# Who are high achieving women supposed to marry



## Buddy400

Carrying on a question from a suddenly closed thread....

Actually, not a bad thing to start a new thread on a related but more specific topic.

It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns.

I have no problem with women making more or less than their husbands.

I have no problem with women being attracted to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.

The question is, doesn't that restrict quite a bit the pool of men from whom a high earning woman could chose?

What if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women?

Who (if anyone) would de-prioritize their career to focus on the kids?


----------



## EllisRedding

Thanks for picking this topic back up. :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you've got two high income parents, they should easily be able to afford quality day care/nannies, etc. I don't see the problem. If it was also a priority that one of them work less or SAH to raise children, then they would decide this together which one it will be or how they will handle it.

Are you saying you don't know any couples who are both high earners? I know several couples like this and have never seen them have any issues with the problem you are suggesting. Because they are high earners, they use money to buy the services of others.

I know one couple where the H is wealthy due to family ties, and the wife is a doctor (a very successful one). He is the "house husband", but only by technicality. He basically doesn't have to work a job, he just manages several properties and investments he has during the day, this is his "job" (it can mostly be done from his couch). But he also takes care of the day time child care duties while mom is working at her practice. She makes a hefty salary but again, he was already wealthy and makes a ton of money from rental income and the occasional sale of a property. They have 3 beautiful daughters all of whom are doing very well. They have an on call nanny, housekeeper, landscaper, and all the other services people of their income level can afford to hire out.


----------



## DustyDog

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns.


I feel sad for people who have such limited belief systems. Money is really a fairly shallow topic, and in my experience, the couples I've met for whom shared money visions are major to them - well, they have no really deep shared visions..it's just money, which is either simple materialism or a scorecard. I have only my experiences to go on, of course.

I've never dated or married a woman who cared what I earn, nor have I cared what they earn, or if they worked at all. You can make a happy life in the US at any income.



Buddy400 said:


> I have no problem with women making more or less than their husbands.
> 
> I have no problem with women being attracted to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.
> 
> The question is, doesn't that restrict quite a bit the pool of men from whom a high earning woman could chose?


Wait, you started with "high achieving" and now it's "high earning"? Not the same thing. Some of the wealthiest folks I know are social boob hermits, no friends, miserable and lonely. Scared of what others think of them. It's not hard to make money. It's hard to be a fully functioning part of social life.

Every school of thought I've explored, whether atheist, business school, eastern belief, whatever diminishes the value of money. Yes, even accounting classes, teach something called "the balanced scorecard", in which a company is supposed to create five major objectives, none of which have to do with money. In theory, if a company keeps its focus on those objectives - as long as the objectives have to do with thrilling customers, improving the economy or environment, then money will simply flow.

High achievement is measured in contributions to others - not money in the bank.

At least, that's what I've been taught in every human-created school to which I've been exposed...



Buddy400 said:


> What if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women?
> 
> Who (if anyone) would de-prioritize their career to focus on the kids?


Or their love of each other? Or their building of the community? Or their connection with neighbors?

There is a time and place for career obsession: at the start of it. Maybe first 10-15 years. That's all it takes to get it going at a comfy pace. That plus keeping spending reasonable and in the US, things just go well.


As with anything else, a relationship does not require two people to have the same interests. He likes burgers, she likes Asian food, so they trade off which they have. He likes watching sports, she prefers reading books. And so on. It's entirely reasonable that someone is passionate about career - it's what they feel is the thing they can contribute the most to humanity - there's no reason the partner have the same passion - as long as the two of you are OK with each others' passions and support the other in it.

As many relationship coaches say - if your partner has the same interests as you, then you may as well be married to a mirror.


----------



## john117

It isn't as much level of achievement as work culture.

Architects marry architects. Doctors marry doctors. Etc. 



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## MSalmoides

...


----------



## uhtred

I don't think there is a general answer. People should marry people they love and respect. If you can only respect someone with some particular income or above, that's fine, just be aware that like all selection choices it limits your options.

I know two couples where the wife works and the husband stays home. One is happy, one isn't. I know two where the husband works and the wife stays home. One is happy, one just OK. My wife and I have similar paying jobs, and we are very happy - other than unrelated sex issues.


----------



## Andy1001

Up until a few months ago my gf ran her own business and took a salary of a hundred thousand a year.The business went bust for various reasons and now she earns nothing.We have had problems in our relationship as anyone who has read my thread can testify but her income or lack of it has not been one of them.She is pregnant with our baby and I would like for her to be a sahm but I don't think this will happen.
The point I'm trying to make is it doesn't matter how much difference there is in income between partners,if there is mutual love and respect then just get on with it and don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## FeministInPink

I don't care how much a man makes, as long as he can support himself and is responsible with said money. I work in education--I make enough to take care of myself, but I'm not going to be a sugah momma on my budget. I supported my XH for 6 months when he lost his job way back before we got married, on half the salary I make now, and I'm not in any rush to do that again. Not to say that I wouldn't support a partner when they need it, but... basically, my XH sat around on his a$$ most of the time and took his sweet old time finding a job because I was taking care of the bills, and he didn't give a sh!t how much it stressed me out. 

I'm not interested in having kids, so that part of the equation doesn't really apply to me.

But back to the point at hand--a man's commitment to me and our relationship, and what he puts into our relationship, is way more important to me than any income discrepancy. I made more than my XH, and I didn't really care. It fell apart because he stopped doing the other stuff, among other reasons.


----------



## Celes

High achieving/earning women aren't "supposed" to marry anyone in particular. They should marry the sort of men they are attracted to. For some it's other high earners, for others not. 

To each their own. 

I've always preferred men who earned pretty good incomes or at least had the potential to. Never had an issue finding them. They don't have to earn more than me by any stretch. But I have a desire for a certain lifestyle and I'm not ashamed of admitting that.


----------



## MattMatt

Whoever they want?


----------



## MrsAldi

Who are high achieving women supposed to marry? 

Hmm, the guy that you fall in love with.? 

I used to and could go back to making more money than my husband, but you know what, you can't take it with you (in death) all you can do is live as happily as you both are and raise your children to be responsible and good people, I have met many rich people, they ain't the happiest people, some of them are real screwed up emotionally. 

So I guess the saying is true, money doesn't buy you happiness, unless money makes you happy. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMatt

Every time she thinks of her husband this is what is in her mind:-


----------



## MrsHolland

Buddy400 said:


> ..............................
> 
> The question is, doesn't that restrict quite a bit the pool of men from whom a high earning woman could chose?
> 
> What if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women?
> 
> Who (if anyone) would de-prioritize their career to focus on the kids?


It is not that difficult as there are (generalising here) more high earning men than women so the pool is quite large. Your question on what if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women is key. High earning women in general are not looking for men with low self esteem so a man that is looking for a less accomplished woman has zero interest anyway.

I prefer high earners but it is just one part of the equation, they also have to have high morals and a high enthusiasm for living a good life. 

Oh and money may not buy happiness per se but neither does a lack of money.


----------



## Kivlor

I appreciate you trying to explore this, but I'm afraid that the opportunity is lost. The thread is closed, and now, in this new one, devoid of the context of the previous, all of the people who were carrying on openly about this exact idea, screaming that this is what women want (like a bunch of RedPill men I might add) are able to pretend it never happened.

Not your fault that they don't want to be honest now.


----------



## john117

By all standards wifey is a high achiever. However, she's in it for the glory and the money, not because she likes it. She's the one to have all the stuff, etc. 

And she's the one to get aggravated because I don't share her ailment, er, ambition. 

She's driven so that she can show her father that she, too, became a doctor (not medical doctor) and married an equal. Her siblings, both medical doctors, married epic losers. None of them has / had a good marriage. 

I'm useful arm candy for her... quirky, educated, accomplished, but not demanding. What more a girl would want? 

Translation: a lot of it is family and culture based. That's why when your kids are serious about that special someone, upbringing matters. 


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> Carrying on a question from a suddenly closed thread....
> 
> Actually, not a bad thing to start a new thread on a related but more specific topic.
> 
> It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns.
> 
> I have no problem with women making more or less than their husbands.
> 
> I have no problem with women being attracted to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.
> 
> The question is, doesn't that restrict quite a bit the pool of men from whom a high earning woman could chose?
> 
> What if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women?
> 
> Who (if anyone) would de-prioritize their career to focus on the kids?


I reject your premise that money has anything to do with you high value. If anyone man or woman goes for a partner for what the earn, they are making a mistake. Pick a spouse who has character and you will have a good marriage.


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> Up until a few months ago my gf ran her own business and took a salary of a hundred thousand a year.The business went bust for various reasons and now she earns nothing.We have had problems in our relationship as anyone who has read my thread can testify but her income or lack of it has not been one of them.She is pregnant with our baby and I would like for her to be a sahm but I don't think this will happen.
> The point I'm trying to make is it doesn't matter how much difference there is in income between partners,if there is mutual love and respect then just get on with it and don't sweat the small stuff.



Just make sure she doesn't get a tatoo. >

Seriously Andy,

Who cares what she made or you make, as long as you love and respect each other like you said. It's great that you both make great livings, enjoy your money. Remember that you are fortunate and help others if when you can. Most of all teach your child character and to do the right thing.


----------



## sokillme

Kivlor said:


> I appreciate you trying to explore this, but I'm afraid that the opportunity is lost. The thread is closed, and now, in this new one, devoid of the context of the previous, all of the people who were carrying on openly about this exact idea, screaming that this is what women want (like a bunch of RedPill men I might add) are able to pretend it never happened.
> 
> Not your fault that they don't want to be honest now.


Is your premise that the last thread was closed because it was a bad reflection on women? Interesting. I am just glad I wasn't banned again.


----------



## Celes

sokillme said:


> I reject your premise that money has anything to do with you high value. If anyone man or woman goes for a partner for what the earn, they are making a mistake. Pick a spouse who has character and you will have a good marriage.



You can pick a spouse that has good character and makes a good living, you know. They aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Kivlor

sokillme said:


> Is your premise that the last thread was closed because it was a bad reflection on women? Interesting. I am just glad I wasn't banned again.


No. I have no insight into the closing.

Just musing on how people will respond in this one now. Short of memory I suspect, but don't know.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

I didn't read any of the 49 pages of that closed thread, so I can't speak to that. But I do not think that "high achieving" and "high earning" are interchangeable.

I would define myself as "high achieving", and I am in the top 99+ percent of people (not women -- people) in terms of salary. So I feel somewhat qualified to answer. 

There are already almost no decent single men out there my age (52). If I had to limit it to those who earned at least 2/3rds of my salary, there would be none.

I don't care about money. I guess that is easy to say when you have it... but it was never handed to me. I worked my a** off for every dime, and for my education too. 

I don't care about how much money my SO makes. Or his education level, TBH. I just care that he is intelligent and very literate. And if I'm being honest, just those criteria knock out 95% of single men out there in my age range. That is frustrating enough.


----------



## sokillme

Celes said:


> You can pick a spouse that has good character and makes a good living, you know. They aren't mutually exclusive.


Where did I say they weren't. However a spouse that makes a good living, but is without good character is not worth much. 

Plus nothing is holding a woman back today from making a good living, if that is your primary concern why not earn it for yourself why do you need someone else to do if for you. That seems awful weak plus if you don't earn it is it really your money. The accomplishment and high value should be in the earning not in the money.


----------



## sokillme

Hope Shimmers said:


> I didn't read any of the 49 pages of that closed thread, so I can't speak to that. But I do not think that "high achieving" and "high earning" are interchangeable.
> 
> I would define myself as "high achieving", and I am in the top 99+ percent of people (not women -- people) in terms of salary. So I feel somewhat qualified to answer.
> 
> There are already almost no decent single men out there my age (52). If I had to limit it to those who earned at least 2/3rds of my salary, there would be none.
> 
> I don't care about money. I guess that is easy to say when you have it... but it was never handed to me. I worked my a** off for every dime, and for my education too.
> 
> I don't care about how much money my SO makes. Or his education level, TBH. I just care that he is intelligent and very literate. And if I'm being honest, just those criteria knock out 95% of single men out there in my age range. That is frustrating enough.


Are you saying this is because they are all taken or are you saying most men are just dumb? If it's the latter then I would say no wonder you are having problems, if it is the former then I wonder where you are looking.


----------



## john117

Hope Shimmers said:


> There are already almost no decent single men out there my age (52). If I had to limit it to those who earned at least 2/3rds of my salary, there would be none.


Funny, I feel the same way for women at that age. All the good ones are unavailable...

But you have to limit it otherwise things will go bad pretty quickly... I spent a decade in college and would love intellectual people, experiences, and the such, not debate Medicare Part D donut strategies...

Intelligent and literate... Hmmm. Do you count George R R Martin fans?


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

sokillme said:


> Are you saying this is because they are all taken or are you saying most men are just dumb? If it's the latter then I would say no wonder you are having problems, if it is the former then I wonder where you are looking.


The supply of single late 40's-50's PhD educated women for my taste is pretty limited... I did find one, but physically she's basically a 4 and even more worrisome, health wise she's not even that so....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Hope Shimmers

sokillme said:


> Are you saying this is because they are all taken or are you saying most men are just dumb? If it's the latter then I would say no wonder you are having problems, if it is the former then I wonder where you are looking.


I haven't been looking lately; they have been finding me. And I have been too stupid to not be drawn in.

Most desirable, intelligent men who are relationship-healthy are taken. IME.



john117 said:


> Funny, I feel the same way for women at that age. All the good ones are unavailable...
> 
> But you have to limit it otherwise things will go bad pretty quickly... I spent a decade in college and would love intellectual people, experiences, and the such, not debate Medicare Part D donut strategies...
> 
> Intelligent and literate... Hmmm. Do you count George R R Martin fans?


Of course, GRRM fans can be intelligent and literate. As you seem to be. I'm not a sci-fi/fantasy fan myself. I spent 11 years in college, and I have done my share of discussing Medicare Part D donut strategies; done with that.



john117 said:


> The supply of single late 40's-50's PhD educated women for my taste is pretty limited... I did find one, but physically she's basically a 4 and even more worrisome, health wise she's not even that so....


I'm not a 4 (higher), according to others. And I'm a physician, not a PhD.


----------



## sokillme

:grin2:


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Through my work I know a lot of high earning women. Around here most seem to marry construction guys or teachers. A few (mostly doctors) marry other high earners.


----------



## john117

Hope Shimmers said:


> Most desirable, intelligent men who are relationship-healthy are taken. IME.
> 
> Of course, GRRM fans can be intelligent and literate. As you seem to be. I'm not a sci-fi/fantasy fan myself. I spent 11 years in college, and I have done my share of discussing Medicare Part D donut strategies; done with that.


The relationship healthy part is worrisome. Most people don't understand either component of relationship or healthy. They simply exist with extremely limited introspection. 

Know Thyself... Funny how we are expected to look like Harrison Ford in our age but when it comes to knowing who we really are... Crickets. I've had four months of cat based separation to think about myself. I have my cat to thank for that I suppose


----------



## Celes

sokillme said:


> Where did I say they weren't. However a spouse that makes a good living, but is without good character is not worth much.
> 
> Plus nothing is holding a woman back today from making a good living, if that is your primary concern why not earn it for yourself why do you need someone else to do if for you. That seems awful weak plus if you don't earn it is it really your money. The accomplishment and high value should be in the earning not in the money.


You don't need to state the obvious. No one here is advocating for women to marry rich jerks. 

And of course nothing is holding a woman back. That's what this thread is about right? High earning/achieving women. I can't tell if the rest of your statement is directed at me, but I earn as much as my husband does. I've never been interested in a man supporting me. I could never allow myself to be financially dependent on a man. That's not a dig to SAHM's in the least, but I just couldn't do it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Kivlor said:


> I appreciate you trying to explore this, but I'm afraid that the opportunity is lost. The thread is closed, and now, in this new one, devoid of the context of the previous, all of the people who were carrying on openly about this exact idea, screaming that this is what women want (like a bunch of RedPill men I might add) are able to pretend it never happened.
> 
> Not your fault that they don't want to be honest now.


Agreed, I think without the context from the previous thread it is almost entirely a different topic. I believe one of the questions posed in the previous thread was that women (some, many, IDK?) are attracted to men for their money/power/stature. So what happens when a woman achieves a certain level of this, and assuming she expects the same from a male, the bar is set awfully high.

Before anyone tries to assume I am saying one thing or another, I am simply summarizing what was being discussed in the other thread, with the OP of that thread being the poster child for this (i.e. her rise in her career along with her h's career regressing led to a loss in attraction in him b/c he was no longer of equal or greater stature to her).


----------



## samyeagar

I do wonder how this relates to social attitudes lagging behind social realities. Comparing gender respective dating pools from even 30 years ago...men generally didn't have as many high status, high earning women to choose from as they do today, and women were praised for landing a doctor, lawyer, or other high powered, high earning man. That was an open representation of the reality where women did not often have the earning capacity to provide fully and comfortably for themselves...men generally were the providers and bread winners, and there was not much consideration that the woman would be.

Obviously there are those men and women who don't fall into this, there are always exceptions, but I think that even today, this is still reflected in attitude even though reality has changed...men give less consideration, and place less value on a womans status and wealth than women do on a mans.


----------



## Kivlor

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed, I think without the context from the previous thread it is almost entirely a different topic. *I believe one of the questions posed in the previous thread was that women (some, many, IDK?) are attracted to men for their money/power/stature. So what happens when a woman achieves a certain level of this, and assuming she expects the same from a male, the bar is set awfully high.*
> 
> Before anyone tries to assume I am saying one thing or another, I am simply summarizing what was being discussed in the other thread, with the OP of that thread being the poster child for this (i.e. her rise in her career along with her h's career regressing led to a loss in attraction in him b/c he was no longer of equal or greater stature to her).


I think the pool becomes much more small than people realize. Dr. Warren Farrell has some great discussions and writings on this. The paradox is that the things women find attractive (money and power in a man) are often acquired because the man lacks certain qualities that would make a good mate, and because he has certain qualities that make a good one. (Eg attorneys: the traits of a good attorney are antithetical to a good relationship.)

So if you want wealthy and not [insert bad trait that furthers career of choice] well, that gets more and more rare with the higher and higher restrictions.

Take Celes' posts for example. She is obviously under the assumption all of these can be had. And they can, but only in the quantity of such men A) exist B) are straight C) want such women...

More and more restrictions. Shallower and shallower pool.


----------



## Celes

I guess I just know plenty of great men who make good money. I can name several couples I know where both parties are high earners/achievers, with good characters. When I was single, I had my pick of good men with higher incomes. Sure, I've met rich pompous jerks who just assumed I'd be lining up at their feet. I never gave them the time of day. But I've met plenty of broke jerks too. The men who have treated me the worst in relationships were men of more modest means.


----------



## sokillme

Celes said:


> You don't need to state the obvious. No one here is advocating for women to marry rich jerks.
> 
> And of course nothing is holding a woman back. That's what this thread is about right? High earning/achieving women. I can't tell if the rest of your statement is directed at me, but I earn as much as my husband does. I've never been interested in a man supporting me. I could never allow myself to be financially dependent on a man. That's not a dig to SAHM's in the least, but I just couldn't do it.


I get that and I could never be a SAHH I don't get it. My thoughts are what if the man is doing something that doesn't pay a lot but makes a large difference to society. What if he is a math professor or again a fireman something of that sort. Unless he is well published he is going to be making Millions. Someone who would run into a burning building to save lives, assuming he is not a jerk to me is way more of a top shelf guy then someone who works on wall street for instance. No offense to the wall street guys.


----------



## sokillme

samyeagar said:


> I do wonder how this relates to social attitudes lagging behind social realities. Comparing gender respective dating pools from even 30 years ago...men generally didn't have as many high status, high earning women to choose from as they do today, and women were praised for landing a doctor, lawyer, or other high powered, high earning man. That was an open representation of the reality where women did not often have the earning capacity to provide fully and comfortably for themselves...men generally were the providers and bread winners, and there was not much consideration that the woman would be.
> 
> Obviously there are those men and women who don't fall into this, there are always exceptions, but I think that even today, this is still reflected in attitude even though reality has changed...men give less consideration, and place less value on a womans status and wealth than women do on a mans.


That will change. Just like woman who make a lot of money are starting to have issues with alimony laws. It just makes sense we will soon be at a point where the sexes are at a parallel as far as wadge earning and when that happens money will either go away as a motivating factor, or will be one for both sexes. The bigger change will be the sex bots. They will be a revolution in my opinion. Robots in general are going to change the world as much as the steam engine did.


----------



## sokillme

Celes said:


> I guess I just know plenty of great men who make good money. I can name several couples I know where both parties are high earners/achievers, with good characters. When I was single, I had my pick of good men with higher incomes. Sure, I've met rich pompous jerks who just assumed I'd be lining up at their feet. I never gave them the time of day. But I've met plenty of broke jerks too. The men who have treated me the worst in relationships were men of more modest means.


I think it depends what you are talking about when you say good money. I have found that one thing about people in the 1% is to make that much money you usually have to think and spend a lot of time making money and keeping money. This means less time thinking/spending time with your SO and family.


----------



## wild jade

LOL! The pool of desirable partners (for marriage) is always small. Doesn't matter who you are.

Given that women now often outperform men financially and otherwise, who are all those men who are threatened by high-achieving women going to marry?


----------



## EllisRedding

wild jade said:


> LOL! The pool of desirable partners (for marriage) is always small. Doesn't matter who you are.
> 
> *Given that women now often outperform men financially *and otherwise, who are all those men who are threatened by high-achieving women going to marry?


Curious on the bolded, is this in fact true? I definitely don't see that (not implying it can't as I do know women who do well financially, just not what I see normally in the workforce). Also seems to contradict what some people keep posting about a wage gap b/w men and women (which if your statement is true I guess the bright side we can put to rest the wage gap argument)


----------



## browser

High achieving women would be smart to marry no one because marriage will leave them financially liable for their partner.

That much being said, it goes further than that, a high achieving woman might think twice about even getting involved with a guy who could be a financial drain on the relationship.

Why not hold out for a guy such as myself who has lots of good qualities and earns a decent paycheck?

We're out there, although most of us are probably taken for good reason.

You just need to be patient.


----------



## sokillme

browser said:


> High achieving women would be smart to marry no one because marriage will leave them financially liable for their partner.
> 
> That much being said, it goes further than that, a high achieving woman might think twice about even getting involved with a guy who could be a financial drain on the relationship.
> 
> Why not hold out for a guy such as myself who has lots of good qualities and earns a decent paycheck?
> 
> We're out there, although most of us are probably taken for good reason.
> 
> You just need to be patient.


You could say this for anyone no matter what there status.


----------



## browser

sokillme said:


> You could say this for anyone no matter what there status.


That's true but take my girlfriend and my sister for example.

They both married parasitc losers who financially drained them while they worked hard during the entire marriage to support a guy who could barely get out of bed let alone earn a decent living and in both cases the guy ran up quite a debt that was ultimately paid by the breadwinning wife. In both cases neither had to pay spousal support but that happens quite often.

At least with a low income earning woman they're on equal footing, she has less or nothing to lose.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> If you've got two high income parents, they should easily be able to afford quality day care/nannies, etc. I don't see the problem. If it was also a priority that one of them work less or SAH to raise children, then they would decide this together which one it will be or how they will handle it.
> 
> Are you saying you don't know any couples who are both high earners? I know several couples like this and have never seen them have any issues with the problem you are suggesting. Because they are high earners, they use money to buy the services of others.
> 
> I know one couple where the H is wealthy due to family ties, and the wife is a doctor (a very successful one). He is the "house husband", but only by technicality. He basically doesn't have to work a job, he just manages several properties and investments he has during the day, this is his "job" (it can mostly be done from his couch). But he also takes care of the day time child care duties while mom is working at her practice. She makes a hefty salary but again, he was already wealthy and makes a ton of money from rental income and the occasional sale of a property. They have 3 beautiful daughters all of whom are doing very well. They have an on call nanny, housekeeper, landscaper, and all the other services people of their income level can afford to hire out.


The "who will take care of the kids" is a secondary concern. I should have left it out to keep the focus on the main point which is "who is a high-earning woman supposed to marry".

My wife and I both had career jobs when our 1st was born (career job defined as more than 40 hours, some travel and a job having a career path). We had a nanny raise our kid for a year before deciding it wasn't for us.

I understand that you could just have a nanny raise your kid (and I'm not convinced that's a horrible thing), but it seems like most these days wouldn't prefer it.


----------



## Buddy400

DustyDog said:


> Wait, you started with "high achieving" and now it's "high earning"? Not the same thing.


Good point. I meant high-earning (since many women on TAM expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more that 60% of the money.

High-earning and high-achieving aren't the same thing (although they are to some).


----------



## Buddy400

DustyDog said:


> There is a time and place for career obsession: at the start of it. Maybe first 10-15 years. That's all it takes to get it going at a comfy pace. That plus keeping spending reasonable and in the US, things just go well.


But, for women, that "first 10-15 years" is when they are most likely to be able to have children.


----------



## Buddy400

Celes said:


> High achieving/earning women aren't "supposed" to marry anyone in particular. They should marry the sort of men they are attracted to. For some it's other high earners, for others not.


True. The topic was not stated as well as it should have been.

It would be better stated as "How limited would the field of potential husbands be if a high-earning woman only considers those men making as much or more money than her".


----------



## Buddy400

MrsHolland said:


> It is not that difficult as there are (generalising here) more high earning men than women so the pool is quite large. Your question on what if most high earning men aren't looking for high earning women is key. High earning women in general are not looking for men with low self esteem so a man that is looking for a less accomplished woman has zero interest anyway.


True. But removing men with low self-esteem (defined as men who don't prioritize accomplishment in women) limits the field even further.

Also, there may be more high-earning men than women at the moment but I think the difference will grow smaller in the future.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> I reject your premise that money has anything to do with you high value.


I reject the premise that that money has anything to do with high value as well.

But, apparently some women require men to earn a certain percentage of the household income in order to be attracted to / remain happily married to them.

I'm not judging people choices, I'm just probing what happens given a certain set of choices.


----------



## Buddy400

Celes said:


> You can pick a spouse that has good character and makes a good living, you know. They aren't mutually exclusive.


But it does narrow the choices (wisely so, I'd think in this case).


----------



## Buddy400

Hope Shimmers said:


> I didn't read any of the 49 pages of that closed thread, so I can't speak to that. But I do not think that "high achieving" and "high earning" are interchangeable.
> 
> I would define myself as "high achieving", and I am in the top 99+ percent of people (not women -- people) in terms of salary. So I feel somewhat qualified to answer.
> 
> There are already almost no decent single men out there my age (52). If I had to limit it to those who earned at least 2/3rds of my salary, there would be none.
> 
> I don't care about money. I guess that is easy to say when you have it... but it was never handed to me. I worked my a** off for every dime, and for my education too.
> 
> I don't care about how much money my SO makes. Or his education level, TBH. I just care that he is intelligent and very literate. And if I'm being honest, just those criteria knock out 95% of single men out there in my age range. That is frustrating enough.


Then it appears that your not having any expectations regarding men's earnings is giving you more options.

That's working out well for you.


----------



## Buddy400

WorkingOnMe said:


> Through my work I know a lot of high earning women. Around here most seem to marry construction guys or teachers.


How are the marriages?

I'm hoping that marriages like these can work. I see evidence that they are often problematic.

If so, I'm hoping that changes with time.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> I get that and I could never be a SAHH I don't get it. My thoughts are what if the man is doing something that doesn't pay a lot but makes a large difference to society. What if he is a math professor or again a fireman something of that sort. Unless he is well published he is going to be making Millions. Someone who would run into a burning building to save lives, assuming he is not a jerk to me is way more of a top shelf guy then someone who works on wall street for instance. No offense to the wall street guys.


I suspect that many younger women are substituting just the sorts of things you mention for the earlier "power and wealth" requirements.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> That will change. Just like woman who make a lot of money are starting to have issues with alimony laws. It just makes sense we will soon be at a point where the sexes are at a parallel as far as wadge earning and when that happens money will either go away as a motivating factor, or will be one for both sexes.


This will happen.

I just wonder how much trouble there will be before we get there.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Given that women now often outperform men financially and otherwise, who are all those men who are threatened by high-achieving women going to marry?


I agree that women *who want to* can and do outperform men (financially). This is reflected in the percentage of female college students and in the fact that young women in urban areas now earn more that their male counterparts.

It's certainly true among the lower class where women are usually the primary support for their families.

Working class men used to be able to attract women by having a decent full time job. Women used to be attracted to this. Lately, these jobs are harder for men to find. Some men are finding that they can attract women without having this. Other men are finding that, without earning a solid living, they aren't capable of attracting any women. So more poor women are single mothers and, without a working husband, life is harder than it used to be.

Among the upper classes, having a spouse (usually the wife) stay home or work part-time is being seen as a luxury.

Most young men are no longer interested in being the only income earner in a marriage and are increasingly interested in potential wives who demonstrate the ability and desire to contribute to the household income.

The popular culture sees the rise of women's earnings as resulting in men being threatened (as you seem to agree).

I think there are a significant number of women who somehow expect to be able to make a lot of money and focus on their careers while still finding a husband who makes even more and somehow being able to "be taken care of" while having children. The young jld's of the world are going to be facing difficult times. 

Actually, I think men are adapting fairly well and that it is (will be) the women who have a harder time of getting what they want.

The sooner women can identify and be attracted to something other than "power and wealth" in men, the better off they'll be.


----------



## browser

Buddy400 said:


> How are the marriages?
> 
> I'm hoping that marriages like these can work. I see evidence that they are often problematic.
> 
> If so, I'm hoping that changes with time.


Marriages are often problematic.

Period.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I could argue that the sooner men stop thinking with their d!ck and prioritizing the hottest woman they can find the more likely they'll be to get a good, contributing partner.

Guys here on TAM are often told to find someone younger and hotter to make themselves feel better. Not a woman of character.

Everyone has priorities. There's a saying among women that when you marry for money you earn every penny.

Some people will always prioritize shallow or specific qualities and woman certainly don't have a monopoly on that. I often get the feeling that men look down on women who prioritize money but see no issue when they prioritize looks. 

So men can be shallow but women must be altruistic.

Look for someone who shares your values. Those who prioritize non character traits will usually pay for that.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> I could argue that the sooner men stop thinking with their d!ck and prioritizing the hottest woman they can find the more likely they'll be to get a good, contributing partner.


That is very good advice for men.

But it's been true for a long time and isn't anything new.


----------



## Buddy400

browser said:


> Marriages are often problematic.
> 
> Period.


True.

But, surely, there must be traits that make some marriages more problematic than others?

I'm not saying that this is one of them, but it could be.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> That is very good advice for men.
> 
> But it's been true for a long time and isn't anything new.


True. Women looking for money has been around a long time too, and is actually the creation of men who deemed that women belonged at home. When you don't allow women to provide for themselves they have no choice but to prioritize money. 

Allowing women to provide for themselves is good for men because it allows women to consider things like attraction and love.

But we are still struggling with social change and there are multiple generations of people that have a different view of how equal women should be. 

People are certainly entitled to their priorities. As I said, the key is to find a partner who shares or is compatible with yours.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> True. Women looking for money has been around a long time too, and is actually the creation of men who deemed that women belonged at home. When you don't allow women to provide for themselves they have no choice but to prioritize money.
> 
> Allowing women to provide for themselves is good for men because it allows women to consider things like attraction and love.
> 
> But we are still struggling with social change and there are multiple generations of people that have a different view of how equal women should be.
> 
> People are certainly entitled to their priorities. As I said, the key is to find a partner who shares or is compatible with yours.


It's not as nefarious at you are making it out to be. Woman couldn't provide for themselves because before the advent of the industrial revolution to have a family someone needed to be home to do work that took huge amounts of time. Doing laundry was an all day affair. Eating a chicken for dinner meant, killing the chicken then defeathering it for instance. Someone had to go pick the vegetables for dinner that night and milk the cows. Heating a stove took hours and if your stove went out it might mean freezing. I will give you there was resistance in the last 100 years or so but for the majority of the existence of man the division in labor existed because of necessity not because of the patriarchy.


----------



## arbitrator

*They can marry that career of theirs, or some rich career driven man!

Although it is possible that they may never actually get to see each other "face to face," as most of those high-earner folks already seemingly have their arrogant, high-dollar noses hoisted highly into the air for all to see!*


----------



## lifeistooshort

sokillme said:


> It's not as nefarious at you are making it out to be. Woman couldn't provide for themselves because before the advent of the industrial revolution to have a family someone needed to be home to do work that took huge amounts of time. Doing laundry was an all day affair. Eating a chicken for dinner meant, killing the chicken then defeathering it for instance. Someone had to go pick the vegetables for dinner that night and milk the cows. Heating a stove took hours and if your stove went out it might mean freezing. I will give you there was resistance in the last 100 years or so but for the majority of the existence of man the division in labor existed because of necessity not because of the patriarchy.


That is true further back in history.....everyone worked to support the home.

But things changed with the advent of conveniences that made keeping the home less than a full time job. At that point the men decided that women should be in the home....that's where the idea of the modem housewife and woman as a dependent was born. 

It works ok as long as your wife can't divorce you. Once she can, since she's viewed as a dependent, you're on the hook to support her. This view of women as dependent still drives some women to look for money. 

I think it will change, but social change takes time. And there will always be shallow people that prioritize non character traits.


----------



## sokillme

lifeistooshort said:


> That is true further back in history.....everyone worked to support the home.
> 
> But things changed with the advent of conveniences that made keeping the home less than a full time job. At that point the men decided that women should be in the home....that's where the idea of the modem housewife and woman as a dependent was born.
> 
> It works ok as long as your wife can't divorce you. Once she can, since she's viewed as a dependent, you're on the hook to support her. This view of women as dependent still drives some women to look for money.
> 
> I think it week change, but social change takes time. And there will always be shallow people that prioritize non character traits.


Agreed, it always seems like culture is catching up to reality. In the last 200 years the changes are happening faster, so the problem was exacerbated. Think about it, someone who was born 300 years ago didn't have the same kind of technological and sociological changes in your life as someone who was born in the last century. If your father was a farmer there was a very good chance you would also just be a father. More likely the farthest would travel was about 50 miles. Lots of people do that daily now. You might only meet hundreds of people in your whole life, now you can tweet at hundreds of thousands. Some of that I think contributes to this kind of stuff.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I really hated the other thread... it represented how success & money, even being blessed with a huge advancement in Pay -can destroy a couple... 

On the other hand.. not all successful women feel as she did.... I found this article yesterday... 3 men's stories ....very different outcomes.. a "teamwork" was going forth....

‘I Make Less Than My Wife’: How 3 Real Men Feel About It


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really hated the other thread... it represented how success & money, even being blessed with a huge advancement in Pay -can destroy a couple...
> 
> On the other hand.. not all successful women feel as she did.... I found this article yesterday... 3 men's stories ....very different outcomes.. a "teamwork" was going forth....


You have to believe from that last thread, her attraction to her H was solely based on money/power/status (which if that was the main attraction then yes, it does come across as shallow). I have no issues if this is something some women find attractive, no different then me finding brunettes attractive. You just have to really hope there is more to it than just that, that the attractive is based on deeper qualities/compatibilities outside of just status or looks. 

I also get why some (?) women may value a man's career/ability to provide support, this could give them the option to focus more on raising their family. My sister is a lawyer, and I know she wishes she could cut back significantly to focus more on her family, but it is just not in the cards b/c it just wouldn't work for them financially. Now of course, there is a big difference b/w looking for support to help raise a family vs. looking for support so you can spend all day shopping and eating bon bons lo..


----------



## Buddy400

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really hated the other thread... it represented how success & money, even being blessed with a huge advancement in Pay -can destroy a couple...
> 
> On the other hand.. not all successful women feel as she did.... I found this article yesterday... 3 men's stories ....very different outcomes.. a "teamwork" was going forth....
> 
> ‘I Make Less Than My Wife’: How 3 Real Men Feel About It


I found the link interesting.

"But all is not well on the women-earning-more front: The same Pew study found that having a female breadwinner was reportedly stirring up trouble in marriages. Why? Well, 50% of respondents felt it was harder on a marriage, and 74% said it was harder to raise children."

That looks like a problem to me.

But then it only addresses men's attitudes about the situation, implying that it's men with antiquated values afraid of being emasculated causing the problem. In all three situations, the wife is apparently just fine with it and it's the man who's the problem. This isn't all that all that surprising in popular culture these days.

No doubt, some men are having a problem dealing with their wife earning more.

But are we certain that the women never have an issue with earning more than her husband? The OP in the other thread sure did.

I'm not out to bash women (or men) for being superficial. If men evolved over tens of thousands of years to be attracted to women who look fertile and women evolved to be attracted to men who could keep them safe and provided for, I'm not going to expect anyone to just discard all of that (and I'm not claiming that the evolutionary theories above are correct). Whatever the genders are attracted to, for whatever reason that may be, it is what it is and thinking pure thoughts isn't going to change it. 

I do think that things are changing fast, that they can't be stopped and that just labeling men as Neanderthals isn't fully addressing the changes that will be needed to adapt


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Most young men are no longer interested in being the only income earner in a marriage and are increasingly interested in potential wives who demonstrate the ability and desire to contribute to the household income.
> 
> The popular culture sees the rise of women's earnings as resulting in men being threatened (as you seem to agree).
> 
> I think there are a significant number of women who somehow expect to be able to make a lot of money and focus on their careers while still finding a husband who makes even more and somehow being able to "be taken care of" while having children. The young jld's of the world are going to be facing difficult times.
> 
> Actually, I think men are adapting fairly well and that it is (will be) the women who have a harder time of getting what they want.
> 
> The sooner women can identify and be attracted to something other than "power and wealth" in men, the better off they'll be.


The problem, as I see it is all in the economics. The middle class is rapidly losing ground, and only the highest earners stand any real chance of living well with a one-income family. Both women and men need to work, or they need to accept a much lower standard of living, which most don't want to do. 

I don't know of any women who want to both focus on their careers AND be "taken care of". Yes, they might want to focus on their careers AND have children, which is already hard enough to manage. And I know women who want to focus on raising their family -- which means that their ability to work is severely curtailed, and so they will need a partner who can handle the heavy lifting in terms of income generation. I don't know of any women pretending they can do it all -- at least not without the resources to hire nannies and housecleaners and whatnot. You really can't have it all, it's just that simple.

You really seem to want to chastize women for wanting too much, and yet think that men are all just affable and accepting of whatever comes their way, Why is that?


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> But then it only addresses men's attitudes about the situation, implying that it's men with antiquated values afraid of being emasculated causing the problem. In all three situations, the wife is apparently just fine with it and it's the man who's the problem. This isn't all that all that surprising in popular culture these days.
> 
> No doubt, some men are having a problem dealing with their wife earning more.


Anecdotally, this has been my experience as well in the circles I travel in.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> The problem, as I see it is all in the economics. The middle class is rapidly losing ground, and only the highest earners stand any real chance of living well with a one-income family. Both women and men need to work, or they need to accept a much lower standard of living, which most don't want to do.
> 
> I don't know of any women who want to both focus on their careers AND be "taken care of". Yes, they might want to focus on their careers AND have children, which is already hard enough to manage. And I know women who want to focus on raising their family -- which means that their ability to work is severely curtailed, and so they will need a partner who can handle the heavy lifting in terms of income generation. I don't know of any women pretending they can do it all -- at least not without the resources to hire nannies and housecleaners and whatnot. You really can't have it all, it's just that simple.
> 
> You really seem to want to chastize women for wanting too much, and yet think that men are all just affable and accepting of whatever comes their way, Why is that?


How about looking at this from a different angle.You have the male in the relationship earning plenty of money to support his family but the woman still wants to work.She may not have any qualifications that will earn her much more than minimum wage and that may not even cover daycare but she still insists on working.I had this discussion recently with my gf,she is five months pregnant and she insists that she is going back to work as soon as she can.She has certain qualifications but ironically unless she works for me she can't use them at least not where we live.


----------



## Celes

Andy1001 said:


> How about looking at this from a different angle.You have the male in the relationship earning plenty of money to support his family but the woman still wants to work.She may not have any qualifications that will earn her much more than minimum wage and that may not even cover daycare but she still insists on working.I had this discussion recently with my gf,she is five months pregnant and she insists that she is going back to work as soon as she can.She has certain qualifications but ironically unless she works for me she can't use them at least not where we live.


She sounds smart to me. Especially given that you aren't married.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> How about looking at this from a different angle.You have the male in the relationship earning plenty of money to support his family but the woman still wants to work.She may not have any qualifications that will earn her much more than minimum wage and that may not even cover daycare but she still insists on working.I had this discussion recently with my gf,she is five months pregnant and she insists that she is going back to work as soon as she can.She has certain qualifications but ironically unless she works for me she can't use them at least not where we live.


Lots of women want to work. Reality is that while many women do find childbearing and rearing to be perfectly fulfilling, there are lots of us that find it the dullest thing on earth. It isn't even about the money always, just about having some intellectual stimulation and something to do that's fulfilling and rewarding. Or even just getting out of the house to talk to adults.


----------



## wild jade

Celes said:


> She sounds smart to me. Especially given that you aren't married.


Yeah, you could never convince me to rely on a man for my finances. I don't care how rich he is, whether we're married or not. No way would I ever put myself in the position of not being able to leave if need be.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Yeah, you could never convince me to rely on a man for my finances. I don't care how rich he is, whether we're married or not. No way would I ever put myself in the position of not being able to leave if need be.


It is an unusual situation in that the baby inherits a lot of money and there is allready a house in her name and my gf can live there if things don't work out with us.(I really hope they do btw)


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> I found the link interesting.
> 
> "But all is not well on the women-earning-more front: The same Pew study found that having a female breadwinner was reportedly stirring up trouble in marriages. Why? Well, 50% of respondents felt it was harder on a marriage, and 74% said it was harder to raise children."
> 
> That looks like a problem to me.
> 
> But then it only addresses men's attitudes about the situation, implying that it's men with antiquated values afraid of being emasculated causing the problem. In all three situations, the wife is apparently just fine with it and it's the man who's the problem. This isn't all that all that surprising in popular culture these days.
> 
> No doubt, some men are having a problem dealing with their wife earning more.
> 
> But are we certain that the women never have an issue with earning more than her husband? The OP in the other thread sure did.
> 
> I'm not out to bash women (or men) for being superficial. If men evolved over tens of thousands of years to be attracted to women who look fertile and women evolved to be attracted to men who could keep them safe and provided for, I'm not going to expect anyone to just discard all of that (and I'm not claiming that the evolutionary theories above are correct). Whatever the genders are attracted to, for whatever reason that may be, it is what it is and thinking pure thoughts isn't going to change it.
> 
> I do think that things are changing fast, that they can't be stopped and that just labeling men as Neanderthals isn't fully addressing the changes that will be needed to adapt


I kept thinking that last story could fit real well into the OP's point from the defunct thread, but this time from the mans perspective, he is a freelance photographer and makes in a month what she makes in a day. Maybe his wife is OP and has lost attraction to him and hasn't told him. 

I know I couldn't live in a situation like that. Nice if it works for them but I think you have to have a wife that is really enlightened and be very confident in yourself as well. I don't think I would want to be the wife of a man who was photographing supermodels all day, if i was out of shape either.


