Sep26
Women Who Earn More Than Men - And The Men Who Resent Them!
For Whitney Hess, a 25-year-old software designer in Manhattan, the tension that ultimately ended her recent relationships was all right there, in the digits on her pay stub. The awkwardness started with nights out. She would want to try the latest downtown bistro, but her boyfriends, who worked in creative jobs that paid less than hers, preferred diners. They would say, “Wow, you’re so sophisticated,” she recalled. A first look at her apartment, a smartly appointed studio in a full-service building in TriBeCa, would only reinforce the impression. “They wouldn’t want me to see their apartments,” she said, because they lived in cramped surroundings in distant quadrants of Brooklyn or the Bronx. One of them, she said, finally just came out and said it. “Look,” Ms. Hess recalled him saying, “it makes me really uncomfortable that you make more money than me. I’m going to put that out on the table and try to get over it.” But he never got over it, she said. “The sad thing is that I really liked the guy,” she said. “If that hadn’t been an issue with him, we’d probably still be dating.” Ms. Hess’s quandary is becoming more common for many young women. For the first time, women in their 20s who work full time in several American cities — New York, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis — are earning higher wages than men in the same age range, according to a recent analysis of 2005 census data by Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College in New York. For instance, the median income of women age 21 to 30 in New York who are employed full time was 17 percent higher than that of comparable men. Professor Beveridge said the gap is largely driven by a gulf in education: 53 percent of women employed full time in their 20s were college graduates, compared with 38 percent of men. Women are also more likely to have graduate degrees. “They have more of everything,” Professor Beveridge said. The shift is playing out in new, unanticipated ways on the dating front. Women are encountering forms of hostility they weren’t prepared to meet, and are trying to figure out how to balance pride in their accomplishments against their perceived need to bolster the egos of the men they date. A lot of young women “are of two minds,” said Stephanie Coontz, director of research at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. “On one hand, they’re proud of their achievements, and they think they want a man who shares house chores and child care. But on the other hand they’re scared by their own achievement, and they’re a little nervous having a man who won’t be the main breadwinner. These are old tapes running in their head: ‘This is how you get a man.’ ” YOUNG affluent women say they are learning to advertise their good fortune in a manner very different from their male counterparts. For men, it is accepted, even desirable, to flaunt their high status. Not so for many women. “Very, very early in a date,” said Anna Rosenmann, 28, who founded a company called Eco Consulting LA, in Los Angeles, and earns up to $150,000 a year, “a man will drop comments on how much his sales team had made for the year, which meant his bonus was blah, blah, blah.” But, she said, “that’s not how we were raised.” Instead, she said, she starts out dates being discreet. “I don’t talk about myself,” she said. “When people ask me, I’m going to be very honest. But I definitely don’t say, ‘My name’s Anna, I’m 28 and I own a business.’ ” Ms. Rosenmann said that dating considerably older men helps her avoid innuendos from younger men who feel threatened by her professional success. She said that when she has gone out at night with men her own age and has to turn in early to be fresh for work, they have commented , “Oh, Anna’s an adult, she has a real job.” So as not to flaunt her own salary, Lori Weiss, a 29-year-old lawyer in Manhattan, has found herself clipping price tags off expensive clothes she buys on shopping binges, or hiding shopping bags in the closet just so men she was dating would not see them lying around and feel threatened by her spending power. “A lot of guys don’t want to admit they have a problem with it,” she said, referring to income disparity. “They don’t want to be ‘that guy.’ But I think it’s ingrained.” She said one boyfriend “wasn’t too comfortable with me paying for things” on dates, so to make him feel better, she would surrender to his wishes. The two would just “stay home and cook, or just get something cheap,” she said. “We’d skip a movie.” Women said the income disparity becomes obvious in all facets of dating: where you live, what you like to do for fun and how you travel. It often comes down to minimizing who they are — successful, focused women — with their dates, who may be lagging a bit behind. Although these women often say it is men who have issues around their higher salaries, sometimes it is the women themselves who are uncomfortable with the role reversal. Hilary Rowland, 28, bought her first condominium when she was 18, using money she had earned from an online business started when she was 15. Last spring, Ms. Rowland, who lives in New York, started dating a 34-year-old musician. “I usually always fly business or first,” she said in an e-mail message. “The one trip where he paid for the flight — we stayed at a friend’s place — he didn’t tell me the details, then flew us economy on a 6 a.m. flight with a two-hour stop-over, from Salt Lake City, to save money. I would have rather paid myself and flew business at a regular hour.” “When we broke up,” she added, “he was upset that I gave my ‘ex’ more gifts than I gave him. Meanwhile, the only gift I’d gotten from him was a small notepad.” Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket. “I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.” The discomfort over who pays for what seems to be not really about money, plain and simple. Instead, it is suggestive of the complex psychology of what many of these women expect from their dates (for him to be a traditional breadwinner) and what they think they should expect (Oh, I just want him to be a nice guy). On a first date at a lounge in Hell’s Kitchen, Thrupthi Reddy, 28, a brand strategist in Manhattan, watched her date down several cocktails to her one, then not even flinch when she handed the waitress her credit card. Initially miffed, she recognized her own contradictions. “You wonder if you’re being a hypocrite,” she recalled, “because all date long I’m telling him how independent I was, and how annoying it was that men wouldn’t date strong independent women.” (The relationship ended after six months.) Michael R. Cunningham, a psychologist who teaches in the communication department at the University of Louisville, conducted a survey of college women to see if, upon graduation, they would prefer to settle down with a high school teacher who has short workdays, summers off and spare energy to help raise children, or with a surgeon who earns eight times as much but works brutal hours. Three-quarters of the women said they would choose the teacher. The point, Professor Cunningham said, was that young professionally oriented women have no problem dating down if the man is secure, motivated in his own field and emotionally supportive. At least, that’s what their responses are in surveys. Talk about the subject with women a bit older — those who have been out of college long enough to be more hardened — and what you hear is ambivalence, if not downright hostility, about the income disparity. Jade Wannell, 25, a producer at a Chicago ad agency who lives in a high-rise apartment building, started dating a 29-year-old administrator at a trucking company last year. “He was really sweet,” she said. But “he didn’t work many hours and ended up hanging out at home a lot. I was bored and didn’t feel challenged. He would finish work at 3 and want to go to the bar. The college way of life is still in them at that age. All they want to do is drink with the boys on Saturday. I was like ‘Let’s go to an art gallery’ and all he wanted to do was go to the bars.” TO her, his lack of income masked a greater problem: a lack of drive. “I have to say that I didn’t like his career, I didn’t think he had the goals of someone I would eventually like to be with or have respect for,” she said, adding, “It wasn’t the job, it was the passion.” Unyi Agba, 27, an advertising executive with a small firm in Boston, almost always dates professional men, but when she goes out with someone earning less money, there is tension. “This is a topic that’s traveled in my own female circles a lot in the last year,” she said. Across a restaurant table with a man who earns less, “it’s never explicitly said, but there are nuances,” she said. “Things are said like, ‘Boy I’m going to be really broke after this dinner.’ " And her response? “Silence.” Okay, guys, what are YOUR thoughts on this thorny issue?
Filed Under Dating Tips & Advice
Read More...
- Should Men Buy Flowers or Gifts for Women on First Dates?
- How Do You Convince a Poor Guy That You Really Do Like Him?
- To Booty Call or Not To Booty Call?
- First Impressions Over Friends’ Opinions
- Men Always Give Me Their Phone Numbers But I Don’t Want to Call Them First!
ABF Sep 26th 2007 at 10:19 am 1
I do think men find it very threatening to be with a woman who is more successful. I remeber when I was in my 20s my boyfriend was constantly pointing out how feet “left behind” because I was acheiving more in my career than in his. I think it is very sad that men are put off by their partners’ acheivements when they should be celebrating them.
