Apr23

My Boyfriend is Wonderful, but Not Ambitious or Successful

08:00 am on Apr 23rd 2008 Evan Marc Katz

Filed Under Uncategorized, Dating Tips & Advice, Sex & Relationship Advice

Tags: ambition, commitment, committed relationship, dating advice, dating tips, long term relationship, opposite sex, partner, relationship, relationship advice, relationship tips, sex advice, understanding men

Read More...

• Is It Wrong To Date Someone Extremely Similar To the Last Person You Dated?
• How Do You Convince Your Cheating Girlfriend That She’s Really In Love With You?
• How Long Should I Wait for Him to Commit to Me?
• How Do You Convince a Poor Guy That You Really Do Like Him?
• How Do You Know Why Someone Wants To Marry You?

Related Resources

• 1000 Questions for Couples
• How to Approach Women
• 500 Lovemaking Tips & Secrets

125 Responses to “My Boyfriend is Wonderful, but Not Ambitious or Successful”

1. Jan Apr 23rd 2008 at 08:50 am 1

   Evan—this was a GREAT answer to her question!!!!

2. SJ Apr 23rd 2008 at 09:07 am 2

   BEST DAMN POST ON ANY DATING SITE…. EVER! BRAVO EVAN!

3. Debra Apr 23rd 2008 at 09:25 am 3

   I have just met a similar kind of guy and I wonder where you draw the line on not wanting to be too success driven and having the “Peter Pan complex”. On the surface he seems super nice, we seem to like some of the same things, etc, but from our conversations it seems that he would like to spend his time doing what he enjoys and not take a job that he would not be happy doing at his age (we are both over 50). I see this as a red flag that the relationship won’t be “equal” and either he intends to mooch off of me or if he has too much pride he will mope about how he has to depend on me. My thoughts are - I can’t afford a husband right now and if I have spare money I would like to do what I enjoy and not just support his hobbies. I think it might fall under the category of having different values and it could be a real deal breaker for me.

4. Selena Apr 23rd 2008 at 09:58 am 4

   I really liked Evan’s reply. I don’t know though how much impact it will have on CJ in the long run. The things she writes that bother her about her bf have been bothering her for 10 YEARS. With a 4 yr. break included. She writes they are compatible on many levels, but obviously not on this one and it would seem as they both get older, this level is becomming more and more important to her.

   I have to wonder if she’s just “settling” until the guy with the “6 o’clock loosened tie” comes her way. Kinda sad all the way around.

5. Paul Apr 23rd 2008 at 10:35 am 5

   Hey, wait a minute…I thought love conquers all? Guess not. Like Evan said, no guy can fulfill all your needs, and it seems that is what CJ is looking for. I never had a big problem with the “settling” issue because I think largely it was taken out of context. If the word “compromise” or “adjust” was used it wouldn’t have been an issue. And we do have to compromise all the time. I think she has a pretty good deal going with this guy, but has she told him how she feels? Maybe he needs someone to “knock him around a bit” (guy talk) to let him know he needs to be more wordly and interesting - that no woman wants a guy who just sits on the couch and watches TV all day. Most guys need a little nudging in that area. Maybe CJ is putting too much emphasis on somehting that may seem important now but may not be in the long run.

6. Steve Apr 23rd 2008 at 10:51 am 6

   
   But I can talk to my business coach about my business, I can talk to my best guy friend about philosophy, and I can experience my own creativity and others’ creativity in 1000 other forms. But I can’t make love to my business coach. I can’t wake up next to my best guy friend.
   

   Sure you can, it would just be very awkward :).

7. Steve Apr 23rd 2008 at 11:05 am 7

   CJ;

   I don’t think you or your BF are wrong/deficient/whatever for being who you are and wanting the (different) things you two want. Be aware that neither of you are going to change in this regard. The question you have ask yourself is if the lack of desired qualities in your BF are enough for you to go find someone else. Can you be happy for the next 40 years living without those qualities in a husband?

   I think there is a lot of insight to be had from asking why has a woman who describes herself as a go-getter stayed with such a man for 10 years, even going back to him after a 4 year break.

   No fair, you can’t use the “he is compatible in every other way” card. As Evan wrote, their are guys with more ambition and intellectual drives who have the qualities you want and an intelligent woman like you already knows that.

   I think once you examine these questions you will feel more strongly about staying or going which will help you make a decision.

8. BeenThruTheWars Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:16 pm 8

   C.J.,

   Evan was much more even-handed than I would’ve been. Reading your letter just made me mad.

   You have wasted ten years of this poor guy’s life, plus ten years of your own in the process of “dating” him (read: keeping him on the string). After this length of time, you know exactly who he is and what he has to offer as a human being… and yet you are chronically dissatisfied, which he has to know at least intuitively, and which surely must hurt him deeply. You keep yo-yo-ing back and forth, dancing in and out of the relationship, and he takes you back every time. Congratulations. Aren’t you the lucky one, to be able to keep someone hanging in like that, hoping, for a good chunk of his adult life.

   You say, “I can’t let go of wishing he were a stronger, more creative, more successful man who I could look to for experienced life advice.” You want HIM to change - be different – improve, in your eyes – be more like you. You keep yearning for your man to morph into a person he clearly isn’t. Enough! People don’t change, or at least we should not expect them to unless it’s something they decide to do for themselves, by themselves. We should either love our mates the way they are or move on. Anything less than full acceptance is a sign you shouldn’t be together, or at least that you certainly won’t be happy together.

   It sounds like you presently are “tolerating” him which is the kiss of death in a long-term relationship. It’s one thing to tolerate a man’s bad habit (like biting his nails or being late sometimes); you don’t like it, but it’s not a deal breaker, and it’s not a black mark against him as a person. It’s quite another to merely tolerate who a man IS at his core — which in your case is a very simple, straightforward, average Joe. You know this, you say it isn’t enough for you, and yet you remain indecisive… let the poor man go, already.

   If you do stick around will you really be able to love him unconditionally, as Evan urges? Or is he always going to feel criticized and “not enough” in his loved one’s eyes? How sad. How downright cruel. Saying you think a guy in a 6 o’clock tie is a turn-on implies that this man is NOT a turn-on, because he doesn’t happen to have a professional bent. Instead, he prefers to have fun and balance in his life. He seeks to be entertained and enjoy himself in his free time, like most emotionally healthy people. He must be extremely easygoing to put up with the kind of nonsense you’ve been dishing out all these years.

   Tell you what: you break things off with him and go out there and find Mr. Ambitious Intellectual Dude to dazzle you (good luck with that), and I will introduce your boyfriend to about a dozen of my single friends who are sick of game players and men who vanish and aren’t stable or steady, and would thank their lucky STARS to meet a solid, affable, forgiving young guy like your boyfriend.

   As Evan says, you aren’t wrong AT ALL to want a man who is more like you and shares your values, goals and dreams. Not at all! What upsets me is that you don’t seem to have the courage to say to yourself, “Alas, this isn’t the right man for me. Because I do love him, I’m going to let him go with love so he will be free to find a woman who will truly appreciate him and be grateful for him every day of their lives together.” Now that I think of it, you are depriving THREE people of happiness and contentment: yourself, your boyfriend, and the woman who would make him a wonderful, loving wife, the woman who would make him feel like a king and her forever hero! which every man deserves to feel like with his wife, if with no one else in this difficult world. If you can’t do that for him, because you simply are unable to… please do the right thing and say goodbye.

9. Bev Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:41 pm 9

   Hey, Lady, send me your boyfriend’s number. I would take him in a heart beat!!!