----------



## sokillme

wild jade said:


> Lots of women want to work. Reality is that while many women do find childbearing and rearing to be perfectly fulfilling, there are lots of us that find it the dullest thing on earth. It isn't even about the money always, just about having some intellectual stimulation and something to do that's fulfilling and rewarding. Or even just getting out of the house to talk to adults.


Unless you are in stem what job is intellectual stimulating, certainly not white collar office work. I found it to be the most boring thing in the world.


----------



## MrsHolland

arbitrator said:


> *They can marry that career of theirs, or some rich career driven man!
> 
> Although it is possible that they may never actually get to see each other "face to face," as most of those high-earner folks already seemingly have their arrogant, high-dollar noses hoisted highly into the air for all to see!*


Not the ones I know. Except for the obvious markers likes car/house you would not know the extent of their wealth via attitude. 

Maybe it is the ones you hang out with but you are making a very broad assumption that wealthy people are snobs, it just is not true in my world.


----------



## EllisRedding

Andy1001 said:


> How about looking at this from a different angle.You have the male in the relationship earning plenty of money to support his family but the woman still wants to work.She may not have any qualifications that will earn her much more than minimum wage and that may not even cover daycare but she still insists on working.I had this discussion recently with my gf,she is five months pregnant and she insists that she is going back to work as soon as she can.She has certain qualifications but ironically unless she works for me she can't use them at least not where we live.


It is an interesting position. Granted, my situation is different from yours b/c we have been married for 15 yrs. My W worked full time until we had our 2nd kid of which she then went part time. After we had our 3rd we decided it made the most sense for her to be a SAHM for the time being. This all coincided with my career taking off so her income was no longer necessary (not that it would hurt lol). If she stayed part time she would probably break even when factoring in costs that would be associated with. If she decided she absolutely wanted to continue working, we would have made it work. However, at the end of the day this made the most sense. We don't have to rely on a stranger to help raise our kids, or sacrifice what little time we even get together. She could very easily get back into her current job and make good money, so worse case that is always a fallback. Up to this point though, no regrets, and it has been the best for our kids as well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> I found the link interesting.
> 
> "But all is not well on the women-earning-more front: The same Pew study found that having a female breadwinner was reportedly stirring up trouble in marriages. Why? Well, 50% of respondents felt it was harder on a marriage, and 74% said it was harder to raise children."
> 
> That looks like a problem to me.
> 
> *But then it only addresses men's attitudes about the situation, implying that it's men with antiquated values afraid of being emasculated causing the problem. In all three situations, the wife is apparently just fine with it and it's the man who's the problem. This isn't all that all that surprising in popular culture these days.*


 I just gave the link as it was another side of the coin... I felt the woman was mightily blessed in her career, but with that grew discontent - I viewed it as her feeling "superior" ... along came Pity, a loss of attraction... I don't know.. ....he sounded like a good man to me... not a loser, worthy to be discarded like trash...sometimes things happen in our marriages, it doesn't all go as planned...but you brainstorm together & go forth as a team...

But whatever... At least in these examples.. it seems the couples were able to make PEACE with it.. that's a good thing. 

I am conflicted myself on this..as I LOVE the more traditional lifestyle... but I wouldn't think lesser of a shake up of that if a couple was happy with it...whatever works .. 



EllisRedding said:


> I also get why some (?) women may value a man's career/ability to provide support, this could give them the option to focus more on raising their family. My sister is a lawyer, and I know she wishes she could cut back significantly to focus more on her family, but it is just not in the cards b/c it just wouldn't work for them financially. Now of course, there is a big difference b/w looking for support to help raise a family vs. looking for support so you can spend all day shopping and eating bon bons lo..


I don't know ...when I read something like this.. Lawyers & such....do I have anything worth contributing to this thread...probably not... I come from a lower income view.. I certainly didn't marry for money (I made more than him when we walked down the aisle, maybe by a measly $3,000 a year.. both of our incomes would be peanuts to the majority here)...

I still quit my job for our 1st son a year into our marriage... he had great health insurance, our rent was low... it was Doable...we still managed to save money...

But we live in a lower cost area too.. 



wild jade said:


> The problem, as I see it is all in the economics. *The middle class is rapidly losing ground, and only the highest earners stand any real chance of living well with a one-income family. Both women and men need to work, or they need to accept a much lower standard of living, which most don't want to do.*


 I guess we'd be classified as one of those families who didn't mind a lower standard of living.. that's all we've known.. so it's never been much of an issue... We still think we have it pretty good.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

An old adage used to be that for a woman to be happy in marriage her husband has to make at least as much money/recognition as her father [figure] got. In solo families this is a bit open-ended, as it takes a bit to identify the relevant role model.

It's not about the money itself, which is just a number and ignored by many women. It's (1) associated lifestyle (eg PTA vs corporate shopping), (2) expected cultural expectations (eg time off, holidays, clothing)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Faithful Wife said:


> If you've got two high income parents, they should easily be able to afford quality day care/nannies, etc. I don't see the problem. If it was also a priority that one of them work less or SAH to raise children, then they would decide this together which one it will be or how they will handle it.
> 
> Are you saying you don't know any couples who are both high earners? I know several couples like this and have never seen them have any issues with the problem you are suggesting. Because they are high earners, they use money to buy the services of others.
> 
> I know one couple where the H is wealthy due to family ties, and the wife is a doctor (a very successful one). He is the "house husband", but only by technicality. He basically doesn't have to work a job, he just manages several properties and investments he has during the day, this is his "job" (it can mostly be done from his couch). But he also takes care of the day time child care duties while mom is working at her practice. She makes a hefty salary but again, he was already wealthy and makes a ton of money from rental income and the occasional sale of a property. They have 3 beautiful daughters all of whom are doing very well. They have an on call nanny, housekeeper, landscaper, and all the other services people of their income level can afford to hire out.


Also her income even if not used looks really good on his finance documents. (2 "earners" is a lot less "risk" of income disappearing than a sole lender)


----------



## john117

MrsHolland said:


> Not the ones I know. Except for the obvious markers likes car/house you would not know the extent of their wealth via attitude.
> 
> Maybe it is the ones you hang out with but you are making a very broad assumption that wealthy people are snobs, it just is not true in my world.


In the USA it's hardly the case tho. We have lived in the same neighborhood for 16 years now and I can't recognize, let alone even consider an acquaintance, any of my neighbors except the Indian doctor next door.

There's another Indian next to me on the other side, and we see them maybe every 2-3 years. Not very friendly.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

DustyDog said:


> I feel sad for people who have such limited belief systems. Money is really a fairly shallow topic, and in my experience, the couples I've met for whom shared money visions are major to them - well, they have no really deep shared visions..it's just money, which is either simple materialism or a scorecard. I have only my experiences to go on, of course.
> 
> I've never dated or married a woman who cared what I earn, nor have I cared what they earn, or if they worked at all. You can make a happy life in the US at any income.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you started with "high achieving" and now it's "high earning"? Not the same thing. Some of the wealthiest folks I know are social boob hermits, no friends, miserable and lonely. Scared of what others think of them. It's not hard to make money. It's hard to be a fully functioning part of social life.
> 
> Every school of thought I've explored, whether atheist, business school, eastern belief, whatever diminishes the value of money. Yes, even accounting classes, teach something called "the balanced scorecard", in which a company is supposed to create five major objectives, none of which have to do with money. In theory, if a company keeps its focus on those objectives - as long as the objectives have to do with thrilling customers, improving the economy or environment, then money will simply flow.
> 
> High achievement is measured in contributions to others - not money in the bank.
> 
> At least, that's what I've been taught in every human-created school to which I've been exposed...
> 
> 
> 
> Or their love of each other? Or their building of the community? Or their connection with neighbors?
> 
> There is a time and place for career obsession: at the start of it. Maybe first 10-15 years. That's all it takes to get it going at a comfy pace. That plus keeping spending reasonable and in the US, things just go well.
> 
> 
> As with anything else, a relationship does not require two people to have the same interests. He likes burgers, she likes Asian food, so they trade off which they have. He likes watching sports, she prefers reading books. And so on. It's entirely reasonable that someone is passionate about career - it's what they feel is the thing they can contribute the most to humanity - there's no reason the partner have the same passion - as long as the two of you are OK with each others' passions and support the other in it.
> 
> As many relationship coaches say - if your partner has the same interests as you, then you may as well be married to a mirror.



You're just perpetuating the myths.

--
So they have completely different interests.... what do they talk about? Him about his work day? Her about her friends projects? only works when they're getting an advantage using each other AND nothing better has come along yet!


Every school I explored that diminishes the value of money ... does so in order to take advantage of the poor and to remove the wealth from fools. One of the biggest ways to destroy a company is to create "plaque" in its financial arteries - building up the detris which adds to cost but does not return revenue. Companies don't have or need hobbies. If you can't spot the mark in the room, you are the mark. analysis of big companies that follow such tangental hobbies shows that they wouldn't have survived if they started off with such leakage, and that the only reason they're surviving it now is because of previous momentum/warchest/market capital.....which is all shrinking now that they've taken on extra ballast. That's why most successful companies "plead social bs" but really are just pushing a reach marketing as per Plato's admonisments - society dislikes evil, and recognises good, but the greatest profit is when society sees you as good and you do the evil where they aren't looking.

High earning or high achieving. It really doesn't matter which it is in context. My ex was very high achieving - got to rub shoulders with governor-generals, Earls and Dames, and rock stars... but it was all volunteer work, basically a complete ego trip on her behalf. At least if she was going for high-earning, the success could be shared or have kind of residual use for the family/future. As it was her life was all about the next meeting, the next trip, the big names, how many at the events, how many sub-groups she had under her (ie direct reports), size of her organ(isation).
All exactly the same complaints whether the achievement was "social" or a "social for money" service (after all a business must serve some sort of society purpose or it would have no customers)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> I reject your premise that money has anything to do with you high value. If anyone man or woman goes for a partner for what the earn, they are making a mistake. Pick a spouse who has character and you will have a good marriage.


Probably because you're a woman.

You take the money for granted (ie a "resource consumer", vs a "resource provider") and you prioritise social peerage


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Hope Shimmers said:


> I didn't read any of the 49 pages of that closed thread, so I can't speak to that. But I do not think that "high achieving" and "high earning" are interchangeable.
> 
> I would define myself as "high achieving", and I am in the top 99+ percent of people (not women -- people) in terms of salary. So I feel somewhat qualified to answer.



One thing that truly blows me away is such high rollers seem to have such poor maths skills.

There are a _lot_ of people in the top 99+% of people in terms of salary.... pretty much everyone who has a paying job (even at minimum wage...).

you either mean "percentile" or top <1%


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

john117 said:


> The supply of single late 40's-50's PhD educated women for my taste is pretty limited... I did find one, but physically she's basically a 4 and even more worrisome, health wise she's not even that so....
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Educated yet not academically institutionalised is also an issue.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Celes said:


> I guess I just know plenty of great men who make good money. I can name several couples I know where both parties are high earners/achievers, with good characters. When I was single, I had my pick of good men with higher incomes. Sure, I've met rich pompous jerks who just assumed I'd be lining up at their feet. I never gave them the time of day. But I've met plenty of broke jerks too. The men who have treated me the worst in relationships were men of more modest means.


So now go with what the question was asking about.

Expand your mind, put a gender reversal on your whole comment and try and see it from the other side.

--
Tangent concept: I can always tell the gender of a webcomic author because women's webcomics are always in some way autobiographical (where men's are far wider ranging, and often fantastical)


----------



## wild jade

sokillme said:


> Unless you are in stem what job is intellectual stimulating, certainly not white collar office work. I found it to be the most boring thing in the world.


Stay home and look after the kids, then. :wink2:


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

browser said:


> Marriages are often problematic.
> 
> Period.


But you'd think a committed team of two would be able to do more and reach further.
And if they have compatible interests to share, and provide "bff" team support for each other and motivation, then wouldn't that be a recipe for success.
Add in the physical attraction and sexual interest to bond them together, which would stop their more base animal instincts driving a wedge between them as they chased other interests.

Marriage (and group marriage) would be something very beneficial, as it means they can trust each other to be fully committed to the longest term future - allowing for increased risk, and less risk in being open and truthful to the other party.


Well at least until the ego of the one is more interested in themselves than in the team achievement that they share together.....


----------



## wild jade

spotthedeaddog said:


> Probably because you're a woman.
> 
> You take the money for granted (ie a "resource consumer", vs a "resource provider") and you prioritise social peerage


LoL. I can assure that the vast majority of women know all too well what it is to be a resource provider.

The reality is that some people value money as the sign of achievement and success in life, while others don't. This isn't a gender thing. It's a materialism/class/philosophy thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

spotthedeaddog said:


> *An old adage used to be that for a woman to be happy in marriage her husband has to make at least as much money/recognition as her father [figure] got. *In solo families this is a bit open-ended, as it takes a bit to identify the relevant role model.
> 
> It's not about the money itself, which is just a number and ignored by many women. It's (1) associated lifestyle (eg PTA vs corporate shopping), (2) expected cultural expectations (eg time off, holidays, clothing)


 I've never heard this before.. not sure why.. but it makes an awful lot of sense... I'd say it was very true in my outlook and expectations.... his father & mine were blue collar workers (truck drivers, CDL & all that).. Husband's also in Transportation ...comparing.. his Job is higher paying over both our dads.. I literally felt like we hit the lottery when he got hired there....as it was like a $4/hr jump in pay from his 1st job...


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't know ...when I read something like this.. Lawyers & such....do I have anything worth contributing to this thread...probably not... I come from a lower income view.. I certainly didn't marry for money (I made more than him when we walked down the aisle, maybe by a measly $3,000 a year.. both of our incomes would be peanuts to the majority here)...
> 
> I still quit my job for our 1st son a year into our marriage... he had great health insurance, our rent was low... it was Doable...we still managed to save money...
> 
> But we live in a lower cost area too..


Ignore the job or money, the point was more what I see where my Sister did the career thing, but at the end of the day she would love to cut back in order to focus more on her family. Could they get by just on her Hs salary, yes. However, they are also accustomed to a certain lifestyle, so the trade off with her working full time is they maintain that lifestyle (nothing wrong with that, they definitely don't live a fancy lifestyle nor do they make enough money to even lead a fancy lifestyle lol). Plus, right now she has the benefit of working from home (unless she has to go to the courts) so that does help as well.

Where we live, the cost of living is very high, so dual income households are common. You do still run into the issue though where sometimes the benefit of having one of the parents work isn't necessarily justified (depending on what they make) because the costs of doing so quickly absorb (or even exceed) the benefits.


----------



## Duguesclin

Buddy400 said:


> I think there are a significant number of women who somehow expect to be able to make a lot of money and focus on their careers while still finding a husband who makes even more and somehow being able to "be taken care of" while having children. The young jld's of the world are going to be facing difficult times.


Being married to JLD, I can tell you that the first sentence and the second one do not match. JLD has never had the ambition to make a lot of money, and she walked away from another man who offered it to her. I was the lucky beneficiary of that. 

However, like most women, her search for security has been very important. This is why financial stability has always been high in her priorities.

Now, on ambitious women, current data already suggest they are facing great difficulties.
Why Are So Many Professional Millennial Women Unable To Find Dateable Men?

I think the true nature of men is to marry for looks and for women to marry for security. This has profound consequences on our societies.

There are many example of women marrying ambitious men and finding wealth as a consequence. The reverse is unlikely to be as common because women marry for different reasons.

A man is not going to marry an ambitious woman just because he is cute. He will have to show other traits, mainly to provide a sense of security. In our modern world, security is synonymous to financial success.

So yes, young ambitious girls already have great difficulties to find the right partner.


----------



## sokillme

spotthedeaddog said:


> Probably because you're a woman.
> 
> You take the money for granted (ie a "resource consumer", vs a "resource provider") and you prioritise social peerage


I'm a woman??! My parents would be surprised about that! Sh!t, my poor wife, she doesn't even know she is a lesbian, how am I going to break it to her?! Damn, all this time I thought I was a man. :slap:

OK all joking aside, I assure you I am a man, who does quite well by the way. There have been times where I have done even better though. I've also held lots of positions of power in my career and have managed groups of people. I have worked with multi-million dollar clients and been responsible indirectly for very large sums of money, which is actually very stressful especially when it is not your money. 

Speaking of money, it has never made me happy or given me fulfillment and chasing money or especially THINGS always ended up being unfulfilling. Once you get to the place where you can be comfortable then the rest is gravy. I get much more fulfillment from making things and solving problems actually. 

I have always felt that someone like Stephen Hawking is much more of an alpha man then some day trader at Goldman Sachs.


----------



## sokillme

spotthedeaddog said:


> But you'd think a committed team of two would be able to do more and reach further.
> And if they have compatible interests to share, and provide "bff" team support for each other and motivation, then wouldn't that be a recipe for success.
> Add in the physical attraction and sexual interest to bond them together, which would stop their more base animal instincts driving a wedge between them as they chased other interests.
> 
> Marriage (and group marriage) would be something very beneficial, as it means they can trust each other to be fully committed to the longest term future - allowing for increased risk, and less risk in being open and truthful to the other party.
> 
> 
> Well at least until the ego of the one is more interested in themselves than in the team achievement that they share together.....


Ego and entitlement. Everything you described is about the most anyone is entitled to, yet people want more.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

spotthedeaddog said:


> One thing that truly blows me away is such high rollers seem to have such poor maths skills.
> 
> There are a _lot_ of people in the top 99+% of people in terms of salary.... pretty much everyone who has a paying job (even at minimum wage...).
> 
> you either mean "percentile" or top <1%


Yes, that should have been top <1%. 

Brain fart, not poor math skills. I think people knew what I meant. But hey, thanks for the correction.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> I'm a woman??! My parents would be surprised about that! Sh!t, my poor wife, she doesn't even know she is a lesbian, how am I going to break it to her?! Damn, all this time I thought I was a man. :slap:
> 
> OK all joking aside, I assure you I am a man, who does quite well by the way. There have been times where I have done even better though. I've also held lots of positions of power in my career and have managed groups of people. I have worked with multi-million dollar clients and been responsible indirectly for very large sums of money, which is actually very stressful especially when it is not your money.
> 
> Speaking of money, it has never made me happy or given me fulfillment and chasing money or especially THINGS always ended up being unfulfilling. Once you get to the place where you can be comfortable then the rest is gravy. I get much more fulfillment from making things and solving problems actually.
> 
> I have always felt that someone like Stephen Hawking is much more of an alpha man then some day trader at Goldman Sachs.


Well Stephen Hawking is independently wealthy (in that he has assured income & support, and has done so for most of his life).
Take a look at the internship for what it takes to get into day trading at Sachs or any of those trading houses, look at the amount of kiss up involved.
There's a reason that Hawking is more alpha. You do know that alpha is about having others to serve your needs, right? It's not about how big your car or ...canoe is. and not about bank balance.
that's why womenfolk like the alpha's, because that means the alpha has others to order around - suck up to the alpha and others get ordered about and not you, because alpha's don't get ordered about. See why the "bad-boy" is popular? See why the manager gets to be the crush, especially if he starts listening to her (letting her in, letting her words influence him/control the environment)?

I guess my dreams have always been bigger than my wallet.
And you're right, no-one has entrusted me with third-party money of such significance to carry out my will - I've always had to finance things from my own pocket, or been 5-6 layers down with no say in budget or policy (when being paid). How do you think being in one of those two positions (like the majority of husbands) would change your experience of what you were doing.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

If a woman isn't making her man feel like a man, that's its own issue, unrelated to her financial successes.


----------



## sokillme

spotthedeaddog said:


> Well Stephen Hawking is independently wealthy (in that he has assured income & support, and has done so for most of his life).
> Take a look at the internship for what it takes to get into day trading at Sachs or any of those trading houses, look at the amount of kiss up involved.
> There's a reason that Hawking is more alpha. You do know that alpha is about having others to serve your needs, right? It's not about how big your car or ...canoe is. and not about bank balance.
> that's why womenfolk like the alpha's, because that means the alpha has others to order around - suck up to the alpha and others get ordered about and not you, because alpha's don't get ordered about. See why the "bad-boy" is popular? See why the manager gets to be the crush, especially if he starts listening to her (letting her in, letting her words influence him/control the environment)?
> 
> I guess my dreams have always been bigger than my wallet.
> And you're right, no-one has entrusted me with third-party money of such significance to carry out my will - I've always had to finance things from my own pocket, or been 5-6 layers down with no say in budget or policy (when being paid). How do you think being in one of those two positions (like the majority of husbands) would change your experience of what you were doing.


I was writing financial transaction software where any mistakes could mean disaster and possible end of peoples businesses. These were software systems that were publicly exposed so every new release was extremely stressful. I also wrote order transactions software for some very large clients. Also very stressful. Again mistakes meant money, when you deal with other peoples money you find out that there really isn't any license for mistakes. After about ten years of that I had had enough. Now I work in education and I find much more rewarding. 

Strive to do your job the best you can, and be quick to do things for the group and you will be noticed. One of my secrets was to find something that was a mess or not working properly and take it upon myself to fix it. Without anyone asking I just did it on my one time. Now I could write programs to do that, but what ever it is you do, do it to make people's job easier and you will quickly get a reputation as a leader. The key is to do it to help people not for the acclaim. 

An Alpha is a guy who is self assured enough to be himself and follow his own destiny, but who also keeps is commitments and lives for his family. Basically a guy with honor and integrity.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sokillme said:


> An Alpha is a guy who is self assured enough to be himself and follow his own destiny, but who also keeps is commitments and lives for his family. Basically a guy with honor and integrity.


 I actually don't like the term Alpha Male .. I generally think of Arrogant A**hole when this term is used... though I like the rest of what you said..

I found this little write up on Quora just now ...



> Since the entire concept of “*alpha*” and “*beta*” male human beings was invented by complete a**holes as a way of trying to find a pseudo-zoological justification for their a**holery…
> 
> And since the only people who believe in that concept are also complete *******s looking to prop up their incredibly fragile masculinity…
> 
> And since the only people who would ever call themselves an “alpha male” are complete *******s and total losers who are incapable of attracting women through their own real personality…
> 
> And since “girls” tend not to like complete a**holes…
> 
> We may therefore conclude that “girls” like “beta” males, i.e. men who are not complete a**holes Q.E.D.
> 
> Let me know if any of this needs further explanation.


That was goooood...


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Hope Shimmers said:


> Yes, that should have been top <1%.
> 
> Brain fart, not poor math skills. I think people knew what I meant. But hey, thanks for the correction.


that's cool then.

just some of the top dogs around here really make you go "wtf?"


----------



## Wazza

sokillme said:


> Unless you are in stem what job is intellectual stimulating, certainly not white collar office work. I found it to be the most boring thing in the world.


That's an individual choice. I even know people who find stem boring


----------



## Wazza

SimplyAmorous said:


> I actually don't like the term Alpha Male .. I generally think of Arrogant A**hole when this term is used... though I like the rest of what you said..
> 
> I found this little write up on Quora just now ...
> 
> 
> 
> That was goooood...


I just try and be myself, and form closer relationships with people I have more in common with. If someone is naturally alpha, I don't think its necessarily a problem, provides they are not an a**hole. And no problem being beta either.

If we were all the same life would be boring.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'm sure many people would find my job in actuarial to be boring.

I find it very interesting.....always something to think about.


----------



## lifeistooshort

spotthedeaddog said:


> Probably because you're a woman.
> 
> You take the money for granted (ie a "resource consumer", vs a "resource provider") and you prioritise social peerage


While I'm busting my arse today in actuarial I'll keep in mind that as a woman I'm a resource consumer that takes money for granted.

Since I clearly don't provide any.


----------



## Andy1001

lifeistooshort said:


> While I'm busting my arse today in actuarial I'll keep in mind that as a woman I'm n a resource consumer that takes money for granted.
> 
> Since I clearly don't provide any.


Arguing with this guy is a waste of time.He will eventually get personal and then tell you it's for your own good.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Andy1001 said:


> Arguing with this guy is a waste of time.He will eventually get personal and then tell you it's for your own good.


I know, I just get a kick out of making a snide remark where the opportunity presents itself


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here is a good question on Quora... I really enjoyed the 1st write up on this... 

Do women really care about how much money a guy makes or are they looking for stability? 



> If you were to do a survey on women, asking them for traits they like in a man, I bet the most common adjective you would get to hear in their answers would be: *"smart".* Somehow, for good or for bad, men are supposed to be "smart" in order to be attractive. I think that given the patriarchal construct of our society, *women have come to value security in a relationship more than anything else. I wonder if this is something women themselves don't realize. Emotional security, financial security, and so on. So what they are really looking for is a man who would fulfill his responsibilities to their relationship and to the household, no matter what. *
> 
> Let me tell you one thing that I have come to realize from my interactions with my female friends and family. Most women think low of men who are rich, maybe even filthy rich, owing just to heredity. Men who are simply reaping the benefits of the work done by their forefathers do not actually have a high place in the minds of most women. Unless there is something else about them that sets them apart, I doubt they would really be liked for just being the owner of all that ****load of money that came as their silver spoon the day they were born.
> 
> The opinion gets slightly more respectful as we talk of men who don't just own, but are taking their family lineage further.
> 
> And it reaches its zenith when we talk of the coveted of them all---the "self-made man".
> 
> Why am I telling you all this? To drive home the simple point that when some wise man (or woman) said that there is a woman behind every successful man, it must have been based on the fact that a lot of women encourage their men to dream and pursue those dreams. I have lived only in India so I speak for the same, that most women---and believe me, that's a HUGE number of them---support their husbands through thick and thin, often serving as their sole support-system when everybody else has stepped back. Very few, very few leave their husbands just because they have lost a lot of money. And I can't count the number of couples that I know have risen back like a phoenix, TOGETHER.
> 
> You know why? Because these women had in all likelihood gone for *responsible men*, not just rich men.
> 
> There I said it. What women really see in a man is that sense of responsibility, that sense of ownership. Nobody is going to be always rich, only a fool wouldn't know this simple fact. Life always has something bad to offer, every family has to go through tough times. What women look for in a man is the qualities that would not allow him to quit in these harsh times. Qualities that when coupled with her support and motivation would inspire him to keep fighting and never give up. To me, this makes a lot of sense because the best way for two people to be happy together is for them to compliment each other really well. Women generally are better at talking and motivating people, men generally are better at giving their best when motivated and supported by their loved ones... or so I feel.
> 
> So yes, it seems women do care about how much money a guy makes. But to say that they give more importance to money than their qualities is wrong. Making money requires its own set of qualities, women just happen to know that. While honesty, humility etc are positive qualities that could make a person a lot more likable, they are not qualities you would trust all your life with. Making money is an art that requires a whole lot of intelligence, smartness, people-skills. determination, and flexibility. Now those are qualities that could greatly decide the couple's future together. Because no matter how rich the guy is, he is going to ruin them both if life hasn't taught him to be responsible.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> It is an unusual situation in that the baby inherits a lot of money and there is allready a house in her name and my gf can live there if things don't work out with us.(I really hope they do btw)


Are you living together now? Because to me this sounds a whole lot like facing being a single mom with a house to look after. And in that situation, you can bet that I'd be thinking about where I was going to work to support myself and my kid.

Actually, if I were her, I'd probably sell the house and use it to fund going back to school, build some new skills, work towards a better, more lucrative career with more options. But that's just the way I think.


----------



## wild jade

Duguesclin said:


> There are many example of women marrying ambitious men and finding wealth as a consequence. The reverse is unlikely to be as common because women marry for different reasons.
> 
> A man is not going to marry an ambitious woman just because he is cute. He will have to show other traits, mainly to provide a sense of security. In our modern world, security is synonymous to financial success.
> 
> So yes, young ambitious girls already have great difficulties to find the right partner.


More and more, women are providing their own security. Even in the article you linked to, those women had their own careers, finances, and were well able to look after themselves. What they were looking for was not security, but equality. 

They wanted some sense that the guy they eventually married would have a similar outlook, approach, level of achievement that they did. And were holding out for the one who best met their ideals. 

One thing is for sure. People are marrying later than they ever did before. And this is probably largely due to not wanting to settle for less. Then, when you get older, you come to realize it's all settling because perfection doesn't come wrapped in human form.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Are you living together now? Because to me this sounds a whole lot like facing being a single mom with a house to look after. And in that situation, you can bet that I'd be thinking about where I was going to work to support myself and my kid.
> 
> Actually, if I were her, I'd probably sell the house and use it to fund going back to school, build some new skills, work towards a better, more lucrative career with more options. But that's just the way I think.


The house will belong to my daughter when she is born and my gf has no say in what happens to it and the baby's inheritance is money which my parents left me but for various reasons I refused to accept.We don't live together but I asked her last night to move in with me and she agreed.I may not have been clear in my posts but money doesn't come into the equation,I make plenty but she has difficulty accepting money from me.This is a long story but I hope it has a happy ending.Btw she has a son from a previous relationship.


----------



## tech-novelist

Never mind; someone beat me to it.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> The house will belong to my daughter when she is born and my gf has no say in what happens to it and the baby's inheritance is money which my parents left me but for various reasons I refused to accept.We don't live together but I asked her last night to move in with me and she agreed.I may not have been clear in my posts but money doesn't come into the equation,I make plenty but she has difficulty accepting money from me.This is a long story but I hope it has a happy ending.Btw she has a son from a previous relationship.


Oh, I see. The way you phrased your initial comment, you made it sound as though your gf had no money worries whatsoever, but still wanted to work. TBH, were I in her situation, I would absolutely be ensuring that I had a stable career, ability to generate income, and the ability to look after both myself and my daughter. And the more of your story that you share here, the more I'm inclined to think that. 

Money may not enter into the equation for you, but I can absolutely see why it would for her. 

Don't get me wrong. I wish for you your happy ending. I'm just a strong believer in contingency plans.


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Oh, I see. The way you phrased your initial comment, you made it sound as though your gf had no money worries whatsoever, but still wanted to work. TBH, were I in her situation, I would absolutely be ensuring that I had a stable career, ability to generate income, and the ability to look after both myself and my daughter. And the more of your story that you share here, the more I'm inclined to think that.
> 
> Money may not enter into the equation for you, but I can absolutely see why it would for her.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I wish for you your happy ending. I'm just a strong believer in contingency plans.


Again I'm probably not being clear.I will pay for everything my daughter needs whether me and my gf stay together or not.I will pay for all utilities,car,groceries,clothing and health insurance and also have made it clear in writing that I will pay for her sons education.We have a fifty fifty custody agreement but I hope it doesn't come to that.The sum of money she inherits is substantial by any means and I have arranged for it to be paid out at various stages of her life.The house is paid for completely and will be in her name but can't be sold until she is twenty five.
I hope I'm not giving the impression that we are fighting over this because we're not.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> Again I'm probably not being clear.I will pay for everything my daughter needs whether me and my gf stay together or not.I will pay for all utilities,car,groceries,clothing and health insurance and also have made it clear in writing that I will pay for her sons education.We have a fifty fifty custody agreement but I hope it doesn't come to that.The sum of money she inherits is substantial by any means and I have arranged for it to be paid out at various stages of her life.The house is paid for completely and will be in her name but can't be sold until she is twenty five.
> I hope I'm not giving the impression that we are fighting over this because we're not.


No, I don't get the impression that you are fighting about this. And it seems pretty clear that you have your daughter's interests in mind, and will provide for her, as well as looking after your gf's son too. But is it just the children you are providing for? And whether yes or no, can you see the impact of this arrangement on your gf? 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything or judging you, or thinking that you are doing anything wrong. I'm just trying to illustrate that your lack of money worries doesn't actually apply to your gf because it's your money. Even if you were promising to pay her a salary on top of everything else, she is still not worry free because all her eggs are in one basket and she is totally beholden to you and your good will. That may not bother you, but I can absolutely see why it would bother her .....especially since the future of your relationship is so uncertain.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> While I'm busting my arse today in actuarial I'll keep in mind that as a woman I'm a resource consumer that takes money for granted.
> 
> Since I clearly don't provide any.


I think this is a general truth. It's obvious that there are exceptions... #notall and all that. 

In fact, I think I remember a recent study confirming that as a group, women are net tax receivers, not payers. Only men pay more in taxes than they take out of the system _on average_. 

Which would make women resource consumers, not resource providers... 

Which isn't as evil as some make it out to be. In fact, it would be expected that women are net consumers, rather than producers, in comparison to men. Especially with the advent of things like No-Fault Divorce and rapidly expanding single-motherhood. Why even bother trying to argue against that which is patently obvious?

Reality is that there are some unflattering things to be said about women. (And men too--since it's apparently verboten to mention female issues / shortcomings here without qualifying the statement) 

Oh, and I missed out on your hilarious patriarchy, evil menz keeping wimminz down commentary. Because matriarchy worked out well for those who tried it... drop the weird pseudo-religious feminist commentary, it doesn't help with the intellectual discussion, it detracts.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Where did I say they weren't. However a spouse that makes a good living, but is without good character is not worth much.


Has any woman on here suggested that anyone should marry a man solely based on their income level? NO.

Has anyone woman on here suggested that a man's character should not be taken into consideration or that women should not ensure that a man that they marry has a good character? NO.

So why are you suggesting that anyone at all has suggested these things. People pick their partner/spouse based on many parameters. 



sokillme said:


> Plus nothing is holding a woman back today from making a good living, if that is your primary concern why not earn it for yourself why do you need someone else to do if for you. That seems awful weak plus if you don't earn it is it really your money. The accomplishment and high value should be in the earning not in the money.


Do you realize that most of the women here on TAM who you attack like this and speak to in such anger on this topic are actually earning as much as their partner/husband or are the main breadwinners? You have been posting on TAM for some time now. So how of you now know that? And why are not lecturing women are fall into this category pretending that we are gold diggers?


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> No, I don't get the impression that you are fighting about this. And it seems pretty clear that you have your daughter's interests in mind, and will provide for her, as well as looking after your gf's son too. But is it just the children you are providing for? And whether yes or no, can you see the impact of this arrangement on your gf?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything or judging you, or thinking that you are doing anything wrong. I'm just trying to illustrate that your lack of money worries doesn't actually apply to your gf because it's your money. Even if you were promising to pay her a salary on top of everything else, she is still not worry free because all her eggs are in one basket and she is totally beholden to you and your good will. That may not bother you, but I can absolutely see why it would bother her .....especially since the future of your relationship is so uncertain.


Well this brings us back to my original point.I bought the health studio that my gf owned because she was going bust and could have been declared bankrupt.We had split up at that stage due mainly to outside interference but I hated to think of her losing everything she had worked for so I bought it.I offered her the managers job but she refused.This is where I have the problem,she won't take money from me but is willing to work for minimum wage to earn her own.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> That will change. Just like woman who make a lot of money are starting to have issues with alimony laws. It just makes sense we will soon be at a point where the sexes are at a parallel as far as wadge earning and when that happens money will either go away as a motivating factor, or will be one for both sexes.


The change is already happening. 

My son is 27. He's working on his PD in physics and teaching at the university. He and his friends talk about this. They want to meet/marry women who earn at least on par with them. Of course other qualities like character matter, but we are discussing income here.

I read an article some time ago about men who have money. The article said that a large percentage of men with money only want to marry women who are fairly equal with them financially. I also saw an interview of a woman who is a match maker for the wealthy. She charges $10,000 up for her services. She too said that both her male and female clients are looking for partners who are on par with them financially. It's a huge risk for someone who earns a lot, or has a lot financially to marry someone who earn a lot less, or has a lot less.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Good point. I meant high-earning (since many women on TAM expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more that 60% of the money.
> 
> High-earning and high-achieving aren't the same thing (although they are to some).


I don't think that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money. 

You have clearly misunderstood what women on TAM have been saying. So have many others.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> The change is already happening.
> 
> My son is 27. He's working on his PD in physics and teaching at the university. He and his friends talk about this. They want to meet/marry women who earn at least on par with them. Of course other qualities like character matter, but we are discussing income here.
> 
> I read an article some time ago about men who have money. The article said that a large percentage of men with money only want to marry women who are fairly equal with them financially. I also saw an interview of a woman who is a match maker for the wealthy. She charges $10,000 up for her services. She too said that both her male and female clients are looking for partners who are on par with them financially. It's a huge risk for someone who earns a lot, or has a lot financially to marry someone who earn a lot less, or has a lot less.


This made me LOL. Hiring a "matchmaker". Why not just go back to arranged marriages? They actually have better success rates than the current "pick for love" strategy... (like a D rate 10% of ours lol)

You're right that there's a huge risk whenever you marry someone who is largely below your own financial status. The simple answer is to make sure to get a prenup if at all possible, and to separate your pre-marital finances, and of course to make sure you never commingle them. Of course, this tends to make a SO upset... (Why do you want a pre-made divorce decree? Don't you think we're going to work out? What are you hiding... yada yada...)


----------



## Kivlor

I also want to point out my post back at page 1... I think my statement stands as vindicated.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> Well this brings us back to my original point.I bought the health studio that my gf owned because she was going bust and could have been declared bankrupt.We had split up at that stage due mainly to outside interference but I hated to think of her losing everything she had worked for so I bought it.I offered her the managers job but she refused.This is where I have the problem,she won't take money from me but is willing to work for minimum wage to earn her own.


Yes, this is exactly the kind of issue I was trying to respond to. I guess it's me that's not very clear.

As I see it, the deal is that she doesn't want to be beholden to you. And that is something that I completely understand. 

You have no money worries because it's your money. You think she shouldn't have money worries because you will give her some. But she likely does have money worries because she doesn't want to be so reliant on you that she can't make it on her own -- especially given the uncertainty around your relationship.

I find it very curious that you think that she should just be happy to take your money and call it a day. The reality is that while some women do indeed want to be supported, particularly when bearing and raising children, many absoltely do not want to be so reliant on someone else that they can't just pick up and walk away if they need to.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> The sooner women can identify and be attracted to something other than "power and wealth" in men, the better off they'll be.


This statement seems to assume that all, or the vast majority, of women are attracted to "power and wealth". That's a pretty broad paint brush. And it's easy to prove that most women are not.

Most men have no real power or wealth. Yet most men are married. Go to Walmart and similar stores. You will see couple after couple, usually with kids in tow. It's pretty clear that the men are in the "power and wealth" category. Go to the State Fair every September and this is even more clear.

The subset of women who seek out men who have "power and wealth" is a rather small subset of women. So why make it sound like all, or most, women are like this?


----------



## Andy1001

wild jade said:


> Yes, this is exactly the kind of issue I was trying to respond to. I guess it's me that's not very clear.
> 
> As I see it, the deal is that she doesn't want to be beholden to you. And that is something that I completely understand.
> 
> You have no money worries because it's your money. You think she shouldn't have money worries because you will give her some. But she likely does have money worries because she doesn't want to be so reliant on you that she can't make it on her own -- especially given the uncertainty around your relationship.
> 
> I find it very curious that you think that she should just be happy to take your money and call it a day. The reality is that while some women do indeed want to be supported, particularly when bearing and raising children, many absoltely do not want to be so reliant on someone else that they can't just pick up and walk away if they need to.


If things hadn't gone to siht we would have been married in October but it didn't happen and here we are.It was me who called the wedding off but I had good reason imo.We got back together when my gf found out she was pregnant and it is mine before anyone suggests different.


----------



## Wazza

Andy1001 said:


> Well this brings us back to my original point.I bought the health studio that my gf owned because she was going bust and could have been declared bankrupt.We had split up at that stage due mainly to outside interference but I hated to think of her losing everything she had worked for so I bought it.I offered her the managers job but she refused.This is where I have the problem,she won't take money from me but is willing to work for minimum wage to earn her own.


By my standards that's not a problem. That's a woman of character.


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> If things hadn't gone to siht we would have been married in October but it didn't happen and here we are.It was me who called the wedding off but I had good reason imo.We got back together when my gf found out she was pregnant and it is mine before anyone suggests different.


All the more reason for her to be thinking about her own career and work prospects. If things went to **** once, who's to say it won't happen again? You've made it clear your future with her is conditional ... so it's no surprise (to me) if she is thinking that it's conditional ...

(And again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it shouldn't be conditional. The way I see it, these things are always conditional. I'm married to the closest thing to a soul mate as I'll ever meet, and still see our future as conditional. You never know what life will throw at you -- sickness, accidents, financial loss, etc. -- and so it's never a bad thing to build your own skills, ensure a level of self-reliance, and ability to look after yourself and loved ones.)


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Has any woman on here suggested that anyone should marry a man solely based on their income level? NO.
> 
> Has anyone woman on here suggested that a man's character should not be taken into consideration or that women should not ensure that a man that they marry has a good character? NO.
> 
> So why are you suggesting that anyone at all has suggested these things. People pick their partner/spouse based on many parameters.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that most of the women here on TAM who you attack like this and speak to in such anger on this topic are actually earning as much as their partner/husband or are the main breadwinners? You have been posting on TAM for some time now. So how of you now know that? And why are not lecturing women are fall into this category pretending that we are gold diggers?


This is what I wrote 



> I reject your premise that money has anything to do with you high value. If anyone man or woman goes for a partner for what the earn, they are making a mistake. Pick a spouse who has character and you will have a good marriage.


It was directed at Andy. I got this response -



> You can pick a spouse that has good character and makes a good living, you know. They aren't mutually exclusive.


My response was this. 



> Where did I say they weren't. However, a spouse that makes a good living, but is without good character is not worth much.


Where did I even say anything about men or woman, for that matter? My point was to Andy, money doesn't make you a high achiever. My next point was character is a better thing to look for. My next point was it's better to make your own money not look for a spouse that has one.



> Plus nothing is holding a woman back today from making a good living, if that is your primary concern why not earn it for yourself why do you need someone else to do if for you. That seems awful weak plus if you don't earn it is it really your money. The accomplishment and high value should be in the earning not in the money.


This being what you call and attack on women, which was only addressed to women because of the context of the response I got. I could just as easily wrote that to a man, the point being, don't depend on anyone to provide money for you. Again my point being we are thankfully in an age where women don't have to anymore. It's weak for anyone man or woman to look for long-term financial support in today's world. Jeez you even agree with this same point 2 post below. 



I don't know what your issues are but you are so defensive about this stuff it is ridiculous. I didn't attack anyone I didn't call out anyone. For the most part I don't argue man or woman on here I argue right and wrong. This is the reason why I didn't even use gender in the conversation because I don't really think the gender matters. I was actually talking to a man about this when I made that point. 

Seriously YOU are the one with the problem, now are you going abuse your power and ban me again Ele because I don't agree with you, or because you didn't read what I wrote in context and just prejudicially assumed I was being sexist. Which was exactly the reason you banned me the last time.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> How about looking at this from a different angle.You have the male in the relationship earning plenty of money to support his family but the woman still wants to work.She may not have any qualifications that will earn her much more than minimum wage and that may not even cover daycare but she still insists on working.I had this discussion recently with my gf,she is five months pregnant and she insists that she is going back to work as soon as she can.She has certain qualifications but ironically unless she works for me she can't use them at least not where we live.


If she does not continue to work, she will lose her ability to earn even the smaller income that she makes now.

She is not married to you. She would be in a very bad situation if she does not go back to work and you break up later on. She will then have to support herself. But with years of being unemployed, she'd be lucky if even find a job. And if she did, it would be at minimum wage.


