Do You Need a Man to Make More Money Than You? If So, Why?

My amazing intern forwarded me an article last week that she read on CNN with some not-so-surprising new statistics.

In 2007, 22% of couples showed the woman making more money than the man. That’s up from 4% in 1970.

In this recession, 4.7 million men lost their jobs, compared with 2 million women, thus leaving more women to be the primary breadwinners.

The article points out what I’ve observed previously: the issue these days isn’t so much that the male schoolteacher is “intimidated” by the high-paid female advertising executive (there are some, but you don’t want them anyway), but rather that the high-paid ad exec refuses to date the schoolteacher.

But why is this the case in 2010?

Isn’t the point of being independently wealthy so that you can do what you want, when you want?

Doesn’t the value of being self-sufficient come in not having to worry about someone supporting you?

If you’re a woman who is in the top 10% of earners – and you INSIST that your man out earn you – you’ve now eliminated 90% of the dating population.

For a self-sufficient, high-earning man, a woman’s earning potential carries very little weight. Why? Because we have always been taught that nobody is going to pay our way in life. This gives men the freedom to choose a partner based on what matters most – character, kindness, fun, humor, compatibility – as opposed to mere earning potential. That’s the FREEDOM of making more money.

So why do women treat being high-earners like it’s a curse? “If I make $200,000, then he has to make AT LEAST $200,000.”

I’ve never heard a man say the same thing.

Face it: if you’re a woman who is in the top 10% of earners – and you INSIST that your man out earn you – you’ve now eliminated 90% of the dating population. And that’s before you’ve considered kindness, compatibility, attraction, values, height, weight, age, humor, children, etc. Doesn’t that sound like a self-defeating edict? I’ll say. Which is – in my estimation – one of the main reasons it’s easier for men to find love. We’re not looking at you to support us because we can support ourselves, so we’re free to choose whomever we want.

The question remains: if you can support yourself as well as any man can support himself, what DIFFERENCE does it make what he earns? Why is your boyfriend, the guitarist, “bad husband potential” when his girlfriend, the painter, is just “his girlfriend?” Haven’t we evolved enough to true equality that it doesn’t matter who makes more as long as the couple as a unit is doing okay? Or are women stuck on the old world order where men provided and women took care of the home – even though most $200,000 earning women don’t want to be homemakers? Do women want it both ways? Do you want the option of quitting work and maintaining your high lifestyle, when men don’t have this option? If so, is this the rare double-standard that works in favor of women?

Frankly, I think that successful women holding out for more successful men is as counterproductive as wealthy men doing the same thing – which, as you might have notice, they don’t.

I would love your thoughts on whether women should continue to hold out for men who make more – with these two caveats:

1) Please don’t accuse me of being sexist for making the observation that most women want a man to outearn them. It’s an observation, not a judgment.

2) Please don’t accuse me of encouraging women to date deadbeat slackers with no money, no ambition and tons of credit card debt. It’s not all or nothing. Just as I say you can compromise on chemistry – from a 10 to a 7 – I’m simply wondering aloud why a woman with her own money can’t date a man who makes $45K, the exact same way a man with his own money can date a woman who makes $45K.

Print Friendly

Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared.

Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?

If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.

314 Comments »Filed Under Dating

314 Responses to “Do You Need a Man to Make More Money Than You? If So, Why?”

Judith 1

I find many men are uncomfortable when they find out that I make more money than they do. It doesn’t bother me if they make less, so long as they can carrytheir own weight; ie, child support payments, car loan, an appropriate proportion of “our” expenses, etc.

In the same vein,I’ve had men grow uncomfortable when they realize that I am a year or two older than they are. I’d think that at this stage of life (late 50s) a year or two (or 10) hardly matters.
Robyn 2

As a woman, holding out for a man who makes/has more money than you do is not the wisest of strategies. Just because a guy has lots of dough doesn’t mean that you will be getting any of it!
“Rich” means diddle if he is “Rich and Selfish” (and – by the way – there are many people who became “rich” because they were selfish & didn’t share & kept all their pennies to themselves).
Lynn 3

Well, I don’t think salary really matters, except in the extreme circumstances. There is nothing wrong with a woman who makes her own money dating a great guy who makes $45k. However, if the woman was pulling in $200k, and the guy was only making $45k, I think it might end up being difficult for this man to court his woman in a way that is consistent with her lifestyle.
The $200k-earning woman probably eats out several nights a week in nice restaurants, wears beautiful clothes, attends many concerts, and goes on weekend getaways where it would not be out of the ordinary to drop $500 or $600. The $45k earning man could occasionally take his woman out for dinner in a nice restaurant, once a week at best. Even if the woman were to feel generous and want to cover the expenses for her partner to join her in all the fun, the man might not feel good about relinquishing some of his “masculine power” by not only not paying for his woman, but having his woman pay for him. This situation might work just fine for some couples, but certainly not for most.
(Evan, I read “Getting to I Do” per your suggestion, and I have also been reading lots of David Deida, which has really led to me developing my views on issues like this. I really recommend david Deida’s “The Way of the Superior Man”)
angie 4

I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it sound. It’s similar in my mind to the way a the typical woman would prefer to be pursued, and the typical man would prefer to be the pursuer, or the typical woman wants her partner to be taller and the typical man wants to be taller than his partner. Why? Biology, evolution, whatever. It doesn’t really matter.

So I don’t think it’s just that women want men who make more money. It’s also that men WANT to be the one to make more money. It goes both ways. (There are exceptions to all the rules, of course…)

Whey you buck the normal dynamic, things can get weird. I think that men, who generally want to feel strong and protective and to be in a provider role, tend to feel somewhat inferior to a woman who makes more money, and would prefer not to be in that situation.

Intellectually, I have no problem with a man making less money than me, but when I have been in that situation (early in my marriage, until I quit my job to stay home with young children) it did set up some awkward dynamics with my ex, as sexist or irrational as it may have been.
JuJu 5

It’s not necessarily rational, it’s a purely biological urge – just like wanting a man who is physically bigger and stronger.
NN 6

Again.. we are from the different realities =).
But I guess it is like a lot of my female friends say, I have a mentality of a man.. more than most men. But I guess I am a woman since I think Chemistry is _rare_, since most men could be eunuchs for all interest I have in them.
If I get no sexual spark from them at all, I don’t bother anymore.

I don’t care a bit what an interesting man does for his job, nor how much he earns - He could be a slaughterer for all I care… I only care that I have working chemistry with him (- and sexual chemistry is an important part of it.) Simply put – most men are between 0-2, even if their looks are ok. In my world a 7 is as less than 10% of entire male population (and most of them are already in a relationship).
A 7 is fine..
So where do I sign to meet those 7s that you talk so much about? I don’t see them online, I mostly see them only in relationships IRL, but as I don’t poach… =D
kat3281 7

My thoughts…
1) You are not comparing apples to apples in regards to women and men. You state frequently that the most important aspect to men is physical appearance and it is just a fact. For women, financial stability is often the most important aspect in a man, also just a fact. To say that because men don’t care about how much women earn women should also not care is exactly the same as saying that because women are more likely to compromise on looks for security, men should also.
2) You are talking about women who make $200,000, which I doubt most of us do. For the rest of us who make a decent middle income wage, we can afford to live a certain standard of living on our own, however, that does not mean we earn enough to provide the same for a man. I can save and go out to eat once in a while and on vacation once a year. But, I cannot also pay for a man’s meal and vacation on my income. If he makes significantly less than I do, it would mean abandoning these things altogether.
I do date men who make less than I do, but there is a limit. I do not expect a man to support me or provide a lavish lifestyle, but I also do not want to go down on the poverty scale if we were to get married and combine finances.
Evan Marc Katz 8

@Kat – I DO think that men should compromise on looks and am consistently getting on clients to start dating the 7′s instead of the 10′s. Please don’t misrepresent my philosophy.

@NN – Your out-of-whack standards for sexual chemistry are the cause of all of your woes. Imagine a bell curve where the top 30% of the population (a ”7″) could be graded in the BOTTOM 20th percentile (0-2). That’s your world. I also predict that if men judged YOU the same way, it would be next to impossible to create a union. Which is exactly what you’re seeing.

@Lynn – “Even if the woman were to feel generous…?” Am I feeling generous every single time I go out with my wife? It’s exactly that stance that I’m challenging here. The woman who makes $200K is a martyr for putting up with a $50K man. The man who makes $200K and pays for everything is just a man – and a cheap one if he questions paying for everything the way women are questioning paying for everything here.

Is this biology? Or have women been socialized to want men to pay for everything, regardless of who has more money?
IceQueen 9

It is a biological thing – women are biologically programmed to seek security which a man can provide. Children are an important factor and they will need the man to provide for them (and for some time the woman as well while she’s nursing the baby).
There are still gender stereotypes that the man has to take the upper hand.
I do not care how much the man makes (as long as it’s legal and he can pay his part of the bills and can afford to travel once in a while). But it is still worrisome what he might think about the fact that I made more and how that would make him feel. And since I do have that freedom of not caring about his income, I also have the freedom to choose based on other criteria – looks and youth.
hunter 10

A single woman that earns $200,000 a year?…..there must be a very, very, small pool of them in existence……
JerseyGirl 11

But 7s are still attractive no? Is a 7 in female looks equal to a man that makes 45k?
I agree with Kat. You might tell your clients to go for 7s, who are still pretty darn attractive! But you do tell the woman of this blog that men prize good looks and youth and that’s *natural*.
The thing is that women aren’t beholden to a strict old standard of finding the man that makes the most money. We do pick men on other characterisitcs like character, kindness, fun, humor, compatibility. All the points you said men had the freedom to choose a partner based on are exactly the same points women have the freedom to pick a mate from and do. But earning potential is sometimes as ingrained in women as looks are for men.
With that said, I’ve personally dated stock brokers to guys that sold appliances. I don’t have an expectation of salary other then he can support himself. But I would be lying if I said I didn’t feel womanly and nice when a man can and does pay (provide) for things.
Lynn 12

EMK, regarding a “generous” woman, yes, I would consider a woman who paid for a $600 weekend getaway, or a dinner in a *nice* restaurant generous. I would indeed consider a man who paid for either of those things generous as well.
I don’t think a high-earning woman would be a martyr for dating a man who could not afford to treat her as often as she might be able to treat him. However I do think that when men are “not able” to do the treating, that it is often really hard on their self-esteem and identification as the masculine leader in the relationship.
Please believe that I am not in the gold-digging mode here. It’s just about the scenario where the waiter drops off the check, the man grabs it first, the woman does the fake reach for her purse and offers, the man says he will happily cover it.
Ellie 13

If you can support yourself as well as any man can support himself, what DIFFERENCE does it make what he earns?
It shouldn’t.
Why is your boyfriend, the guitarist, “bad husband potential” when his girlfriend, the painter, is just “his girlfriend?
Stereotyping? Less appreciation for a male in the Arts? Ingrained, old societal expectations?
Haven’t we evolved enough to true equality that it doesn’t matter who makes more as long as the couple as a unit is doing okay?
Maybe not as much as we think and/or maybe more so in some places rather than others. Old habits die hard. Yippee-ki-ay. lol.
Or are women stuck on the old world order where men provided and women took care of the home – even though most $200,000 earning women don’t want to be homemakers?
In some facets of society, maybe so. Or most (see above responses).
Do women want it both ways?
Thanks to mixed messages, quite possibly.
Do you want the option of quitting work and maintaining your high lifestyle, when men don’t have this option?
Not really. I like having my own money to spend without strings attached, so to speak. I like putting money into my savings, too. Plus, I like being busy and I like to work.
If so, is this the rare double-standard that works in favor of women?
Whether or not it works for women is debatable. All the guys I’ve dated have paid for meals/activities/etc. The guys I’ve dated have had mediocre to not really stable jobs Have I offered to pay for my meal? Or cover the tip? Or go dutch? Yes, yes and yes. Does offering to help pay hurt the male ego? Quite possibly. Am I responsible for that? No. However, I’m a b*tch if I don’t care or I’m too “nice” if I do.
I’ve heard guys complain about women not helping to pay and guys complain that a woman wants to help pay for things. So what’s a woman to do? lol. Perhaps not date idiots is one thing is a start. lol.
If I want that fancy dress and I have enough money to buy it without going into debt, I’ll buy it. If my partner and I go out to dinner will I offer to help pay? Sure. Growing up and even today, my Dad would/does pay for most things but Mom would/does help with things like the tip. This is probably where I lose out on guys either being offended by my offer to help or taking advantage of my offer. I don’t expect anything in return (well, except maybe a thank you. p)
I’m not an ATM but I don’t mind chipping in.
Ellie 14

I do date men who make less than I do, but there is a limit. I do not expect a man to support me or provide a lavish lifestyle, but I also do not want to go down on the poverty scale if we were to get married and combine finances.
–
Kat-
Ditto.
Joe 15

@ kat3281: your second argument has a logical fallacy. You assume that by combining your finances would bring you both to the income level of the less-earning partner. Au contraire. Unless one of you quits work entirely to take care of a child (a possibility), you will have a combined income of more than what each of you made before. Say you make $70k and your man makes $30k. You get married; you will now have a combined income of $100k. Not only that, but by combining households, you will have lower expenses than each of you do singly.
Lady J 16

Men have been raised by the thought of being able to take of their family both financially and physically (protection). The thought has been engrained in them by their family and, most importantly, by fathers.

A woman’s father may have raised her with this thought as well while the mother is in full agreement that the woman should find a man who can provide while she takes care of him and the family, while still maintaining a job; as a result, some women expect a man to make more based on her upbringing and what society has dictated as how the quintessential man should be: a provider and protector.
I’m 27. When I was younger I would’ve preferred a man make more than me because I didn’t want it to be a cause of stress in the relationship with him possibly feeling insecure about me making more than him. Now I don’t care. I want a happy relationship that leads to marriage, and I just want him to be able to support himself.
Ruby 17

EMK, I’m wondering where you are getting the idea that high-earning women do not want to date women who earn less. Are you seeing this among your own clients? The CNN article doesn’t say this, it simply talks about the fact that increasing numbers of women are earning more than their partners, and that both sexes are okay with that.

I really don’t know any women who are earning 200k/year anyway, at least not in my own circles. My friends (male and female) are getting laid off, struggling to keep their businesses afloat, having to take pay cuts and unpaid furlough days. I think that’s the reality for most of us these days whether male or female so I’m finding it hard to relate to this post.
Diana 18

My interpretation of the CNN article wasn’t about how higher paid women won’t date men who earn less. I found the article to be informative and supportive about how society is beginning to reassess and gradually change its view on this issue.

During most of my married years, I earned more. At one point, nearly double. Neither of us were the least bit concerned who earned what. We soldiered and celebrated together through our financial ups and downs. Now that I am single and more independent, the opportunity presents itself to revisit this issue.

In dating, provided that a man is a hard worker, and is capable of supporting himself, and seems financially responsible, it doesn’t concern me if he earns less, and he certainly doesn’t have to earn more. I like taking care of myself. If I were to marry again (exceedingly unlikely though), I would likely want the man to earn about the same as I do. I can assure you ~ it’s not $200K. I would want to feel like we were equal contributors: he’s not dependent on me and I am not dependent on him, financially speaking. I would also be more selective about owning things together and merging funds.

I feel that a high-earning man, or any man, is typically not concerned with a woman’s earning power because his first priority and what he’s holding out for is her physical attraction. Emotional attraction becomes his second priority, assuming he wants something more serious. And while it’s still in infancy, some men are quitting their jobs to stay at home to help raise their children because of their wife’s higher income.

I will leave the answer to your question to those women who earn $200K.
Ruby 19

Oops, make that “women do not want to date MEN who earn less”
kat3281 20

Evan, I did not mean that your philosophy is that men shouldn’t compromise on looks, just that you tell us that most men are not doing that (stating the facts, not rationalizing them). Just like women should be less concerned with height, money, status, etc. You did not ask if women want men who make more money, but why. We are relating our own personal experiences and reasons for that. I am okay with dating a man who makes less as long as I do not have to support him and can maintain a reasonable middle income lifestyle that I have on my own (while being a single mother of three).
I also have found that most of the men I meet that make significantly less than I do did not go to college or even trade school. While some men are able to make a good living without it, most I meet are barely scraping by and in their 30′s and 40′s with no plans to improve their career. In this economy especially, it is scary to date someone who is so easily replaceable in their job with no other skills to fall back on. I also seem to have less in common with them and a harder time with conversation than men who have gone to at least some college. I managed to finish my Bachelors as a single mother, it is hard to truly respect a 40-year-old who “mows lawns” in the summer and “takes odd jobs” in the winter (yes I recently went on a first date with this guy). It may make me a snob, but ambition/pride are important to me.
JuJu 21

1) Re: Lynn’s “even if the woman were to feel generous” – yes, that’s how it is. You often say about this or that aspect of men’s behavior, Evan, that this isn’t perhaps how it should be, but this is how it is. And this is how it is.

2) I had the following thought on the whole paying for dates thing some time ago: as it is, the entire courtship ritual has been reduced to the very minimum. Even if paying somebody else’s way didn’t leave me broke (as it would in my current situation), I simply wouldn’t feel desirable if I had to do it.

That’s how I feel at the moment. Perhaps I’ll develop a different philosophy as life goes on and I am truly on my feet.
kat3281 22

Robyn, I agree. A man who makes much more than I do does not necessarily want to spend it on a woman. Oddly, the men who make about the same as I do or less are often more generous. The men with a lot of money are so afraid of “gold-diggers” that it seems they are constantly testing and holding back for fear of being used.

Also, are constantly reading that our job in the beginning of dating is to graciously receive and be thankful. How do we do that if we are paying for all the dates? I think the woman does end up then taking on the masculine role, something I am personally not comfortable doing.
Christie Hartman, PhD 23

A woman wanting a high-earning man (i.e. a man who earns more than she does) is analogous to a man wanting a beautiful woman. To answer your question above, Evan – yes, this is a result of good old biology. However, these are only human tendencies, and most people eventually learn to rise above these tendencies and look for LOVE. And, hey, some people learn this lesson the hard way when the rich guy turns out to be a prick or the hot chick turns out to be nuts!
Jane 24

Evan,
You are right that one of the reasons both men and women are at a standstill when it comes to finding love is that they won’t compromise either on looks or income. It’s just that it feels so unfair that most men won’t compromise on age or looks, so therefore it boils down to women having to make the compromises. I’m in my late 30′s and just went on a date with a man who made some off handed comment about how he was open to dating women of all ages, older, younger, but when it comes to settling down, then age will matter. The guy is almost 40. He lives with his mother and earns less than I do. He then asked me my age and was surprised when I told him because he thought I was younger. Then the whole vibe of the date changed and he seemed less interested. He never did call post date. Anyways, the point is that I if I refuse to date him because he has low earning potential, then I’m shallow. If he refuses to date me because I am too old, then most people will think it’s just normal that a man should feel that way.
Kenley 25

I just finished reading your advertorial for Why He Disappeared and I am wondering how to reconcile your advice for women to be receptive and allow men to be giving with your advice for women to not insist on men who make more money than they do. In our society, the way “giving” often manifests itself is through spending money — on dinner, plays, theatre, movies, etc. If a woman makes a lot more than a guy, it’s unlikely that he will be able to spend on the things that she likes…which will make him feel bad and her frustrated. So, if the guy can’t give in that traditional manner, what can he do to maintain what you call the masculine giving energy and what can she do to maintain the feminine receiving energy?
I do think that women have been socialized to want men to pay for everything and I think a lot of men and women don’t challenge that norm very much. I happen to be one of those women who makes a lot more than my boyfriend, and I basically pay for all of our recreational/entertainment activities. When we go to dinner, the wait staff — male and female alike– always put the bill in front of him. People just expect that the he is going to pay for whatever we do. One time a waiter even commented to him ” “Hey, aren’t you lucky to have the lovely lady pay for dinner.” My boyfriend just grinned and said, “Indeed I am.”
The interesting thing is that at first my boyfriend did feel uncomfortable with me paying for everything, but now he’s fine with it because he knows that I don’t think less of him as a man or make him feel inadequate. While I don’t think less of him as a man, every now and then I do feel that if I were really hot, I would not have had to “settle” for a guy who is financially challenged. At the same time, I really don’t feel comfortable when the guy pays for everything.
JuJu 26

Okay, seriously, I am curious now: who ARE these people who hold out for only 10′s on the attractiveness scale? How many men truly think that they have a chance with the Charlize Therons of the world? And I am sure that for women an analogous percentage would be even lower.

From what I generally observe, MOST people are certainly much more realistic than that.
A-L 27

Part of it is cultural. My dad always paid for everything, never letting my mom pay for anything. It was a point of personal pride for him (and also part of his cultural background). Most guys I’ve dated pay for everything. A couple have let me pick up a tab here and there, but they’ve been in the minority.

My fiance is a teacher, so you can see where I fall in the spectrum of women on this issue. And it’s important to him that he pays for when we got out. I think I’ve paid for things maybe 5x over the last year and a half. The difference between dating a teacher and a very financially successful man is the type of restaurant we go to. Instead of going to the city’s most exclusive restaurants on a very regular basis we go to more affordable neighborhood restaurants. I think in one of the “who pays for the first date” threads the basic consensus was that the guy should pay, and the woman should be happy with what was provided for her.
Ruby 28

“For a self-sufficient, high-earning man, a woman’s earning potential carries very little weight. Why? Because we have always been taught that nobody is going to pay our way in life. This gives men the freedom to choose a partner based on what matters most – character, kindness, fun, humor, compatibility – as opposed to mere earning potential. That’s the FREEDOM of making more money.”

I also see that many men in this category feel that choosing a partner is NOT based on “character, kindness, fun, humor, compatibility”, as much as it is on choosing a partner who is young and very attractive. That’s the FREEDOM of making more money.
A-L 29

Addendum to my #27: I will pay for things like opera and symphony tickets. I’m usually the one who’s interested in these events and will find out about them, and he humors me by accompanying me. I’d really feel badly if he to pay for it too!
Kenley 30

Juju,

I have to agree with you. I really don’t think most men hold out for 10′s and I don’t think most women hold out for millionaires. Perhaps Evan’s clients do, but I just don’t know how representative they are of the average woman or man who doesn’t live in LA or New York. If what I read on this blog were the reality, only beautiful, rich, and fit people are getting together. i live in small town/small city America, and the reality that I see everyday is average men happily coupled with average women. And average includes lots of men under 6 feet and lots of women size 12 and over and lots of normal looking people — they won’t turn your head, but they won’t make you gag either.
Shay 31

Sometimes I feel that some people discusses each “criteria” in isolation. A lot of times things aren’t so simple.

If I meet a guy and he makes less than me, no big deal….IF he is a hardworking man, with appropriate levels of ambition, doing what he loves and is responsible to contribute to the makings of “us”. Then that’s fine. That’s fantastic!

If I meet a guy who is not all that and/or has low self esteem being with me who earns more than him (yes, there still are such men around)…then no can do. I don’t want money or pride to be an issue in the relationship.

As I go along in my career, I begin to accept that not many guys my age or the age range I’m looking for would be able to match my income.
Evan Marc Katz 32

I’m seeing a few responses that are getting frustrated at men (Ruby, Jane, Juju). I acknowledge your frustrations and think they’re very real and very fair. But as you know – and have pointed out – this blog isn’t about changing men; this blog is about looking at yourself and asking if there’s something that YOU could do differently. Not because men are flawless (they’re not), but because you can’t change them.

So to counter my query with: “But MEN discriminate against women based on age and weight, therefore I SHOULD BE ALLOWED to discriminate against men based on money”…

…misses the point.

If you make six figures, you CAN pass up every man who makes less than you do, however I believe that this behavior is a) counterproductive, because the more you make, the fewer men are available. And b) somewhat anachronistic and hypocritical, for reasons I’ve already articulated.

Instead of retorting with ways that men do you wrong, or reasons that men are uncomfortable with you making more (which are real, too), let’s focus on a not-so-hypothetical hypothetical:

Evan makes $60,000 running E-Cyrano.com. His girlfriend is a Vice-President of a company and makes $200,000 a year. Evan is perfectly comfortable with the fact that he makes less. He wants to be generous and chivalrous, but it’s really difficult when his girlfriend likes 5-star hotels in Cabo and frequent dinners out, which are beyond his means. He does his best to carry his share and ends up alternating checks and paying for half of everything. Most women I’ve talked to seem to think this is a fair arrangement, because he’s a man, and that’s what men do.

Let’s flip the script over. Evan makes $200,000 and his serious girlfriend makes $60,000. If he allows her to alternate checks to the point where she’s paying a disproportionate share of her income – he’s labeled a cheap and selfish bastard who should not let her lift a finger, given their income disparities.

It seems to me that if we’re being fair and objective, people should pay according to their MEANS not their GENDER. How can presumed feminists who believe in full equality justify a man paying for you when you make significantly more?

Understand, I’m not blaming you for finding men with money more attractive; I’m simply pointing out this dichotomy – and how it actually harms the women who buy into it.
Diana 33

Ah, but life isn’t fair, Evan. Truthfully, my feeling on the who pays thing is that while I greatly appreciate a man paying for a date, I really don’t expect him to. I prefer to pay my own way. But I also don’t want to feel like I am stepping on a man’s ego or desire either. I recently offered to go dutch and I think the man was offended. It’s not just the women who may feel a man should always pays. I think the men typically feel this way, too.
JuJu 34

I don’t know, I certainly didn’t feel frustrated, I only said, accept it, this is the way it is. And this thinking is not likely to change any time soon. It’s only for the past 25 years or so (if even that) that women have been truly financially independent – what is 25 years compared to the span of the entire human history? Evolution doesn’t happen that quickly. I am actually very surprised (and perturbed) when I encounter men who do place a disproportionate significance on the woman’s income, since it just feels so unbecoming of a man.
JerseyGirl 35

Shay, you make a great point that it’s usually the sum total of a person’s qualities good and bad that factor into who we determine is a good partner. LIke you said most women who saw a man with a lower salary but had ambition to better his life, and had other qualities she was looking for, would be quite happy. A man at 40 still living at home and has no aspirations for growth or change isn’t such a compatiable partner.
Evan Marc Katz 36

Diana, I’m not talking about who pays for the first date. Old-school chivalry is an extremely nice gesture and a no-brainer for most men in the early phases of courtship. So absolutely let him court you for a few dates before you generously offer to reciprocate. That acknowledges his desire to earn your trust and value you and doesn’t emasculate him. I’m talking about when he’s already GOT you. You’re a couple.

And if you’re a couple and you significantly outearn him, it seems pretty silly for him to be paying for half of everything due to rules that were created 100 years ago.
C. 37

Hmm, this is definitely not the reality for me. I’ve never even dated someone who makes more than me, and I’ve always been fine with picking up the checks, as long as it was my idea to go out. Ideally I’d want a partner to pull his own weight, but not necessarily support me. I don’t think I know any women who expect their boyfriends to make more, so long as they are not deadbeats.
I do know 3 married couples where the woman are the breadwinners. In 2 of those couples the men are stay at home dads, not making any income at all. In the 3rd couple the woman has a career while the husband is a part time waiter. She pays the entire rent of their house but when they go out he always picks up the checks..I guess so she can feel like hes taking care of her somewhat. It seems to work for them.
Ruby 38

It doesn’t sound to me as if the majority of responders on this blog are making huge incomes, and in fact, one person said that as a high-earner, she routinely pays for her lower-earning boyfriend.

I’m not expressing frustration at men so much as I am saying that both genders can be shallow and superficial. Also, EMK’s post is about high-earning women not wanting to date lower-earning men, and I am questioning the validity of this belief. Then again, I’m not all that concerned about what wealthy women choose to do as far as dating goes anyway.
Zann 39

The only reason for a woman to want her man to have a higher salary than hers is because she’s looking for a man to take care of her.  In other words, she’s willing to put herself in a childlike situation where she is dependent upon another adult to make sure her financial needs are met. In my opinion, women with that mentality are not only foolish but they contribute to the myth that women — as a whole – are gold-diggers and/or cannot support themselves.

Evan, men aren’t the only ones who’ve been brought up to expect that their financial well-being is their own responsibility.  Fortunately, that’s how I was raised; but even if I wasn’t I think I would have quickly figured out that true freedom comes from knowledge that at any given time I can leave a man who mistreats and disrespects me with the ability to support myself and move on. I’ve always been at least an equal earning partner in any long-term relationship, including marriage with children, and I can say the same for most women I know.

On the other hand, I know plenty of men who would have no qualms whatsoever settling right in with a woman who makes more than they do — even substantially more. I’ve yet to meet any many who, after learning my income, had any kind of problem with it being more than his.  In fact, when they find out how much I make, and the retirement options I’ve built for myself over the years, their eyes sometimes light right up, as if to say “Hallelujah, here’s my ticket to a comfy retirement.”