BeenThruTheWars Sep 26th 2007 at 12:29 pm 2
I’m a high earner with a graduate degree so I faced this myself when I was dating. I found the comfort levels depended on socioeconomics: I am most compatible with other secure professionals with graduate degrees who, like me, came from a white collar, middle class background. When I dated people from blue collar backgrounds, who had less education and less drive/ambition/passion for what they did, even if they were in white collar jobs themselves, things were prickly and uncomfortable and I grew to resent always having to pay for everything. I never dated anyone at the same income level as myself, however the guys who were secure within themselves, secure about their accomplishments, secure that they had reached a good point in their chosen professions, tended not to make an issue of the income disparity. Emotionally secure people made the best partners — imagine that.
Craig Sep 26th 2007 at 01:12 pm 3
I’ve dated female doctors and finance professionals who earn several times what I earn and it never bothered me because it’s not like I have a crappy job and I can’t afford to take them to nice places. I’m a lawyer. I do well enough to afford I nice night out for two in NYC every weekend. So it’s not like an affluent woman’s lifestyle is taking a huge hit when I’m buying, even though she earns more. I think this issue really only arises when a guy is dead broke. I might not be able to keep a woman in Jimmy Choos and first class plane tickets year round, but I am more than capable of taking her to nice places and buying her nice things on occasion.
If you earn a good salary yourself, but it just so happens your lady earns a better one, it shouldn’t be a big deal. For example: If a guy earns $100k and his woman earns $150k, they’re both doing pretty well, so who cares who earns more? I think the problem arises with a $35k guy dating a $150k chick. In that instance, you’re talking huge lifestyle difference. Let’s face it, even if a guy earns a fraction what a woman earns, our society says he should still pay for eveything. That’s a lot of pressure on the guy to maintain the woman, and is the crux of this problem.
In my opinion, this issue goes away if we get away from the man pays for everything model of dating. But women will never allow that, even as their earning power surpasses that of men. Women claim they want equality, but they really don’t. When it comes to courtship and marriage, they want a return to the 1950s. They still want their man earning more than them, they still want him paying for everything, they still want an engagement ring while giving no engagement gift in return, and they still want the option of being a stay at home mom. The only reason some men have an issue with women earning more is because they know many women have an issue with their man earning less. So the vicious circle continues.
NML Sep 27th 2007 at 02:20 am 4
It’s true that if you’re both earning high salaries or at least salaries that are in the same ballpark that it’s not as big an issue, however, in the long run, I don’t believe that most men are comfortable with their woman earning more than them. Men have been socially conditioned for a gazillion years that they are hunter gatherers and providers. If it appears that the woman is doing the providing and doesn’t appear to have that ‘need’, then it upsts the gender balance. It doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to have evolved and it doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to be equal, it is very difficult to undo years of conditioning and instincts that are hardwired. The fact the woman earns more really shouldn’t matter but it often does.
As Craig suggests, there is also the widespread acceptance that the man does the wining and dining, but the thorny issue is with men that don’t work or are on a significantly lower income. This is where the applecart gets tipped because if they are already dealing with their own insecurities about what their financial status represents, going out with a woman that can provide for him will only enhance these feelings. Much like there are female golddiggers, there are male ones too, and they reap the benefits of being with a woman with dough and take her for a ride.
Also what women who complain about this issue don’t mention is that often they allow their money to sit there like the white elephant in the room. Before the guy even makes it an issue, THEY make it an issue and after a while it becomes blurred about who really is bothered about the money. And women who habitually go out with men who earn significantly earn less than them have to ask themselves why they continue to do it if they come up against the same problems?
Kat Wilder Sep 27th 2007 at 08:35 am 5
I’m pretty amused by this issue. How much a man makes has never been an issue with me because that’s not how I measure a man, and I would never want to be with a man who measured himself that way, either.
I’m more interested in the man, what he stands for and how he views the world. Who cares about who pays for what? This is where things like having open, honest discussions — with yourself first! — come into play.
But I’ve come to see how it plays out in a marriage once kids come along — who stays home, who doesn’t and why? What has been interesting for me to observe is some of the resentments that occur when women are the breadwinners in their family and the men stay home (and I blogged about it at http://blogs.marinij.com/katwilder/2007/05/married_to_mr_mom_1.html)
My mom sure didn’t have the “problems” we women have today because she didn’t have the options. And isn’t it ironic that the more options men and women have in how to shape their lives, the more confused we all feel?
BeenThruTheWars Sep 27th 2007 at 09:05 am 6
The 1950s get dissed an awful lot — considering that the divorce rate then was 10%, compared to well over 40% today. One in ten babies was born out of wedlock versus one in three today. Yeah, I can sure see why we wouldn’t want to go back to those bad old times. Down with traditionalism! Fire up the torches!
Seriously, though… if it makes a man feel good to pay for everything on the first few dates, or even all the dates, and the woman is graciously receptive and eventually reciprocates at a level that is comfortable for both, I see nothing wrong with the traditional model. It certainly worked the best of any for me. The difficulty arises when the man pays and pays and pays, and the woman takes and takes and takes and doesn’t so much as offer him a bologna sandwich when he’s spent the whole morning hooking up her stereo. Lopsided giving and receiving never works, regardless of who in the relationship has a trust fund, and who has to wait for double coupon day at the dollar store. Although playing Lady Bountiful for some ingrate who is always whining about how he can’t afford her lifestyle gets mighty old, too.
Balance, people. Find folks you’re compatible with emotional health-wise in the first place, and a lot of these issues will be nonexistent.
tom Sep 27th 2007 at 10:35 am 7
I believe MOST men don’t care a bit about what a woman earns, be it $10,000 per year or $1,000,000. Men come in many different shapes and sizes: Some may feel threatened and some don’t care. You can’t put all men or all women into one category about their take on it. Part of dating is finding out who you are compatible with and a few bad experiences with men who feel threatened by female success actually is beneficial because it teaches you about what type of man really is best for you. In the long run, it simplifies matters, albeit it at the cost of narrowing the dating pool and experiencing people who may be threatened and don’t have long term potental. But can’t we all agree quality is better than quantity when dating? Not to mention how many people do you date who actually end up as a partner (1 in 5? 1 in 8?)? It comes with the dating turf.
Susie Sep 27th 2007 at 12:38 pm 8
It’s not just money - men are accustomed to, and more comfortable with being the bigger, more established person. Most prefer to be with women who are shorter, lighter weight, younger, with equal or lesser levels of education and income. Most women prefer to be with men who are taller, weigh more than them, same age or older, with equal or greater levels of education and income. I’m flat broke, a PhD looking for an academic job while working part-time, but men find my education to be threatening if they don’t at least have a master’s degree. It’s silly, but seems to be true.
mrs. vee Sep 27th 2007 at 02:40 pm 9
I agree that this is just another measure of compatibility, but it’s only an issue if one partner turns it into one.
My husband’s ex-girlfriend tried to get him to switch careers so she could stay home with their future children. That was blatantly out of line in his opinion, and pretty much caused the end of them. It didn’t help that he hadn’t ever proposed to her and she was already approaching the subject.
One ex-boyfriend of mine used to jokingly gloat about the fact that I paid for most of our expenses. Maybe it was his way of masking his discomfort, but he brought it up way too much to the point where I could tell he was struggling. Our relationship had other issues, but it came to a head when, after a particularly bad break-up, I initially offered to pay for couples counseling. But then he made some comment in a pseudo-jeering tone about how I was going to “foot the bill for therapy”, and it just made me crawl out of my skin. I can’t completely explain it, but for me it just signaled that we’d run out of reasons to try.
Maybe I too had hangups back then about his inability to evenly contribute to our lifestyle. But at least I know my higher income isn’t an issue with my husband and me today (maybe ’cause I’d say he’s a high earner in his own right?). Point is, if it’s right…if you’re just INTO each other… this stuff flies way below radar as it should. My ex’s comment was just a tipping point for me and the fact that I let it make my decision to leave him probably just says I didn’t have the true will to be with him.