----------



## EleGirl

wild jade said:


> Yeah, you could never convince me to rely on a man for my finances. I don't care how rich he is, whether we're married or not. No way would I ever put myself in the position of not being able to leave if need be.


I agree with this.

If I have learned anything in life, it's that I would be foolish to trust any man in this way. I am the only person I can trust to take care of myself and my children.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> You really seem to want to chastize women for wanting too much, and yet think that men are all just affable and accepting of whatever comes their way, Why is that?


I don't want to chastise anyone.

I want everyone to get as much of what they want as possible.

Not having unrealistic wants helps that cause.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> If she does not continue to work, she will lose her ability to earn even the smaller income that she makes now.
> 
> She is not married to you. She would be in a very bad situation if she does not go back to work and you break up later on. She will then have to support herself. But with years of being unemployed, she'd be lucky if even find a job. And if she did, it would be at minimum wage.


I feel as if I'm giving the impression that we are fighting about this but we're not,it just came up,when we were discussing what will happen when the baby comes.I have to be upfront here and say that my business makes a lot of money and that is by anyone's standards.J (my gf) has certain qualifications in the health and fitness field so I feel if she really wants to work then come and work for me.We live in a medium sized town and the only place she can use her skills is in my gym.Otherwise she will have to take a low paying job or commute.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> This statement seems to assume that all, or the vast majority, of women are attracted to "power and wealth". That's a pretty broad paint brush. And it's easy to prove that most women are not.
> 
> Most men have no real power or wealth. Yet most men are married. Go to Walmart and similar stores. You will see couple after couple, usually with kids in tow. It's pretty clear that the men are in the "power and wealth" category. Go to the State Fair every September and this is even more clear.
> 
> The subset of women who seek out men who have "power and wealth" is a rather small subset of women. So why make it sound like all, or most, women are like this?


I agree broad brushes are misleading, and given all the red pill and MGTOW stuff I can understand why you respond strongly. and I would respond equally strongly if someone argues that guys just want a good looking trophy wife.

It does interest me whether there is a kernel of truth in ideas like that. Not that such things are the overriding driver in why we choose relationships, but maybe they are one factor in many.

I don't think I selected my wife on looks, but i do think she is good looking. What would happen if some accident were to destroy her face? I'd like to think it wouldn't matter to me, but would it?

There are also different types and degrees of wealth and status. One person might achieve in the corporate world. Another may work in the arts, making less money but having more "cool" factor. I also know from experience that some people judge you differently if you drive a prestige car vs a boring mainstream vehicle. 

And then you have to settle for what you can get. Quoting what one passenger said to Jack after he fell for Rose in Titanic, "you'd as likely have angels fly out of your a** as be with the likes of her."


----------



## wild jade

Andy1001 said:


> I feel as if I'm giving the impression that we are fighting about this but we're not,it just came up,when we were discussing what will happen when the baby comes.I have to be upfront here and say that my business makes a lot of money and that is by anyone's standards.J (my gf) has certain qualifications in the health and fitness field so I feel if she really wants to work then come and work for me.We live in a medium sized town and the only place she can use her skills is in my gym.Otherwise she will have to take a low paying job or commute.


LOL. Has she agreed that really, she should just come and work for you? And that really, since you have so much lovely money, and own all of the viable employment opportunities in town, that she should just be happy that she can be taken care of by you? 

Even if you break up? 

Even if after you break up, you find a new woman to look after .... or she finds a new man?


----------



## Wazza

Andy1001 said:


> I feel as if I'm giving the impression that we are fighting about this but we're not,it just came up,when we were discussing what will happen when the baby comes.I have to be upfront here and say that my business makes a lot of money and that is by anyone's standards.J (my gf) has certain qualifications in the health and fitness field so I feel if she really wants to work then come and work for me.We live in a medium sized town and the only place she can use her skills is in my gym.Otherwise she will have to take a low paying job or commute.


Do you respect her decision not to do that? I get the sense you don't. If I'm right, how does she feel about that?


----------



## lifeistooshort

wild jade said:


> Yes, this is exactly the kind of issue I was trying to respond to. I guess it's me that's not very clear.
> 
> As I see it, the deal is that she doesn't want to be beholden to you. And that is something that I completely understand.
> 
> You have no money worries because it's your money. You think she shouldn't have money worries because you will give her some. But she likely does have money worries because she doesn't want to be so reliant on you that she can't make it on her own -- especially given the uncertainty around your relationship.
> 
> I find it very curious that you think that she should just be happy to take your money and call it a day. The reality is that while some women do indeed want to be supported, particularly when bearing and raising children, many absoltely do not want to be so reliant on someone else that they can't just pick up and walk away if they need to.


When my cousin was in medical school he was dating another med student who came from a very wealthy family. 

He had nothing.

She wanted to spend all kinds of money on him, including trying to buy him a car, and he refused everything.

He told me he didn't want to feel indebted if things didn't work out.

They've now been married over to 10 years (2 kids) and this was one of the things that really endeared him to her family......that he wasn't a user and wasn't interested in their money. 

They're now both doctors and have a ton of money, but despite her family's wealth he's always paid his own way. 

I would've done the same thing.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> This made me LOL. Hiring a "matchmaker". Why not just go back to arranged marriages? They actually have better success rates than the current "pick for love" strategy... (like a D rate 10% of ours lol)


I would think that a live human as a match maker, who does background checks, and provides other security measure is much more preferable to using something like the online dating sites.

A matchmaker does not just find one person and you have to marry them. A matchmaker provides some number of matches.. but they are very carefully matched and vetted. So it's a whole lot safer than online dating.



Kivlor said:


> You're right that there's a huge risk whenever you marry someone who is largely below your own financial status. The simple answer is to make sure to get a prenup if at all possible, and to separate your pre-marital finances, and of course to make sure you never commingle them. Of course, this tends to make a SO upset... (Why do you want a pre-made divorce decree? Don't you think we're going to work out? What are you hiding... yada yada...)


Yep, it's something to avoid. If both parties are in a situation of feeling that they need a pre-nup, it goes down a lot better. Or if neither has a need, that also goes down a lot better.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> My son is 27. He's working on his PD in physics and teaching at the university. He and his friends talk about this. They want to meet/marry women who earn at least on par with them.


Have he and his friends said why?


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Seriously YOU are the one with the problem, now are you going abuse your power and ban me again Ele because I don't agree with you, or because you didn't read what I wrote in context and just prejudicially assumed I was being sexist. Which was exactly the reason you banned me the last time.


If I were going to ban you over what you have said on this thread and the other, you would already be banned.

I am clearly posting on this thread as just another member of TAM. It's unfair for you to try to shut me up with that last paragraph. 

I'm truly sorry if you object to me expressing my opinion on things.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> My son is 27. He's working on his PD in physics and teaching at the university. He and his friends talk about this. They want to meet/marry women who earn at least on par with them. Of course other qualities like character matter, but we are discussing income here.


To me it is just odd that somehow a salary $$$ is considered part of the SO search process (outside of those matchmaking services which aren't exactly the norm).


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> This statement seems to assume that all, or the vast majority, of women are attracted to "power and wealth". That's a pretty broad paint brush. And it's easy to prove that most women are not.
> 
> Most men have no real power or wealth. Yet most men are married. Go to Walmart and similar stores. You will see couple after couple, usually with kids in tow. It's pretty clear that the men are in the "power and wealth" category. Go to the State Fair every September and this is even more clear.
> 
> The subset of women who seek out men who have "power and wealth" is a rather small subset of women. So why make it sound like all, or most, women are like this?


It may "seem" to assume that to you, but that was not my intent.

Many men are attracted to supermodels but very few supermodels actually exist.

My thesis would be: Power and Wealth is an important element of attraction for many women. It is not an important element of attraction for many men.

I do not, in any way, consider seeing power and wealth as attractive as being the equivalent of gold digging.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.
> 
> You have clearly misunderstood what women on TAM have been saying. So have many others.


To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Have he and his friends said why?


It's not just the income. It's also that they want women who they feel are their equals intellectually and in other ways. These are all young men who grew up in household were both their father and their mother worked and earned decent incomes. So I think that for these young men, it's what they are used to.

I do think however, that if one of them met some woman that they fell hard for, he'd marry her.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


I'll go back and look that up when I get back this afternoon. I don't think that's true. I think that one or two might have said that.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> To me it is just odd that somehow a salary $$$ is considered part of the SO search process (outside of those matchmaking services which aren't exactly the norm).


It might seem odd, or not.

We live in a society that requires money. I don't think it's odd at all to look at income since without it you (generic you) and your family will end up living on the street.

We live in very unreliable economic times. Even people with degrees and experience in STEM are not sure that their jobs will be there. Look at Boeing... they are talking about moving thousands of jobs to India. The company that I retired from this hear has moved most engineering jobs to India, Russia, Yugoslavia and China. This year, they have laid off thousands of engineers here in the USA.

The chance of at least one of the spouse losing their job is pretty high these days. Add to that the chance to disability, etc.

If a couple has two people who can earn about equally, they are more likely to be able to survive financially if both earn enough so that one income could support the family should anything happen to the other.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> The house will belong to my daughter when she is born and my gf has no say in what happens to it and the baby's inheritance is money which my parents left me but for various reasons I refused to accept.We don't live together but I asked her last night to move in with me and she agreed.I may not have been clear in my posts but money doesn't come into the equation,I make plenty but she has difficulty accepting money from me.This is a long story but I hope it has a happy ending.Btw she has a son from a previous relationship.


What happens if you have more children? You just gave it all to one child.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> It might seem odd, or not.
> 
> We live in a society that requires money. I don't think it's odd at all to look at income since without it you (generic you) and your family will end up living on the street.
> 
> We live in very unreliable economic times. Even people with degrees and experience in STEM are not sure that their jobs will be there. Look at Boeing... they are talking about moving thousands of jobs to India. The company that I retired from this hear has moved most engineering jobs to India, Russia, Yugoslavia and China. This year, they have laid off thousands of engineers here in the USA.
> 
> The chance of at least one of the spouse losing their job is pretty high these days. Add to that the chance to disability, etc.
> 
> If a couple has two people who can earn about equally, they are more likely to be able to survive financially if both earn enough so that one income could support the family should anything happen to the other.


I see what you are saying, but saying "I want someone who earns about the same $$$ as me" still doesn't quite address some of what you listed above. $$$ does not coincide with the risk of losing your job. Someone may earn less, but be in a job that is stable and/or readily available, the type of job that helps adds stability.

All I see if just narrowing down the "dating pool" of people who are acceptable based on what could be a rather arbitrary number. Based on your example, you could argue that two people becoming a couple who are both engineers are actually taking on a higher risk since their careers are basically in the same basket. 

Guess I am just old fashioned, find someone that you are physically and emotionally attracted to, truly care for, instead of making it seem like some sort of business transaction.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> I agree broad brushes are misleading, and given all the red pill and MGTOW stuff I can understand why you respond strongly. and I would respond equally strongly if someone argues that guys just want a good looking trophy wife.
> 
> It does interest me whether there is a kernel of truth in ideas like that. Not that such things are the overriding driver in why we choose relationships, but maybe they are one factor in many.
> 
> I don't think I selected my wife on looks, but i do think she is good looking. What would happen if some accident were to destroy her face? I'd like to think it wouldn't matter to me, but would it?
> 
> There are also different types and degrees of wealth and status. One person might achieve in the corporate world. Another may work in the arts, making less money but having more "cool" factor. I also know from experience that some people judge you differently if you drive a prestige car vs a boring mainstream vehicle.
> 
> And then you have to settle for what you can get. Quoting what one passenger said to Jack after he fell for Rose in Titanic, "you'd as likely have angels fly out of your a** as be with the likes of her."


I reply strongly here because I think that the broad brush that has been used by some is hurting this discussion. 

Of course there are some women who are attracted to men who have "power and wealth". But it's a subset. Just like it's a subset of men who are attracted to air-head gold diggers who have nothing but good looks going for them.

Take any preference that people use to select a mate and we would find that it's a subset of people who focus on that preference.

It this an interesting discussion, sure it is--as long as it does not turn into a discussion that tries to paint all women with the same brush. (or all men with the same brush)


----------



## katiecrna

Andy1001 said:


> I feel as if I'm giving the impression that we are fighting about this but we're not,it just came up,when we were discussing what will happen when the baby comes.I have to be upfront here and say that my business makes a lot of money and that is by anyone's standards.J (my gf) has certain qualifications in the health and fitness field so I feel if she really wants to work then come and work for me.We live in a medium sized town and the only place she can use her skills is in my gym.Otherwise she will have to take a low paying job or commute.




I don't think you are understanding the point the others are trying to make. You and your money have nothing to do with your girlfriend. Even if she is your wife. Women (IMO) need to be able to be independent. Independent meaning if you were to die and your business goes under she will be standing tall on her own. How much she makes right now isn't the point. She can make more money working for you, or she can make minimal wage by herself and rise up and establish her own life/job/career. How much money isn't the point, it's the fact that it's just hers. 

My husband is a cardio-thoracic surgeon. He will make very good money, and we have no prenup. But it's important for me to be independent because his money and his job has nothing to do with my goals and my dreams. It's important to me to be independent for my own goals/dreams, self esteem, I have my own purpose in life, to be an example to my future kids. And a big thing is control. My husband knows that there is nothing preventing me from walking out the door and divorcing him so he needs to treat me right bc I don't need him. I married a great man, a good Christian, family oriented man. But I'm not dumb. I know surgeons cheat a lot. Everyone says... oh my husband would never cheat on me he's not like that. Yet it happens a lot. I created a life, and I put myself in a position to win incase something like that happens. I have my own career + no prenup = I won't tolerate bull****. Women especially need to think like this. 

I have a friend whose brother cheats on his wife, his wife doesn't work, stays at home, has no degree or skills. My (*******) friend says to me... who cares if he cheats sometimes, What is she going to do leave him? She has 3 kids, no job or money.

If you think having a job/career is about money you are mistaken.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> I see what you are saying, but saying "I want someone who earns about the same $$$ as me" still doesn't quite address some of what you listed above. $$$ does not coincide with the risk of losing your job. Someone may earn less, but be in a job that is stable and/or readily available, the type of job that helps adds stability.
> 
> All I see if just narrowing down the "dating pool" of people who are acceptable based on what could be a rather arbitrary number. Based on your example, you could argue that two people becoming a couple who are both engineers are actually taking on a higher risk since their careers are basically in the same basket.


I agree that income is not the only parameter. I also agree that having careers in different fields is probably more secure than two people in the same career field.

But if one person earns $100,000 a year and their spouse earns $20,000 year or less, the issue of stability should the higher earner become disabled or lose their job is a real issue.

I think that some people just believe that they could never, ever end up in a real financial crisis. It happens all the time. There are literally thousands of people in this country who lost their good paying jobs a few years ago and have either not been able to find work again or only have find minimum wage jobs and/or part time jobs. The ones married to someone who did not lose a job that earned enough to live on are the lucky ones.



EllisRedding said:


> Guess I am just old fashioned, find someone that you are physically and emotionally attracted to, truly care for, instead of making it seem like some sort of business transaction.


You seem to assume that if a woman is well educated and makes a good living, that she will not be able to fill rest of the criteria. I have not doubt that my son (and his friends) will be able to find women in the subset of well educated women who earn a good income who also are women that they are physically and emotionally attracted to and truly care for.


----------



## EleGirl

But going back to who a high earning woman should marry, whomever she wants.

A very close friend of mine remarried a couple of years ago. She earns twice what he does. There is no problem at all about this in their marriage. 

I have anther friend how earns about 100K. She married a 100% disabled vet. He brings in about $3K a month. He's doing the SAHD thing to her kids from a previous relationship. They are doing quite well.

I worked with a woman who makes 6 figures. Her husband does not work. He does volunteer work full time. They have been married for 25+ years and are very happy.

Another woman I worked with earned quite a bit more than her husband. He retired about 3 years ago so now she earns much more than he. They too are doing just fine.

And then I know a lot of couples with other income mixes. different strokes for different folks.


----------



## katiecrna

EleGirl said:


> It's not just the income. It's also that they want women who they feel are their equals intellectually and in other ways. These are all young men who grew up in household were both their father and their mother worked and earned decent incomes. So I think that for these young men, it's what they are used to.
> 
> 
> 
> I do think however, that if one of them met some woman that they fell hard for, he'd marry her.




My husband is the same way. Although it's not about $$ it's about level of education. My husband doesn't care if his wife works but he has always said he wants a educated and smart wife. And it has to do with mutual respect, common interest, but also unfortunately other things... research tells us that divorce goes down with higher levels of education, amount of sex one has with their spouse goes up with higher levels of education, job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, health and life expectancy, the aging process... and even affairs, people who reported lower levels of education have more affairs. Education is extremely under rated IMO. It's not about money.


----------



## EleGirl

katiecrna said:


> My husband is the same way. Although it's not about $$ it's about level of education. My husband doesn't care if his wife works but he has always said he wants a educated and smart wife. And it has to do with mutual respect, common interest, but also unfortunately other things... research tells us that divorce goes down with higher levels of education, amount of sex one has with their spouse goes up with higher levels of education, job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, health and life expectancy, the aging process... and even affairs, people who reported lower levels of education have more affairs. Education is extremely under rated IMO. It's not about money.


I agree with this. Education is very important for the reasons listed here. Studies do show what you state here.

But I do want to add the caveated that education does not guarantee that a person is "better" than others. I've known quite a few boorish educated people. And I've known a lot of good people who have no education beyond high school.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> But if one person earns $100,000 a year and their spouse earns $20,000 year or less, the issue of stability should the higher earner become disabled or lose their job is a real issue.


Agreed, but this is also a more extreme example (100k vs 20k or less). Where does it become acceptable, is there some sort of sliding scale ? This actually ties back in to the last thread where the OPs "issue" was that the disparity was so extreme. Not really asking a question here, just thinking out loud.




EleGirl said:


> You seem to assume that if a woman is well educated and makes a good living, that she will not be able to fill rest of the criteria. I have not doubt that my son (and his friends) will be able to find women in the subset of well educated women who earn a good income who also are women that they are physically and emotionally attracted to and truly care for.


Huh, where did I even assume that, nor did I ever say anything specifically about women (all my posts have been gender neutral actually)? I am just stating that all I see is this growing checklist of criteria a SO must meet, with some of it seeming more like a business transaction.


----------



## katiecrna

I don't think it's a checklist as much as it's who you are naturally drawn to. People getting their phd or masters or whatever hang out with people who are getting their phd or masters. People of common interest hang out, or see each other in the same places (class/school/jobs).


----------



## katiecrna

A lot of people meet their spouse at school, through a classmate, or a work.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> It's not just the income. It's also that *they want women who they feel are their equals intellectually and in other ways. *These are all young men who grew up in household were both their father and their mother worked and earned decent incomes. So I think that for these young men, it's what they are used to.
> 
> I do think however, that if one of them met some woman that they fell hard for, he'd marry her.


I think the bolded is very important, for both sexes. Both partners have to feel satisfied for the marriage to be stable and happy in the long term.

Though, I have heard people of both sexes say that their partner is not their equal, but that there are other things that make up for that. Again, as long as both are satisfied, good enough.

I also agree with your last sentence. When people meet the right one, a lot of preconceived ideas can go out the window.

I know it was important to Dug to marry a woman he could have interesting conversations with. He never said anything about money, though.

I just asked him and he said he never even thought of it. It could be, like you said, a new thing with the younger generation.


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> I don't think it's a checklist as much as it's who you are naturally drawn to. People getting their phd or masters or whatever hang out with people who are getting their phd or masters. People of common interest hang out, or see each other in the same places (class/school/jobs).





katiecrna said:


> A lot of people meet their spouse at school, through a classmate, or a work.


Two different things though. I met my W via school. Hanging in the same crowd, having common interest, that makes sense, like you said, just who you are drawn to. Stating a salary requirement IMO does not fit in with this (which is where it feels more like a business transaction).


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed, but this is also a more extreme example (100k vs 20k or less). Where does it become acceptable, is there some sort of sliding scale ? This actually ties back in to the last thread where the OPs "issue" was that the disparity was so extreme. Not really asking a question here, just thinking out loud.


Yes it's an extreme example. But the idea some are saying is that income level should never be a consideration--that money means nothing. 

There are plenty of people who only mean minimum wage. That's about $17,600 a year. So 20K is even above that. 

Where does it become acceptable, is there some sort of sliding scale? I think that this is up to each person to decide for themselves. 

For example, I would have been ok with my step-kids dad earning $0 if he had taken responsibility for the kids, the house and the yard. I would have loved for him to be a house husband since I was thrust into being the sole bread winner. I would have also been ok with him doing a fair amount of charity work. What matters to me is that he take responsibility, provide something of value to the family/household and that he be involved in something meaningful. Playing computer games and surfing porn every working hour was not acceptable. 

Each person has to make that decision for themselves. And somethings, it takes a while for a person to figure out what is acceptable to them. That only comes with thinking it through and often requires that they live through it to come to the conclusions.




EllisRedding said:


> Huh, where did I even assume that, nor did I ever say anything specifically about women (all my posts have been gender neutral actually)? I am just stating that all I see is this growing checklist of criteria a SO must meet, with some of it seeming more like a business transaction.


You asked about my son and his friends.. so I was assuming that they would be marrying women and thus you would be talking about them find a women who they found attractive, loved, etc.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> You asked about my son and his friends.. so I was assuming that they would be marrying women and thus you would be talking about them find a women who they found attractive, loved, etc.


Sorry, was asking in more of a general sense the whole "He/She must make xxx" idea. IDK, a woman's career just never mattered much to me (well, if she is a stripper or porn star, then it may matter lol). If for whatever crazy reason I was back out in the dating world I still can't see it mattering. I guess the only business aspect I would need to factor in would be a prenup to protect my assets (something that was not a concern when I got married).


----------



## katiecrna

For me it's not about $. For example, look at the NJ housewives husbands. None of them are educated, most of them are sexist, pig headed idiots but make a ton of money. I would rather be with the educated man making way less money but he's not an idiot and I can't respect idiots. 

There is a different between when someone makes $20,000 bc they are starting up their own company or whatever vs someone making $20,000 bc they pump gas for a living. 
Not to say there is anything wrong with this. My point is a doctor married to a computer genius who started up his own company and is making $20,000 is different than a doctor married to someone who pumps gas for a living. 
Education, intelligence, class etc does not means $$. 
The guy who made girls gone wild is a millionaire but he's someone I could never respect or have an intelligent conversation with.


----------



## katiecrna

I would rather marry a missionary that makes $15,000 than a porn director that's a millionaire.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Sorry, was asking in more of a general sense the whole "He/She must make xxx" idea. IDK, a woman's career just never mattered much to me (well, if she is a stripper or porn star, then it may matter lol). If for whatever crazy reason I was back out in the dating world I still can't see it mattering. I guess the only business aspect I would need to factor in would be a prenup to protect my assets (something that was not a concern when I got married).


I think I understand what you are saying about her career not mattering to you.

If you were single again, would you marry someone who you had 100% financial responsibility for? I don't think you could realistically answer this until you found yourself in this situation.

I think that an interesting insight into this is that when one spouse gets a higher degree after marriage, it usually alters the dynamics of the relationship. The one who gets the higher degree often divorces the other spouse. It changes the dynamics of the relationship.

When my son's father was in medical school, as time when on, his perception of his own worth caused huge problems. I read his diary to figure out what was going on. It was pretty ugly in that he wrote many pages about how I was no longer worthy of him. 

Even in our divorce he tried using this to fight for custody. I was offering 50/50 custody. He argued that as a lowly engineer with an MS degree, I was not a good influence on our son. Instead, now that he was a physician, he should have 100% custody. The judge ignored his very stupid argument.

For some people the level of education and income is very important.


----------



## anonmd

This thread is kinda funny, a bunch of old folks speculating. 

Do Tinder profiles list income? Do people tell the truth? 

In my day I was looking for some intelligence and some sexiness and a career of any type. No fabulous future earning potential was req'd. I suspect women were looking for the same but a little more promise of higher prospects on the career point, nothing wrong with being optimistic.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

If I had a dollar for every female doctor/lawyer/cpa I've met who's married to a firefighter....


----------



## WorkingOnMe

I'd be able to buy lunch at McDonald's. But it's still pretty significant.


----------



## katiecrna

I think that if you are highly educated, and spend years and years in school these people obviously value education and they may want someone equally educated. Someone who has "normal" levels of education... associates or bachelors, I think they don't value education as much and seek people that have similar education as them. And then people who have high school education and some college... same thing, they probably value education a little less and seek people with similar levels of education. 
This is the same as everything else. Super healthy people who spend a lot of time working out and looking good or whatever look for similar people that value the same thing. 
A super health conscious person values health and probably won't date an obese person.
A super educated person that values education is probably not going to date a high school drop out.
A super gay man is probably not going to date a women.


----------



## katiecrna

What I typically see are a husband and wife whose education level isn't far off from one another. 
Except I see a lot of doctors and nurses or doctors and respiratory therapists.


----------



## john117

katiecrna said:


> What I typically see are a husband and wife whose education level isn't far off from one another.
> Except I see a lot of doctors and nurses or doctors and respiratory therapists.


Because that worked so well in my marriage 

Me - laid back life then work, PhD cognitive psychology, same company for 31 years. 

Her - high achiever work above all PhD applied mathematics, probably 8-9 companies in 30 years.

Incomes - she makes 5% less than me.

Marriage - zombie. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## katiecrna

john117 said:


> Because that worked so well in my marriage
> 
> Me - laid back life then work, PhD cognitive psychology, same company for 31 years.
> 
> Her - high achiever work above all PhD applied mathematics, probably 8-9 companies in 30 years.
> 
> Incomes - she makes 5% less than me.
> 
> Marriage - zombie.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk




The key is... your still married.


----------



## katiecrna

And you will statistically have more sex than me and live longer than me! Cheers lol


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> I think that if you are highly educated, and spend years and years in school these people obviously value education and they may want someone equally educated. Someone who has "normal" levels of education... associates or bachelors, I think they don't value education as much and seek people that have similar education as them. And then people who have high school education and some college... same thing, they probably value education a little less and seek people with similar levels of education.
> This is the same as everything else. Super healthy people who spend a lot of time working out and looking good or whatever look for similar people that value the same thing.
> A super health conscious person values health and probably won't date an obese person.
> A super educated person that values education is probably not going to date a high school drop out.
> A super gay man is probably not going to date a women.


It certainly makes sense that people of similar education levels would partner up. It just seems like the men do not pay as much attention to this, or it is not a deal breaker, at least in the, say, 40+ crowd.

First time I have heard a bachelor's degree used as a marker of someone not overly valuing education, though.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> The key is... your still married.


For how long, john?


----------



## Hope Shimmers

jld said:


> First time I have heard a bachelor's degree used as a marker of someone not overly valuing education, though.


She's married to a cardiothoracic surgeon


----------



## katiecrna

I have only met a couple of guys who really really care about their future wives education. One of them who is very nice but full of himself, actually has a list made with questions that he somehow asks in a non obvious way, and for him to take her seriously (as a future wife), she has to know the answers. 
Needless to say... I could not pass that test. Some of the questions I remember were things about who the Vice President was, their senator... I don't remember the rest but they weren't all political.


----------



## jld

Hope Shimmers said:


> She's married to a cardiothoracic surgeon


And so anything less than a surgical specialty means the person does not value education?


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> I have only met a couple of guys who really really care about their future wives education. One of them who is very nice but full of himself, actually has a list made with questions that he somehow asks in a non obvious way, and for him to take her seriously (as a future wife), she has to know the answers.
> Needless to say... I could not pass that test. Some of the questions I remember were things about who the Vice President was, their senator... I don't remember the rest but they weren't all political.


I read about a man who literally interviewed women while trying to find a wife. Did end up finding one, though.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

jld said:


> And so anything less than a surgical specialty means the person does not value education?


Hey, no need to jump on me.  I didn't make the statement. I was just pointing out that her frame of reference might be different.


----------



## katiecrna

jld said:


> And so anything less than a surgical specialty means the person does not value education?




No I did not say this. Value something less than does not mean does not value. 

How we spend our time and money typically reflects our values. Some people spend 10+ years, an insane amount of time, money, and sacrifice getting their PhD, MD or whatever. These people value education ALOT. And IMO more than someone who went to school for 4 years and got their bachelors. 

I am not trying to be offensive or judgmental, I do not have a doctorate a PhD or an M.D.. but I saw what my husband has gone through, 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school and 6+ years of residency (not including fellowship) while accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, while working 80-110hrs a week through the "best years of his life".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality.. 

It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> No I did not say this. Value something less than does not mean does not value.
> 
> How we spend our time and money typically reflects our values. Some people spend 10+ years, an insane amount of time, money, and sacrifice getting their PhD, MD or whatever. These people value education ALOT. And IMO more than someone who went to school for 4 years and got their bachelors.
> 
> I am not trying to be offensive or judgmental, I do not have a doctorate a PhD or an M.D.. but I saw what my husband has gone through, 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school and 6+ years of residency (not including fellowship) while accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, while working 80-110hrs a week through the "best years of his life".


I think he valued his educational/career path. And that is very good, because we certainly need thoracic surgeons. 

But we need lots of other types of workers, too. Not all of them require even a bachelor's. 

I am just not sure the people who prepare for those jobs value their preparation "less than" your husband values his. They may just not have needed as much, or the same type.

Anyway, was just surprised to read it.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


You are absolutely "enough." 

This is America, remember?


----------



## katiecrna

I agree 100% with this. And let me just state that my husband and I are Christians and we are not elitist. We believe we are all Gods children and we each have an important job that needs to be done. One is not more important than the other. Although my husband and I both agreed that this world needs garbage men way more than cardiothoracic surgeons lol. My husband is the first person in his family to go to college, we both were raised in a typical working class family. And we respect the hell out of our dads who rolled their sleeves up and worked their asses off.


----------



## uhtred

I really don't think social classes come in a well defined order in the US. Airline pilot, attorney, electrical engineer, doctor, anthropology professor, Newspaper columnist, etc. Which are higher class than others?

I think the key is to find people with whom you can share common interests and activities. 

It also depends on how flexible people are. I can eat at a wide variety of places, but I'll take a meal with an interesting attractive companion at a McDonald's over eating with a random person at Chez E'xpensive any day.


I love to travel, but I'd never look down on someone who didn't travel if the reason was that they didn't have the time / money to do so. 






SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> If I were going to ban you over what you have said on this thread and the other, you would already be banned.
> 
> I am clearly posting on this thread as just another member of TAM. It's unfair for you to try to shut me up with that last paragraph.
> 
> I'm truly sorry if you object to me expressing my opinion on things.


I am not trying to shut you up. Feel free to explain to me where I am attacking anyone from what I have posted. Frankly, I think if you read what I wrote without first assuming there was any gender bias you would agree with me. 

For the rest of what I was trying to say, you have a PM.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I think I understand what you are saying about her career not mattering to you.
> 
> If you were single again, would you marry someone who you had 100% financial responsibility for? I don't think you could realistically answer this until you found yourself in this situation.


Umm... if a single grown adult required 100% financial responsibility, there are probably larger issues to worry about lol. Who knows though, I am not one to rule anyone out, just has to be the right person. All hypothetical though so who knows.

I guess the guys I have known never really cared about the career (or career potential) of their SO, but I have seen the opposite where it is a bigger factor for some females. Whether a female was a CEO or a teacher, it would make zero difference in my attraction to them.


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


I struggle with my husbands family. His mother & father both have masters degrees and I think it contributes to them tending to talk down to people. I don't think that I'm book smart (even though I have a BS) but I am common sense smart. It's hard to be around them sometimes when they're feeling uppity. My husband will talk down to someone every so often (he learned it from his parents). Just last week, he was repeating a conversation to me about a coworker. I told him he was condescending. I just don't think he realizes when he's doing it.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


It is a shame you would feel that way SA

On the bright side, I would like to think you won't ever have to worry about dating again :smile2:


----------



## EllisRedding

tropicalbeachiwish said:


> I struggle with my husbands family. His mother & father both have masters degrees and I think it contributes to them tending to talk down to people. I don't think that I'm book smart (even though I have a BS) but I am common sense smart. It's hard to be around them sometimes when they're feeling uppity. My husband will talk down to someone every so often (he learned it from his parents). Just last week, he was repeating a conversation to me about a coworker. I told him he was condescending. I just don't think he realizes when he's doing it.


You laugh at poop, penis, and fart jokes, that should be more than enough for any husband and his family :grin2:


----------



## uhtred

Having a degree does not keep someone from being insecure. Maybe they are embarrassed that they only have masters degrees so they try to make people with lesser degrees feel bad?

I work at a place where the default assumption is that everyone has a PhD. The ones who don't are more impressive because they were smart enough to do well despite the social pressure against them. 


There are lots of jobs that require real skill, but not degrees. Let someone who degenerates skilled trades try plumbing or carpentry and then explain how easy it is. 









tropicalbeachiwish said:


> I struggle with my husbands family. His mother & father both have masters degrees and I think it contributes to them tending to talk down to people. I don't think that I'm book smart (even though I have a BS) but I am common sense smart. It's hard to be around them sometimes when they're feeling uppity. My husband will talk down to someone every so often (he learned it from his parents). Just last week, he was repeating a conversation to me about a coworker. I told him he was condescending. I just don't think he realizes when he's doing it.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> I agree 100% with this. And let me just state that my husband and I are Christians and we are not elitist. We believe we are all Gods children and we each have an important job that needs to be done. One is not more important than the other. Although my husband and I both agreed that this world needs garbage men way more than cardiothoracic surgeons lol. My husband is the first person in his family to go to college, we both were raised in a typical working class family. And we respect the hell out of our dads who rolled their sleeves up and worked their asses off.


I don't think you are an elitist, Katie. I just think it is inaccurate to think that someone may value their education "less" because it only lasts two or four years.

I have a friend who will be graduating soon from a two year RN program. She is so proud to finally become a nurse, Katie. She has wanted this for at least the last fifteen years, since serving in a medical unit in the army.

I am pretty sure she is the first person in her family to get any education past high school. She has studied very hard over the last 3 1/2 years, and worked lots of hours on the side as a nursing assistant to be able to afford the tuition. That was in addition to overseeing the homeschooling of her five children.

Those kids, aged 16 down to four, pitched in at home so their mom, going on 40, would be able to do all she needed to do. And ultimately, she did it for them at least as much as for herself. 

So, in that light, I believe she values her education as much as anyone I can think of. Maybe more.


----------



## Kivlor

uhtred said:


> Having a degree does not keep someone from being insecure. Maybe they are embarrassed that they only have masters degrees so they try to make people with lesser degrees feel bad?
> 
> I work at a place where the default assumption is that everyone has a PhD. The ones who don't are more impressive because they were smart enough to do well despite the social pressure against them.
> 
> 
> There are lots of jobs that require real skill, but not degrees. Let someone who degenerates skilled trades try plumbing or carpentry and then explain how easy it is.


This.

I have a lot more respect for someone who went into a trade to get a career than I do a snowflake who went to college for a "Women's Studies" degree (or any other useless degree without a plan. "I got a degree in Japanese because I like Japanese cartoons" comes to mind as another example). If you're going to school for a degree, just because "you're supposed to" and you have no plan for that degree, well, I find that actually contemptible. It shows that you are willing to waste years of your life, and further years of income, for nothing. And that would make you, in my eyes, a poor mate and parent. 

Whereas, someone who goes to college with a plan for a career, and executes said plan--that's respectable.


----------



## katiecrna

Kivlor said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot more respect for someone who went into a trade to get a career than I do a snowflake who went to college for a "Women's Studies" degree (or any other useless degree without a plan. "I got a degree in Japanese because I like Japanese cartoons" comes to mind as another example). If you're going to school for a degree, just because "you're supposed to" and you have no plan for that degree, well, I find that actually contemptible. It shows that you are willing to waste years of your life, and further years of income, for nothing. And that would make you, in my eyes, a poor mate and parent.
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, someone who goes to college with a plan for a career, and executes said plan--that's respectable.




I agree. I respect people who work hard and those that don't take the path of least resistance. Too many people get their Bachelor in an "easy useless degree" usually while partying hard and doing anything other than preparing for their future and complain when they have $50,000 of student loan and a minimum wage job. 

This is what I had in my mind when I said those who get bachelors don't value their education as much as those who get their phd or whatever.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> This.
> 
> I have a lot more respect for someone who went into a trade to get a career than I do a snowflake who went to college for a "Women's Studies" degree (or any other useless degree without a plan. "I got a degree in Japanese because I like Japanese cartoons" comes to mind as another example). If you're going to school for a degree, just because "you're supposed to" and you have no plan for that degree, well, I find that actually contemptible. It shows that you are willing to waste years of your life, and further years of income, for nothing. And that would make you, in my eyes, a poor mate and parent.
> 
> Whereas, someone who goes to college with a plan for a career, and executes said plan--that's respectable.


I respect higher education. It is just a shame it is so expensive in the US.

Trades are also a good career path. 

I bet Japanese would be hard to learn.


----------



## Kivlor

katiecrna said:


> I agree. I respect people who work hard and those that don't take the path of least resistance. Too many people get their Bachelor in an "easy useless degree" usually while partying hard and doing anything other than preparing for their future and complain when they have $50,000 of student loan and a minimum wage job.
> 
> This is what I had in my mind when I said those who get bachelors don't value their education as much as those who get their phd or whatever.


You know, there's a saying among economists... "any 'economist' who gets his PhD in Economics is a poor economist". Generally, a PhD doesn't offer enough return to be worth the $$ and time spent in that field. You can make more money by just getting a Masters and putting that extra energy into work. 

My youngest sister is a good example of someone getting a degree in a "useful" field, but not being worthy of respect. She's getting a degree in biology, and has no intention of using it to get a job that pays more than $8.50 per hour. "But it's my dream job!!" Well, if you'd have been willing to use your contacts (like me) and gone to a trade school, you could have had the job already, without the wasted 4 years and thousands of $$$'s in debt.

And to top it all off, even with the degree, she was told in the interviews this fall that they'd rather a HVAC certified person over a college degree. I brought this all up at the outset, but was told "You don't understand! No one can get a job without a college degree!!" Sigh...


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I feel as if I'm giving the impression that we are fighting about this but we're not,it just came up,when we were discussing what will happen when the baby comes.I have to be upfront here and say that my business makes a lot of money and that is by anyone's standards.J (my gf) has certain qualifications in the health and fitness field so I feel if she really wants to work then come and work for me.We live in a medium sized town and the only place she can use her skills is in my gym.Otherwise she will have to take a low paying job or commute.


Look at it this way. One time I was joking around with my wife one day, and I said, "you married me because I was the one you were dating at the time you were ready to get married." Even though I was kidding she didn't take this well and got real serious. She said, "I had a house and a very good job, I was very content and used to being alone. I married you because I wanted to be with you not because you provided anything else for me but our relationship." My wife is about 5 years older than me so she was further ahead of where I was when we met. This is one of the greatest things she has ever said to me, her only motivation was love!

I say all this to say if this is what she wants, let your wife establish her own so she can love you not because you are her financial support system but because you are her emotional one. You are a person who has money as you have said on here, most people with money are worried that people want them only for their money. You gf/wife doesn't seem to feel this way as she is willing to work at a low wage job to earn her own. So maybe she just wants to be with you because she loves you. Damn, sounds like a unicorn. You both are young and need to work stuff out, she still has the tatoo right? But to me this is a damn good sign.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I respect higher education. It is just a shame it is so expensive in the US.
> 
> Trades are also a good career path.
> 
> I bet Japanese would be hard to learn.


It is. And it can be useful if you have a plan, and the ability to fill a niche. But if your entire reason for "studying it" is "I like their culture", you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. 

I don't value higher "education" for "education's sake". It's a joke. I value good decisions. If you have something that you want, and that something will be beneficial to you / your family, and it requires a college diploma, that's great. If you're going just to go, you're a parasite, a louse, a wastrel.

Consider this: by going to college, you are saying that 12-15 years of "education" (your word not mine) and training wasn't enough to teach you anything of use, and that you need to go for 16-20 (or even more for Masters / PhD etc). This is an exercise in insanity, with insanity as defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. You've gone to school for 12 years with no appreciable results (in fact, in the US literacy goes down with the more years of compulsory schooling). Why would you keep going just for "education"?


----------



## katiecrna

Kivlor said:


> You know, there's a saying among economists... "any 'economist' who gets his PhD in Economics is a poor economist". Generally, a PhD doesn't offer enough return to be worth the $$ and time spent in that field. You can make more money by just getting a Masters and putting that extra energy into work.
> 
> 
> 
> My youngest sister is a good example of someone getting a degree in a "useful" field, but not being worthy of respect. She's getting a degree in biology, and has no intention of using it to get a job that pays more than $8.50 per hour. "But it's my dream job!!" Well, if you'd have been willing to use your contacts (like me) and gone to a trade school, you could have had the job already, without the wasted 4 years and thousands of $$$'s in debt.
> 
> 
> 
> And to top it all off, even with the degree, she was told in the interviews this fall that they'd rather a HVAC certified person over a college degree. I brought this all up at the outset, but was told "You don't understand! No one can get a job without a college degree!!" Sigh...




I was just talking to my husband about phds. I respect people who get their phd because it's so much f*cking work for little reward. Doctors work hard but they know they will not only make money coming out, but will get praise and appreciation. But phds work hard knowing that they will not make good money. I have a lot of friends that are getting their phd in some science field but their passion for their work overrides their need to get paid which I respect. I love that they feel the responsibility to contribute to science and finding a cure or whatever it is. When a cure or an advancement in medicine is found, it's never that one team that did it, it's the thousands of researchers before them that ruled things out for them. It really is a thankless job that only few really see how significant what they do really is. Their reward for their hard work is just knowing and feeling that they contributed to something great. 
My husband respects those phds bc few people can do it. My husband like most surgeons likes instant satisfaction... you see the disease and you cut it out. Done. Then they get thanked and praised by the patient and their family. Not too shabby. Those researchers and phds can work a lifetime without seeing results or even praise.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> It is. And it can be useful if you have a plan, and the ability to fill a niche. But if your entire reason for "studying it" is "I like their culture", you're doing it for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> I don't value higher "education" for "education's sake". It's a joke. I value good decisions. If you have something that you want, and that something will be beneficial to you / your family, and it requires a college diploma, that's great. If you're going just to go, you're a parasite, a louse, a wastrel.
> 
> Consider this: by going to college, you are saying that 12-15 years of "education" (your word not mine) and training wasn't enough to teach you anything of use, and that you need to go for 16-20 (or even more for Masters / PhD etc). This is an exercise in insanity, with insanity as defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. You've gone to school for 12 years with no appreciable results (in fact, in the US literacy goes down with the more years of compulsory schooling). Why would you keep going just for "education"?


What?

All education should stop at 18?

This is nonsense.


----------



## katiecrna

I think it's fine to be a lifelong student. If you are born rich and don't need to work getting an education in something just because you are interested in it is not a problem to me.