On yet another hand, I’ve met men who have a serious problem , which they articulate clearly and early in the relationship, if they learn my income or investments are not at least equal to theirs.  Many men carry what they feel are “scars” from being taken to the cleaners by a bitter ex-wife (or two), and they are very unwilling to let go of that bitterness or control over whatever financial holdings they still have. While I can understand that kind of mistrust, I find that guardedness a real turn off.    In other words, money is complicated in relationships… regardless of gender.
Selena 40

To answer Evan’s question in #8, I believe it’s sociology. Biologically males may have been taller, faster, stronger, but I don’t see early human females sitting back and starving to death if their male (if they had one) didn’t bring home the wild boar. It seems much more likely everyone was out hunting and gathering whatever they could to survive. Later gardening and trading surplus food, goods, and skills. In fact, it’s only been within the last century or so that BOTH genders have become so removed from basic survival skill sets.

If a woman has the financial resources to support herself in the style she enjoys, why would she need a man who makes more money than she? It’s not for survival. Joe in #15 hit on one of the advantages of partnership: dual income can provide a lifestyle that is above what one could provide for themselves, while at the same time lowering the individual’s costs of maintaining a home.

I can see the point of not necessarily wanting to pay more than you would for yourself when it comes to things like expensive dinners, or vacations and you don’thave to…you can do these things on your own. But it’s not as much fun as having a companion to go with you is it? This is something most men realize and why they accept the fact of paying for dates. It’s what works effectively, it’s not biology.

If you are a high earner and you want an equally high earner there is nothing wrong with that… as long as you understand you are by your own choice limiting your dating pool.
Steve 41

As a single guy, I can find much in this thread to feel defensive about and jump right on in with my own rants.

The bottom line is people have a right to want what they want.

If they don’t want me that only means that I move on to someone else.

If they “price themselves out of the market” with their lists of must haves, some of which are just not rare, but contradictory then that is their life, their business. They just end up alone.
GradGirl 42

Hi Evan,
Love your blog etc etc. Thanks for keeping it real and being (painfully) honest. Anyway I was just thinking about this issue myself. Went out with fellow grad student a bunch of times who seems sweet and super smart and a total social science dork, just like me But well he hasn’t offered to pay for me and that kinda got to me. Then I thought we make the same amount of (very little) money and live on such teensy budgets, I should be more chill. Anyway we’ll see how it goes and it’s all pretty low stakes as long as people are dating and living independently. Once two people decide to make a home together, I think the equation changes a little bit.
I think it changes because of expectations surrounding men and women’s gender roles in marriage, specifically the home-making and child-rearing stuff. Sure if a woman makes enough money it’s more than acceptable for her to outsource her housework. I don’t know if that’s as true for childcare. Speaking for myself at least, I would want to marry a guy who if the need arises (which it will) can make enough for me and the kid(s) I hope to have. I want to be a stay at home mom for a little while when I have kids (a year or two minimum) and during this period I would want the guy I’m with to be the primary breadwinner. Sure I want a career doing something I love and am good at, but I can’t be the primary caregiver for the children AND be an equal breadwinner at the same time. Whereas women’s roles have changed enough since the ’50s so that now it’s customary for them to be full participants in the workforce, this is work they’re expected to do IN ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD of, all the other stuff like being a good mom/ wife/ homemaker.
Diana 43

Thanks, Evan, for the clarification. I thought we were discussing higher-earning women who won’t date lesser-earning men. I took this to mean in the early dating phase, and not in a solid couple relationship. If they won’t date them at all, how do they get to the couple stage and the unfairness of who pays?

If I earned $200K and he earned $60K, I am certain that I would not expect him to wine and dine me in the manner I would be accustomed to on my own. That’s ridiculous. I would also imagine that if I earned that kind of money, I might be working some really long days with little time for recreation. I would hope that once we had reached the state of couplehood, I would value his character, morals, values, how he makes me feel, etc. far, far more than his money or his ability to support my lavish lifestyle, since these very qualities would be the reason I wanted to date him in the first place.
jane 44

Income represents, in many cases, the capacity to use intellect, energy, and vision and confidence to make money. The characteristics behind the money are attractive.
These same talents may not manifest in a huge income– the income is not the point– character is. And if the talents have not yet come to monetary fruition, well, do these other attractive characteristics show?
I don’t like to be looked at as a ticket to the easy life nor do I like having to use my money to support some guys life choices that led him to not having much money. But, if he is kind, loving, and giving in other ways– I’ll lay down the money it takes to have fun life experiences with him.– no doubt.
Ruby 45

Diana #43

“I thought we were discussing higher-earning women who won’t date lesser-earning men. I took this to mean in the early dating phase, and not in a solid couple relationship. If they won’t date them at all, how do they get to the couple stage and the unfairness of who pays? ”

This is my interpretation, too. Also, it sounds like Evan’s wife was perfectly happy to date – and marry – him, even though she was the higher earner. Obviously, her values were in the right place!

I think if you are trying to compare a woman who makes 50k a year with one who makes 200k, it’s not exactly a fair comparison.
Millie 46

Hi Evan,

Your points are interesting, and, I must confess, quite valid. However, I have another interesting point. I am a little shy of 40 and have never been married. I outearn about 85% of the available men in my area. I have dated 2 school teachers, both of whom earned in the 40s and an attorney who earned in the 60s. All three men advised ME that they did NOT want to be with a woman who earne dmore. No, I never discussed my salary with them or anyone other than my mother and accountant. No, I never insisted on marriage or commitment. As you advise, I let it be their idea, and I mirrored their behavior. No, I never insisted on terribly expensive dates which they could not afford. No, I never acted like a prima donna who ws difficult to please. No, I never waved my paystubs as if they were either some kind of prize to be won or the very krytonite which would make him fall to his knees in shame. I was raised by school teachers and my firends always joked in college that they knew I would DEFINITELY marry a schoolteacher. What can I say, I am madly attracted to teachers. Some men, however, could use a lesson in “every-woman-is-not-out-to-emasculate-you-just-because-her-earning-potential-surpasses-your-own”.
starthrower68 47

This is a fascinating discussion, because at some point women have to stop being “evolved” because we don’t want to emasculate the guy. Whether women want it both ways or not, it appears we have to be able to “be” both ways.
Karl R 48

Jane said: (#24)
“It’s just that it feels so unfair that most men won’t compromise on age or looks, so therefore it boils down to women having to make the compromises.”

Most people (men and women) don’t want to compromise. Therefore, if you want improve the size of your dating pool, it’s up to you to compromise (whether you’re male or female).

That may be unfair, but it’s not unfair based on gender.

Income statistics: (2008 U.S. Census Bureau statistics)
For men, the median income was $30K (the mean was $43K)
Only 33.5% earned $45K or more.
Only the top 10.5% earned $90K or more.
Only 1.8% earned $200K or more.

JuJu said: (#26)
“I am curious now: who ARE these people who hold out for only 10′s on the attractiveness scale? [...] And I am sure that for women an analogous percentage would be even lower. From what I generally observe, MOST people are certainly much more realistic than that.”

If you are holding out for a man in the top 30% of attractiveness with an income of $45K or more, you are just as picky as a man who holds out for a woman in the top 10% of attractiveness. (30% * 33.5% = 10.1%)

That assumes that income and attractiveness are unrelated. In reality, younger men tend to be more attractive, and older men tend to earn more (earning potential being greatest between 50 and 60).

If you’re cutting your dating pool down to 10% before you get to the most important attributes (kindness, trustworthiness, acceptance, shared values, shared goals), then it doesn’t really matter whether it’s for looks, income, or a combination of the two. You’re sabotaging your ability to find a good partner.
Evan Marc Katz 49

@Ruby

My ex-girlfriend, who thought it was fair that I pay for half of everything, even though I made 1/3 her income, dumped me.

My future wife – who makes less than 1/3 of what I make – doesn’t have to pay for anything because I don’t think it’s fair given her means.

And there’s a big difference between a guy who pays for the first three dates when he makes $45K and that same guy having to continue to pay for things that he can’t afford when his girlfriend can afford them herself.

No one here but Zann is going to acknowledge that women want it both ways – rather than making excuses to justify this double standard?

Very well then…
Evan Marc Katz 50

Oh, and by the way: indefensible double standards that work for men include:

“He’s a stud; she’s a slut.”
“She’s responsible for domestic duties – housecleaning, childcare – even when she works longer hours and makes more money.”
“Men’s value goes up with age; women’s value goes down.”
“Men with strong opinions are confident; women with strong opinions are bitchy.”

Pointing out that women have – and exploit – this one double standard doesn’t negate the fact that there are many more working against you. But, as we know, two wrongs don’t make a right. So as I stop posting on my blog to begin work today, how about it? Give guys with solid jobs and less money a chance. If they eliminate themselves because they’re insecure, so be it, but at least you’ll be making decisions consistent with your own goals, instead of being the equivalent of the man who holds out for the 10…and ends up alone..

XO

Evan
Ruby 51

Sorry, Evan, I wrongly assumed that you were talking about your current relationship. No, I do not think it was right for your ex to expect that you pay for half of everything once you two were in a relationship. I have no idea whether your ex was the norm for high-earning women or not. It does occur to me that wealthy people in general can be very greedy though (sometimes that’s how they become wealthy) – just look at Wall Street.

Still, women like your ex are a small minority of women. I’m sure there are women who earn that kind of money who would be much more generous. One of my best friends earns a 6-figure income. She supported her husband who had virtually no income for a couple of years while he worked on his art, which has now met with some success. As you yourself say, you can’t change the other person, so if a generous partner is high on your list, than find a partner who is more generous.
Hilda 52

That is old think regarding a man making more then a woman. Times have change and women have come to empower themselves to earn just as much if not more then the men.
Men need to be secure with themselves not to let such things get in the way of a relationship or marriage. If they do well so be it..move on empowered women..you’re making money too..
Chris 53

I agree it’s a double standard: high income guy + mid income girl = he pays for everything. mid income guy + high income girl = they split things 50/50. Where I disagree with is blaming either sex. Even though my girlfriend makes way, way more money than I do, I would never let her pay for more than 50% of our relationship. I’d consider it unmanly and I’d feel like I was receiving something that I don’t deserve as a guy who didn’t work as hard as she did. Were she to offer to pay for a $600 weekend I’d be bothered because she would be pointing out the fact that I am less successful, since I honestly feel bad about that.

Until we have children I plan on paying for 50% of everything too, even if it means I barely put away anything for retirement. I can let myself do that because I really love her and see this relationship as leading to marriage. Only after we have children I will yield to necessity and allow her to make payments that I cannot make, but at least then I can salve my conscience by doing more than 50% of the housework and childcare.

The CNN article was interesting, but it didn’t have examples of alpha women and beta men _not_ working out. This piece does.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/
Evan Marc Katz 54

Too bad you’re taken, Chris. I’d think, given the tone of the comments, that you’d be flooded by responses from women who appreciate your willingness to drain your bank account for your girlfriend. I think your stance is somewhere between delightfully chivalrous and highly impractical and outmoded.
starthrower68 55

I would suggest, at least in the dating phase, that one option for the women earning substancially more than a man is to save the expensive trips, dinners, etc. as thing to do with her girlfriends, but do the cheap and/or free things to do with the guy she’s dating, i.e. walks in the park, a movie and dinner at one or the other’s home, that sort of thing. That way he doesn’t/shouldn’t feel “emasculated” and she can still enjoy her more luxurious pursuits.
starthrower68 56

BTW, I have no problem with a man who makes less money; as far as I’m concerned, our incomes are not the other person’s business unless things get pretty serious. As long as he is wise and responsible with what he earns, then that’s telling enough. I’ve also had the flipside; a guy or two I dated (albeit very briefly) offered to pay for things above and beyond a date and that made me feel extremely uncomfortable. It sets up a sort of dynamic in a relationship that, quite frankly, I don’t want.
Karl R 57

Millie said: (#46)
“I have dated 2 school teachers, both of whom earned in the 40s and an attorney who earned in the 60s. All three men advised ME that they did NOT want to be with a woman who earne dmore.”

If someone chooses to eliminate you from their dating pool, that is outside your control. If you choose to eliminate someone from your dating pool, that is within your control.

Obviously, the men who only date women who earn less than them have created for themselves a problem that is equal to the problem that women create for themselves if they only date men who earn more than them.
BeenThruTheWars 58

Evan’s probably been hoping I’d weigh in on this one. :-) I’m a mid-six figures female earner and have been for over twenty years.

In my first marriage, I made half of what my husband made when we first met in our twenties; then by the end (10.5 years) I eclipsed him in terms of earnings. He was extremely secure with himself, his career, how much he was earning vis a vis the average in his chosen profession, and so we celebrated when my income topped his. I took him to dinner at the fanciest restaurant in town and yes — paid the check. He genuinely thought it was great I was so successful, and his supportiveness when I set out to gain a foothold in my chosen field is a big part of the reason I was able to succeed at it. We divorced due to lack of sexual attraction and divergent interests, but remained good friends. Money and finances were never an issue with us. There was no competitiveness in that realm, even during the divorce.

When I rejoined the dating pool at 35, there was no one who earned even close to what I did — nor did I expect to meet such a man. I just did my thing, and dated whomever I felt a connection with. Very quickly, I met a guy who made only about 20% of what I did, and he would be viewed by many as a high earner in an absolute sense. He was a white collar, degreed professional from a blue collar background and had a TERRIBLE time with the fact that I made more than he did. He resented it a lot. We sometimes had bizarre arguments, where I would finally throw my hands in the air in frustration and say, “Would you prefer it if I were a $15,000 a year receptionist and depended on you for everything? And expected you to support me? Should I quit my amazing, high-paying job because you can’t handle the stress of making less?” It was all about his issues, his insecurities, his ego problems — not my having overly high expectations of his financial participation.

At one point, we broke up for six months. The woman he dated during that time WAS financially almost destitute; but instead of finally feeling like “the big man” in terms of earnings, he quickly grew to resent her for expecting him to pay for everything and loan her money all the time to help pay her bills. When we got back together, I never heard any more complaints about the size of my paycheck! I also never resented him for not earning more because I knew he was at the top of his pay scale for his profession, worked hard, fixed things around my house, etc. To me, that was “payback” enough. I wound up being the primary breadwinner for a lot of our time together (because he had child support, legal bills, etc.). When I finally left him after seven years, I noticed a huge increase right away in my disposable income, and only then realized how much of a “cash drain” he’d been.

The year I left him (for cheating, not for any financial reason), my income increased dramatically for a couple years. I knew for SURE then I would never meet anyone who could approach my income. I didn’t care; it truly didn’t enter my consciousness. I just accepted it. I knew that in order to date me successfully, a man would have to be 1) very happy with his chosen field, 2) very secure in his masculinity, so that the income discrepancy wouldn’t be an issue. Those are both healthy things anyway. Every man I dated suspected I earned a lot more than he did, but no one asked to see my tax return – and no one expected me to pay my way while they were courting me. I’m from a small town, middle class background, and happily went on picnics, went to lower priced concerts and movies, to good but not stratospherically expensive restaurants, etc. I didn’t EXPECT a man to have to take out a loan to date me, and was always treated extremely well (because I insisted on dating men with excellent manners and dating skills).

When I met my now-husband, he paid for everything until we were exclusive (about three months); after that, I would offer to pay for things occasionally, or buy tickets to things, and he would graciously accept; but it wasn’t expected that I would go Dutch all the time just because I earned more. He was courting me! He wanted to impress me. And I graciously received what he offered me. I was more interested in the QUALITY OF HIS GIVING than the quality of the objects/experiences he gave me. Was he generous? Did he take my feelings into account? Did I feel treated like a queen regardless of where we went or what we did on a date? I had briefly dated some “wealthy” guys were were absolutely nuts and/or treated me like crap. Here was a guy who I knew made about 1/7th of what I made, and yet he happily courted me, so I happily enjoyed his company on less-fancy outings than I could afford on my own. I saved the expensive spa weekends, French restaurants, etc. for outings with my similarly well-heeled girlfriends, and did not expect that kind of thing from him.

When we got engaged and he actually found out what I made, he did have a brief period of upset where he said he felt like, when we married, he would be a “kept man.” But that passed quickly once we discussed our expectations for what our lifestyle would be like, what would be expected of HIM, financially, as a part of the team, etc. I did ask him to sign a prenup, which he did.

Fast forward to today. I am now in a dying industry. My income has declined by about half in the last several years. I now make “only” about four times what he makes, and foresee the day when it will be much less. He and I see this clearly, and are making plans to downsize our lifestyle now, while it’s our choice to do so. We work as a team financially. He has his responsibilities re supporting the household, and I have mine. I make his Roth IRA contribution for him every year, and if we divorce, that’s his to keep. (We won’t – we’re crazy about each other.) He does so many nice things for me that I have never, ever resented his earning much less than I do. He is also near the top of his profession’s wage scale. How could I ask for anything more from him? He’s been very cool about me possibly having to retire a lot earlier than I anticipated; his attitude is, “I’m fine with going to $10 concerts on the lawn and eating grilled cheese sandwiches instead of filet mignon.” We are content with each other and happy regardless, and the financial discrepancy simply doesn’t enter into our day to day existence. In other words, it isn’t all about living high on the hog for us.

Thanks for slogging through this long post. Moral of the story: Find a mate with all the wonderful qualities you seek and feel blessed to have found that person, regardless of finances. It’s like that song from “Rent”: ”Today for you, tomorrow for me.” My husband knows that one day, I will go from being a very high earner to being a very uncertain earner (that’s writing for ya), and he may have to step up and support a lot more of our lifestyle, and he’s fine with that. I think if you go into a relationship with your feet on the ground in terms of expectations, and find a mature, emotionally healthy adult to couple up with, so many of the power struggles and angst over finances can be avoided.
BeenThruTheWars 59

P.S. When I started dating after my first divorce, I initially fretted about the income discrepancy issue. Once, on an early date with a guy who REALLY liked me, I offered to spring for our very lovely restaurant meal. He grinned and said, “Sweetheart, if you can get your hands on the check before I can, it’s all yours. It’s my pleasure to treat you because I enjoy your company so much.” I thought that was just immensely classy of him. He taught me a lot about how much it means to a man’s sense of self-esteem to feel like he’s courting a woman properly. ”Properly” doesn’t have to mean taking her to the kinds of expensive places she might be used to; it can (and perhaps should) mean treating her in a way that reflects her value as a person, regardless of how much her job pays.
Helen 60

Evan, I’m with the other women who ask you: How do you know we women don’t want to be with men who earn less?

An anecdote from my own life: my hubby of 10 years recently said to me that he would like to quit his job and become a stay-at-home father. Do you know what I said to that immediately? “That would be fine.” No joking: I am fine with my husband’s going from a good salary down to ZERO – because he is that awesome, and I want to stay with him regardless of how much he makes. Meanwhile, I don’t earn much myself, but could find ways to stretch the budget and support the family if need be. I’m a rationalist. It has always been fine in recent American history for the woman not to be making money and to stay home as the primary parent. It should be just as fine for men to do the same.

Please don’t assume that women are materialistic. In the long run, when we do find the man with all those other great qualities you describe – kindness, compatibility, etc. – the amount he makes is not a dealbreaker. I wonder if there are other people in LTRs reading this that could lend support to that.
Katarina Phang 61

Evan, this thread really resonates with me in a way that triggered me. I was supporting my husband for 4.5 years because I wanted him to focus and succeed in his writing career. No other woman (his exes), he said, would have done what I was so willingly offering him (there was also an underlying issue -on top of my undying love for him- which was my own why I wanted to do it but I’d rather not discuss it here).

So I relate to Kenley’s experience (#25) about having to take the checks in restaurant each and every time even when the waiters always gave them to him. But it has nothing to do with looks (I know now he’s crazy attracted to me).

At first I tended to be judgmental of women who wouldn’t do that or refuse to date “poorer” men but now I see there is actually a very deep-seated biological thing at play here. Still I won’t approve gold diggers -male or female- and I have very low opinion of them. However, really on the most fundamental level, we can’t deny our basic make-ups: men as providers and women as care givers -in ways that are not financial. Let me explain it.

Over time I had this wishing: how nice it would be to be looked after by a man I loved. That would make me feel very special. I couldn’t deny my feminine inherent trait of being “cared for.” And I’m sure he felt the same way in reverse, feeling how nice it would be if he could provide for his woman.

Did it affect how we felt for each other? I think so. Inadvertently and subconsciously. But would I do that again? This will surprise you. Yes I would when I knew it’s gonna well worth it for our future as a couple. Not forever, maybe, but what better way is there that you can show your love and support for the man you love? Still, I certainly long for a more traditional arrangement in which he is really the main bread winner.

So, I’m far more flexible (as I have proven it) re. this than perhaps many other women. And i don’t require luxury to be happy (I’m pretty low maintenance). If I can help it, I want a man who is wealthier than me. But if I feel so much for him, it shouldn’t really matter.

Only, based on my experience, you have to thread this path with caution. Watch out for the loss of romantic feelings (attraction) for each other. When a woman is taking over a male traditional role, she’s bound to feel less feminine, protected, attractive and loved and she will perceive her man as less masculine, courting, caring, etc. And vice versa. And it DOES take away some attraction in the long run toward each other.

So my reasoning to be “cautious” of men’s income is not based on materialism or love for money, but basic human traits/instincts according to our millions of years of evolution. We can only deny it so much. But I agree, we need to be more flexible in our approach to this. At least, be aware of the repercussion.
Helen 62

Also, to all the women who justify their desire for a higher-earning man with the statement, “It’s just biology,” I would like to ask: WHOSE biology? Certainly not the biology we see in the animal kingdom.

Female lions bear the cubs AND do all the hunting. Male lions sleep 20 hours a day, and wake only to have sex and eat the spoils the females have brought back. This is true of virtually every carnivorous mammalian species.

Male spiders and preying mantises only bring enough food to occupy the females while they’re copulating; otherwise, they don’t provide for the females.

Nearly monogamous bird species such as swans and geese forage for food equally, feeding themselves, but not specifically reserving food for their mates.

(Nature hasn’t been fair to females on the whole. That is why I am so grateful for the one 20th-century class of inventions that has given so much more power to HUMAN females: birth control.)

So, to say that it is “nature” for women to look for high-earning men doesn’t really have much substantive evidence in the animal kingdom.
Katarina Phang 63

Another thing is I have made some progress . Yesterday we were discussing dinner after yoga and he asked if I would pay since he had spent money on groceries. I said point blank: “Nope. I don’t want to pay anymore. I’m done picking up the checks.”

He has a job now. So it’s his turn to pay for everything even when I still earn more than him. It’s only fair lol…
C. 64

Wow Chris, that article was super depressing. At some points the women seem like shallow b-words who were idiots to marry without taking their vows seriously (as in, you know, taking care of the family unit when times are tough). But could also feel kinda sorry for them, because NY is extremely expensive and it’d be stressful for anyone (either gender) to be responsible for all expenses. And I do know a couple where the husband is out of work and plays video games all day, and the wife has admitted to me that she losing sexual attraction to him, as if hes a child all of a sudden.
But wouldn’t that go both ways? I’ve read “Hearts of Men”, about how men in the 60s resented the breadwinner roll: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/books/who-started-this.html?&pagewanted=all
I guess no one wants to feel like they are doing ALL the work.
Katarina Phang 65

Christie, I’m old school having experienced this first hand. Nowadays I do believe that it’s best in the long run when men pay the majority of dates for romantic purpose (say 4: 1 for him).

This is indeed instinct. Our attraction radar of a man will be dampened when we perceive him as less “powerful” and/or less giving. It’s in fact a turn off when he needs to discuss who’s going to have pay this time around. It should come from me, not him. And believe me, I’m not that insensitive either. I know when a guy is screaming for money. I guess he can be pretty honest that he can’t afford taking me out this week or something. And when he says that, surely I will perhaps step up to the plate (or just do something that doesn’t require paying).

Yes it’s perhaps unfair, but just the way I feel. If a man acts in a way that is very nurturing even when he knows I earn more than him, wow, he will earn so much of my respect. He will appear 100 times more masculine than those macho guys who demand me to pick up the check.

Part of attraction of a man in a woman’s eyes is the perception of his power or success which is a male characteristic, that’s why a lot of women are attracted to wealthy/powerful men (other than the convenience it brings). It does have biological and hard-wiring aspects to it.

To be successful in the mating game, you can’t ignore this basic hard-wiring.
Christie Hartman, PhD 66

This is a great discussion. Many people here feel convinced that the income double standard, like similar double standards, are socially taught, and to some extent they are. But I still maintain they are rooted in biology – males and females are different and our more “instinctive” behaviors (like women wanting money and men wanting beauty) will always play a role.
In other similar discussions I’ve seen Evan’s argument several times: that women want “equality” but still insist that men pay, that women “want it both ways.” This is something that baffles men (understandably); to me, this is just biological instinct warring with our more sophisticated higher brains. Interestingly, Evan feels men should still pay for the first few dates, but some men strongly disagree with that and use the “women want it both ways” argument for that too. As a rhetorical question, why should men (especially men who don’t make much) pay for any date in this day and age?
Finally, this issue is a struggle for men too. I was recently asked to appear on TV to comment on the recent Pew study and the “alpha wives” phenomenon. The anchor and I had a difficult time finding a stay-at-home dad to do the interview because they all felt a bit humiliated at not being the breadwinner of the family! I admit that really surprised me!
I strongly encourage my female readers to downplay the importance of income. It’s ridiculous to expect a man to make as much as you or to be wealthy, especially in an age when women can earn for themselves. However, the tendency for women to chase money and men to chase beauty will never completely go away – it’s part of the hard-wiring.
Steve 67

Christie Hartman, PhD #65
It’s ridiculous to expect a man to make as much as you or to be wealthy, especially in an age when women can earn for themselves.

Why is it ridiculous to expect a man to earn as much as a woman?

I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I think hunter in #10 has a good point. Outside of LA and Evan’s clientèle, few people make 200K a year.
Karl R 68

I have a question for the women who are justifying this behavior based on “biology”:
What is your opinion when men justify philandering based on “biology”? It’s even more hardwired into our systems (if you look at it scientifically). Males as providers didn’t occur until well after we evolved into primates. The instinct to spread our genetic code as frequently and widely as possible began when species started mating.

Personally I consider it to be beneficial to understand the biological drives BECAUSE this allows me to more easily make decisions based on logic, instead of unconsciously acting on instinct.
Evan Marc Katz 69

Thank you, Karl. Using biology as an excuse for why you have no choice but to want high-earning men carries the exact same weight as the men who prefer younger, hotter women and refuse to commit to them because polyamory biologically gives them the greatest opportunity to pass their genome onto multiple partners.

We’re human beings. We make choices all the time that override biology.
starthrower68 70

Well the good news for women who insist on a guy who out earns them, there’s always sugardaddie.com. You’d just better be hot enough to catch one of them.
Kenley 71

Evan,
You often tell us that you focus on telling women to pursue strategies that work — ie the strategies that will get them coupled up and ultimately married. Well, if that CNN article is accurate and for 88% of couples, the guy makes more than his wife, help me understand how seeking a man who earns more is a losing strategy for most women? I am only asking this question because I guess I don’t understand why you are implying so many women are losing out by not seeking guys who make less, and I don’t understand why you are so annoyed with women who are saying that want a guy who earns more than they do.
Also, it doesn’t appear that you have acknowledged the real difficulties that women who do earn more face. As one of the few women who does earn significantly more than her boyfriend, I do struggle with not feeling feminine because the social norm — and right now, it’s not just biology, it is also the social norm — is that men do more of the paying. Both men and women often have trouble navigating their way in a relationship where the woman makes more, and I don’t think it’s simply a matter that she is too selfish and he is too insecure.
So, why do so many women continue to desire and seek men who earn more? Well, I think it’s because so many MEN are accepting of women who earn less.
Selena 72

@#70
Amen.
Katarina Phang 73

Karl and Evan, I think it’s not a question “of no choice.” But to heed your basic instinct/primordial needs for the emotional fulfillment of both parties (and they are real, that’s why people are in relationship in the first place).

Somehow you can and will find common ground in the middle if you really have that much going on for each other. Taking things to the extreme is never advisable.
Lo 74

Personally, I’m not bothered by my partner making less money than me. As long as he does work, and I can respect his ethics and values, then we’re okay. I’m not going to require that someone work in a field they despise or turn into someone they’re not just to make a bigger paycheck. But someone who lets their lack of earning megapower turn them into a whiner, or a guy who deliberately lets me carry more of the burden b/c he doesn’t want to be bothered… that’s another, much less attractive story.
I do think that the situation of a woman making more than a man can be fraught with peril, based on how *most* people want to play out gender roles in their lives. Rare is the couple without any baggage about money and where it comes from, simply b/c we’ve all been shaped by its power since our earliest days. It might take some soul-searching and some long discussions to work out the friction of an unequal monetary situation.
I don’t think that it’s ever appropriate for one party to belittle the other for their salary, to cruelly flaunt their own excesses, or to use money as a form of control over their lover. That type of behavior is just cold and wrong no matter who’s dishing it out.
Evan Marc Katz 75

@Kenley –

If I recall, it’s 78%, not 88%, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is the socialized belief that tells women that he needs to make more, regardless of what she makes. Because my clientele is smart, strong, successful women, most of whom make over $75,000, putting them in the upper 20% of earners in the U.S., this question is highly relevant. If a woman makes less than $40,000, it shouldn’t be that hard to find a man who makes more. The more she makes, the harder it becomes to find…and the less it should theoretically matter what he makes.