Having said that, compatibility has everything to do with having common goals. It’s something to think about when picking your partner. You don’t want to feel like you’re carrying an unfair share of the load - male or female. So I guess my point is that income shouldn’t be a primary reason to pursue a partner, but if you can’t strike an easy balance with it, that’s probably a good indicator of more fundamental incompatibilities.
verbosity Oct 1st 2007 at 02:56 pm 10
I’d echo Craig’s sentiments, but flesh them out a bit more. Men in general don’t care what women earn. Women, on the other hand, care very much what men earn. Women still want men to pay for everything, which is a holdover from the Leave it to Beaver days and earlier when women were homemakers. They are raised to expect this. now, women want it both ways. They want to work the same jobs and earn the same as men (actually, they usually earn more — see Warren Farrell). This leads to women who seek men who earn more than men, regardless of their income. So, a woman who earns $150k is going to look for men earning $250k & up. Ms. Rosemann dates considerably older men who aren’t as apprehensive about the income. Funny how the article doesn’t mention the older men’s incomes.
Craig is absolutely right. ” . . .women will never allow that, even as their earning power surpasses that of men. Women claim they want equality, but they really don’t. When it comes to courtship and marriage, they want a return to the 1950s. They still want their man earning more than them, they still want him paying for everything,”
Do you notice in the article that the frustrations and issues are driven from the women who still want the guy to pay for all the fineries? Welcome to the frustrations men deal with far more often…It’s worse for the men however. Men don’t expect women who make more to spend it on them. Women on the other hand….most men are resigned to this unfortunate circumstance.
Paul Oct 4th 2007 at 03:01 pm 11
I agree with ‘Beenthruthewars’. The problem is that it has become politically incorrect to espouse traditional men/women roles. But, the traditional roles of men being providers and women being homemakers are very important, and there is a reason for that. The reason is, it works! Fact is, people are generally happier inside of that design. But lets look at the statistics since we’ve changed traditional men/women roles…the divorce rate was 10% back in the 1950’s, now it’s over 50% (not 40%), and one in three babies born to out of wedlock parents as opposed to 1 in 10 back then. Not to mention the things that have happened because Mom is not home anymore when the kids come home…how many young girls have been raped, how many kids have been exposed to pornography, had sex, started smoking, drinking, or were victom to violence ? Was it really such a horrible thing when your mother found out what you did before you got home? So you think the way we did things in the 1950’s were bad? I challenge you to look at what we have now - the women have a lot of what they thought they wanted, ie. more oppertunity, but at what cost? Even the little things like men not liking it when women make more money. Dahh ! Here is the reason girls…men are supposed to make more money! We are supposed to be the bread winners, the providers, the hunter/gatherers. We LIKE IT !!! And we like paying for your dinner and no, it’s not a trade off for sex. It’s not just a social norm, it is the way God meant it to be. Ever wonder why our shoulders are wider? It’s so we could drag back large animals we went out and killed…for you. It’s in our nature. Men are conquerers! Always have been, always will be, and that is the way it should be. It might be a fear, or a little white ball on a tee, but men are conquerers at heart. It’s how we find our strength. It’s a perfect design and needs to be celebrated, not changed. I know this is very unpopular, especially in a place like San Fransisco, but if you don’t like it, complain to God, because He is the one who designed us this way. It’s sad the way things have gone regarding this whole issue and I blame it squarely on the womens movement. The unforseen consequenses of the womens movement, and liberalism in general, have devastated our society and culture. Just because something is politically correct does not mean it is right! We now have folks who actually believe that it’s OK to be married to another person of the same sex ! It’s only been in the last 50 or 60 years or so this has been this way in our collective thinking remember. Before, everybody knew their roles. It was far from perfect, but sooooo much better than what we have now. So the next time your man seems a little funny with you making more than he, remember, you have an option of not having a career and being successful…he doesn’t. What he is thinking is that for every women who is out there making $50,000 - 100,000, there is a man who is not, and trying to support his family.
We need more of the Leave it to Beaver mentality, not less. Men need to demonstrate more of the gentle leadership they were made to show, and ladies need to spend a lot more time looking up to, and respecting, their men. If both sexes did that, we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place. Sorry girls, but we need you at home, not out slaying the dragons, that’s our job.
But don’t believe me…grab a bible and read proverbs 31 and tell me that is not what every woman deeply wants!
palora Oct 5th 2007 at 06:38 pm 12
What utter rubbish, Paul!
If you truly enjoyed conquest and domination, you’d welcome the competition introduced by having women in the workplace. You just want women to play helpless to create the illusion that you’re superior to them.
You want to be respected by a woman? Earn it. Don’t whine about all the women taking the jobs that rightfullly belong to men. Don’t yearn for the days when it was frowned upon for a woman to express her talents (and earning power).
Look, I don’t care how hypothetically unhappy or lonely I may become due to a sagging love life. I will never look at back and say to myself “Gee I wish I hadn’t gotten an Ivy League education and a satisfying career so I could have instead stayed at home adoring and depending on my breadwinner husband. Becoming a successful professional is precisely where I took a wrong turn!”.
How is that supposed to work? And please try to apply a little common sense in your thinking next time. I know it’s hard to reason with a person who quotes the Bible and all, but I have faith in you, man.
Thanks for the “oppertunity” to respond to your comment., and I gladly accept any “consequenses” my words may bring upon me.
Jacky Oct 8th 2007 at 07:58 am 13
Will not! Money is not a bad thing!
Lili Oct 9th 2007 at 09:15 am 14
To Paul..
What God?
You always use that as an explanation..
I haven’t met him, nor am I likely since I am atheist.
Born out of wedlock isn’t a bad thing as such.. especially if both parents are in a steady relationship. Where do you need the church? The 1/4 illegimate children today don’t get teased like the 1/10 did in the 50’s.. and woman doesn’t need to stay in a miserable marriage when she can support her and her children, without (a terrorising of a narrowminded) man.
Luckily you have no real say over matters and things have changed. I prefer today, to your “perfect past”. We can choose other ways, but of course it also means more challenges.. must be overwhelming for those men who are stuck in the past.
hunter Nov 18th 2007 at 09:23 pm 15
…you lucky men, women with a larger income than mine, are far and few in my world…..I keep hearing they are out there!….hhhmmmhhh, this blog made me salivate…
Hadley Paige Nov 21st 2007 at 10:52 am 16
Disclaimer: I speak in generalizations. Obviously each person is an individual and individual experiences vary greatly. So girls, please don’t respond by saying “you are wrong bc my experience was not like that”. Your particular experience does not make the generalization generally wrong.
Men already know that they can’t satisfy women with all their emotional needs. We also understand that we have other compensating attractions which tend make the relationship thing work. (your significant other being a palate of positives and negatives).
One of the things we can provide ( which approaches emotional satisfaction) is the feeling of being taken care of (earn more than them). If I am going to invest time into a LTR I want the greatest likelihood of its success. Thus, being efficient, I screen for likelihood of success. And if she makes more than me, I assume that this means I am going to have to produce greater amounts of countervailing factors to make the thing work. (Greater pressure to produce emotionally which I already know I will fall short on)
So there it is girls. We don’t resent you. Rather we think that its going to be harder to satisfy you.
P.S. I don’t care what women say, I believe that they have a hard time (on some level) respecting men who make less than them. They may not want to believe this and they may tell themselves enough times that they sort of start to believe it, but they really don’t. And this fact translates to a greater likelihood of contributing to relationship failure.
deja_vu Nov 22nd 2007 at 02:07 pm 17
Well, Hadley, at least you are honest!
I have no idea what to think any more….
You grow up, you’re bright and you are encouraged to reach for the stars…. you get there (almost) and then you fall to earth with a bump!
University education, professional job with senior responsibility and an income that has paid for my own condo in a city where real estate is not cheap. Does that intimidate guys? No brainer! I try not to say very much about my job when I am on my dates, but they always seem fixated on it and then they tell me about how they wish they had read more, or studied harder and how they are not as intelligent!!!! If it’s not the job, it’s the condo and my car…
Is it my fault? I have tried to date guys (mostly online) without focusing on their income and I do not insist that they have been to university because some very successful people left school quite early on. For me, it’s a question of how they deal with the cards that life hands out - hey, it’s nice to have money but I need to be sure that I would still believe in my guy even if he lost his job.
High income guy, low income guy, makes no difference it seems…
Last guy I dated was actually working in international finance and he played with my mind big time (I’m sure you’ll come across my post elsewhere).