----------



## Kivlor

katiecrna said:


> I was just talking to my husband about phds. I respect people who get their phd because it's so much f*cking work for little reward. Doctors work hard but they know they will not only make money coming out, but will get praise and appreciation. But phds work hard knowing that they will not make good money. I have a lot of friends that are getting their phd in some science field but their passion for their work overrides their need to get paid which I respect. I love that they feel the responsibility to contribute to science and finding a cure or whatever it is. When a cure or an advancement in medicine is found, it's never that one team that did it, it's the thousands of researchers before them that ruled things out for them. It really is a thankless job that only few really see how significant what they do really is. Their reward for their hard work is just knowing and feeling that they contributed to something great.
> My husband respects those phds bc few people can do it. My husband like most surgeons likes instant satisfaction... you see the disease and you cut it out. Done. Then they get thanked and praised by the patient and their family. Not too shabby. Those researchers and phds can work a lifetime without seeing results or even praise.


I don't respect bad decisions. I mock them. I view them with contempt. There is nothing worthy of prestige in spending years of your life getting a piece of paper just for the sake of getting a piece of paper.

If you have something you plan to do with that paper, that may be worthy of prestige, of respect.

If I spent all day every day for half a year digging a ditch, and then spend the next 6 months filling it in. It's hard work. But it's meaningless, and unworthy of praise or respect without some context that would make it valuable. Now, if I was building my own septic on a property in the middle of nowhere, so I can service a house I'm building, that may be respectable...


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


Personally, you are the poster child for my whole argument on here. Assuming what you post on here is really an insight into your soul you seem like a very genuine warm, decent and loyal woman. Basically someone of character. Any man no matter what social class would be lucky to have you. 

Again, to me character is more important than all these others things. You can always learn, you can always make more money, however, character makes you not lash out even though you have a right to, because you know your SO is suffering and that is why they snapped at you. Character is what makes you learn about football even though you could care less so you can watch it together. It makes you not go out with the boys that night because she needs you to be home because she is lonely. It makes you have hard conversations even though they are hard because the marriage is more important than your fear of confrontation. Most of all it gives you the strength to change yourself when you realize your wrong, or maybe even when no one is wrong because you know that is what your SO needs for them to feel safe or happy. 

(Why do I hear myself write this in the Cowardly Lion voice from Wizard of Oz :grin2

Anyway all the things all you guys are talking about (job/money/status) don't do this, and this is what you need to have a succesful marrage.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> What?
> 
> All education should stop at 18?
> 
> This is nonsense.


:slap:


----------



## katiecrna

Kivlor said:


> I don't respect bad decisions. I mock them. I view them with contempt. There is nothing worthy of prestige in spending years of your life getting a piece of paper just for the sake of getting a piece of paper.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have something you plan to do with that paper, that may be worthy of prestige, of respect.
> 
> 
> 
> If I spent all day every day for half a year digging a ditch, and then spend the next 6 months filling it in. It's hard work. But it's meaningless, and unworthy of praise or respect without some context that would make it valuable. Now, if I was building my own septic on a property in the middle of nowhere, so I can service a house I'm building, that may be respectable...




I agree with what your saying but I don't agree with your opinion that researchers/phds are useless. The team that found the cure for malaria wouldn't of found it without those that worked for hundreds of hours and didn't find it. So your work may not have any value in this decade or maybe even in your lifetime doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly invaluable.


----------



## Personal

Who are high achieving women supposed to marry?

Me amongst others.


----------



## Kivlor

katiecrna said:


> I agree with what your saying but I don't agree with your opinion that researchers/phds are useless. The team that found the cure for malaria wouldn't of found it without those that worked for hundreds of hours and didn't find it. So your work may not have any value in this decade or maybe even in your lifetime doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly invaluable.


What I'm saying is that becoming a researcher may be worthy of prestige. Getting a PhD isn't on its own. You may need a PhD to get a job as a researcher, but the paper isn't respectable, nor is the time spent getting it, unless it is part of something greater.

Wasting 20+ years of your life at a desk, spitting back whatever is said to you, is not something to be proud of. If anything, it is something we would all be ashamed of, if we looked at it objectively. And to think we tell our kids they should do this because "education" is beyond shameful.

(I'm not actually trying to argue with you, just clarifying my point/position)


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> I have a friend whose brother cheats on his wife, his wife doesn't work, stays at home, has no degree or skills. My (*******) friend says to me... who cares if he cheats sometimes, *What is she going to do leave him?* She has 3 kids, no job or money.


There's a weird doublethink going on here.

Many men on TAM complain constantly that they can't divorce their SAHM wife because it will ruin them financially. The wife won't be able to get a decent paying job and the alimony and child support is too much (this is assuming the marriage has lasted long enough to result in support).

Yet many women on TAM say that, without her own source of income, a woman will never be able to divorce her husband.

Weird


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> What I'm saying is that becoming a researcher may be worthy of prestige. Getting a PhD isn't on its own. You may need a PhD to get a job as a researcher, but the paper isn't respectable, nor is the time spent getting it, unless it is part of something greater.


Kivlor, the whole _point_ of getting a PhD is to be trained to be able to contribute new research, to add to the body of knowledge, in a field. It is a _service_ to society, not some attempt at ego validation.

That is my _un_cynical view.


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> There's a weird doublethink going on here.
> 
> Many men on TAM complain constantly that they can't divorce their SAHM wife because it will ruin them financially. The wife won't be able to get a decent paying job and the alimony and child support is too much (this is assuming the marriage has lasted long enough to result in support).
> 
> Yet many women on TAM say that, without her own source of income, a woman will never be able to divorce her husband.
> 
> Weird


What is weird about it? Many families can barely make it when the parents stay together. I am sure they would struggle to support two households on what could barely sustain one.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> You seem to assume that if a woman is well educated and makes a good living, that she will not be able to fill rest of the criteria. I have not doubt that my son (and his friends) will be able to find women in the subset of well educated women who earn a good income who also are women that they are physically and emotionally attracted to and truly care for.


The fact of the matter is that the more criteria, the fewer people who can meet them.

This is similar to saying the perfect job that meets all of your criteria can be found.

True, but that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to find a perfect job. And, if you wait too long, you may get no job at all.


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> My husband is the same way. Although it's not about $$ it's about level of education. My husband doesn't care if his wife works but he has always said he wants a educated and smart wife. And it has to do with mutual respect, common interest, but also unfortunately other things... research tells us that divorce goes down with higher levels of education, amount of sex one has with their spouse goes up with higher levels of education, job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, health and life expectancy, the aging process... and even affairs, people who reported lower levels of education have more affairs. Education is extremely under rated IMO. It's not about money.


But then they will have failed to protect themselves from financial risk which @EleGirl suggested a good reason for marrying somewhat with a similar income.


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> My husband is the same way. Although it's not about $$ it's about level of education. My husband doesn't care if his wife works but he has always said he wants a educated and smart wife. And it has to do with mutual respect, common interest, but also unfortunately other things... research tells us that divorce goes down with higher levels of education, amount of sex one has with their spouse goes up with higher levels of education, job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, health and life expectancy, the aging process... and even affairs, people who reported lower levels of education have more affairs. Education is extremely under rated IMO. It's not about money.


Is prioritizing someone who you can have really great conversations with somehow more morally pure than prioritizing someone who you can have really great sex with?


----------



## MrsHolland

jld said:


> I respect higher education. It is just a shame it is so expensive in the US.
> 
> Trades are also a good career path.
> 
> *I bet Japanese would be hard to learn*.


Some people find language easy (not me) all my kids learn Japanese and love it, they don't find it difficult.


----------



## Buddy400

WorkingOnMe said:


> If I had a dollar for every female doctor/lawyer/cpa I've met who's married to a firefighter....


I'm thinking that this would be the ideal match for a high-earning woman.

Just wondering if it's working out as well in practice as in theory?


----------



## Buddy400

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


Anyone who thinks an education makes them special is someone you should have no desire to be around.

A degree (and an advanced degree in particular) means you take tests well. Big whoop.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Buddy400 said:


> I'm thinking that this would be the ideal match for a high-earning woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if it's working out as well in practice as in theory?




They seem to divorce at about the same rate. But it's all anecdotal.


----------



## john117

katiecrna said:


> The key is... your still married.


Not for long 

It's easy to blame wife's family of origin, culture, or mental health issues for my zombie marriage; having a high achiever played a big role in it as well.

I spent a decade in college so that I would not have to work Gulag hours. She spent a decade as well and finally stopped the Gulag hours in April. By then, our marriage was toast as it was.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

jld said:


> For how long, john?


Tick tick tick...

May 2017...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> There's a weird doublethink going on here.
> 
> Many men on TAM complain constantly that they can't divorce their SAHM wife because it will ruin them financially. The wife won't be able to get a decent paying job and the alimony and child support is too much (this is assuming the marriage has lasted long enough to result in support).
> 
> Yet many women on TAM say that, without her own source of income, a woman will never be able to divorce her husband.
> 
> Weird


In my state, it's just about impossible to get alimony before 20 years of marriage. 

Texas apparently has no, or extremely hard to get, alimony.

Also, are not high income earners. If there is alimony and child support both the woman and the man are living on about half of the higher earner's income. For many people, that's not much... 50% of a 40K or 50K income is not much to live on.


----------



## uhtred

PhDs in a lot of fields, especially hard sciences can earn good livings. It takes a while for income to grow, but it does over time. 


I wouldn't recommend a PhD if the goal is money, but it in no way dooms you to being poor. 




katiecrna said:


> I was just talking to my husband about phds. I respect people who get their phd because it's so much f*cking work for little reward. Doctors work hard but they know they will not only make money coming out, but will get praise and appreciation. But phds work hard knowing that they will not make good money. I have a lot of friends that are getting their phd in some science field but their passion for their work overrides their need to get paid which I respect. I love that they feel the responsibility to contribute to science and finding a cure or whatever it is. When a cure or an advancement in medicine is found, it's never that one team that did it, it's the thousands of researchers before them that ruled things out for them. It really is a thankless job that only few really see how significant what they do really is. Their reward for their hard work is just knowing and feeling that they contributed to something great.
> My husband respects those phds bc few people can do it. My husband like most surgeons likes instant satisfaction... you see the disease and you cut it out. Done. Then they get thanked and praised by the patient and their family. Not too shabby. Those researchers and phds can work a lifetime without seeing results or even praise.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Kivlor, the whole _point_ of getting a PhD is to be trained to be able to contribute new research, to add to the body of knowledge, in a field. It is a _service_ to society, not some attempt at ego validation.
> 
> That is my _un_cynical view.


Outside of the so called "hard sciences" a PhD isn't necessary to contribute to research in the field. Even in the so called "hard sciences" it is questionable whether or not such a thing is really all that important or necessary.

It is about an ego boost. It gives those who hand out the paper an ego boost, to feel that you need supplicate yourself and have their permission. It gives an ego boost to those who seek the piece of paper, as it is merely about being "better" than those who don't have one. A very subjective "better". Uneducated snobs, who are truly unlearned, and over-schooled.

Eg: Let's examine what a PhD in History should be gaining from their paper slip.... "A PhD in history, the highest degree in the field, prepares students for careers as educators, researchers, analysts, and writers." If you don't have every one of these skills by the time you graduated high school, why were you even going to school? How did you get a B.A.? How did you get a Masters? 

If you want to study History, you need not go to a college and get a piece of paper from a bureaucrat that gives you permission. Certainly you don't need a PhD. What you must do is dig into the primary documents of the subjects you wish to study. Doing so will grant you knowledge far greater than a piece of paper stating "Doctor of History". You can be published and peer reviewed (for as little as peer review is worth these days) and contribute in every fashion to the field. 

Now, if you want to teach History, you may need a permission slip from a bureaucrat. But that's again not about being competent or "learned". It's about protectionism for the teaching profession.

Now, in conclusion, and to reel this back to the OP, a person who is "vetting" their dating prospects by whether they have a PhD is only doing so for vanity. They want to be able to say "oooh look at me! My spouse is a doctor!" It's not about anything else.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

Buddy400 said:


> Anyone who thinks an education makes them special is someone you should have no desire to be around.
> 
> A degree (and an advanced degree in particular) means you take tests well. Big whoop.


I don't think an education makes me "special". But I think it makes me, me.

So you think an advanced degree is nothing other than taking tests well? Wow. So nothing I learned in med school matters? "Big whoop"? 

Try that when you have a myocardial infarction and need medical care. See where it gets you. Big whoop.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

Kivlor said:


> Outside of the so called "hard sciences" a PhD isn't necessary to contribute to research in the field. Even in the so called "hard sciences" it is questionable whether or not such a thing is really all that important or necessary.
> 
> It is about an ego boost. It gives those who hand out the paper an ego boost, to feel that you need supplicate yourself and have their permission. It gives an ego boost to those who seek the piece of paper, as it is merely about being "better" than those who don't have one. A very subjective "better". Uneducated snobs, who are truly unlearned, and over-schooled.
> 
> Eg: Let's examine what a PhD in History should be gaining from their paper slip.... "A PhD in history, the highest degree in the field, prepares students for careers as educators, researchers, analysts, and writers." If you don't have every one of these skills by the time you graduated high school, why were you even going to school? How did you get a B.A.? How did you get a Masters?
> 
> If you want to study History, you need not go to a college and get a piece of paper from a bureaucrat that gives you permission. Certainly you don't need a PhD. What you must do is dig into the primary documents of the subjects you wish to study. Doing so will grant you knowledge far greater than a piece of paper stating "Doctor of History". You can be published and peer reviewed (for as little as peer review is worth these days) and contribute in every fashion to the field.
> 
> Now, if you want to teach History, you may need a permission slip from a bureaucrat. But that's again not about being competent or "learned". It's about protectionism for the teaching profession.
> 
> Now, in conclusion, and to reel this back to the OP, a person who is "vetting" their dating prospects by whether they have a PhD is only doing so for vanity. They want to be able to say "oooh look at me! My spouse is a doctor!" It's not about anything else.


Garbage.

A PhD is about "an ego boost"? I don't have a PhD, but I have an MD and a master's with dissertation (in a "hard science"). And over 13 years of clinical research experience.

What that education teaches, among other important things, is how to conduct research that is scientifically and statistically sound. And, it teaches how to evaluate the published literature to determine if it is scientifically sound. And you think that is just an "ego boost"?

Let me ask you this - what is your level of education, such that you "know" this?


----------



## Betrayedone

All right,,,,Here's the deal about marrying a high achieving woman firsthand from someone who has actually done it.......BIG TIME! OK, I am no shrinking violet of a man...Short story.....USMC fighter pilot.....Healthy ego, but not narcissistic. Airline Captain...... Married a woman who started out on equal terms as me but progressed very quickly in her profession in health care while my profession was stagnating. No problem, to the victor goes the spoils. We were a team. I picked up a lot of the slack in our relationship as I had scheduling flexibility to take care of the kids needs as they grew while she was able to concentrate on advancing her career. She was offered a CEO position at a major cancer facility which was huge. I advised her not to accept that position as I thought it would be the death knell for our relationship as we were already making more than comfortable money. She said she was being pressured from within to accept the position or she would be considered a non team player. She caved to the siren's song of power and accepted the position. Things went along for awhile with me having to pick up more of the responsibility for the kids continuity of life which was ok for a while. Doctor's appointments, teacher's visits, meal making and homework checking all fell upon me as I thought it was important for the kids to have some continuity in their life. Towards the end she was making more in two months than I was making in a year as a capt for a major airline who was responsible for 600 people a day. She became power drunk and refused to acknowledge my contribution to the family stability. My advice..........DON'T DO IT! It's not worth it. If a woman perceives an inequity in earning power it will be the end of your relationship. All of my contributions to the family unit were minimalized and I was given no credit during the divorce proceedings. I have never been happier in my life since then relying on my own income and having the freedom to do what I want whenever I want with a woman who loves me for just being me..........If a woman owns you financially you will always be her biotch......


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Kivlor, the whole _point_ of getting a PhD is to be trained to be able to contribute new research, to add to the body of knowledge, in a field. It is a _service_ to society, not some attempt at ego validation.
> 
> That is my _un_cynical view.


As someone who works in education with some highly educated people, I assure you ego is involved at least with some teachers, not all just some. By the way ego isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you treat others with respect. If you do that then it is OK to think highly of yourself.


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> Anyone who thinks an education makes them special is someone you should have no desire to be around.
> 
> A degree (and an advanced degree in particular) means you take tests well. Big whoop.


Haha, spoken like a fellow programmer. I say this all the time, but you and I get paid for results and very often don't know what we need to know before we get in there and start working. Most of our learning is done on the fly, if you are like me anyway. The truth is our kind of thinking is what the future of the world will be, especially with the easy availability of information in this world tests an memorization no longer mean as much. At schools I work at makers spaces are being incorporated into all of the curriculum. I am often jelous of these kids, I would have thrived and may have even liked school if my experience was more about making and less about memorizing. 

I have a computer professor tell me once it is no longer what you know but how quickly you can process information and use it to solve problems. Critical thinking and problem solving is more important in today's world then degrees for our kind of work. But then if you are a Doctor or Lawyer we are wrong and degrees ARE important. 

I get you though.


----------



## sokillme

Betrayedone said:


> All right,,,,Here's the deal about marrying a high achieving woman firsthand from someone who has actually done it.......BIG TIME! OK, I am no shrinking violet of a man...Short story.....USMC fighter pilot.....Healthy ego, but not narcissistic. Airline Captain...... Married a woman who started out on equal terms as me but progressed very quickly in her profession in health care while my profession was stagnating. No problem, to the victor goes the spoils. We were a team. I picked up a lot of the slack in our relationship as I had scheduling flexibility to take care of the kids needs as they grew while she was able to concentrate on advancing her career. She was offered a CEO position at Cancer Treatment Centers of America which was huge . I advised her not to accept that position as I thought it would be the death knell for our relationship as we were already making more than comfortable money. She said she was being pressured from within to accept the position or she would be considered a non team player. She caved to the siren's song of power and accepted the position. Things went along for awhile with me having to pick up more of the responsibility for the kids continuity of life which was ok for a while. Doctor's appointments, teacher's visits, meal making and homework checking all fell upon me as I thought it was important for the kids to have some continuity in their life. Towards the end she was making more in two months than I was making in a year as a capt for a major airline who was responsible for 600 people a day. She became power drunk and refused to acknowledge my contribution to the family stability. My advice..........DON'T DO IT! It's not worth it. If a woman perceives an inequity in earning power it will be the end of your relationship. All of my contributions to the family unit were minimalized and I was given no credit during the divorce proceedings. I have never been happier in my life since then relying on my own income and having the freedom to do what I want whenever I want with a woman who loves me for just being me..........If a woman owns you financially you will always be her biotch......


The thing with this post is you could substitute the sexes and have the same post. The problem wasn't that you are a man and she is a woman, the problem was she was self-centered and her career was more important to her then your family. This isn't a problem of gender it's a problem of character. (damn there is that word again. I must like it, I have used it a lot)


----------



## EleGirl

@Buddy400



Buddy400 said:


> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.





EleGirl said:


> I'll go back and look that up when I get back this afternoon. I don't think that's true. I think that one or two might have said that.


I just finished reading the entire 49 pages of that thread. Here is what I found.



MJJEAN said:


> No, but they can find equals or something close to it. I think a lot of women would be fine with 60-40 and still consider the man her equal. But 90-10? Nope.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...spect-husband-earns-less-41.html#post17015881





lifeistooshort said:


> I'm not even sure I could give an absolute answer as to what it takes, I just know I feel safe with him and I would not feel safe if I was paying 90 percent of the bills.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...spect-husband-earns-less-39.html#post17015153


So there was ONE (1) (uno) woman on that thread who expressed doubts about a marriage in which she makes more than 60% of the money.

And there is one woman who said that she would not feel safe I she was paying 90% of the bills.


----------



## EleGirl

Betrayedone said:


> All right,,,,Here's the deal about marrying a high achieving woman firsthand from someone who has actually done it.......BIG TIME! OK, I am no shrinking violet of a man...Short story.....USMC fighter pilot.....Healthy ego, but not narcissistic. Airline Captain...... Married a woman who started out on equal terms as me but progressed very quickly in her profession in health care while my profession was stagnating. No problem, to the victor goes the spoils. We were a team. I picked up a lot of the slack in our relationship as I had scheduling flexibility to take care of the kids needs as they grew while she was able to concentrate on advancing her career. She was offered a CEO position at Cancer Treatment Centers of America which was huge . I advised her not to accept that position as I thought it would be the death knell for our relationship as we were already making more than comfortable money. She said she was being pressured from within to accept the position or she would be considered a non team player. She caved to the siren's song of power and accepted the position. Things went along for awhile with me having to pick up more of the responsibility for the kids continuity of life which was ok for a while. Doctor's appointments, teacher's visits, meal making and homework checking all fell upon me as I thought it was important for the kids to have some continuity in their life. Towards the end she was making more in two months than I was making in a year as a capt for a major airline who was responsible for 600 people a day. She became power drunk and refused to acknowledge my contribution to the family stability. My advice..........DON'T DO IT! It's not worth it. If a woman perceives an inequity in earning power it will be the end of your relationship. All of my contributions to the family unit were minimalized and I was given no credit during the divorce proceedings. I have never been happier in my life since then relying on my own income and having the freedom to do what I want whenever I want with a woman who loves me for just being me..........If a woman owns you financially you will always be her biotch......


This is not a gender specific thing. It's your wife, not all women who are high earners, who was the problem.

You ex-wife's attitude sounds a lot like the attitude of my son's father, my ex-husband. Some people do not handle making a lot more than their spouse. Some men do this. Some women do this.

When I earned more than my son's father and paid his way through medical school, I did not act like your wife. Instead I simply felt that he should do what he wanted in life and I was happy to be part of that. 

With my next husband, my step-kids father, again I become the sole provider. I made very good money. But I never had the attitude that your ex did. Now my then husband felt that he was entitled to be a kept man and do nothing for anyone but himself.

The behavior of one woman, your ex, does not reflect on all women. Not any more than the behavior of both of my ex-husbands reflect on all men.


----------



## Kivlor

Hope Shimmers said:


> Garbage.
> 
> A PhD is about "an ego boost"? I don't have a PhD, but I have an MD and a master's with dissertation (in a "hard science"). And over 13 years of clinical research experience.
> 
> What that education teaches, among other important things, is how to conduct research that is scientifically and statistically sound. And, it teaches how to evaluate the published literature to determine if it is scientifically sound. And you think that is just an "ego boost"?
> 
> Let me ask you this - what is your level of education, such that you "know" this?


Let me ask you this...

How often is the average medical research among published peer reviewed studies false or unable to be reproduced...? Yup. All those years. For nothing most likely. In fact, it's such a well known fact, that the financial markets have been presuming you all to be liars for years, even working it into their investment numbers... It's called the "Reproducibility Crisis".

My education was satisfactory. I can tell you this, I knew better than to publish rubbish in high school. Can't say the same for the average medical researcher, can we?

As to your question, you already started with the presumption that someone who isn't "schooled" to your satisfaction will be refuted without evidence. You're not going to argue in good faith, why would I bother to engage you? Me, I can run circles around you all day. Formal training or not. 










ETA: I obviously triggered you. I even offered you an out, via the exception for your field, but still you are choosing to take this personal, dragging this out to something not really relevant to the conversation. If you want to continue this discussion, and have me take down your ego a couple of pegs, start a thread in P&R. Or link this back to the conversation at hand somehow.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> Let me ask you this...
> 
> How often is the average medical research among published peer reviewed studies false or unable to be reproduced...? Yup. All those years. For nothing most likely. In fact, it's such a well known fact, that the financial markets have been presuming you all to be liars for years, even working it into their investment numbers... It's called the "Reproducibility Crisis".
> 
> My education was satisfactory. I can tell you this, I knew better than to publish rubbish in high school. Can't say the same for the average medical researcher, can we?
> 
> As to your question, you already started with the presumption that someone who isn't "schooled" to your satisfaction will be refuted without evidence. You're not going to argue in good faith, why would I bother to engage you? Me, I can run circles around you all day. Formal training or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: I obviously triggered you. I even offered you an out, via the exception for your field, but still you are choosing to take this personal, dragging this out to something not really relevant to the conversation. If you want to continue this discussion, and have me take down your ego a couple of pegs, start a thread in P&R. Or link this back to the conversation at hand somehow.


Who do you think found out about the "Reproducibility" issue, your high school graduate friends?

Simply because there are issues with study interpretations means that the whole scientific system should be thrown away? Of course not. More work needs to be done.


----------



## Duguesclin

wild jade said:


> More and more, women are providing their own security. Even in the article you linked to, those women had their own careers, finances, and were well able to look after themselves. What they were looking for was not security, but equality.
> 
> They wanted some sense that the guy they eventually married would have a similar outlook, approach, level of achievement that they did. And were holding out for the one who best met their ideals.
> 
> One thing is for sure. People are marrying later than they ever did before. And this is probably largely due to not wanting to settle for less. Then, when you get older, you come to realize it's all settling because perfection doesn't come wrapped in human form.


Maybe they are looking for equality, but certainly not less than that. 

On the other hand, most men in similar situations would not have an issue with a woman making less, and probably would have an issue if she made more.

For women, whether we call it security or equality (I would stick to security, personally), they enter into marriage very differently than a man.


----------



## Andy1001

Kivlor said:


> You know, there's a saying among economists... "any 'economist' who gets his PhD in Economics is a poor economist". Generally, a PhD doesn't offer enough return to be worth the $$ and time spent in that field. You can make more money by just getting a Masters and putting that extra energy into work.
> 
> My youngest sister is a good example of someone getting a degree in a "useful" field, but not being worthy of respect. She's getting a degree in biology, and has no intention of using it to get a job that pays more than $8.50 per hour. "But it's my dream job!!" Well, if you'd have been willing to use your contacts (like me) and gone to a trade school, you could have had the job already, without the wasted 4 years and thousands of $$$'s in debt.
> 
> And to top it all off, even with the degree, she was told in the interviews this fall that they'd rather a HVAC certified person over a college degree. I brought this all up at the outset, but was told "You don't understand! No one can get a job without a college degree!!" Sigh...


When I have meetings with my accountants,lawyers architects etc they all have plenty of letters after their name.I have half of an apprenticeship.
But they work for me.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> Look at it this way. One time I was joking around with my wife one day, and I said, "you married me because I was the one you were dating at the time you were ready to get married." Even though I was kidding she didn't take this well and got real serious. She said, "I had a house and a very good job, I was very content and used to being alone. I married you because I wanted to be with you not because you provided anything else for me but our relationship." My wife is about 5 years older than me so she was further ahead of where I was when we met. This is one of the greatest things she has ever said to me, her only motivation was love!
> 
> I say all this to say if this is what she wants, let your wife establish her own so she can love you not because you are her financial support system but because you are her emotional one. You are a person who has money as you have said on here, most people with money are worried that people want them only for their money. You gf/wife doesn't seem to feel this way as she is willing to work at a low wage job to earn her own. So maybe she just wants to be with you because she loves you. Damn, sounds like a unicorn. You both are young and need to work stuff out, she still has the tatoo right? But to me this is a damn good sign.


She never got any fcukin tattoo let me assure you.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> This is not a gender specific thing. It's your wife, not all women who are high earners, who was the problem.
> 
> You ex-wife's attitude sounds a lot like the attitude of my son's father, my ex-husband. Some people do not handle making a lot more than their spouse. Some men do this. Some women do this.
> 
> When I earned more than my son's father and paid his way through medical school, I did not act like your wife. Instead I simply felt that he should do what he wanted in life and I was happy to be part of that.
> 
> With my next husband, my step-kids father, again I become the sole provider. I made very good money. But I never had the attitude that your ex did. Now my then husband felt that he was entitled to be a kept man and do nothing for anyone but himself.
> 
> The behavior of one woman, your ex, does not reflect on all women. Not any more than the behavior of both of my ex-husbands reflect on all men.


Again we agree. :yawn2:


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> She never got any fcukin tattoo let me assure you.


----------



## Andy1001

sokillme said:


> [/quot
> Well I walked into that one.Well done you got me lol.


----------



## john117

Hope Shimmers said:


> Garbage.
> 
> A PhD is about "an ego boost"? I don't have a PhD, but I have an MD and a master's with dissertation (in a "hard science"). And over 13 years of clinical research experience.
> 
> What that education teaches, among other important things, is how to conduct research that is scientifically and statistically sound. And, it teaches how to evaluate the published literature to determine if it is scientifically sound. And you think that is just an "ego boost"?
> 
> Let me ask you this - what is your level of education, such that you "know" this?


Neither my job nor my wife's requires a PhD. But it's nice to type the blasted comma pee eich dee when I make PowerPoint slides 

Advanced degrees help you learn fast. Research things. Develop proper methods. Do analysis properly. Do statistical analysis (FML the class I met her. Screw every guy out there with a probability distribution named after them)... And so on.

Next time you use your smartphone remember that there's tons of theory behind the human machine interface. Lots of thought before choosing an icon or a font. That's where the solid background comes to mind...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Well, I see the conversation has shifted to advanced degrees or higher/continuing education 

Some advanced degrees are in fact needed to pursue or advance in a field. Others, just a waste of time. 

After I graduated college I studied to get the license I needed in my field. Although I currently don't have a use for the license, at the time it was needed if I wanted to advance. On the other hand, I always had in my head I would go back to school to get my MBA (the more education the better, right?). Well, glad I didn't as it would have been an absolute waste of time and money.


----------



## Andy1001

EllisRedding said:


> Well, I see the conversation has shifted to advanced degrees or higher/continuing education
> 
> Some advanced degrees are in fact needed to pursue or advance in a field. Others, just a waste of time.
> 
> After I graduated college I studied to get the license I needed in my field. Although I currently don't have a use for the license, at the time it was needed if I wanted to advance. On the other hand, I always had in my head I would go back to school to get my MBA (the more education the better, right?). Well, glad I didn't as it would have been an absolute waste of time and money.


Most of my initial business was carried out in Europe and part of it involved electrical work.At that stage any qualified electrician could connect,test and verify any installation.In the last few years it has required a degree to test any installation and you have the ridiculous scenario of electricians with maybe forty years experience not been able to test a circuit but some newly qualified young guy can.This is just trying to justify meaningless regulations over common sense.


----------



## MattMatt

I am now getting adverts for British Universities on this thread...


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> @Buddy400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading the entire 49 pages of that thread. Here is what I found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was ONE (1) (uno) woman on that thread who expressed doubts about a marriage in which she makes more than 60% of the money.
> 
> And there is one woman who said that she would not feel safe I she was paying 90% of the bills.


My hb also has no desire to be the sole support and prefers a woman who works. I also suspect he wouldn't be happy absorbing 90 percent.....he's like me in that he doesn't necessarily need it to be equal, just reasonable.

So this isn't necessarily a gender thing.....men can feel like this too.


----------



## john117

MattMatt said:


> I am now getting adverts for British Universities on this thread...


If you get any discount code for the Bartlett please PM me 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Well, I guess it was good that this thread continued where the other left off. Some things seem clearer to me now.

When you love someone, really love them, it does not matter how much money they have or could have or how much education they have or could have or how good-looking they are or could be or how much they weigh or could weigh or how sexually adept they are or could be or if they can even have sex at all or how many partners they have had or whether they brought children into the relationship or whether they can have children or if they have cheated or whether they might cheat or if their parents cheated or . . . whatever.

When you love someone, really love someone . . . _You just love them._ 

There are not all those conditions. Two hearts meet, and they just want, maybe just need, to be together. They belong together.


----------



## wild jade

Duguesclin said:


> Maybe they are looking for equality, but certainly not less than that.
> 
> On the other hand, most men in similar situations would not have an issue with a woman making less, and probably would have an issue if she made more.
> 
> For women, whether we call it security or equality (I would stick to security, personally), they enter into marriage very differently than a man.


I think both men and women marry because they don't want to be alone.

And the main reasons why women consider "provider" status is if and when they want to be the primary caregivers to their children. Or they know, like it or not, that they will end up in that role. 

Otherwise equality is more about compatibility and having things in common than anything else. I suspect men too care about these things. And if they don't, they probably should -- at least if they want their marriages to last.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> I think both men and women marry because they don't want to be alone.
> 
> *And the main reasons why women consider "provider" status is if and when they want to be the primary caregivers to their children. * Or they know, like it or not, that they will end up in that role.
> 
> Otherwise equality is more about compatibility and having things in common than anything else. I suspect men too care about these things. And if they don't, they probably should -- at least if they want their marriages to last.


I think there may be something innate in some women that considers a man's ability to provide, even if she had not been conscious of any desire to reproduce.

For me, anyway, when Dug told me he loved me (after only knowing me for a short period of time), and I mulled that over, it just sort of came to me that he would be a good husband, good father, and good _provider._

I had not been thinking of him in those terms before when I thought we were just friends. But when he expressed the desire for more, then something . . . primal? . . . in me started to evaluate his fitness in those areas.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Yeah, you could never convince me to rely on a man for my finances. I don't care how rich he is, whether we're married or not. No way would I ever put myself in the position of not being able to leave if need be.





EleGirl said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> If I have learned anything in life, it's that I would be foolish to trust any man in this way. I am the only person I can trust to take care of myself and my children.


These posts make me sad, even as I acknowledge the truth and wisdom in them.

I do believe, though, that some men, even if just a few, are trustworthy.


----------



## katiecrna

This thread is turning into the "educated" vs the "anti-education". Nobody knows anything other than what they have gone through. If you haven't gotten a Md. or phd don't talk about it because you literally have no idea what your talking about... and your confidence in 'knowing' what it's like is ignorant. So you can buff out your chest and flap your wrings to try to intimidate but it's not working, your actually proving your ignorance. 
Education is valuable, things are not like they use to be and jobs that no longer require degrees now do. That's the world we are living in. There seem to be so much animosity and angry I don't understand.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I do believe, though, that some men, even if just a few, are trustworthy.


Nah, there are a lot of trustworthy ones out there. Unfortunately you typically only hear the stories about the bad ones ...


----------



## Betrayedone

sokillme said:


> The thing with this post is you could substitute the sexes and have the same post. The problem wasn't that you are a man and she is a woman, the problem was she was self-centered and her career was more important to her then your family. This isn't a problem of gender it's a problem of character. (damn there is that word again. I must like it, I have used it a lot)


I think gender does make a difference in that if a woman makes more than a man it is likely to cause problems for the man. In her eyes he will be subserviant to her in the relationship.


----------



## Andy1001

Wazza said:


> Do you respect her decision not to do that? I get the sense you don't. If I'm right, how does she feel about that?


When I bought Js business I paid her four hundred thousand dollars more than it was valued for.(This is on my own thread but for some reason I can't update it)I wanted her to have something to fall back on and with the profit from the sale of her business she could have bought a small house or an apartment.Property is very expensive around here.She returned the money to me and told me she wasn't a gold digger.So anyone who suggests I wouldn't support her in the future if we split up is wrong.She is moving in with me at the weekend so I think we are on the right track.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> What happens if you have more children? You just gave it all to one child.


That's not a problem.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Nah, there are a lot of trustworthy ones out there. Unfortunately you typically only hear the stories about the bad ones ...


Here on TAM, isn't it the same about women? When men on TAM talk, we generally only hear the stories abut the bad wives/women--the ones who cheat, mistreat their husbands, etc.


----------



## EleGirl

Betrayedone said:


> I think gender does make a difference in that if a woman makes more than a man it is likely to cause problems for the man. In her eyes he will be subserviant to her in the relationship.


Some (SOME) women might think that her husband is subservient if she makes more than he.

Some women do not think this way.

Women are individuals.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> If I have learned anything in life, it's that I would be foolish to trust any man in this way. I am the only person I can trust to take care of myself and my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These posts make me sad, even as I acknowledge the truth and wisdom in them.
> 
> I do believe, though, that some men, even if just a few, are trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Yes some men are trustworthy. In my real life I know of men who are. But the only way that I know that they are is that I see how they are with their wife and children. It's being able to look at their history that shows it.

But the only way to know if a man is trustworthy is by them proving it over time. And there are plenty of stories about men who appeared to be very trustworthy until the day that they had a change of heart and started cheating and/or stop doing the stuff that made them appear to be trustworthy. 

(And yes, just change the gender in the above and that holds as well.)


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> Here on TAM, isn't it the same about women? When men on TAM talk, we generally only hear the stories abut the bad wives/women--the ones who cheat, mistreat their husbands, etc.


Yes, in general you are more likely to hear about the bad things (whether it be related to relationships, genders, products, etc...). 

If I am being honest though, you seem to have a quick trigger finger to bring gender back into every post. Maybe I am just reading your post wrong, but it just comes across as somehow I am implying the same does not apply to women because I failed to mention them in my response (which my response to JLD was strictly about men).


----------



## lifeistooshort

Betrayedone said:


> I think gender does make a difference in that if a woman makes more than a man it is likely to cause problems for the man. In her eyes he will be subserviant to her in the relationship.


I would argue that plenty of men who make a lot more money think it entitles them to control everything and in fact look down on their wife and expect her to do what he wants and to his standards. We've all known people like that and have certainly seen threads where a guy will complain that he works all day and the house isn't clean enough......since they make the money they should decide what's clean enough.....implying that his wife is actually his employee.

So they might be ok supporting her but they don't necessarily view her as a full partner. 

Of curse plenty of men aren't like this but I'd suspect it's not uncommon.

I don't know if it's a gender thing so much as a money equals control kind of thing.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I would argue that plenty of men who make a lot more money think it entitles them to control everything and in fact look down on their wife and expect her to do what he wants and to his standards. We've all known people like that and have certainly seen threads where a guy will complain that he works all day and the house isn't clean enough......since they make the money they should decide what's clean enough.....implying that his wife is actually his employee.
> 
> So they might be ok supporting her but they don't necessarily view her as a full partner.
> 
> Of curse plenty of men aren't like this but I'd suspect it's not uncommon.
> 
> I don't know if it's a gender thing so much as a money equals control kind of thing.


Money is definitely power.


----------



## Andy1001

SimplyAmorous said:


> I will admit.. I would feel insecure dating anyone in a higher social class.. I feel a great majority of them would not consider me "enough".. not educated enough.. not enough skills, didn't travel the world, and on it goes... I would fail to meet their expectations in a # of areas...though I still think I make a da** good wife ... but still.. that's just the reality..
> 
> It's important for me to feel "accepted" for where I have come from.. who I am... I feel it's best to stay within one's own social class..


You are a lovely lady and don't put yourself down and don't let anyone else do it either.I have less qualifications than probably anyone else posting here,I will cry myself to sleep tonight over that.lol.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> You are a lovely lady and don't put yourself down and don't let anyone else do it either.I have less qualifications than probably anyone else posting here,I will cry myself to sleep tonight over that.lol.


No one on this thread or anywhere else on TAM has (or ever has) put her down. So I'm not sure what that's all about.

I disagree that you are less qualified than anyone else posting here.

You say that you have developed some software/hardware product that most everyone uses and that has made you rich. And you apparently run some business that does very well financially... extremely well.. to the tunes of millions apparently.

You apparently have some pretty strong qualifications and have done pretty well for yourself financially using them.

Why put yourself down like that?


----------



## uhtred

I think that for a lot of people there is a balance of many issues. In addition to wanting company, love, sex, support. Some people also want the improved lifestyle that comes from having 2 incomes. I think that desire is fine as long as it is kept in balance with the others. 






wild jade said:


> I think both men and women marry because they don't want to be alone.
> 
> And the main reasons why women consider "provider" status is if and when they want to be the primary caregivers to their children. Or they know, like it or not, that they will end up in that role.
> 
> Otherwise equality is more about compatibility and having things in common than anything else. I suspect men too care about these things. And if they don't, they probably should -- at least if they want their marriages to last.


----------



## jld

uhtred said:


> I think that for a lot of people there is a balance of many issues. In addition to wanting company, love, sex, support. Some people also want the improved lifestyle that comes from having 2 incomes. I think that desire is fine as long as it is kept in balance with the others.


How about the idea that some people marry who were not planning on it simply because someone asked them and it seemed like, on the whole, a good deal.

Not mentioning any names, of course.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Money is definitely power.


Does a person who studies for years at grad school,medical school and then works for years as a resident before finally making the big bucks deserve some special credit?He did it to make the big bucks in most cases.I find on this thread a lot of snobbery about degrees,masters,etc when at the end of the day the object is to make more money.Like you said jld,money=power.
Also the idea of getting a degree,any degree because you think you can't get a job otherwise is laughable.Why would you waste so much time on something that you didn't even like.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Yes, in general you are more likely to hear about the bad things (whether it be related to relationships, genders, products, etc...).
> 
> If I am being honest though, you seem to have a quick trigger finger to bring gender back into every post. Maybe I am just reading your post wrong, but it just comes across as somehow I am implying the same does not apply to women because I failed to mention them in my response (which my response to JLD was strictly about men).


This thread is very much about gender issues. The whole premise of the thread is that high achieving women are not really marriage material. A lot of the discussion on this thread is why high achieving women are not worthy of marriage according to men. 

On this thread and the previous one, there have been some pretty ugly posts painting all women, and sometimes most of the women on TAM, in a very mean spirited manner. There have been posts that have stated that most women on TAM are anti-male and mysadric.
My mentioning gender in my posts on this thread is to ensure that I am being even handed with the genders.

And when I’ve seen a post that unfairly paints one gender in a bad light, I’ve replied to point out that one cannot paint all people of one gender with a broad brush. We are all individuals. I’m sorry if my working to keep this thread from exploding into gender attacks bothers you.



EllisRedding said:


> Nah, there are a lot of trustworthy ones out there. Unfortunately you typically only hear the stories about the bad ones ...


The above is a quote of what I was replaying to. You were referring to hearing only stories about men who are the ‘bad ones’. So again I was just trying to maintain an even handed approach to discussing topics that are gender related.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> This thread is very much about gender issues. The whole premise of the thread is that high achieving women are not really marriage material. *A lot of the discussion on this thread is why high achieving women are not worthy of marriage according to men.
> *
> On this thread and the previous one, there have been some pretty ugly posts painting all women, and sometimes most of the women on TAM, in a very mean spirited manner. There have been posts that have stated that most women on TAM are anti-male and mysadric.
> My mentioning gender in my posts on this thread is to ensure that I am being even handed with the genders.
> 
> And when I’ve seen a post that unfairly paints one gender in a bad light, I’ve replied to point out that one cannot paint all people of one gender with a broad brush. We are all individuals. I’m sorry if my working to keep this thread from exploding into gender attacks bothers you.
> 
> 
> The above is a quote of what I was replaying to. You were referring to hearing only stories about men who are the ‘bad ones’. So again I was just trying to maintain an even handed approach to discussing topics that are gender related.


Yes, it was just in response to a question posted about men, nothing more or less. Considering I am not one who goes around gender bashing, just seems off that you choose my reply to state the "woman" case, but once again, that is how I read your response to my post.

I also disagree with the bolded. At least in my eyes much of the discussion has revolved around understanding gender differences (attraction, security, etc...), not that high achieving women are not worthy of marriage.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Also the idea of getting a degree,any degree because you think you can't get a job otherwise is laughable.Why would you waste so much time on something that you didn't even like.


 Because you don't know what else to do?

I agree that the thread took a sad turn yesterday. It was unintentional, but unfortunate.