10. Honey Apr 23rd 2008 at 02:08 pm 10

    I would have to throw my lot in with Selena on this one. If this issue is bothering her as much or more ten years later, rather than less, then I don’t know how likely it is that she’s going to be able to overlook it now. Although I think Evan makes a great point about women compartmentalizing a little more, you really have to figure out what is non-negotiable for you. It sounds like CJ really really WANTS this to be negotiable, but it’s not.

11. A-L Apr 23rd 2008 at 03:17 pm 11

    I’ve agreed with almost all of the comments so far, but I have a few questions for CJ.

    1) What did you think of your dates during your 4 year break? If you dated the urbane & ambitious, what kept you from staying with them? Compare the guys you have dated with those characteristics to the guy you’re currently seeing. In which situation are you happier?

    2) How old are you? Though you shouldn’t try settle for less than what you’ll be happy with, it is true that the older you get the smaller the dating pool becomes, and hence it will likely be harder to find a man with all of the qualities you’re looking for.

    3) I know that you’re ambitious, but are you the creative type who constantly wants to discuss philosophy and world events? For instance, I’m interested in a man who enjoys camping or adventursome sports, but at the same time that’s a very small percentage of how I actually live my life.

    4) Is there room for compromise here? If his life revolves around the tv, would the two of you be willing to make one of those hours the Lehrer News Hours instead of Deal or No Deal and talking about it? Would that make a difference for you?

    5) Last but not least, are you happier with him, or by yourself? That’s frequently a good way for me to figure out what to do about a relationship; if it makes you happier, then it’s a good thing.

12. Selena Apr 23rd 2008 at 03:49 pm 12

    I also wonder what happened during the 4 yrs. they were apart. Did she just not find any ambitious, successful, tie wearing guys? Is that why she went back to Mr. Nice Guy, laid-back, reliable? It almost sounds like he’s a default boyfriend, rather than a man she truly loves for himself.

13. christine Apr 23rd 2008 at 03:55 pm 13

    hi cj,

    i’ll take him!

    christine

14. naturegirl Apr 23rd 2008 at 04:45 pm 14

    CJ - If some quality of your boyfriend bothers you now (and for the last 10 years), it WILL bother you for the rest of your life. As beenthruthewars says, people change because they want to, not because you want them to. Love does not conquer all.

    What about if or when you want to have children? Will you be satisfied with a stay at home husband? Will he be satisfied? Will the kids get what they need and deserve? Will you be satisfied working full time and not seeing your kids grow up? What about if you divorce after the kids come? Will you be happy paying child support and alimony to an underperforming ex-husband? There is a good chance that you will end up carrying him financially.

    My ex-husband was not ambitious, and became a reluctant, low performing stay at home husband (I made 3X what he did, so it made financial sense for me to keep working). Instead of taking the initiative to improve his job skills, he blamed me for his situation. I stayed in a loveless marriage in order to provide some stability for my children. It all fell apart anyway.

    You need to find a mate that you love and accept unconditionally, and respect. I don’t get the impression that you respect your boyfriend. Yes, finding someone to accept you for who you are is very difficult. But, relationships get more stressful and complicated when you really try to build a future together and start a family. The pre-marriage stage of a relationship is actually pretty simple. If you don’t think he has what it takes to provide you the life ultimately want, then release him back to the dating pool.

15. Steve Apr 23rd 2008 at 04:57 pm 15

    A-L, comment #11, insightful questions.

16. Michele Apr 23rd 2008 at 05:37 pm 16

    CJ…we are similar in that we profess independence and upward professional mobiity. Since your boyfriend is in his early 30’s project that you are fairly close to his age.

    I, on the other hand, am a baby boomer who was married to a man with characteristics similar to your man. And that marriage is now in the past tense because as I grew, he did not. I know now that those who claim to be willing to change are not necessarily on point.

    Your attraction to the 6 PM loose tie guy may/not alter over time, but I can assure you that a man in his early 30’s who is into the status quo is NOT going to change. Expecting a great revelation (on his part) is imaginary.

    Since parting ways over 10 years ago with the X, I now have a successful business and squeeze in as many “cultural” expeditions as possible. I also remain single and am not necessarily unhappy with my status.

    You have some issues to consider CJ. Will you be content to do the “opposites attract” or swim further out into the sea to find Mr. Somewhat More Compatible.

    I only speak (write) from my personal experience(s) and will attest to the fact that Evan’s site has been of great help to me. One reason why I now date very selectively.

    Best Wishes to you CJ……..the World is really an interesting place.

17. Eda Apr 23rd 2008 at 06:26 pm 17

    I think it is very telling that CJ never indicated that she loves her boyfriend — only that he loves her. If she doesn’t love him at all — let alone unconditionally — the most caring thing she can do is let him go — permanently. He deserves someone who will love him unconditionally, and CJ should find a man whom she can have a mutually loving relationship. Like many other posters, I sincerely doubt that she will ever be able to have that type of relationship with him. As another person indicated, it’s not his bad habits that she has issues with, she has issues with who this man is at his core. I think she needs to acknowledge that he’s just not the right man for her. As hard as you might try, you just can’t make yourself love someone if you don’t.

    While I know it’s easy to be hard on CJ for keeping this man around, he is culpable too because CJ made it pretty clear that she leaves and he keeps taking her back and/or asking her to come back. I think any person with a healthy dose of pride and self-esteem should not allow themselves to be taken for granted no matter how much they love someone. So, at some point, it’s actually his responsibility to take care of himself and break up with her.

18. A-L Apr 23rd 2008 at 06:34 pm 18

    Thanks, Steve.

19. smartcookie Apr 23rd 2008 at 07:01 pm 19

    I was in almost the exact same situation. I found a man who knew me like no one else did, who was so thoughtful, we enjoyed doing things together.

    HOwever, he didn’t finish school, had low paying jobs and didn’t have much ambition to get ahead in the world. I tried and tried to not let that bother me, but in the end, my success and financial stability was becoming a problem. When I would go to make a major purchase, like furniture, it wasn’t a joint decision-he felt uncomfortable about it when I wanted his input.

    For a time he was unemployed and happy to collect a check from the government. I wondered, what would happen if I couldn’t work-would he step up? Could he step up?

    Marriage is about a partnership-love isn’t always enough. I don’t believe two ppl have to place the same importance on career success and salary, but I do believe you have to be somewhat similar in your work ethic.

20. Sarah G Apr 23rd 2008 at 07:23 pm 20

    BTTW: Wow. That’s rough. I didn’t read all that into what CJ had to say.

    I do wonder if we have all the information — is it just that the boyfriend isn’t ambitious or is it that he’s an underperformer? Is he letting her carry him b/c he doesn’t feel like getting off the couch? Or is he some kind of alternative lifestyle guy who just has different values regarding worldly achievement? Hard to know.

    But let’s say the issue isn’t wordly success but weight. Let’s say she’s out there hitting the gym and watching what she eats and looking all hot and he’s sitting on the couch slurping down pepperoni pizza every night and rubbing a beer gut. He could be the sweetest guy on the planet and absolutely adore her (and why wouldn’t he?), but that isn’t going to make him more attractive or a better partner. By contrast, if some guy wrote in saying how great his girlfriend of 10 years is, but that she’s really overweight and never works on getting healthy/in shape, like she always says she wants to, and the guy is saying how he’s attracted to other, more fit women — who would have sympathy for the woman and tell him he should just suck it up, that she’s loving and kind to him and that that’s so much more important than whether or not he’s attracted to her and proud of her.

    Point being: Somebody adoring YOU is not a pass into good-relationship-land. Plenty of losers adore non-losers and try to attach themselves to them. As someone else pointed out, he is the one pursuing her, not vice versa. Why is he doing that? If he’s so great and she’s so horrible for not being that into him, why isn’t he taking his stellar loving self and finding an equal to reciprocate?