Add this to all the articles online and in the press about highly educated, high earning women who are destined to live a sad lonely life because they dared to improve themselves, and it takes a tough cookie to remain positive in the rough and tumble of the dating game.
Just an opinion!
Shrimpton Nov 30th 2007 at 11:18 am 18
If what Hadley says is true: 1) that for most men, they don’t seek women for and long term relationship who make more than them because they believe that they can’t satisfy them, and 2) that for women, they really don’t respect men who make less than them ; or stated more positively as: women get more emotional satisfaction from being with men who make more money than then them because they feel “taken care of”; then it seems like the more successful a woman is the less likely she is to find a satisfactory mate. Base on all that being true my question is what do i say to my daughters and what do i encourage them to be when they grow up? Evan, Help!
Jamie Nov 30th 2007 at 05:42 pm 19
Interesting comments… I see truth in all of them, simply because we are talking about individual preferences in dating other people.
It can be done. I have a Ph.D. and earn about 4 times what my husband does. My husband left college after one semester, because he partied too much and had to work full-time. Mistakes and other circumstances from his past determined his earning power today. It is what it is. Now, our finances are our finances. He loves me and our son. He has good qualities and bad ones -just like me. He is “real.” He doesn’t do dishes, cook (but he does do drive-thru) -or any of the traditional “female” things -but who cares? It works for us. Have I settled? No. It comes down to compatibility.
Paul: If you want a traditional wife that stays at home -get one. Many social factors played into what is going on today. If all of our problems began with the womens rights movement -then the onus is on men to be “competitive.” If more women are getting graduate degrees -then it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to say, “get a graduate degree and get a high paying job.” We (women) are not taking men’s jobs. We are getting our own jobs.
Collins Dec 1st 2007 at 02:19 pm 20
“Women get more emotional satisfaction from being with men who make more money than them because they feel ‘taken care of’ “?
I highly doubt that. Women’s sexuality is, as Marc Rudov says, “not coin-activated, it’s voice-activated.” Anymore, women (unless they’re golddiggers) seek not men with HIGHER incomes, but rather men with incomes, period. A man need not “take care of” a woman, just so he pulls his own weight. What women desire more nowadays is men who know how to turn them on sexually, which is something men can do only with their VOICES, not their money.
verbosity Dec 4th 2007 at 03:19 pm 21
I’m not so sure I agree with the notion of “Women get more emotional satisfaction from being with men who make more money than them because they feel ‘taken care of’ “ Perhaps on some level, but I believe women are conditioned from childhood to expect to be ‘taken care of,’ not that they receive more emotional satisfaction from it.
As a literary criticism, I believe this story to be poorly written in that it is completely one sided (only interviewing the higher earning women), neglecting the point of view of men who have dated women that earn more than themselves. As they say, there are 2 sides to every story, not just the conclusion that men resent women who earn more than themselves. By the way, have you noticed that by asserting men resent these women the author has made these women victims? Curious coincidence? Doubtful.
Several things in the story caught my eye…”The awkwardness started with nights out. She would want to try the latest downtown bistro, but her boyfriends, who worked in creative jobs that paid less than hers, preferred diners.”
Also, “Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket. “I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.”
Lastly, “On a first date at a lounge in Hell’s Kitchen, Thrupthi Reddy, 28, a brand strategist in Manhattan, watched her date down several cocktails to her one, then not even flinch when she handed the waitress her credit card. Initially miffed, she recognized her own contradictions.
“You wonder if you’re being a hypocrite,” she recalled, “because all date long I’m telling him how independent I was, and how annoying it was that men wouldn’t date strong independent women.” (The relationship ended after six months.)”
Sorry for the lengthy quotes. However, do you see a pattern emerge? These women are successful and have earned the right to go to nicer restaurants, travel, etc. I do not dispute that. However, do you see the resentment in these quotes when they pay more than the guy? The first 2 quotes reveal ladies who resent sharing their lifestyle of nicer restaurants with men who may not be able to afford them as frequently, if at all. At least the third quote represents a lady who understands the hypocrisy of such a position (but still feels the resentment nonetheless). I think the conclusion is that these women are selfish, in that they resent sharing their lifestyle. I would also submit that a truly strong independent woman wouldn’t care if she paid more during the dating (and marriage) process.
Now reverse the genders, do you think there would be articles in the NYT about how women resent men who earn more than they do in the dating arena (and therefore taking women to the nicer restaurants, travel, etc.)? Of course not.
I respectfully submit that the women referenced in the articles, and those who share the same viewpoints, are selfish hypocrites. I know this language is harsh, but the behavior is selfish, and the resentment definitely hypocritical.
Women like Jamie are wonderfully emotionally intelligent. However, in my experience, they are also very few and far between.
One man’s perspective…
verbosity Dec 18th 2007 at 11:45 am 22
Just to throw some more information into the mix….
http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/071214/sb119760031991928727_id.html?.v=1
Essentially, it says that 74% of 30-something American women say they would marry for money. It further states:
“The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: “How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?”
Fully two-thirds of women and half of the men said they were “very” or “extremely” willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%).
“I’m a little shocked at the numbers,” says Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the University of Michigan who has studied marriage and money. “It’s kind of against the notion of love and soul mates and the main motivations to marry in our culture.”
Still, Ms. Smock has found in her own research that having money does encourage people to tie the knot. “It’s more likely that a couple will marry if they have money, and if the man is economically stable,” she says.
Women aren’t the only ones with the gold-digging impulse. In the Prince & Associates study, 61% of men in their 40s said they would marry for money. Ms. Smock says that as men get older, they become more comfortable with women being the bread-winners.
The matrimonial price tag varies by gender and age. Asked how much a potential spouse would need to have to be money-marriage material, women in their 20s said $2.5 million. The going rate fell to $1.1 million for women in their 30s, and rose again to $2.2 million for women in their 40s. Ms. Smock and Russ Alan Prince, Prince & Associate’s founder, both attribute the fluctuation to the assumption that thirty-something women feel more pressure to get married than women in their 20s, so they are willing to lower the price. By their 40s, women are more comfortable being independent, so they’re willing to hold out for more cash.
Men have cheaper requirements. In the Prince survey, their asking price overall was $1.2 million, with men in their 20s asking $1 million and men in their 40s asking $1.4 million.
Douglas Freeman, a tax and estates attorney in California who works with wealthy families, says the men’s numbers are lower because they would feel threatened by women worth several million dollars. “The men aren’t going to say they want $10 million, because they wouldn’t be comfortable with a woman who’s worth so much more than they are,” he says.
Whatever the case, the prices for both men and women seem surprisingly low, given the new landscape of wealth. While $1 million or $2 million may sound like a lot to people making $30,000, it’s hardly enough to transform someone’s life or make them “rich” by contemporary billionaire standards. No one in the survey quoted a price of more than $3 million.
Of course, when the mercenary marriage proves disappointing, there’s always divorce. Among the women in their twenties who said they would marry for money, 71% said they expected to get divorced — the highest of any demographic. Only 27% of men in their 40s expected to divorce.
Says Mr. Prince: “For these women, it’s just another step on their journey to the good life. They want to be paid what they think they’re worth and then move on.”"
This article, based upon the survey results, shows why it is precisely not in men’s interest, generally speaking, to marry. As this relates to the original post regarding women who earn more than men, I think the theme still remains the same…. that women, no matter what they earn, actively seek men who earn substantially more in order that they may benefit from his higher earnings. My cynical side says this is so predatory and rapacious….
m Dec 18th 2007 at 12:53 pm 23
“Men need to demonstrate more of the gentle leadership they were made to show, and ladies need to spend a lot more time looking up to, and respecting, their men.”
I’m sure the latter will happen when the former happens. Not before. (After all, as you tough-o men say, “You gotta EARN respect.” Right? Right??)
My mother taught me to earn my own living so I — and my children — would never be caught in a bad spot just because some man flaked on his responsibilities. I don’t see why men take such umbrage with this.
All these men ranting about “it’s the women” COMPLETELY IGNORE the men making bitter comments to their SOs in the article and comments.