And as for acknowledging the real difficulties, you don’t need me for that. Some men are insecure. Screw ‘em. I’m talking about men who ARE secure enough to deal with higher earning and the women who dismiss them, even though these men would make more ideal partners than the man who outearns them.

You want a strategy that works, Kenley? Keep doing what you’re doing with your current guy – an option that a whole bunch of women here would never pursue themselves.
Shay 76

If that “whole bunch of women” would first find out how much a guy makes before going on a date with them, it really speaks a lot about their values.

I really like how BeenThruTheWars put it…the guys who’s in LTR with her are earning at mid/top of their profession. Shows that those guys are successful in the field of their choice, in their own right. And I think that should be good enough.
starthrower68 77

I’m prolly the one oddball in the bunch, if, in the highly unlikely event, a very wealthy guy was ever interested in me, would probably run the other way because I’d never be able to buy into it.
Kenley 78

Evan,

Thank you for pointing out my math error. I appreciate your attention to detail. I also appreciate that you have clarified that your advice is specifically targeted to your financially successful clientele — a clientele who may or may not be representative of your blog readers.
You are absolutely right that there is no need for you to point out the difficulties a woman may have if she makes more than her boyfriend. My bad. What I should have asked instead is as a dating coach, how do you tell your clients to handle themselves in order to be successful in those relationships — beyond screw the insecure guy. (My guy was insecure too, but I didn’t say screw him.) Put another way, how does a woman maintain the receiving feminine energy and how does she help the man maintain the giving masculine energy when in relationships where the more traditional gender roles are reversed? Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that’s a fair and potentially helpful question for women who are struggling with your suggestion.
It seems to me, however, that a good chunk of women who have posted thus far don’t have an issue with the guy making less. But, what do I know…I can’t subtract 22 from 100.
Karl R 79

Kenley said: (#71)
“As one of the few women who does earn significantly more than her boyfriend, I do struggle with not feeling feminine because the social norm — and right now, it’s not just biology, it is also the social norm — is that men do more of the paying.”

Wasn’t the entire purpose of the women’s rights movement to change the social norm?

Is it rational to insist that we earn the same in the boardroom, but I have to earn more in the bedroom? Is it rational to insist that I spend more, even if you earn more than I do?

Everyone here seems to acknowledge that some men feel emasculated by women who earn more, because those men lack self-confidence. Similarly, if you feel less feminine (or less valued) because the man isn’t doing the majority of the spending, it’s because you lack self-confidence.

Katarina Phang said: (#74)
“I think it’s not a question ‘of no choice.’ But to heed your basic instinct/primordial needs for the emotional fulfillment of both parties”

How emotionally fulfilled would you be if your significant other heedsed his instinctive/primordial need to spread his genetic code to more females? Where do you “find common ground in the middle” when it comes to infidelity?

If you believe that men can override that instinct, then it makes sense that women can override their instinct as well.
MissMegaWatt 80

hey everyone
I AM a young woman who makes and has a substantial amount of money more than my boyfriend who now lives with me. This isn’t the first time I’ve been in this type of relationship where I had more and he has less.
Its hard.
I’ve always been very sensitive to other people’s feelings so I picked up rather quickly on how fragile (or not) my partners were in regards to money. I’ve done the whole “slip him the cash so he appears to pay” at a restaurant for the boyfriend who couldn’t deal. I’ve done the “dont worry about it” with a flawless opening to a happier new topic more times than I can count bc anger or embarrassment flashes through his eyes. I’ve done the sit downs and encouraging money talks..Now I -as a woman who values connection and happiness in myself and in my relationships- I took the money requirement off the table when I decided I was finally ready for a relationship again and found someone special. And that feels great in itself.
You know what DOESNT feel great?
I tone down a lot of things that I enjoy doing because naturally if you’re with someone you want to do many things together. You want to share the happy feelings from the experiences you have. But what do you do when the person you are with cant afford the things you like to do AND is uncomfortable with you paying for it? You keep pushing it with someone like that, no matter how kind and generous you are and you drive them away. And I’m not talking about the “good times” frat boys who would happily bleed you dry. I mean someone special who can’t deal with not being the provider.
How about if the person you are with is TOO comfortable and therefore has no reason to rise to the occasion? like.. ever? So essentially, you have a pet NOT a partner.
Someone here mentioned save those type of things for your friends and do the cheaper stuff with your partner. Of course I do enjoy a walk in the park with my man and things like that. But hey if I’m treating myself to a fabulous night out where I want to feel beautiful, who best to get that feeling from than my own man? Empty leers from strangers are just NOT the same.
and trust me, its a delicious feeling to put life on pause and not worry about the tab and money matters for one night. I work HARD to be able to get that- and trying to share that with a partner who has whatever discomfort with money really drains. My father was like that and it slayed my mother too. I’m too familiar with That Face and its a buzz kill.
Ever try to dream of goals with a partner who struggles with the money difference? I try to include him in plans for the future. I brainstorm with him, make it fun and all that but the difference between us is (and he will TELL you this is true, as he told me) if I say “I’m going to work hard at this and at the end of this I will buy blah blah blah – what do you want babe? lets make a plan” – I DO eventually get there. But he would still be in the “still thinking about where to think about starting” phase. This dynamic alone strains the money issue. Dare I follow through with such a purchase, it shows him up. But I want what i want and did not ask him to buy it. In fact, I freely share. It doesn’t matter, and this is how it was with my exes. Its just a no-win situation.
I’ve experienced receiving a nice gift or two before. MAN its a nice feeling. *shivers* But with sharing a life with someone who makes so much less than I do, I had to make peace (I am ashamed to admit feeling secretly sad about it) with that fact that I’ll never be that girl who is to hope for a “Gift Like That” from my partner. But I feel its a strong tradeoff having someone really here for me.
that said
I don’t think enjoying a nice lifestyle makes me a bad person who doesn’t know what’s important in life. I found the workaround to the Vapid Goldigger role for a lifestyle I desire. Work damn hard. I don’t want to partake in nickel and diming these things and I dont. But partners DO. They absolutely do it and some are not even nice about it. And let me tell you- one of the biggest slaps in the face is when someone is disrespecting you on your dime. -_-
and just to fill in the blank, I do NOT cut men down about what they earn or don’t even when they go for verbal low blows. I’m not the controlling type where conversations are concerned. Personality wise, I’m very “fun easy breezy”. It doesn’t matter. that didn’t save my last serious relationship where money was the issue and I’m concerned that it will cost me this one as well.

in THIS case with my current partner who pledges his undying love to me-
It sucks. It sucks to love someone and struggle to keep seeing them in a certain light when respect slips away when he pats himself on the back for “being good” this week. And being good -to him- is not leaving early from his part time job by the 3rd day of a 5 day work week- his words btw. It doesn’t matter how much I reason and explain 50/50 (in effort not in funds), the endgame is this.. the fabulous condo is still paid for. The car is still paid for. I’d never starve him because he didn’t chip in with groceries again. I would never let these things that I worked to get slip away because he didn’t keep his word. Because while he’s busy feeling bad about its my credit rating and desired lifestyle on the line. And while he loves me and is kind and sweet, these realities are hard to swallow. When I look into the future he says he wants with me, all I can think is if god forbid we were to have children and something happens to me, forget maintaining what we have- this family would be royally screwed bc my Man..doesn’t play that role. Doesnt.. won’t..
I am constantly reading Women this, Men that, Women don’t let men be men, etc. I’m just a woman trying to live the best version of my life with someone special. People act as though being in love with someone WILL override the rest. Maybe if both people in a couple “conspired as a team” to make it against all odds, then yes. But I’m starting to think I’m the only one who genuinely thinks like that.
I almost feel like when I was at the bottom where I masterminded how to make a fabulous meal for two on $1.37, I had more of that rich feeling of connection and partnership than when I began having plenty to share. Quiet resentment is noticeable to me – I can sense the difference.
in a world where people are quick to say “get rid of him”, I am sick with the thought that even though I AM young, smart, attractive, kind, fun, and “pair up easily” (not trying to run on accolades, just trying to give you the picture here), I run into so few authentic people who are tapped into love and life. Its LONELY being amongst what I call pod-people.. so when I find someone who I can genuinely click with, I hold on and I try. I REALLY try. Thats whats going on here with my boyfriend. He IS a good person. I do love him and how he makes me feel outside of this strange money dymanic.
and in my line of work, as I rise amongst the ranks of a world based on image, wealth, and idolization its that much harder to identify who in your life is there for what matters and whose there as props. in real life, these things are tough to decipher. Then I start to think if I had been smarter and HAD paid attention to the stark income difference, then maybe I would have found someone who this wouldn’t be such and issue with because he gets it. I have money and I’m a sweetheart. So maybe its silly to think such a man is nonexistent after all.

throwing money (or the lack thereof) in the mix is costing me a lot emotionally.
har har :/

and for good measure- YES ID LOVE TO FEEL LIKE THE PRIZE, THE DESIRED WOMAN! I don’t stomp around in the man hater club! I can appreciate the differences we have and I LOVE feeling cared for TOO
so WHAT if I work hard and made it into a certain tax bracket? Is this really the price I pay for being self sufficient??

…this comment was a lot longer than I thought’d it be. thanks for reading
Chris 81

I have something to add about the stats on women earning more: in 22% of marriages period, the woman earns more (so that percentage includes a lot of stay at home moms). In 33% of marriages where the woman works outside the home the woman earns more. I also remember reading that a high percentage of marriages where the woman makes more don’t involve a corporate alpha woman at all. They are more likely to involve a lower-middle class woman whose husband, who a generation before would have worked in a factory, has now lost everything as traditionally male working class jobs like factory work and construction have declined much more rapidly than female working class jobs like nursing, food service, child care etc. Thus, the fact that more women are outearning their husbands is the result of both feminist triumphs and blue collar male economic decline.

Anyway, in my dating experience I found that how much a girl cared about money had no correlation to how much she earned. I believe I got the same response rates from teachers as from consultants & lawyers. I agree with what people have said about the importance of being successful in respective fields, but I would add that other factors in success is whether or not the high-earning woman has luxury tastes and how much members of her group of friends earn.
Evan Marc Katz 82

Substitute a man’s name for Miss Megawatt’s post and read. She talks about men who are takers, who are too comfortable receiving, who can’t carry their own weight financially.

Sounds an awful like what 78% of the male population could say about their girlfriends. For all the talk about men resenting women who earn more, I think the resentment stems more from women who would rather be paid for. And that’s the elephant in the room in this conversation, if you ask me:

Has it occurred to anyone that the oft-mentioned reason that men feel insecure around women who make more is because those same women MAKE them feel bad/insecure about not earning more, about not being the “man” in the family? It’s not just society – and if it is “society”, then let’s acknowledge that half of that society is women who look down on men who don’t earn more than them – whether they want to or not.

I know I’m pounding this drum loudly, but I have no stake in this race. I just find it interesting how few women acknowledge their own roles in this “he needs to earn more than me” phenomenon. It’s always about the guy being a taker, the guy being insecure…it’s never about, “I will not respect him unless he earns more than I do”, which seems to be at least half of the problem.
MissMegaWatt 83

So because a percentage of the male population can say that about their girlfriends, a person – me or someone like me – is doomed?
Thing is here, I’m not trying to “win” so to speak. I’m just trying to be part of a happy relationship, where the money thing can work. I personally get nothing from putting a man down. If anything, it only makes it worse in my eyes (you know, I the woman cuts down the weak man successfully only reinforcing that he is indeed weak). The reality is he feels badly about me making more and behaves a certain way out of resentment without my “assist”. I don’t need to do anything to make some people feel the way they do about themselves or their successes/failures. Or the Taker- what am I doing to encourage someone to be a Taker as opposed to a partner? How is that on me, so that I know how to alter my behavior to discourage that
You see, I just keep reading general responses to the large percentage of people who behave in ways that cut each other down.
But there’s nothing general about my real life and I’m sure other people feel that way. I care more about how to make it work than blaming anyone. Allotting the blame is not changing my outcome.
Do you see what I mean?
Even if the response isn’t tailored to my specific situation, I find it hard to learn how to improve a personal relationship based on what a bunch of unhappy people are doing to each other. How do those of us who WANT it to work actually.. make it work. In real life with real life problems like bills?
Katarina Phang 84

Karl, you compare orange to apple. That’s an extreme analogy to say the least. I’m not the one who denies altogether the possibility of “mismatch of income” workability. I have said, personally, it’s not a big deal to me. The only measurement that matters is how diligent and passionate he is about life and his trade.

Yes I agree with Evans if you are too rigid about income you’re only going to shrink the potential candidate pool unnecessarily. However, I think it boils down to attraction on the most subtle level -there are women who are only attracted to guys with perceived success (how else to measure it but by how much he earns)? That’s again biology, whether you like it or not. To an extent you can’t help feeling that kind of attraction the way some men can’t help feeling attracted to women with large -or small- breasts.

So these women say they won’t date guys with less income because she doesn’t feel that attraction to begin with and though they may try to be open minded, at the end of the day if they are not attracted to these men there is nothing which will make this relationship work.

Be open minded and give the guys the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely. At least give it a try and see how it goes. Focus more on his other qualities, just maybe they can sustain the relationship as much as more income would. That’s the middle ground I mean, what’s wrong with that? People always compromise at the end of the day because very rare you’ll find someone with every requirement on the list checked.
Millie 85

The point I made was that I do NOT make men feel bad fo earning more. I had a boyfriend break up with me when I entered a prestigious masters degree program based on his unproved speculation that I WOULD earn more than he did upon graduation. What a loser!!! I was willing to remain his girlfriend and definitely was interested in marrying him, so he lost out. He now only dates women who are teachers because they earn approximately $20,000 less than he does. I not once mentioned wanting to earn more, and I did not pressure him to pursue an advanced degree. When I was with him, I NEVER mentioned income or prospective future incomes for either of us. I was into him-the person, not the wallet. I don’t even drive a fancy, expensive car. What is with some guys?
Goldie 86

Funny, I thought I was the biggest egalitarian out there until I found this blog.

I also thought it was common knowledge that women, in general, are being paid less for the same work than men, in general, and that women’s careers, in general, suffer more due to maternity leaves, household work, taking care of children, etc. In general, women spend significantly more time doing these things than men. And, since this is a dating site – I do not have exact percentages, but I’d imagine there are a lot more full-time single mothers out there than there are full-time single fathers. And that parenting thing, as amazing as it is, does hurt one’s career and, consequently, your earning potential. I speak from experience.

Which is why the situations when a woman earns significantly more than a man, are so rare, and it requires such an enormous effort of the woman to even get to this point in her career, that we as society probably honestly do not know how to respond to that. And yes, I would imagine many men would react by either feeling threatened/emasculated, or by trying to use the woman and live off her. Having never been in this situation myself, I do feel MissMegawatt’s pain, and think she has a valid point.

Maybe one solution to this would be – if a man is as dedicated to his work and as successful in his field as the woman is, even though his field happens to pay less, then pool the finances and share the same lifestyle treating the money as “ours”. On the other hand, if his low income is due to the fact that he does not care about work as much as she does, then their differences go way deeper than just the income and I dare say they are probably a bad match. Yes, this still limits the woman’s choices, but maybe limiting one’s choices somewhat isn’t such a bad thing. Picking a random guy off the street isn’t probably going to work, long-term.
C. 87

I think this is an issue for the 35 and up crowd. Maybe because they grew up in “traditional” households where the father was the breadwinner. But as someone who typically dates (and splits costs w/or pays more than) guys in their mid-20s, things are changing. Most of these guys grew up with moms who worked outside of the home, many of them single mothers..so its natural for them to expect a woman to pay her way. Most women I know 30 and under find this to be normal. Sure its nice to be courted and paid for in the beginning, but its a gesture, and none of us expect that our entire lives!
MissMegaWatt, maybe you and your partner should have a joint bank account? That way when out to dinner he can just put down a check card and you wouldn’t have to pass him cash? If you two are truly partners, whats yours is his. If hes a great guy who loves you, prize that! not material items he can’t buy. And yes, a lot of men who complain that their wives are freeloaders are now divorced, so yeah, doomed.
Karl R said, “Wasn’t the entire purpose of the women’s rights movement to change the social norm?”
and
Chris said, “Thus, the fact that more women are outearning their husbands is the result of both feminist triumphs and blue collar male economic decline.”
These points are true. Unfortunately, not all women were on board with the women’s movement (again, read “Hearts of Men”), and even the ones that were didn’t really envision a complete role reversal, but one where genders are EQUAL. But we are finding while we have found a general equality of opportunity, no two people are ever totally equal. Its still a transition period. As we can see here, some people are happy with, others are not.
IceQueen 88

So what’s going to happen when the men who are now in their 20s, later get divorced when they’re 40 and date again? They will try to date women 10-15 years their junior, but will still expect the woman to pay for everything herself (despite the fact that she has less experience). I often get this from men who approach me and are 10-20 years older – they really desire my company, but they are not always eager to share their resources. They want equality. Even though they’ve had the chance, due to their age, to make much more than I and secure themselves in their lives, have good property, cars, boats, etc. I think if men want to date younger, they should be ready to share their resources.
Helen 89

Folks: I’ve already said in #61, and will say again, that there is NO EVIDENCE in “biology” that supports the idea of males having to earn more than females. I’ve listed examples from zoology, but consider this quote, too, from Natalie Angier’s must-read book “Woman: An Intimate Geography”.

“Only among humans have males succeeded in stepping between a woman and a meal, in wresting control of the resources she needs to feed herself and her children. Only among humans i the idea ever floated that a male should support a female… ‘I am convinced that male control over productive resources needed by women to reproduce lies at the heart of the transformation to full patriarchy,’ Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has written.”

Angier writes this in a tone that slightly “blames” men, but we women are to blame as well, precisely because of our general attitude that Evan describes of expecting men to out-earn us. Sisters, do not blame this attitude on “biology” or “nature.” There is nothing inherently biological or natural about expecting men to look after us. Look at every other animal species, including primates. We were born to have all the resources necessary to care for ourselves and others. We should claim it proudly.

Once we do this, we not only empower ourselves, but we give men a break.
Karl R 90

IceQueen said: (#88)
“I often get this from men who approach me and are 10-20 years older – they really desire my company, but they are not always eager to share their resources. They want equality.”

At what point in the dating process are you referring to?

I would never expect there to be any sharing of resources until there’s a committed relationship. I don’t share my resources with acquaintances (though I might loan money to a friend or give money to a charity).

Even inside a committed relationship, there are limits to where I expect sharing of resources to extend.

My girlfriend is 16 years older than me. For most of her adult life she outearned me (even though I’ve outearned her for the last 4 years), and she has been working about 15 years longer than I have. Therefore she has considerably more assets than I do.

My girlfriend has spent a couple decades paying for her house. While we’re planning to live together (in her house), I believe that it’s her house. Should we split up, it should still be her house. My only claim to that resource would be whatever money I pay into it.

IceQueen said: (#88)
“I think if men want to date younger, they should be ready to share their resources.”

I’ve dated several divorcees, including one woman who lost half her assets when divorcing her deadbeat husband. A divorcee isn’t interested in losing a substantial portion of his/her assets again, particularly not to someone they’re just dating.

Paying for dates is one thing. If the man has substantially greater resources than the woman, it’s in his interest to accept the societal norm and pay for all of the dates. But it sounds like you’re discussing something beyond that when you’re talking about sharing resources.

Let me rephrase it this way. What have you contributed to the relationship to deserve to share in those resources?
starthrower68 91

Just remember, however, that while we might be powerhouses in the workplace, turn it off when you’re on a date. All this personality shifting is exhausting.
Selena 92

Thank you Helen for continuing to point out the biology fallacy. I am genuinely surprised that smart, educated women are using this argument to explain a cultural construct that is so recent in terms of human evolution. Mind boggling.

What some are calling “biology” is patently ”rationalization” – the realm of psychology.
C. 93

IceQueen said, “So what’s going to happen when the men who are now in their 20s, later get divorced when they’re 40 and date again? They will try to date women 10-15 years their junior, but will still expect the woman to pay for everything herself?”
Perhaps some will, and some may date older…maybe the next generation of gold-diggers will be mostly men? Its entirely possible, the way things are going.
Katarina Phang 94

Helen and Selena, read this:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/pillsworth_haseltonARSR.pdf

The instinct for a woman to find a good provider as a mate VERY MUCH roots in biology. That’s how we sustain the survival of the species.

It perfectly makes sense. To be able to survive a cave woman needs a good, strong provider who will consistently bring home food so she can carry the baby for 9 months and raise it to adulthood.

In the modern days “good provider’ is none other than those males with good jobs/income. Most women still carry that primordial predisposition in their genes.

Which part of it doesn’t make sense to you both? Which part of it is a fallacy?

And having said this, I’m not the one who supports blind adherence to this notion/norm. Yet you can’t deny the evolutionary roots of our instincts.
Helen 95

Thanks, Selena. The longer we women persist in this antiquated (and unnatural) view that men must out-earn us and must support us, the more we weaken ourselves and the female sex as a whole.

Shoving off responsibility to someone else – for this is what it really is when we insist on a higher-paying man – is only advantageous to survival when there is a clear difference in power structures and experience (e.g., parent to child, mentor to mentee). It is NOT an ideal power structure in a love relationship that strives for equality.

Pushing for men to out-earn women only means that the pay dimorphism between genders will continue even longer. C’mon, this seems so obvious that it’s strange that no one else made the link before. Why are we women sabotaging ourselves? We can’t complain about earning 76 cents to every man’s dollar if we indirectly contribute to this inequality by favoring high-earning men.
Goldie 96

Another thing I wanted to point out. The women that earn 200K/year are probably very few and far between. For the majority of us, though, looking for a man who makes *not less* that we do is just a way to filter out the proverbial deadbeats, pure and simple. I want to be with a man who is a professional, who is good at what he does, takes pride in his work and takes responsibility for his work. If he’s about my age, didn’t have to take time off to raise the children like I did, didn’t have to move to a new country and start over at 30 like I did, and meets the above requirements, then regardless of his profession, he will be making at least as much as I do.

It’s not about wanting to be supported – at least it isn’t for me. I was a SAHM for four years and lived on my husband’s money. I would not wish that on anyone, and hope to never be in that situation again. There are a lot of downsides to being supported by another person, unless that person is a saint.
JB 97

7/20/2010

Ok,I didn’t read ALL 91 comments but I read enough to get the jist of the err…topic and most everyone’s

What kills me about this whole discussion is we’re always talking about what a person male or female earns per year as the barometer of so called “social worth” What about what someone SPENDS or OWES ? What about what someone’s actual net worth IS?? Why is a man that is divorced with 3 kids on their way to college who makes 100K a year more valuable than me who has no kids,makes 65-75K a year average ? I have a net worth of about 250K and plenty of disposable income to do whatever I want and go where ever I want.Yet any guy who makes (let’s say for this discussion) 125K might be 200K in debt with child support,college tuition future or present etc….but on online dating sites HE has higher value than ME because some of these woman won’t even consider dating a man that makes less than 100K when they search or put in “what they’re looking for’s”!! Mind boggling !!!

I can’t even tell you the amount of times I never hear back from a woman after 2 or 3 emails when I tell them what I do for a living which has a variable income range of 50-300K depending on many factors.
It’s not only yearly income men are up against.We have to have a good
“job title” so that when a woman’s friends or relatives asks “what does he do” she can say “he’s a ___________ (fill in the blank with anything that “sounds impressive) He has 2 ex wives,4 kids and owes 300K but he’s a “lawyer” and makes over 100K. Don’t worry YOU won’t be seeing ANY of it but you can bet his “ex’s” will….LOL

Another thing I’ve been battling against is the “ex-husband’s income” factor.Where by which the woman will only date or “value” men who make as much or MORE than their “ex” who by the way is shifting 30% right to them in child support. You wouldn’t believe what I’ve seen and what goes on out here! The amount of delusion is incredible.
C. 98

re:#96
Good points JB. If women are only looking at you as a title and a #, they don’t deserve you anyhow!
re:#97
I’m not going to get into the “is it nature or nuture” debate, but as was brought up before, biologically men are not naturally monogamous…what are we to make of that? Also, biologically, men are attracted to big breasts and full hips, 2 things I’m not all that blessed with. Lucky for me, we aren’t cave people anymore.
Helen 99

Katerina, what part of it doesn’t make sense? Most of it, because it’s based on excessively narrow premises (the modern American marital trend), rather than on broad global history. Let’s start with the BS that women are monogamous. They had me (not) at “hello.”

They show no “evidence” whatsoever in this paper. The primary theses are based upon other people’s theories. Anytime they invoke any quantitative data, they twist it to support their own farfetched theories without any supporting evidence, such as the 3.11 children per woman surviving to adulthood.

I’m surprised that such an ignorant paper could be published (well, maybe not too surprised; sex always sells even if the theses are shoddy). Most societies don’t rely on childrearing only in couples, which emerged only in recent history. The “cave woman” you mention was supported by an entire community, not just one man, for Pete’s sake. Does anyone really believe that BS about cavemen bonking cavewomen over the head with clubs? Jeez. Primarily worldwide throughout humankind’s history and even today, children were raised in communities: villages, tribes, communes, kibbutzes.

No, these aren’t biological roots. Sorry to burst that bubble.
Selena 100

@ Katarina #97

A. Not much there at all in the link you shared

B. When speaking of biology let’s go to the biological imperative: to survive and perpetuate the species existence. To that end, every organism seeks out food sources (not just males) and has a drive to procreate. We don’t know precisely what life was like for early humans, but based on what we know of animal species and primates in particular, we can make an educated guess the every member of the troop was out seeking sustenence daily. That there wasn’t such a thing as trade, commerce.

C. We don’t know what the gestational period for females was, or how limiting for how long. Given were we are now, it seems implausible that early pregnant females were resting in a cave for 9 mos. depending on a male to bring them food. Much more likely they were out picking berries, digging for grubs with the rest of the troop and were back out there soon after birth with their infant on their hip or on their back.

D. Your example of a mate bringing back food to his female in the cave is predicated on a presumption monogamy existed in early homo sapiens. There is no reason to presume this. Going back to the biological imperative, all that matters is sperm meets egg. To that end, it would be most effective for both males and females to mate with any and all healthy others of their species. It would be beneficial to mate with others outside the troop, “the family”, to diversify the gene pool.

The archetype of the male being “the provider” is very new in comparison to millions of years of human evolution. It is not rooted in biology, it is rooted in the creation of culture as it moved from hunting/gathering, then agrarian to commerce and industrialization.
Selena 101

This thread brought to mind something pithy a friend of mine once imparted: “Biology can be summed up in 3 words: eat, sleep, fuck.”
Christie Hartman, PhD 102

The biological argument does not state that men need to out-earn women, so much as it states that women tend to be attracted to higher status men, supposedly in the hopes that they can provide for her and any offspring. So it may be that some women may want higher-earning men because money is an indicator of status. The same goes for women wanting men who have more education or high-status jobs, another topic Evan could have a field day with.

And, for the record, I do not agree that this is a good way for women to select men, and I strongly advise against it in my latest book. But the original question asked “why,” and I maintain that there is a biological component to this, in addition to our cultural influences.
starthrower68 103

And it would appear we haven’t really come terribly far, given that.
Selena 104

@ 102

What, precisely is the biological component Christie?
Lynn 105

But Evan, as the women

-we have to remain passive and let *him* contact, phone, email *us* long into the mating game,
-we have to let *him* tell us he loves us before we tell him we love him
-we have to let *him* let us know when the relationship is ripe to move to the next stage before we can tell him we want that,
-we have to let *him* let us know that he wants to get married, etc, etc.

It seems that with our “receptive feminine energy” we need to let our men pay the check after dinner. We let our men lead if we want them to lead. You taught me this!

If we pick up the check, we are slipping into the role of our “inner CEO” that we use to be effective and successful in our equal, professional lives during the day.
Selena 106

@ #103

Yeah, true huh? But Star, hey we have the internet.
Evan Marc Katz 107

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, Lynn, so I’m going to treat your question as if it came from a stranger instead of a former client of mine:

1) Everything you wrote is true. Men value women when they have to win you over and you let them succeed.
2) Once a man wins you over and demonstrates that he’s your boyfriend, you can begin to let down your guard and reciprocate.
3) If a man has won over a woman who triples his net worth, it seems pretty ridiculous for him to pay for everything. If he insists, based on ego or chivalry, let him do it and show your appreciation.
4) He still has to be the one to choose to move in, get engaged, and so on.

Thus, this isn’t about what happens on the first few dates – he pays, if he has a half a brain and ten bucks to his name. This is about what happens after, based on your respective means and basic fairness and equality.

I hope that clarifies things. Unfortunately, I’m afraid it won’t.