    Hard to know the answers to these questions without more info, though. I don’t condemn CJ for wanting more and for being confused, however. And there are lots of successful guys who are terrific and not jerks, so she can find her equal, too.

21. Steve Apr 24th 2008 at 05:36 am 21

    
    Smartcookie:
    Marriage is about a partnership-love isn’t always enough. I don’t believe two ppl have to place the same importance on career success and salary, but I do believe you have to be somewhat similar in your work ethic.
    

    That is one of the take home quotes of this thread.

    It hits the nail right on the head. I’ve seen this stressor in the relationships of my friends and family. It happens even if the wife/girlfriend is the non-worker, low-ambition person where the people involved grew up accepting that it is okay for wives to be like that.

22. Steve Apr 24th 2008 at 05:42 am 22

    Sarah G, post #20.
    I believe CJ wrote in her letter that the BF took her back, not that he pursued her. I also don’t think it is necessary to use labels like “loser”. Different people want different things out of life and other people are not losers because they don’t share someone else’s desires. I think that is one of the core issues for CJ, coming to terms that she and her boyfriend have different values.

23. Markus Apr 24th 2008 at 08:06 am 23

    Hey ceej, go get your 6 figure salary man. Just make sure you post here when you catch him snorting coke off some hooker’s ass.

24. Sarah G Apr 24th 2008 at 10:26 am 24

    I wasn’t calling her boyfriend a loser. I was using the word to explain my example. I was saying that we don’t know if he’s a loser looking to attach himself to a winner, I was saying that we need more info. But so many people were coming down hard on CJ for not seeing his value, and I was saying that MAYBE there is another way to interpret her angst, that it might be justifiable. And she described him as “persistent,” which I interpret as saying that he pursued her and took her back after the break up. Again, maybe that isn’t what happened. We don’t have enough info.

25. vino Apr 24th 2008 at 11:57 am 25

    Hmmmmm. Interesting replies.

    This falls squarely into my observation that women in general will be unhappy unless their guys makes no less than, and preferable more than her. Generalization, I grant, but I think it occurs more often than not.

    If CJ thinks she’s worth more and can get a better guy monetarily, then she should cut him loose. Period. See BeenThruTheWars’ post #8.

    A few quotes struck a chord.

    naturegirl in #14:
    “Will you be happy paying child support and alimony to an underperforming ex-husband? There is a good chance that you will end up carrying him financially.”

    smartcookie in #19:
    “I tried and tried to not let that bother me, but in the end, my success and financial stability was becoming a problem.” Also “For a time he was unemployed and happy to collect a check from the government. I wondered, what would happen if I couldn’t work-would he step up? Could he step up?”

    I don’t want to have a gender war on this subject, but CJ’s situation is one where the shoe’s on the other foot, so to speak. In other threads I’ve read where it’s okay to seek a guy who makes more money. But here, it’s a problem.

    Perhaps the answer is only to date people who make the same money as you do, whether you’re a guy or a girl. If I make more than a woman, I won’t have to worry about having to support her. The same thing goes for the resistance of women to be with men who make less. If it’s equal, there are no worries, then.

    I wonder how much that would thin the dating herd…

26. hunter Apr 24th 2008 at 05:32 pm 26

    to vino,

    that is a very small pool of single women, that you talk about in your last paragraph. If a woman has collected material things, she, stays out of the dating scene, what does she need a man for?…..

27. T Hatch Apr 24th 2008 at 06:40 pm 27

    I don’t think CJ is getting a fair shake in some of these posts.

    If you read through her letter, you’ll notice that she’s not really complaining that her boyfriend isn’t making lots of money, but that he doesn’t seem interested in accomplishing much with his life and doesn’t have much going on intellectually. Yes, I know that she points out that he only makes an “okay pay check”, but that’s in the context of illustrating how unambitious he is. I think CJ’s real issue with this guy is that he’s boring, not that he’s not rich, and that she fundamentally doesn’t respect him.

    It would be fascinating to see what CJ’s attitude would be if her boyfriend had a demanding job but didn’t make much cash. Suppose he was lawyer who passed on the big bucks in corporate law and instead worked to provide legal services to the poor — would she have a problem with that? If so, then yes, it would be fair to say that money was an issue. But for the moment let’s give CJ the benefit of the doubt and presume that she wouldn’t object to that scenario.

    Personally, I think every successful relationship is based on respect, and that’s not just true of romantic relationships. Whether or not you base your respect for someone on their accomplishments or intellect, CJ does, and that’s not an unreasonable value system. Yes, it’s true that the guy who can quote Proust might be a snobby jerk, but CJ’s issue was that her boyfriend sits around all day and watches TV. There’s a lot of space between those two extremes! I think she just wants to avoid the bottom end. Perhaps it’s true that her devoted boyfriend will be there in 30 years to drive her to her chemo appointments, but is that car ride really worth 30 years of frustration and disappointment? Just call a cab.

    On the other hand, I have to agree with everyone who has said — make a decision! It’s been ten years. You’ve been aware from the start that he’s not ambitious, and it’s bothered you from the start, and it’s unlikely that either of you will change. This is the way it will be for the rest of both of your lives. Part of accepting somebody for who they are is being able to say, “Maybe we’re not right for each other.” So, either make the substantial compromise that the relationship will require of you, or cut the guy loose so that he can find someone who will be happy with what he has to offer.

28. JerseyGirl Apr 24th 2008 at 07:43 pm 28

    I actually liked and agreed with Evan’s response. And I don’t always like or agree with Evan’s respones. haha.

29. Michele Apr 25th 2008 at 05:20 am 29

    Vino, sooooooo does one ask to see a potential partner’s W-2’s or 1099’s (for the past several years) before the first kiss?

    And although I’d like to think that the present state of the economy is temporary, what happens if one of the partners looses her/his job/career? The interim (until a new job/career is found) could certainly place the relationship in peril.

    Please don’t feel that I am patronizing your words because that is not the case. I think the entire dating game takes on different personas depending on an individual’s past experiences.

30. Jennifer Apr 25th 2008 at 09:32 am 30

    Great question and great advice from Evan.
    I have to say though, I can understand CJ going back and forth on this for the past 10 years. People change a lot between 21 and 31, and it’s not unrealistic for CJ to have thought that her guy may have grown to appreciate ambition a bit more. At this point though, major changes in life philosphies are unlikely, so it’s a matter of figuring out what you can live with.
    It’s a tough, tough call.

31. Lee Coles Apr 25th 2008 at 11:07 am 31

    Ambitious is connected to confidence, and is thus sexy.

32. vino Apr 25th 2008 at 11:29 am 32

    hunter:

    My point exactly. She doesn’t. If a man has collected material things, he, stays out of the dating scene, what does he need a woman for?…..

    Same analysis applies both ways.

    michele:

    Don’t think you are patronizing at all. I’m simply taking what I see as reluctance on CJ’s part to py for bf, the comments by smartcookie and nature girl, coupled with other threads on here to reach the conclusion that many, if not most women, have a problem with possible having to support a guy. I’m just taking that & saying guys should have the same problem with support women, creating the only solution - equal earners should date.

    Of course this is patently absurd in practice. But I wonder how women (not all but most) would react to having the same criteria applied to them as they apply to men vis-a-vis money issues…

33. Sarah G Apr 25th 2008 at 02:02 pm 33

    Another thought: Who is going to be taking him to chemotherapy treatments? (And planning for retirement, feeding the 401K, buying the house, etc.?)

34. hunter Apr 25th 2008 at 05:55 pm 34

    To Michele,

    What happens if the she loses her job/career? I work with herds of men and this happens often. The marriage, continues, only he cuts back on buying his toys, and the exotic vacation spots are no longer planned….

