Marriage, love, and money

Many women, and not a few men, have taken great exception to my advice to not take anything that women say literally. To such people, I pose a simple question. If a man wishes to take everything that women say literally, how is he to reconcile two seemingly mutually contradictory statements?

Talk about a Catch-22: while being unemployed provides the free time many engaged couples trying to plan a wedding would kill for, turns out tying the knot isn't on the horizon for most recession victims.

According to a recent YourTango and ForbesWoman survey, 75% of women wouldn't marry someone who was unemployed, and 65% wouldn't tie the knot if they themselves were jobless. Ironically, 91 percent of single women say they would marry for love over money.

I have no doubt that a poor, overworked hamster will produce something concerning the inherent unlovability of an unemployed man, but the statistical fact is that if a man loses his job, there is an increased chance that he will lose his wife as well. Nevertheless, if one is genuinely marrying for love rather than money, what difference does a man's employment status make?

As usual, one has to ignore the literal words in order to understand the meaning. In the same way that women assume ALPHA status when describing the BETA traits they theoretically favor, women assume a basic level of employment and income when describing how love is more important than money. What they actually mean, of course, is that love is more important than wealth... so long as it is understood that an ability to provide for a basic standard of living is more important than either.