At least there’s a new blog post on Thursday that discusses the EXACT same thing – and once again, makes my case that there’s a double standard that women think they’re exploiting, but is actually hurting them.

Thanks to all for reading and posting. I’m done for the night.
Lynn 108

Evan, I was indeed NOT being sarcastic. I was however, playing the devil’s advocate. I am truly trying to figure this out. Thanks for paving the way into new territory for all of us.
(sheepish grin)
Steve 109

@MissMegaWatt:
Is it just me or does it seem like you are attracting deadbeats instead of average adult men who take care of themselves?

@Evan #82
It is interesting that some women are begining to resent men for being dependent on them isn’t it? Maybe that will lead to more mutual understanding in our culture

@Helen & Selene
Those other animals are not people. Even Chimpanzees, with 9*% of our genes are not people. I can take a car trip to another state, get 99% of the directions right, make a left turn on a major highway instead of a right turn and end someplace else.
Just calling something a cultural construct doesn’t make it less significantly rooted in a persons mind.
Steve 110

I could probably tolerate a GF earning $10 – 15K more than I do, but I know I would feel awkward if she was in another class. That is just who I am, how I roll and that is my problem.
I feel the same way about these women who earn a LOT and who want men at the same or better income level then them. That is who they are. If it works for them great, if not, it is their life. They will just live with it.
starthrower68 111

Lynn,

I understand what you were getting at. You managed to articulate the same thing I was thinking. I think the comment about letting the man pay is not so much *expecting* him to pay as it is a statement on the issue as a whole. But then again, it doesn’t matter, does it? It is what it is.
Bill 112

Look at it at another way. Generally the top 10% of male earners marry the top 10% of the prettiest girls. If you are not in the top 10% of females there is no way you can get the top 10% of male earners generally that is the same for guys.
Shay 113

I agree with Steve (#110).

Although a guy making less money than me is not a dealbreaker for me, making significantly less money and having very different lifestyles makes me wonder if the relationship can last. E.g. MissMegaWatt’s case.

Reminds me of a date I have. He was an airplane technician. Not an engineer. Which is ok in my books if he is an honest man, making an honest living.

During our first date, he told me that a girl he come to know and considered dating before me is a private piano teacher. He commented that the girl does not have a stable income. I was shocked. Why does having a stable income is a pre requisite to dating for a girl? And she was being shunned by…a technician?!

Subsequent into the date, I had to pay for my own entrance ticket to a butterfly park. He brought me to a food court for lunch and of course, I paid for my own lunch.

I even got up earlier in the morning to make sandwiches for breakfast for both of us. I did not expect him to pay for the date. But would be very glad if he did because he asked me out.

And various other exchanges of thought did not leave me with a good impression of him.

When I told him I don’t think we can work it out citing lifestyle differences, he argued to say he has money to afford similar lifestyle as me, blah blah blah…I actually wanted to tell him I cannot accept his way of thinking as well…but he seems to get really argumentative.

Sighhh…I was scared that I would have a stalker situation. Thankfully, that didn’t happen.
Selena 114

Steve said: ” Just calling something a cultural construct doesn’t make it less significantly rooted in a persons mind.”

No it doesn’t. And something significantly rooted in a persons mind doesn’t make it biological in origin. Religion is an example of this.
SouthrnPhoenix 115

The idea that seeking a high-income male is a biological imperative is laughable. The idea that some women, while seeking the biological imperative, will translate a high-income as meeting that goal is not. Some women do view the high-income as a good indicator as to whether or not he will be a good mate. I do not. I believe the biological imperative is much more basic than that: it’s searching for a mate that will be a good protector and provider, and that has nothing to do with income and everything to do with how he will handle the world. I’m looking for a partner. I want a man with a good character who will love me and my kids, care for and protect us, and be a part of a family. So long as he doesn’t increase my financial burden, I’m happy. When I say “care for”, I’m talking emotional care and doing his part for the household, not paying my bills for me.

Then again, I don’t make 200K. I make a good, not great, salary. In my demographic, that means about 60% of men make the same as or less than me. Still, I don’t use income as a guide but personality and character. I would totally date JB. Not because of his income, but because he articulates a well-thought out idea and opinion well. That I prize. He illustrates a good point. When it comes right down to it, just looking at the dollar signs is a good way to make a mistake.

Yes, Evan, I think for some women it’s an excuse and a desire to have their cake and eat it too. I think it’s paying attention to the wrong things. And I think a lot of women do it. I can see the draw in looking for a mate with a higher income, but I don’t want to miss out on a wonderful man because he makes a few dollars less than me; that would be tragic.
Goldie 116

@ JB #96:

“I have a net worth of about 250K and plenty of disposable income to do whatever I want and go where ever I want.Yet any guy who makes (let’s say for this discussion) 125K might be 200K in debt with child support,college tuition future or present etc….but on online dating sites HE has higher value than ME because some of these woman won’t even consider dating a man that makes less than 100K when they search or put in “what they’re looking for’s”!! Mind boggling !!!”

Cannot speak for every woman on online dating sites, but my reasoning, if I picked this hypothetical man with three kids in college, would be this. I’d choose the man who spends money on his children, (beyond court-mandated child support), pays their college tuition that he cannot be required by law to pay, etc etc… because he has a proven record of taking care of his loved ones. He goes an extra mile for his children even when he does not have to. Whereas another hypothetical man (never met JB, so I’d rather not use him as example) who has no kids, has been single all his life, and has accumulated over 250K, has a record of living for himself, taking care of himself and saving up for himself. Who’s to say he’s going to spend any money, time, energy or effort on me if something bad happens (I lose my job, get sick etc) while he and I are together? Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. I won’t know till I move in with him and find out. I’ll probably give him the benefit of the doubt if he seems a nice person.

And I will probably not get involved with yet another hypothetical man who has accumulated a high net worth by not spending any money above the required minimum on his children from previous marriage(s) – or, heaven forbid, by skipping out of paying child support. He’ll just end up treating me like he treats his kids, if not worse.

My reasoning is, if I get serious with a man, I do not need his money, but I do need to know that he will be there for me if things get tough. Otherwise I won’t feel safe or secure being with him. The above criteria, to me, look like a fairly good way to predict that. Of course, that’s just me, I’m quirky, and new to dating. Maybe all those women that JB is referring to really are going after the income alone, for the purposes of income alone. Which IMO would be pretty silly of them, for reasons JB has described, among other things.
Bill 117

@ Shay – A airplane technician makes a minimum of 40k a year starting and will have a medium income of 50 to 60k a year. They usually have very good benefits and a very stable and very reliable career.
I think it is funny that you look down on him because he is a airplane technician and is financially responsible.
A man wanting a women who has a good job and good salary is a smart man. Having a standard job says a lot about a women and her education and her fiscal responsibilities.
The only women that I have met who gets upset at men who want a women who has a good job and has a good salary are women who do not have those things.
As we know in our society women are the big spenders men who are fiscally responsible care about that.
I am in the real estate business I see a lot of people living in unrealistic home situations as in they live from pay check to paycheck these homes were bought by women. We all know women are the decision makes when it comes to home buying not the man.
Finding a mate who is fiscally responsible will make the baggiest difference in lifestyle.
Goldie 118

Now, Bill, let’s not make sweeping generalizations here. Women are the big spenders? I have yet to see a woman driving a Corvette, yet you don’t see me jumping to conclusions

As for us all knowing that “women are the decision makes when it comes to home buying not the man”, that’s the first I’m hearing about it – for everyone I know, a purchase that large can only be made by mutual agreement. I only know of one real-life example when one partner bought a house without the other partner’s consent or knowledge, and it was a man that did it.
strongjava 119

Lurked on here a few times before, reading other threads. Evan is correct. I’ve read other male posters who get excoriated when they bring up the point Evan made.

I’d like to note that insisting on men making more is self-defeating, particularly when the more a woman makes, since her options necessarily dwindle. I’d also note that increasing numbers of men find it off-putting.

But hey, if biological urge is its justification, there should be no problem with men whose eyes and loins roam, since that urge is just as strong, should there?
Stacy 120

Ok, I am a woman in my late 20ies who makes over 200K. There’s a lot of us in the areas like NYC and LA by the way, and I am not even in an executive position. Let me clarify something though – lets not confuse making 200K with being independently wealthy, these are two completely different things.

When it comes to guys, I really prefer dating the ones who make substantially more than that if they are 10 years or so older, or at least same with the same potential when they are my age. Aside from all courting/lifestyle issues, I just don’t want to be a breadwinner. When I am with my man, I want to be able to relax, feel taken care of, in other words I want to have a chance to to be a woman. I would absolutely consider quitting my career for a right guy and focusing on home keeping, raising our kids and charities. You can call this outdated standards, biology, whatever – it’s just how I feel. May be it has to do with the fact that I’ve never really been a career-minded feminist, I just was really eager to work my way out of poverty in which I grew up and then never stopped going.

I also don’t think that being a high earner is a curse for women. I think it is the opposite, girls like me are constantly exposed to the pool of the most eligible bachelors, so it is really each woman’s looks, personality and her way around men that stands between her and a successful relationship, not the money she makes.
Chris 121

I’m not saying that a relationship between a mid-income guy and a high-income woman is complication-free, but the notion of this having a “biological” or Darwinian basis is interesting, but erroneous. If a guy makes $60,000 a year he can afford plenty of food, clothing and shelter for three children, he just can’t afford to take those children on trips to Europe nor afford to send them to a $40,000k a year private college. Travel and private colleges are fun and make for well-cultured people, but they have no affect on the future survival of your genes.

In pure biological terms, if you still plan on having children and you work long hours a man whose job is less demanding than yours might be a parental plus for you, even if his financial contribution to the relationship isn’t equal to yours. Isn’t it a good thing to have a husband to take the kids to the playground and to the doctor when you can’t?
C. 122

But Stacy, do you find that there is an over-abundance of wealthy men out there with great character who want to date/marry and take care of an average (not a 10) woman? If so maybe Evan’s clients should look to you for advice.
IceQueen 123

There is the biological determinism, because let’s face it – the woman is very vulnerable when she is pregnant and the child is small and we moved out of the hunter gatherer society ages ago and have lived in the agrarian paradigm for very long now. That is only slowly changing now. We can have similar paychecks but the childrearing is still largely the woman’s work. It’s a second job – unpaid. So it is a little unfair to demand of the woman to pay her share plus do most of the childrearing and house work. That should also be counted in.
On a biological level, it’s vital that the man is the protector (at least during the vulnerable period). In today’s world that translates into money, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be that – any support on behalf of the man is important. He doesn’t have to make a lot of money as long as his supportive and you can depend on him.
IceQueen 124

“In pure biological terms, if you still plan on having children and you work long hours a man whose job is less demanding than yours might be a parental plus for you, even if his financial contribution to the relationship isn’t equal to yours. Isn’t it a good thing to have a husband to take the kids to the playground and to the doctor when you can’t?”
I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I would prefer such a husband to a high profile CEO. As an independent woman who makes plenty of money, his mental, emotional and practical support is more important than the financial contribution. I don’t need luxury, I need practical support.
Stacy 125

@C. #123

No, I don’t think so. In fact, I think there’s only 2 games in town – money and looks. That’s exactly what I said in my post, let me say it again: “it is each woman’s looks, personality and ways around men that stands between her and a successful relationship”.

So, I firmly believe that a high-earning woman who wants a higher-earning man should address the way she looks first (shouldn’t be a problem considering that money can buy anything from personal trainers to plastic surgery). She must also learn to leave her work persona at work and be feminine, and not to emasculate men. If any of Evan’s clients would like practical advice or referrals – I’d be happy to provide
Helen 126

Stacy #120 wrote: “I just don’t want to be a breadwinner. When I am with my man, I want to be able to relax, feel taken care of, in other words I want to have a chance to to be a woman.”

So… a woman who happens to be the breadwinner in her family is somehow not a woman?

If only we women wouldn’t deliberately sabotage ourselves by believing that our femininity, our worth as women, is wrapped up with being taken care of by a man – which translates to some women’s minds as earning less than men. The longer we persist in such mindsets, the longer it will take for women as a whole to earn “equal pay for equal work.” And in this case, it’s not the men who are stopping us. It’s ourselves.
C. 127

Ahhh, plastic surgery, the gateway to love and romance!
Umm, but, rather go to that extreme, if you don’t intend to keep your job anyway (because you want to be taken care of) then why not quit your high paying job now and become a waitress in a fancy restaurant? That way, most guys you meet will be making more than you and it doesn’t have to be over $200K! This would vastly open the pool to more men. I’m saying this to Stacy as well as Evans wealthy clients.
Stacy 128

@C.

Its quantity vs. quality. I don’t need a huge pool of men, I need a high-quality pool.

@Helen:

It depends on what being a woman means to you. Those women who ar the breadwinners in their relationships are women in the biological sense, but from the gender role standpoint they are “men” in their families.
Helen 129

Stacy, are you for real? Plastic surgery to win a guy? Female breadwinners are “men”? Men are in the “high-quality pool” just because they earn over $200K? What about all those wonderful men who earn under $200K – they make up the “low-quality pool”? That would be 99.99% of the male population in the US.

I don’t think it’s worth debating these ridiculous points.
Diana 130

CNN posted an article today in their “Living” section which reflects one man’s attitude as his wife rose in power (earnings and position) above him, and their lives became the cream of prestige. I think if you click on my name, it will take you there. Kind of interesting.
Shay 131

Bill (#117), I did not look down on the technician. I did go on a date with him, didn’t I?

In my country (an Asian country), the technician would not earn as much as in other countries because the society here prize education. He has a high school education and would not make as much money as an engineer. If he doesn’t date a piano teacher due to her having an unstable income, how do I know if he dates me not because he likes me but because I work in the banking industry?

Moreover, its our first date and talking about all these doesn’t really make the date an impressive one. Anyway, I did not continue dating him not because of his income. Due to the differences in our backgrounds, we just don’t have the same worldview, values, etc. Not to mention, I don’t feel any connection with him at all.
starthrower68 132

I would date a man who makes less; and yes, I would even be extremely careful to make sure I don’t flaunt my success so that he does not feel emasculated. But the one thing I would NOT do is fail to live up or reach my potential so that someone else could feel better.
hunter 133

Stacy about #120, you and most women have the same thoughts…
Karl R 134

Stacy said: (#125)
“She must also learn to leave her work persona at work and be feminine, and not to emasculate men.”

I think you’re taking this to mean more than it actually does.

One of my major job duties is quality control. Before a report, correspondence, financial model or job proposal goes out of our office, someone has to check it for errors. My coworkers (particularly my superiors) prefer to give their work to me, because I am the best in the office at finding every fault in their work (grammar, logic flaws, miscalculations, cites to sources that don’t support the statements, etc.). If I review it, they feel much more confident that errors have been caught before anyone outside the office sees it.

That same trait could make me the world’s worst boyfriend (or friend, or dance partner). Could you imagine living with someone who notices and points out every mistake you make? Unless it will clearly save my girlfriend more trouble for me to speak up, I’ll keep my mouth shut about her mistakes.

Another example:
Physical aggression is an asset on a hockey rink. It’s not appropriate in a relationship or an office environment.

Behave appropriately for your environment. This guideline is true for both sexes.

Stacy said: (#120)
“When I am with my man, I want to be able to relax, feel taken care of, in other words I want to have a chance to to be a woman.”

When I’m with my girlfriend, I just want to relax and feel cared for (regardless of which one of us makes more money). This isn’t about being a man or woman. This isn’t about being a breadwinner. This is about being human.
Kat Wilder 135

Society is changing faster than our ingrained expectations.
Men still feel like they “should” be the providers, women still feel like men “should” be the providers. Even though we are now freer to explore other options.
Until society fully embraces SAHDs and women breadwinners paying alimony, and courts awarding kids to the dads as often as to the mom, we are still going to have to live with this ambivalence.
We’re in the middle of a huge sociological shift right now (just read that Atlantic article, The End of Men, even though she’s not entirely right about things). Give us a few generations and I think we’ll be a much more equal society … at least I hope so!
CS 136

JB, whipping out the spreadsheet. Good call.
My money rule, as a woman in that top quintile you’re talking about, was that to be a good bet, a man has to be making enough money to support himself in a lifestyle he’s ok with for himself. Partly I don’t want either of us to be with the other person to keep themselves in cheetos, but mostly I don’t want to ever have joint finances with one of the many many people who cannot or will not live within their means. If they know how to do that, whatever we have will be enough, and I don’t mind if it’s a lower standard of living than some as long as it’s not full on poverty. I dated a guy who made 18k or so a year and had bought a house in a rough neighborhood and fixed it up himself and got on just fine, thank you (turned out to be a bad fit for other reasons). Then I dated a guy who made… maybe 1/4 of what I did? Younger guy, he didn’t care, I paid for most things, he dumped me. Then a guy who made about 1/3 of what I did, thought he was cool with it but after we split up I ran into him once and he was all excited because ‘I bet I make more money than you now!” (no, but tell yourself whatever you need to, I guess). So I guess it was a concern, and he was more intent on paying ‘his share’ than some.

And as much as I want to say it doesn’t matter, I married a guy who makes about 20% more than I do (though when we did the premarital spreadsheets our net worth was within 5k or so, and most of our lifestyle costs above what I could easily afford myself are related to his children). I don’t think it was about the money, and I can’t imagine anyone better suited to me than he is on many many levels – but the fact remains that we’re on that side of the statistical fence, and I never once worried about making less than he did.
C. 137

I hate to bring race into this, but since Shay brought up being Asian, I wonder if culture is what makes some women more stringent in there expectations for men’s income. My own mother is Mexican, and she is definitely on the side of “find a rich guy to take care of you”. I firmly reject that sentiment, like many things of her culture (catholicism, machismo) but its also important to look at where she came from. She didn’t grow up with June Cleaver at the helm. It wasn’t an option for her mom to work or stay home, everyone HAD to work, men and women. And we’re talking orange fields, not glamorous office jobs. So I guess this can shape a young girl to dream of her white knight to save her from the toil, as my mom did (though she didn’t need plastic surgery, shes a catch on her own). Meanwhile, I took after my father’s anglo culture of being independent and reaching for higher education and work that makes you feel accomplished, rather than run down.
Anyway, as much as Stacy’s comments are hard to swallow, she did mention coming from poverty, which obviously had an impact on her.
Just a theory, I could be way off.
Chris 138

I don’t blame women who want a high-income guy, really I don’t. As a guy I prefer to date a woman in my tax bracket, so I understand why high-income women would want that to.

The issue for women seeking guys with money is this: how long has it been since your last alpha male boyfriend? If you’re recently single, still young, or you have a steady stream of 90th percentile guys who want multiple dates with you then fine, don’t waste your time with a guy who makes $50k. But if it’s been two years since your last alpha male boyfriend, if you’re 34 and you want your own kids, and/or the alpha males you date disappear on you, then you are doing something wrong and it’s time to prize reliability, humor, and affection over Second Home & Travel dreams.

By the same token, marriage minded men who have repeatedly struck out with school teachers are going to have to swallow their pride and give surgeons and consultants a chance too.

The big mystery to me isn’t why some women want high-income men, it’s why so many women are completely indifferent to finances altogether. I’ve seen many female relatives and friends with stable finances pursue guys, even have babies with, boys/men who “deadbeat slackers with no money.” Could it be that style and confidence can make up for the fact that these men are terrible long-term partners?
Joe 139

Goldie says in #86:

I do not have exact percentages, but I’d imagine there are a lot more full-time single mothers out there than there are full-time single fathers.

A lot of that is because the court system most often awards primary custody to the mother in cases of splits.
strongjava 140

Forgive me, but I’d like to dispel a few things that seem to be assumptions here. I’d like to use some things from post #135, which largely agree with in conclusion.
“Men still feel like they “should” be the providers, women still feel like men “should” be the providers. Even though we are now freer to explore other options.”
I’d like to offer the thought that men are trained to expect to have to buy female affection/attention, while women are trained to expect to be given things. Not passing judgment, it’s just learned behavior.
“Until society fully embraces SAHDs and women breadwinners paying alimony, and courts awarding kids to the dads as often as to the mom, we are still going to have to live with this ambivalence.”

I’d like to offer the thought that ‘society’ in this quote really means most women and those politicians who would not risk those votes by any change in those family laws. Every guy I’ve ever met would love more ‘equality’ in the family law system. And to be more direct, the ‘ambivalence’ here means that one side is favored.

I do share her hope for more equality. I don’t see actions in sync with such hopes.
_______
The reality is that when you look at income disparities, the higher earner almost always stands to lose financially. Most posters here think it perfectly acceptable that ladies on the whole refuse to date lesser earners. I’d offer the thought that when you look at what happens in divorce court [see #135], higher earning men in general should diligently avoid lesser earning women and it’s equally acceptable, and probably more responsible due to higher legal risks. Unfortunately, the increasing rates of cohabitation lead to the conclusion that people are increasingly avoiding marriage.

As I noted above, I saw other threads on here that touch on the money/dating tensions. They got quite heated. It’s kinda sad.
June 141

“Until society fully embraces SAHDs and women breadwinners paying alimony, and courts awarding kids to the dads as often as to the mom, we are still going to have to live with this ambivalence.”

Until men stop discriminating against women in obtaining jobs in specific fields, then yes I agree we will have to live with this ambivalence.
christina 142

Well ok, I have a friend who is making $300,000k and was happy she found a guy who was making not even half of that, but he was loving and caring person and both were happy and they married everything went smoothly for 3 years but some where in middle this guy whom is married became egoistic he offen started to become angry when ever they talked about their budget and finance. And at last they finally divorced each other because this guy was not able to handle pressure or truth that his wife earned more than him. His wife earning more than him started to hurt his ego and he became ill tempered. so I want ask men here will this not affect them also, can they except that their wife earn more than them?
Kat Wilder 143

strongjava — thanks for the nod. But, it isn’t just women who don’t fully accept SAHDs. Many men will consider such a man a little less than a real man, you know?
But, if we are going to continue to think like June, we’re in trouble. Please look at it this way: when a couple gets married and decides to raise a family, guess who’s the one who has three choices — continue working, work part-time, stay at home?
Right, the woman.
Are youl OK allowing men to have those same choices? Think about it.
Kat Wilder 144

strongjava — thanks for the nod. But, it isn’t just women who don’t fully accept SAHDs. Many men will consider such a man a little less than a real man, you know?
But, if we are going to continue to think like June, we’re in trouble. Please look at it this way: when a couple gets married and decides to raise a family, guess who’s the one who has three choices — continue working full-time, work part-time, stay at home?
Right, the woman.
Are you OK allowing men to have those same choices? Think about it.
JB 145

7/23/2010

@Chris #121 Yes,you are correct.On my 70K a year trips to Europe and private college for 3 kids wouldn’t be realistically feasible.Those things are not necessities.You can still enjoy nice vacations and get a good education without spending a fortune.I’m not going to lie here though,I do watch some of my co-workers that have 2 and 3 kids struggle on the same 70K a year (depending on what the wife earns of course). I do think a lot of them live above their means.But I DON’T have kids,live quite comfortably and am able to treat the women I date accordingly.

My point was as Goldie(#116) points out,some women will give more value to that divorced single dad whose in debt up to his ears but earns 125K a year and spends 200K a year because a.) he has a better job”title”/income b.) he also has kids like 95% of the single/divorced women in my dating age bracket of 38-53 and Goldie and maybe other women perceive him to be more “generous” than me ?? You certainly can’t garner generosity from reading an online profile or personal stats.I would think a guy who’s paying 30% of his gross to the “ex” would have a strong possibility/ability to be less generous let alone be taking care financially of the woman he’s dating if something “bad’ happens to her.Of course there’s a lot of variables here and nothing is etched in stone.

@SouthrnPhoenix,thanks for the compliment unfortunately being able to be articulate doesn’t translate to online dating success….lol I’m 0 for 67 in my current run of 4 weeks since Match bought Yahoo a few weeks ago.Meaning,I haven’t even made it to the phone with any of the 67 women I initiated contact with…lol
I must not make enough money,have a good enough job title or be really ugly. I’ve only been doing this 13 yrs,what do I know?…lol I still do better than most though,so I can’t complain.At least I understand why and accept it.
Evan Marc Katz 146

@JB. http://www.evanmarckatz.com/products/finding-the-one-online.html

Seriously, man. There’s no reason to go 0 for 67. Learn how to do it better. And let me know how it works for you. Have a great weekend.

Ev
Steve 147

I think this is one of EMK’s best blog posts:
http://tinyurl.com/2lfqyg

In it, EMK makes a great point. Being a high earner and a go getter is what women tend to want in men. It isn’t necessarily what men tend to look for in a woman.
Joe 148

Unless you’re good at parsing profiles, there’s a good chance a large proportion of those 67 are Russian scammers.
June 149

I agree with you KAT, men should also have those three options available to them when deciding to have children. But then he should also bear the brunt of not being able to find a job because he has been out of the work force for family responsibilities. Like what happens to women.
BeenthereDonethat 150

@ JB
If I were on Match; I’d send you an introductory email. I think women who pass you by because you don’t make enough are women you don’t want.
No Crap 151

Jane 24

“Evan,
You are right that one of the reasons both men and women are at a standstill when it comes to finding love is that they won’t compromise either on looks or income. It’s just that it feels so unfair that most men won’t compromise on age or looks, so therefore it boils down to women having to make the compromises. I’m in my late 30′s and just went on a date with a man who made some off handed comment about how he was open to dating women of all ages, older, younger, but when it comes to settling down, then age will matter. The guy is almost 40. He lives with his mother and earns less than I do. He then asked me my age and was surprised when I told him because he thought I was younger. Then the whole vibe of the date changed and he seemed less interested. He never did call post date. Anyways, the point is that I if I refuse to date him because he has low earning potential, then I’m shallow. If he refuses to date me because I am too old, then most people will think it’s just normal that a man should feel that way.”

This.

I get really tired of hearing “well that’s the way men are” IRT their obsession with a woman’s looks, age, etc. ESPECIALLY when they don’t offer the same assets.

But what really frosts my cake is that WOMEN who make any demands on men at all are “too picky” and it’s their own fault that they’re single, dontcha know. And God forbid that she makes any mention of the fact that she doesn’t want to (as Kat aptly put it) want to exist at poverty level just to be able to settle down with a man (who earns WAY less than she does).

When MEN are ready to make reasonable compromises to find meaningful relationships, or even just someone to date — damn! — come and talk to me about making compromises as well. I’ll be a receptive listener. Until then, I don’t want to hear it. And if more women felt like I do and were willing to stand their ground, men would change their tune in a hurry. You know why, because they would have to. Men get away with this crap because women let them. Period.

If I have to fall on the sword rather than contribute to the problem by letting men get away with crap, so be it. I figure I’m not getting what I want (a romantic relationship with a man) either way. Sure, if I put with crap, I could probably attract something with a Y-chromosome, but I wouldn’t necessarily call him a man or be happy with such a “relationship.” That’s just me. Your mileage may vary.
Christie Hartman, PhD 152

I can see that this debate is pretty much dead, but felt I should address some things that I got too busy to last week.

Several people have rebelled against the idea that the tendency for some women to want men who make the same or more as they do might have a biological origin. I think people initially reject this idea because they believe that if something is biological in origin, it must also therefore be immutable, like the instinctive behaviors of other animals. NOT THE CASE. I can feel especially sexual around the time of ovulation, in my body’s biological hope that I will have sex and reproduce – but I can choose to use a condom, right?

Women often look for men who earn more, who have high status, who are taller, just as men often look for women who are hotter and/or younger, for reasons I discussed in my previous posts. But these are only tendencies; just as men can choose to date a reasonably cute girl and date older women, women can choose to seek men using more important criteria than money or height. And you won’t hear me deny the influence of culture on these behaviors; culture always plays a big factor.

@Selena (#104): you asked what precisely is the biology piece. This is a big question, but to keep it short I will say it is a variety of things, depending on one’s field of study: genes, brain structure and function, hormonal influences, just to name a few. These are VERY active (and fascinating) areas of research in psychology.

@Helen (#99): I took a look at the paper Katarina cited in #97. That is a good review paper in a peer-reviewed journal, written by researchers at a very good university. True, their approach is very evolutionary, which doesn’t appeal much to me, but it’s not surprising considering the lead author is in the anthropology dept. And they state right up front the assumptions behind their approach. And as far as “sex sells” goes, the journal is called “Annual Review of Sex Research.” Just because you don’t subscribe to their approach doesn’t make the paper “ignorant” or “shoddy.”
Joe 153

No Crap, if you insist on requiring men to compromise before you are willing to respond in kind, you are not really compromising, you are simply reacting.
June 154

Joe, I have to say I did not get that message from No Crap. It sounded to me more like the men are reacting by not even giving a women a chance because they won’t compromise. I guess it’s similar to what Jane was stating in her post.
Karl R 155

No Crap said: (#150)
“I get really tired of hearing ‘well that’s the way men are’ IRT their obsession with a woman’s looks, age, etc. [...] And if more women felt like I do and were willing to stand their ground, men would change their tune in a hurry.”