35. Sally Apr 26th 2008 at 12:03 am 35

    To Michele post #29

    You ask what happens if a partner loses their job. This is the crux of the problem, if that partner is ambitious then they will look for a new job and during that time you would be happy to support them. If on the other hand they have no ambition and sit watching daytime tv every day then your patience and support are going to run out very quickly, as well as your money.

36. Sarah G Apr 26th 2008 at 05:23 am 36

    The only situations I know of where a man is supporting a woman is when there are kids involved and they’ve decided that it’s better for her to stay home to raise them. I can’t think of one relationship where the man is supporting the woman in any other situation. Back in 1955 women didn’t support themselves, but it just isn’t like that anymore. So I never understand it when these threads turn to talk about men supporting women as if this really happens out there in most people’s lives. Any woman on this board (who isn’t a stay at home mom) being supported by a man?

    To bring it back to the OP, however: I don’t think that anyone wants to support another able-bodied adult, and in the case of a marriage nothing can be assumed in that regard — career/childcare issues are handled in all different ways these days. But CJ isn’t supporting her boyfriend, she just wants a guy with a vision and finds that a nice guy without a vision just doesn’t turn her on. That’s how I read the issue, anyway. I get it — she’s firey and he’s watery. Water douses fire and when fire is your nature, water can be a real drag. There are lots of tie-wearing guys out there who are upright (not cocaine-snorting whore-mongers) who want a woman who is smart and effective in the world; lots of women (as indicated on this board) who want a guy who’s just nice and in for the long haul.

    I don’t understand why this has to turn into a gender issue — CJ is ambitious and loves the world of work and is presumably good at it and wants to share that with her intimate partner. Why are some on here punishing her with cancer diagnoses and abusive boyfriend scenarios? Why aren’t we wondering what the glue is that has held these two people together for 10 years off and on and coming back for more (on both sides)? The glue is the important part — the important question would be, Is the glue based on something positive (to be affirmed) or negative (to be rejected)? Only those two can answer that question. Which, I guess, is what Evan said.

37. Michele Apr 26th 2008 at 02:11 pm 37

    vino…regarding your post #32.

    I asked you a direct question and you did NOT answer it.

38. Michele Apr 26th 2008 at 02:19 pm 38

    hunter…your post #34.

    If those herds of men are satisfied with their wives unemployed status, something seems amiss (in my opinion).

39. hunter Apr 26th 2008 at 02:58 pm 39

    to Sarah G,

    I think CJ must be maturing, age wise, because, there, was nothing wrong with her boyfriend in the early stages of the relationship. People, as we mature, it is not like we become selective, it is more like we get sensitive..

40. vino Apr 26th 2008 at 03:21 pm 40

    Sarah G wrote:

    “The only situations I know of where a man is supporting a woman is when there are kids involved and they’ve decided that it’s better for her to stay home to raise them. I can’t think of one relationship where the man is supporting the woman in any other situation.”

    - Ummmm I grant that there are instances where they jointly decide she can stay home & raise the kids. However, particularly if married, he doesn’t really have any say in it, unless he’s willing to divorce. Because, I’ve run across the latter situation, where the kids are off to school, and she does nada. She puts foot down, under pain of divorce. He’s screwed, because he’ll pay through nose if bluff is called, particularly if she hasn’t been working.

    Kinda circles back on the point that ladies in general like guys who make more, as they have more options. Stay home with kids or not. Point is, he has none…keep earning.

    “Any woman on this board (who isn’t a stay at home mom) being supported by a man?”

    - Not trying to pick a fight, but any women on this board who expects men to pay for everything in the relationship IS being supported by a man. He’s underwriting her social life, at a minimum.

    I read CJ’s dissatisfied on personal levels but financial ones also. “…one thing that continues to turn me off (from ten years ago to now) and that is his lack of ambition to be successful professionally. ”

    Also, CJ wrote “He on the other hand is satisfied with bringing home an okay pay check to put food on his table…”

    Clearly, money is on her mind also. It’s a gender issue when you look at the larger picture…that being women in general like guys to make more $ than they do (or the same, at bare minimum), no matter how much $ they themselves (ladies) make. My only point is that I think to be fair, guys should apply the same standard to the ladies they date.

41. Steve Apr 27th 2008 at 04:55 am 41

    
    Sarah G Apr 26th 2008 at 05:23 am 36
    Back in 1955 women didn’t support themselves, but it just isn’t like that anymore.
    

    I used to think that too, but in the last year I have been encountering a lot of diversity in this regard. I think it varies by geographical region and even by individuals.

    I had a house husband neighbor for a while( intellectually I was fine with it, but emotionally it made me very uncomfortable ). I have a friend who was raised in a northeastern liberal family who is the same age I am. She doesn’t work, she doesn’t have kids, and she doesn’t have a problem with it. She recently got a part time job because her husband will only give her money for essentials and she wanted pocket money. I have a friend from a blue collar background. When she and her girlfriends are in LTRs their boyfriends support them. I have heard them ( & some of my girl-friends who were raised in northeastern liberal famlies ) express how they are fed up with the whole working thing and would love for a man to come along and support them. These are not older women from another era. These are women in my age group and younger. OTHOH I have about 3 girl-friends who are regularly angry because they have perpetually depressed slacker live-in boyfriends who they often end up supporting for months at a time. OTOH hand, again, I have friends from a very conservative blue collar background whose marriage was stressed when the wife took too long after having a kid to get back into the work force.

    There is just too much diversity on this issue .

    
    I don’t think that anyone wants to support another able-bodied adult, and in the case of a marriage nothing can be assumed in that regard — career/childcare issues are handled in all different ways these days.
    

    Amen. I get stressed just hearing other people talk about how they would like someone other than me to be responsible for them. Who needs birth control when you have a turnoff like that?

42. A-L Apr 27th 2008 at 04:43 pm 42

    I’m not sure if I agree that C.J. should be thrown into the money-hungry woman category that some posters are suggesting she should be in.

    CJ said, “I wouldn’t be picky about his career field of choice but at the rate it’s going I’ll never see him in a 6 o’clock loosened tie,” it seems as though when they started out dating he was interested in a tie kind of career. Perhaps he took a low-end job in a company, thinking that he’d finish his degree and work his way up, but hasn’t really done that yet (hence, “at the rate it’s going.”)

    CJ also said she wished she had a “more successful man who I could look to for experienced life advice.” Maybe she wants to talk to someone about saving for a house, or retirement, or other goals that are not necessarily in the realm of golddigging. But perhaps her boyfriend’s salary is such that he can’t be doing those things, and that’s where her unhappiness lies.

    All we know is that her boyfriend has enough to put food on his table. But I don’t think it’s unrseasonable for someone (of either sex) to want to build towards things like a house, retirement, vacations, etc, and expect their partner to do the same. It sounds as though the boyfriend isn’t there and isn’t pushing himself to get there, and that’s where the difficulty may be arising.

43. hunter Apr 27th 2008 at 04:55 pm 43

    to Michele,

    They are dissatisfied, but, their wife says, she will no longer seek employment. I agree with you, there is something amiss. Most have been divorced 2-3 times and they are not going through that again. So they just suck it up….

44. hunter Apr 27th 2008 at 05:05 pm 44

    to Vino,

    You said, “guys should apply the same standard to the ladies they date.” I agree with you, trouble is, that is a much smaller pool of single women…..

45. Sarah G Apr 27th 2008 at 05:37 pm 45

    Thanks, Steve! I love that you are always so even-handed in your responses and try to see an issue from so many different points of view.

    On that note, Vino: I am dating alot these days and I always offer to pay, split, let him pay — I just feel out the situation. Some guys feel really put off when you split it — the only guy who has shut me out was the guy from the date where we went dutch. The guys who paid are still interested. Go figure.