“So the next time your man seems a little funny with you making more than he, remember, you have an option of not having a career and being successful…he doesn’t.”
Based on what the MEN WHO FEEL THEY’RE UNDER-EARNING have been quoted saying in these articles, clearly they’re feeling they can take that “option” of “not … being successful”.
“I place the blame squarely on the womens movement”
Why am I not surprised?
verbosity Dec 19th 2007 at 08:35 am 24
I just love comments like the ones from “M.” Her comment is one big shaming tactics, an emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. Her comments also demonstrate a disingenuous use of comments out of their context or a gross lack of understanding of the posts on this topic.
Her tactic is simply to demonize men who ask hard questions which is basically an ad homimem attacks. Oh, by the way, it also argues nothing logically.
M essentially uses 2 tactics that do nothing to address the valid issues posted, but are simply designed to shame men and shut down debate.
First, she essentially calls the posters crybabies. - “You gotta earn respect,” and her unsurprised sarcasm at placing the blame on women’s movement (which by the way, is out of context).
I submit that M’s post and similar ones indicates a happy, callous lack of understanding of the point these men are making. That point is women want men who make substantially more so that they (women have options (have kids, not have kids, stay home, pursue additional education, etc.) M and similar posters ignore this fundamental imbalance - that women, no matter what they earn, see having these options as their right (via men who earn more), but that men have no such option….it is simply their job to earn. I grant there are exceptions, but they are so few & far between so as not to be mentionable. The simple point is that we as men are just to earn so she has options.
I actually had this conversation with my mother recently when she questioned why I do not want to marry. When I made my point about how I have no options but that women do, she said “That’s what you’re supposed to do as a man.” (Yes, even she knows the deck’s stacked in her favor.) I said, “Mom, they banned indentured servitude 200-plus years ago. It seems a better option for me to keep my freedom and options.” Her response…”Well, I don’t want to argue about this anymore.”
The beehive analogy applies….the queen bee is served by the worker bees (drones, I think they are called). What M and the other women ignore is the divorce rate (see earlier post). This factors into things also.
The second tactics M and similar posters use is to call men cowards, which is related to calling them crybabies. In doing so she essentially tells men they have an irrational fear of dealing with women. Specific examples are:
“… or hiding shopping bags in the closet just so men she was dating would not see them lying around and feel threatened by her spending power.”
“A lot of guys don’t want to admit they have a problem with it,” she said, referring to income disparity. “They don’t want to be ‘that guy.’ But I think it’s ingrained.” (Note - Do you notice how they’re saying it exists even where there is no evidence of it?)
“Women Who Earn More Money Than Men - An The Men Who Resent It”
” . . .but men find my education to be threatening if they don’t at least have a master’s degree.”
“You want to be respected by a woman? Earn it.”
I would respond to such a tactic by stating much the same thing as above - that there is a difference between courage and and stupidity. And blindly being the “worker bee” would fall into the stupidity category. Furthermore, in taking any risky action (such as dating and marrying), a reasonable person take only calculated risks. In taking these calculated risks, you weigh costs and benefits, and in doing so, many men are finding out that many (arguably most) women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Insofar as the stated sentiment of “You want to be respected by a woman? Earn it,” I would state that men have increasingly less respect for women on the whole the more they realize that women want their wallet for their own options, not for them as people. In other words, you gotta earn it too, ladies.
One man’s opinion….
verbosity Dec 19th 2007 at 08:36 am 25
Apologies for a few typos. It’s laborious enough to type, let alone proof…
hunter Dec 19th 2007 at 05:15 pm 26
……myself and many, many men, would like to date, more women, that, pay more tax revenues, than men do….we keep hearing that they are out there……
verbosity Jan 8th 2008 at 12:18 pm 27
Funny how I do not hear any contrary evidence how women do not seek men who earn more. In other words, women in general therefore seek men who can give them ’security’ and ‘options.’ In other words, money or its equivalent.
Hmmmmm. Companionship for money. I wonder what that’s called?
Jamie Jan 8th 2008 at 01:27 pm 28
Hi Verbosity,
I would avoid absolute statements here. This is a very small community (if I would even call it that). It hardly represents everyone, in every situation, at every time… What would you call a man who pays for such companionship? Is he better or worse? Is he contributing to the “problem,” is he a victim, or did he cause it? Ironically, not too many posts above we had men calling women who supported themselves the cause of all social problems -rather, women should stay at home to be supported. Now, we have others that condemn women for wanting to be taken care of. Mind spinning, huh?
Bottom line, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a social structure with a history. So many factors brought us to this place. Among this structure we have individual preferences/characteristics. Your synopsis of events: a woman that is supported by a man is a prostitute -her husband/boyfriend is a Jon. I see how you got there, but you left out a lot of the story along the way.
Best to you,
Jamie
verbosity Jan 8th 2008 at 03:54 pm 29
Jamie,
Thank you for your comments. I did not use an absolute statement. If it comes across in that manner that is not its intent. However, I, and most other posters do speak in generalities and ‘more often than not’ situations. Reading any of my previous posts clearly indicates that.
My mind is most definitely not spinning. The theme of this thread is, however, about women who earn more than men, complaining about it and the challenges they supposedly face in dating. Those challenges include expecting men who make less than them to still shoulder the financial burden of dating. Mine and other posts above have already pointed out the hypocrisy of such a perspective, so I won’t restate them.
You further wrote, “Ironically, not too many posts above we had men calling women who supported themselves the cause of all social problems -rather, women should stay at home to be supported. Now, we have others that condemn women for wanting to be taken care of. Mind spinning, huh?” Sorry, but that’s not an accurate paraphrasing of the points, and lumping in ‘the cause of all social problems’ into your point needlessly exaggerates the point to an illogical conclusion.
An accurate paraphrasing is that women who can and do earn more than men are not condemnable for what they earn. However, women who expect to receive money (or its equivalent) for being with men are contemptible, no matter what they earn, particularly when they are unwilling to do the same for men in return (generally speaking). Even one of the women interviewed for the article acknowledged the hypocrisy of this. You, unfortunately, do not.
Further, I wonder why it seems so difficult for the majority of female posters to acknowledge that women more often than not demand money for their company (not the best phrasing, but go with it). Ignoring it and blaming men that are dumb enough to do it (which are most men) does nothing to solve the issue. Of course, ladies have no vested interest in changing that rule of the game, since it favors them so…. It is a ‘pay to play’ game.
I would again state that there still has been little to no contradicting evidence how women do not seek men who earn more. Yes, I know there are rare exceptions, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day. If you have read the previous posts you will notice an alarming lack of responsibility by most women for approaching dating in such a rapacious manner, just pointing at men for being dumb enough to do it, a tacit admission of rapaciousness in my book.
Lastly, if you are trying to call me rude or impudent for my posting in order to shut down debate on the point, I must take issue with that. I provided article and survey cites that support my posts and conclusions. I have seen nothing to refute it. Simply attacking the messenger of a painful message does not make the message vanish.
Jamie Jan 8th 2008 at 04:18 pm 30
Hi Verbosity,
I hardly would call my sentiments illogical -but that’s your POV. I have no desire to “shut down” this debate. That’s kind of funny. I don’t think you’re rude. This is an online forum -not something I would waste a lot of time writing a dissertation in a response. There’s nothing in it for me. I do see many holes in your argument and detect some misapprehension of my post -as in mind spinning to us all not you personally -and the blame I see positioned toward women for having a movement toward liberation (I wonder why they would do that if life was so cherry between the sexes…hmmm ). Anyway, I would not condemn women -and I would not condemn men for getting into an adult relationship while having their full faculties about them -irrespective of whom earns what. I do not need to manufacture some general conclusions about the ways things are. Take an evolutionary psychology course, sociology, gender….. It’s been done.
To each his own. I’ve explained before that I earn more than my husband and no biggy -it is our money. A number of my friends are in similar situations. You and I have very different worlds -I suspect.
Best to you,
Jamie
verbosity Jan 9th 2008 at 10:50 am 31
Jamie,
I must respectfully point out that whether you believe you and I may or may not be in different worlds, is irrelevant. Again, this forum is to discuss the posted subjects, not to speculate about the posters based upon nothing.