There are some men and women who compromise. There are others who don’t. The ones who don’t compromise stay single. Or are you utterly convinced that you’re perfect? Do you think you’re exactly what some man is looking for? I have no such illusions about myself.

My girlfriend is 16 years older than me. I certainly could have waited for someone closer to my age. I’m certain I could have found someone close to my age with whom I would have been happy. That doesn’t mean the younger woman would be better. (My girlfriend and I have been together for 11 months and still haven’t had our first fight. It’s hard to improve on that.) But I’m sure I could have found someone else that I would have been sufficiently happy with.

Similarly, my girlfriend has made compromises being with me. I’m not perfect, and my girlfriend is not oblivious to that.

On the other hand, I would never settle for someone who has your “no compromise” attitude. That’s the difference between compromising and settling. I’ll compromise on minor details like age. I won’t settle for someone who is difficult to live with.

No Crap said: (#150)
“And God forbid that she makes any mention of the fact that she doesn’t want to [...] exist at poverty level just to be able to settle down with a man (who earns WAY less than she does).”

This statement is full of crap.

Poverty? Your man could earn $20k (which is presumably way less than you), and you could quit your job (leaving him as your sole income), and you would still be above the poverty line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_poverty_guidelines

My only financial requirement is that the woman be able to support herself (at whatever income she has). It’s the people who have expensive habits (clothes, cars, gambling, keeping up with the neighbors) which exceed their income who can drive you into poverty.

As long as both of you continue to work after you get together, your standard of living will improve by merging your finances, or at least remain the same. What will decrease your standard of living is having kids, or one of you quitting your job.

No Crap said: (#150)
“But what really frosts my cake is that WOMEN who make any demands on men at all are “too picky” and it’s their own fault that they’re single, dontcha know.”

Do you really believe that you have played no part in your single status? There are senior citizens (men and women) who are getting married. There are ugly people (men and women) who are getting married. You expect us to believe that your single status is entirely beyond your control?

I was single because I put no effort into dating. I started making an effort and my situation changed.

No Crap said: (#150)
“If I have to fall on the sword”

You find being single to be so unpleasant that you’d compare it to suicide, but you’re unwilling to compromise. I enjoyed being single, but I was willing to compromise. Something doesn’t add up here.

No Crap said: (#150)
“When MEN are ready to make reasonable compromises to find meaningful relationships, [...] come and talk to me about making compromises as well. I’ll be a receptive listener.”

I’ve only known you for four paragraphs, and you’ve already convinced me otherwise.
Chris 156

“The woman who makes $200K is a martyr for putting up with a $50K man. The man who makes $200K and pays for everything is just a man – and a cheap one if he questions paying for everything the way women are questioning paying for everything here.”

True, a big swath of society will dub a man who doesn’t pay for most or all of a relationship’s activities ”cheap,” but if your girlfriend herself ever calls you “cheap” it’s time to reconsider where you’re going. Money is the #1 thing that couples fight about and if a rift on money is opening before you’re even married then you have a problem. If you make more than she does and your girlfriend “just wants to be supported” because you can afford it (and just because she has sex with you) then you might have on your hands a bona-fide gold digger. If she makes more than you and she calls you cheap then she doesn’t understand the different decisions you have to make as a result of having a lower income.
Jonesey 157

My boyfriend and I fight about money all the time. It goes like this:

“I think you paid last time. I’m paying.”
“No, I didn’t. You did. It’s my turn.”
“No, it’s my turn.”
“Well, if you pay now than I’m paying next time.”
“OK.”
“Gotcha! The waitress has my credit card already…”
“It wasn’t your turn to pay…”
“You can pay next time.”
Jonesey 158

Should be a comma, “then.”

I make $130K. He makes $90K. We are very happy. We have no intention of ever getting married.
baz 159

Haha #157 sounds like two and a half men. I have waded through most of this thread and must say i am impressed with the quality of the responses. It is then curious when seemingly well balanced people can seldom hold down a balanced relationship. Perhaps we get far to selfish and set in our ways as we get older.
To stick to topic, I personally dont give a fig what what she earns
Zaq 160

As my wealth has increased, I find more women attracted to me. I don’t think it is a coincidence. I personally do think this is biological from the studies I have read.

Interestingly as far as bringing home the bacon is concerned, there may be another twist. Looking at hunter gathers that exist today, it appears the situation is a little more complex.
The amount of calories brought in by the women in their gathering, is actually higher than that brought in by the men who go off for days at a time to get a kill.
The women are attracted to the best hunters, but the best hunters provide the meat FOR THE TRIBE. They therefore become high status males, and the women are attracted to that.
The ability to acquire resources is important in that it increases status.
Money in and of itself is I believe not as important as what it produces.
Now if you look at what has been written above I think it makes more sense.
If a man loses his ability to acquire assets his status in society drops and the woman loses respect for him. Evolution makes us desire those who are good for the survival of the group which holds the genes and not for the survival of us as individuals.
JB 161

7/27/2010

I don’t think anyone brought up the scenario of the “unattractive/obese” woman say a “3″ or a “4″ who is pulling down 150-200K a year in a mgmt. position and may be holding out for a guy who is her “equal”.She’ll be waiting a long time if not forever. I met such a gal on POF. She was what we call a “head shot BBW” meaning she only had a headshot posted but I took a chance anyway and she was about 5’5″ 200 lbs when she walked in. She called herself “average” in the weight dept btw. Now I like women that are curvy as well as long as they have a cute face/smile etc so weight in and of itself is not a deal breaker for me but everyone has their limits….After chatting over a couple of drinks she told me that she finds it hard to meet and keep men because they find her masculine due to the fact she’s upper mgmt and has an attitude about it especially at work.She wasn’t very nice OR feminine btw.

The point of this is if a woman makes a lot and she’s NOT attractive she definetly won’t have the same value to men that a man who’s unattractive and makes alot has to women.So who is she going to date and or marry? She didn’t come off to me as a woman who would give “Joe Workboots” a chance….lol Not that he’d want one,but if he did I’m sure a lot of these gals would disqualify him because he’s ONLY a “construction worker”,”electrician”,”plumber” “mechanic”etc….. that might make say 70K-80K.
Goldie 162

@JB:
“she was about 5’5″ 200 lbs when she walked in. She called herself “average” in the weight dept btw.”

Whew, knew there was a reason when I decided against “average” when selecting the body type in my profile. I just had a gut feeling that, on the online dating scene, this word, too, had already been hijacked and turned into a euphemism for “morbidly obese”. Boy, was I right.

It’s extremely hard to read people’s profiles, with everyone stretching their information like that. Maybe I won’t even mind it that a person has some extra poundage, but please do me a favor and tell it to me like it is, and let me make up my own mind.

I realize this is off topic, and I apologize.
Joe 163

That’s why it’s so important to include a full-body photo in your profile. That way you’re telling the viewer that you’re not a liar, and you don’t waste your time or anyone else’s.

So is “average” the new “curvy” (which was the old “full-figured”)?
Selena 164

@#163

I guess by that reasoning those of us who don’t meet the new “average” guidelines can promote ourselves as slender/athletic? Yippee!
Joe 165

Yeah, and I guess they’ll need to include a new category for the formerly-slender…maybe “invisible when you look at me sideways?”
Selena 166

LOL Joe!
Karl R 167

JB said: (#161)
“she was about 5’5″ 200 lbs when she walked in. She called herself ‘average’ in the weight dept”

When my income increased from the $35k-$50k bracket into the $50k-$75k bracket, the number of women who showed up in my “mutual matches” doubled (or more). I can see why some men are tempted to lie about their income.

Similarly, an overweight woman who lies about her build will have far more men viewing her profile (and potentially contacting her), so the temptation will be there.

In both cases, this strategy eventually backfires. When the woman figures out that you earn $20k less than you claimed, she’s going to dump you for being a liar … even if she was content to date other men who earned the same amount.

Similarly, a woman who is eighty pounds overweight will not make it past the first date if she described herself as “a few pounds overweight.” A woman who describes herself as “curvy” won’t get anywhere if one of those curves is a spare tire around her waist. (I realize that men are just as guilty about fudging their build, and more guilty of fudging their height.)

If the other person thinks you lied, you just ruined your chances.

One woman I dated asked me why I described myself as slender instead of athletic & toned. I explained that I was arguably athletic & toned, but nobody would dispute that I was slender.

Whatever you decide to lie about on your profile: build, height, marital status, age, photograph or income, it will hurt you in the long run.
strongjava 168

Re: Kat Wilder’s #144 —

“Are you OK allowing men to have those same choices? Think about it.”
If by those choices you mean to stay home or not, work part time or not, be supported for years, and to divorce when he chooses, they already have those choices. There are so few, women who sign on for that, it effectively removes those choices for the vast majority of men. personally, I am more than ok allowing men those same choices, not that my approval is necessary.
I do not mean to sound sarcastic. I read another thread on here that answered it for me at least. The poster said that in seeking men who earn more, women maximize their options. They can work or not. They can take lower earning jobs. they can stay home to raise children. They also have the divorce court option should they choose. The poster’s point was that such an approach leaves the men in these scenarios few options other than to stay on the hamster wheel for her choices. I’m not sure that is a winning formula for men in this era of nofault divorce.

Coming back to the strong successful women who do want higher earners than themselves, by definition they narrow their options to the top 10% or higher. That lessens their chances of success, particularly once the unavailable married men are accounted for. Also, smart, highly earning men may also detect this little double standard and choose to avoid such women as a means of protecting themselves. Just a thought.
JB 169

@ Karl R…. LOL just my opinion but I’ve always thought the word “slender” was for women’s shape only because to me it sounds feminine.
I’m 5’10″ 175lbs so I always put athletic & toned but my pic from my knees up speaks for itself. Btw,Match does’nt have “average” they only have “about average” which adding the word ABOUT gives extra wiggle room to the answer. POF has “average”.Just like alot of them don’t go by their height in their stocking feet.They tack on the 3 inch heels they’ll always be wearing…lol

It’ll also be a lot longer time before a woman “figures out” how much money a guy makes unless you put 150K + in your profile and you’re living in squalor. I’d challenge any woman to be able to tell if I make 50K or 75K a year based my house/cars etc….But when a lot of them search on Match they start at 5’11″,75-100K.

I know all about the “headshot” trick but sometimes I take a gamble anyway because like I said I don’t mind a little “chunk” if she’s got a nice smile/face and personality.
LULU 170

I see a dangerous trend here…

Women have evolved to do the woman’s job and the man’s job, and do so better than the man. Now, they are expected to do both simultaneously. As women take on this challenge, men are reduced to the role of a sperm donor. As more and more women take a shortcut to the sperm bank, men are in danger of becoming extinct.

Should a woman earning $200K consider a man earning $45K for a serious relationship. Absolutely not. Adoption? Maybe!!!
C. 171

But LuLu, what about love, companionship and sex? Men are only reduced to sperm donor if thats all you want.
I don’t see a dangerous trend. I see a wonderful trend of women and men having choices, and not having to stick to out-dated gender roles. Sure, some women have surpassed men in some areas of traditional “men’s” work, while some men are not catching up in “women’s” work, but thats not everyone.
strongjava 172

Re: Lulu’s #170
I see the dangerous trend in the assumptions underlying the posting. Not sure what jobs Lulu refers to that women are superior in, but I’d like to point out that such an approach ultimately give the men in her scenario more freedom.

If Lulu argues that women should shun lesser earning men and either adopt or sperm bank things because they are superior, they are absolutely free to do so. Taking things to the logical extreme, it would free millions of men freed from emotional, financial and legal ties to these ladies. These men would be free to pursue their lives as they see fit – more hobbies, travel, etc. And the ladies? Millions more single mothers. Not denigrating it, but I’ve rarely heard single motherhood called a walk in the park. And of course, these kids do not need father figures either…..

By Lulu’s logic, a man earning $200k should absolutely not consider a woman earning $45k for a serious relationship either.

Not very helpful, is it?
JB 173

@Lulu “Should a woman earning 200K a year consider a man who makes 45K a year for a serious relationship?Absolutely not” Adoption maybe?
(I assume you meant she might ADOPT the man?)

You don’t get it. All women making 200K are NOT equal. An ugly obese unattractive woman making 200K has little or no value to 99% of men even if the guy makes 20K a year and works a “Mc Job”. She’s not even close to being equal to an attractive woman making the same or way less.Men could care less how much money women make for the most part.So even she might be lucky if an attractive or dare I say it “average looking” 50K a year guy shows ANY interest.Most men wouldn’t LET her adopt them even if she made 500K.Unlike women who’ll glady let rich ugly guys “adopt”and or marry them etc….I’ve never heard a guy say “she’s smokin’ hot but she only makes 35K a year so I’m not interested”…lol
C. 174

Interesting, I just brought this topic up with some of my gay male co-workers at lunch. Even though their gender is the same, they definitely pay “roles” where one is more “man” than they other. That said, they say that income does not effect how they view their partner’s masculinity. My co-worker ‘A’ is the breadwinner in his relationship, supporting his partner through school right now..BUT, ‘A’ is actually the “femme” in the couple, and sees no correlation between money and his role as femme. My other co-worker ‘J’ is the more “manly” one in his relationship, but while his femme partner makes less than him, he expects him to at least make enough for them to enjoy the same lifestyle, otherwise he would see him as a parasite. Both agreed that an ambitious personality and companionship is more important than income discrepancy.
So, perhaps this is neither here nor there…just some observations.
lulu 175

We are considering the scenario where the woman is making $200K and the man $45K. The imbalance here is that a man cannot fulfill a women’s role in its entirety because of physical and arguably emotional limitations, and a woman ends up pulling doubled duty to have a family with him and ensure the survival of the species. If this becomes the norm, women will become exhausted and dissatisfied with their “equal” partner because they are contributing less and less.
Eventually women will seek other women, which they will see as a true equal partner and find a sperm bank. and for the men, it will all be downhill from here.
Strongjava, men will not be frolicking about the earth and traveling and living the good life because they will not have the money. On a $45K budget they’ll be lucky to make it to Disney once a year.
and C. I would get love, companionship and sex from the woman VP next door because I’ll be more attracted to her than the janitor.
I don’t want things to play out this way because I’m 100% heterosexual. My intension is to inspire the men to take a stronger hold on their role as a provider, because that’s the only one they have.
C. 176

Lol. Lulu! Well, if you find you wanna go after the lady next door don’t let me stop ya! But what makes you think she’ll go for you? Maybe SHE’D rather be with the janitor then go against her natural sexuality!
Oh, and I used to make $45k, and had no problem taking myself to europe each year I earned that. If you deny these men fatherhood, I think they’ll have plenty to do with that money.
LULU 177

JB: Yes, in my earlier post I meant adopt the man.
…and for simplicity’s sake, please assume both are equal when it comes to looks.
Karl R 178

Lulu said: (#170)
“As more and more women take a shortcut to the sperm bank, men are in danger of becoming extinct.”

About 51% of sperm have a Y chromosome, not an X. Please explain to me how men would go extinct.

Lulu said: (#175)
“My intension is to inspire the men to take a stronger hold on their role as a provider, because that’s the only one they have.”

So you want the women’s role to be mother and homemaker?

Do you realize that your “doom and gloom” version of events sounds utterly divorced from reality? It also sounds a lot more appealing than partnering up with someone who thinks my only role is to be a provider.
LULU 179

Karl: I said a “stronger hold” in order to contibute equally. I’ll clarify about your role….There are two positions open in my company. 1. A position to bear a child 2. Position to support the person that i hire to bear a child. Which one will you qualify for?

If I interview a woman candiate that tells me I can bear the child and I dont need anyone’s support, what would I need you for?
Joe 180

Not everyone is as…flexible as you are, Lulu.
Karl R 181

Lulu said: (#179)
“1. A position to bear a child 2. Position to support the person that i hire to bear a child.”

Are you trying to be ridiculous? In terms of your “positions,” you’ve taken the child from conception to birth. As you might have noticed, children need at least 18 years of maintenance following birth. That includes: providing for, caring for, teaching, being an example for, etc. None of those roles is restricted by sex.

Neither my girlfriend nor I want kids. Somehow, we’ve managed to find reasons to have a relationship (where we both derive benefits and neither of us requires support) without including children at all.

You seem determined to define roles as they apply to procreating. If I was only interested in procreating, I could donate to a sperm bank. My genetic material gets passed on, and instead of having to provide for someone, I would get paid a nominal sum for my services. If I’m going to bother with a relationship, my interest has to extend beyond procreation. Therefore, my role beyond that point is highly relevant.

If your interest in me starts with my paycheck, then my interest in you has already ended. You have two positions? Fine. Fill them with somebody else. (And you’ll probably find no shortage of men who feel the same as I do.)
C. 182

What on earth are you talking about, lulu?? Do you really see no other benefit to having a husband and father than money?
LULU 183

All: I’m saying if a relationship in not balanced then its in trouble, any relationship. in the case of $200k vs $45K it is not balanced.
In the case of $200k/child bearing vs $45K it is definitely not balanced.

I didn’t go as far as to mention that for the next 18 years or actually your entire lifetime both will be taking care of the child.  It was assumed that the woman will be a mother the same as the man will be a father.
It is assumed that the woman is as good of a companion to the man and vice/vesa.   I didn’t include all the wonderful human qualities for simplicity’s sake.

if the numbers stay the same $200k/$45k for the next 18 years who’s contributing more. who’s going to get tired and resentful sooner? Who’s going to be in a weaker position for those 18 years?

…and why are all the men on this blog defending this weaker postion. I’m very surprised! Every man I’ve known has  wanted to have power, control, and took pride in being capable and enjoyed the rewards. Do you think in our scenario the man will have that?

Where have all the alpha males gone??

I guess we’re further down this trend than I thought!!

I’m done blogging here!
Karl R 184

Lulu said: (#183)
“I’m saying if a relationship in not balanced then its in trouble, any relationship.”
“Every man I’ve known has wanted to have power, control,”

How does the man having power and control lend itself to a balanced relationship?

My girlfriend and I don’t have kids (or want them). She earns significantly less than I do. Does that mean she needs to do all the chores around the house in order to balance things out?

And if that sounds like an unfair arrangement, why would it be more fair if the situation was reversed?

Lulu said: (#183)
“It was assumed that [...]“

You’re assuming a lot of things that don’t actually happen in real relationships. I work with several people who earn around $200k/year. They spend almost all of their time working. They’re either in the office, working from home, or out of town for business. Their stay-at-home wives do almost all of the child-rearing. (The women who earn this much don’t have kids.)

If the woman is earning $200k and the man is earning $45k, it’s highly likely that he has a lot more time for parenting duties than she does.

Lulu asked: (#183)
“why are all the men on this blog defending this weaker postion.”

We’re not. We’re attacking irrational arguements.
Annie 185

Late on this thread, but it’s a case of wanting your cake, and wanting to eat it to. I don’t think biology has anything to do with it to be honest, this is just an excuse. Like the guy that finally wakes up and realizes, that love has nothing to do with a woman’s breast size.

No-one has lovely breasts, when they are sitting on their little porch, at 90 years of age, reminiscing about life. Men and women should stay away from such shallow people as they simply don’t have the capacity to love generously.
JerseyGirl 186

To add to your biology comment Annie, while some things are biologically driven, I often find people rationalize only *parts* of biology to justify a certain behavior or thought. Such as when people say that humans aren’t meant to be monogamous and that the only reason we are is because society told us to do it. Which is just false because humans have the ability to either be monogamous or polyamorous. We have hormones and feelings that drive us to both, men included in that. Which ultimately means that it’s a choice you make as a fully thinking human being. It’s not that we are slaves to our bodies and do only what it tells us to do either way.
Annie 187

@186

Honestly, my blood was boiling while reading this thread. Security my arse!! How do some of you men handle this hypocracy? Doesn’t it make you mad?
Zaq 188

@186
Annie, you are underestimating the power of biology. We are more of a slave to it than many of us realise. My testosterone levels are going to go up just by being in the presence of fertile females. Hormones are drugs, they affect our mood.
Women are attracted to men with status. Men are attracted to fertile women. Its not an option.
Women are more likely to rationalize their feelings
We can force ourselves not to eat, but we will still feel hungry.
strongjava 189

Annie @ 187 wrote, “How do some of you men handle this hypocracy?”

Not speaking for all men, but I see a couple of options here (and won’t say what, if any, i employ). Not that I advocate any either. My experience shows the approach of ‘man must earn more for me to be interested’ is the vast majority rule, not the exception.

First, there is the screw ‘em before they screw me approach. This would involve the usual pump & dump approach. Readers can fill in the positive outcome of this one for themselves.

Second, there is the approach of not playing the game. There are increasing numbers of men I know in their 30s who simply won’t play that game. They’d rather hang out with friends, work and do other things. They view such women as very risky endeavors, sort of like catching a falling knife.

Third is the sort who likes to bang his head against a brick wall. You know, the one who keeps making the same mistake repeatedly.

I don’t see where in this day and age a man should choose a women who needs a man to make more than her. It is too high rick
strongjava 190

Annie @ 187 wrote, “How do some of you men handle this hypocracy?”

Not speaking for all men, but I see a couple of options here (and won’t say what, if any, i employ). Not that I advocate any either. My experience shows the approach of ‘man must earn more for me to be interested’ is the vast majority rule, not the exception.

First, there is the screw ‘em before they screw me approach. This would involve the usual pump & dump approach. Readers can fill in the positive outcome of this one for themselves.

Second, there is the approach of not playing the game. There are increasing numbers of men I know in their 30s who simply won’t play that game. They’d rather hang out with friends, work and do other things. They view such women as very risky endeavors, sort of like catching a falling knife.

Third is the sort who likes to bang his head against a brick wall. You know, the one who keeps making the same mistake repeatedly.

I don’t see where in this day and age a man should choose a women who needs a man to make more than her. It is too high risk
Annie 191

@Zaq

I am well aware of the “power” of biology. But we are thinking human beings, that can either live completely on instinct(which would NOT be a good thing), or try and live more rationally.

Needing a man to earn as much, if not more than a woman has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Needing a man to be “responsible” with what he has, is perfectly reasonable, especially for a woman that will have children. You don’t want to be raising children, with a gambling addict in the house because you run the risk of losing your childrens home(that works for both genders). But, needing him to earn more than her?

These women simply don’t want to give up anything in a relationship or risk anything. Perfectly fine for the man to do so of course. BOTH men and women want to feel secure in a relationship, but unfortunately the gender that holds the balance of power, becomes almost abusive in this need for security.

Take countries like Yemen for example. To make men feel “secure” in their investment in a female, and ensure the paternity of their children. they chop off a womans clitoris so she will not sexually desire another male. We are horrified by this, but what the hell are we doing to men in western culture? Castrating them to the point they have no choice, but to give us everything we want. Or stay single and miss out on having a family.

If you want to feel “safe” and ‘secure’, then it is up to females to achieve that for themselves. That is the beauty and brilliance of equality, and democracy in the west. We have choices.

Here’s a few points.

1. If you want money, go make it yourself
2. If you want fiancial security, invest your money.
3. If you want MORE money but cannot earn it, spend less.

If this issue being described was about biology, then I and plenty of my “empowered” female friends must have a defective Gene.

It’s just an excuse, and these women need to seriously rethink their attitudes and stop playing the victim(ooo, weak female needs strong wealthy male to make said female feel secure). We are not victims any longer and we are entitled to nothing other than an equal shot at lifes opportunities.
Annie 192

@189

I’m watching a very good(male) friend of mine go through divorce at the moment. It is like watching a train wreck. I am astounded at how much this woman genuinely believes she is entitled too. I’m afraid, this is absolutely going to crush him, and he is such a good man.

Why would anyone want to get married to a person who cannot believe in the INHERANT equal worth of the other?
JerseyGirl 193

Zaq,
Women are attracted to men with status. But this status could be a billion different things. It could be status in education, in muscle strength, in street smarts, in cooking skills etc etc etc… Women aren’t just attracted to status as defined by culture meaning a guy has to make tons of money. Different women fall in love with different traits. Most women aren’t holding out for a man that pulls a million a year. Alot of men today seem to want to hold out of the Maxim models. Even 40 year old guys way past their primes pulling only 60k a year.
Men are attracted to fertile women. And honestly, women are attracted to fertile men. Actually, sometimes fertile men and men that make good providers aren’t two in the same. So a woman could biologcally sleep with a young fertile man and pass off his off spring to the older more established male. This would be biology at work. Younger man for best genes, and older man that provides the money. But I bet if you told this situation to any man, he would be really offended and upset about that type of situation. But hey it’s biology! So it’s “okay” right? This is what I mean when I said people rationlize their own selfish desires under the guise of “biology”. It’s a lot easier to defend crappy behavior on pop biology then do the things that it requires for long lasting relationship or understand the many different facets of our biology then just the easy pop culture comments like “men are attracted to fertility!” and “women are attracted to status!”. That’s only a piece of the pie.
Annie 194

@Jersey Girl. That was well said.

Saying that women want to feel safe and secure in a relationship, is fine because it is true and a feminine instinct. Considering that most guys like feeling like a little bit of a hero to their woman, means our instinct is often balanced out by a reciprical instinct in a male. This is also fine.

Saying a man must earn more than a female, for the female to feel safe is nonesense. There are plenty of ways to feel safe. One way is to alway’s have the capacity to be self-sufficient. That way, no matter what happens(baring true tragedies like illness etc), you are secure.

Relying on a male to earn more, is the exact opposite of security. It means you are now dependant on his earning capacity to feel safe(and not your own earning capacity). What if he gets sick? What if he wants to change his career and earn less? What if he has saved his pennies, and wants to retire early and live a frugal life?

This “finacial” need for security, IE the man earning more is imo, a result of women not wanting to take risks, expecting men to and then blaming it on biology. I think we can see, men want the same sense of security and in patriachal cultures, they abuse their power to achieve it.

An instinct may exist, but it is our culture and our way of thinking that will define how we use that instinct, and wether or not we abuse others in the name of it.
Selena 195

Annie,
I just want to say I have enjoyed your posts and thoroughly endorse them. Good work.
Zaq 196

I think its really great that you girls find the actions of members of your own sex unfair. Indeed they are. Yes we can go against those instincts, which actually may not be helpful to us as individuals. But knowing there is a biological basis for women wanting to date up, helps us to understand why this is happening.
What I find interesting is that men are alot more prepared to acknowlege this, but women are appalled by the idea. For example, the desire that women have for TALL men – another powerful biological drive. This drive has very little use in todays society, but google away and you will find most women trying to come up with an excuse for rejecting even average height men. “Napoleon complex. I wear heels, it doesnt look right. I dont feel feminine. I’m not being shallow, I just dont date short men” WHAT ??
Men can do no more than stand back in amazement. Not biology then, really ?
But if men are attracted to younger women -”they are using biology as an excuse”
Pop biology ? What the heck’s that ?
Come on girls - This is the hypocracy
Helen 197

Annie #190 and #193, I applaud you. Preach it, sister.

It would be foolish for women (and men) to derive all their financial security from one other person. Indeed, they would be fools not to learn and do whatever they need to achieve their own financial independence.
Selena 198

@Zaq #195

The only thing biology is concerned with is sperm meets egg. That’s it. That’s all that is necessary for survival of the species. Not how tall, how buxom, or how much money the sperm/egg cell make.
Karl R 199

Zaq said: (#195)
“knowing there is a biological basis for women wanting to date up, helps us to understand why this is happening.
What I find interesting is that men are alot more prepared to acknowlege this, but women are appalled by the idea.”
JerseyGirl said: (#192)
“So a woman could biologcally sleep with a young fertile man and pass off his off spring to the older more established male. This would be biology at work.”

Zaq,
I don’t know too many older men who are willing to acknowledge (or accommodate) the biological basis for that statement made by JerseyGirl. Admittedly, you may know more open-minded men than I do.

JerseyGirl said: (#192)
“Women are attracted to men with status. But this status could be a billion different things.”

True. Money, power and fame seem to be the top three, but others will work for different women.

My skill on the dance floor has opened a lot of opportunities for me, and I’m not even at the competition level. If you can master a skill (particularly one that you can display your mastery of in front of women), you will attract more women.
starthrower68 200

I’m with Annie. Biology might be a powerful force but if you’re a slave to it, then that’s your issue.

And btw, strongjava, I’m betting there are a lot of women who are frustrated too. If we go purely on logic, there’s no more reason for a woman to be in a committed relationship than a man. But, at what point does it become a matter of the heart, and we become givers instead of takers? Until that happens, then all we’re going to have to talk about is how men are bad because of this and how women are bad because of that. Just sayin’……
strongjava 201

Re: #199′s post:

Um, I do not want to be argumentative, but the big picture as I see it is whether the ‘a man must make more for me’ is a reasonable approach, let alone a successful one. My take is that EMK is saying the approach is less likely to be successful, and any conjecture on whether he thinks it reasonable is well, conjecture.