    I read recently (maybe here?) that the guy might pay for the first couple of dates to give a nod to convention, but that after that time he expects the woman to pony up. That seems reasonable to me if we look at dating as courtship. Follow convention until you know each other well enough to discuss these issues and then go deeper into defining the relationship and how it will work if both are in agreement.

    (Of course, if you just have one first date after another, that’s going to result in some pretty lopsided paying. But if a person is having only one first date after another I would suspect that there is something else going on besides meetin up with an unfortunate string of dinner whores.)

    But I must say that dating for women has a lot of hidden costs. Being attractive in the dating world ain’t cheap for women. And men will not date you unless you are attractive. Case in point: Last night I was out with three very attractive women and a very attractive guy friend. The attractive guy we were with said that he expects a woman to dress nicely for him when he asks her out, and he recounted several first dates that didn’t turn into second dates b/c the women didn’t do the feminine thing and get gussied up.

    One of the women with us last night was my gorgeous sister, who is very into the feminine thing. She was in town for a big event — asked up by a date. He has spent a lot of money to woo her — incl. the ticket price for Friday night’s black tie business shindig for him. My sister’s price tag for going all fem to this black tie event? About $500. The formal dress, the hair at the salon, the drive up to where I live, the parking, the incidental costs. She doesn’t at all feel that she is in his debt. She did what was required to be as trophyish as she could get — and she does a great job at it. Men fall all over themselves to go out with her. And they are thrilled to pay her way — because she is worth it.

    So perhaps we all adhere to convention a little bit (men paying for the date, women paying for the very-costly, very-secret (so-as-not-to-destroy-the-fantasy) stuff that makes us so dateable. Later on, when the women start picking up the tab maybe we’ll be showing up in our gym clothes with our hair in a ponytail. I actually like reaching that point of intimacy with a guy. It means that we’ve seen each other naked, and that that naked person is who we now see when we look at each other, not the superficial bait the respective genders use to seduce the other into one’s orbit.

46. vino Apr 28th 2008 at 06:22 am 46

    hunter re: #44 - I agree. That’s kinda the point. I don’t see a problem with it though. If there are some women who complain there are no good guys now, imagine what would occur if only 10-20% of guys applied the same financial considerations to ladies as ladies do to them. Chaos.

    Sara G:

    Dating for women has hidden costs? I respectfully don’t buy that argument. “The attractive guy we were with said that he expects a woman to dress nicely for him when he asks her out . . . gussied up.”

    First, no one is saying the woman needs to go buy new clothes, go to a salon specially for a first date, etc. Just look nice with what you have. No special work need be done. If a guy expects a women to show up for a first date as though it’s a prom or semi-formal event, I think that’s unreasonable.

    “Being attractive in the dating world ain’t cheap for women.”

    - Why is that a guy’s problem? If you have a marketing or advertising cost in business, that’s a cost of doing business. You can try to pass it on to the consumer. Maybe some will pay. Maybe some won’t. Consumers are increasingly refusing to bear that carrying cost. Many will, though.

    Also, you think the attractive guy you were with doesn’t spend $ to be an attractive guy? He does. If a professional, good suits, shirts, ties, shoes, casual clothes, monthly haircuts all add up also. This is often ignored. So too is that the item-by-item cost for men’s clothes is generally much higher than ladies. Suits, shoes, etc…

    Your sister’s situation is a case of a special event. So? You already said he has spent a lot of money to woo her. Already. Nothing wrong with some quid pro quo. BTW, he’s spending money on it also, re: either renting or buying tux, etc.

    “So perhaps we all adhere to convention a little bit (men paying for the date, women paying for the very-costly, very-secret (so-as-not-to-destroy-the-fantasy) stuff that makes us so dateable.”

    - Like what is so very secret & costly? This isn’t the CIA budget, for goodness’ sake.

    “Later on, when the women start picking up the tab maybe we’ll be showing up in our gym clothes with our hair in a ponytail.”

    - Problem is, it doesn’t happen very often. If one doesn’t start out paying tabs, they don’t suddenly do it later, as it hasn’t been the behavioral pattern. It’s expected not to. She then shows up in gym clothes anyway….

47. Michele Apr 28th 2008 at 07:17 am 47

    hunter…..your post #43.

    Good that you elucidated some. Their wives sound like they are sorry as Hell !!!

    Coming from a family that has an incredibly strong work ethic (both genders) cannot imagine a guy “sucking it” up. Then again their stats (several failed marriages) do say something about them.

    You seem to be above way above average in the well-balanced quality…am betting you choose to follow another path.

48. Sarah G Apr 28th 2008 at 09:46 am 48

    Vino, you clearly have no idea what women go through to be attractive to men.

49. Steve Apr 28th 2008 at 11:30 am 49

    Sarah G Apr 28th 2008 at 09:46 am 48
    Vino, you clearly have no idea what women go through to be attractive to men.

    I don’t think most men do.

    Keeping in shape with exercise and proper nutrition can take up at least 3 - 5 hours a week. I know, I do it ( for my own fun only ) and I could easily spend more.

    Most of the time keeping up on current fashion is necessary to keep a woman from looking like a second choice in the dating arena. That can be a hobby onto itself.

    Various depilatory activities and skin care activities can also polish off a few more hours a week.

    Anyone who has ever had a single sister also knows that applying makeup, nail polish and futzing with their hair can easily take an hour a day out of their schedule.

    Men’s fashions are orders of magnitude simpler. A guy can get away with selecting and shopping for clothing once per year without looking like a dork. Once you take keeping in shape out of the equation a guy can be good to go a shower, a shave, and clean clothing that is probably already hanging in his closet.

50. vino Apr 28th 2008 at 01:10 pm 50

    Re: Sarah G & Steve’s additions:

    Soooo…

    I need to underwrite a woman’s shopping, cosmo reeading, mani-pedis, facials, botox, and makeup. (You pay for it directly or pay for dates = same result of funding her social life).

    I grant about the ONLY thing women have to spend $ on guys don’t is makeup (unless you’re in LA, hahaha). While it’s not the cheapest thing in the world, we’re not talking $500/mo either.

    Otherwise, there aren’t all of these ‘hidden’ costs. Both sexes need to do the same things. So these ‘hidden’ costs of supposedly looking good only to attract us as a justification to get us to pay for everything is silly, IMO.

    Not sure I agree men’s fashions are orders of magnitude simpler. A professional guy has to have good work clothes. Good business casual clothes. Crappy shoes & you’re out - Cole Haan’s or better. none of this stuff is cheap.

    “A guy can get away with selecting and shopping for clothing once per year without looking like a dork.”

    - Maybe, but he has to spend a ton of $ to do it. I’m only saying that putting clothes on your back as a means of attracting the opposite sex cancels each other out as rationales to justify one paying for another.

    So if I take someone out for a $150 dinner one night, I’m also underwriting her to look good for guys the other 29 days of the month, by reimbursing her $75 she would otherwise have had to spend herself on looking good to attract guys. Where’s the benefit to me month long?

    Damn I’m cranky today. The logic still works, though. You wanna be equal, be equal.

51. vino Apr 28th 2008 at 01:20 pm 51

    michele,

    “… does one ask to see a potential partner’s W-2’s or 1099’s (for the past several years) before the first kiss?”

    - Not specifically, but it is helpful to ask very specific questions. What neighborhood do they live in? What specifically do they do for work & for whom? Find out what kind of car they drive. Know what people make for many occupations. Isn’t hard to figure a good approximation.

    “… what happens if one of the partners looses her/his job/career? The interim (until a new job/career is found) could certainly place the relationship in peril.”