Additionally, I will kindly point out that I did not call you or your sentiments illogical. Simply put, the words you chose (”Ironically, not too many posts above we had men calling women who supported themselves the cause of all social problems . . .”) grossly exaggerate previous posts to an illogical conclusion. There is no personal attack at you or your sentiments. You offer nothing to contradict my assertion of an illogical conclusion but to mischaracterize what I said.
Further stating that I am calling your sentiments illogical therefore is clearly either a mistake or intentionally done to misstate things. I would like to think that it is the former.
Additionally, you addressed that post specifically to me, therefore, it is most reasonable to assume the ‘mind spinning’ crack was directed to me, not the board in general. So, I disagree with your characterization it was directed to the board.
Respectfully, if you do see holes in my hypothesis, then by all means, discuss them, not me or other posters personally. As I have stated before, I have provided articles, surveys and the article upon which this thread is based as support for my posts. A cursory look at previous posts by you and others reveals a shocking lack of contrary evidentiary support.
Even further, your statement “Take an evolutionary psychology course, sociology, gender….. It’s been done” is rude, patronizing, condescending and without merit. I do not make cracks about the personal details that people reveal as personal anecdotes for the points I make here. I can make several here, but won’t.
You further wrote, “I do not need to manufacture some general conclusions about the ways things are.” just before the above evolutionary psychology crack. While you may not need to manufacture general conclusions about the way things are, that is precisely what the majority of people in this country must do. Business owners and managers must make decisions (ie. - conclusions) based upon the best available information to raise prices, produce more, etc. Judges have to make decisions (ie.- conclusions) based upon the evidence presented to them. Doctors must make conclusions about the symptoms and injuries that present based upon the symptoms and pathology. Potential homebuyers must make conclusions about the market in their area based upon the way things are to buy now or wait for further prices falls. I could go on, but I believe I made my point. It may be you do not like the conclusions I or others posit. That is fine. Please refute these conclusions with something. Do not make an ad hominem attack on me or anyone else simply because you do not like the conclusion absent contradicting evidence.
I do not know that you like or dislike what I write. I do not care. However, I can say with certainty that your posts specifically directed at me are rude and condescending (as shown above). Where they have logical flaws or misstatements, I have also pointed out said flaws or misstatements, not attacked you personally. However, any poster should be aware that I do not tolerate personal rude attacks toward me. Let us discuss the subjects fully, thoroughly and vigorously, but without personal rancor which is unsubstantiated.
Lastly, you have repeatedly stated on several posts in this thread you make more money than your husband. That is fine and kudos to you for career success. However, I submit that as a counterpoint to the assertion that the vast majority of women seek men who make more (see above references), it falls woefullly short. As I said, a broken clock is right 2 minutes of the 1440 minutes in a day. Those 2 correct minutes do not invalidate or refute the other 1338 ones, which is what I am talking about.
lorelei Jan 19th 2008 at 08:56 am 32
Hi, Jamie -
I didn’t find your comments rude, patronizing, condescending or without merit. That is a subjective assessment, one which, frankly, also has no place in a discussion if the goal is rational and respectful discourse. On the contrary, you are intelligent and witty and no more irreverent than Evan can be in his writings, which is a feature of this blog that keeps us coming back for more.
I don’t believe your financial situation makes you as rare as the 2 correct minutes on a broken clock. I don’t feel I need to refute the assertion that the “vast majority of women seek men who make more” because that is an overgeneralization, but I will quote the Professor who was interviewed in the article cited by Evan:
Michael R. Cunningham, a psychologist who teaches in the communication department at the University of Louisville, conducted a survey of college women to see if, upon graduation, they would prefer to settle down with a high school teacher who has short workdays, summers off and spare energy to help raise children, or with a surgeon who earns eight times as much but works brutal hours. Three-quarters of the women said they would choose the teacher.
The point, Professor Cunningham said, was that young professionally oriented women have no problem dating down if the man is secure, motivated in his own field and emotionally supportive.
J Jan 20th 2008 at 03:15 am 33
Not sure if this is best to post under this particular blog topic, or another - maybe the “Should the man pay for the first date?” In any case, this was on www.ican’tbelievehesstillsingle.blogspot.com and is a real profile or personal ad from a guy. I’m sure there are some real doozies from women too. This one is for the amusement of whomever will get a kick out of it. I will not presume to assume I know who of our posters, male or female, that this will amuse.
Subj. heading on I Can’t Believe He’s Still Single was:
Be careful what you wish for…
Posted Monday, January 7, 2008
Older for Younger
Age: 55
Location: Tennessee
Seeking younger woman…..if you ….are 25-40 SWF…petite…..like to sit around all day in your flannel nightgown stuffing your face with chips watching Judge Judy, Springer, and Oprah…..smoke at least two packs a day…want to live off my nice income….never do laundry…cant boil water and wouldnt know a sauce pan from a poodle….have five kids from five different men all within four years of age…couldnt handle a vacuum if your life depended on it….have no clue how to make a bed…owe more on your credit cards than I make in a year….havent balanced your checking account in years….dont own a car but want me to buy you one…want to travel the world at my expense…prone to cheat with the neighbor while I’m at work….will use my razor on your legs and not tell me….havent brushed your teeth in months…..have no clue what feminine hygiene refers to….if you can give swearing lessons to sailors….and would make a priest blush at confession….if you fear your bar will start to charge by the pound to get in…and certainly if you drink cheap wine….then you may be the woman for me. I can promise you the most erotic, wild, passionate, and pleasing 8 seconds of your life twice a week.
Now, if you find humor here. Please send a picture at least five years old prior to your unexpected weight gain and a letter filled with nothing but lies about yourself and I will get back to you. It just might work for us. Serious inquiries only please.
J Jan 20th 2008 at 03:23 am 34
My apologies, there is no “i” in the url aforementioned in my previous post.
That would be www.cantbelievehesstillsingle.blogspot.com where that 55 year old guy’s profile was posted.
verbosity Jan 23rd 2008 at 01:37 pm 35
Hello all,
Lorelei cited Professor Cunningham’s survey of COLLEGE (emphasis added) women, and his conclusion “that young professionally oriented women have no problem dating down if the man is secure, motivated in his own field and emotionally supportive.”
This does not refute the things I cited at all. In fact the very next paragraph of the article reinforces my (and others’) point..”At least, that’s what their responses are in surveys. Talk about the subject with women a bit older — those who have been out of college long enough to be more hardened — and what you hear is ambivalence, if not downright hostility, about the income disparity.”
If anything the articles and surveys I cited augment the article’s thrust. Unfortunately, the “vast majority of women seek men who make more” is a fact borne out by surveys of POST-COLLEGE adults. Believe me, I wish it were not an overgeneralization.
I cannot make anyone acknowledge that women more often than not demand money (or its equivalent) for their company. Oh well. Simply put, men have to realize that 7 out of 10 women they meet have money on their minds, and to act accordingly. While 30% aren’t great odds, they are better than zero.
J Jan 23rd 2008 at 02:34 pm 36
Not all of us live our lives based on statistics, polls and surveys. Many of us were never personally questioned to base empirical and statistical data on, nor were we polled on these subjects or have we subjected ourselves to taking a survey on such.
I am totally cool with it if you do do that or you use it to prove your points. Or perhaps this is what you have found to be true in/from your own personal experiences. Your opinion, your interpretation of the facts as you see them. Your right to express them.
And I have no reason to argue with you as I can’t win - not because I don’t have any valid points, but because I believe you have a very strong opinion on these matters and will not be swayed. This is how it/you appear to be, in any case.
Everyone else here also has a right to their feelings, opinions, and interpretation of the facts as they see them. And a right to express them here in a respectful manner.
Again, I have no beef with that - but knowing that seems to be the case means I have no reason to try to persuade you to see anything otherwise. Nor does anyone else, if what appears to be true is.
As to refuting your argument(s) - you can engage in that all you want to in court and here too- with anyone who wishes to do so. You have implied that we don’t refute your arguments because we can’t prove we are right or you are wrong.