Though, to be honest, it got me thinking and brought me to some positive conclusions I may not have reached without it. Honest and open conversation, however "incorrect," has a way of doing that.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> Does a person who studies for years at grad school, medical school and then works for years as a resident before finally making the big bucks deserve some special credit? He did it to make the big bucks in most cases.I find on this thread a lot of snobbery about degrees,masters,etc when at the end of the day the object is to make more money.Like you said jld,money=power.


This thread is about high achieving women and who they are supposed marry (meaning that men do not find high achieving women to be marriage material.)

Most high achieving women are women who have obtained college degrees to build skills that corporations will pay for. Some are women who started a successful company on their own.

So by default this thread is also about women with college degrees. I don't see snobbery about degrees on this thread. I see honest discussion that a woman who has a college degree will most likely meet and marry a man who has a college degree.

It is you and others who are trying to claim that just to mention a degree = snobbery and who are putting down anyone who has a degree.



Andy1001 said:


> Also the idea of getting a degree,any degree because you think you can't get a job otherwise is laughable.Why would you waste so much time on something that you didn't even like.


Who said that anyone is wasting their time on something that they don't like?

Many people get degree in subjects that they are passionate about.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> No one on this thread or anywhere else on TAM has (or ever has) put her down. So I'm not sure what that's all about.
> 
> I disagree that you are less qualified than anyone else posting here.
> 
> You say that you have developed some software/hardware product that most everyone uses and that has made you rich. And you apparently run some business that does very well financially... extremely well.. to the tunes of millions apparently.
> 
> You apparently have some pretty strong qualifications and have done pretty well for yourself financially using them.
> 
> Why put yourself down like that?


I have a qualification in electrical theory,science,digital electronics
and programmable logic controllers.Nothing else.Everything else is self taught.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> This thread is about high achieving women and who they are supposed marry (meaning that men do not find high achieving women to be marriage material.)


I thought it was the women who did not find the men worth marrying?


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I have a qualification in electrical theory,science,digital electronics
> and programmable logic controllers.Nothing else.Everything else is self taught.


That is pretty impressive right there, Andy.

Honestly, I think all of you in STEM are very impressive.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> This thread is about high achieving women and who they are supposed marry (meaning that men do not find high achieving women to be marriage material.)
> 
> Most high achieving women are women who have obtained college degrees to build skills that corporations will pay for. Some are women who started a successful company on their own.
> 
> So by default this thread is also about women with college degrees. I don't see snobbery about degrees on this thread. I see honest discussion that a woman who has a college degree will most likely meet and marry a man who has a college degree.
> 
> It is you and others who are trying to claim that just to mention a degree = snobbery and who are putting down anyone who has a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that anyone is wasting their time on something that they don't like?
> 
> Many people get degree in subjects that they are passionate about.


An earlier poster said his sister studied for a degree in something that she has no interest in following up on.That was my point,why waste your time when you could study something you enjoy.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> I have a qualification in electrical theory,science,digital electronics and programmable logic controllers.Nothing else.Everything else is self taught.


What do you consider a "qualification"? Do you mean a degree, or a certificate earned at a school or via some exam?

I would call qualifications to be things learn on the job as well. So if you run a successful business, you also have significant experience doing the many things needed to do that.


----------



## uhtred

I don't know what percentage of people who get advanced degrees are doing it for money. I didn't though it worked out OK in the end. The people I know who made the most money didn't get advanced degrees. 

There really are a lot of people who don't care much about money as long as they have enough to be comfortable. 

i've been kicking around a startup idea that might be worth a lot of money. But it would be a huge amount of work, and in the end I'm a lot more limited by time than by money in doing things I enjoy.






Andy1001 said:


> Does a person who studies for years at grad school,medical school and then works for years as a resident before finally making the big bucks deserve some special credit?He did it to make the big bucks in most cases.I find on this thread a lot of snobbery about degrees,masters,etc when at the end of the day the object is to make more money.Like you said jld,money=power.
> Also the idea of getting a degree,any degree because you think you can't get a job otherwise is laughable.Why would you waste so much time on something that you didn't even like.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> That was my point,why waste your time when you could study something you enjoy.


Because you want a good paying job?


----------



## jld

uhtred said:


> There really are a lot of people who don't care much about money as long as they have enough to be comfortable.


This is it. We all have different requirements in this area.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> An earlier poster said his sister studied for a degree in something that she has no interest in following up on.That was my point,why waste your time when you could study something you enjoy.


Ok, so I agree with that. Spending years studying something that one is not interested and thus does not enjoy makes little sense.

IMHO, our school system is just screwed up.

We need to bring the trades back into high school. Most people do not need a college degree. So having high school set up to give every student a college prep education is just a waste of our money. Young people need to be able to earn a living right out of high school.

I've read some about the German education system. Most of the jobs in Germany do not require college degrees. By the time a kid graduates from high school they have the training for a decent job. So they are ready to support themselves right out of high school.

Germany has free college for anyone who wants to go. But the percentage of people who do go to college in Germany is lower than here in the USA. In Germany the kids who go on to college are the ones who want to work in fields that require more education.. like MD, professional level engineer, etc.

That's the model we need in the USA. it's ridiculous that our children spend 12 years in school and come out unable to work an entry level job.


----------



## Wazza

Andy1001 said:


> When I bought Js business I paid her four hundred thousand dollars more than it was valued for.(This is on my own thread but for some reason I can't update it)I wanted her to have something to fall back on and with the profit from the sale of her business she could have bought a small house or an apartment.Property is very expensive around here.She returned the money to me and told me she wasn't a gold digger.So anyone who suggests I wouldn't support her in the future if we split up is wrong.She is moving in with me at the weekend so I think we are on the right track.




You answered a different question from what I asked. That's ok. Just commmentinf in case it is useful.


----------



## Wazza

katiecrna said:


> This thread is turning into the "educated" vs the "anti-education". Nobody knows anything other than what they have gone through. If you haven't gotten a Md. or phd don't talk about it because you literally have no idea what your talking about... and your confidence in 'knowing' what it's like is ignorant. So you can buff out your chest and flap your wrings to try to intimidate but it's not working, your actually proving your ignorance.
> Education is valuable, things are not like they use to be and jobs that no longer require degrees now do. That's the world we are living in. There seem to be so much animosity and angry I don't understand.


Formal degrees are only one vehicle for education. I'm a great believer in life long learning. You do your first qualification (what ever level that may be) to get a foot in the door, but then, if you are any sort of knowledge worker, you have to stay current. In some careers formal post grad degrees are a prerequisite for reaching a given level, and in others they are not.

I don't have a PhD, but I have plenty of friends and professional associates who do. In my case I considered it, but it was simple math to work out that it wouldn't add enough to my earning power to cover the financial cost of doing it, and I didn't have the desire to do it for its own sake. I'm better off to just look for roles where I acquire new skills, and allocate a portion of my working time to self study of different types.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Because you want a good paying job?


But she has admitted she has no interest in the subject she studied.This is what I can't understand,why waste years of your life like that.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> What do you consider a "qualification"? Do you mean a degree, or a certificate earned at a school or via some exam?
> 
> I would call qualifications to be things learn on the job as well. So if you run a successful business, you also have significant experience doing the many things needed to do that.


When I was offered the job that I left my apprenticeship for I had to agree to staying for three years.The company is one of the biggest electronics manufacturers in the world.They make everything from toasters to traffic lights.The first six months was an intensive training course,seventy hours a week in a college environment.I find it funny that you used the German example of education because that is where I was based.The course was based only on their own curriculum and the qualifications would not be recognised anywhere else.They are now my biggest customer.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> But she has admitted she has no interest in the subject she studied.This is what I can't understand,why waste years of your life like that.


She may have gotten too far in to stop, she felt. Or she had some interest, but by the end it was exhausted.

What would you have suggested she do instead?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> She may have gotten too far in to stop, she felt. Or she had some interest, but by the end it was exhausted.
> 
> What would you have suggested she do instead?


Obviously I don't know the person in question but surely there is some field of education that interests her.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Obviously I don't know the person in question but surely there is some field of education that interests her.


I went back and reread his post. She said the job was her dream job. It sounds like she enjoyed her field.

Yes, all things being equal, I think it is better for people to pursue something they are interested in. But I will be honest with you--I am pushing STEM with my own children. It is where many good jobs and interesting people seem to be.


----------



## notmyrealname4

spotthedeaddog said:


> Marriage* (and group marriage)* would be something very beneficial, as it means they can trust each other to be fully committed to the longest term future - allowing for increased risk, and less risk in being open and truthful to the other party.



What the heck is group marriage?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I went back and reread his post. She said the job was her dream job. It sounds like she enjoyed her field.
> 
> Yes, all things being equal, I think it is better for people to pursue something they are interested in. But I will be honest with you--I am pushing STEM with my own children. It is where many good jobs and interesting people seem to be.


I will give you a piece of advice for your children if they really are interested in a career in STEM.All the big investment in the future is going to be in the natural production of energy,wind farms,hydroelectric,wave technology,solar etc.Most countries,especially in Europe make it a legal requirement for any electricity produced by natural methods to be purchased by the electricity suppliers in the area in question.Another big deal is the advancement of led technology for lighting systems and especially emergency systems.This is because of lithium technology,the batteries needed to power led are so much smaller than standard batteries.It may not seem important but every building that is not a domestic residence has to have an emergency lighting system.This is where the money will be in the future.


----------



## EllisRedding

notmyrealname4 said:


> What the heck is group marriage?


Sounds like something you need a membership for like CostCo???


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I will give you a piece of advice for your children if they really are interested in a career in STEM.All the big investment in the future is going to be in the natural production of energy,wind farms,hydroelectric,wave technology,solar etc.Most countries,especially in Europe make it a legal requirement for any electricity produced by natural methods to be purchased by the electricity suppliers in the area in question.Another big deal is the advancement of led technology for lighting systems and especially emergency systems.This is because of lithium technology,the batteries needed to power led are so much smaller than standard batteries.It may not seem important but every building that is not a domestic residence has to have an emergency lighting system.This is where the money will be in the future.


 @Duguesclin Just want to make sure you see this. I am showing it to ds17 and ds14, too.

Thanks, Andy!


----------



## katiecrna

Yea it's stupid to waste time and money on a useless degree. However there are some jobs that you can't even get a foot in the door without a associates or bachelors. So in some cases like that a useless degree is better than no degree. 
Some people are not trade people even though you can do very well for yourself. Some people are trade people. It's all individualized.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> Yea it's stupid to waste time and money on a useless degree. However there are some jobs that you can't even get a foot in the door without a associates or bachelors. So in some cases like that a useless degree is better than no degree.
> Some people are not trade people even though you can do very well for yourself. Some people are trade people. It's all individualized.


I really do not see any degree as useless. There is always the possibility of learning something new.


----------



## uhtred

You may be right, but its always dangerous to predict where job markets will go. 



Andy1001 said:


> I will give you a piece of advice for your children if they really are interested in a career in STEM.All the big investment in the future is going to be in the natural production of energy,wind farms,hydroelectric,wave technology,solar etc.Most countries,especially in Europe make it a legal requirement for any electricity produced by natural methods to be purchased by the electricity suppliers in the area in question.Another big deal is the advancement of led technology for lighting systems and especially emergency systems.This is because of lithium technology,the batteries needed to power led are so much smaller than standard batteries.It may not seem important but every building that is not a domestic residence has to have an emergency lighting system.This is where the money will be in the future.


----------



## Andy1001

uhtred said:


> You may be right, but its always dangerous to predict where job markets will go.


You are right of course but I did say the big investment,and its not like you can outsource your windmill to China.


----------



## Andy1001

I'm not trying to threadjack but I would like to give an example of modern technology when it comes to something simple like lighting.I was in Ireland a few weeks ago and I was talking to a guy that works for one of the biggest manufacturing firms in Europe,they have a plant in Ireland covering a huge area,containing factory space,storage and offices.A firm from Dublin approached them and made them what I consider to be an unbelievable offer.They offered to change every light fitting and every switch in the building free of charge and replace them with led lights and smart switches.What they asked for in exchange was fifty percent of the savings in energy costs over ten years.So for an investment of nothing they got thousands of free lights and still saved on their electricity costs.


----------



## notmyrealname4

jld said:


> First time I have heard a bachelor's degree used as a marker of someone not overly valuing education, though.




Me too.:|


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I'm not trying to threadjack but I would like to give an example of modern technology when it comes to something simple like lighting.I was in Ireland a few weeks ago and I was talking to a guy that works for one of the biggest manufacturing firms in Europe,they have a plant in Ireland covering a huge area,containing factory space,storage and offices.A firm from Dublin approached them and made them what I consider to be an unbelievable offer.They offered to change every light fitting and every switch in the building free of charge and replace them with led lights and smart switches.What they asked for in exchange was fifty percent of the savings in energy costs over ten years.So for an investment of nothing they got thousands of free lights and still saved on their electricity costs.


And it is good for the environment, too, right? And that benefits all of us.

It would be good if the government did that instead of that private company. The revenue could lower taxes on the middle class.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> And it is good for the environment, too, right? And that benefits all of us.
> 
> It would be good if the government did that instead of that private company. The revenue could lower taxes on the middle class.


These lights have build in sensors that include an occupancy detector and a photocell/dimmer switch.This means that the lights will only operate when it is dark enough and will automatically switch off when the room or area is empty.They use less than half of the energy of a standard fluorescent fitting,have no ballast,capacitor or starter just a driver and can switch on and off millions of times without damaging the light fitting.A standard pedestrian or school warning light flashes up to fifty times a minute and a normal bulb lasts about three months.Led bulbs last indefinitely.Threadjack over.


----------



## john117

EllisRedding said:


> Sounds like something you need a membership for like CostCo???


I've had executive membership at Costco for decades. No group marriage opportunities offered . 



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> These lights have build in sensors that include an occupancy detector and a photocell/dimmer switch.This means that the lights will only operate when it is dark enough and will automatically switch off when the room or area is empty.They use less than half of the energy of a standard fluorescent fitting,have no ballast,capacitor or starter just a driver and can switch on and off millions of times without damaging the light fitting.A standard pedestrian or school warning light flashes up to fifty times a minute and a normal bulb lasts about three months.Led bulbs last indefinitely.Threadjack over.


Maybe start another thread? Interesting topic. Though my son disputes that they last indefinitely (much longer than regular bulbs, though).


----------



## john117

katiecrna said:


> Yea it's stupid to waste time and money on a useless degree. However there are some jobs that you can't even get a foot in the door without a associates or bachelors. So in some cases like that a useless degree is better than no degree.
> Some people are not trade people even though you can do very well for yourself. Some people are trade people. It's all individualized.


I beg to differ about useless.... Luck has a lot to do with it, as does vision. I had some and made the rest.

This is more or less how two "useless" areas combine to make yours truly some serious cash...

http://mobile.digitalartsonline.co.uk/features/graphic-design/psychology-of-design-explained/

http://www.formamedicaldevicedesign.com/medical-product-design-cognitive-psychology/



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Maybe start another thread? Interesting topic. Though my son disputes that they last indefinitely (much longer than regular bulbs, though).


Yeah I shouldn't have said indefinitely but they do last a long time.I have led bulbs throughout my house and in almost five years none have blown.They are ideal for fitting into display cabinets because they never get hot unlike halogen or other incandescent bulbs.


----------



## notmyrealname4

jld said:


> Well, I guess it was good that this thread continued where the other left off. Some things seem clearer to me now.
> 
> When you love someone, really love them, it does not matter how much money they have or could have or how much education they have or could have or how good-looking they are or could be or how much they weigh or could weigh or how sexually adept they are or could be or if they can even have sex at all or how many partners they have had or whether they brought children into the relationship or whether they can have children or if they have cheated or whether they might cheat or if their parents cheated or . . . whatever.
> 
> When you love someone, really love someone . . . _You just love them._
> 
> There are not all those conditions. Two hearts meet, and they just want, maybe just need, to be together. They belong together.




You're cute, jld 0


----------



## jld

notmyrealname4 said:


> You're cute, jld 0


I sure have missed you around here . . .


----------



## notmyrealname4

Andy1001 said:


> You are right of course but I did say the big investment,and *its not like you can outsource your windmill to China.*



Can't the manufacture of the parts be outsourced to China? [And in all likelihood will be ]


----------



## Andy1001

notmyrealname4 said:


> Can't the manufacture of the parts be outsourced to China? [And in all likelihood will be ]


I don't know if you have ever seen a windmill used for generating electricity but they are huge and need maintenance and servicing like any machine which runs 24/7.Also they are called wind farms because there would be lots of windmills.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Andy1001 said:


> I don't know if you have ever seen a windmill used for generating electricity but they are huge and need maintenance and servicing like any machine which runs 24/7.Also they are called wind farms because there would be lots of windmills.




I realize that the farms would be in-country; and the maintenance staff would be citizens of that country.

But aren't windmills assembled from smaller components?

Even if the parts are large; if offshore labor is pennies on the dollar, then it can still be profitable to have at least the bulk of the parts made and/or assembled overseas.

I am personally against such a set-up. But now I always assume that this is what will actually happen.


----------



## Holdingontoit

jld said:


> I thought it was the women who did not find the men worth marrying?


Stereotyping broadly, unless the guy is very sexy, the woman bringing her body and willingness to have sex with him is "worth" more than the guy's body and willingness to have sex with her, so the guy has to bring something else to the table to even things out. That could be education, personality, handy with tools, or whatever. Traditionally, it has meant money, wealth and earning power.

Or to flip it around, traditionally men earned more money than women, and she evened things out by bringing her body and willingness to have sex with him to the table. Or maybe she brought willingness to stay home and cater to him and the kids.

Today, women can earn as much as men. So maybe women are more interested than they were previously in men who are great in bed, or men who are willing to stay home and cater to her and the kids.

As for whether this is a "problem" for women, I can't say. But I do believe that for women below the highest percentiles of income, marriage rates have fallen steadily over the past few decades. And anecdotal evidence suggests that part of this is explained by men's declining incomes relative to women's and women's unwillingness to marry men who make significantly less than the woman does. And, to be fair to women, men are less likely than they used to be to marry women who make substantially less than he does. But still more likely than a woman is to do the same.


----------



## Red Sonja

The question posed in this thread is disturbing to me. It is unbelievable that people in this day and age even think about such subjects. *It is a non-issue.* As for myself and other high-achieving/earning women, we don’t need society at large to worry and wring their hands for us as we are doing quite well in life.

P.S. The education debate and other mental masturbation on this thread is UFB.


----------



## Buddy400

Hope Shimmers said:


> I don't think an education makes me "special". But I think it makes me, me.
> 
> So you think an advanced degree is nothing other than taking tests well? Wow. So nothing I learned in med school matters? "Big whoop"?
> 
> Try that when you have a myocardial infarction and need medical care. See where it gets you. Big whoop.


Well, if you didn't take tests well, you'd have had a hard time becoming a medical doctor.

Having a PhD may make you a better doctor, but I don't believe it necessarily makes you a better (or more interesting) person.

Also, in many cases, degree are being required for jobs that don't actually need one just as a way of sorting out the riff-raff.

The great majority of what I learned getting my degree in Math & Computer Science was completely useless in real life.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> The whole premise of the thread is that high-achieving women are not really marriage material. A lot of the discussion on this thread is why high-achieving women are not worthy of marriage according to men.


No it's not, the point he was making is if high achieving women only want to marry men who are more achieving than them (like the feelings the poster in the last thread expressed) who are they going to marry? It didn't have anything to do with these women not being marriage worthy.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> [MENTION=154305]
> I just finished reading the entire 49 pages of that thread. Here is what I found.


I kind of figured you'd do that.:surprise:

Now I have to see if I can scare up the free time to re-read the entire thread myself.

I suspect you've used a very fine toothed comb but we'll see if I can get around to countering it.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Well, I guess it was good that this thread continued where the other left off. Some things seem clearer to me now.
> 
> When you love someone, really love them, it does not matter how much money they have or could have or how much education they have or could have or how good-looking they are or could be or how much they weigh or could weigh or how sexually adept they are or could be or if they can even have sex at all or how many partners they have had or whether they brought children into the relationship or whether they can have children or if they have cheated or whether they might cheat or if their parents cheated or . . . whatever.
> 
> When you love someone, really love someone . . . _You just love them._
> 
> There are not all those conditions. Two hearts meet, and they just want, maybe just need, to be together. They belong together.


OK jld so you understand this, now thinking what you said there, imagine it from the husband's point of view in the last thread. Imagine he feels this way about his wife, and she starts to make more money and decides she is no longer attracted to him. This is why I got upset with you when your response was, "what's the big deal he will just find someone new." What if he loved this woman the way you just wrote, what do you think that would do to him. How unfair is it that she didn't even talk to him about it. I agree that you are right that he is better off, but you are ignoring the total destruction that can do to someone.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> And the main reasons why women consider "provider" status is if and when they want to be the primary caregivers to their children. Or they know, like it or not, that they will end up in that role.
> .


But, I thought it was a myth that any women considered this.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I kind of figured you'd do that.:surprise:
> 
> Now I have to see if I can scare up the free time to re-read the entire thread myself.
> 
> I suspect you've used a very fine toothed comb but we'll see if I can get around to countering it.


Have fun re-reading it. I already gave you a link to the only post that talks about 60%.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> But, I thought it was a myth that any women considered this.


I don't think anyone has said that it's a myth that some women consider whether or not a man will be a good provider. I think that what has been said is that it's not universal that all women do.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> I think there may be something innate in some women that considers a man's ability to provide, even if she had not been conscious of any desire to reproduce.
> 
> For me, anyway, when Dug told me he loved me (after only knowing me for a short period of time), and I mulled that over, it just sort of came to me that he would be a good husband, good father, and good _provider._
> 
> I had not been thinking of him in those terms before when I thought we were just friends. But when he expressed the desire for more, then something . . . primal? . . . in me started to evaluate his fitness in those areas.


To be clear, my "likes" of jld & dug on this topic do not mean that I believe they are "right". I am liking them because they reflect my belief of what many people believe.

I do not believe there is any "right" thing that causes attraction between two people.

My only contention has been that some women (more than generally acknowledged) are attracted to men for this reason and that this is / will be an issue in male / female relationships.

I'm not interested in what's "right", I'm only interested in determining what *IS*.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Here on TAM, isn't it the same about women? When men on TAM talk, we generally only hear the stories abut the bad wives/women--the ones who cheat, mistreat their husbands, etc.


Very true.

I think the good men and women come here because they want to improve things.

The bad men and women don't because they don't care.

But, then again, I post here at TAM, so maybe I'm biased :smile2:


----------



## sokillme

Andy1001 said:


> I will give you a piece of advice for your children if they really are interested in a career in STEM.All the big investment in the future is going to be in the natural production of energy,wind farms,hydroelectric,wave technology,solar etc.Most countries,especially in Europe make it a legal requirement for any electricity produced by natural methods to be purchased by the electricity suppliers in the area in question.Another big deal is the advancement of led technology for lighting systems and especially emergency systems.This is because of lithium technology,the batteries needed to power led are so much smaller than standard batteries.It may not seem important but every building that is not a domestic residence has to have an emergency lighting system.This is where the money will be in the future.


I also see robotics as a very big future opportunity.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> To be clear, my "likes" of jld & dug on this topic do not mean that I believe they are "right". I am liking them because they reflect my belief of what many people believe.
> 
> I do not believe there is any "right" thing that causes attraction between two people.
> 
> My only contention has been that some women (more than generally acknowledged) are attracted to men for this reason and that this is / will be an issue in male / female relationships.
> 
> I'm not interested in what's "right", I'm only interested in determining what *IS*.


I think that the only way to determine what *IS* would be to ask women what attracted them to their husbands and what part of that was the man's income level.

Asking women to discuss their criteria of mate selection, when they have no mate (past or present) will not help because until they actually select a mate the woman does not know what of her 1,000 criteria she will end up deciding are not important after all.

To JLD, Dug's ability to provide might have been something that she felt was important and was a good part of why she decided to marry him.

For other women this might, or might not, be as important.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Some (SOME) women might think that her husband is subservient if she makes more than he.
> 
> Some women do not think this way.


In my OP, I said

"It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns"

I think "a number of women" is functionally equivalent to "some women".

So, what are we fighting about again?


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> This thread is very much about gender issues. The whole premise of the thread is that high achieving women are not really marriage material. A lot of the discussion on this thread is why high achieving women are not worthy of marriage according to men.


My initial post was most certainly not about high achieving women not being marriage material. This implies that high-achieving women (I should have titled it "high-earning" women) are not wanted by men. I meant nothing of the sort.

My thought was that high-earning women who desired high-earning men as spouses might have a difficult time finding men who met their criteria. 

I have a high-earning wife. I certainly considered her "marriage material".


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I see honest discussion that a woman who has a college degree will most likely meet and marry a man who has a college degree.


If this is true, isn't the fact that women are now getting more college degrees than men a problem (for the women)?

On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Ok, so I agree with that. Spending years studying something that one is not interested and thus does not enjoy makes little sense.
> 
> IMHO, our school system is just screwed up.
> 
> We need to bring the trades back into high school. Most people do not need a college degree. So having high school set up to give every student a college prep education is just a waste of our money. Young people need to be able to earn a living right out of high school.
> 
> I've read some about the German education system. Most of the jobs in Germany do not require college degrees. By the time a kid graduates from high school they have the training for a decent job. So they are ready to support themselves right out of high school.
> 
> Germany has free college for anyone who wants to go. But the percentage of people who do go to college in Germany is lower than here in the USA. In Germany the kids who go on to college are the ones who want to work in fields that require more education.. like MD, professional level engineer, etc.
> 
> That's the model we need in the USA. it's ridiculous that our children spend 12 years in school and come out unable to work an entry level job.


Right on!

But, one of the problems is that popular culture has been telling young people for generations that people with college degrees are somehow better than people without them.

That's what I'm fighting against.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Have fun re-reading it. I already gave you a link to the only post that talks about 60%.


Looking only for the number '60%' is the sort of fine tooth comb I was expecting.


----------



## katiecrna

'traditionally' speaking men are 'suppose' to be the bread winners and women are 'suppose' to be the child rearing/house keeping person. Some people have traditional values deep rooted within them. This is not wrong or right. Some men have a problem with their wife making more then them, some women have a problem with their husband making less than them. Some people are modern and don't give it another thought.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I don't think anyone has said that it's a myth that some women consider whether or not a man will be a good provider. I think that what has been said is that it's not universal that all women do.


Who said it was universal that all women do?

It wasn't me.


----------



## katiecrna

@Buddy400 clearly this topic has touched a nerve for you. No one says people with degrees are BETTER than those without. Good jobs are becoming more and more difficult to get into and that's because more degrees, certificates, and experience are required. 
I'm in nursing. Before you could be a nurse by a program, an associated, there were LPNs. Now if you are a LPN it's hard to find a decent job, unless you want to work in a nursing home. Now they are requiring nurses to have bachelors. So everyone on my unit had to prove that they are working towards their bachelors if they didn't already have it.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> 'traditionally' speaking men are 'suppose' to be the bread winners and women are 'suppose' to be the child rearing/house keeping person. Some people have traditional values deep rooted within them. This is not wrong or right. Some men have a problem with their wife making more then them, some women have a problem with their husband making less than them. Some people are modern and don't give it another thought.


Dug and I talked about this last night. He said that if I were working and making more money than he was, he would be asking himself what he was bringing to the relationship.

That kind of goes along with what @Holdingontoit was saying.


----------



## katiecrna

Exactly. Personally I think it bothers the man more than it bothers the woman.


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> 'traditionally' speaking men are 'suppose' to be the bread winners and women are 'suppose' to be the child rearing/house keeping person. Some people have traditional values deep rooted within them. This is not wrong or right. Some men have a problem with their wife making more then them, some women have a problem with their husband making less than them. Some people are modern and don't give it another thought.


I think in general, having children is a bigger burden on the female then the male (obviously), so I think it does make some sense that a female would look a little more closely at the male, his career, what type of stability he brings to the table. I see nothing wrong with that, as long as his career/status is not the driving factor in her courting him.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Dug and I talked about this last night. He said that if I were working and making more money than he was, he would be asking himself what he was bringing to the relationship.
> 
> That kind of goes along with what @Holdingontoit was saying.


Curious, do you think it would impact your attraction towards him if you ended up being the breadwinner?


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> Exactly. Personally I think it bothers the man more than it bothers the woman.


Well, the OP from the previous thread is the one that had the issue as she lost attraction towards her H. It is also not the first time hearing that a female has lost attraction to her H when he took a reduced career role / increased family role (even SAHD). I would say both men and women (some, many, IDK) do have issues with this, I don't see it bothering one more than the other.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Dug and I talked about this last night. He said that if I were working and making more money than he was, he would be asking himself what he was bringing to the relationship.
> 
> That kind of goes along with what @Holdingontoit was saying.


Yes but times are changing, and very often we are going to at least see parity. Both men and woman need to get used to this new dynamic, gone the days where a man can just bring a paycheck, but also gone are the days where woman can be attracted to a man just because of his paycheck. For men it means not having to worry so much about the paycheck but it also means having to bring more to the table then money. However it is upsetting when men try to do this only to read articles from women who say, I am not as attracted to him because my paycheck is bigger. 


Who knows what it means for woman, I don't think I am qualified to answer that, though I have heard some more strident feminist say that men are obsolete, which is not a good thing.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> Exactly. Personally I think it bothers the man more than it bothers the woman.


I think that is what Dug thinks, too. I asked him if he thought it had to do with his generation (he will be 50 soon). He did not know.


----------



## katiecrna

jld said:


> I think that is what Dug thinks, too. I asked him if he thought it had to do with his generation (he will be 50 soon). He did not know.




My husband says the same thing and he's in his 30s.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> @Buddy400 clearly this topic has touched a nerve for you. No one says people with degrees are BETTER than those without. Good jobs are becoming more and more difficult to get into and that's because more degrees, certificates, and experience are required.
> I'm in nursing. Before you could be a nurse by a program, an associated, there were LPNs. Now if you are a LPN it's hard to find a decent job, unless you want to work in a nursing home. Now they are requiring nurses to have bachelors. So everyone on my unit had to prove that they are working towards their bachelors if they didn't already have it.


I have known several RNs with two year degrees. They have said they could make more money if they got a bachelor's, though.

And it could just be my area. Those two year degree programs are very popular here, and can be hard to get into.

Totally agree a degree does not make anyone "better" than anyone else. It also does not make anyone "worse."


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> My husband says the same thing and he's in his 30s.


Did he say why?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Curious, do you think it would impact your attraction towards him if you ended up being the breadwinner?


I just cannot see myself in that role unless Dug were unable to work (paralyzed, for example). 

We have been together so long, and have so many children together. We are invested, you know? It is hard to imagine not having deep compatibility and attraction to each other.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Yes but times are changing, and very often we are going to at least see *parody*. Both men and woman need to get used to this new dynamic, gone the days where a man can just bring a paycheck, but also gone are the days where woman can be attracted to a man just because of his paycheck. For men it means not having to worry so much about the paycheck but it also means having to bring more to the table then money. However it is upsetting when men try to do this only to read articles from women who say, I am not as attracted to him because my paycheck is bigger.
> 
> 
> Who knows what it means for woman, I don't think I am qualified to answer that, though I have heard some more strident feminist say that men are obsolete, which is not a good thing.


Did you mean _parity?_

Look, I think there will always be all kinds of couples. 

I remember, back when I started college, my mother telling me to be sure to pick something I liked, because I would be working all my life. And I imagined myself working full-time all my life, probably to someone making the same as me, and having one child, later in life.

Didn't happen that way.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> My husband says the same thing and he's in his 30s.


My hunch is that some men, regardless of the age, just see themselves as providers.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Dug and I talked about this last night. He said that if I were working and making more money than he was, he would be asking himself what he was bringing to the relationship.
> 
> That kind of goes along with what @Holdingontoit was saying.


There was a point where my W was making more then me, didn't bother me for a second. Maybe I just had enough confidence in myself that I knew financially I would not have issues contributing (even if not at the level of my W). It wasn't a huge gap b/w my W and I at the time. Not too long after it did swing substantially in my direction. The only thing I know, I could never be a SAHD lol.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ely-they-are-to-cheat/?utm_term=.86c63738e98e

This seems to imply that the high earning wife should be more concerned with her emasculated husband cheating than the other way around.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> There was a point where my W was making more then me, didn't bother me for a second. Maybe I just had enough confidence in myself that I knew financially I would not have issues contributing (even if not at the level of my W). It wasn't a huge gap b/w my W and I at the time. Not too long after it did swing substantially in my direction. The only thing I know, I could never be a SAHD lol.


Your mom was a single mom, no? That might affect your pov.

I think Dug sees provider as his role (like his dad and my dad). If I were making more, I think he would wonder if what he were offering me, at least in his opinion, were truly enough. Iow, I do not know if he would see it, just from a very practical pov, as "worth it" for a female in that situation.

But whatever. The main thing is to be happy. And different people do happiness differently.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Your mom was a single mom, no? That might affect your pov.
> 
> I think Dug sees provider as his role (like his dad and my dad). If I were making more, I think he would wonder if what he were offering me, at least in his opinion, were truly enough. Iow, I do not know if he would see it, just from a very practical pov, as "worth it" for a female in that situation.
> 
> But whatever. The main thing is to be happy. And different people do happiness differently.


No, my mom wasn't a single mom while raising us, my parents were married.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I do believe, though, that some men, even if just a few, are trustworthy.


Of course some men are trustworthy! More than just a few. 

The point of self-reliance isn't a reflection on the untrustworthiness of others. No, it's all about the vagaries of life, the fact that there are so many things that can go wrong, challenges that we can end up facing, and hardships that we'll have to endure. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed, except maybe death and taxes. And the most reliable resource we have is ourselves. At least IME.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> I think that is what Dug thinks, too. I asked him if he thought it had to do with his generation (he will be 50 soon). He did not know.


My hb doesn't seem time care that I make more. He says he doesn't care and I see no signs he's being dishonest.

He's in his early 60's.

But he is used to high achieving women. His mom had a masters degree in the 50's and he says he remembers being one of the only kids in his class whose mom worked. 

His daughter is high achieving too.

He prefers a woman who works.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Of course some men are trustworthy! More than just a few.
> 
> The point of self-reliance isn't a reflection on the untrustworthiness of others. No, it's all about the vagaries of life, the fact that there are so many things that can go wrong, challenges that we can end up facing, and hardships that we'll have to endure.
> 
> Nothing in life is guaranteed, except maybe death and taxes. And *the most reliable resource we have is ourselves. * At least IME.


I totally agree with this.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> My hb doesn't seem time care that I make more. He says he doesn't care and I see no signs he's being dishonest.
> 
> He's in his early 60's.
> 
> But *he is used to high achieving women*. His mom had a masters degree in the 50's and he says he remembers being one of the only kids in his class whose mom worked.
> 
> His daughter is high achieving too.
> 
> He prefers a woman who works.


The bolded is a very good point, life. 

That is very impressive, that she had a master's degree back then.


----------



## jld

@wild jade, do you remember saying that you always want to be able to leave a man?

My daughter says that, too. That is part of why she plans to always work. Having one's own money is freedom.


----------



## katiecrna

jld said:


> My hunch is that some men, regardless of the age, just see themselves as providers.




He just feels like marriage/relationship balance is better that way. A man needs to feel like the man and a women needs to feel like the women.


----------



## katiecrna

EllisRedding said:


> There was a point where my W was making more then me, didn't bother me for a second. Maybe I just had enough confidence in myself that I knew financially I would not have issues contributing (even if not at the level of my W). It wasn't a huge gap b/w my W and I at the time. Not too long after it did swing substantially in my direction. The only thing I know, I could never be a SAHD lol.




When your wife makes a little bit more than their husband it isn't a big deal. But if the wife makes substantially more... it can get weird to some. Especially when the conversation shifts to... it would make more sense honey if you stayed home with the kids instead of us paying for daycare and I'll just work.


----------



## Celes

katiecrna said:


> He just feels like marriage/relationship balance is better that way. A man needs to feel like the man and a women needs to feel like the women.


I can't say I agree with this line of thinking at all. I make as much as a husband. He feels plenty like a man and I feel plenty like a woman. This wouldn't change in the least if I started earning more.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns.





Buddy400 said:


> Good point. I meant high-earning (since many women on TAM expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more that 60% of the money.
> 
> High-earning and high-achieving aren't the same thing (although they are to some).





Buddy400 said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.
> 
> You have clearly misunderstood what women on TAM have been saying. So have many others.
> 
> 
> 
> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.
Click to expand...




Buddy400 said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have fun re-reading it. I already gave you a link to the only post that talks about 60%.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking only for the number '60%' is the sort of fine tooth comb I was expecting.
Click to expand...

You are the one who kept bringing up the 60%. You claimed that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.

So what? Now you are moving the goal post? LOL I provided the links and quotes of the only two times on that thread when any woman stated that any percentage of income that they would not be comfortable with. One of them said that they would not be comfortable with a 90/10 mix. And another said 60/40. That’s the only time this was said.


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> When your wife makes a little bit more than their husband it isn't a big deal. But if the wife makes substantially more... it can get weird to some. Especially when the conversation shifts to... it would make more sense honey if you stayed home with the kids instead of us paying for daycare and I'll just work.


True, The key (at least for me) is my W had the choice, it was not forced on her. At the time when she was pregnant with our 3rd she had been working part time/per diem (full time prior), but even if she was working full time I still made substantially more than her. If she wanted to keep working, we would have made it work (she is a nurse). Being a SAH shouldn't be forced on anyone, even if I think it is the best option for a family if it is possible.


----------



## heartsbeating

Speaking from my own experience and initial thoughts... my husband earns significantly more than me. In recent times, he has been supportive and encouraging of my step away from corporate life and salary, to the work I currently do. It's a privilege to have options. After telling him about my day this week, he came back a short time later and commented how it made him feel to know I'd had a day at work like that. I could support us without his salary if needed but not to our current standard of living. 

He does not find allure or impress with titles, which amuses me, as he converses with leaders and the titles to match. He learns from those around him and values authenticity. He's switched-on and down to earth. Sometimes I remind him how well he's done for himself; without a degree (but studied in different ways) and with integrity. The most charming thing is that he humbly shrugs it off and continues with his focus. He shares that 'we' secured new work and well done to 'us'. I tell him it's all him. He says no, we're a combined effort and he couldn't do it without me. 

High achieving, high earning, high value... mean different things to different people. Flexibility, resilience and integrity are traits that I'd personally find more interesting.


----------



## arbitrator

katiecrna said:


> When your wife makes a little bit more than their husband it isn't a big deal. But if the wife makes substantially more... it can get weird to some. Especially when the conversation shifts to... it would make more sense honey if you stayed home with the kids instead of us paying for daycare and I'll just work.


*It isn't necessarily when the woman earns substantially more money while working than her husband actually does ~ it is preeminently whenever she earns substantially more money and she also resents and disrespects him for it!

Or is generally deemed by the public, at large, as being the family breadwinner while still clinging to the old publicly held norm that it is the mans job alone to perform those exacting expectations! *


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> @wild jade, do you remember saying that you always want to be able to leave a man?
> 
> My daughter says that, too. That is part of why she plans to always work. Having one's own money is freedom.


 @jld

So that'd be someone with one foot already out of the marriage, eyes shielded against the sun, peering toward the horizon, as they try to seek out some far off, distant better prospect?


----------



## jld

MattMatt said:


> @jld
> 
> So that'd be someone with one foot already out of the marriage, eyes shielded against the sun, peering toward the horizon, as they try to seek out some far off, distant better prospect?


I don't think it is about "seeking a better prospect." It is more about protecting oneself from mistreatment.

My daughter is going to do very well for herself in life. She does not need a "prospect." She _is_ a "prospect."


----------



## jld

heartsbeating said:


> Speaking from my own experience and initial thoughts... my husband earns significantly more than me. In recent times, he has been supportive and encouraging of my step away from corporate life and salary, to the work I currently do. It's a privilege to have options. After telling him about my day this week, he came back a short time later and commented how it made him feel to know I'd had a day at work like that. I could support us without his salary if needed but not to our current standard of living.
> 
> He does not find allure or impress with titles, which amuses me, as he converses with leaders and the titles to match. He learns from those around him and values authenticity. He's switched-on and down to earth. Sometimes I remind him how well he's done for himself; without a degree (but studied in different ways) and with integrity. The most charming thing is that he humbly shrugs it off and continues with his focus. He shares that 'we' secured new work and well done to 'us'. I tell him it's all him. He says no, we're a combined effort and he couldn't do it without me.
> 
> High achieving, high earning, *high value... mean different things to different people. *Flexibility, resilience and integrity are traits that I'd personally find more interesting.


I totally agree with the bolded.

High value can be independent of a lot of externalities, like money or degrees or appearance or sexual performance or whatever else. It is an individual call.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> No, my mom wasn't a single mom while raising us, my parents were married.


Were they divorced later, Ellis? I thought you mentioned that on the other thread?


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Were they divorced later, Ellis? I thought you mentioned that on the other thread?


Yes, later. They got divorced briefly when I was in 9th grade, got remarried, and then got divorced again (for the final time) towards the end of when I graduated from college.

They did serve as a great example of how I would never let my marriage become :grin2:


----------



## Lila

EllisRedding said:


> Yes, later. They got divorced briefly when I was in 9th grade, got remarried, and then got divorced again (for the final time) towards the end of when I graduated from college.
> 
> They did serve as a great example of how I would never let my marriage become :grin2:


Omg, seriously.....we're living parallel lives. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Lila said:


> Omg, seriously.....we're living parallel lives.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Oh crap lol


----------



## soccermom2three

jld said:


> I don't think it is about "seeking a better prospect." It is more about protecting oneself from mistreatment.
> 
> My daughter is going to do very well for herself in life. She does not need a "prospect." She _is_ a "prospect."


JLD, my daughter thinks the same as your daughter. That she should always be able to take care of herself. 

I did subtly push her in that direction. I have had too many female family friends, coworkers and acquaintances who have been left destitute because their husband left them or they couldn't leave bad situations because they were too financially dependent on their husband.


----------



## EllisRedding

I think I found out who will marry these high achieving women :grin2:


----------



## EleGirl

MattMatt said:


> @jld
> 
> 
> 
> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> @wild jade, do you remember saying that you always want to be able to leave a man?
> 
> My daughter says that, too. That is part of why she plans to always work. Having one's own money is freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> So that'd be someone with one foot already out of the marriage, eyes shielded against the sun, peering toward the horizon, as they try to seek out some far off, distant better prospect?
Click to expand...

Matt, it's not about seeking a "better prospect". It's about independence and being able to protect one's self. 

When women talk about being able to leave a man/husband, they are talking about having the option to leave a bad marriage.

What if jld's daughter marries a guy who turns out to be abusive, or he cheats, or any other number of things that can go wrong with a marriage?

What if her husband becomes disabled or dies? (I know, she did not bring up this scenario but I'm putting it out there)

This is what jld's daughter is talking about. I doubt she it talking about being able to leave a man when a "better" man comes along.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> If this is true, isn't the fact that women are now getting more college degrees than men a problem (for the women)?
> 
> On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times


Women and men tend to date/marry people who are in their own social group. So a lot of people who are in college end up dating/marrying each other. But some people with college don't. I don't see that as a problem.

I have a niece who is a nurse with a 4 year degree. She's now working on her master's in nursing. She's married to a guy who has a high school diploma and is a house painter. She earns more than he. They are expecting their second child. They met playing soccer since they both are avid soccer players.