    - Yep. I bet you see spike in divorce rates over the next few years, too, due to worsening economy.

52. vino Apr 28th 2008 at 01:22 pm 52

    Forgot to add

    What neighborhood do they live in? What specifically do they do for work & for whom? Find out what kind of car they drive. Know what people make for many occupations.

    - This is what EVERY woman has asked me before 1st date or within 1st 30 minutes of it. Just take the initiative with her 1st.

53. hunter Apr 28th 2008 at 07:39 pm 53

    to vino,

    Women almost have to ask, how we make a living, they know that men relate to/identify themselves, with their jobs. I think most women know, not all lawyers make earnings in the six digits.(know high school teachers with law degrees/bar exam certs.) Kind of like not all family doctors make big bucks either.

    What would you think of yourself, had you been talking to a woman for most of the evening, you never asked her what she did for a living, only to find out, after she was gone, that, she was an oil baroness/hotel heiress, or maybe one of Hugh Hefner’s favorite girls?……..LOL!…

54. Kat Wilder Apr 28th 2008 at 09:15 pm 54

    As I read through this post and the answers, I realized it is exactly the situation my friend is dealing with of being married to a man who is a wonderful dad and has everything going on — except the ambition that she has and that she wants in a mate.

    Maybe I don’t need to tell you how it appears to be ending.

    If this is an issue CJ can’t get over, then there’s nothing that will make it change for her or him unless he wants to change. And for himself, too, not her.

    That’s not to say that loving partners shouldn’t challenge each other or call them on their bad stuff; that’s an important part of caring for someone (as long as it’s done in a loving, nonjudgmental way).

    Still, each one of us deserves to be seen and accepted for who and what we are. I think CJ would want the same, too.

55. vino Apr 29th 2008 at 08:01 am 55

    hunter:

    I have disagree with that assertion men relate to/identify themselves, with their jobs. Not just my friends, but nearly all of my clients do not relate that way at all.

    “I think most women know, not all lawyers make earnings in the six digits.(know high school teachers with law degrees/bar exam certs.) Kind of like not all family doctors make big bucks either.”

    - Right. That’s why they ask where you live, etc. A nonprofit lawyer generally isn’t going to live in the gated community in a 3000 sf house (unless the heiress/heir you previously mentioned, lol)

    “What would you think of yourself, had you been talking to a woman for most of the evening, you never asked her what she did for a living, only to find out, after she was gone, that, she was an oil baroness/hotel heiress, or maybe one of Hugh Hefner’s favorite girls?……..LOL!…”

    - Don’t care…heiress will usually have $$ tied up in trusts, etc. Lord knows I won’t get any of it, nor do I expect/hope to.

    - One of Hef’s fave girls? Let me get my hazmat suit…ugh.

56. vino Apr 29th 2008 at 08:11 am 56

    As I read through Kat WIlder’s #54 and other previous posters, something struck me.

    “That’s not to say that loving partners shouldn’t challenge each other or call them on their bad stuff; that’s an important part of caring for someone (as long as it’s done in a loving, nonjudgmental way).

    Why is it if the guy’s not as ambitious, like CJ’s bf for Kat’s friend, it’s “bad” and the result is he should always be cut loose? I guess what I’m asking is should the same standards of ambition be applied equally to each sex? So that the result is if a woman’s not ambitious, she should be cut loose.

    “Still, each one of us deserves to be seen and accepted for who and what we are. I think CJ would want the same, too.”

    The problem in Kat’s and CJ’s scenarios is that the standard of acceptance changed…he was accepted before, presumably knowing he wasn’t the most ambitious. Now it suddenly not okay. CJ & Kat’s friend already knowing this lack of ambition and accepting the consequence now don’t like the consequences and want to be rid of the consequences. Curious.

57. Sarah G Apr 29th 2008 at 09:14 am 57

    No, Vino, the same standards should not be applied to each gender b/c our biology sets us on different paths from the get-go.

58. vino Apr 29th 2008 at 10:11 am 58

    Sorry, Sarah. I don’t get your logic. If you can earn everything a man can, the same FINANCIAL standards should necessarily apply. Please expand, if you would, on how biology should mandate such a financial double standard and disparity.

59. Kat Wilder Apr 29th 2008 at 01:19 pm 59

    vino,
    Well, I am not saying it’s OK: I am saying that it’s not right that what was once OK isn’t anymore.

    Of course, we should all be more mindful BEFORE we get married of what we really want in a partner (and what we ourselves bring to the table). But even if we are, we change, our circumstances change and our partners change. Learning to navigate all that together is hard — but, that’s what commitment is about, right?

    And I agree the same standards should be applied to both genders, but instead of the financial/ambition issues men face, women usually have to wrestle with the Madonna/Whore thing that happens after they become moms. But don’t get me started …
    

60. A-L Apr 29th 2008 at 05:14 pm 60

    Vino wrote, “I guess what I’m asking is should the same standards of ambition be applied equally to each sex? So that the result is if a woman’s not ambitious, she should be cut loose.”

    I know several men (including Vino, if I’m not mistaken) that say that women are attracted to power, boldness, and ambition while men are attracted to the caring, nurturing, and sensitive. So being ambitious is not necessarily to the woman’s advantage in the dating game. (See any thread about who pays for anything, who asks whom out first, and why successful women have a hard time finding a guy.)

    And sorry about the previous partial post. It was my dog’s fault.

61. Sarah G Apr 29th 2008 at 05:22 pm 61

    First off, women still don’t earn as much as men. And the much ballyhooed statistic about more women getting into college — these are not in the higher paying fields, which are still male dominated. Add to that the fact that if women have children (let’s say it’s in a marriage, so as not to feed that troll thread again), most likely the couple’s economic decision will be that one of the earners in the two-earner household stay home — and that is far and away most often the woman. The loss of income has been calucated here to be about $1 million over the course of a woman’s career.

    When society changes to the point that men are home taking care of the children and the house in equal numbers — and also suffer with resultant blow to the career — then we can talk about equality having been achieved. Right now it’s one-sided — women have proved they can work. Have men proved that they can birth and raise children and manage a household?

    I think not. This too, my friend Vino, is work. Studies show that even when women work outside the home, they still do the lion’s share of work inside the home.

    So if you are a man and you want a family, you better pony up. And if you want a woman to take you seriously as a partner, that starts at the beginning of your romantic relationship. Why? Because men compete with each other for women, and a guy who ponies up is going to win over a guy who doesn’t.

    But if a guy want’s a different kind of relationship with a woman, one that is based on a more obviously equitable division of labor, then he can learn how to do all the things within the home that women do — and still look cute doing it. Which means, work out, buy nice clothes, have good hair, and have done whatever sort of cosmetic procedures are available to keep your woman attracted to you.

    I know — like all of us career gals who could afford such a guy are ever going to find one.

62. Michele Apr 29th 2008 at 07:16 pm 62

    vino….your posts #51 & 52

    Thank you for clarifying your techniques to assess your dates’ financial worth. I found them relatively shallow, superficial and out of touch with reality.

    That said, I usually drive a pick up truck that is almost 17 years old…original transmission and well over 200K miles (my other vehicle is a newer BMW). Personal residence is located in a smaller town (very) middle class area and am a business owner. My “stash” is my business and I guard it well.

    Would I share with a first “date” any information about my tangible assests and/or liabilities? Don’t believe that will occur in this lifetime.

    My approach is to listen more than talk. That method usually allows me to learn more about his character as a human being. Many of the guys I have dated spill their guts anyway when they know a lady is being attentive. And I only date professional and polished men.

    I would find it a laborious task to judge a book by its cover or to live in a World filled with unfounded broad generalizations. Seems to work for you vino and please know that your thing is your thing - and I respect that. Just not my thing

    You are definitely on point about the divorce rate escalating due to the present economic situation. Now that most will have to curtail old spending habits, the law of averages will make countless divorce attorneys happy campers.

