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

By: LLL

LLL — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:23:38 +0000

I make just over $200,000. I am also a single mom of 4 kids with 100% physical custody and inconsistent financial support from their father. I am able to pay for everything my children and I need, and from time to time, the things we want (after taxes and childcare expenses in an expensive city even that salary doesn’t stretch very far). I made more than my ex husband for all 11 years of our marriage, except during the time I was in school. I make more than every man I date now. I have no problem dating someone that makes less money, but I still expect my partner to be a man … open doors, hold my hand, take out the trash, and hold me when I’m feeling vulnerable. I do worry about making a long term relationship decision with someone with significantly less income potential, but I have more pressing concerns. For example, can he and will he step into a “instant family”, can he and will he do what he needs to do to lead the family in ways that aren’t financial? In life, income is not guaranteed, so the most important consideration to me is always, does this man have the character and capacity to be faithful in every way during the darkest moments. I was married once before and while I’m not jaded, I know that there is no such thing as a fairy tale, that real relationships require fortitude and commitment and it is these things (and not money) that are the defining characteristics of any man with whom I would consider making a life long commitment.

By: Nissa

Nissa — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:28:55 +0000

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.

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:33:00 +0000

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.

By: Fi

Fi — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 05:20:38 +0000

* Duh..I mean the reason is usually NOT that they don’t want to spend time with their kids…

By: Fi

Fi — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 05:10:53 +0000

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.

By: Goldie

Goldie — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:52:02 +0000

@ 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?

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:55:07 +0000

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.

By: marymary

marymary — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:22:23 +0000

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.
.

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:46:08 +0000

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.

By: Cat5

Cat5 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:44:21 +0000

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.