Her brother has no college education. He was working in the gas industry driving fuel trucks. Now that that industry had to lay off a lot of people, he's learning to lay pipe and works on a crew doing that. He's married to a woman who had a college degree and works as a manager for some company in the oil industry. That's how they met, at work. They have a young daughter. 

Both of these seem to be very happy marriages. All four of them are very good, hard working people. 

I just of not see the problem. People meet going through their normal daily activities and some of them marry each other.


----------



## jld

soccermom2three said:


> JLD, my daughter thinks the same as your daughter. That she should always be able to take care of herself.
> 
> I did subtly push her in that direction. I have had too many female family friends, coworkers and acquaintances who have been left destitute because their husband left them or they couldn't leave bad situations because they were too financially dependent on their husband.


I hear you, soccermom. And I think my daughter would say the same.

She was dating a young man from a wealthy, well-connected family last summer. He took her to his grandmother's chalet in the Alps. She told me she cooked breakfast in the same kitchen the queen of his country had (the queen is a friend of his grandmother--his grandmother's side made their fortune centuries ago courtesy of the royal family).

That was a whole other world for me, hearing that sort of thing. (Dug and I are just middle class people, from a long line of peasants.) And it was a bit hard (for me) when they broke up.

He seems to need a young woman who is a bit clingy and needy for him, and my daughter is just not like that. She told me that even if she were to marry him and have children (they discussed it), she would continue to work. She loves her field, and her independence.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> You are the one who kept bringing up the 60%. You claimed that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.
> 
> So what? Now you are moving the goal post? LOL I provided the links and quotes of the only two times on that thread when any woman stated that any percentage of income that they would not be comfortable with. One of them said that they would not be comfortable with a 90/10 mix. And another said 60/40. That’s the only time this was said.


Initially I read your reply and thought I'd now have to spend the time to comb through the old thread quoting women who were uncomfortable making considerably more money than their husband.

But, then I read this and realized that you have no intention of arguing in good faith;

"You claimed that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money"

In the very same post you quoted me as saying:

"It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns."

When you objected and claimed that I'd said "most women on TAM" (which I didn't do, I said "a number of women"), I narrowed the discussion to the attitude of most women in the thread in question and, rather than claim that women had a problem with men making more than them, I used the 60% number one poster had quoted.

Then you try to say that I claimed that "most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money".

I never said that. I went out of my way not to say that. I first said "a number of women" and then said "most women on that thread".
To clarify the "60%" issue. My point was that a number of women on TAM have issues with men making more than them. 

You "prove" that wrong by finding only one instance of someone using the exact number 60%, as if no other women on that thread had issues with men making more than them. As if @jld and others didn't have similar issues since they didn't use the exact number "60%".

You manipulate what I'm saying into something you can "disprove" instead of actually engaging on the issue. 

Dealing with that isn't worth any more of my time.


----------



## MattMatt

EleGirl said:


> Matt, it's not about seeking a "better prospect". It's about independence and being able to protect one's self.
> 
> When women talk about being able to leave a man/husband, they are talking about having the option to leave a bad marriage.
> 
> What if jld's daughter marries a guy who turns out to be abusive, or he cheats, or any other number of things that can go wrong with a marriage?
> 
> What if her husband becomes disabled or dies? (I know, she did not bring up this scenario but I'm putting it out there)
> 
> This is what jld's daughter is talking about. I doubt she it talking about being able to leave a man when a "better" man comes along.


I see your point, @EleGirl.

But I knew a man like this years ago.

He was always ready for leaving.

So that's exactly what he did. 

The last time I heard of him he was on wife 3. Though wife 3 was a return to wife 1.


----------



## MattMatt

jld said:


> I don't think it is about "seeking a better prospect." It is more about protecting oneself from mistreatment.
> 
> My daughter is going to do very well for herself in life. She does not need a "prospect." She _is_ a "prospect."


 @jld That's good to know.


----------



## EleGirl

MattMatt said:


> I see your point, @EleGirl.
> 
> But I knew a man like this years ago.
> 
> He was always ready for leaving.
> 
> So that's exactly what he did.
> 
> The last time I heard of him he was on wife 3. Though wife 3 was a return to wife 1.


Having enough financial independence so that one can leave a marriage if it turns out to be a bad marriage is not the same as always being ready to leave.

What would you suggest that women do--make sure that they are financially dependent so that it is hard for them to protect themselves if it turns out that their husband is abusive? Most of the time, a person does not find out that their spouse is abusive until after marriage. Most abusers are on good behavior until they feel that they have trapped their spouse via marriage.


----------



## Celes

My mom used to work at the same company with my dad. Then one day he got promoted to VP. He then forced her to quit and stay home, saying he didn't want to show preferential treatment to her and jeopardize his career. He gave her position to another woman, who he proceeded to have an affair with. When my mom found out, she left him. She had no job and 3 young kids. My dad married his AP and my mom is 62 and still can't find work. I promised myself I would never end up in that position.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Having enough financial independence so that one can leave a marriage if it turns out to be a bad marriage is not the same as always being ready to leave.
> 
> What would you suggest that women do--make sure that they are financially dependent so that it is hard for them to protect themselves if it turns out that their husband is abusive? Most of the time, a person does not find out that their spouse is abusive until after marriage. Most abusers are on good behavior until they feel that they have trapped their spouse via marriage.


There is a balance. Being trapped in a marriage because you financially cannot leave is one problem, but so is being too ready to walk. You have to find a middle ground.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> Who are high achieving women supposed to marry?
> 
> Me amongst others.


So they should adopt polyandry? >


----------



## tech-novelist

sokillme said:


> Haha, spoken like a fellow programmer. I say this all the time, but you and I get paid for results and very often don't know what we need to know before we get in there and start working. Most of our learning is done on the fly, if you are like me anyway.


I was once working for a consulting firm where the principal said "You have to be an expert in SQL performance tuning on Monday". That was on Friday, and I had previously had a total of 0 hours study or work in any aspect of SQL.

I said "Ok, but you have to pay me for the two days work I'm going to do this weekend to get ready.". He didn't like it but he did it.

No one ever suspected, as far as I could tell.


----------



## tech-novelist

uhtred said:


> You may be right, but its always dangerous to predict where job markets will go.


Yep. I remember many predictions that programming was going to be obsolete "any day now". So far, it isn't.


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> And it is good for the environment, too, right? And that benefits all of us.
> 
> It would be good if the government did that instead of that private company. The revenue could lower taxes on the middle class.


No, it wouldn't.

The government would screw it up big time.

*Nothing* that can be done by the private sector should be done by the government.

As to the question of what exactly can't be done by the private sector, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. >


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> If this is true, isn't the fact that women are now getting more college degrees than men a problem (for the women)?
> 
> On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times


Yes, that is absolutely a problem for the women.

It's also a problem for the men who are excluded because they don't satisfy the women's requirements.


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> I was once working for a consulting firm where the principal said "You have to be an expert in SQL performance tuning on Monday". That was on Friday, and I had previously had a total of 0 hours study or work in any aspect of SQL.
> 
> I said "Ok, but you have to pay me for the two days work I'm going to do this weekend to get ready.". He didn't like it but he did it.
> 
> No one ever suspected, as far as I could tell.


I know the feeling, can't tell you how many times I am handed a problem and said fix it with no experience. I just learn it and fix it.


----------



## Buddy400

tech-novelist said:


> I was once working for a consulting firm where the principal said "You have to be an expert in SQL performance tuning on Monday". That was on Friday, and I had previously had a total of 0 hours study or work in any aspect of SQL.
> 
> I said "Ok, but you have to pay me for the two days work I'm going to do this weekend to get ready.". He didn't like it but he did it.
> 
> No one ever suspected, as far as I could tell.


Straight out of college, I applied for a job at United Airlines (I thought the free flights would be cool).

I had to take a test on COBOL as part of the process.

I passed the test.

During the subsequent interview, they noted that I'd never studied COBOL in college. I explained that I had checked a book out of the library over the weekend and learned it (or, at least enough to pass their test).

I thought that was pretty impressive. They didn't.

In retrospect, of course, they did me a favor by not hiring me.


----------



## Buddy400

soccermom2three said:


> JLD, my daughter thinks the same as your daughter. That she should always be able to take care of herself.
> 
> I did subtly push her in that direction. I have had too many female family friends, coworkers and acquaintances who have been left destitute because their husband left them or they couldn't leave bad situations because they were too financially dependent on their husband.


It a shame that if two people decide that they'd prefer to have one parent deprioritize their career while their kids are young, they can't do it because either one thinks they might be ruined financially. This applies to either gender, with either doing the deprioritizing.


----------



## Andy1001

tech-novelist said:


> No, it wouldn't.
> 
> The government would screw it up big time.
> 
> *Nothing* that can be done by the private sector should be done by the government.
> 
> As to the question of what exactly can't be done by the private sector, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. >


There would be too many vested interests for this idea to be run by any Govt.The company I was talking about manufacture and import the lights and the control gear themselves.The lights fit a standard ceiling tile and it takes just minutes to remove a fluorescent fitting and fit the led fitting.You get the Govt involved and somehow only lights made by certain companies would be acceptable,and guess who would own those companies.Another advantage of led lights is that there is no "warming up" period as with CFL bulbs,led comes on immediately and it doesn't matter how often the occupancy sensor operates it will not affect the fitting.This has always been a problem in elevators especially.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Initially I read your reply and thought I'd now have to spend the time to comb through the old thread quoting women who were uncomfortable making considerably more money than their husband.
> 
> But, then I read this and realized that you have no intention of arguing in good faith;


I’m arguing in good faith, to the point of having reread the entire other thread to see if I mistook what was said there and if what you claim is true:


Buddy400 said:


> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


It’ not true since it is false that “most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.”


Buddy400 said:


> "You claimed that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money"
> 
> In the very same post you quoted me as saying:
> 
> "It seems that a number of women believe that a marriage won't work unless the man is making at least 2/3 of what the women earns."
> 
> When you objected and claimed that I'd said "most women on TAM" (which I didn't do, I said "a number of women"), I narrowed the discussion to the attitude of most women in the thread in question and, rather than claim that women had a problem with men making more than them, I used the 60% number one poster had quoted.
> 
> Then you try to say that I claimed that "most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money".
> 
> I never said that. I went out of my way not to say that. I first said "a number of women" and then said "most women on that thread".


You said the same thing in several different ways, I quoted all of them. You said the following:


Buddy400 said:


> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


If you want to play musical quotes to try to now back away from the above, go for it. But the fact remains that the above is inaccurate. Most women on that thread said no such thing. Most did not even express how they would feel about earning more than 60% of the joint income in their marriage.




Buddy400 said:


> "To clarify the "60%" issue. My point was that a number of women on TAM have issues with men making more than them.
> 
> You "prove" that wrong by finding only one instance of someone using the exact number 60%, as if no other women on that thread had issues with men making more than them. As if @jld and others didn't have similar issues since they didn't use the exact number "60%".
> 
> You manipulate what I'm saying into something you can "disprove" instead of actually engaging on the issue.
> 
> Dealing with that isn't worth any more of my time.


Let’s be precise.

21 women replied on that thread. I removed jld from this number because she had 193 posts on that thread. She’s clearly an outlier. So of the other women on the thread….

20 women posted with an average of about 7 posts each.

34 men posted on that thread with an average of about 12 posts each.

Of the women on that thread who said anything at all about their personal view of whether or not they would have an issue of earning significantly more than their husbands … 5 women mentioned this. to include jld and SimplyAmorous. 
•	Jld and SA have are clearly in the camp of not being ok with them being the primary earners.
•	One woman said that she would not like it if she earned 90% of the joint income. 
•	Another said that she would not like it if she earned over 60%. 
•	Another said that she’s unhappy because she is the primary bread winner and her husband seems to be slacking off and not working very hard to earn an income.

My point in discussing the below assumption of yours is that it’s wrong. And I think that’s important to the discussion. 


Buddy400 said:


> To be more precise, most TAM women on the closed thread expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> You claimed that most women on TAM have expressed doubts about a marriage in which they'd make more than 60% of the money.


No. I didn't.

First, I said "a number of women have a problem" 

"a number of women" does not mean "most"

Then I said "most TAM women *posting on that thread* had a problem...."

That is not "most women on TAM".

And if you hadn't jumped all over the initial statement as meaning that I said "most women on TAM", I wouldn't have even needed to try to redefine it to please you and perhaps you could have focused on the actual issue I was trying to address instead of rising up to your usual role of *Defender of all Women against Bad Things said by Men*.

I doubt that I'm willing to put in the effort to read the entire thread and haggle over each post in an effort to refute your statistical analysis that only ~35% of women on thread agreed that men making more than them was a problem by seeing if I come up with 51% (most) so, if that's your real issue, you win.

EDIT: Oh crap. I just realized that I'd taken your stipulated 5 and added two of the the specific instances below to get 7 of 20 (still not sure why jld gets excluded from your study). Now I realize that you probably included them in your count of 5. So I'll spare you the argument about how I determined ~35%.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> I don't think it is about "seeking a better prospect." It is more about protecting oneself from mistreatment.
> 
> My daughter is going to do very well for herself in life. She does not need a "prospect." She _is_ a "prospect."


Not just mistreatment, but also misfortune. 

One woman I knew was a SAHM for her family. She did only the "woman's work", cooking, cleaning, child care. Her husband was the breadwinner, earned all the money, managed all the finances, took care of all the legalities, taxes, paperwork and so on. 

They were married happily for a good long time. But very sadly, he took ill and died. And not only was she left alone, she was helpless. She knew almost nothing about the running of her own household, hadn't held any gainful employment. I would never want to be in her shoes. 

Point being that anything can happen, and it's good to be able to look after oneself. And others.


----------



## heartsbeating

Buddy400 said:


> Straight out of college, I applied for a job at United Airlines (I thought the free flights would be cool).
> 
> I had to take a test on COBOL as part of the process.
> 
> I passed the test.
> 
> During the subsequent interview, they noted that I'd never studied COBOL in college. I explained that I had checked a book out of the library over the weekend and learned it (or, at least enough to pass their test).
> 
> *I thought that was pretty impressive.* They didn't.
> 
> In retrospect, of course, they did me a favor by not hiring me.


Ha! Oh dear.

At a workplace, our director side-lined as a professor. As the team all had degrees in the subjects he taught, he put a challenge to us. He gave each of us a mini test paper, open book, and to give the completed paper back the following day. As incentive, he offered a small cash prize and lunch of choice to those getting 100%. Hubs and I went to the pub that night with friends. I got home after a couple of pints and remembered the paper! I scan-read the material and completed the test.

Everyone handed it in the next day. Some confidently chuckling. Only me and one other got 100%. I thought it was pretty impressive at first. Cash and a free lunch. Hoozah! I may have aced the test but they had experience of putting theory into action.


----------



## heartsbeating

EleGirl said:


> Having enough financial independence so that one can leave a marriage if it turns out to be a bad marriage is not the same as always being ready to leave.


Agreed. I'll add being interdependent, or at least having a path to get there, is important in holding your own in this world.

I grew up with the thought that I wouldn't be dependent on a man. Recently I was speaking with mama hearts about work opportunities and directions I'm considering to make this path financially viable. She asked 'Isn't Batman earning enough that you don't need to worry about it?' I was taken aback. Replied 'Well, financially yes, but it's not about that. It's healthy for me to work and it helps us.' 

I told hubs afterwards and his reaction was like mine.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> No. I didn't.
> 
> First, I said "a number of women have a problem"
> 
> "a number of women" does not mean "most"
> 
> Then I said "most TAM women *posting on that thread* had a problem...."
> 
> That is not "most women on TAM".
> 
> And if you hadn't jumped all over the initial statement as meaning that I said "most women on TAM", I wouldn't have even needed to try to redefine it to please you and perhaps you could have focused on the actual issue I was trying to address instead of rising up to your usual role of *Defender of all Women against Bad Things said by Men*.
> 
> I doubt that I'm willing to put in the effort to read the entire thread and haggle over each post in an effort to refute your statistical analysis that only ~35% of women on thread agreed that men making more than them was a problem by seeing if I come up with 51% (most) so, if that's your real issue, you win.
> 
> EDIT: Oh crap. I just realized that I'd taken your stipulated 5 and added two of the the specific instances below to get 7 of 20 (still not sure why jld gets excluded from your study). Now I realize that you probably included them in your count of 5. So I'll spare you the argument about how I determined ~35%.


Yea, I included jld in the number of women who would not like it if she earned significantly more than her husband. About 25% of the women expressed that they would not be comfortable with this.

I only excluded her from calculating the average number of posts per female on that thread since she had 193 post (!!!!) on that thread. Her number of posts is an outlier number.


----------



## EleGirl

wild jade said:


> Not just mistreatment, but also misfortune.
> 
> One woman I knew was a SAHM for her family. She did only the "woman's work", cooking, cleaning, child care. Her husband was the breadwinner, earned all the money, managed all the finances, took care of all the legalities, taxes, paperwork and so on.
> 
> They were married happily for a good long time. But very sadly, he took ill and died. And not only was she left alone, she was helpless. She knew almost nothing about the running of her own household, hadn't held any gainful employment. I would never want to be in her shoes.
> 
> Point being that anything can happen, and it's good to be able to look after oneself. And others.


This happened to my mother. She was married to my father for 25 years. When he died she was left with 3 young children to raise on her own. We 5 older children were already out of high school and on our own. He had been the sole breadwinner and took care of everything. We older kids had to take care of things for my mother because she had no idea how to do any of it. 

Watching what happened to my mother, how much she became like a child, is one of the reasons that I have felt that it was important to never let happen to myself what happened to her.


----------



## emmasmith

The number of women who would not like it if she earned significantly more than her husband.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Yea, I included jld in the number of women who would not like it if she earned significantly more than her husband. About 25% of the women expressed that they would not be comfortable with this.
> 
> I only excluded her from calculating the average number of posts per female on that thread since she had 193 post (!!!!) on that thread. Her number of posts is an outlier number.


I don't know if I would not like it. It has never happened, so I really do not know. 

I suspect it would shift the balance of power, though. I bet it would really increase my confidence in myself.

My point in the other thread was that I did not feel the young woman was wrong for having the feelings she had. Her feelings are her feelings. And if more people thought of her as their own daughter, they might be more empathetic.


----------



## wild jade

EleGirl said:


> This happened to my mother. She was married to my father for 25 years. When he died she was left with 3 young children to raise on her own. We 5 older children were already out of high school and on our own. He had been the sole breadwinner and took care of everything. We older kids had to take care of things for my mother because she had no idea how to do any of it.
> 
> Watching what happened to my mother, how much she became like a child, is one of the reasons that I have felt that it was important to never let happen to myself what happened to her.


Yes, I think many women have similar experiences -- either have been through it themselves or know someone who has. And it likely shapes how we tend to think about independence. As you said earlier, women's concern about independence and the ability to leave really isn't about finding another man or even about the relationship itself ....and is quite literally and actually about being able to look after oneself and having an identity of our own, other than "Mrs" or "mom". 

Probably men don't ever really have this in their thought process. They are asked from the get-go what they want to be when they grow up, and perhaps other than a total mama's boy are always assumed to have this independence. You never see role models or exemplars of men who have handed over their autonomy to another, or simply never bothered to learn these skills. Their independence is assumed, rather than something they need to work for.


----------



## naiveonedave

The real question here is: do most women really need a provider? Some things in attraction we are not cognizant of, could this be one for many/most women? I really don't know, but there appears to be anecdotal data to support the theory.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> The real question here is: do most women really need a provider? Some things in attraction we are not cognizant of, could this be one for many/most women? I really don't know, but there appears to be anecdotal data to support the theory.


I think it makes marriage more attractive, particularly if there are thoughts of having children.

It really depends on what each woman wants in life, I guess, or is willing to accept.


----------



## katiecrna

I think everyone should go through life hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. 
We should be raising our kids as if they will be single for life. I'm sorry but your job as a parent IMO is to make your child independent. That if you died, they would be ok. If they never got married, they will be ok. That means are daughters and sons should all know how to cook, clean, do laundry, fix a toilet, change a tire, have a good job, and know how to troubleshoot basic things. And more importantly, your not going to know how to do everything but you need to know who to ask, or how to find out what to do. YouTube saved my life bc I'm essentially a single women bc my husband works so much. 
My dad prepared me pretty well. He gave me a small bag of important tools when I moved out. (This saved me so many times, my husband is not handy). My dad taught me how to jump start a car and what to do when your battery dies. I was taught to always have windshield wiper solution, jumper cables and water in my trunk and I have helped a lot of people out and myself too.


----------



## katiecrna

When your a kid you practice what do you do in case of a house fire. My dad taught us... what do you do in case of a... flat tire, died battery, power outage, etc. and it was not only a good learning experience but it was a fun way to bond with my dad. I appreciate my dad so much for what he has taught me.


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> I think everyone should go through life hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.
> We should be raising our kids as if they will be single for life. I'm sorry but your job as a parent IMO is to make your child independent. That if you died, they would be ok. If they never got married, they will be ok. That means are daughters and sons should all know how to cook, clean, do laundry, fix a toilet, change a tire, have a good job, and know how to troubleshoot basic things. And more importantly, your not going to know how to do everything but you need to know who to ask, or how to find out what to do. YouTube saved my life bc I'm essentially a single women bc my husband works so much.
> My dad prepared me pretty well. He gave me a small bag of important tools when I moved out. (This saved me so many times, my husband is not handy). My dad taught me how to jump start a car and what to do when your battery dies. I was taught to always have windshield wiper solution, jumper cables and water in my trunk and I have helped a lot of people out and myself too.


Youtube is the new parent for a lot of this stuff as I see you just posted above :grin2:

Some stuff I say the kids just need to learn on their own. Don't know how to cook, ok, enjoy starving or live off of fast food lol.


----------



## katiecrna

For me my dad did a great job teaching us how to do certain things. But my mom who was a SAHM did not do a good job teaching us how to cook,clean and do laundry bc she just did it (bc she thought that was her job). I obviously grew up and learned on my own, but my brothers still suck and it. Also it's good to teach your kids a routine that they carry on in adulthood. For me... I still struggle establishing a routine. Whereas for example my cousin who is in her 20s wakes up every morning, brushes her teeth while she makes her bed. Gets ready. Empties the dishwasher. Does laundry every Sunday night (which was her what she has been doing since she was 8). Making my bed... that's a struggle lol


----------



## katiecrna

PSA!!! Parents of young kids out there... establish a routine for your kids now bc when they get older things will be much easier for them and they will greatly appreciate it!!


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> Yes, I think many women have similar experiences -- either have been through it themselves or know someone who has. And it likely shapes how we tend to think about independence. As you said earlier, women's concern about independence and the ability to leave really isn't about finding another man or even about the relationship itself ....and is quite literally and actually about being able to look after oneself and having an identity of our own, other than "Mrs" or "mom".
> 
> Probably men don't ever really have this in their thought process. They are asked from the get-go what they want to be when they grow up, and perhaps other than a total mama's boy are always assumed to have this independence. You never see role models or exemplars of men who have handed over their autonomy to another, or simply never bothered to learn these skills. Their independence is assumed, rather than something they need to work for.


I think you are right, but it's a two edged sword. A quote that has always resonated with me, as a man, comes from Steve Martin in the movie Parenthood. "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".

The balance of power is shifting in relationships to be more equal, and I think that is overall a good thing. But if I were younger and starting out again, I wonder if I would marry. It seems like a much less attractive deal for men than it was once, in some ways. The risk to us has greatly increased, and I'm not sure whether anything offsets that.

I'm not trying to woman bash, and I'm not working up to a red pill / MGTOW rant. Just thinking. My desire for a committed stable relationship is not any less. It just requires a different structure than it did 30-40 years ago.


----------



## katiecrna

Wazza said:


> I think you are right, but it's a two edged sword. A quote that has always resonated with me, as a man, comes from Steve Martin in the movie Parenthood. "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".
> 
> 
> 
> The balance of power is shifting in relationships to be more equal, and I think that is overall a good thing. But if I were younger and starting out again, I wonder if I would marry. It seems like a much less attractive deal for men than it was once, in some ways. The risk to us has greatly increased, and I'm not sure whether anything offsets that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to woman bash, and I'm not working up to a red pill / MGTOW rant. Just thinking. My desire for a committed stable relationship is not any less. It just requires a different structure than it did 30-40 years ago.




This is very interesting.
I think that marriage is less attractive for women in a way now too. But I agree that it is for sure less attractive for men.
Like someone posted earlier, men today need to bring more to the table than just a paycheck bc women have their own jobs/careers. 
For me... this might be sexist but even if a women works more than her husband or makes more or whatever the "house keeping" still falls on her. The responsibility for the house to be clean and kept up is on her but necessarily that she has to do it. And I know this is judgmental and sexist but when I go to someone's house and it's a mess... I automatically think this makes the women look bad not the man. But on believe the same for men... if the grass is uncut and there are leaves everywhere and the roof/siding/gutters look bad I automatically think the husband looks lazy.


----------



## katiecrna

@Wazza why does marriage today look less attractive for men? I'm curious of this answer.


----------



## EllisRedding

katiecrna said:


> This is very interesting.
> I think that marriage is less attractive for women in a way now too. But I agree that it is for sure less attractive for men.
> Like someone posted earlier, men today need to bring more to the table than just a paycheck bc women have their own jobs/careers.
> For me... this might be sexist but even if a women works more than her husband or makes more or whatever the "house keeping" still falls on her. The responsibility for the house to be clean and kept up is on her but necessarily that she has to do it. And I know this is judgmental and sexist but when I go to someone's house and it's a mess... I automatically think this makes the women look bad not the man. But on believe the same for men... if the grass is uncut and there are leaves everywhere and the roof/siding/gutters look bad I automatically think the husband looks lazy.


Hmmm ... giving this and @Wazza post some thought, at least for me personally, I don't see marriage being any better or worse then when I got married nearly 15 yrs ago. I also wouldn't discourage my kids from it either. Knowing what I know now from being married and raising a family, I feel I could give my kids better advice on what to expect, how to help them prepare, scare them a little, etc... I would even be willing to hand over my TAM username for them to use when they need to post about their marriage woes :grin2:

I personally don't believe in raising a family out of wedlock (not intentionally at least), so if raising a family is of interest, I still think marriage is the best route. I just think too many people rush into it. Too many people get married, have kids, b/c that is what society tells them they are supposed to do.


----------



## Celes

katiecrna said:


> This is very interesting.
> I think that marriage is less attractive for women in a way now too. But I agree that it is for sure less attractive for men.
> Like someone posted earlier, men today need to bring more to the table than just a paycheck bc women have their own jobs/careers.
> For me... this might be sexist but even if a women works more than her husband or makes more or whatever the "house keeping" still falls on her. The responsibility for the house to be clean and kept up is on her but necessarily that she has to do it. And I know this is judgmental and sexist but when I go to someone's house and it's a mess... I automatically think this makes the women look bad not the man. But on believe the same for men... if the grass is uncut and there are leaves everywhere and the roof/siding/gutters look bad I automatically think the husband looks lazy.


Barf...


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I think you are right, but it's a two edged sword. A quote that has always resonated with me, as a man, comes from Steve Martin in the movie Parenthood. "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".
> 
> The balance of power is shifting in relationships to be more equal, and I think that is overall a good thing. But if I were younger and starting out again, I wonder if I would marry. It seems like a much less attractive deal for men than it was once, in some ways. The risk to us has greatly increased, and I'm not sure whether anything offsets that.
> 
> I'm not trying to woman bash, and I'm not working up to a red pill / MGTOW rant. Just thinking. My desire for a committed stable relationship is not any less. It just requires a different structure than it did 30-40 years ago.


Women only have "choices" to the extent that men are willing to take certain responsibilities.

Do you see Ele having had any "choices" in her marriages? Other than the choices to marry and divorce?

And really, in her situations, the men had choices because she took on those responsibilities.


----------



## Wazza

katiecrna said:


> @Wazza why does marriage today look less attractive for men? I'm curious of this answer.


Well...remembering that I think the changes that have happened, in many ways, are for the better.....

When divorce was less socially acceptable, marriages were more secure. I married believing that a lifelong marriage was a reasonable expectation, whereas now I see a much larger element of luck in all that.

So if I take some of the expectations that have been expressed in this thread (and maybe the old thread too, I'm losing track)...a woman is a prospect, and the guy better step up if he wants her...and at the same time as she explores all her new wonderful options he better fulfil his primary role of breadwinner without getting in the way of her career....maybe this is the equivalent of the argument women often make that they have more career responsibilities but still carry a disproportionate share of the housework.

If my wife wants to chase her career and succeed, but at the same time requires that I make more money than her, that becomes a constraint on my career. Her choice sets a bar that constrains my choice to those options that are more financially secure.

From personal experience, my wife insisted I be the primary breadwinner. I agree to that. When my wife had her affair, it was a near death experience for the marriage. We got through, but there was an element of luck in it, and if my wife had made slightly different choices, it would have ended in divorce, with nothing I could do about it. And my personal view is that the only people who win in a divorce are divorce lawyers.

I guess I take what I went through in my marriage, add to it all the extra expectations some women are wanting to place on the man, and think....why?


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> Hmmm ... giving this and @Wazza post some thought, at least for me personally, I don't see marriage being any better or worse then when I got married nearly 15 yrs ago. I also wouldn't discourage my kids from it either. Knowing what I know now from being married and raising a family, I feel I could give my kids better advice on what to expect, how to help them prepare, scare them a little, etc... I would even be willing to hand over my TAM username for them to use when they need to post about their marriage woes :grin2:
> 
> I personally don't believe in raising a family out of wedlock (not intentionally at least), so if raising a family is of interest, I still think marriage is the best route. I just think too many people rush into it. Too many people get married, have kids, b/c that is what society tells them they are supposed to do.


Re kids, I agree. Re not rushing into it...I think there is a certain element of luck....


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Women only have "choices" to the extent that men are willing to take certain responsibilities.
> 
> Do you see Ele having had any "choices" in her marriages? Other than the choices to marry and divorce?
> 
> And really, in her situations, the men had choices because she took on those responsibilities.


Of course, there will be lots of different scenarios, and no one has total freedom. and I don't know enough of Ele's story to comment in an intelligent way. And I quoted a line from a movie, it's not holy writ. But I found the whole movie quite thought provoking.

I'm just saying what I think. If it's ok for a woman to lose attraction to a man who doesn't fit her definition of good provider and contemplate divorce (which is ultimately where this discussion started) then I think it's equally valid for a man to talk about the circumstances where he might decide it's better to walk away. If it's ok for a woman like your daughter to demand a good deal from a marriage, it's equally ok for the guy to.


----------



## tech-novelist

Wazza said:


> I think you are right, but it's a two edged sword. A quote that has always resonated with me, as a man, comes from Steve Martin in the movie Parenthood. "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".
> 
> The balance of power is shifting in relationships to be more equal, and I think that is overall a good thing. But if I were younger and starting out again, I wonder if I would marry. It seems like a much less attractive deal for men than it was once, in some ways. The risk to us has greatly increased, and I'm not sure whether anything offsets that.
> 
> I'm not trying to woman bash, and I'm not working up to a red pill / MGTOW rant. Just thinking. My desire for a committed stable relationship is not any less. It just requires a different structure than it did 30-40 years ago.


Although I'm happily married, if I were a young man I would emigrate to a country that is less misandrist. Getting married in the US or any other highly gynocentric country is too dangerous for men.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Of course, there will be lots of different scenarios, and no one has total freedom. and I don't know enough of Ele's story to comment in an intelligent way. And I quoted a line from a movie, it's not holy writ. But I found the whole movie quite thought provoking.
> 
> I'm just saying what I think. If it's ok for a woman to lose attraction to a man who doesn't fit her definition of good provider and contemplate divorce (which is ultimately where this discussion started) then I think it's equally valid for a man to talk about the circumstances where he might decide it's better to walk away. If it's ok for a woman like your daughter to demand a good deal from a marriage, it's equally ok for the guy to.


I think anyone can ask anything they want of a marriage. Getting it is another story.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I think anyone can ask anything they want of a marriage. Getting it is another story.


So is keeping it once you have it.


----------



## xMadame

Whom ever they want as long as it works for them. 

Topic closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Here's the way to do it.

Marry a woman who makes slightly more than you, but be a someone with talent and ambition in a good career.

Have a kid and, after having him raised by a nanny for a year, have the higher-earning spouse (my wife) quit work to be a SAHM (by mutual agreement).

Make more money and reduce your life style.

After the twins born 3 years later are in pre-school, the wife applies for a part-time job at a green house selling plants. They see her resume and make her the part-time IT Manager.

When the kids are all in high-school, she gets a job in a booming tech industry.

Since she's the smartest, hardest working person I've ever known, she advances quickly. 

Two years later, she's a high-earning consultant making more than me again.

Now she's out of consulting and I'm back in the lead.

All this time, have such a good marriage that the possibility of divorce is unthinkable.

I'd also recommend each person having a "practice" marriage or two (without kids) under their belt so they've figured out what NOT to look for in a partner.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I don't know if I would not like it. It has never happened, so I really do not know.
> 
> *I suspect it would shift the balance of power, though*. I bet it would really increase my confidence in myself.
> 
> My point in the other thread was that I did not feel the young woman was wrong for having the feelings she had. Her feelings are her feelings. And if more people thought of her as their own daughter, they might be more empathetic.


From my experience, if the power structure of a marriage is based on who earns the most, the marriage is greatly flawed. Both spouses suffer for this, even if the one who thinks he/she has the most power does not realize the damage. They become the like a "parent/employer" to the other. Being in that position in a marriage means that the one who thinks they are in power loses out on true love and intimacy.

If non-primary earner becomes the primary earner and this causes the balance of power to shift, the marriage is greatly flawed.

It is unfortunate that in many marriages, the primary bread winner acts like they are the one who is in charge and the other is subordinate to them.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Women only have "choices" to the extent that men are willing to take certain responsibilities.
> 
> Do you see Ele having had any "choices" in her marriages? Other than the choices to marry and divorce?
> 
> And really, in her situations, the men had choices because she took on those responsibilities.


If men stop taking responsibilities, won't that reduce women's choices?

Will women be okay with taking on responsibilities so that men can have choices?


----------



## katiecrna

tech-novelist said:


> Although I'm happily married, if I were a young man I would emigrate to a country that is less misandrist. Getting married in the US or any other highly gynocentric country is too dangerous for men.




Why do you think the US is gynocentric?


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> Too many people get married, have kids, b/c that is what society tells them they are supposed to do.


People are going to continue to have kids one way or another.

I think getting married when you have them is still better than not.

I believe the idea that you shouldn't have to work at marriage is a major part of the problem.


----------



## katiecrna

Back in the day women didn't have many options and NEEDED their husbands and therefore put up with a lot of ****. Now women need men less. Women seem to have really "stepped up". And it seems a lot of men have "gone down hill". Even when we think about our fathers and our granddads... the vision in my head is not how I see many men today. Today I see men taking the role of child to their wife, playing video games, having to be told what to do and how to help. Sometimes it looks like the husbands are the kids peers/friends instead of a partner to the wife and a team.

And for the record I'm talking about the 30 year olds.


----------



## naiveonedave

katiecrna said:


> Back in the day women didn't have many options and NEEDED their husbands and therefore put up with a lot of ****. Now women need men less. Women seem to have really "stepped up". And it seems a lot of men have "gone down hill". Even when we think about our fathers and our granddads... the vision in my head is not how I see many men today. Today I see men taking the role of child to their wife, playing video games, having to be told what to do and how to help. Sometimes it looks like the husbands are the kids peers/friends instead of a partner to the wife and a team.
> 
> And for the record I'm talking about the 30 year olds.


part of it, I think, is what boys are being taught. They have been taught for 2+ generations with minimal male involvement, so they don't learn how to be men. But that is a whole other subject.


----------



## katiecrna

When this happens there are only 2 things you can do. 1: step up to the plate and become better. Or 2: become a victim and whine and cry about it. And it seems some men have taken the second route. And they try to point their finger at their wife... she doesn't respect me, this world is against me, I can't do anything right blah blah. When in reality the wife just wants the man to step up and be the man and her equal partner.


----------



## naiveonedave

katiecrna said:


> When this happens there are only 2 things you can do. 1: step up to the plate and become better. Or 2: become a victim and whine and cry about it. And it seems some men have taken the second route. And they try to point their finger at their wife... she doesn't respect me, this world is against me, I can't do anything right blah blah. When in reality the wife just wants the man to step up and be the man and her equal partner.


hard to do if you do as you are taught. NMMNG is very much at play here and very much taught to boys.


----------



## katiecrna

Buddy400 said:


> If men stop taking responsibilities, won't that reduce women's choices?
> 
> 
> 
> Will women be okay with taking on responsibilities so that men can have choices?




Women have responsibilities. Especially in today's world. Men are no longer expected to be sole providers. Husband and wife are both responsibility to pay the bills. husband and wife are both responsible for taking care of their children. Husband and wife are both responsible for caring for their sick elderly parents. 
What responsibility do men have that women don't? And if there is such... that was probably agreed upon.


----------



## katiecrna

What's nmmng?


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> Women have responsibilities. Especially in today's world. Men are no longer expected to be sole providers. Husband and wife are both responsibility to pay the bills. husband and wife are both responsible for taking care of their children. Husband and wife are both responsible for caring for their sick elderly parents.
> What responsibility do men have that women don't? And if there is such... that was probably agreed upon.


For most of human history men and women had the responsibility to keep themselves and their kids alive. No one had any choices.

Then, when modern conveniences were invented, men had the responsibility of providing for the family. Women were stuck at home as SAHMs. No one had any choices.

Then, the women's movement came around. Men had the responsibility of providing for the family. Women has the choice of being a SAHM (or a part-time worker) or having the same careers that men had. Men didn't have choices. Women (middle class and above) had choices.

Now, only upper-middle class women have choices (if their husband is okay with that). 

There may be some relationships where the woman has the responsibilities and the man has the choices, but I'm not sure many women are okay with that.

In the future, we're probably back to no one having choices.


----------



## katiecrna

Today it's very hard to have a single person provider. 
You say responsibility and choices like you have one or the other. If a women could stay home... her responsibility was caring for the children. This is a huge responsibility too. 
Today one person is my responsible for one thing (in most cases). Men share responsibility of bringing home Money and share the responsibility of caring for the house/children. A women can decide to stay home, work part time, or full time. But remember when she is not working her other responsibility is caring for the home and children. A man has the same option, work part time, full time, or stay at home. However most men prefer to work outside the home than stay home. But you still have the choice.


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> Today it's very hard to have a single person provider.
> You say responsibility and choices like you have one or the other. If a women could stay home... her responsibility was caring for the children. This is a huge responsibility too.
> Today one person is my responsible for one thing (in most cases). Men share responsibility of bringing home Money and share the responsibility of caring for the house/children. A women can decide to stay home, work part time, or full time. But remember when she is not working her other responsibility is caring for the home and children. A man has the same option, work part time, full time, or stay at home. However most men prefer to work outside the home than stay home. But you still have the choice.


Sure. I have the choice of sitting in my parents basement, not working and playing video games.

But my wife's not gonna like it.

(and I wouldn't be happy with her doing it either)


----------



## Holdingontoit

If you agree with the stereotype that a woman brings her body to the relationship and a man brings his paycheck, then it is apples and oranges and no system is fair to everyone. If women prefer a man who makes more and there aren't enough men making more to go around, then maybe some women will be disappointed. Maybe they will decide not to marry. Maybe they will decide to marry boy toys. Maybe they will divorce the boy toy when he gets older and can't keep it up as often for as long. Maybe they will have to pay alimony and a big property settlement to the former boy toy. Maybe they will come to TAM complaining that they did all the work to earn the money and all he did was sit home and play video games and why is he entitled to half her money for doing that for 20 years.


----------



## katiecrna

You reap what you sow?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> From my experience, if the power structure of a marriage is based on who earns the most, the marriage is greatly flawed. Both spouses suffer for this, even if the one who thinks he/she has the most power does not realize the damage. They become the like a "parent/employer" to the other. Being in that position in a marriage means that the one who thinks they are in power loses out on true love and intimacy.
> 
> If non-primary earner becomes the primary earner and this causes the balance of power to shift, the marriage is greatly flawed.
> 
> It is unfortunate that in many marriages, the primary bread winner acts like they are the one who is in charge and the other is subordinate to them.


Well, I don't think my marriage is "greatly flawed," or even flawed at all. What I am sure of is that I could not walk into the marketplace right now and earn the same kind of money my husband does.

And the reality is that money is power.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> If men stop taking responsibilities, won't that reduce women's choices?
> 
> Will women be okay with taking on responsibilities so that men can have choices?


Absolutely not! Women get to have all the choices, whereas men have all the responsibilities. Anything else is patriarchy! >


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having enough financial independence so that one can leave a marriage if it turns out to be a bad marriage is not the same as always being ready to leave.
> 
> What would you suggest that women do--make sure that they are financially dependent so that it is hard for them to protect themselves if it turns out that their husband is abusive? Most of the time, a person does not find out that their spouse is abusive until after marriage. Most abusers are on good behavior until they feel that they have trapped their spouse via marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a balance. Being trapped in a marriage because you financially cannot leave is one problem, but so is being too ready to walk. You have to find a middle ground.
Click to expand...

Did I suggest anything different?


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Well, I don't think my marriage is "greatly flawed," or even flawed at all. What I am sure of is that I could not walk into the marketplace right now and earn the same kind of money my husband does.
> 
> And the reality is that money is power.



Yes, money is power in the outer world.


But I don't think that Dug has more power in your marriage than you do. I could be wrong. Does Dug tell you that you cannot do things because he earns the money so he's the boss?


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".


LOL. Such words could only be spoken by someone who has never looked at the issue from a woman's perspective.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> So if I take some of the expectations that have been expressed in this thread (and maybe the old thread too, I'm losing track)...a woman is a prospect, and the guy better step up if he wants her...and at the same time as she explores all her new wonderful options he better fulfil his primary role of breadwinner without getting in the way of her career....maybe this is the equivalent of the argument women often make that they have more career responsibilities but still carry a disproportionate share of the housework.
> 
> If my wife wants to chase her career and succeed, but at the same time requires that I make more money than her, that becomes a constraint on my career. Her choice sets a bar that constrains my choice to those options that are more financially secure.


Everything you say here is also applicable in reverse. Men have and exercise their choices all the time, and often women have no say in that. This is not a reflection of gender or who has the most expectations. It is a reflection of how we treat each other ... which is often poorly.


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> LOL. Such words could only be spoken by someone who has never looked at the issue from a woman's perspective.


...or could only be rejected by someone who has never looked at the issue from a man's perspective? :grin2:

It's not a universal truth. It has been true in my marriage, to a point. That doesn't diminish the many, many contributions my wife makes to our marriage. And I probably don't understand everything she does, but I sure as hell know she doesn't understand what she asked of me.

There are a lot of implications to being the primary breadwinner. My wife chose her career on the basis of personal satisfaction, I had a massive constraint of a required income level. My wife always had the freedom to walk from a job if she wanted. It took decades of financial planning for me to achieve the same freedom. My wife had the ability to adjust the balance between her career and other interests, without worrying about the financial implications, I didn't. 