63. Sarah Apr 30th 2008 at 05:40 am 63

    Vino: I don’t doubt that you’ve met many gold-diggers in your life. But I would like to respectfully suggest that not all questions about occupation or neighborhood are based in gold-digging. I mean, work accounts for at least 40 hours/week of a person’s life (in my case, a lot more), and a person’s neighborhood accounts for the majority of a person’s non-working hours. So learning about these two aspects are a way to get a sense of a person’s day-to-day reality, which is an important part of understanding who they are . . . although hopes, beliefs, interests, etc. are important parts as well.

    My boyfriend and I both live in really poor neighborhoods. When we first met, I didn’t ask about his neighborhood in order to disqualify him for not owning a condo in Lincoln Park (expensive area here in Chicago). I asked because I was interested in his life.

64. vino Apr 30th 2008 at 08:23 am 64

    Michele,

    Let’s see if I understand - It’s not shallow and superficial for women to seek guys for their money, but it is if guys do the same. Hmmmmm.

    Re: Sarah G’s 61:

    “First off, women still don’t earn as much as men.”

    - Yes, they do, especially in cities. See http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0334472920070803 So I’d say your premise is flawed.

    Not to be cynical & confrontational, but it’s hard to accept the complaint that ‘women earn less than men’ while at the same time they want the choice to stay home (with or without kids), which necessarily removes them from the workforce, creating much of the disparity complained of. In other words, the disparity is a result of CHOICES many women make. She CHOOSES to have kids (she always has that choice, BTW; see another thread) and/or stay home. The CHOICE for her to stay home with kids is further one she’s going to do under of pain of divorce to him, costing him even more. So she CHOOSES not to work, and to have him replace her income, so she doesn’t really lose income - she’s choosing someone who earns more to substitute that income she CHOOSES to forgo. That’s the point. She loses nothing. He does, however. Please tell me the benefit to him. Sorry, but I don’t see it.

    “Have men proved that they can birth and raise children and manage a household?’

    - Moot, spurious question. Women are the ones who choose guys earning more so they have the option of staying home to raise children so they don’t have to work. Many men also choose women who do this. More & more aren’t though.

    “So if you are a man and you want a family, you better pony up.”

    - Boy, there’s a disincentive to marry, if ever there was one.

65. m Apr 30th 2008 at 12:29 pm 65

    Dear Steve:

    Please clone yourself.

    Several hundred thousand times, otherwise I’m sure there will be a fight.

    Please drop several copies off in the NYC metro area - say, 210,000 or so.

    xo
    m

66. vino Apr 30th 2008 at 02:54 pm 66

    Sarah,

    Have a beer for me @ Gamekeepers…

67. A-L Apr 30th 2008 at 03:23 pm 67

    Vino, you’re right, it’s superficial if a woman’s only interested in a man because of his money.

    At the same time, just because women in some of the largest American cities earn more than men, please don’t assume that’s true for the other 90% of the country. From the latest census figures (data from ‘05 for the ‘06 report) women earned 76.7% of what men earned (http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/acs-02.pdf).

    And from the article you quoted:

    Women are faring the best in the Northeast and West, closing the gap in the states of Maryland, District of Columbia and Massachusetts. In contrast, women are farthest behind in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.

    I’m in Louisiana where women get 68.6 cents for every dollar a man makes (see census data). And I’m one of those people who’s not sure about having children (my future spouse’s feelings will probably be the determining factor). So I get to earn 31% less than men, just because my gender affords me the choice to have children, even if I don’t exercise that option. Frankly, that doesn’t really seem fair either.

    Basically, what I’m saying here is, life isn’t fair for anybody. Not for men, not for women. I’m not going to stop working because I don’t have equitable pay with men, nor am I going to sue every employer I work for because of that issue. It’s just a fact of life that I need to deal with. I do the best I can, and hope for the best. I’d say that men should have to do the same thing. Yes, the higher-earners in a relationship take on more risk in a marriage. But instead of avoiding the institution at all costs, do the best you can to find a responsible, respectful, and caring mate, and hope for the best.

68. A-L Apr 30th 2008 at 03:25 pm 68

    By the way, I don’t want to make it sound as though men have to get married. They obviously can choose not to. But I’d recommend just doing the best you can in finding a mate, and hoping for the best.

69. vino Apr 30th 2008 at 04:42 pm 69

    A couple of points.

    The article doesn’t specifically state the reasons there is a disparity. I remember searching Warren Farrell after reading a verbosity cite of him re: earning disparity. I’d google him for more info. Don’t have time to now, though.

    In terms of gross numbers, there is a disparity (76%+) because more women take time off for kids, because they choose less dangerous occupations, etc. The Reuters article almost touches on this when it notes the gap widens after age 30 for women. Not without coincidence, this is usually when women often start having kids & taking time off. My point is that there is a disparity because of choices women make creating that 24% difference, not because of some mass corporate discrimination. Devil’s in the details…

    What I think I’ve read is that single women (particularly by 30’s) who have stayed single, actually earn more than male counterparts. So you’re really not earning 30% less individually for the same work, but when you factor in women in your state not working or working part time, or in less-hazardous (& therefore lower paying) jobs, women in your state overall may earn less. But it’s due to the choices they make. If they stay at work and don’t take 3+ years off for kids, there is no earning gap.

    I think most people now live in metropolitan area now. Don’t have time to find the stat, but I’m pretty sure it’s true. Just goes to point that more people likely earn the same, in part b/c they are in metro areas.

    I agree with your sentiment about hoping for the best. I have to acknowledge reality, though, where the odds are not favorable. Sadly, I find little to no reassurance this trend will reverse.

70. A-L Apr 30th 2008 at 05:50 pm 70

    Much of what you say is true. At the same time, though, I know for a fact about conversations that management has in terms of who they promote and who gets what kind of raises, regardless of their legality. It’s often as women approach the 30ish mark that many businesses assume she will start having children and taking time off, even if she hasn’t yet, and will therefore promote her male counterpart because they don’t want to take that risk. Also, men (at least in the southern metropolitan city I live in) are awarded larger raises, and paid a higher salary for the same qualifications, experience, and skills, perhaps because of the expectation that men are supposed to financially support their families, and therefore are in need of more money.

    And the census data is coming from all over the country, big metropolitan areas and rural areas alike. I suspect that our own geographical locations skew our perspectives. I live in a state where the Good ‘Ole Boy network (and commensurate pay scale) thrives, and I would guess that you live in a major metropolitan area in the NE or perhaps out west and deal with that difference in dynamics as well. Am I right?

71. Sarah G Apr 30th 2008 at 06:17 pm 71

    So Vino, it seems like you’re saying that women hold all the cards re: men’s sex lives, child birthing and rearing, and work. Have I left anything out?

    You’re quick to point out what you think the problem is — what are you recommending as the solution? That no one date, get married, have sex, have children?

72. vino Apr 30th 2008 at 07:40 pm 72

    Sarah G,

    Actually what I’m saying is that guys in general hold the cards, but don’t know it. They just need to make choices that are in their interest.

    If you sniff money is on her mind, don’t date her, let alone marry. As this board indicates, it is the majority’s minds. Sex is fine, just make sure she’s also on birth control also, including morning after pill. Use condom. If a guy definitely doesn’t want kids, do vasectomy. My belief is that women who don’t use their own birth control want a child. More importantly, they want someone to help pay for it See. Lori Gottleib’s article. It’s her whole premise to ’settle.’

    There is no reason to marry. Period. See other threads.

