Skip to content

Women treat MEN the way men treat JOBS: how relationship goals change the dating process

Channel: Orion Taraban
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR638YYph5g

The speaker's core claim: women relate to men the way men relate to jobs, as a means to an end, so a man's romantic security depends on being a woman's best available option rather than on her loyalty.

Key points

  • The speaker calls this the single most powerful realization he has had about women and dating.
  • Claim: women see men as a means to an end, opportunities to further their goals, just as men see jobs as a means to an end.
  • Both choices are framed as rational self-interest, "not personal": a man picks the job that best advances his goals; a woman picks the man that best advances hers.
  • The more a man accepts that it isn't personal, the more successful he will be in the dating market.
  • The job analogy: even a man content in a decent job will at least entertain a recruiter's offer of a promotion, doubled pay, and full benefits, and will usually take it; people leave jobs not only when they hate them but when a better option appears.
  • The more dissatisfied a man is, the less attractive a rival offer needs to be to entice him.
  • Applied to relationships: women are said to have relationship goals the way men have career goals; the speaker frames having relationship goals as "a feminine idea" most men lack.
  • Because women want to progress the relationship, they will always "pick up the phone when the recruiter calls", entertaining a better option even if they do not act on it.
  • If a sufficiently better option appears, she will leave, which does not necessarily mean she hates or is no longer attracted to her current partner.
  • Claim: a low-value woman picks a fight to trigger the breakup; a high-value woman sits him down and frames it as "it's not you, it's me."
  • General principle: people's goals come before their relationships; when goals align people "do business", when they don't, the relationship is canceled.
  • Practical upshot: shift attention to being another person's best option, which the speaker says is the only thing that attracts and maintains relationships.
  • An employer with a strong compensation package need not fear recruiters' calls, because they only make his offer look better; the same logic is applied to romantic relationships.

Reception

  • Overwhelmingly agreeing and grim in tone; the most-liked comments take the analogy as confirmation that loyalty is pointless and women love "opportunistically" while men love "idealistically."
  • A widely repeated objection: the analogy breaks down at marriage, where (unlike a job) the man pays the woman to leave, lives under court-dictated visitation, and loses the house ("imagine paying your boss after you get fired").
  • Many shared personal anecdotes offered as proof: long marriages ending in "notice," mothers comparing late husbands to an insurance policy or a job, women citing "would you stay at a job you weren't happy in."
  • Common practical takeaways: never marry / avoid a marriage license so she can leave but not with your money, always treat a woman as a replaceable option, level up so rivals only make you look better.
  • A recurring response is disengagement rather than motivation: several say understanding this makes them want to avoid relationships entirely rather than compete harder.
  • A minority pushed back, framing the behavior as narcissism (present in both sexes) rather than female nature, or noting a woman only has the incentive to leave and may not act on it.