the twitter OP, but there's another one: network. The exec is set in her ways, has friends and family that will back her horseshit, and she's likely been educated in the means to destroy a family.
The waitress doesn't have the means to trans your kids. And the fact that she's working an entry-level, unskilled job means she's willing to change her lifestyle. That's what makes her more attractive: malleability is feminine. You will have an easier time leading her.
Sounds good in a vacuum, but that's not how it usually plays out. Working an entry level job doesn't signal willingness to change at all. It just means you're most likely the type of person to work an entry level job.
At the same time, that's an accurate picture of a lot of execs. So men in that position find maybe a somewhat less prominent professional woman, or don't marry.