So that's my perspective, what's yours? (I'm not on this thread to say men are better, I'm here to understand the ways in which men and women are the world differently)


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> Everything you say here is also applicable in reverse. Men have and exercise their choices all the time, and often women have no say in that. This is not a reflection of gender or who has the most expectations. It is a reflection of how we treat each other ... which is often poorly.


I only partly agree, because in general woman are less likely (I think) to be stuck with being the primary breadwinner while the man stays home. All the statistics I have seen support that assertion.

When one gender is the breadwinner and the other isn't, the second paragraph of what you quoted is not equally applicable in reverse. 

Please, don't treat what I am saying as bashing women. What I am trying to do is explore gender roles.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Did I suggest anything different?


No but I didn't think you explicitly made the point I made either. I might have missed something. I didn't intend to criticise, but to expand on whatnot you said. 

Sorry if I worded things wrong.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Yes, money is power in the outer world.
> 
> 
> But I don't think that Dug has more power in your marriage than you do. I could be wrong. Does Dug tell you that you cannot do things because he earns the money so he's the boss?


I like the fact that my wife has independent means. I don't think I ever held money over her as power, but I think it is good that she has the means to walk if she needs to.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Yes, money is power in the outer world.
> 
> 
> But I don't think that Dug has more power in your marriage than you do. I could be wrong. Does Dug tell you that you cannot do things because he earns the money so he's the boss?


No, he has always said that his money is our money. We both have access to whatever money we have.

But we do not have equal earning capacity. If I were to die tomorrow, Dug's life, financially, would continue much as before. If he were to die tomorrow, I would get life insurance, but would need to scramble to find a job that offered health insurance. 

I cannot provide for our family the way Dug can. Even though he does not exploit that in any way, I am well aware of the differential.


----------



## jld

katiecrna said:


> Back in the day women didn't have many options and NEEDED their husbands and therefore put up with a lot of ****. Now women need men less. Women seem to have really "stepped up". And it seems a lot of men have "gone down hill". Even when we think about our fathers and our granddads... the vision in my head is not how I see many men today. Today I see men taking the role of child to their wife, playing video games, having to be told what to do and how to help. Sometimes it looks like the husbands are the kids peers/friends instead of a partner to the wife and a team.
> 
> And for the record I'm talking about the 30 year olds.


I don't think it is just younger men. I heard a few months ago that 40% of households are now headed by women. That must include people of more than just the 30 and under demographic.

If women continue to ascend economically, men may indeed become "optional" to them.


----------



## FeministInPink

EleGirl said:


> I think that an interesting insight into this is that when one spouse gets a higher degree after marriage, it usually alters the dynamics of the relationship. The one who gets the higher degree often divorces the other spouse. It changes the dynamics of the relationship.


Sorry, I've been having a hard time keeping up with this thread, but I saw this post somewhere round page 11 and had to respond.

Ele's theory above also played out in my marriage. When I met my XH, he had a BA and I was a few credits shy of finishing my BA. We met when we worked in the same restaurant--he was a kitchen manager and I was a server. At the time I was taking a break from school. Several years after we got together, I was able to leave the restaurant industry and go back to school and finish my BA. The dynamic started to shift with change... but it wasn't a huge difference. I was working in entry-level admin, and he had advanced to head chef, so he was still making a lot more than me. The big shift happened later... I started grad school part-time and simultaneously was promoted to senior staff/management, while he was fired from his job and started working as a bar manager. He demonstrated no drive to advance his career and was primarily hanging out with career alcoholics while I was advancing myself professionally and intellectually, and found myself spending more and more time with other writers and academics. AND I was making more money than him.

I didn't care about the money difference, but all of this definitely changed the dynamic in our relationship. It wasn't the reason our marriage fell apart, but by the end I did think, I deserve better than him. Not because of the income disparity, but because of the sh!tty way he treated me. Growing professionally and intellectually helped me regain my self-confidence, and made me realize that I deserved better than what he was giving me.


Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> ...or could only be rejected by someone who has never looked at the issue from a man's perspective? :grin2:
> 
> It's not a universal truth. It has been true in my marriage, to a point. That doesn't diminish the many, many contributions my wife makes to our marriage. And I probably don't understand everything she does, but I sure as hell know she doesn't understand what she asked of me.
> 
> There are a lot of implications to being the primary breadwinner. My wife chose her career on the basis of personal satisfaction, I had a massive constraint of a required income level. My wife always had the freedom to walk from a job if she wanted. It took decades of financial planning for me to achieve the same freedom. My wife had the ability to adjust the balance between her career and other interests, without worrying about the financial implications, I didn't.
> 
> So that's my perspective, what's yours? (I'm not on this thread to say men are better, I'm here to understand the ways in which men and women are the world differently)


You don't need to instruct me on the responsibilities of being the breadwinner, for I am also that person. And it's not because I "chose" that role, but because I have responsibilities. My husband has much more freedom than I do with his day to day life. He too can take on or quit jobs on a whim. But interestingly, he too thinks he has more responsibilities than choices. 

Why do you suppose that is?

Anyone who thinks the role of looking after a household or raising children is all about "choice" and not responsibility has never actually had to do it. As in actually be responsible for that role. At least, IME.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> I only partly agree, because in general woman are less likely (I think) to be stuck with being the primary breadwinner while the man stays home. All the statistics I have seen support that assertion.
> 
> When one gender is the breadwinner and the other isn't, the second paragraph of what you quoted is not equally applicable in reverse.
> 
> Please, don't treat what I am saying as bashing women. What I am trying to do is explore gender roles.


It's absolutely true that men are more likely to be breadwinners than women are, statistically speaking. But it's very interesting how you frame it. Men are "stuck" with being the breadwinner. But women "choose" to stay home? Why is that?

IME, most men think the idea of staying home and looking after the kids would be stultifying, make them less of a man, strip away their independence, and make them question whether they had any say in how the money is spent. We've seen hints of this all through this thread. I would say most men choose the role of breadwinner, and no small number of the women who are stuck at home actually envy them their independence and freedom to have adult conversations and intellectual stimulation. We've seen hints of that on this thread too.


----------



## EllisRedding

wild jade said:


> It's absolutely true that men are more likely to be breadwinners than women are, statistically speaking. But it's very interesting how you frame it. Men are "stuck" with being the breadwinner. But women "choose" to stay home? Why is that?
> 
> IME, most men think the idea of staying home and looking after the kids would be stultifying, make them less of a man, strip away their independence, and make them question whether they had any say in how the money is spent. We've seen hints of this all through this thread. I would say most men choose the role of breadwinner, and no small number of the women who are stuck at home actually envy them their independence and freedom to have adult conversations and intellectual stimulation. We've seen hints of that on this thread too.


I could never be a SAHD simply b/c I would go crazy, the same way some females could never do it as well


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> It's absolutely true that men are more likely to be breadwinners than women are, statistically speaking. But it's very interesting how you frame it. Men are "stuck" with being the breadwinner. But women "choose" to stay home? Why is that?
> 
> IME, most men think the idea of staying home and looking after the kids would be stultifying, make them less of a man, strip away their independence, and make them question whether they had any say in how the money is spent. We've seen hints of this all through this thread. I would say most men choose the role of breadwinner, and *no small number of the women who are stuck at home actually envy them their independence and freedom to have adult conversations and intellectual stimulation*. We've seen hints of that on this thread too.


I can definitely relate to the bolded. It is why I am on TAM so much.


----------



## Holdingontoit

If you did a survey of high end professional schools, 10 years after graduation nearly all the men are working full time and a substantial chunk of the women are not. If you go to a prestigious business or law or medical school, working full time is available because you can get a full time job if you want one. Not sure whether all the men working and some of the women choosing not to is because the men fear emasculation or because the women think SAHM is a better deal than climbing the corporate ladder. But that looks to me like pretty strong evidence that women have choice and men don't. Otherwise the percentages of working full time would be much closer to equal.


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> It's absolutely true that men are more likely to be breadwinners than women are, statistically speaking. But it's very interesting how you frame it. Men are "stuck" with being the breadwinner. But women "choose" to stay home? Why is that?
> 
> IME, most men think the idea of staying home and looking after the kids would be stultifying, make them less of a man, strip away their independence, and make them question whether they had any say in how the money is spent. We've seen hints of this all through this thread. I would say most men choose the role of breadwinner, and no small number of the women who are stuck at home actually envy them their independence and freedom to have adult conversations and intellectual stimulation. We've seen hints of that on this thread too.


Well, I framed it all the way I did because that is exactly what happened in my marriage. Literally and explicitly. My wife insisted I be the breadwinner. I wanted a different model and she was not interested. After discussion, we went with her model, which required a total rethink of my life plan. There's always a choice, I could have divorced her, but we already had kids, and I didn't but see that as an option.

I know there are guys who feel like more of a man because they are the primary breadwinner. I posted to say not every guy sees it that way. I've spoken to lots of other guys who have dreams of doing one thing, and we give up those dreams to support our family. You would say most men choose that model. I am not so sure.

If you are a fan of the Simpsons, there is an episode where Homer pursues his dream job of working in a bowling alley, but has to give it up and return to the power plant because Marge gets pregnant with Maggie. Maybe that is a better reference point than the Steve Martin quote. 



wild jade said:


> You don't need to instruct me on the responsibilities of being the breadwinner, for I am also that person. And it's not because I "chose" that role, but because I have responsibilities. My husband has much more freedom than I do with his day to day life. He too can take on or quit jobs on a whim. But interestingly, he too thinks he has more responsibilities than choices.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Anyone who thinks the role of looking after a household or raising children is all about "choice" and not responsibility has never actually had to do it. As in actually be responsible for that role. At least, IME.


I wasn't trying to instruct you, and I'm sorry it comes across that way. I know each marriage is different. I know your husband has health problems and I imagine that causes a lot of challenges. I admire what you do there, at least the bits that have been discussed in different threads I have read. I know marriages where one partner or the other doesn't carry their fair share for all sorts of reasons, and when it's the guy letting the team down it creates load on the woman. There are circumstances where the woman ends up as a single parent. All sorts of things happen.

If your husband can quit jobs on a whim, while you are busy doing things you don't necessarily like because the buck stops with you on bills, then you have exactly my situation. I don't know why your husband sees it that way. I'd be interested if you wanted to say more.

But you and I have both agreed that, statistically, the guy is more likely to be in that position. And several of the women here are not in your position. JLD, for example, is a stay at home mum. That's a different set of experiences from yours (probably) or mine.

And you are right that I have not been a stay at home parent. (which therefore means I don't understand what it is like to be JLD, for example). My wife and do share house duties, but as my working day sees me out of the house for about 2.5 hours longer than my wife, with way more chance of bringing work home, she carries more of the housework load. I'm interested in what the women on this thread say partly because it might help me to better empathise with her.


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> I could never be a SAHD simply b/c I would go crazy, the same way some females could never do it as well


I wanted a 50/50 coparenting model. At the beginning of the marriage I had something close to it and it was great. But I was also earning almost all the income, and it was not going to be enough as the family grew.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> I can definitely relate to the bolded. It is why I am on TAM so much.


I get that. 

Have you ever considered doing something different? What do you dream of?


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> I get that.
> 
> Have you ever considered doing something different? What do you dream of?


I have some ideas. As my children get older, I will likely be pursuing them.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I have some ideas. As my children get older, I will likely be pursuing them.


Fro what you write your kids seem to have their heads screwed on ok so why don't you start an online course in early child development or something similar.When your kids are older you can maybe finish your degree or masters in college.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Fro what you write your kids seem to have their heads screwed on ok so why don't you start an online course in early child development or something similar.When your kids are older you can maybe finish your degree or masters in college.


I have a bachelor's from before I had my children. I used to teach high school.

My children are homeschooled, and some are still pretty young. They need to be my priority for a while longer.

I am sure things will come together. Life has a way of presenting us with opportunities.


----------



## wild jade

Holdingontoit said:


> If you did a survey of high end professional schools, 10 years after graduation nearly all the men are working full time and a substantial chunk of the women are not. If you go to a prestigious business or law or medical school, working full time is available because you can get a full time job if you want one. Not sure whether all the men working and some of the women choosing not to is because the men fear emasculation or because the women think SAHM is a better deal than climbing the corporate ladder. But that looks to me like pretty strong evidence that women have choice and men don't. Otherwise the percentages of working full time would be much closer to equal.


This is only evidence of women having choice if you assume that being a SAHM is indeed a choice. For many women, it is not. 

It is interesting to me how many seem to view being a SAHM as a luxury that you just decide to choose, and involves no responsibility. It is part of the diminishment of women's work, IMHO. Because it is unpaid, it has no value, and is not to be taken seriously.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> I've spoken to lots of other guys who have dreams of doing one thing, and we give up those dreams to support our family. You would say most men choose that model. I am not so sure.
> 
> If you are a fan of the Simpsons, there is an episode where Homer pursues his dream job of working in a bowling alley, but has to give it up and return to the power plant because Marge gets pregnant with Maggie. Maybe that is a better reference point than the Steve Martin quote.


Yes, Homer gave up working at the bowling alley for the one more mouth to feed. My only point is that it's not only men who are making these sacrifices of their dreams and personal desires in order to feed their families. The reality is that we all have responsibilities, and then we all make choices within those responsibilities. As an example, Homer could have stayed in his dream job if either they were willing to accept a lower standard of living and/or Marge was willing to take on work to make extra money. Other outcomes are all possible.

Even as a breadwinner, I gave up a secure job with benefits on a risky gambit. Lucky me, it paid off well enough and so far (fingers crossed) we're better off than we were before. But it's also possible that I lose my job, and am back at square one ---- or worse. And I'll have to find some way to deal. Point being that there are always pressures, worries, stresses, risks, and within those, lots of choices.



Wazza said:


> If your husband can quit jobs on a whim, while you are busy doing things you don't necessarily like because the buck stops with you on bills, then you have exactly my situation. I don't know why your husband sees it that way. I'd be interested if you wanted to say more.


Because even though his day to day is freer than mine, it's actually quite a bit of work to manage a household, and there are often lots of things that he has to deal with that he'd rather not. He does all kinds of things he finds insanely boring or irritating because they need to be done. He has more flexibility in terms of when it is done and how much he can blow off perhaps, but there's still plenty to attend to. 

Just because I ultimately pay the bills doesn't mean the buck stops with me. And in many ways, my life is much more interesting and fulfilling than his. Even though I would prefer to work less than I do, I actually wouldn't want to trade places with him.


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> This is only evidence of women having choice if you assume that being a SAHM is indeed a choice. For many women, it is not.
> 
> It is interesting to me how many seem to view being a SAHM as a luxury that you just decide to choose, and involves no responsibility. It is part of the diminishment of women's work, IMHO. Because it is unpaid, it has no value, and is not to be taken seriously.


Sorry, that's not true. How can my statement that I would have liked a greater participation in the "stay at home" side possibly be taken as saying I don't value it?


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> As an example, Homer could have stayed in his dream job if either they were willing to accept a lower standard of living and/or Marge was willing to take on work to make extra money. Other outcomes are all possible.


I agree 100%. But that is quite a different perspective than the blogger who kicked off this discussion.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> No but I didn't think you explicitly made the point I made either. I might have missed something. I didn't intend to criticise, but to expand on whatnot you said.
> 
> Sorry if I worded things wrong.


I had said similar things to what you said earlier. You might have missed that.

So it seems that we agree.


----------



## EleGirl

katiecrna said:


> What's nmmng?


No More Mr. Nice Guy

It's a book that addresses the issue of "Nice Guys" A "Nice Guy" (not the capital letters) is a guy who uses passive aggressive games in a relationship instead of being honest and forthright. 

An example would be a guy who does all the housework and pretends outwardly that he's ok with that. But he then does things like passive aggressively refuses to spend time with his wife, refuses to date her, etc. So he's punishing her.

To not be a "Nice Guy" he would have a serious talk with her that she needs to do half the housework. And then he needs to back accordingly.


----------



## soccermom2three

Holdingontoit said:


> If you did a survey of high end professional schools, 10 years after graduation nearly all the men are working full time and a substantial chunk of the women are not. If you go to a prestigious business or law or medical school, working full time is available because you can get a full time job if you want one. Not sure whether all the men working and some of the women choosing not to is because the men fear emasculation or because the women think SAHM is a better deal than climbing the corporate ladder. But that looks to me like pretty strong evidence that women have choice and men don't. Otherwise the percentages of working full time would be much closer to equal.


I remember attending my 10 year high school reunion and was surprised to see many of the very high achieving girls that went on to prestigious and expensive universities, were now SAHMs. I guess I was expecting to see a lot of high powered career women, lol. My honest thoughts at the time were, "What a waste of money."

About choice, I have worked with plenty of women that really have no choice but to work. They are the breadwinners of their families.


----------



## EleGirl

Wazza said:


> "Women have choices, men have responsibilities".


This is just not true for most women. Most woman have to work today to help support their family since it now takes two incomes to support most families.

Most married women work.. about 74% of married women work – in marriages where at least one spouse works.

In 2012, 29% of married women earned more than their husbands. Add to that the women who earn about equal to their husbands and that number raises to about 50%.

In the below thread, right about half the women posting there, are or have been the breadwinner at times in their marriage.

I am sure there are some marriage, a few, in which a guy marries a woman and he is well off enough that he supports her and just lets her play, not contributing to anything except looking good and being a sex kitten for him. But these sorts of marriages are mostly only possible for the very rich.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies...-being-primary-breadwinner-your-marriage.html




wild jade said:


> LOL. Such words could only be spoken by someone who has never looked at the issue from a woman's perspective.





Wazza said:


> ...or could only be rejected by someone who has never looked at the issue from a man's perspective? :grin2:


Maybe part of the problem with the two above quotes is the assumption that there is a male and female perspective. This assumes that all men and women are the same, that all marriages are the same. If we deal with people as individuals, we find that it is individual situations, not group think, that drives real life.

In my life, I’ve been married 3 times and ended up the bread winner each time. Each time I had no choice at all. So talking about women having choices as though this is actually fact is just ridiculous. All I’ve ever had was responsibility. The only choice I had was to either stay or divorce. But divorce did not remove my responsibly to support and raise children.

My first husband suffered an inter cranial aneurism on our first anniversary. Up to that time we earned about the same amount. For the next 4 years I was the bread winner due to his brain injury. I left him because he also become violent (tried to kill me). He died not long after I left him.

My second husband announced about a year after marriage that I was quitting his job as an electrical engineer to go to medical school. He told me that he was doing it no matter what I thought about it. I believe that people should do what they want, so I supported him through medical school and residency. That marriage ended in divorce because he was violent and I found out that he was cheating with every woman at the hospital who would go along with it. (dated for 4 years, married for 14 years)

My third husband was laid off in the second year of our marriage in 2002. He never even really looked for work after that. I was once again trust into the sole breadwinner role. Plus he did nothing except play computer games and surf the web 24/7 (I mean that literally). I now was raising my son and his two children. I divorced him 2012 after his children were all out of high school and their own. (was not going to throw his children on the street)

Both men and women have responsibility and choices. How it goes down in a marriage is up to the two people involved. 

Earning money is not the only responsivity that there is in a family.
================================

Wives Earn More Than Husbands in 1 in 3 Families in U.S.


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> I remember attending my 10 year high school reunion and was surprised to see many of the very high achieving girls that went on to prestigious and expensive universities, were now SAHMs. I guess I was expecting to see a lot of high powered career women, lol. My honest thoughts at the time were, "What a waste of money."
> 
> About choice, I have worked with plenty of women that really have no choice but to work. They are the breadwinners of their families.


I've wondered about this, is it a waste of money to go get a college degree and then be a SAHM.

My take is that it is not a waste of time. These women will hopefully pass on the benefits of that education to their children. Now I also think that there are plenty of people who do not have college degrees who have plenty of good to pass on to their children. SimplyAmorous comes to mind. She's someone who is out seeking knowledge all the time. It shows in her children (as she tell us about them).


Looking at jld (sorry about talking about you in 3rd person here), she home schooled her children. I have no doubt that jld's college degree helped her in this endeavor.


----------



## uhtred

I still find it a bit sad when someone gets an education at a very competitive school, and then doesn't directly use that education. There are not a lot of slots for Astronomy majors at Caltech, and having someone finish a degree, then decide to stay home and raise children seems a non ideal choice.


What is interesting though is that the number of men and women I know who have done this is roughly equal. You can cut the data many ways, but I don't see any obvious bias for women doing this more often than men. 






EleGirl said:


> I've wondered about this, is it a waste of money to go get a college degree and then be a SAHM.
> 
> My take is that it is not a waste of time. These women will hopefully pass on the benefits of that education to their children. Now I also think that there are plenty of people who do not have college degrees who have plenty of good to pass on to their children. SimplyAmorous comes to mind. She's someone who is out seeking knowledge all the time. It shows in her children (as she tell us about them).
> 
> 
> Looking at jld (sorry about talking about you in 3rd person here), she home schooled her children. I have no doubt that jld's college degree helped her in this endeavor.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> Sorry, that's not true. How can my statement that I would have liked a greater participation in the "stay at home" side possibly be taken as saying I don't value it?


I was responding to Holdingtoit when I said that, not you. Apologies if I seemed to be overgeneralizing. 

It is unfortunate that your wife would not "let" you participate more fully in the household and insisted on you earning a certain level of income. Personally, I wouldn't respond well to such demands at all ....

But I also don't think it fair to generalize from your situation that men have responsibilities and women have choices. It was very generous of you to give your wife so many choices, and I'm sorry she doesn't feel that same way towards you. But ultimately and more generally, I think most of us are faced with more responsibility than choice.


----------



## DustyDog

Buddy400 said:


> True. But removing men with low self-esteem (defined as men who don't prioritize accomplishment in women) limits the field even further.
> 
> Also, there may be more high-earning men than women at the moment but I think the difference will grow smaller in the future.


Is that a typo? The definition of a man with low self-esteem is a man who doesn't prioritize accomplishment in women?

I just looked at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tables of data from 2015 and I was quite surprised at how even the playing field is. Across age groups from 25 to 65, gender and ethnicity, average incomes only span a range of about 25%.

I had poor self-esteem to about age 42-43...but my earnings were around the upper 5% for my age. I enjoyed what I did for a living. No woman (or most men) I met could understand what it was, so naturally, I had to be "one of those sorts" who would develop a relationship on the basis of shared experiences with her, since she was unlikely to share my work enthusiasm. Besides, I have always had co-workers with whom to share work enthusiasm.

For some reason, I never once, in my dating life, thought it was important if she worked, or if so, what she did. And I don't think I met many women for whom it was important, either. They'd go out with me or not based on whether they liked me. Never do I recall any conversations about how much did I earn. Although I was a car nut, I had realized that during my 20s, cars were still a mainly unreliable thing, so it was better to acquire them pre-depreciated - so I never was seen in a young-ish epensive car. At no point did any outward manifestation of my life signify high income. I suppose everybody has their experiences, though.

That's not to say I didn't date women who made it clear that their expectation long-term was that they were to be supported and not earn, but at the same time, they fell short of indicating just what level of support they felt they deserved.

Maybe US society has changed and now the topic of income/earning is a normal part of the early dating ritual?

DD


----------



## john117

Directly using education is subjective to a great extent... Neither my job nor my wife's requires a graduate degree, yet here we are. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> I was responding to Holdingtoit when I said that, not you. Apologies if I seemed to be overgeneralizing.
> 
> It is unfortunate that your wife would not "let" you participate more fully in the household and insisted on you earning a certain level of income. Personally, I wouldn't respond well to such demands at all ....
> 
> But I also don't think it fair to generalize from your situation that men have responsibilities and women have choices. It was very generous of you to give your wife so many choices, and I'm sorry she doesn't feel that same way towards you. But ultimately and more generally, I think most of us are faced with more responsibility than choice.


If I said there was no glass ceiling in the corporate world, a lot of people would quote statistics about gender imbalance on corporate boards and pay inequality to refute me. Let's apply the same reasoning to this problem.

Some stats from the Wikipedia article on SAHD quantify the size of the gender imbalance. It's interesting that in Japan, according to that article, 33% of fathers would accept the stay at home role, but only 0.16% actually do it. I was quite surprised that in the US only 2.7% of stay at home parents are fathers, I thought it would be higher there. Other countries do better, but there is no example where it is close to equal. If guys have an equal shot at that stuff, why are we so under represented?

I think most people have responsibilities, and people step up to them in different ways. My wife wasn't selfish or uncaring in her decisions, she believed it was the best thing for our kids. I could have chosen to argue my case more, but someone had to give ground, and I did so because I cared about her and wanted her to be happy. She is a better homemaker than I am, I did better in the corporate world than she could. 

But it all created a constraint for me that she doesn't share. It sounds like you have the same constraint in your marriage and your husband doesn't share it. So it can happen both ways, and there are marriages where both partners have to work. But the fact that SAHM outnumber SAHD by a huge margin suggests a gender imbalance. It has to imply that men more often end up the breadwinner.


----------



## jld

Just saw this probably controversial study and thought it might be relevant to this discussion:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/eric-bettinger-why-stay-home-parents-are-good-older-children


----------



## EleGirl

DustyDog said:


> Is that a typo? The definition of a man with low self-esteem is a man who doesn't prioritize accomplishment in women?
> 
> I just looked at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tables of data from 2015 and I was quite surprised at how even the playing field is. Across age groups from 25 to 65, gender and ethnicity, average incomes only span a range of about 25%.
> 
> I had poor self-esteem to about age 42-43...but my earnings were around the upper 5% for my age. I enjoyed what I did for a living. No woman (or most men) I met could understand what it was, so naturally, I had to be "one of those sorts" who would develop a relationship on the basis of shared experiences with her, since she was unlikely to share my work enthusiasm. Besides, I have always had co-workers with whom to share work enthusiasm.
> 
> For some reason, I never once, in my dating life, thought it was important if she worked, or if so, what she did. And I don't think I met many women for whom it was important, either. They'd go out with me or not based on whether they liked me. Never do I recall any conversations about how much did I earn. Although I was a car nut, I had realized that during my 20s, cars were still a mainly unreliable thing, so it was better to acquire them pre-depreciated - so I never was seen in a young-ish epensive car. At no point did any outward manifestation of my life signify high income. I suppose everybody has their experiences, though.
> 
> That's not to say I didn't date women who made it clear that their expectation long-term was that they were to be supported and not earn, but at the same time, they fell short of indicating just what level of support they felt they deserved.
> 
> Maybe US society has changed and now the topic of income/earning is a normal part of the early dating ritual?
> 
> DD


Do you have a link to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tables you mention above?


----------



## anonmd

Prob. this https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2015/home.htm


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> Just saw this probably controversial study and thought it might be relevant to this discussion:
> 
> https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/eric-bettinger-why-stay-home-parents-are-good-older-children


I am married to a high achieving wife in terms of education and six figure income, who is employed in government senior management roles. Both of us work full time, although I am accomplished at what I do my wife is the primary breadwinner.

Thus far my wife has a BASc, a Diploma, various Certificate IV's and an incomplete BA behind her. I have High School, some army promotion courses, plus some Infantry and Intelligence Corps qualifications behind me.

With each of our two children, my wife took 12 months of maternity leave for each child. Aside from my taking 2½ years to play the stay at home parent up till 2008, our children went to long day care before they started school.

We have also changed address 8 different times throughout our children's lives.

Our 16 year old son has so far attended 3 different Primary Schools and 2 different High Schools. While our 13 year old daughter has attended 3 Primary Schools and one High School.

Considering how our children are going as related below, I don't think they have missed out on anything with how they've been raised.

At present our 16 year old son has just finished Year 10 of High School, where he is an A & B grade student (who tries hard academically), who just topped his year at school in mathematics, history and another subject. Our son is also very fit and slim, plays basketball regularly, has some very nice studious and well behaved friends. Is well behaved, enjoys his friends, is happy and likes chatting to his parents. He is a member of the Australian Air Force Cadets, and has represented one of his schools in running up to Zone level.

While our 13 year old daughter has just finished Year 7 in High School, where she is an A & B grade student (who doesn't always try her best). In terms of mathematics and reading etc, according to NAPLAN she has consistently been amongst the top in her age group. Our daughter is also an accomplished clarinet player, who was selected to be a member of an award winning concert band. She is also very fit, slim and an accomplished netball player who has also represented her current schools in basketball. While she has also represented other schools in various sports like running at Zone and Regional level. She is also in the Cadets, enjoys her friends, is happy, likes chatting to her parents and is mostly well behaved.


----------



## john117

After the academic and otherwise success of my daycare "raised" children one would have to make a very good case to convince me the study posted has any merit...




Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## anonmd

.02 out of 6, that is hilarious.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I have a bachelor's from before I had my children. I used to teach high school.
> 
> My children are homeschooled, and some are still pretty young. They need to be my priority for a while longer.
> 
> I am sure things will come together. Life has a way of presenting us with opportunities.


Ah well.I knew you would be suited to educating kids.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Ah well.*I knew you would be suited to educating kids*.


How did you know that?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> How did you know that?


I have read a lot of your posts lately and when you have been talking about your children they came across as pretty level headed.I didn't know you used to teach but you have a no nonsense demeanour that reminds me of some of my old teachers.They never took anything at face value and questioned everything.My school was also pretty unique in that everybody tried every subject for a while.Girls tried metal and woodwork and boys tried home economics.It was the same with sport and I have fond memories of mixed volleyball and football teams and the boxing class was great fun.It was a small private school though so I don't think it would work in a big school.


----------



## john117

Can't wait for jld's TED talk on teaching the boys to cook 



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I have read a lot of your posts lately and when you have been talking about your children they came across as pretty level headed.I didn't know you used to teach but you have a no nonsense demeanour that reminds me of some of my old teachers.They never took anything at face value and questioned everything.My school was also pretty unique in that everybody tried every subject for a while.Girls tried metal and woodwork and boys tried home economics.It was the same with sport and I have fond memories of mixed volleyball and football teams.It was a small private school though so I don't think it would work in a big school.


Sounds like an interesting school, Andy. Was it a progressive school? 

My kids would surely agree with you that I am no nonsense. I want the truth, whatever it may be. I might get upset, but will soon calm down and we will work through it, whatever it is. 

It can be hard to get the truth on TAM, though. People tend to hide, for a variety of reasons, I think. Makes it hard to have genuine discussions.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Can't wait for jld's TED talk on teaching the boys to cook
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


They teach themselves, John. I am not a teacher as much as a facilitator, and just a loving, and usually brutally honest, mother.


----------



## Andy1001

john117 said:


> Can't wait for jld's TED talk on teaching the boys to cook
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I know your joking but I lived on my own from when I was sixteen and the ability to cook simple meals and also knowing how to use a washing machine and an iron were invaluable.
And I learned at an early age that girls love someone who will cook for them.lol.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I know your joking but I lived on my own from when I was sixteen and the ability to cook simple meals and also knowing how to use a washing machine and an iron were invaluable.
> And I learned at an early age that girls love someone who will cook for them.lol.


How did your parents feel about that, that you were on your own at 16?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> How did your parents feel about that, that you were on your own at 16?


My Dad was of the view that I was old enough at sixteen to stand up on my own two feet.i had finished high school,earlier than normal I know,and I thought I was two young to go to college as everyone in my course would be much older than me.I knew an electrical contractor who had a vacation home near us and I convinced him to let me start an apprenticeship.My Dad paid my first years lease in NY and the day after my sixteenth birthday I moved out.I was supposed to go to college at twenty but I left the apprenticeship mid way to go to Germany and was making too much money by the time I was twenty to even consider it.


----------



## john117

The drive has to be there in the kids. DD1 is currently cooking a bunch of foods for a rare Sunday dinner for some of our friends. Not easy stuff. DD2's cooking skills are limited to operating the Keurig . J2 is cleaning and I'm cat-sitting...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> My Dad was of the view that I was old enough at sixteen to stand up on my own two feet.i had finished high school,earlier than normal I know,and I thought I was two young to go to college as everyone in my course would be much older than me.I knew an electrical contractor who had a vacation home near us and I convinced him to let me start an apprenticeship.My Dad paid my first years lease in NY and the day after my sixteenth birthday I moved out.I was supposed to go to college at twenty but I left the apprenticeship mid way to go to Germany and was making too much money by the time I was twenty to even consider it.


My only concern would be that at 16, you are not legally an adult. At 18, your parents are no longer held responsible for your decisions, and you can sign any necessary papers.

Were your parents wealthy, Andy?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> The drive has to be there in the kids. DD1 is currently cooking a bunch of foods for a rare Sunday dinner for some of our friends. Not easy stuff. DD2's cooking skills are limited to operating the Keurig . J2 is cleaning and I'm cat-sitting...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Totally agree the drive has to be there.

We learn what we have to learn to get where we want to go.


----------



## john117

We were on our own (my brother and me) at 17 me and 21 him. My parents moved to the dacha...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Another question for you, Andy. You have said you want your gf to be a sahm. Why do you want that?


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> If I said there was no glass ceiling in the corporate world, a lot of people would quote statistics about gender imbalance on corporate boards and pay inequality to refute me. Let's apply the same reasoning to this problem.
> 
> Some stats from the Wikipedia article on SAHD quantify the size of the gender imbalance. It's interesting that in Japan, according to that article, 33% of fathers would accept the stay at home role, but only 0.16% actually do it. I was quite surprised that in the US only 2.7% of stay at home parents are fathers, I thought it would be higher there. Other countries do better, but there is no example where it is close to equal. If guys have an equal shot at that stuff, why are we so under represented?
> 
> I think most people have responsibilities, and people step up to them in different ways. My wife wasn't selfish or uncaring in her decisions, she believed it was the best thing for our kids. I could have chosen to argue my case more, but someone had to give ground, and I did so because I cared about her and wanted her to be happy. She is a better homemaker than I am, I did better in the corporate world than she could.
> 
> But it all created a constraint for me that she doesn't share. It sounds like you have the same constraint in your marriage and your husband doesn't share it. So it can happen both ways, and there are marriages where both partners have to work. But the fact that SAHM outnumber SAHD by a huge margin suggests a gender imbalance. It has to imply that men more often end up the breadwinner.



You make a good point, and no doubt there are social forces that stand in the way of men realizing their dreams to be a SAHD. Fortunately, the world is changing and more women are passing through the glass ceiling and more and more men are and will be staying home to look after the children. 

But my point really wasn't that there aren't social forces at play, it was just the caricature of man having responsibilities while women have choices. I can guarantee you that as more and more men become comfortable as SAHDs, they won't all of a sudden start luxuriating in all the wonderful choices and lack of constraints they have. 

Again you call breadwinning a constraint. And in some ways it is. But it too is also a luxury full of choices and freedoms. If it weren't women wouldn't have fought so hard for the privilege of doing it. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's super easy to see how hard one's own life is and come up with all sorts of reasons why another person has it so much easier. And perhaps in some specific cases it's more or less true. But if you look at the bigger picture, it sure ain't.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> My only concern would be that at 16, you are not legally an adult. At 18, your parents are no longer held responsible for your decisions, and you can sign any necessary papers.
> 
> Were your parents wealthy, Andy?


That is why my Dad had to sign the lease as I was too young.They were very wealthy but from my Dad paying for my first years lease I never got another cent off them until they died and I didn't want or need it by then.They were always traveling and owned a house in Edinburgh and an apartment in Manhattan which overlooks Central Park.I own the apt and my brother owns the house in Edinburgh.They both died on the same day in London and that was the worst thing that ever happened to me.It's also the cause of my problems with my brother but it's a long story.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> That is why my Dad had to sign the lease as I was too young.They were very wealthy but from my Dad paying for my first years lease I never got another cent off them until they died and I didn't want or need it by then.They were always traveling and owned a house in Edinburgh and an apartment in Manhattan which overlooks Central Park.I own the apt and my brother owns the house in Edinburgh.They both died on the same day in London and that was the worst thing that ever happened to me.It's also the cause of my problems with my brother but it's a long story.


Wow, that is very romantic, that they died together. I hope Dug and I die together.

It sounds like you just have the wealthy genes, Andy!

Is your brother successful, too?

Also, it might be helpful for you to talk sometime about the impact of their death on you. It can be healing to talk about it. Only if you ever want to, though.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Another question for you, Andy. You have said you want your gf to be a sahm. Why do you want that?


Well judging by the response I've been getting I seem to be alone in that idea.I would like my daughter to be brought up in a happy home just as I was.I want J (my gf,also my ex fiancée)to stay at home at least until my daughter starts school.I know this is not feasible for a lot of people but it is for us.I hate the idea of packing her off to daycare every day.I actually work from home but I wouldn't be able to watch her all the time.I am thinking of hiring a nanny so if J wants to work then my daughter will still be at home.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Wow, that is very romantic, that they died together. I hope Dug and I die together.
> 
> It sounds like you just have the wealthy genes, Andy!
> 
> Is your brother successful, too?
> 
> Also, it might be helpful for you to talk sometime about the impact of their death on you. It can be healing to talk about it. Only if you ever want to, though.


There was nothing romantic about their deaths let me assure you,nothing at all.
The only talent I have in life is making money.
My brother is a prick.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> There was nothing romantic about their deaths let me assure you,nothing at all.


No, of course not. I just meant that when a couple loves each other very much, it seems less painful to die together than to survive without the other.

Sorry if I hit a tender spot, Andy.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Well judging by the response I've been getting I seem to be alone in that idea.I would like my daughter to be brought up in a happy home just as I was.I want J (my gf,also my ex fiancée)to stay at home at least until my daughter starts school.I know this is not feasible for a lot of people but it is for us.I hate the idea of packing her off to daycare every day.I actually work from home but I wouldn't be able to watch her all the time.I am thinking of hiring a nanny so if J wants to work then my daughter will still be at home.


I do not know what responses you have gotten, but you are certainly not alone in your views.

My husband told me less than a week after we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married."

He later told me that if I had not been willing to quit my job when we had our first child, he would have quit his. That is how strongly he felt about our kids not going to daycare.

But you know what? That is just one view. Plenty of kids go to daycare and are just fine. And I am pretty sure my husband is glad he kept his job. 

Like always, "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I've wondered about this, is it a waste of money to go get a college degree and then be a SAHM.
> 
> My take is that it is not a waste of time. These women will hopefully pass on the benefits of that education to their children. Now I also think that there are plenty of people who do not have college degrees who have plenty of good to pass on to their children. SimplyAmorous comes to mind. She's someone who is out seeking knowledge all the time. It shows in her children (as she tell us about them).
> 
> 
> Looking at jld (sorry about talking about you in 3rd person here), she home schooled her children. I have no doubt that jld's college degree helped her in this endeavor.


I think as well, I am sure there are plenty of women who at the college part of their lives aren't thinking about being a SAHM. My W never planned on being a SAHM, nor did I ever have thoughts that she would at the time. That is just how things turned out down the road. Most of our time she did work and contributed very much financially at the start of our marriage, so I definitely wouldn't equate my W going to college as being a waste now that she is a SAHM.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> There was nothing romantic about their deaths let me assure you,nothing at all.
> *The only talent I have in life is making money.*
> My brother is a prick.


You have more talents than that, my goodness. 

Look at how honest and open you are here. Do you see everyone being willing or able to do that? 

Look at how hard some people have to be pushed to give anything resembling an honest answer. Do you realize how much easier and more fruitful conversations would be if everyone were as open and honest as you?


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> I think as well, I am sure there are plenty of women who at the college part of their lives aren't thinking about being a SAHM. My W never planned on being a SAHM, nor did I ever have thoughts that she would at the time. That is just how things turned out down the road. Most of our time she did work and contributed very much financially at the start of our marriage, so I definitely wouldn't equate my W going to college as being a waste now that she is a SAHM.


I do not think it is a waste, either. Quite the contrary!

I learned lots of things in college I otherwise may not have. My political orientation changed completely. I lost my religious beliefs, too. All of that has had a huge impact on how I have brought up my children.

We saved my salary while I was working, before starting a family. That made for a nice down payment on our house.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I do not know what responses you have gotten, but you are certainly not alone in your views.
> 
> My husband told me less than a week after we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married."
> 
> He later told me that if I had not been willing to quit my job when we had our first child, he would have quit his. That is how strongly he felt about our kids not going to daycare.
> 
> But you know what? That is just one view. Plenty of kids go to daycare and are just fine. And I am pretty sure my husband is glad he kept his job.
> 
> Like always, "Different strokes for different folks."


I may have a solution anyway,I think my gym manager is about to quit and my best friend has been after me to sell her the gym.I may give J and Ally(my best friend) the gym to run as they see fit and I am putting a crèche into it in January so even though the baby is technically in daycare J would still be there.That is providing she accepts my offer and that is not a certainty.She is on her way over now and is staying at least until Christmas so we will see how it goes.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I may have a solution anyway,I think my gym manager is about to quit and my best friend has been after me to sell her the gym.I may give J and Ally(my best friend) the gym to run as they see fit and I am putting a crèche into it in January so even though the baby is technically in daycare J would still be there.That is providing she accepts my offer and that is not a certainty.She is on her way over now and is staying at least until Christmas so we will see how it goes.


I really hope things work out for you two. You seem like a good man, and that has nothing to do with your money.

What you can work on is earning her trust. Have you asked her the ways she does not trust you? What her fears are about being a sahm?


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> I am sure there are some marriage, a few, in which a guy marries a woman and he is well off enough that he supports her and just lets her play, not contributing to anything except looking good and being a sex kitten for him. But these sorts of marriages are mostly only possible for the very rich.


I don't think this is as rare as you seem to think it is. For example, I've been the sole breadwinner for almost my entire current marriage, and we are far from being "very rich".


----------



## jld

tech-novelist said:


> I don't think this is as rare as you seem to think it is. For example, I've been the sole breadwinner for almost my entire current marriage, and we are far from being "very rich".


I think it is more about the values and comfort level of the couple with living on one income than about the amount of money in the household.


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> I think it is more about the values and comfort level of the couple with living on one income than about the amount of money in the household.


True, although it also helps that I have earned a fairly good salary for most of our married life. I'm not talking about anything that a doctor or CEO (or John117) would consider impressive, but above the median family income.


----------



## jld

tech-novelist said:


> True, although it also helps that I have earned a fairly good salary for most of our married life. I'm not talking about anything that a doctor or CEO (or John117) would consider impressive, but above the median family income.


As long as you have enough money for both of you to feel satisfied, good enough. We do not all have the same needs or expectations.


----------



## Duguesclin

Andy1001 said:


> There was nothing romantic about their deaths let me assure you,nothing at all.
> The only talent I have in life is making money.
> My brother is a prick.


Andy, do you possibly have low self esteem?

You have lots of talents, and some of them are allowing you to make a lot of money. 

Consider yourself lucky. Your main talent could have been writing poetry.


----------



## Andy1001

Duguesclin said:


> Andy, do you possibly have low self esteem?
> 
> You have lots of talents, and some of them are allowing you to make a lot of money.
> 
> Consider yourself lucky. Your main talent could have been writing poetry.


I have often been accused of having a big ego but never of having low self esteem.I think it's the baby on the way that has me overthinking everything,normally I'm the most laid back guy you could meet.
I used to be a poet.
But I didn't know it.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I have often been accused of having a big ego but never of having low self esteem.I think it's the baby on the way that has me overthinking everything,normally I'm the most laid back guy you could meet.
> I used to be a poet.
> But I didn't know it.


