Guys, be honest how attractive is a woman who can support herself - e. g. via job or own business - but who is also decent, caring & family focused?

[Anonymous]

In today's ecomony the average one income household is living pay cheque to pay cheque like paupers. Between mortgages, car loans, taxes, food, utilities, etc. it's anywhere from 3,000 to 20,000 per month in some areas of North America.

So be honest how attractive is a woman who is respectable / decent (not slept around), caring and sweet / generous, and very family focused.

Basically a traditional woman aside from the one simple fact she works or has her own business... and yes in history something feminism doesn't say much about... women did work & have their own businesses (everything from outright business to simply tutoring to selling products at the marketplace, etc.)... in fact during colonial America business women had more voting rights then then a lot of men as poor outnumbered well to do.

[Lionman95]

To me it´s 7-10 depending on how well we connect and we manage to keep a healthy emotional bond nonetheless. Because to me the biggest obstacle would be that both parties don´t lose themselves in work regularly and emphasize work over the relationship. I agree with you though I´m not from the US that in most times in history women have worked in some way and the classic housewife was a concept that only worked for high class and high income people.
So I think what you describe sounds perfect and ideal to me.

[Asker]

" I agree with you though I´m not from the US that in most times in history women have worked in some way and the classic housewife was a concept that only worked for high class and high income people."

Exactly women have always worked some way or another throughout history. A household with a wife that worked or tutored or sold goods did better than the neighhbors of course. Even in "3rd world" countries it wasn't / isn't uncommon for the wife to do some minor things to add money.

I don't know if you'd call it the classic housewife - that to me is someone who contributed to the household. The "classic American housewife" is more a gold digger that lucked upon a wealthy husband in the 1920s-50s and became the image to aim for.

I think that's why Americans are so anti household - singular unit working for everyone's betterment - nowadays compared to a LOT of other countries where women still work / help their partner.

[WindAtMyBack]

It's neither attractive nor unattractive. What's important is that she contributes something to the relationship.

One income vs two
This is like a self fulfilling prophecy. The double income creates more income, which in turn create higher prices, especially for housing which is most people's biggest cost.

House prices are directly related to available income. If double incomes are common in an area, the house prices reflect that. If single incomes are common in an area (like where I live now) prices reflect that also.

So a second income is needed only when everyone else has two incomes, and not needed when everyone else has a single income. To a lesser degree this applies to other costs besides housing. Costs will always be linked to income and go up and down with income.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I'm more concerned about her work/life balance. I don't need her income, and traditionally her income hasn't affected me any, with the exception of the ultra wealthy women I've dated. If she can support herself on 40 hours a week or less that's awesome. If she's gotta work 70-80 hours a week to support herself then I struggle to see where she'll have time for the relationship.

[incorrected]

Very attractive. Of course, if she's grossly overweight, or just very ugly generally, still unattractive.

[Lliam]

Sounds like all my former girlfriends and my wife. Ideal.

[Avicenna]

She'd be worth her weight in gold, so to speak. Sounds like a dream woman to me.

[BlackJeep]

That's very attractive. Pretty close to perfect.

[Anonymous]

Very attractive. The type of woman you describe is the best most men can hope for due to the economic realities you described.