Matters of the heart must be tempered with matters of reality. What I am noticing is that there are increasing numbers of men willing to sit on the sidelines, or not to commit to women who demand men earn that women. That doesn’t make the men takers. Quite the contrary – they aren’t taking anything from anyone. It also doesn’t enable the taking by one who demands the other earn more.

If ‘a man must make more for me’ is a reasonable approach, and increases the odds of success, I am all for the arguments in favor of reasonableness and success odds. I would love to see a few arguments that such an approach benefits him as well as her, because I see few arguments that benefit men to pair up with such women. After all, both parties need to benefit in order to increase the odds of success, don’t they?
Zaq 202

@Selena 197
Or perhaps absolutely everything. Its called the Biological Perspective. Basically all behavior has a physiological root, and is determined by Biology.
Everything you say, everything you do. Biology !
Your primitive brain determines how you react to the environment and constantly asks 3 questions.
Can I eat it ?
Can it eat me ?
Can I have sex with it ?

Jerseygirl said “people rationlize their own selfish desires under the guise of “biology”.

Ehm ‘selfish desires’ – that’ll be Biology then
Zaq 203

@Karl 198
JerseyGirl said: (#192)
“So a woman could biologcally sleep with a young fertile man and pass off his off spring to the older more established male. This would be biology at work.”

The question for science is, what does a female do if she is stuck with a beta male, but her brain says breed with the alpha. And yes the human female body does appear to be built for adultery, This probably was a viable strategy used by females in the past, and DNA evidence shows that cuckoldry is alive and well even in modern society. It however would never have been acceptable by the male, and the female would have risked death if caught so a highly dangerous strategy.
Also it is not about fertility, that just relates to females. The older alpha has the proven best genes, not the young male.
Again this is not about accomodation but about understanding the biological basis of the behaviour
Karl R 204

Zaq said: (#202)
“The older alpha has the proven best genes, not the young male.”

Males over the age of 40 have a greatly increased chance of producing offspring with autism-spectrum disorders. Autistic offspring do not have an easier time finding food, avoiding being eaten, or mating.

But that’s irrelevant. In primitive times, males over the age of 40 were not alphas. They were ex-alphas. Their breeding days were over.

Zaq said: (#202)
“Its called the Biological Perspective. Basically all behavior has a physiological root, and is determined by Biology.”
“Your primitive brain determines how you react to the environment”

Following that line of reasoning, your breeding opportunities (and mine) should be severely limited, since women’s primitive brains are telling them that you’re a washed-up has-been.

Have fun using your evolved frontal lobes trying to convince their primitive brains otherwise … which seems to be what you’re trying to accomplish here.
Selena 205

@201

Nope. I’m going with the Biological Imperative not perspective (which in name alone implies culture)- the #1 is sperm meets egg. Can’t get more basic than that. Why is the concept so unpalatable for some?
Zaq 206

@203

Not just ex alpha but ex human.
You will note, I said older – not old
I can’t convince their primitive brains of anything – hence the word primitive

@204

Selena – did you know that only 1% of human sperm is designed to fertilise an egg. The rest is killer sperm, designed to kill other mens sperm. Why do you think that might be ?
Selena 207

@205
And it only takes ONE sperm to fertilize the egg so it doesn’t matter.
C. 208

Yeah, we can also blame rape on biology. Doesn’t make it right.
We’re evolved, and keep evolving. Women don’t need men to do the “hunting” for us, we can do that ourselves.
And I agree with Annie: being dependent on a man may have helped women survive in primitive times, but not its the opposite. We’ve adapted to our environment and now our survival is based on independence. The more evolved woman still generally *wants* a man though, for love, sex and companionship.
Annie 209

@195

I think you may have missed the point a bit. I’m not saying that biology doesn’t play a part in our behaviour, but it is not as clear cut as these women are making it out to be.

Most of our instincts are primative. They are nurtured, manipulated and conditioned by our culture, and by our thinking.

As one woman said, if she earns 200K and he earns 50 K he is a liability. He needs to earn more. BUT, if she earnt 20K, and he earnt 50K, she’d feel safe. So he earns the same amount, but she only feels safe if she earns less? This..is irrational, it makes no logical sense whatsoever, not even from a biological perspective.
Annie 210

@205

Because females evolved to have sex with more than one male at once. It’s most likely why we have multiple orgasms, and why a lot of women want to talk and cuddle afterwards(they are really just getting fired up), and do not feel satified unless they have multiple orgasms. Men..tend to pass out right afterwards. Females, evolved to have sex with multiple males. Not many people know that.

The ‘belief’ that females are monogamous(and men are not) and that females want 1 sole male provider, is most likely incorrect and is a result of a patriachal society where males wanted to ensure the paternity of their offspring by controlling female sexuality. And, as much as I hate to say it, it probably worked in creating a stable society. Most of what we know about female sexuality is wrong, imo.
Annie 211

Thanks Helen and Selena
Zaq 212

All this feminist stuff. Now we are independent. We no longer need men to protect us. We are mens equals. We are evolved. We can compete with men.

And then we get this: I need a man to love me. I need a man to make more than me. I need a man to be taller so I feel protected. I need a man to take control.
Do you not see the conflict ?
Your higher brain is saying this is who I want to be. Biology is screaming NO NO NO.

And its worse, because men operate at the biological level.
When a man approaches a receptive woman, she will drop her gaze to the floor for a second. Its an act of submission. Its hard wired. It says if you approach I will not scratch your eyes out.
If the woman competes with a man, man’s brain goes – This thing is in competition – it is therefore a man – attack !
A mans hard wiring is expecting a woman to be compliant and nurturing. It is confused.

If you read all of the posts above, and about the problems of successful women – its all down to this. All sexual relationships are based on biology. We have created a society that is at odds with behavioral patterns set up a 100,000 years ago and we cannot evolve fast enough.

Now you women do not seem to want to acknowledge it. Perhaps because you are in denial. This is not who you want to be.

Yes, to some degree we can overcome our instincts, but we are fighting nature all the way. Its like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
I do not have the answer, but at least we can start by acknowledging that there is a problem.
Rachel 213

Evan, Your world where women who make $200k and are happy with a guy making $45k does not work in real life. Most men need and want to make more money than their female partner. Some say they don’t but deep down inside they do. You’re idea is nice in theory but absolutely has no basis in the way relationships actually work. While I think for a few couples it can work out, for the vast majority it doesn’t.

“Men who are completely economically dependent on their female partners are five times more likely to cheat than men in relationships with women who earned similar ”

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/16/income.men.women.cheating/index.html?hpt=T2

Female Breadwinners More Likely to Divorce

http://personals.aol.com/articles/2010/04/26/female-breadwinners-more-likely-to-divorce/

Also, let’s say for example, I make $150k and my husband makes $50k. If I decide to become a stay at home Mom, you’re telling me that our income goes down 75%!!??? Oh but Rachel you say, you can work full-time AND take care of the kids. Great I get to work 40+ hours a week, climb the corporate ladder successfully at work. and then come work a second shift at home! Studies show that even with two parents working, the woman ends up doing the majority of the housework and child care. No wonder why since the 1980s women have consistently rated as being less happy than our male counterparts. I honestly think in terms of stress that it is better for a woman to be single than to have a partner that can’t help her continue the standard of living she was making before they met.
Helen 214

Rachel, I think you’re conflating 2 separate issues here: finding a mate and deciding to have children. As Karl R pointed out earlier, if you decide not to have children, then a man who can support himself and still have discretionary funds actually contributes to your financial well-being, even if you make more than him.

If you decide to have children… how I wish for a separate column to dispense advice about that. Suffice it to say, you have to be absolutely sure of where you stand on that issue before you look for a partner, and you need to know where he stands on that issue too. Don’t be pressured by family or society. Not everyone wants to be a parent, and it doesn’t make him or her a lesser being for feeling that way. I wish to convince you that if you become a mom, you probably WILL want a job outside the home – especially if you’re making $150K, because that type of job usually poses an intellectual challenge. That job, that escape hatch, will be what keeps you sane sometimes as a mom. And yes, childcare can make people less happy (according to the multiple studies circulated by the likes of Gilbert and Hamermesh and Ubel).

So, re: your last line: “I honestly think in terms of stress that it is better for a woman to be single than to have a partner that can’t help her continue the standard of living she was making…” Again, we’re talking about 2 separate issues. If you have kids, your lives will be more stressful, period. And it’s MUCH more stressful to be a single parent than to have a partner who is willing to chip in with childcare. But if you don’t have kids, then he can only improve your standard of living if he contributes to your discretionary income.
JB 215

8/18/2010

@Rachel #212 That’s a great point but I’m wondering out loud how many couples have that much disparity ie: her 150K to his 50K and did it evolve DURING the marriage(most likely) or before(highly unlikely).
What I’m saying is that much difference in income is probably very rare.

I’m wondering exactly where women draw the line at this ie:

I make 65K she makes 75K -I’m not worthy?
            55K to her        70K – not worthy ??
        my 80K to her       100K still not worthy ?
        my 100K to her      150K ????????

We’ve already discussed the figure that 98% of all men make less than 100K so someone’s going to have to be a little flexible or they better get used to being ALONE albeit financially secure….lol Fun ! Fun !
Karl R 216

Rachel said: (#212)
“Most men need and want to make more money than their female partner.”

Perhaps. Even if you’re correct, that still means that some men do not.

Let’s assume that the vast majority of men need to outearn their partners, and only 10% are fine with a wife who outearns them. If a woman earns $200k, that 10% greatly outnumbers the 1.8% of men who actually outearn her.

Therefore, a woman increases her dating pool by considering men who earn less than her.

We agree that there are some men who don’t want to be in a relationship with a woman who earns more. Do you really think a successful woman can avoid that problem by marrying one of those men, just because he happens to outearn her? What happens if she gets a promotion and raise? What happens if he loses his job and has to take a lower-paying one? (Both are possibilities in this economy.) It’s less problematic if you’re married to someone who is okay with earning less.

Rachel said: (#212)
“Some say they don’t but deep down inside they do.”

If I claimed to know what you wanted and needed better than you do, would you believe me?

Therefore, you can understand my natural skepticism to your claim to understand me (or other men) better than I understand myself (or they understand themselves).
Goldie 217

“As Karl R pointed out earlier, if you decide not to have children, then a man who can support himself and still have discretionary funds actually contributes to your financial well-being, even if you make more than him.”

I have to admit, I did read Karl’s post before, and I still do not get it. Say we have a hypothetical woman making 200K, and a hypothetical man who makes 50K, spends very little on himself, and therefore still has discretionary funds. Suppose the two decide to move in together and run a household together. But they don’t have the same lifestyle – so they will have to compromise.

Say, food. He lives on Ramen; she buys her groceries at Whole Foods. They decide to join their finances, now what? If they go on his Ramen diet together, then yes, he won’t cost her a thing. But something tells me she’s not going to like this change in her eating habits. Now if they both start eating Whole-Foods stuff together, then she is already supporting him, because his food expenses have just gone up past what he can afford.

Or, what happens to their living arrangements? If they move into his run-down apartment in a shady neighborhood, then yeah, he will contribute to her financial well-being, but why would she want to do that? If he moves in with her, then she now has less space and pays his rent – because, as much as he’d like to pay his share, these living quarters are more than he can afford.

I’m not saying that living with less is necessarily a bad thing, or if there cannot be a middle ground – but let’s not fool ourselves – financially, in this situation, no matter how they decide to arrange their life together, the woman loses. Now it may be totally worth it if it’s an amazing man, they make a great couple, and she is having a really good time being with him. But, him contributing to her well-being financially? – not going to happen.

I’m just being theoretical here – there’s no way I will ever have this problem myself – just doing math on my lunch break out of boredom
strongjava 218

Rachel wrote in #212:
“Most men need and want to make more money than their female partner. Some say they don’t but deep down inside they do.”

Creating your own conclusion and ignoring all contradictions to the conclusion may not be a particularly successful way to approach relationships, but to each their own. My experience and what I think Evan cited is that the ladies, by and large, need and want the men to make more money than they. His point is that it necessarily reduces their pool of men, often drastically.

Rachel wrote in #212:
“Also, let’s say for example, I make $150k and my husband makes $50k. If I decide to become a stay at home Mom, you’re telling me that our income goes down 75%!!???”

This is precisely why ladies generally seek men who earn more, preferably at least 2x – so the standard of living does not decrease for her. Of course, wouldn’t his standard of living necessarily decrease in taking care of her?

“I honestly think in terms of stress that it is better for a woman to be single than to have a partner that can’t help her continue the standard of living she was making before they met.”

Let me rewrite this a bit: I honestly think in terms of stress that it is better for a man to be single than to have a partner that can’t help him continue the standard of living he was making before they met.

I’m starting to understand why it seems almost every guy I know age 34 and up is reluctant to get involved, let alone marry.
Helen 219

Hi Goldie #216: No worries, it’s always fun to do math during lunch break.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the guy makes $50K/yr, how much could he possibly spend on food even if he bought Whole Foods groceries? Say it’s $200/week just for himself (much more than I spend for my entire family, and sometimes I shop at Whole Foods), multiplied by about 50 weeks/yr, to make $10,000/yr. If he makes $50K/yr, that leaves him still $40K to spend however he likes. If the woman who earns more doesn’t mind his moving in with her, he’ll be able to contribute his share, no matter what city he lives in, with that remaining money; whether she’s renting or paying a mortgage.

Then, of course, it’s hard to put a dollar value on the comfort and enjoyment of companionship with a loved one.

Deep down, I don’t think money is really the issue here. Rather, I think it’s tradition that women are finding so hard to kick.
Karl R 220

Goldie said: (#216)
“I did read Karl’s post before, and I still do not get it.”
“what happens to their living arrangements?”
“If he moves in with her, then she now has less space and pays his rent”

I’m moving in with my girlfriend. I expect to pay my share of the house payments and utilities, which lowers her expenses. Why are you assuming our hypothetical man won’t pay some share (not necessarily 50%) of the housing costs? Since I no longer have to pay rent or utilities on my apartment, it’s fair that much (or all) of that money should go towards expenses at my girlfriend’s house.

You also seem confused as to how space and expenses relate. I just looked up the rates at an apartment complex that I’m familiar with:
1 bedroom, 1 bath, 605 sq ft, $660/mo.
2 bedroom, 2 bath, 1064 sq ft, $955/mo.

That’s a 75% increase in space for a 44% increase in price. (I chose a complex I was familiar with to ensure that I was only dealing with space & rent differences.) That’s even ignoring the likelihood that the space is used more efficiently in the larger apartment (the kitchen doesn’t need to be 75% larger, you’re sharing a bed, etc). You’re getting disproportionately more space than you’re paying for as you move to a larger place.

Most couples just deal with slightly less space. My girlfriend and I don’t need space for my bed. We both fit on hers. I don’t need a separate study for my desk and computer. I just need about 20 sq ft in her study. We’re both cleaning old clothes out of our closets, which will give us sufficient space in her existing closets and dressers.

When it comes to utilities, the savings are even more obvious. Cancel one phone line and one DSL service. We’ll share.

Goldie said: (#216)
“He lives on Ramen; she buys her groceries at Whole Foods.”

I haven’t eaten ramen since I earned $10k a year. He buys from Krogers, she buys from Whole Foods.

More realistically, as two singles we both eat out (or take-out) a lot, because it’s not worth cooking for one person. By doubling up and cooking meals, we’ll probably be seeing a savings.

But I wasn’t counting food as a “savings”. A couple eats roughly the same amount as two singles. The big savings are for housing & utilities.
Selena 221

Someone who makes 50k lives on ramen? What the hell are they spending the rest of their money on? Savings and investments they aren’t telling a greedy girlfriend about?
Ruby 222

Rachel #212

I think you have misinterpreted the findings of both of the studies you cite. The first one found that divorce rates were also highest when men were the primary breadwinners, and that the overall incidence of cheating was very low overall, less than 3.8% for the men and 1.4% for the women. In addition, the study only looked at couples between the ages of 18-28, a younger age group that might be considered less mature or stable. In the second study, which took place in Germany, women are most likely to initiate divorce. All this shows, then, is that women who out-earn their husbands have the financial security to leave if they are unhappy.

Sandra Bullock may earn more money than Jesse James, but Sandra’s ex is a pretty wealthy man. I somehow doubt, as the article implies, that her greater wealth is a “clue” to why he cheated.
Goldie 223

@Karl:

“You also seem confused as to how space and expenses relate. I just looked up the rates at an apartment complex that I’m familiar with:
1 bedroom, 1 bath, 605 sq ft, $660/mo.
2 bedroom, 2 bath, 1064 sq ft, $955/mo.
That’s a 75% increase in space for a 44% increase in price.”

Interesting how you’d determine that I am confused about this, when I did not even mention any increase in space. I was talking about location. I figure, with an income difference that large, our hypothetical bf and gf probably do not live in the same area. She’d probably be in a more expensive neighborhood. Her rent (or, most likely, mortgage payments – why would she rent if she makes 200K?) would exceed his by infinite measure. If she moves to where he lives, her living conditions would be way worse than what she’s used to. If he moves to where she lives, she either has to, like you said, deal with less space, or sell her property (probably at a loss, in today’s real estate market) and buy a bigger one, or if she does rent, she might go for that 44% increase in rent that you mentioned. Even if he pays a share, she’ll have to cover the majority, because the expenses would be too high for him to pay half. Either way, financially she is worse off. But hey, I never said it’s a bad thing I’m worse off financially for having children, doesn’t mean I regret it or think I shouldn’t have done it. Totally worth it!

If they both live in the same apartment complex and move in together, then yes, ITA it’s a financial improvement. But why would two people with incomes that are so wildly different live in the same apartment complex in the first place? That’s not a realistic situation.

I do agree with your point re: take-out/eating out. A lot of singles that I know do that a lot, and it must really add up. I see how a couple would see a savings in that area.

@ #220 Selena – What are they spending the rest of their money on? Oh, I don’t know, minor things like taxes, medical insurance, medical bills, 401K… rent/house payments, car/car payments… college tuition possibly, if he’s back in school – a lot of people I know in their 30s and 40s do that. And yes, savings, why the heck not? This person knows they’ll be too old to work someday, and won’t have anyone to lean on financially then. Again, depends on the location. Some places, 50K will indeed go a long way, other places it’s hardly enough to make ends meet. And, if our hypothetical guy has children, then, well, his 50K will be gone fast! Anyway, I just used 50 as an example – if it’s too high – then let’s say he makes 30, she makes 200
Ruby 224

Gosh, meant to say not just men who are the “primary breadwinners”, but as the study said, “A man who makes significantly more money than his girlfriend or wife is also more likely to cheat because the job or position he works may require long work hours and travel.”
Karl R 225

Goldie said: (#222)
“Her rent (or, most likely, mortgage payments – why would she rent if she makes 200K?) would exceed his by infinite measure.”

Her income is quadruple his, but her housing expenses exceed his by “infinite measure”? The only way that could occur is if he’s living rent-free.

Let’s say her housing expenses are quadruple his, just like her income. That sounds a lot more likely.

Goldie said: (#222)
“with an income difference that large, our hypothetical bf and gf probably do not live in the same area.”

They could live in the same neighborhood or miles apart. That’s irrelevant. If he spends $10k a year on living expenses and she spends $40k, the actual location of their homes is irrelevant.

They can either pool their resources and live somewhere that costs $50k a year, or he can move in with her. If he does so, he can spend $8k per year and she can spend $32k per year on housing (saving them both 20%).

How is she financially worse off by having him pay 20% of the housing expenses?

Goldie said: (#222)
“If he moves to where she lives, she either has to, like you said, deal with less space,”

If she’s earning $200k per year, she can afford, what? At least a $500k home (possibly closer to $1 million). Unless she’s living someplace like Manhattan, that’s a sizeable amount of square footage.

My boss makes around $200k (as the sole breadwinner for his family of 5). He hosted the office Christmas party (40 to 50 people) because he had plenty of space … even with the 16′ tall Christmas tree in the parlor.

How much space are you expecting this guy to take up?

Goldie said: (#222)
“Some places, 50K will indeed go a long way, other places it’s hardly enough to make ends meet.”

Where do you live? Let’s assume you’re in NYC, since it’s about as expensive as I can think of. If so, your $50k is worth about $20k where I live … a level that I comfortably (but frugally) lived at (without eating ramen) for several years. Your $200k is the equivalent of $80k. My girlfriend earns substantially less than that and owns a home that’s large enough for a middle class family of four.

Goldie said: (#222)
“if our hypothetical guy has children, then, well, his 50K will be gone fast!”

Did you realize that the median household income in the U.S. for 2008 was $52k? Half the families in this country manage with less money than this man’s personal income.

And if he makes $30k per year, that’s the median personal income for a man in the U.S.
Helen 226

I am laughing at some of these comments. Karl R 219 and Selena 220, I have a colleague who earns $130K/yr and still eats ramen! Yes, it can happen… he’s a nice guy but an utter cheapskate, which had caused 3 of my single girlfriends to dump him in the last 2 years (he wouldn’t pay for their meals even if he asked them out).

So, relevant to Evan’s original post, a man who makes more money isn’t enough… he also has to be generous when he’s asked a woman out. Several other commenters here pointed out that making more money doesn’t always mean that a man is more generous.

Karl R 224: “How much space are you expecting this guy to take up?” That cracked me up too… in all my past experiences and my current one, guys don’t take up much space anywhere but the basement and garage, if even that. It’s KIDS who take up loads of space. And it’s a lot more likely that our hypothetical woman would have kids if she had a guy than if she stayed single, but that’s not a reason to blame the guy.
Goldie 227

“Where do you live? Let’s assume you’re in NYC, since it’s about as expensive as I can think of.”

Wait a minute. Since when are we talking about me, my income, and my living expenses? I was not prepared to discuss these things on a public forum when I posted my comment. I don’t think I am comfortable anymore with where this discussion is heading. You’re right; I’m wrong; let’s end this.

BTW I was not trying to discuss you or your gf either, so, if you took any of my posts as a personal attack on yourself, you’re way off.
Karl R 228

Goldie said: (#226)
“Since when are we talking about me, my income, and my living expenses?”

I really don’t care about any of those. I am trying to understand how your concept of $50k per year is completely disassociated with the reality of people who earn that much.

And even if I assume you live in the most expensive city in the US, I’m still unable to make sense of your comments. It seems like those numbers have no meaning to you.
Selena 229

Seems to me you might want to get to know someone before calculating their income/expense, debt to asset ratios in your head. But if you’re someone dead set against dating lower than your own income bracket, I suppose such assumptions are time savers for you.

Thing is, you might miss out on someone great for you by self-limiting your own options. And it’s all about options.
Goldie 230

Karl #227, now I am confused. Why are you trying to understand what my concepts are about how people spend their money? What’s that got to do with the discussion. Okay, I admit, I pulled my numbers 50 and 200 out of the air/previous comments on this thread (175, 208 etc etc). Please feel free to replace with whatever sounds better for you.

The only thing I was trying to say here is that, in my observation, if a man and a woman are roughly in the same “pay grade” (let’s say their incomes are within 15-20% or so of each other), then yes by moving in together they both benefit financially. However if one of them is in a completely different earning bracket (x4-5 times more), then, when they move in together, that person will see a decrease in lifestyle and/or an increase in expenses. I even stressed repeatedly that it is worth it anyway, if you’re moving in with someone you like and enjoy being with. That’s still not good enough?

As far as my numbers. Honestly, I don’t even know where in my geographical location one can earn 200K, unless they’re a in an upper-management position. I’d wager most of those jobs are in high-tech/large metropolitan areas out on the East/West Coast. From what I’ve heard (and a few quick zillow searches I just did), none of your numbers apply in those locations. i.e. you cannot rent a decent apartment for $600 or get a “sizeable amount of square footage” for 500K. (My search returned a cozy 827 sq ft, 2-bedroom, 2-bath house in SF that sells for that amount.) I live in the area similar to the one you described, which is why I said right away that this situation does not apply to me. We have different types of problems around here. “I make 200K and he makes 45″ just isn’t on the list
Goldie 231

Helen, I did briefly date a ramen-eater this summer! I actually didn’t mind. The man is going back to school, getting his degree and paying full tuition – more power to him. If eating ramen is what it takes, I’m cool with that. Life happens… FTR I did not break it off because of ramen
strongjava 232

Re: Helen’s Post #225:
“So, relevant to Evan’s original post, a man who makes more money isn’t enough… he also has to be generous when he’s asked a woman out. Several other commenters here pointed out that making more money doesn’t always mean that a man is more generous.”

What’s her corresponding generosity?
Annie 233

@224 – Karl R.

I actually think that it is discrenenary spending that seems to be the issue. Your math is spot on. Pooling the money together, for most basic expenses(all that is needed), will mean her costs would go down.

But if she takes a vacation to Europe 2 times a year, he won’t be able to afford that, so she’d have to pay, or compromise on location. It seems that men are a financial burden if they earn less. But a woman wanting to stay at home ISN’T and the man is expected to earn more, to maintain her discresionary income.

Are some women even capable of being “generous” with their money? Do they alway’s think men are overjoyed at the privalege of spending money on them? Maybe realizing how hard it is to give up your heard-earned money for another to spend it on discrensionary items, makes women realize why men, who went out and worked in the past, controlled the pursestrings, and only handed out money for necessities and a few luxuries. It’s a funy thing that’s happening, now the tables have turned.

@217.

As to your last comment, I’m starting to realize the same thing.
Annie 234

@Rachel 212.

Actually, if you decide to be a stay at home mother, YOUR income has dropped by 100% and HIS expenses have gone up to support your desire to stay at home.

Now why, would a man accept this situation. ?
Goldie 235

Annie, ITA

” It seems that men are a financial burden if they earn less. But a woman wanting to stay at home ISN’T…”

A woman (or man, actually) who thinks this way, will very likely be in for a big surprise. I stayed home for a few years when the children were born (didn’t have a choice due to our situation then). It is a huge lifestyle shift for both sides and an enormous source of stress on the relationship. It takes a lot of preparation, communication and adjustment either way, I think – whether it’s the man earning less/staying at home, or the woman. It is a major change that won’t come naturally – both sides need to work and adjust for it.
Helen 236

Annie and Strongjava, you both raise good points. I think that the part of the equation that has been largely missing from this discussion is the “intangibles” (in microeconomic terms): those things that don’t have a dollar value, but make a large difference in overall utility or happiness.

So: let’s talk about love. And companionship: knowing that there’s someone to come home to, someone to keep you company, someone to laugh at your jokes and follies and children’s antics (with you). Someone who puts up with your BS and introduces you to new ideas, new ways of looking at things, new adventures you probably wouldn’t try on your own. It’s impossible to place a dollar value on these things, yet we’re talking about our lives, and money isn’t the only measure of life’s value.

Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psych professor whose work I’ve already invoked here, has found that married people are happier than single people, even singles in relationships, because the commitment symbolized by marriage is meaningful to us on a psychological level.

If we’re only looking at dollars and cents, we’re missing the greatest part of being in relationships at all.
strongjava 237

Re: Helen’s 235:

“If we’re only looking at dollars and cents, we’re missing the greatest part of being in relationships at all.”

Well, you brought up that not only does a man need to earn more, but he must be generous with it, particularly at the dating phase. How’s about we stay on topic?

“Annie and Strongjava, you both raise good points.”

I agree, but do not see a response. Again, where is the corresponding generosity he receives, or to paraphrase Annie – why would a man accept this? For ‘intangibles’?

“So: let’s talk about love. And companionship: knowing that there’s someone to come home to, someone to keep you company, someone to laugh at your jokes and follies and children’s antics (with you). Someone who puts up with your BS and introduces you to new ideas, new ways of looking at things, new adventures you probably wouldn’t try on your own.”

Sounds like a superior being to me, tolerating my ‘BS’ introducing me to new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and new adventures I probably would not try. I must be stupid, full of BS, and would never leave home to do anything. I’m not sure I could possibly drag down such a superior being to my slackjawed slothlike level, but I apparently should pay for the privilege of trying to. Sorry to be sarcastic, but it seems the quickest way to make the point the Helen’s premise is, to be kind, faulty.

See my #217 conclusion – I’m starting to understand why it seems almost every guy I know age 34 and up is reluctant to get involved, let alone marry.

“Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psych professor …symbolized by marriage is meaningful to us on a psychological level.”

Does that include the 50+% who divorce?
Karl R 238

strongjava said: (#236)
“Sounds like a superior being to me, tolerating my ‘BS’ introducing me to new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and new adventures I probably would not try. I must be stupid, full of BS, and would never leave home to do anything.”

You’re kind of touchy today.

My girlfriend is a lot nicer than I am, and a lot less likely to offend people with things that she says. I’m a lot more patient and a lot more even-tempered than she is. We’re both putting up with someone who has flaws.

My girlfriend was the one who suggested our trip to the U.K. I’m the one who suggested seeing Cirque du Soleil and Trans-Siberian Orchestra. We both get out of the house, but we tend to focus on very different things.

I would say Helen fairly aptly described the intangible benefits of a relationship; benefits that both my girlfriend and I get out of ours.
Goldie 239

#236

“Does that include the 50+% who divorce?”