Why have you been accused of having a big ego?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Why have you been accused of having a big ego?


I was asked on this forum was I considered handsome and I answered it honestly,I also said my gf was beautiful and that didn't help either.To be honest I don't care what people think about me and I never have.When I'm in a meeting with engineers,architects,lawyers etc and they are showing off their qualifications my favourite line is "that's great,just don't get the paychecks mixed up"It really endears me to them.lol.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I was asked on this forum was I considered handsome and I answered it honestly,I also said my gf was beautiful and that didn't help either.To be honest I don't care what people think about me and I never have.When I'm in a meeting with engineers,architects,lawyers etc and they are showing off their qualifications my favourite line is "that's great,just don't get the paychecks mixed up"It really endears me to them.lol.


Well, if you and your gf are beautiful people, then that is just a fact of life for both of you, like being rich.

But appearance and money are things people can be jealous of, so you have to be careful when listening to their advice. Try to sort out where they may have valid points that you could learn from, and what might just be their jealousy talking.


----------



## john117

tech-novelist said:


> True, although it also helps that I have earned a fairly good salary for most of our married life. I'm not talking about anything that a doctor or CEO (or John117) would consider impressive, but above the median family income.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


>


What does the smile mean?


----------



## EleGirl

tech-novelist said:


> I don't think this is as rare as you seem to think it is. For example, I've been the sole breadwinner for almost my entire current marriage, and we are far from being "very rich".


It is fairly rare for a man to be the sole breadwinner today.

Men are the sole breadwinner in only 19.8% of marriages today.

In marriages where at least one spouse works, 74% of wives work. About 50% of the time, women earn as much or more than their husbands.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> What does the smile mean?


Just a polite assessment of how wrong the quote was as far as my thinking is concerned.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I really hope things work out for you two. You seem like a good man, and that has nothing to do with your money.
> 
> What you can work on is earning her trust. Have you asked her the ways she does not trust you? What her fears are about being a sahm?


I like to think I am a good guy.It is my past life that J has a problem with.I will sound like a total douche bag now but I was seriously good looking when I was younger and girls were always into me and it helped that I always had plenty of money.I have never had a relationship with any woman that lasted over a month until J,and I have always been the one to break up.(except on one very funny occasion)and I have never been in love until I met J.I lived with my lesbian best friend for years and we partied all the time.
I will swear on my unborn babies life that I have never cheated on J even when we were broke up,and Ally and me are just friends,there has never been anything sexual between us.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I like to think I am a good guy.It is my past life that J has a problem with.I will sound like a total douche bag now but I was seriously good looking when I was younger and girls were always into me and it helped that I always had plenty of money.I have never had a relationship with any woman that lasted over a month until J,and I have always been the one to break up.(except on one very funny occasion)and I have never been in love until I met J.I lived with my lesbian best friend for years and we partied all the time.
> I will swear on my unborn babies life that I have never cheated on J even when we were broke up,and Ally and me are just friends,there has never been anything sexual between us.


Wow, did not know all that. No wonder she is on guard. She is smart!

The only thing you can do now is be that good man to her. That is part of earning her trust.

Again, have you asked her what her fears are about being a sahm?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Just a polite assessment of how wrong the quote was as far as my thinking is concerned.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Maybe you could elaborate? I bet tech would appreciate it.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Maybe you could elaborate? I bet tech would appreciate it.


To me, money is a means to an end. I don't care about having toys. It's all about using what you have for good causes.

Do I feel snobbish towards lower earning people? No. Money for the most part screws up people. 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> To me, money is a means to an end. I don't care about having toys. It's all about using what you have for good causes.
> 
> Do I feel snobbish towards lower earning people? No. Money for the most part screws up people.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Great post, john.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Wow, did not know all that. No wonder she is on guard. She is smart!
> 
> The only thing you can do now is be that good man to her. That is part of earning her trust.
> 
> Again, have you asked her what her fears are about being a sahm?


Her fear about being a sahm is about money.Her mother is a toxic woman who's only love in life is money.I know you haven't read my thread but my business makes an awful lot of money and Js mother found out how much I was making.She was determined to get me and J married and when we broke up she went crazy.J is totally opposite and will not accept any money from me in case I think she is a gold digger.When her business failed I bought it to prevent her from being declared bankrupt and I wanted to make sure she wasn't short of money so I gave her some money to help her but she gave it back to me.She insists that she wants to work to earn her own money but I just don't understand why she would want to work some ****ty job just to make a few bucks.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Her fear about being a sahm is about money.Her mother is a toxic woman who's only love in life is money.I know you haven't read my thread but my business makes an awful lot of money and Js mother found out how much I was making.She was determined to get me and J married and when we broke up she went crazy.J is totally opposite and will not accept any money from me in case I think she is a gold digger.When her business failed I bought it to prevent her from being declared bankrupt and I wanted to make sure she wasn't short of money so I gave her some money to help her but she gave it back to me.She insists that she wants to work to earn her own money but *I just don't understand why she would want to work some ****ty job just to make a few bucks*.


Have you asked her, just that directly? Does she feel safe enough to be brutally honest with you?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Have you asked her, just that directly? Does she feel safe enough to be brutally honest with you?


It's all about money.Because we broke up before she is afraid if we break up again she will be in limbo.The thing is my daughter inherits a lot of money at birth and J will never be short of money because she is the mother of my baby and I have told her I will pay for everything anyway.I hope I'm not giving the impression that we are fighting because we're not.It all comes down to money and I could solve the problem very easily but J Won't let me.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Because we broke up before she is afraid if we break up again she will be in limbo.The thing is my daughter inherits a lot of money at birth and J will never be short of money because she is the mother of my baby and I have told her I will pay for everything anyway.I hope I'm not giving the impression that we are fighting because we're not.It all comes down to money and I could solve the problem very easily but J Won't let me.


Does she feel like you are trying to control her somehow? I am not saying you are, but just asking if *she* feels that way.

(I ask because the little I read of your thread, it seems there was an issue with her getting a tattoo? She wanted one and you more or less forbade it? Is that right?)


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Does she feel like you are trying to control her somehow? I am not saying you are, but just asking if *she* feels that way.
> 
> (I ask because the little I read of your thread, it seems there was an issue with her getting a tattoo? She wanted one and you more or less forbade it? Is that right?)


You are going back to the start of my thread now.The talk about a tattoo was a joke that went too far.It was only a symptom of our problems.I never forbade her to get a tattoo,it is her body to do what she wants to with but it is also my choice not to spend the rest of my life looking at something that the woman I loved got despite knowing I hated it.If you and Dug had a fight tonight,how would you feel about him bringing it up,every night for the rest of your lives.That is how I looked at her getting a tattoo.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> You are going back to the start of my thread now.The talk about a tattoo was a joke that went too far.It was only a symptom of our problems.I never forbade her to get a tattoo,it is her body to do what she wants to with but it is also my choice not to spend the rest of my life looking at something that the woman I loved got despite knowing I hated it.If you and Dug had a fight tonight,how would you feel about him bringing it up,every night for the rest of your lives.That is how I looked at her getting a tattoo.


I just saw the title and a few posts at the beginning and now some at the end. Do not know any details.

It is definitely her body. She is sovereign over it.

No, you are not forced to be with her. 

But it seems you love her. And as the song goes, when a man loves a woman . . . 

If Dug brought up something unpleasant about the past every night, I would know he did not have peace with it. We would have to find peace with it or I would have to leave him. I love him enough that I want him to be happy, with me or without me. And I am not going to be harassed daily by **** I cannot change, anyway.

_Gently . . . _ Andy, I am guessing other people have mentioned the word "controlling" to you?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> I just saw the title and a few posts at the beginning and now some at the end. Do not know any details.
> 
> It is definitely her body. She is sovereign over it.
> 
> No, you are not forced to be with her.
> 
> But it seems you love her. And as the song goes, when a man loves a woman . . .
> 
> If Dug brought up something unpleasant about the past every night, I would know he did not have peace with it. We would have to find peace with it or I would have to leave him. I love him enough that I want him to be happy, with me or without me. And I am not going to be harassed daily by **** I cannot change, anyway.
> 
> _Gently . . . _ Andy, I am guessing other people have mentioned the word "controlling" to you?


Yeah I get that a lot.I have a problem with compromising and I have a habit of ghosting people who I fall out with.I am working on this.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> Yeah I get that a lot.I have a problem with compromising and I have a habit of ghosting people who I fall out with.I am working on this.


That's good. I think a lot of us can relate to that.

You know that being controlling just means a person is trying to help himself or herself feel safe, right? Being controlling is all about trying to feel safe from the outside.

But actually being safe comes from the inside.

Just out of curiosity, how are you working on it? Maybe we can all learn from you.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> That's good. I think a lot of us can relate to that.
> 
> You know that being controlling just means a person is trying to help himself or herself feel safe, right? Being controlling is all about trying to feel safe from the outside.
> 
> But actually being safe comes from the inside.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how are you working on it? Maybe we can all learn from you.


My friend Ally told me something a while ago and I didn't pay much attention to it but thinking about it now,she is not just a pretty face.She told me that I would do anything to help anybody without expecting thanks but if someone helped me I felt I had to pay them and some people felt insulted.I always think if people do you a good turn then they have an ulterior motive.I am working on this.She also told me that once I make up my mind about someone then there is no going back and if I think they have wronged me then I ghost them.I have lived like this for a long time but am trying to change.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> My friend Ally told me something a while ago and I didn't pay much attention to it but thinking about it now,she is not just a pretty face.She told me that I would do anything to help anybody without expecting thanks but if someone helped me I felt I had to pay them and some people felt insulted.I always think if people do you a good turn then they have an ulterior motive.I am working on this.She also told me that once I make up my mind about someone then there is no going back and if I think they have wronged me then I ghost them.I have lived like this for a long time but am trying to change.


She sounds like a good friend, a sister, really.

Why do you feel you have to pay them? So then you do not owe them anything? You maintain your independence that way?

You know, doing nice things for people just feels good. It does not necessarily require payment, especially between friends.

About the ghosting . . . I think we have all done that, at one time or another. You said you are trying to change it. How? Why?


----------



## DustyDog

EleGirl said:


> Do you have a link to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics tables you mention above?


Problem with the BLS is that there's too darned much data! After all, they are not doing surveys - they use data from every individual who submits a Federal tax return.

So, here's one of their pages with links to scads of earnings data sliced by demographics - age, gender, ethnicity:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm

Ultimately, you'll want to spend an hour diving through that site. You will find lots of tables, and data downloadable into Excel, under "Economic Releases" and "Data Tools". You might find their opinion of what you should look at under "Subjects".

Here are a few samples.
This graph is old, but it shows the kind of stuff they have onsite. "Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by occupation, sex, rac, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 2010"
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110914.htm
If you click on "chart data", you'll get the underlying figures in table format.

Here's a fairly thick table of income and job availability by occupation - I like to guide young people to this one when they're wondering what career to pursue. I like to say "one that has high pay and is growing", which pretty much means STEM.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

When you come upon a table or graph, there's usually a link labeled "download xlsx data", but apparently that database is presently offline.

GL
DD


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> It's all about money.Because we broke up before she is afraid if we break up again she will be in limbo.The thing is my daughter inherits a lot of money at birth and J will never be short of money because she is the mother of my baby and I have told her I will pay for everything anyway.I hope I'm not giving the impression that we are fighting because we're not.It all comes down to money and I could solve the problem very easily but J Won't let me.


When a person has very little money, it can often be all about money. But cause money, even small amounts from a lousy job, is the difference between living on the street and having a roof over your head. Apparently you have always had a lot of money so you do not understand what it's like to not have money.

Your daughter inherits a lot of money at birth. Your gf does not. Who is it that is the custodian of your daughter's money? 

I can imagine that it would be very strange for your gf to live in a home owned my her child and have a child who has money. But your gf has neither a home nor money. It can set up a very strange dynamic between mother and child when the child would have the legal authority to kick her mother out on the street.

If you gf does not work and save her own money, she would have nothing when your daughter comes of age. 

If you gf does not earn some money of her own, she will have no independence. She will never be 100% under your control and later the control of your daughter. 

Right now you say that you will always support her and take care of her. I don't blame her for not feeling secure about such a promise.


----------



## Buddy400

DustyDog said:


> Is that a typo? The definition of a man with low self-esteem is a man who doesn't prioritize accomplishment in women?


That was someone else's definition.


----------



## Holdingontoit

wild jade said:


> This is only evidence of women having choice if you assume that being a SAHM is indeed a choice. For many women, it is not.


I understand that many women stay home because they cannot obtain work that covers the cost of child care. I view that as a negative aspect of US society that quality child care is so expensive and the burden falls entirely on the parents. Waste of human capital.

That said, this is why I phrased my example based on surveys of prestigious professional schools. Any female graduate of such a school could obtain a job that pays more than enough for her to afford high quality child care. Even if she is a single parent. So in the universe, being a SAHM is entirely a choice. Even if she is married and her husband prefers that she be a SAHM, she could divorce him, work, and earn enough to support herself and the child. Again, choices.

No graduate of - for example - Johns Hopkins Medical School, is forced to be a SAHP if he or she doesn't want to be. Still, I bet more female than male graduates of that school choose to be SAHP. Why is that? Hint: the answer is not male discrimination against females in the workplace.


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> I understand that many women stay home because they cannot obtain work that covers the cost of child care. I view that as a negative aspect of Us society that quality child care is so expensive and the burden falls entirely on the parents. Waste of human capital.
> 
> That said, this is why I phrased my example based on surveys of prestigious professional schools. Any female graduate of such a school could obtain a job that pays more than enough for her to afford high quality child care. Even if she is a single parent. So in the universe, being a SAHM is entirely a choice. Even if she is married and her husband prefers that she be a SAHM, she could divorce him, work, and earn enough to support herself and the child. Again, choices.
> 
> No graduate of - for example - Johns Hopkins Medical School, for example, is forced to be a SAHP if he or she doesn't want to be. Still, I bet more female than male graduates of that school choose to be SAHP. *Why is that?* Hint: the answer is not male discrimination against females in the workplace.


I would be interested in hearing your answer to the bolded, Holding.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> When a person has very little money, it can often be all about money. But cause money, even small amounts from a lousy job, is the difference between living on the street and having a roof over your head. Apparently you have always had a lot of money so you do not understand what it's like to not have money.
> 
> Your daughter inherits a lot of money at birth. Your gf does not. Who is it that is the custodian of your daughter's money?
> 
> I can imagine that it would be very strange for your gf to live in a home owned my her child and have a child who has money. But your gf has neither a home nor money. It can set up a very strange dynamic between mother and child when the child would have the legal authority to kick her mother out on the street.
> 
> If you gf does not work and save her own money, she would have nothing when your daughter comes of age.
> 
> If you gf does not earn some money of her own, she will have no independence. She will never be 100% under your control and later the control of your daughter.
> 
> Right now you say that you will always support her and take care of her. I don't blame her for not feeling secure about such a promise.


I know you probably haven't read my thread but four months ago I bought my gfs business,she was about to lose it to bankruptcy.We were separated at the time but we have got back together.I accept I never stopped loving her.I gave her four hundred thousand dollars over the independent valuation of the business to help her get back on her feet.She returned the money.I will support her if we don't work out and I believe I have proved that already.
My parents were wealthy but every cent I have I made myself.


----------



## Wazza

Andy1001 said:


> I know you probably haven't read my thread but four months ago I bought my gfs business,she was about to lose it to bankruptcy.We were separated at the time but we have got back together.I accept I never stopped loving her.I gave her four hundred thousand dollars over the independent valuation of the business to help her get back on her feet.She returned the money.I will support her if we don't work out and I believe I have proved that already.
> My parents were wealthy but every cent I have I made myself.


Do you love her enough to support her in being who she wants to be? It just seems you want her to do it your way, and you take it as a personal slight that she is making a differnt choice.


----------



## wild jade

Holdingontoit said:


> That said, this is why I phrased my example based on surveys of prestigious professional schools. Any female graduate of such a school could obtain a job that pays more than enough for her to afford high quality child care. Even if she is a single parent. So in the universe, being a SAHM is entirely a choice. Even if she is married and her husband prefers that she be a SAHM, she could divorce him, work, and earn enough to support herself and the child. Again, choices.
> 
> No graduate of - for example - Johns Hopkins Medical School, for example, is forced to be a SAHP if he or she doesn't want to be. Still, I bet more female than male graduates of that school choose to be SAHP. Why is that? Hint: the answer is not male discrimination against females in the workplace.


Not sure what your point is?

Yes, it's true that many women who are very high achieving and very financially successful are able to choose whether they wish to work or they wish to stay at home. 

My only point was that for many women, it isn't a choice at all. In some cases they can't afford the daycare, so they opt for the cheaper option, to stay at home. In other cases, they stay at home because it is expected of them, or because their husbands insist on it. 

Just because socialization and social norms dictate certain roles doesn't necessarily make it a "choice".


----------



## DustyDog

EleGirl said:


> When a person has very little money, it can often be all about money. But cause money, even small amounts from a lousy job, is the difference between living on the street and having a roof over your head.


I never heard anybody say that back in the 1960s or even the 1970s.

I fear we have raised personal independence and privacy to such exalted levels in the US that indeed, we have had to turn to money as our de facto god, for without money, we believe we would have nothing at all. At least, that seems to be the rhetoric in most threads about money and in fact, in any news story related to politics or the economy.

I was raised lower middle class. In the 1960s, layoffs were as common as they are today. While most people, most of the time, spend less than they earn, we all take a few risks - when we buy our first house, we often go in the tank pretty deeply and have no reserves, and a layoff at that point would be a huge problem. 

When a person in our neighborhood enjoyed an unpaid vacation (that's how everybody looked at it), the neighbors would find reasons to pay the person. "I'm tired, could you come to my house and cook the dinner according to my recipe?" Someone else might have a dog to walk during the day, another person wanted relief from mowing the lawn. None of this would fully replace the person's income, but with savings in the family, they would not lose the house. It wasn't uncommon for my mom to make sure there were 4 extra servings of food in that recipe and she'd tell the person "just take it home, we can't eat that much". In a neighborhood of 140 homes, it was barely detectable if you were collectively helping 4-5 neighbors who'd temporarily lost jobs.

And we knew all the people in our two-block neighborhood.

I lived in the bay area for several years starting in the late 90s. I knew plenty of folks who had no home address...folks would house-sit, dog-sit, etc for income and also have clients who let them couch-surf on whatever day they came over to do a thorough house-cleaning. I even knew a few single moms who did this and their kids just loved how many friends' homes they got to stay in.

There are ways to make it work if you remain properly connected, IRL to the fabric of humanity. But if your circle of friends is too small...then yes, money now is the only safety net you have.



EleGirl said:


> Apparently you have always had a lot of money so you do not understand what it's like to not have money.


I'm not the person you're quoting, but I've been without. I left my ex, and generously gave her everything, then got laid off. Duh- what? I had figured on building up savings quickly but that wasn't about to happen. I popped a note to a few pals and asked if they knew who was hiring and gave them a motel phone number - before cell phones. I got a message to call one and did so and he said "no motels for you, we have two spare bedrooms!!!". I spent an entire year without a home address...found it cathartic to live with this or that pal and his/her family and do modest remodels on their homes, upgrades to landscaping, etc. A big break from spending too much time seated. I'd say my income for a year was under a grand.



EleGirl said:


> I can imagine that it would be very strange for your gf to live in a home owned my her child and have a child who has money. But your gf has neither a home nor money. It can set up a very strange dynamic between mother and child when the child would have the legal authority to kick her mother out on the street.


Not that uncommon. In my days of pro bono financial counseling, I met many older couples whose children had been wiser about money, so the folks lived with them. I even sold one of my homes to a couple who wanted the walk-out basement. They would finish the basement, live in it, and let all four of their parents live in the two bedroom 1800 square foot main floor.

In China, and I suspect other countries that are gaining economic momentum at a fast rate, the costs of housing have risen far too quickly for older people to keep up with...many of my colleagues in Shanghai, for instance, own their "house" (looks like a 20 story condo to me, but they call it a house), and their parents live with them. They are giddy and excited to spend extra time with their parents, too...what a blessing to stay so connected!

You can come up with solutions to many problems. It is, IMO easier to resolve a "no money" problem - without coming up with more money, than it is to resolve an "inoperable brain tumor" problem, since it's much more difficult to find a replacement head.



EleGirl said:


> If you gf does not work and save her own money, she would have nothing when your daughter comes of age.
> 
> If you gf does not earn some money of her own, she will have no independence. She will never be 100% under your control and later the control of your daughter.
> 
> Right now you say that you will always support her and take care of her. I don't blame her for not feeling secure about such a promise.


There's that. I don't know of other countries, but in the US, a spouse is entitled to SS benefits of 50% of that of the person whose career created the benefit. However, you must be married for 10 years for this to be true. I know a couple who got married when they were both 72, so she could have something when he passed away - but he didn't last long enough.


----------



## EleGirl

Andy1001 said:


> I know you probably haven't read my thread but four months ago I bought my gfs business,she was about to lose it to bankruptcy.We were separated at the time but we have got back together.I accept I never stopped loving her.I gave her four hundred thousand dollars over the independent valuation of the business to help her get back on her feet.She returned the money.I will support her if we don't work out and I believe I have proved that already.
> 
> My parents were wealthy but every cent I have I made myself.


I have read your thread. I think that you are very good guy with strong values. But I think that you do not understand things from her perspective. It's often very hard to understand things from the perspective of another person, especially when their perspective is so vastly different from one's own.

Yes you made your own money. But you grew up in money. You have always, or almost always had money.

She has never had much money at all.

How many month/years out of your life have you not been able to afford a place to live? How long is the longest period you went with no income at all... and no money in the bank?


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> Not sure what your point is?
> 
> Yes, it's true that many women who are very high achieving and very financially successful are able to choose whether they wish to work or they wish to stay at home.
> 
> My only point was that for many women, it isn't a choice at all. In some cases they can't afford the daycare, so they opt for the cheaper option, to stay at home. In other cases, they stay at home because it is expected of them, or because their husbands insist on it.
> 
> Just because socialization and social norms dictate certain roles doesn't necessarily make it a "choice".


Why do YOU think women end up the stay at home more often?

You keep talking about choice as if it's all or nothing. It's not. There are degrees of choice, within constraints. But is it fair between genders? If for example, women are pretty evenly matched with men at being the primary breadwinner (Ele's statistics) and many poorer couples have to leave one parent stay home because childcare is unaffordable (your point) then wouldn't you expect some correlation between the earning power of men vs women and the choice of who stays home? Yet the figures are not correlated. There is a huge discrepancy. It's like lots of couples are responding to lack of money by leaving the partner with the higher earning power at home. 

To me it's obvious that something else is at play.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> Why do YOU think women end up the stay at home more often?
> 
> You keep talking about choice as if it's all or nothing. It's not. There are degrees of choice, within constraints. But is it fair between genders? If for example, women are pretty evenly matched with men at being the primary breadwinner (Ele's statistics) and many poorer couples have to leave one parent stay home because childcare is unaffordable (your point) then wouldn't you expect some correlation between the earning power of men vs women and the choice of who stays home? Yet the figures are not correlated. There is a huge discrepancy. It's like lots of couples are responding to lack of money by leaving the partner with the higher earning power at home.
> 
> To me it's obvious that something else is at play.


Yes, I agree that something else is at play. I just don't think it's who has more "choice". 

Women and men are just now starting to be evenly matched in terms of who is a breadwinner and who can earn more money. Going back to your point about the glass ceiling, this too was not a matter of choice. It was systemic. And the rates of SAHDs vs SAHMs reflect the economic reality that men typically outearn women, and not because they "choose" to, but because they had more doors open, more opportunities, more acceptance in leadership roles, more recognition of desired skills, more promotions, more people thinking they "deserved" it because they had a family to look after. 

Now that women are catching up in terms of being the breadwinner and outearning men, the rates of SAHD are rising. Not coincidentally, IMHO. I can guarantee you that most, if not all, couples are not leaving their higher earning spouse at home while the other struggles to make ends meet. 

I *know* choice isn't all or nothing -- and actually this is part of my point. But you keep talking about breadwinning as though it's all constraint and limit, while SAHP is all choice and freedom. I just disagree. Bread-winning itself is choice and luxury, in many ways moreso than the SAHP. Who earns the money, for example, gets greater say in how it's spent. Gets greater decision making power for all kinds of things. So much so that it makes many men (and women, for that matter) outright uncomfortable to be in the dependent role.

Let me put it this way. Men aren't in SAHD roles because they choose not to be. 

See what I'm sayin'?


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Yes, I agree that something else is at play. I just don't think it's who has more "choice".
> 
> Women and men are just now starting to be evenly matched in terms of who is a breadwinner and who can earn more money. Going back to your point about the glass ceiling, this too was not a matter of choice. It was systemic. And the rates of SAHDs vs SAHMs reflect the economic reality that men typically outearn women, and not because they "choose" to, but because they had more doors open, more opportunities, more acceptance in leadership roles, more recognition of desired skills, more promotions, more people thinking they "deserved" it because they had a family to look after.
> 
> Now that women are catching up in terms of being the breadwinner and outearning men, the rates of SAHD are rising. Not coincidentally, IMHO. I can guarantee you that most, if not all, couples are not leaving their higher earning spouse at home while the other struggles to make ends meet.
> 
> I *know* choice isn't all or nothing -- and actually this is part of my point. But you keep talking about breadwinning as though it's all constraint and limit, while SAHP is all choice and freedom. I just disagree. * Bread-winning itself is choice and luxury, in many ways moreso than the SAHP. Who earns the money, for example, gets greater say in how it's spent. Gets greater decision making power for all kinds of things. So much so that it makes many men (and women, for that matter) outright uncomfortable to be in the dependent role.*
> 
> Let me put it this way. Men aren't in SAHD roles because they choose not to be.
> 
> See what I'm sayin'?


What I understand from the bolded is that there is a lot of power in being the breadwinner. For anyone with control (safety) issues, it may feel much more comfortable being in the driver's seat than in the passenger seat.

And it takes a lot of trust to accept the passenger's seat.


----------



## Wazza

wild jade said:


> Yes, I agree that something else is at play. I just don't think it's who has more "choice".
> 
> Women and men are just now starting to be evenly matched in terms of who is a breadwinner and who can earn more money. Going back to your point about the glass ceiling, this too was not a matter of choice. It was systemic. And the rates of SAHDs vs SAHMs reflect the economic reality that men typically outearn women, and not because they "choose" to, but because they had more doors open, more opportunities, more acceptance in leadership roles, more recognition of desired skills, more promotions, more people thinking they "deserved" it because they had a family to look after.
> 
> Now that women are catching up in terms of being the breadwinner and outearning men, the rates of SAHD are rising. Not coincidentally, IMHO. I can guarantee you that most, if not all, couples are not leaving their higher earning spouse at home while the other struggles to make ends meet.
> 
> I *know* choice isn't all or nothing -- and actually this is part of my point. But you keep talking about breadwinning as though it's all constraint and limit, while SAHP is all choice and freedom. I just disagree. Bread-winning itself is choice and luxury, in many ways moreso than the SAHP. Who earns the money, for example, gets greater say in how it's spent. Gets greater decision making power for all kinds of things. So much so that it makes many men (and women, for that matter) outright uncomfortable to be in the dependent role.
> 
> *Let me put it this way. Men aren't in SAHD roles because they choose not to be. *
> 
> See what I'm sayin'?


All the stats that have come out in this thread, including your own second para, seem to me to suggest there is more pressure on men than women to be the breadwinner. You don't seem to be offering competing stats or facts.

You seem willing to embrace the notion of a glass ceiling in paid career choices for women, but uncomfortable to consider the notion of an equivalent glass ceiling in other choices for men. 

Elegirl, if you are still reading....earlier you quoted some stats on posters in the original thread that spawned this one. Are you able to easily quantify the different responses to her post by gender? Were women more likely to believe she was doing the right thing and had the problem of a deadbeat husband, while men were more likely to believe she was placing unreasonable demands in her husband?


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> What I understand from the bolded is that there is a lot of power in being the breadwinner. For anyone with control (safety) issues, it may feel much more comfortable being in the driver's seat than in the passenger seat.
> 
> And it takes a lot of trust to accept the passenger's seat.


When you make it work, being co-drivers is a lot of fun.


----------



## Holdingontoit

Interesting series of articles discussing these issues:

1. What Happens to Women's Ambitions in the Years After College: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/ambition-interview/486479/

2. Having it All - And Hating It: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/having-it-all/488636/

3. When Women Choose Children Over Career: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/opting-out/500018/

4. Rethinking What Success Looks Like: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/redefining-ambition/510389/

5. How Much Ambition Can A marriage Sustain: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/conservation-of-ambition/507980/

6. Beyond Maternity Leave: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/beyond-maternity-leave/500063/

7. The Sexism Women Face: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/sexism/509213/


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> I have read your thread. I think that you are very good guy with strong values. But I think that you do not understand things from her perspective. It's often very hard to understand things from the perspective of another person, especially when their perspective is so vastly different from one's own.
> 
> Yes you made your own money. But you grew up in money. You have always, or almost always had money.
> 
> She has never had much money at all.
> 
> How many month/years out of your life have you not been able to afford a place to live? How long is the longest period you went with no income at all... and no money in the bank?


I'm not sure where you got the idea my gf never had any money.Until her business failed she was taking a salary of 100 grand a year.Her father made a good living but her mother spent it faster than she could make it.I went almost two years without a salary when I was developing my system but I admit I had plenty of savings and always had the offer of my old job back.(I still have that offer.lol.)
I know I'm repeating myself but we are not fighting about this and it is a few months in the future anyway.The baby is due at the end of March.


----------



## jld

Holdingontoit said:


> Interesting series of articles discussing these issues:
> 
> 1. What Happens to Women's Ambitions in the Years After College: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/ambition-interview/486479/
> 
> 2. Having it All - And Hating It: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/having-it-all/488636/
> 
> 3. When Women Choose Children Over Career: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/opting-out/500018/
> 
> 4. Rethinking What Success Looks Like: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/redefining-ambition/510389/
> 
> 5. How Much Ambition Can A marriage Sustain: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/conservation-of-ambition/507980/
> 
> 6. Beyond Maternity Leave: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/beyond-maternity-leave/500063/
> 
> 7. The Sexism Women Face: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/sexism/509213/


Holding, if it is not too much trouble, could you just give us a brief summary of these articles?


----------



## Holdingontoit

The women were sorority sisters at a highly competitive college in the midwest. Twenty years later, 2 of them interviewed their same-year sisters about their marriages and careers. Most expected to have high powered careers back when they were in college, and also get married and have kids. In other words, other words, the almost-mythical "have it all". As it turns out, a small number were doing high time demanding jobs and married to guys doing high powered jobs, some were high powered with SAH husbands, more were doing not as time demanding jobs and married to guys with moderately time demanding jobs, and the rest were stay at homes or working part time and married to guys who have high earning high time demanding jobs. So the articles talk about sexism, balancing careers vs raising kids, what decisions lead women to lean in or to back off. I particularly enjoyed number 5. They raise the question whether it is reasonable to think most people can tolerate a marriage where both have high paying, high demand jobs. They suggest that for most couples, a marriage can sustain at most one very intense career. So either one goes all out and one scales back most of the way (either gender can play either role), or both scale back somewhat.


----------



## wild jade

Wazza said:


> All the stats that have come out in this thread, including your own second para, seem to me to suggest there is more pressure on men than women to be the breadwinner. You don't seem to be offering competing stats or facts.
> 
> You seem willing to embrace the notion of a glass ceiling in paid career choices for women, but uncomfortable to consider the notion of an equivalent glass ceiling in other choices for men.
> 
> Elegirl, if you are still reading....earlier you quoted some stats on posters in the original thread that spawned this one. Are you able to easily quantify the different responses to her post by gender? Were women more likely to believe she was doing the right thing and had the problem of a deadbeat husband, while men were more likely to believe she was placing unreasonable demands in her husband?


Huh? Did I not agree with you multiple times now that there is a form of glass ceiling for men? Am I not just pointing out that all the stats you are quoting are a function of an economic reality that is now changing? :scratchhead:

Let me be much clearer. Yes, there are social pressures that prevent and have prevented men from being SAHD. But this doesn't mean they have less choice than women. These same social pressures also prevent women from being breadwinners and breaking through glass ceilings. The direction of the pressure is different, but the amount of choice is the same.

Fortunately, the world is changing and both sides are getting more choices.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> What I understand from the bolded is that there is a lot of power in being the breadwinner. For anyone with control (safety) issues, it may feel much more comfortable being in the driver's seat than in the passenger seat.
> 
> And it takes a lot of trust to accept the passenger's seat.


Really, I'm just trying to point out that being a breadwinner isn't the only way of having limits or being constrained. 

But I think there's truth in what you say. And maybe not just for a person with control and safety issues, but for someone in a relationship where that power imbalance is exercised. For example, if one person has to account for every penny they spend, but the other does not because he/she is the breadwinner.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> Not just mistreatment, but also misfortune.
> 
> One woman I knew was a SAHM for her family. She did only the "woman's work", cooking, cleaning, child care. Her husband was the breadwinner, earned all the money, managed all the finances, took care of all the legalities, taxes, paperwork and so on.
> 
> They were married happily for a good long time. But very sadly, he took ill and died. And not only was she left alone, she was helpless. She knew almost nothing about the running of her own household, hadn't held any gainful employment. I would never want to be in her shoes.
> 
> Point being that anything can happen, and it's good to be able to look after oneself. And others.


I have a different take on this.. and would ask a few questions... why didn't she know anything about the running of the finances? No life insurance? Retirement savings.. these things are very important.. as Death will come ... 

Heck if I died.. my husband would have to suddenly take all of that over.. I have a very detailed binder -all credit cards, Phone #'s, every account, email accounts, passwords.. his 401K, every utility, etc etc..all of it.. laid out... so he wouldn't be lost... I handle it ALL now.. every drop of our finances.. 

I've known a # of women who weren't working career jobs, got a divorce and had to get back into the work force.. there ARE jobs that will take people who haven't worked for years.. I worked for that sort of job this past year.. it's not glamorous by any means.. but many single mothers/ single women work it and they make it too.. so it's not that these jobs aren't out there.. heck if they are in our lousy area of unemployment.. there simply aren't enough people who want to do that sort of work.. but it's there...

Personally... being an unskilled non career woman.. I worry far more how much I would MISS my husband over how I would make it financially if he suddenly died.. I pretty much have things covered in this respect.. other than I sure would need to find a decent mechanic for our older cars..


----------



## wild jade

SimplyAmorous said:


> .
> 
> Personally... being an unskilled non career woman.. I worry far more how much I would MISS my husband over how I would make it financially if he suddenly died.. I pretty much have things covered in this respect.. other than I sure would need to find a decent mechanic for our older cars..



I didn't mean to imply that she didn't miss her husband dreadfully. Just that on top of the grief of her loss, she was faced with a million other things that were completely over her head and out of her depth, including financial management, job hunting, household repairs, legal ease, plus dealing with the funeral, etc.

She didn't look after this stuff because she didn't have to. And apparently her husband was nowhere near as organized or transparent as you are. All his stuff was all over the place, and may have well been in a foreign language as far as she was concerned. 

I'm also not saying that she didn't eventually climb out of that hole. She did. But boy was it a hard slog and personally, I would never want to be in her shoes.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> I didn't mean to imply that she didn't miss her husband dreadfully. Just that on top of the grief of her loss, she was faced with a million other things that were completely over her head and out of her depth, including financial management, job hunting, household repairs, legal ease, plus dealing with the funeral, etc.
> 
> She didn't look after this stuff because she didn't have to. And apparently her husband was nowhere near as organized or transparent as you are. All his stuff was all over the place, and may have well been in a foreign language as far as she was concerned.
> 
> I'm also not saying that she didn't eventually climb out of that hole. She did. But boy was it a hard slog and personally, I would never want to be in her shoes.


Yes, I am kind of dreading all that, too. Dug does a lot that I bet I am not even aware of.


----------



## Bananapeel

In that case you should consider going to an estate lawyer and getting everything taken care of in advance. There are obviously going to be a few surprises, but the majority of the issues can be resolved before there is a problem. As a single dad I've already had this stuff done to take care of my kids. All you need is a will, trust, medical or limited POA, proper amounts of savings and life insurance, and a general plan of how things should work. If you get all of that taken care of then it is a lot easier to transition should it be needed.


----------



## Wazza

jld said:


> Yes, I am kind of dreading all that, too. Dug does a lot that I bet I am not even aware of.


This is actually why I would resist my wife being stay at home if she wanted it. That's not criticising your decision, just recognising the down side.


----------



## jld

Bananapeel said:


> In that case you should consider going to an estate lawyer and getting everything taken care of in advance. There are obviously going to be a few surprises, but the majority of the issues can be resolved before there is a problem. As a single dad I've already had this stuff done to take care of my kids. All you need is a will, trust, medical or limited POA, proper amounts of savings and life insurance, and a general plan of how things should work. If you get all of that taken care of then it is a lot easier to transition should it be needed.


 @Duguesclin Do you think we could make a priority out of doing this? Or you could at least show me the parts you have already done? 

I don't know, Dug. I just feel like you are more comfortable living with uncertainty in this area than I am. You need less certainty in general than I do.


----------



## jld

Bananapeel said:


> In that case you should consider going to an estate lawyer and getting everything taken care of in advance. There are obviously going to be a few surprises, but the majority of the issues can be resolved before there is a problem. As a single dad I've already had this stuff done to take care of my kids. All you need is a will, trust, medical or limited POA, proper amounts of savings and life insurance, and a general plan of how things should work. If you get all of that taken care of then it is a lot easier to transition should it be needed.


Is it necessary to see an estate lawyer, Bananapeel? 

I think I would feel more comfortable going to one. Dug seems to think the online tools are sufficient.


----------



## MattMatt

All I know is that my high achieving women married me. 

Sorry, but I haven't a clue who all you other high achieving women are supposed to marry.>


----------



## Bananapeel

@jld - You don't need to see an estate lawyer but it makes no sense to not use one. The big advantage of using a good estate lawyer is that if anyone ever challenges your will/trust you will have a better chance of winning versus one that was done by a do it yourself kit. That is because the lawyer knows the laws and current trends in your state and can match their documentation to that. When I hired my attorney I told him that basically I just needed his forms and was willing to pay a reasonable amount above the DIY forms to know that I was getting things done correctly. 

From a cost perspective, it is relatively inexpensive to go through a lawyer. I did a will, POA, and a testamentary trust and my attorney charged me $600. A testamentary trust is a trust that is only created upon death so it is an easier and cheaper type of trust to set up or modify. If you go with a revocable trust it will cost more to setup, and it will also be more expensive to modify if you have to change it down the road. When I get older (55+) I'll change from a testamentary trust to a revocable trust.


----------



## jld

Bananapeel said:


> @jld - You don't need to see an estate lawyer but it makes no sense to not use one. The big advantage of using a good estate lawyer is that if anyone ever challenges your will/trust you will have a better chance of winning versus one that was done by a do it yourself kit. That is because the lawyer knows the laws and current trends in your state and can match their documentation to that. When I hired my attorney I told him that basically I just needed his forms and was willing to pay a reasonable amount above the DIY forms to know that I was getting things done correctly.
> 
> From a cost perspective, it is relatively inexpensive to go through a lawyer. I did a will, POA, and a testamentary trust and my attorney charged me $600. A testamentary trust is a trust that is only created upon death so it is an easier and cheaper type of trust to set up or modify. If you go with a revocable trust it will cost more to setup, and it will also be more expensive to modify if you have to change it down the road. When I get older (55+) I'll change from a testamentary trust to a revocable trust.


Wow, $600 seems inexpensive. I remember reading about a service around here that was $2k, and that was a few years ago.

So you filled out the forms and he approved them? That is why it was fairly inexpensive?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Wow, $600 seems inexpensive. I remember reading about a service around here that was $2k, and that was a few years ago.
> 
> So you filled out the forms and he approved them? That is why it was fairly inexpensive?


That is a cheap lawyer.The firm I use charge five hundred dollars for a phone call.


----------



## Bananapeel

jld said:


> Wow, $600 seems inexpensive. I remember reading about a service around here that was $2k, and that was a few years ago.
> 
> So you filled out the forms and he approved them? That is why it was fairly inexpensive?


Lawyers don't rewrite special forms, they just use their own templates. I just gave him my info and he plugged it in. Then I looked it over and saw a few things that I didn't like and wanted changed (e.g. how a trustee can be removed from a trust) and then modified the document to suit my needs. If I had him create a revocable trust it would have been over $1000, but I don't need that at this point in my life. Basically, I just wanted my assets to be protected for my kids. I wanted my XWW to not have any access to their money because she is not good with finances, so instead if I die unexpectedly everything would go into a trust for my kids that my sister is the trustee on. 

When you go to a lawyer for a consult just ask them what they charge to use their forms instead of a DIY kit. As long as they aren't doing major modifications it shouldn't be that much more than a kit. If they quote $2K then go somewhere else or use a kit. $600 is reasonable for 2-3 hours work of filling in standard forms and making minor modifications.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> *It is a shame you would feel that way SA*
> 
> On the bright side, I would like to think you won't ever have to worry about dating again :smile2:


I was trying to stay away from this thread...but had to go back & dig out this post..

I don't know that it's a shame.. many things are a shame.. you've spoken how your Mom makes snide comments to your wife who is now a SAHM... that's a shame... or how many felt in that previous thread, if the husband falls down successfully... move on with a man who can give her what she wanted.. the attraction is gone, after all....that's a shame...I was very offended by that - and I'm not even the man!!

Living through anything like that would never be worth it.. if ambition, money & power can change a person to this degree.... I would not want to touch them.. I don't believe all people are like this by the way....but we have to be careful who may be.....cause it's like a castle built on sand... what really binds a couple to each other - their values, dreams, love?? is it so easy to discard... these can be very deep or shallow.. but know what they ARE....so a couple can grow together through the valleys and the mountain tops.... if money & success can break these or tear us apart....something was missing all along... 

I've probably watched too many 20/20's , Datelines, that ID network channel -these are episodes of real life murders...often of a married couple.... starting out innocent enough- with hopes, dreams hand in hand.......Generally it's the man who's climbing the financial ladder of success... Many of these were a case of a Wife happily in the home raising the children.... meanwhile he's so busy on Business trips, meets up with some hottie in his circles at work...a business trip ends in temptation & playtime...now he's bored with his wife....she is in the way.. a burden...he can't bare to think of what he would lose in a divorce, so he plots to kill her & get away with it... watched too many of those... 

I look at some of those stories.. they were happier *before* they reached the top... What is it about success that changes some ?

I knew from a young age.. I just wanted to have a family... be a Mother, devoted wife... why is it that I almost feel ashamed to say this? The cultural changes in society have put this upon me.. 

So yeah...the amount of money a man makes matters less to me - so long as a decent life can be had/ experienced/ lived... nothing wrong with blue collar (I would feel less risk that his family for one would think I wasn't worthy of him)...but most important are his values.. being a traditional devoted family type man who is more about FAMILY over high achieving success (at any cost)...


----------



## RandomDude

> cause it's like a castle built on sand...


brilliant


----------