    Funny thing is, Sarah, neither you nor anyone else has given me any answers to the questions of how I or men in general benefit from the dating/marriage rules and expected behaviors as they are. As I’ve said, I see the benefit to women, to kids (if any). I just don’t see it for guys in general. No one is saying “Wait! Here’s the benefit to guys…” What you seem to be saying and most others is “Too bad. Suck it up and play, even if there is no benefit to you.” I’m not saying this to be nasty or antagonistic. It’s not that I’m getting answers I want, I get none at all.

    Actually, I’m not proposing any specific solution, just make choices that benefit you as a guy. You see it already occurring. Many men are increasingly checking out of dating and marriage. By leaving the dating/marriage playing field, you hold complete control over your life. You already see women in their 30’s & up asking where are all the good guys? Well, Elvis is leaving the building, so to speak.

    Who will pay for the dates, kids, staying home, etc. then? Fewer & fewer, that’s who.

73. Sarah G Apr 30th 2008 at 08:32 pm 73

    So if you are against dating, courtship, and marriage because they are a losing proposition for men, and you are a man (I think), why are you always writing so much on a DATING blog? Seems an odd CHOICE.

74. Eda Apr 30th 2008 at 09:00 pm 74

    Vino,

    Why ask women what the benefits of dating/relationships/marriage are for men? We never really know why men do any of the things they do. If you want accurate answers, I think it would be best to go right to the source and ask men. While more and more men may be opting out of the man/woman thing (not really sure it’s true), lots more aren’t. Most people don’t do things that don’t benefit them in some way and men are no exception. So, while you may not see it, men must actually find something very worthwhile in dating/relationships/marriage. I suspect, however, that no matter what benefits a man (or a woman) might present, you would argue that they could get those benefits from somewhere else and for a lot less money! The reality is that while you may be content getting those benefits from elsewhere, lots of men want those things from women, and I for one am glad that they do!

    What I continue to find so interesting about men who have opted out of dating/relationships/marriage is that some of you seem to want to recruit other men to join your ranks. I honestly don’t get that. As I have mentioned many times, I am not at all interested in marriage and children, but I don’t try to convince other women not marry or have children. I know that what’s right for me may not be right for them. I am comfortable being in the minority, and I don’t feel the need to try to convince other women to want what I want, or to see the world the way I do….but I march to the beat of a different drum in many areas.

75. vino Apr 30th 2008 at 10:55 pm 75

    Re: Sarah G’s #73:

    Sarah, I’ve written about the whys somewhere else, I think, so I don’t care to re-write it. Check thread about whether women should ask guys out. Maybe there. What I do notice about your post is that rather than even try to articulate even one way I or guys in general benefit from the current dating/marriage expectations, you instead question why I even post. A form of attack, I might add. No biggie. But it also tells me you don’t care if guys get a benefit or can’t think of one. Reinforces my point, unfortunately, which saddens…

    Re: Eda’s #74:

    Eda, I like many of your posts in general, but I respectfully think this one’s beneath your usual standard, and know you are capable of much better. Part of the purpose of this blog is to actually try and understand where someone comes from in the dating arena. See Understand Opposite Sex Day thread. You can’t even think of one way I or any guy benefits in the current climate? No, vino, go ask guys how they benefit. What’s that old saw about not judging someone till you’ve walked in their shoes? My point exactly - women rarely try.

    “Most people don’t do things that don’t benefit them in some way and men are no exception.”

    - So does that include alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts, codependents, OCD disorders, extreme sport adrenaline junkies, etc? The reality is that people do things all the time that don’t benefit them. But, due to lack of knowledge, stupidity, psychological issues, etc, men & women make choices that in fact hurt us every day. Dating/marriage is no different.

    Never said I was seeking recruits for anything. Please don’t create something where nothing exists. It’s a diversionary tactic.

    Sounds cranky, but it’s late & insomnia has been rampant last 2 nights, going on 3.

76. cinnamon May 1st 2008 at 12:18 am 76

    vino,
    You ask for arguments for marriage. I will no present mine because the whole discussion evolves around marriage as financial contract, while I do not perceive marriage as financial contract only (personally, I see just as many pros as cons of being financially bound to a man). I have, however, found a reference to a book which seems to be summing up existing research on the benefits of marriage to both parts:
    http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/waitgalligher.html
    I have not read the book myself, but what I find in the review is e.g. that:
    - Single men have mortality rates that are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990).
    - About 40% of married people have sex twice a week, compared to 20-25% of single and cohabitating men and women. Over 40% of married women said their sex life was emotionally and physically satisfying, compared to about 30% of single women.
    - Married men are more successful in work as well, getting promoted more often and receiving higher performance appraisals. They also miss work or arrive late less often (Kostiuk and Follman, 1989, and Shaw, 1987).

77. cinnamon May 1st 2008 at 01:52 am 77

    oh, and I can see there is a whole chapter devoted to the sexual advantages of marriage

78. Hadley Paige May 1st 2008 at 04:32 am 78

    Eda @ #74 writes: Why ask women what the benefits of dating/relationships/marriage are for men? We never really know why men do any of the things they do. If you want accurate answers, I think it would be best to go right to the source and ask men.
    ————————————
    Vino and many other men ask women what benefit there is to men in dating/relationships/marriage bc we love women (in the abstract) and are attracted to them sexually and as companions. We ask bc we would like to hear something that we may have missed. And if we haven’t missed it then, hopefully women will understand (but probably not like) where we are coming from these days.
    I see what has happened to marriage as a part of what has happened to American society in the last 40 or so years–namely the feminization of society. What does this look like to me? More mommy type laws requiring everyone to be more careful, requiring everyone to be “nicer”. More liability for acts of lesser culpability. More intolerance of “not nice” behavior (e.g. no dodgeball in school). Lower thresholds of criminal liability for alleged sex offenses against women. (e.g. recent court ruled rape has occurred when woman changes mind during sex and it continued for longer than 5 seconds). Increasingly blurred lines of legal distinction btween mariage and not. (meaning that whatever situation the woman gets into w respect to kids, the $$$ flow to her).
    Consequently,while I would like it to be otherwise, my advice to my two sons (and my own behavior) is much like Vino’s response. Namely, date women (while trying to not pay for everything); have sex with women (free vasectomy for each of my sons) but don’t father kids until you are ready to pay child support; don’t marry women (financial risks are too great); generally, try not to hire women for jobs where the door might be closed (don’t need the harasment and dscrimination suits everytime some man executive get promoted when seemingly similarly qualified women are present).
    I love the idea of marriage. Its a beautiful idea and reflects a beautiful goal– A lifelong commitment to a person you love. Its just that in reality, for me as a man, marriage (and many other interactions w women) is a bad idea bc my liability is increased.

79. rsl May 1st 2008 at 04:55 am 79

    Vino, I’d like to reply to your question of what benefit is there to guys in dating and marriage? Well, sort of. I don’t think I can answer it completely, because everyone needs different things. I can completely see your points, as I am sure other men do, but I also think there is an emotional piece to having a romantic partner that cannot be filled anywhere else. Again, this is what benefit *I* think there is to men. I would bet some men agree with this, and clearly, some would not. I realize what the divorce statistics are, and all the injustices that occur for both men and women in relationships and marriage- BUT… I also know a lot of really happy couples who couldn’t imagine their lives without each other. I think for some men, the possibility of this is enough to motivate them to stay in the dating game. I am not sure that there is a much clearer answer in that as to what the benefit is for men in dating.

80. vino May 1st 2008 at 09:25 am 80

    cinn:

    I think you make a circular argument. The higher mortality rate applies to divorced guys also. Women, too, I might add. But since 70% of marriages where I am end in divorce, it’s more likely than not I’d fall into the latter category, no? So what you seem to be saying is stil