Hey… we are here, aren’t we, looking, ideally, for the type of companionship that Helen described. Just because we screwed up the first time around, does not mean that we shouldn’t try again.

If what Helen described were one-sided, then, I’d agree with you, it’d be a lot like living with a patronizing, superior being. But when it’s mutual, it’s spending your life with a best friend. Sounds pretty cool to me.
strongjava 240

Re: Karl’s 237:

You left out the next sentence of my paragraph from your quote, which said I used sarcasm for speed and apologized for doing so. Failure to include that alters the context, particularly when calling someone touchy as a criticism. if you wish to critique, please do, but at least be accurate. Context matters.

I’m all for ‘intangible’ benefits of relationships. However, as I clearly noted and her posts clearly state, Helen brought up the desire men make more and be ‘generous’ with it to even get in the door to date, let alone a relationship or marriage. When asked for corresponding ‘generosity’ the discussion suddenly veered. I seek to stay on topic.

Here is the emerging picture from Helen’s paradigm I get: both man and woman each receive ‘intangibles’ but the men in her paradigm also have to pay hard dollars also in addition to their ‘intangibles’ but they should not expect any such generosity in return. That takes me back to Annie’s question – why would a man accept that?

Not trying to be argumentative, but there hasn’t been an answer. I think that was EMK’s intent with the thread – it reduces chances of success (dating pool) for women to demand men earn more, and maybe it isn’t particularly reasonable in this day & age.
Helen 241

Karl, a trip to the UK, Cirque du Soleil, and the Trans-Siberian Orchestra? You and your girlfriend are super-cool. How about a trip on the Trans-Siberian Railroad too? That last is one of my to-dos.

Strongjava, there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Read all my posts and you will see that I think women should make as much as men for equal work. I said that if a man asks a woman for a date, he should pay for her. It’s called good manners.

By all means, feel free to ask women on dates and NOT pay for them. Be our guest. Just don’t be surprised if they find such stinginess, coupled with your rudeness as evidenced in your earlier response, to be insufferable.

Goldie, I do hope you find your best friend and companion – good luck! Keep up the hope, as Evan encourages in another post.
Annie 242

Goldie.
I have absolutely no idea on your position. Quite frankly I think you are too afraid to make a postion, and therefore just debate anothers view. Therefore you are safe.

Put yourself out there, at least online by expressing what you feel. And take the lumps with the bumps.

It’s all good
strongjava 243

Helen, actually you did not say that if a man asks a woman out for a date he should pay for it. You said “So, relevant to Evan’s original post, a man who makes more money isn’t enough… he also has to be generous when he’s asked a woman out.” Your words convey more than simply paying for a date if he asks someone out.

So I simply asked what is the corresponding generosity, and receive in reply let’s not talk about money (which you brought up), but of love and ‘intangibles.’ After pointing that fact out, now I get called names like rude and insufferable (and also making a mountain out of a molehill). Well, if pointing out that the corresponding generosity question still was not answered makes me rude and insufferable, then I am rude and insufferable (and apparently stingy also). Calling people names because you don’t like their questions or answers is not a very effective discussion technique, and nowhere did I call you any name.

“By all means, feel free to ask women on dates and NOT pay for them”
I never said that or anything akin to it. If you wish to insult me, at least try and use something I said, and accurately. Don’t invent something from thin air.

It’s easy to happily discuss most anything when everyone agrees with the content and or questions. It’s not so easy to happily discuss things when the content, questions, and maybe most importantly, the answers, don’t make us very comfortable.

Goldie said: “If what Helen described were one-sided, then, I’d agree with you, it’d be a lot like living with a patronizing, superior being. But when it’s mutual, it’s spending your life with a best friend. Sounds pretty cool to me.”
- I agree with you completely, but the point I made was her words did not indicate it was mutual, but one-sided. Nothing in her words indicated mutuality. Where it is mutual, it’s great.
Selena 244

Re: #240

Yes, that asking women out on dates and not paying for them tends to eliminate second dates lol.
Karl R 245

strongjava said to me: (#239)
“You left out the next sentence of my paragraph from your quote,”
“Failure to include that alters the context,”

That’s why I put the post number right above your quote. That way everyone can easily read your statement in it’s original context.

My posts are long enough without quoting other people’s posts in their entirety.

strongjava said to Helen: (#239)
“Not trying to be argumentative, but there hasn’t been an answer.”

And?

You don’t get to insist that someone responds to your post.

This isn’t a debate team with rules and refs. The only rule is “no name-calling,” and Evan is the only person who gets to voice an opinion as to what qualifies.

strongjava said to Goldie: (#242)
“but the point I made was [Helen's] words did not indicate it was mutual, but one-sided. Nothing in her words indicated mutuality.”

Nothing in Helen’s comment (#235) indicated one-sidedness either. Since Goldie and I were able to correctly infer that she intended to refer to a mutual situation, and you did not, you might want to consider the possibility that you were mistaken in your interpretation.

strongjava said: (#239)
“both man and woman each receive ‘intangibles’ but the men in her paradigm also have to pay hard dollars also in addition to their ‘intangibles’ but they should not expect any such generosity in return. [...] why would a man accept that?”

It’s up to the individual whether he wishes to accept it or not.

You seem very focused on whether both partners are contributing equally. I’ve heard from multiple sources (and my personal experience corroborates it) that in a couple where both people are contributing equally, both will feel like they’re contributing more than the other person. That occurs because you’re aware of everything you’re contributing, but you naturally overlook some of what your partner contributes (time, money, etc).

Therefore, if you’re in a relationship where you feel like you’re contributing 50%, you’re not pulling your own weight. So if you are holding out for a relationship where it feels like you’re contributing 50% (or less), you will probably have a difficult time finding a stable relationship.
Sayanta 246

#235-

Helen, what you wrote about marriage is so beautiful- I have to say, I think sometimes things don’t go well in certain areas in our lives when we’re confused about what we want. I’ve always, for reasons too long to list here, gone back and forth about whether I do want to get married, have a long-term commitment, etc. But reading your post made me see clearly what I would have to gain through marriage.
strongjava 247

So I come home a bit early to walk pup-pup and enjoy the good weather and……sigh.

Karl’s #244 to Me:
“You don’t get to insist that someone responds to your post.”
-Agreed, but I do get to point out when someone doesn’t respond,even though he/she purports to respond – which is precisely what I did.

Karl’s #244 to Me:
“Nothing in Helen’s comment (#235) indicated one-sidedness either. Since Goldie and I were able to correctly infer that she intended to refer to a mutual situation, and you did not, you might want to consider the possibility that you were mistaken in your interpretation.”
-Really?
Helen’s #235 – “Someone who puts up with your BS and introduces you to new ideas, new ways of looking at things, new adventures you probably wouldn’t try on your own.”
- That’s pretty unidirectional to these eyes. If mutuality were intended, it would’ve been easy to say you both put up with BS, and both, have new ideas, etc… Instead, ‘someone’ puts up with BS, has new ideas, while the ‘you’ apparently doesn’t. You just assume it’s mutual because that’s what you want to see, not what it plainly says on its face. Therefore you must also assume you are right. You may want to rethink that.

Karl’s #244 to Me:

“That’s why I put the post number right above your quote. That wayeveryone can easily read your statement in it’s original context.
My posts are long enough without quoting other people’s posts in their entirety.”

- Um, your post in question (#237) wasn’t long. Erego, not much of a burden to add the context-making sentence for everyone to read in conjunction with your response. By the way, no one said you need quote entire postings. That is an exaggeration no one suggested that you just created. You just chose to omit the proper context (in a short post) to take a shot at me. That’s fine, but (to use the old saying) don’t pee on my back & tell me it’s raining.

Karl’s #244 to Me:

“It’s up to the individual whether he wishes to accept it or not.”
- Agreed.

Karl’s #244 to Me:
“You seem very focused on whether both partners are contributing equally.”
- And with all due respect, you seem to want to ascribe assumptions, agendas, and ‘touchiness’. Helen said that not only must a man earn more, but he needs to be generous also. I simply asked where the corresponding generosity is, pointed out her non-answer (without name calling or personal attack), and here we are.

- I’ve looked at other threads on this site, and it hasn’t escaped my notice how other posters who asked similar questions were roundly attacked. Since that’s how this seems to be going, I’ll bid everyone adieu. I’ll leave with the thought that personally attacking those who ask questions you do not like probably isn’t a good habit to take into your relationships, and likely handicaps the chance of success.
Joe 248

IME, no one ever gets “roundly attacked” by Karl, unless you mean overwhelming them with reason and logic.
Helen 249

Sayanta 246, I’m glad! Keep up the hope. Look for someone who is kind, and whom you respect. That is the one who, 12 years later, will still light you up inside whenever you look at him.

Joe 248, you’re right.
Annie 250

@248

hehehehe
Goldie 251

Annie #242:

“I have absolutely no idea on your position. Quite frankly I think you are too afraid to make a postion, and therefore just debate anothers view. Therefore you are safe.

Put yourself out there, at least online by expressing what you feel. And take the lumps with the bumps.“

Are you serious? If this is what I got for saying “I totally agree with you”, what am I going to get for “expressing what I feel”? Man, this is a harsh forum

But, since you asked…

I really do not have a strong opinion on the subject. Seriously. The man’s income, per se, is irrelevant to me. The only income I worry about is my own. It is up to me to support myself and my family. The only way my date’s income would be of any interest to me, is as an indicator of his professional success, which in turn translates into intellect, social skills, communication skills, responsibility, work ethics etc. It kinda helps for a man I’m seeing to have all these qualities, as they will help ensure the two of us get along and have a good time together. It doesn’t have to be a huge income, but let’s just say if it’s zero or minimum-wage, for my age group (40s), I will probably wonder about the guy.

However, since a man will most likely NOT disclose his real income online, and will NOT tell me about if I meet him IRL, and I am sure as heck NOT likely to ask him, then it’s safe to say I am never going to find out what he makes, so why bother.

If it turns out the two of us are in completely different social circles (the infamous 200/45 dilemma – which in my case, since my income is pretty average, would be either “he gets minimum wage, and I’m average” or “he’s upperclass, and I’m average”) then, well, the resulting differences in our lifestyles, friends, interests etc. will come out as we two get to know each other, and we will then decide if we can live with those differences or not. Either way, I probably won’t get to see his W2 and he mine. We’ll just have to base our decision, to continue the relationship or not, on other factors and not income.

In the very unlikely case that the man needs me to support him financially, and will come out and say so to me directly, (tho I cannot imagine this ever happening…) I guess we’ll have to sit down together and discuss the pros and cons and ways to make it work. Though I seriously doubt that I can afford to take money away from my kids to support a guy. But hey, if it’s a really really awesome guy and the kids agree… stranger things have happened.

There, my POV on the subject not much, I know, but this is all I’ve got
GetTheGuy.co.uk 252

Great article Evan!

I totally agree that salary shouldn’t be a deciding factor in a relationship, and the more important factors are what you outlined at the start of the article – character, kindness, fun, humor and compatibility.
Mark 253

From the comments I have read, it is clear what people are looking for in a relationship. Both sexes only want to improve their status and image.

This is exactly why I do not date. I will continue to adopt animals until human nature changes. I am so ashamed to be part of this species. It’s all about me (I am not excluded).

The planet would be better off without us.
Goldie 254

#253 Mark, it seems to me, rather, that people are looking for security. Are they looking for it in all the wrong places? – possibly. But security seems to be what everyone wants, not status and image. Same thing your adopted dog would want

It appears from this thread that people pretty much want reassurance that they won’t be living under a bridge tomorrow if they commit to this person today. Of course, most people seem to be blowing their material requirements way out of proportion, but that’s another story.
Kim 255

Ok ,I couldn’t help but weigh in here. I was recently told by an ex-BF that one of the main reasons he didn’t want a future with me was that I had too much debt in student loans, even though we make the same amount of money, and my earning potential over time will be significantly more than his because I have a PhD and he has a bachelor’s and IS a schoolteacher. I never looked at his earning potential as a dealbreaker, nor did I consider that my student loan debt was something that he would have to take on. But he saw it as a red flag and dumped me for a woman who is a widow, most likely got a healthy life insurance payout, has no debt, and takes him on exotic weekend getaways to six star hotels. Furthermore, his recent divorce left him without any retirement, and about 20,000 in credit card debt. Clearly there were other issues at play here, and I feel like he is being unfair and a hypocrite, but when did being taken care of financially by a woman become attractive for men?
JuJu 256

Kim, I think you should really consider yourself lucky.
Helen 257

Kim 255, I agree w/ JuJu. Sisters before hoes.

(Just kidding! This is in reference to Evan’s latest post… because it sounds as though your golddigging ex is a man-whore of sorts.)
Joe 258

when did being taken care of financially by a woman become attractive for men?

Probably shortly after the first woman started outearning men in the equivalent position.
Diana 259

JuJu #256, exactly! It sounds like he’s looking for someone who can help him pay off his own debt, and live the good life he can’t afford, too. It’s called, “Next.”
Goldie 260

#258, you mean in the future? Or do you have the stats? This is the first I’m hearing about this. Would like to see the sources, I am honestly curious.

#255, what I find most depressing about this guy is that he teaches children for a living. Don’t know why, it just makes him a hypocrite of epic proportion in my eyes… probably because I know that kids do look up to their teachers — especially to their male teachers, because there are so few of them. Kim, I agree with everyone else here, you’re so lucky to be rid of him.
LG 261

Of course it’s biological. The woman bears the physical burden of carrying the offspring. At some point this requires time off from work – if not quitting work altogether. So the other partner has to pick up the financial slack in providing for the family. It’s called security.
m 262

It’s been awhile since I’ve commented, Evan, but obviously I’m still reading. :-)
I continue to be amazed that so many questions are still put in the context of “The woman is, always, perpetually, and forever, the one to blame if there’s a problem”.
I’m intrigued that the question — especially given my experience, and that of numerous women friends — is never “Do you as a man need a woman to make less money than you?”
Karl R 263

m said: (#262)
“I continue to be amazed that so many questions are still put in the context of ‘The woman is, always, perpetually, and forever, the one to blame if there’s a problem’.”

I think Evan addressed the question toward women because his clients are women, not men. And it’s not a matter of blame … it’s a matter of control.

But let’s say that a man refuses to date you because you earn more than him. What useful information can you learn from this?

The situation is outside your control. There’s nothing for you to learn. Go find a man who is more open minded.

However, if you refuse to date the man because he earns less, that is in your control. Therefore, it’s possible you could learn something that would assist you in the dating arena.

Any useful dating advice is going to be directed toward things that you can control. The question and advice (as it’s written) isn’t useful to me as a man. I have to reverse it and examine it from the other side in order to get something useful out of it.

And more importantly, blame is useless. As soon as I say “It’s the other person’s fault because …” I’ve placed the control for the situation in the other person’s hands. If I had no control, then I couldn’t have affected the outcome. More importantly, I couldn’t have changed anything to make the outcome different.

Answering the question:
No. As a man I don’t need a woman to earn less money than me. I have happily dated several women who outearned me.

What useful information were you able to learn from that answer?
Shari 264

I could care less how much $$ a guy makes but it has been an issue for my relationships when he earned too much less. I run my own biz and in most years earn over $100,000. My ex-husband (25 years) earned $35,000 in his best years. It was a problem. His lack of earning power compared to me made him feel “less than” and as a result he would act out — spending money needlessly on “stuff” and racking up credit card debts I had to pay off.

So I figured after divorce I better look for a guy who earns at least $50,000 so he has his own measure of success. My last relationship I thought would not have this issue. Unfortunately my ex-boyfriend also had problems with my earning. He already felt he should earn more and achieve more and he felt bad not able to take me out and buy me things — even though I am not materialistic and can care less about it. I rarely go out to eat and don’t buy expensive clothes and drive an 18 year old car. But things fell apart as he just didn’t feel he deserved me and in the end he walked away from me and could give me no reason other than that — he didn’t deserve me.

My current boyfriend makes nearly as much as me and there are no issues with money. But.. two people with high powered job living 5 hours apart — we cannot find time for one another and the wheels are falling off this relationship. I don’t know what the answer is … maybe a guy who makes 75% of what I do? I really don’t care what they earn and I’m happy with dinner at home and a video but it’s a challenging issue for men.

Shari
Lauren 265

I think when you are younger in your 20′s and 30′s vs. late 40′s into 50′s and beyond there is a hugely different set of emphasis placed on income and money. I’m 52. I don’t have the same goals/pressures/ideals now of seeking to hurry up get married and have kids, need money, need advancement etc. as when I was young, dating and seeking husband/kids and enough money to raise a family. That’s all behind me. I could careless about my date’s income now because I don’t have the same pressures/goals to hurry-up and get married. I’m divorced, and don’t have the same responsibilities financially.
BJ 266

Thank you for this post. Although I’m reading it 5 months after it started I find it very helpful as a woman who earns 200k (non-US country) who has just started dating a man on half of this income. I have been a hard core career woman for a long time that did not create space for relationships. I’m about to turn 39. He is my age, 8 months separated and a terrific dad 50% of he time to a 6 year old boy. I respect him for being a father and being a good man (after a very unstable childhood). I felt I had to ‘come clean’ and admit to him that I earned more than him up front on our third date. He said he had no problem with me being so successful. He liked to pay at the start as he said he was ‘old fashioned’ but he laughed and said I could pick up the cheque next time. I’ve always struggled with how I could have children or a career so I gave up on kids. He said if we have one (which might be unlikely given my age), he would stay home and look after it. I worry about bossing him around or emasculating him so I was looking through this blogs for tips (in particular how to keep my feminine energy when I’m a bit of a ball breaker at work). He was worried about the income gap until I said I was okay with it, if I only dated men more successful or rich than me I would cut my dating options down by 99%. Ive dated alot of narcisstic, self involved rich doctors/lawyers and its no picnic. The new man is lovely, caring and feels more emotionally mature than me! I am worried about telling my parents about him – they come from a different generation and expect the man to be the caretaker and earn more. Basically, if I do what I propose with my boyfriend, I will be turning my parents model on its head and that is scarey. It is more outside or societal judgement I fear more than what I feel when I am with him. However I’m worried about that getting to him and he would feel less masculine. Also I hope I dont resent always having to be the strong one. I figure if we put down a life plan where perhaps I could take a year off and he works and then swap it around, then we both, as a team feel we are taking an equal share. I hope it works out and thanks for discussing this topic.
Denise 267

#266

BJ, keep reading these blogs of Evan’s. He talks about this exact situation where women have expectations of a man they insist on being with (their expectations of society’s expectations that they adopt). And like you mentioned, then they date someone of their ‘expectations’ it doesn’t work out, the man can’t do relationships or he’s a player or he’s self centered, etc. So how does that work out for her? Not so good…

I understand totally what you’re saying about demasculizing him. When I married at 28, I was the ‘man’ of the family and knew it would be that way. It worked while the kids were young and I was busy with them and building my career, but eventually it did take a toll and I was tired of playing the masculine role. HOWEVER, where we went wrong was that we weren’t clear and honest up front with each other on what kind of life we wanted to life and what we envisioned for ourself. Big mistake. I demasculized him because I was frustrated because I wanted to the ‘woman’ in the relationship and I couldn’t be…at least I couldn’t be and live the life I envisioned for myself.

You will have to work on making sure you’re the feminine energy at home. If you can do that, you will have the BEST of all worlds–a successful career where you use your masculine energy and a successful romantic relationship when you use your feminine energy. There is NO reason why this can’t be done.

I really liked what you mentioned at the end of your post, to look at this as a PARTNERSHIP. Two people coming to the table with certains strengths and challenges, and frank and clear communication about what they want out of the partnership. If that doesn’t mesh, to be willing to walk away, not try to make concessions and big sacrifices.

This is about YOUR life and YOUR happiness, not your parents or society. If something works for you and your partner, it’s nobody else’s business. I can say that this concept gets easier after 40 for most women, especially when the realize that finding a good, stable relationship with a kind, generous man who makes her feel loved, desired and secure is TOUGH to come by.

What do you want, to be ‘right’ (I need a man my parents and society will approve of for me) or do you want to be happy?
Andres 268

I’m a man currently dating a woman who makes more than twice what I make (She earns well into the 6 figure range). Granted she is 6 years older and further ahead in her career and life, I’m 31, she’s 37. I was in the military for 6 years got out and am finishing graduate school so I wouldn’t consider myself a deadbeat. Although I consider myself very confident I can get a bit uneasy when she mentions some of the men she works with or may have lunch with who make upwards of 400K a year and may take her daughter out on rides in their sports cars. She doesn’t show off the fact that she has wealthy friends but it comes up in casual conversation. Half of me says that I’m out of my league but the other half considers that she was the one that told me she loved me and needed me in her life, and that she never dated anyone like me, as well as the fact that she was married to a very wealthy guy who treated her like crap..that said I cant help but feel that it may be an issue in the future.
Becki 269

This is tougher than most people think. I’ve had debates with myself as to why it seems like it would be easier if a man made as much or more than I do. In my first marriage, my former spouse made more than me for the first 10 years… as our kids were born and I was working part time. When his employment became sporadic and unreliable, I went back to work full time as a CPA. I started making quite a bit more than he did. Even his mother told me, this was a bad plan. I had removed from him his role in this marriage… to provide for the family. I don’t think it lead to the divorce… it just didn’t do anything to help it. I thought it would. I thought it would reduce the financial stress. We were married 18 years. I’ve now been divorced for 12. My income has more than doubled in that time period and dating has been a constant round of guys that have been through financial hell from their own divorces. The majority experience unemployment on a regular basis. They aren’t bums and slackers… they are trying… but just haven’t built a solid career. I have struggled with this innate desire to have stability. Of course I’m capable of taking care of myself and my children, but I have this nagging to desire to meet a man that COULD take care of me were something to happen. So far, I just haven’t met anyone that provides that type of comfort.
My daughter has decided that I just won’t be happy with anyone that hasn’t worked to build the same things I have… a comfortable home, raised kids, solid secure career. I don’t think the number on his W-2 at year end matters as much as a career that provides him with a feeling of self worth. My father was a University professor… they don’t make a lot of money… but he was bright and loving. He was content with his career. He planned well for us and for my mother, who taught elementary school. That sounds nice. It’s not the money… it’s the security that I seem to crave… even if I’ve provided the financial security myself.
Denise 270

#269 Becki

It’s not the money… it’s the security that I seem to crave… even if I’ve provided the financial security myself.

Wow, you said everything so well in your post! That’s exactly how I feel. My ex husband didn’t make me feel like I could trust him to take care of us, or at least TRY to take care of us in a way that he know I would like to be taken care of.

If it gives you (and me!) any hope, I dated a man for a bit where, even though I made more money than he did, he always stepped up to the plate in his life and stepped up to the plate in the relationship with me. I very much admired him for that and felt like he would do his best to take care of me and anything else that was important to him, whatever he needed to do. (What I liked about him too was he was also able to graciously receive assistance when he needed it.) NONE of this had anything to do with our incomes, it had to do with the type of person he was…it made me feel like could have a true partnership.
sandy 271

Glad to come across your blog..
I just ended a 3yr relationship with a 42yro man, who’s 11yrs my senior. Due to long distance, I took a leap of faith to move there to stay with him in the early stage of our relationship (too fast I know). Quickly I realised he only had 3k in his whole savings (no property or retirement planning too). His monthly earning was unstable, plus his carefree attitude towards money didn’t help either. He was generous with spending habit. My income was good enough to support myself and I volunteered to pay for meals and grocery when we’re out. Since day1, he had always wanted to get married and raise a family. But I needed more time..
In our 3rd year, he took over a small business from his relative. By then, he had accumulated abt 10k savings, most of which was put into his business. He also borrowed 3k from me, which he never tried to pay back. In the end, I decided to split after he kept pushing for marriage. I failed to convince myself that we could build a family together. He was inconsistent with his career plan, which also worried me. Now he’s found someone online who’s closer to his age and is eager to settle down as well. He’s moving to her country to be with her soon. I still miss him a lot and sometimes I still wonder if I made the right decision. But I had to let him go.
Denise 272

#271 Sandy

Really Sandy? This is the best you think you’re worthy of? What was so great about this man that would make a woman want to rely on him to make her feel safe and secure, especially when children came into the picture?

YOU sound like a responsible, reliable person–not someone that wants a man-child to take care of. Believe me, when children come around, a woman doesn’t need another little boy in a man’s body to take care of.

Keep in mind that healthy relationships don’t require convincing. Also, you’re in your early 30′s, if you want to get married and have a family, choosely wisely so you’re not spending years of your life on a man who is not worthy.

You are MUCH better off and I am sure over time, you’ll see things about this man, your relationship and yourself more clearly. No doubt, we’ve all gone through learning experiences like this!
sandy 273

#272 Denise

Thank you for your words of encouragement. Maybe we had different goals and values that led to my decision. I believe a man doesn’t need to earn a LOT, as long as he’s hardworking, smart and willing to strive with a focused attitude. He was hardworking but maybe lacked the latters.. (sorry if I sound mean). He believed that money should be shared unconditionally. He was quite upset when I chose to separate our bank account instead of sharing one. Oh well, maybe he’s not my ‘true’ love. There’s a saying that Love conquers all. I am still searching for the meaning of that. I need to sort myself out. Meanwhile, I am going back to grad school for a better career prospect and self enrichment. Argh, I wish he could pay me back the money!
S 274

I am a homosexual male, and I find this conversation intriguing. In my relationship, I would certainly be considered the more feminine partner; however, I make a considerable amount of yearly income. At first, my partner struggled with the fact that my income was so much greater than his. Over time, he accepted the disparity and has grown to enjoy the comforts our income level offers. For me, my partner offers much more than financial dividends. After ten years together, he is still my best friend, lover, and counselor. For those ladies holding out for a man who is her financial superior, I offer this caveat: the essence of a man (or any person) is not connected to a wallet.
Sayanta 275

Lynn #3-

I don’t know if you still go through this site, but I was reading through one of David Deida’s books, and I don’t know…I def see where he’s coming from with feminine v. masculine energy in relationships. But there are some things that I find kind of offensive (?) I use the quotation mark because I’m not really truly offended, but I can’t think of a lesser word right now that describes my feelings.

For example, in one book, he stated that if a man wants to move to a city, and his woman wants to stay put, it would be best for the relationship if she gave in to his desire- because men want freedom, and if she restricts his freedom like that, he’ll resent her. Um…huh?

And I read an excerpt from “The Way of the Superior Man” about how a man should never make a relationship his top priority. But, in the other book, it’s okay for the woman to do that.

To sum it up, men are here with a purpose, and relationships are secondary. But for women, relationships are everything. That’s fine, but I also get the impression that if a woman prefers to have a mission and make relationship secondary, she won’t get a satisfying relationship. In other words, even though I agree with the masculine v. feminine energy, I feel that if women were to follow Deida’s advice, they would get shortchanged in life. Significantly.

Here’s the excerpt:

http://www.deida.info/books/the-way-of-the-superior-man/your-purpose-must-come-your-relationship
Helen 276

Sayanta #275, I don’t think the book was implying that women must put relationships first, purpose second. Perhaps it could be said that all human beings should consider their purposes and their intentions first, regardless of gender. We come into our lives bringing a set of talents and natural inclinations; we further develop these over the course of years. Relationships may come and go, but the things that we have always loved, we should continue to pursue.

My criticism of this book is not that Deida overtly puts women down, but that he believes these “superior” traits are relevant only to men. They are not. They are relevant to all humankind. The best gift you can give the world is your true self. It is meaningless to try to base your happiness upon a relationship with someone else, no matter how wonderful that person is, because then you are putting your happiness in someone else’s control other than your own.

Put in that way, I think Evan’s original questions “Do you need a man to make more money than you? If so, why?” are relevant to women who want to give up their control to someone else. We need to empower women to realize that they have the ability to control their own happiness, and that it is useless to try to find it in a partner who outearns them.
A-L 277

Today Yahoo had a little feature about women who make more than their men. Here’s the link. Of course at some points it was like $30 million vs $20 million, but in other cases it was multi-millionaires with a partner earning little to nothing.
ELLEN 278

My ex and I partially broke up over this, but I never threw it in his face….
If you take away their “provider” status what have men LEFT TO GIVE TODAY? Do we want to reduce them to mere sperm donors?
I’m shocked actually that the %age of women making more than men isn’t higher.
In my marriage I outearned my ex, but not by a huge amount most years ($10K tops). Still, he had mild agoraphobia, no real drive, expected me to make these long, long commutes to work AND then come home and help two children thru school, one of them autistic so YEAH I wasn’t wild about his lack of ambition. Add to this an inability to do any sort of real repairs around the house (I did them mostly, but hey! he did mow the lawn) so there wasn’t balance. We had a clear reversal of roles imo. I didn’t rebel for many years, then finally got tired of it. Other things broke us up after 25 years also, including our daughter’s autism, but I digress.
So yeah I guess I expected him to take the lead….
I was programmed by my parents to seek a man to “take care of me” (typical of my generation). (They actually used that phrase). All the while, encouraging me to get as much education as possible (a PhD was just expected really), so I got some strong mixed messages from them and Gloria Steinem….
Listen, study after study shows white men particularly are promoted over everyone else, women and minorities are still discriminated against, so I always felt in my marriage my ex should take the lead. It is also VERY hard for women to climb the corporate ladder and take care of children. The top female CEOS are often childless and/or single- do your research!
In the end I did very well. Entered a high tech field where there was real demand for trained workers. Lucked out really. It helped I had both a BS and MS from top ten state schools.
Finally, with this economy men seem adrift these days and really need something to feel good about. LET them be the providers I say. Let them take pride in that. I just don’t think their ill-ease with women making more will go away any time soon….
Ms. Bee 279

I outearn my man by a significant amount, and we’re both fine with it. I also manage the finances of the household because it’s one of my natural strengths. He’s finishing up his schooling now, because he just couldn’t afford to finish it the first time around. He reminds me of my grandfather, who was a very intelligent and curious man, always reading whatever he could get his hands on, but who was forced to end his education in high school because of the Depression. No one could tell my grandfather didn’t have a formal education, though. He would put many of today’s college graduates to shame, for sure.

