I see you don't understand women much :-).
I do understand, don't you think that's probably why I'm discussing it?
What you're saying it means taking chances and we're not as risky as most of you.
So you're saying that a woman who's doing well for herself - in this day and age of equality - can't be with a guy who's doing not so well for himself? I mean, can't women secure themselves these days? Just as much as guys can? No offense, but your way of thinking is traditional for a woman, and you seem to apply the same logic, even when it's obvious that times are changing. I mean, the more women reach higher positions, the more guys will be left out for these positions. (Which in itself isn't a bad thing!)
Maybe this'll explain it better? We have fifty job offers. We have fifty guys, and we have fifty girls applying for these jobs. All these guys and girls have the same qualifications. I'm sure you can do the math as to how this affects the traditional role-pattern? So are the twenty five guys and girls who will not succeed at securing this job automatically losers? Or even stupid? I beg to differ.
However you're right about saying that sometimes it might be worth it to take a risk if the person we're dealing with shows positive traits.
I just want people to be aware of the fact that being single or not can really make a world of difference for younger people these days. Just a decade ago it was doable to develop yourself on your own, all by yourself, but today it's a lot more difficult to survive on a minimum wage, especially when you're single. (It's the same for both men and women ofcourse!)
As far as the expression "gold digger", I agree, it already sounds nasty and whoever stays with someone only because of money is wrong, like I said above.
They'll probably learn when they're older, but in most cases, they'll end up alone when their sugar daddy finds a younger girl to play with. (I understand women well enough to know that the competition can be killing sometimes!)