Some of us don’t g.a.r.a. about that. Isn’t why we read Evan’s blog and comment. Most of us are looking for less conflict and better ways of talking, debating, and relating that help us get more of what we want out of dating and out of life more often and that make us more giving in return of what others are seeking.
There is a difference between friendly debate and exchanging of ideas and maybe hearing or learning a new or different view from you own that gives you new insight and/or new facts to go on to further your own knowledge and become more of the successful dater and potential partner you’ve always wanted to be, and sort of getting up in someone’s face and striving to prove them wrong about whatever is or isn’t their opinion.
Yes, some people do that here and that too is your right. I don’t have to care for it, nor do I have to agree with you - though I won’t say I always disagree with all of your points either. Neither do I have to waste your time or mine anymore trying to prove you incorrect in the generalities you keep making about women.
I and other ladies have tried to show a different perspective and state that specifically, we are not all like the women you and a couple of others make a point (pointedly) to NOT espouse (in both senses of the word ; 0 ). Sometimes we have put forth a better effort than others, me included.
I personally don’t care to be called on the carpet if I chose not to respond to another’s comment and be told that I didn’t respond because I knew I was wrong or I couldn’t support my argument. Or be told that I am incorrect in my logic and facts and be subjected to a major rebuttal for stating my opinion or what I know or feel to be true.
I am me - and I don’t fit a lot of the stereotypes. Some yes, but not a lot of them Nor do a lot of other quality women out there.
I know, Verbosity, that you will continue to post and that’s cool, and I will continue to read the comments sections of Evan’s entries and post if I feel like it too. But I am not going to justify how I feel or what I think to anyone because he or she says I have to or says that I can’t.
You are welcome to your facts - and they are your facts, because they are true for/to you. Some of us have found the facts to be a bit different in our own lives with people we know. There is room for both - we don’t all live the same lives or know the same people. And welcome to state them as well. But your facts don’t have to be my facts because they are not all inclusive for me.
There are men out there whom I wouldn’t date if they paid me. I am dead certain there are women out there that you all would gladly pay to go away ; ) - some of you may even think that would be me. No amt. of money or status turns a “personality” sow’s ear into a silk purse.
I wish everyone the best of luck in finding both who, and what, they are looking for in dating and in life.
On a separate note, I do appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you and to learn and grow. I appreciate the fact that while yes, Evan does promote his books, services etc., he does also give real answers to questions for free without leaving people hanging and just saying “buy the book”. I was appalled, Evan at how many people were really harsh and belligerent in the yahoo comments towards you and your efforts.
I may not agree with everything said by everyone all the time here, but I still appreciate that the people who comment here can state differing opinions without being ugly about it. And they do. Thank you all for that.
J Jan 23rd 2008 at 02:39 pm 37
Sorry for the less than wonderful grammar and punctuation in my previous post. Proper commas and such often go out the window when I get long winded.
Also understand Verbosity, that I was not trying to call you out in my previous post, just decided that one post to respond to some of your others and to some of your assertions would cure me of the need to leave a whole bunch of them stating a lot of the same things.
Things I believe, feel, and know to be true from what I have read and experienced. May not be so for you.
In any case, have a good one and thank you all for letting me have an opinion and the right to state it.
J
J Jan 23rd 2008 at 02:49 pm 38
Re: Verbosity’s statements:
“I cannot make anyone acknowledge that women more often than not demand money (or its equivalent) for their company. Oh well. Simply put, men have to realize that 7 out of 10 women they meet have money on their minds, and to act accordingly.”
Not going to try to prove or disprove this, but would like to acknowledge that I do think it is more likely that men in certain fields are targeted by women who are very interested in his income and earning potential (and would bet this also is true of men who target women in same fields for same reason). I think a lot of people, and women especially who are concerned with the man’s wallet are likely to go for lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, famous sports stars - men who they believe make the big bucks.
Not saying that is the reason all women chose to date men in these professions (or vice versa), just acknowledging that it does happen in the dating world. And I do believe there are also good guys out there who might not get a fair shake if their income is a great deal lower than the woman’s. I believe a big disparity or extreme difference in anything - whether it is money made, personality highs and lows - yours vs. your partners, ambition, education - can make having a successful relationship more of a challenge. One person is bound to feel the difference a great deal at times, if not most of the time. Sometimes both feel it.
This is as true of women making more than men as it would be if he made a lot more and felt like he was paying for everything all the time. Or if he makes a lot less, but still feels that way.
sensical Jan 24th 2008 at 01:59 am 39
To those of you who keep moaning about how women dig guys with bucks, give it arest already. Yeah most do, though I don’t happen to be one of them.
I just don’t think it’s particularly productive to focus on that point. I concede to it. And still find it no less unfair to judge men as mates by their wallets than to judge women by their hotness. Life is unfair, right?
I think the people who complain about the rules the most are the ones who are losing the game.
Hadley Paige Jan 24th 2008 at 07:06 am 40
To J: “Neither do I have to waste your time or mine anymore trying to prove you incorrect in the generalities you keep making about women.” “You have implied that we don’t refute your arguments because we can’t prove we are right or you are wrong.
Some of us don’t g.a.r.a. about that.”
OK, guys I want to issue an apology. I am not hung up on statistics, it just seems that way. It appears that comments here to fall into 2 categories. (i) what people have experienced as individuals and statements of what they want; and (ii) people making generalized statements about populations (successful women, short men, etc).
I would never question the validity of a person’s personal experiences, BUT when people start making generalizations, then we have to be very careful that both the facts are correct AND the inferences drawn from the facts are valid. This is a great challenge as there are many logical pitfalls. So I will from time to time point out these errors of logic. I hope it doesn’t get too tedious.
Jessica Jan 24th 2008 at 10:00 am 41
Would agree with you Hadley, that it is prudent to back yourself up with actual data if going to state something is a fact or make statements about something in terms of either absolutes, or sweeping generalizations. Or when just stating what research or studies have found. Or even, doing so when trying to make a point : ) with something other than, or in addition to, your own experience or opinion(s). You/your meaning any of us here. Just want people to take into account that there is still room for interpretation of facts and statistics and that some of us may still fall outside of the subsets (maybe incorrect phrasing here?) of persons who make up those facts or data. Thank you for the comment and the apology, Hadley. I know it wasn’t to me personally, but it is still noted and appreciated.
Have a good one! Jessica
verbosity Jan 24th 2008 at 03:01 pm 42
I would second Hadley P also.
For J, if I may, it seems we state much the same thing re: percentages, though from different perspectives. I don’t live my life by them, but I do acknowledge the probabilities that such stats, etc, illustrate. I think you do have to acknowledge that these probabilities do exist and adjust yourself accordingly. Obviously, a great deal of life (the kind we prefer I think) occurs in the minority percentages of things I and other have cited.
I trust that others do not think I disregard someone else’s personal experiences, just as I hope that if I use a survey that says 74% of women would marry for money, it does not mean I think ALL women want that (which I believe is Hadley’s caution). It simply means I believe a large majority of women at large do, based upon some research (and particularly experience where I live). It appears from J’s post that she does not place income and money as the overwhelming priority in dating. Therefore, it appears she lives in the 26% (as opposed to 74%), something I applaud, and wish I saw more of. That said, I am sure that many who live in this 26% zone have a few friends that follow the other route….
J, I am truly sorry if you or any other reader thinks that I simply seek to prove them wrong. That is not the case at all. This forum is about expressing different perspectives. That said, I think both sexes are usually unwilling to see the other’s side of the story. Perhaps it is this topic, I do not know. For my part, I am shocked that not one female poster (save for J) acknowledges any kind of double-standard regarding the issue of women (generally speaking) having issues with men they date who earn significantly less. Based upon what I’ve seen, it’s very widespread. Trying to stay on-topic.
You can call me angry if you want (which seems to be the usual tactic - a fallacious one I might add), but I am stating my personal observations and conclusions, which seem to be supported by some research. That doesn’t prove me right and someone else wrong. It just means there’s more support for the point I made, not that someone else’ is invalidated entirely.
I also agree with Hadley and second re: his last sentences.