I’ve dated other men who earned the same as or less than I did, or had less formal education than I did, and it’s really not been a big deal. I think more women should try it, because they might just be pleasantly surprised! Of course, no one should date a person who is drowning in debt, whose utilities are always on the verge of being shut off. But having a fancy degree or a prestigious, high-paying job is no guarantee against stupidity with money. Just look at all the well-off people who spend every penny they get their hands on and have no real money to retire on, because nothing less than the best things in life will do. I think how you handle money is way more important than how much of it you have.

ELLEN wrote: Finally, with this economy men seem adrift these days and really need something to feel good about. LET them be the providers I say. Let them take pride in that. I just don’t think their ill-ease with women making more will go away any time soon….

Then what should high-earning women, or women who will realistically outearn most men they date, do? Lie about their incomes to protect men’s feelings? Give up their careers and let the men pay for everything (and just hope they don’t divorce, so they don’t have to choose between poverty, working for low wages after decades of absence from the workforce, or a bitter alimony battle)? Make the men who less take care of all of the expenses anyway, so they can feel like providers – while erasing their retirement savings in the process? Hold off on dating until they meet that magical millionaire stockbroker? Force all low-income guys into medical or law school? I can’t see any of these options working out.

I’ve got a better idea: Let’s empower men to define themselves by their kindness, humor, intelligence, and grace instead of their wallets, and empower women to feel secure in their career success, without hiding it or apologizing for it. I can’t speak for others, but that’s the brand of feminism I espouse.

Helen wrote: The best gift you can give the world is your true self. It is meaningless to try to base your happiness upon a relationship with someone else, no matter how wonderful that person is, because then you are putting your happiness in someone else’s control other than your own.

Couldn’t agree more. My requirements are pretty simple. Have common sense, have a positive attitude about both genders (don’t deal in black-or-white absolutes and keep an open mind), know how to make yourself happy on your own, be curious about the world and your place in it, and be pro choice. That’s it.
James 280

Ridiculous! DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY. WATCH WHAT THEY DO. nothing is as cheap as talking. women would say “i am not like this, i am not like that, i don’t this, that” blah blah blah and all these nonsense. Come on! what women SAY is not what they DO. Where in the world have you seen a woman who makes $200K dating or marrying a guy that makes $45K ???? yes, only in words. just in words
Marcia4444 281

It seems to me that a problem with a lot of these posts is that people’s incomes are perceived as happening in some kind of vacuum.
I think a guy who chooses a career as a teacher, a social worker, a cop, a firefighter, or the like has made a decision, consciously or unconsciously, that there are certain things he won’t have. His cars will be used. He won’t have a big house in a “nice” neighborhood. His kids will not go to private school. Eating at expensive restaurants will be a treat, not a norm. And he will be fine with this, because these things are not important to him.
Certainly some women who are successful financially have chosen their careers because they WANT the things their income can provide. They want the nice clothes and lots of them, the fabulous apartment, the expensive vacation, the frequent dinners out. I have a hard time seeing how these two people are compatible. The things that are important to her, he just doesn’t care about.
Years ago I read a quote that said basically that people (men and women) who are very successful financially are often frustrated to discover that the one thing their money can’t buy is time. I would personally rather have the time and I would rather be with a guy who feels the same.
I think discussions of biology are pretty much BS. This has to do with you own personal wants. Not a judgment, as Evan would say, just reality.
Ray 282

I didn’t use to, but I do now. Since many men have so little to offer women in terms of emotional support and just about anything else when it comes to fashioning a real partnership, he should at least bring a good income to the table and decent sex.

According to Evan, we’re supposed to accept them going to strip clubs, watching porn (hey, it’s like going to a baseball game!), and routinely putting their career goals over us (aww, poor babies! They have no choice!)… not to mention stringing us women out for years at a time before considering making a commitment…. (aka getting the ‘milk for free’).

so yea, I’m not investing my time with men who make less than me. A man needs to make more than me and share it as long as I’m spending time with him. It seems that’s the only thing most men know how to do well and care about doing.
Ray 283

ellen@278

Men are the ones reducing themselves to sperm donor status by their unwillingness to define themselves by their character and what they bring to the table other than income.

See my post above. I don’t need or want a provider. Never have. But if they are going to be worthless in every other way, then fine. Give me the money. That’s something at least.
Evan Marc Katz 284

Ray, my friend. Listen to how much anger you have for men. Most men are “takers”. Most men offer nothing emotionally. Most men aren’t worth our time. Only women make sacrifices. This is completely myopic. Women are encouraged to accept men because it’s a more effective tool than trying to change them. Men feel closer to women who accept them than to ones who criticize them. If you only see fit to date men who are above all reproach, then you will not date many men. Similarly, you may be a feminist, but you buy into the idea that men have to make more than you? You understand how backwards that is, right? Imagine if men refused to go out with women unless they made more? Imagine if men used that as a valid criteria for choosing a mate? No one would ever partner up.

Here’s what you’re still fighting:

Normal men like watching porn.
Normal men are taught from birth that their job is to be a provider; they usually don’t have the option of quitting work or marrying for money.
Normal men are smart for waiting at least two years before proposing, to truly assess a woman’s character before entering into a lifetime contract that may cost him half his income

You can complain and complain and complain and those three things will always be true. Better to understand and accept them than expect some rich guy who doesn’t appreciate naked woman who wants to marry you after six months and give you all of his assets. Talk about fantasyland.
Ray 285

evan@284

I’m glad you call me ‘your friend’, because (despite appearances) I have many male friends. So I have no problems ’accepting’ them. For some bizarre reason they continue to seek my company despite my desire to hold a high bar for their behavior.

Thing is…. I’m sure you know as well as I do that alot of them know deep down that those behaviors aren’t helping them. They don’t want wussy females who just let them get away with just any BS… just like you would probably feel less than totally satisfied if every one here agreed with you and dropped to their knees whenever you entered the room (although, I admit, that might be fun for a little while).

Men can want what they want… but they love and respect women who hold them to a higher standard without being total b*tches about it.

That doesn’t change the fact that I will not commit or invest in men who are not willing to aspire to be the best he can be as a human being. Do I have a lock on what that means? No, but I’m damned sure it doesn’t mean watching porn, avoiding commitment, and being ‘provider’ so that he can feel control over something that doesn’t exist…. as our recent economy has so aptly demonstrated.

Happy New year to you, Evan! I enjoy these conversations…
Ray 286

I’ve never called myself a feminist. I never said I ‘bought’ into the idea that a man has to make more or pay all the time either. Just saying that for so many, that is pretty much all they bring to the table. So, why not go for the money if we are gonna set such a low bar for men’s behavior otherwise?

Keeping this post on topic… how to coach women? Money certainly doesn’t equal character, and it would certainly be wise to open up one’s dating options to include men who make less and even those who believe that all financial obligations need to be shared. Nothing wrong with that.

Women can manage alot of the above by seeking friendships with men instead of just dates. That way you can see how they operate when they don’t have their date face on.
MedSciNY 287

Here’s my take on the subject. I’m a a 23 year-old male medical laboratory scientist, which is, for those of you who don’t know, a bachelors-degree level healthcare profession on par with an RN, respiratory therapist, etc. Now since the people in my field are less visible than nurses, too many of us are type B (we don’t speak up) and professional regulations are only in their infancy we tend to make slightly less than said RNs in my state (in others there is a wider gap). Now that’s to say a new RN that I know takes home around 70k with overtime. Let’s say I make 65k, I don’t consider myself emasculated or inferior to an RN or RRT who earns more (be they male or female) quite simply because we have the same educational level but with different interests. If I was a hospital social worker making 50k should I feel inferior to an RN, RRT or MLS even though my degree is actually higher? I’d say no. Furthermore police officers in my area make obscene amounts of money necessitated by nothing more than an AA degree and academy training- is he or she better than me? A resonating no! The whole point of this is that I think it’s unfair to judge someone’s value based on their income. Different career CHOICES have different payouts and comparing careers is like comparing apples to oranges. I could have been an RN or a stock broker or but I’m not, and I’m happy because I’m doing what I always wanted to do. I find it disheartening to overhear people (like my ex) leveraging so much importance on income. My $.02 is just to find someone you’re attracted to, someone with similar interests and just make it work. Thats what my parents did, thats what my siblings are doing. I guess we were raised liberally (in contrast to my ex was always pandering about status and money). I do say that for the most part I appreciate the women’s comments posted here and I agree with their moderate outlook.
Joe 288

@Ray #286

” I never said I ‘bought’ into the idea that a man has to make more or pay all the time either. ”

In post #282, Ray, you said “so yea, I’m not investing my time with men who make less than me. “

You’ve repeatedly made derogatory statements about men, how much you dislike them, and how they aren’t deserving of respect because they’re all “dogs” (I’m not going to search and quote, but you’ve been consistently negative about men, to the point where I wonder why you bother with them).

So yes, Ray, you DID say men need to make more than you, and only a couple posts back.

Healthy discussion can only occur when there’s honesty.
NonExist 289

Some people say some men feel emasculated by a woman who earns more. I was not emasculated but it was just impractical after much thought.

Since the average person enjoys a lifestyle based on their income, it really made no sense for me to enter into a long term relationship with a woman who made considerably more than I. Mainly because I could not afford to do regularly the things they enjoyed and I felt it would be unfair for me to ask them to compromise their fun for my simplistic preferences.

And if her preferences ran similar to mine income would be a non issue.

And then I have male associates whose wives and girflfriends make more and seem to throw this in the guy’s face come argument time. Or just make general comments on how the guy’s lower income is a letdown even though they knew and chose to be with him.
Still-Looking 290

From the New York Times:
For a century, women have binged on romance novels that encouraged them to associate intimidation with infatuation; it’s no wonder that this emotional hangover still lingers. Valentine’s Day is a perfect time to reject the idea that the ideal man is taller, richer, more knowledgeable, more renowned or more powerful. The most important predictor of marital happiness for a woman is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her emotional cues and how willing he is to share the housework and child-care. And those traits are often easier to find in a low-key guy than a powerhouse. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html
JS 291

I’m a woman and I dont make “a lot” of money so I can’t speak from personal experience but only theories and observations of girl friends who do make a lot of money…..I think it is a couple of things:

1) Women who get to $200k+ did so because they want a certain type of lifestyle and the idea of constantly having to put things on hold b/c your bf cant afford it, is annoying (e.g., she wants to go to Europe for weeks, he can’t)…and a lot of times men dont want women footing the bill for dates / vacations. I saw this a lot w/ a doctor friend of mine who dated a guy who made significantly less.

2) Women do want the flexibility b/c some day when they have kids…. well, not many men want to be Mr. Mom (some do and that’s great but most dont) and for a more dramatic reason, if a woman is the main supporter of the home and she were to go on bedrest during pregnancy, it’s important that the man have the ability to carry the weight of the family’s financial load

3) As for why wealthy/successful men ($200k+ types) dont expect their girlfriends/wives to earn the same as them….because they don’t value it. BUT they sure as heck expect their women to be HOT. The counter article to the above article would be…why don’t gorgeous, hot, solid 10 women reject men who are averagely handsome but make tons of money. I mean these guys want the top 10% hottest women without considering character, honesty, personality, common values….etc. The answer to both….women dont value looks as highly as men do; and men dont value money as highly women do.
Troyster 292

I am listening to what the one are saying here, but I’m not so sure I see it in real life. I’m an honest guy, pretty good sense of human, intelligent and I stay completely away from drugs and alcohol. I am independent, hold a job, support myself and own a home as well as two used vehicles. I have absolutely no debt except for mortgage and basic expenses. I am single and it comes as no surprise. I’m working security so I can continue my education, but a guard job doesn’t sound very impressive to a gal. I make far more than the average guard but I don’t tell them that.
Paragon 293

@ JS

“The counter article to the above article would be…why don’t gorgeous, hot, solid 10 women reject men who are averagely handsome but make tons of money.”

They do – watch Millionaire Matchmaker.

“The answer to both….women dont value looks as highly as men do; and men dont value money as highly women do.”

Correct on the second count, but wrong on the first.

Women, do indeed, value looks as highly as men – but what you are failing to consider, is that when women marry for wealth, they are not looking to satisfy any other requirement (ie. because they don’t *need* to marry at all in order to indulge the company and value of hot-looking men).

Most, however, DO need to marry(a wealthy man) to fully indulge in a man’s wealth.

Sure, there are special case exceptions of the wealthy ‘hot’ guy – but these are prohibitively rare.

From my general observations, (sexually liberated)women will invest in one of these special cases, if at all indicated in likelihood(or as long as their delusion/obstinacy holds).

After that, most will favor the hot guy, over the rich, but otherwise physically unappealing, guy.

The asexual sample, or those without hot-guy options, will be more inclined to favor wealth as their primary mating consideration.

Those deprived of either option will resolve to their solitude, or reconcile the best options that remain to them(as always, looking to maximize indications of both physical attractiveness and resources in their potential mates).
David @ EOD 294

Love the comments and perspectives here.

One quick thing I noticed though, the social roles NEVER seem to go both ways.

Example, I dated a Filipino girl (years ago) for about one year. At the time we were dating I was earning a bit more than she was. However she always expected me to pay for everything because I’m the man, and thats what a gentleman has to do according to her culture and the way she was raised.

Even after months into the relationship where I feel like you’re supposed to be more of a team who has each others back at that point.

So as the man I need to call her, pay for her, drive her, etc etc but does she need to cook for me, or clean for me, or do my laundry or any or comply with any of the social roles associated with women ? NOPE. Because that would be chauvinistic of me and independent women who still expect to be paid for (oxymoron) can’t have that.

If she did happen to do those things, I had to be appreciative and thankful for them, but she did not have to show the same appreciation for me paying things for her. She just expected certain behaviors without reflecting on the way she was treating me. It’s amazing to me how self centered (NOT selfish) some women can be in their inability to see anything beyond the way they see it.
Rooster 295

Some great insights here. A few random points:

1) When men feel insecure about a woman making more than them, it’s often based out of the woman making a major issue out of it. For instance, bragging about high earners (suggesting it’s importance to her, and implying an unfavorable comparison for the man), showing disappointment when a man can not maintain/keep pace with her lifestyle, etc.

2) The notion that men are shallow regarding attractiveness and women are shallow regarding a man’s income balance things out is laughable. Women are arguably just as shallow when it comes to guys looks as well as things such as social standing, power, prestige, etc where men could care less. Generally speaking comparing shallowness is pure folly for women, as they almost always win the prize.

3) Ultimately, and I’m not sure Evan will like to hear this, but it’s nonetheless true: if we can all agree women have the upper hand and decision making when it comes to whether a guy “passes or fails” as relationship material, then the logical conclusion is they have no one but themselves to blame for relationship failiures. The price of power is responsibility and it’s time women started accepting the lion’s share.

(Editor’s note: Rooster is a woman)
Rhiann 296

I have 4 friends I am seeking reference to to understand where do I really stand. I am financially independent & I’m earning more than my ex-boyfriend.

These 4 friends are financially independent, putting aside whether they earn more than their spouse/boyfriend.

1) A is a married woman who doesn’t like to ask her husband for money. As far as I know, she is paying for most of the household expenses.

2) B is a married woman whose husband pays for everything. Her earnings are for her own used.

3) C is a single woman, whose boyfriend (husband-to-be) deposit all his earnings into their joint account. Her boyfriend initiated it.

4) D is a single & open-minded woman who doesn’t mind supporting her man (on the basis that the man is not a jerk who is trying to live off woman)

Looking at myself, I’m somewhere in the middle, between friend A & C. I don’t mind paying but the man must at least have a sense of responsibility to play the role of a husband, a man in the house. Is this something too much to ask for?
johnc 297

To Jane @ 44
You said, “ I don’t like to be looked at as a ticket to the easy life nor do I like having to use my money to support some guys life choices that led him to not having much money.”

I’d say, replace the word “guys” with “girls”, “him” with “her”, and see how that fits the female crowd.

Makes me chuckle thinking about it.
psedonyman 298

A little off topic but:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3041440/ns/today-money/#19547644

is this a mainstream idea? i – i really can’t believe that. Is she for real? It boggles the mind.
Anyway, she says these are guys who are “doing” this. I always say “well, it could happen” But I can’t really take stock in this extremely materialistic world. What was also surprising and is you hear what she says is: “…it helps when you want to marry a billionaire is you go get an MBA…”. so instead of getting an MBA for the skills, you get an MBA to attract a billionaire!

This is also the better half of elitism which by the way seems to be very accentuated nowadays.
anonymouse 299

I’m a graduate student, so it really doesn’t take much for a man to make more money than I do! haha. Seriously, although I’m working on my second Master’s degree, I couldn’t care less if a guy has a degree or not, as long as he’s basically intelligent, and I enjoy our conversations. There are some really smart people who drop out of college after 1 semester just because they are do-ers and can’t sit still in a classroom for 4 long years to get a piece of parchment.
I have a terrible crush on a waiter at a Chinese restaurant (he’s not Chinese, not that it matters). I have no idea how much or how little he makes. I just like him. The problem I have is shyness, and not knowing how to approach him and not be “that girl”. I’m sure guys who work in food service have customers flirt with them all the time. I don’t want to make him uncomfortable or make a fool out of myself. I wonder if there is a good way to finesse a waiter and end up with an actual date?
ann 300

All in all it depends on what the person went through, if she grew up with a family that had a working dad and a stay at home mom, she might prefer that. If her mom was working and the dad stayed at home and did like freelancing jobs then she might prefer that.
One can’t just appoint what the right way of thinking is.

Also I am not sure how this will work, most men will feel emasculated about it..you always see it in the news, so and so broke up after she won an oscar, so and so had an affair w/ a nanny and married the nanny..
ann 301

Looking at myself, I’m somewhere in the middle, between friend A & C. I don’t mind paying but the man must at least have a sense of responsibility to play the role of a husband, a man in the house. Is this something too much to ask for?
Rhiann I very much agree with you. I dont understand why lots of males prefer overcompetitive women, women who out earn them and such..this kind of makes them not date the 90% of the female population lol
Karl R 302

ann said: (#300)
“I am not sure how this will work, most men will feel emasculated about it..you always see it in the news, so and so broke up after she won an oscar, so and so had an affair w/ a nanny and married the nanny..”

Hollywood marriages are hardly representative of how most marriages work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for married couples where both husband and wife worked, the wife earned more than the husband 28% of the time. If you include marriages where the wife was the sole breadwinner, this increased to 38%. Somehow, millions of men have learned how to live with this (and I find it difficult to believe that most of these men feel emasculated).

If my wife gets a raise (or a different job) which raises her income above mine, I’m going to be very happy.

ann said: (#301)
“I dont understand why lots of males prefer overcompetitive women, women who out earn them and such..this kind of makes them not date the 90% of the female population”

You might want to revise this statement due to the statistics I mentioned above.
forsure 303

I have never met a woman who makes 200k. What about a woman who makes 30k, but owns her house. Every guy I date makes what I make or less. It’s a recipe for disaster! Eventually they would move into my house, pay “rent”, then scrimp on other expenses.
Megan 304

I’m fortunate enough to be one of the women making high income. In the past I have always dated men who made less, and lived with a couple of them. Money was never an issue when it came to eating out, etc. I always paid more in rent and subsequently in mortgage. The only issue was that I like to travel and they didn’t have the money to travel the way I wanted. I was willing to pay for a lot of it, but had to cut out some of it because of him. One of the boyfriends used to always say well we don’t have enough to travel. The reality was that he didn’t have enough, I was fine. Eventually it got old. I had to settle and became a couch potato just like him (or them because it was a pattern).
Going forward I just want a guy who makes enough (doesn’t have to exceed my income) to carry his own weight and be a partner. I don’t mind paying more sometimes and I don’t expect him to take care of me. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Joannne 305

No-one (except one person has mentioned property and marriage). Unless you are a doctor/surgeon, lawyer, work for Nasa or a top professional who can all work until they are very old, your job can Always be at risk, no matter what people say to the contrary!
Please look at your net wealth and your future partners, very important – Remember NET wealth is based on what you OWN outright, salary can go up and down, be sure to look after your assets (houses, apartments etc) before hooking up with someone poorer than you, unromantic I know but it’s real life, there are some real charmers out there, men and women who are just after your money no matter what age you are, it’s all relative, if you have a little more than them, they’ll see you as richer, end of story and that is not always good. It’s all very romantic to say you’d date someone poorer but clearly you have not been through a divorce with someone poorer – nightmare, just a bit of advice – don’t combine finances – 50% of marriages today end in divorce – (father and brother both divorce lawyers). Sorry to put a downer on marrying a poor person but look after your wealth, sometimes the fairy tale endings happen, sometimes they don’t! Would I marry a man poorer than myself again – no chance! Someone with the same amount or more, then yes, if that sounds shallow, again apologies but not only has it happened to me but several people I know have lost half their assets in divorce, be careful that’s all i’m saying. And if a man or woman over say 39/40 has no property that is more of a concern than if he is looking for a new job but has property and savings. If he/she earns quite a good wage at say 39/40 but has nothing but a car and a nice watch and clothes, he/she is not marriage material but if they have got an asset like a house or something then at least it shows they have been sensible with money and therefore likely to be with yours too. I know to some people this sounds very shallow but it’s very realistic!
Cat5 306

Joannne @ 305: “If he/she earns quite a good wage at say 39/40 but has nothing but a car and a nice watch and clothes, he/she is not marriage material but if they have got an asset like a house or something then at least it shows they have been sensible with money and therefore likely to be with yours too. I know to some people this sounds very shallow but it’s very realistic!”

Really? There is no other reason, that even if they had been sensible with their money, that they may have lost everything? You think that is being very realistic? I don’t think that’s shallow, I just think you haven’t done enough research. Here’s a few reasons I can come up with off the top of my head: catastrophic injury/illness to you, your spouse, child or loved one (even with insurance you are likely to lose everything); the company you worked at for over 20 years went bankrupt; your investments tanked; a divorce; your sole proprietorship went under; you have a house in a market where the value dropped over 50% (where even if you had a fixed rate mortage & put 20% down you were screwed); and many, many more events that I could list.
Many hard-working, good people have lost everything, and to put it all on not being sensible with money is not being very realistic. Go sit in bankruptcy court sometime and learn what the three major reasons people file bankruptcy for – divorce, failure of a sole proprietorship, and catastrophic illness/injury. I have rarely seen cases where people have been frivilous with their money.

What you should really look at is how they lost everything, and what their response to losing everything is…because that will help you determine what type of character they have. Wealth is not an indicator of character; however, how they made that wealth is. IMHO – character is far more important than money because a person with money can’t buy character, but a person with good character will always find away to get back on his/her feet.
Rose 307

If I am looking for a mate how will is it workable if I am the breadwinner?
I am the one who has the womb to have the babies and if i want to the best for my baby my breast milk.
So how can I be at home feeding and nurturing our babies and also be the breadwinner?
How on earth does that work?
I am a woman and want a man who is capable of providing. That is how nature intended it to be. I do not want to go against nature.
marymary 308

Rose
My colleaugues and friends take a year of maternity leave and then go back to work, full or part time. Housing in uk is so expensive most people can’t buy a family home on one salary. Sometimes their husbands earn more, or less, or about the same. You don’t have to support the man, you both contribute.
Yes there are some men who CAN support a family solo, you will also be faithful and not feel entitled to mistresses, and who will treat you right, and who are sexually attractive. But we can’t all have one even if we’re young and hot, as there aren’t enough of them.
That aside, it doesn’t always work well for women to stop work. After ten plus years out of the workforce to have children my sister in law is bored and frustrated at home, but finding it difficult to get a job.
.
Rose 309

I personally don’t see the point in having a baby, babies to then farm them out. I actually want to be there for my children having a realtionship and nurturing them. And with children getting numerous illness’s building up their immunity when little and holidays and in service days. The sad fact is then that these working mothers send their children to childcare and school when they are ill. If people do not want to be with your kids why have them?
I don’t believe it is about the housing for most, it is about wanting loads of stuff that we do not really need and expensive holidays in the pursuant that these thing make people happy.
And not many men want to be stay at home Dads.
Goldie 310

@ Rose 309, wow. If you want to be a SAHM, go for it. If you want to be supported by your future husband and do not want to work outside of home, go for it. Do you absolutely need to attack anyone that chose differently?
Fi 311

Hmmm I just want to say that as a single mommy I really had no choice but to send my baby to the day care (and she actually got her people skills on the early age which I see as a good thing). Every cell of mine loves my baby as hell, that’s why I have to work hard to be able to afford the best for her.

Although I understand and agree with the part Rose mentioned that the best is that the guy would take care of the financial stuff, people do have different reasons to choose to work and send their kids to day care. And the reason is usually that they don’t want to spend time with their kids.
Fi 312

* Duh..I mean the reason is usually NOT that they don’t want to spend time with their kids…
Helen 313

Goldie, amen.

May I add that to attribute stay-at-homeism (think I just invented a word there) to “nature”, as #307 attempted, is BS to the extreme. Unless you want to become a queen ant or a queen bee, fed by others in order to reproduce, or to be a polar bear that hibernates while her offspring suckle, it is not “natural” for the female of any species to solely devote herself to childrearing while the male hunts and forages for her. No, that female has got to keep on providing for herself and her offspring. Thus, it’s the working mothers that are conforming to the eons of nature, not the stay-at-home mothers. Not that I’m saying that conformity to nature is necessarily always good.

Read some T. Berry Brazelton, if you will. Though he’s among the more conservative of childrearing experts, even he acknowledges in all his books how historically, and in all societies, women work all the while that they’re raising newborns and infants.
Nissa 314

OK, since there are 313 comments here, maybe I missed something.
I prefer a man pick up the check for any date. This is because I want the man to show me he wants to impress me and win me over. However, I am counting on the man to choose dates he knows he can afford. I am just as thrilled by a date in the park with a bottle of wine and some bread as I am going to dinner at the Yacht club. I just want to know the man is making an effort. I also don’t mind going on a date where I bring something appropriate – food, entertainment, etc. In fact, the dates I like best are ones that are practically free – walks on the beach, feeding ducks at the park, biking down the river path.
Having a man that does not let his finances determine his life is a big plus for me. Knowing that a man overcomes his difficulty with creativity is a huge attraction. I would take an attentive man of moderate income over a wealthy man any day. Even if he had a very low income, I’d at least take the time to know him and consider that in terms of what else he has to offer.

Comments RSS

Search for:

What You Missed
What I’m Tweeting
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
People Who Get It
Archives

JDuffy on Newsflash: Older Men Don’t Want Women Their Own Age: Cilia: Unless you have the face of Jane Seymour, it’s pretty tough for...
Some other guy on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: @Goldie #19 “well, what is a woman supposed to do when she, “really needs to get ...
Goldie on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: Wow, thank you John #23. Very informative post. You’re right, the few people I’ve...
Beloved on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: I hear ya! I said no to my ex in spite of being randy because I knew it would turn into another...
Lia on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: Sarahrahrah # 10 First – love the name, it makes me smile! And as for your comment…...
Amelia2.0 on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: While I think it is fair to ask for a rain check on sexytimes, it becomes greatly unfair if you...
Josh on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: I’ve said “no” a lot even though I have a very high sex drive. When you have been...
John on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: Alisah #12 and SoulSister @20 The post forgets the most important aspect of why men tend to lose...
Jennifer on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: Littlewing I think it’s very sweet of you to try to help Rose out; as you can see most of...
Beloved on Men Say No to Sex More Than You Think: Sexual compatibility within a range is important. Open and earnest communication when the...

Do You Need a Man to Make More Money Than You? If So, Why?

314 Responses to “Do You Need a Man to Make More Money Than You? If So, Why?”

Leave a Reply

What You Missed

What I’m Tweeting

People Who Get It

Archives

Follow Me On Facebook

What You Liked

What You Said

My Favorite Posts

Name
Email