So when do we see the NYT article on women who resent men who earn more than them (women) in the dating arena?
m Jan 25th 2008 at 08:20 pm 43
http://www.advicefromasingledatingexpert.com/how-do-you-convince-a-poor-guy-that-you-really-do-like-him/
Also.
Verbosity. You have more than proved that you picked your username brilliantly.
Please. For the love of all that is holy. Put a sock in it.
Selena Jan 27th 2008 at 06:32 pm 44
m–
If only! Thanks for saying what I imagine many of us have been wishing for some time. Rotflmao.
J Jan 28th 2008 at 12:02 am 45
I don’t know if I would say that women resent men for making more than they, but we do care or we wouldn’t have spent so very many decades fighting for equal pay for equal work ; ) I’m sure there are women who out and out still resent when a man makes a lot more (if doing similar job), but there are a lot of us who just want the same opportunity. This has improved tremendously in the last 40 or so years. [ I did bold some key points and it didn’t transfer over from Word nor would it let me do them separately in this post. ]
But not as quickly as many think. And the Wage Gap still exists in many (not all cases) – though it is a great deal more narrow than it was in 1963 or before:
Food for thought -
(this was written 4-5 years ago) Article by Borgna Brunner -
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html
(link to full article as originally printed)
The Wage Gap
A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act
by Borgna Brunner (infoplease.com)
June 10, 1963: John F. Kennedy signs the Equal Pay Act into law. Almost four decades later, men’s and women’s salaries have yet to reach parity.
NOTE/KEY POINTS:
*The wage gap is a statistical indicator often used as an index of the status of women’s earnings relative to men’s.
The wage gap is expressed as a percentage
*** (e.g., in 2005, women earned 81% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by median annual earnings for men.
***In 2005, for example, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men’s salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made… (there are some reasons listed - end of article - for why older women made less that do make some sense)
Since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was signed, the closing of the wage gap between men and women has been at a rate of about half a penny a year.
Rosie the Riveter: Patriotic and Underpaid
“Because of the large number of American women taking jobs in the war industries during World War II, the National War Labor Board urged employers in 1942 to voluntarily make “adjustments which equalize wage or salary rates paid to females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.”
Not only did employers fail to heed this “voluntary” request, but at the war’s end most women were pushed out of their new jobs to make room for returning veterans.
Help wanted—Separate and Unequal
Until the early 1960s, newspapers published separate job listings for men and women. Jobs were categorized according to sex, with the higher level jobs listed almost exclusively under “Help Wanted—Male.” In some cases the ads ran identical jobs under male and female listings—but with separate pay scales. Separate, of course, meant unequal: between 1950 and 1960, women with full time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job.
It wasn’t until the passage of the Equal Pay Act on June 10, 1963 (effective June 11, 1964) that it became illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of their sex. Demonstrable differences in seniority, merit, the quality or quantity of work, or other considerations might merit different pay, but gender could no longer be viewed as a drawback on one’s resumé.
The Courts Nix the “Going Market Rate” for Women
The act was gradually expanded over the next decade to include a larger segment of the workforce, and between June 1964 and Jan. 1971 back wages totaling more than $26 million were paid to 71,000 women.
Two landmark court cases served to strengthen and further define the Equal Pay Act:
Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
Ruled that jobs need to be “substantially equal” but not “identical” to fall under the protection of the Equal Pay Act. An employer cannot, for example, change the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men.
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), U.S. Supreme Court:
Ruled that employers cannot justify paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the “going market rate.” A wage differential occurring “simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women” was unacceptable.
The blatant discrimination apparent in these court cases seems archaic today, as does the practice of sex-segregated job listings. The workplace has changed radically in the decades since the passage of the Equal Pay Act.
But what has not changed radically, however, is women’s pay. The wage gap has narrowed, but it is still significant. Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963;
in 2005 they earned 81% of men’s wages—an improvement of about half a penny per dollar earned every year.
Why is there still such a disparity?
Why Such a Wide Wage Gap After Nearly Four Decades?
A variety of explanations for the persistent wage gap have been offered. One is that older women are factored into the wage gap equation, and many of these women from an older generation work in jobs still subject to the attitudes and conditions of the past. In contrast, the rates for young women coming of age in the 1990s reflect women’s social and legal advances.
In 2005, for example, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men’s salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made…
[have cut a couple of paragraphs here]”
Conclusion of Article:
Women have made enormous progress in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act, but the stubborn fact remains that four-and-a-half decades later the basic goal of the act has not been realized.
But not as quickly as many think. Food for thought -
Article by Borgna Brunner -
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html
The Wage Gap
A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act
by Borgna Brunner
June 10, 1963: John F. Kennedy signs the Equal Pay Act into law. Almost four decades later, men’s and women’s salaries have yet to reach parity.
Related Links
Women’s History Month
Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s
Median Annual Earnings by Sex
Median Annual Earnings by Sex and Race
The wage gap is a statistical indicator often used as an index of the status of women’s earnings relative to men’s.
The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2005, women earned 81% as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by median annual earnings for men.
Since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was signed, the closing of the wage gap between men and women has been at a rate of about half a penny a year.
Rosie the Riveter: Patriotic and Underpaid
Because of the large number of American women taking jobs in the war industries during World War II, the National War Labor Board urged employers in 1942 to voluntarily make “adjustments which equalize wage or salary rates paid to females with the rates paid to males for comparable quality and quantity of work on the same or similar operations.”
Not only did employers fail to heed this “voluntary” request, but at the war’s end most women were pushed out of their new jobs to make room for returning veterans.
Help wanted—Separate and Unequal
Until the early 1960s, newspapers published separate job listings for men and women. Jobs were categorized according to sex, with the higher level jobs listed almost exclusively under “Help Wanted—Male.” In some cases the ads ran identical jobs under male and female listings—but with separate pay scales. Separate, of course, meant unequal: between 1950 and 1960, women with full time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job.
It wasn’t until the passage of the Equal Pay Act on June 10, 1963 (effective June 11, 1964) that it became illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of their sex. Demonstrable differences in seniority, merit, the quality or quantity of work, or other considerations might merit different pay, but gender could no longer be viewed as a drawback on one’s resumé.
The Courts Nix the “Going Market Rate” for Women
The act was gradually expanded over the next decade to include a larger segment of the workforce, and between June 1964 and Jan. 1971 back wages totaling more than $26 million were paid to 71,000 women.
Two landmark court cases served to strengthen and further define the Equal Pay Act:
Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Ruled that jobs need to be “substantially equal” but not “identical” to fall under the protection of the Equal Pay Act. An employer cannot, for example, change the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men.
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), U.S. Supreme Court
Ruled that employers cannot justify paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the “going market rate.” A wage differential occurring “simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women” was unacceptable.
The blatant discrimination apparent in these court cases seems archaic today, as does the practice of sex-segregated job listings. The workplace has changed radically in the decades since the passage of the Equal Pay Act.
But what has not changed radically, however, is women’s pay. The wage gap has narrowed, but it is still significant. Women earned 59% of the wages men earned in 1963; in 2005 they earned 81% of men’s wages—an improvement of about half a penny per dollar earned every year. Why is there still such a disparity?
Why Such a Wide Wage Gap After Nearly Four Decades?
A variety of explanations for the persistent wage gap have been offered. One is that older women are factored into the wage gap equation, and many of these women from an older generation work in jobs still subject to the attitudes and conditions of the past. In contrast, the rates for young women coming of age in the 1990s reflect women’s social and legal advances. In 2005, for example, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men’s salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made.
Equal Pay in the Millennium?
Does this imply that once the oldest generation of women has retired the wage gap will shrink considerably? Perhaps. But even the narrow wage gap of 92.1% that applies to women under 25 looks less rosy when you consider commentator Katha Pollitt’s take on it:
Young men and women have always had earnings more compatible than those of their elders: starting salaries are generally low, and do not accurately reflect the advantages that accrue, or fail to accrue, over time as men advance and women stay in place, or as women in mostly female kinds of jobs reach the end of characteristically short career paths.
(The Nation, April 14, 1997)
Women have made enormous progress in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act, but the stubborn fact remains that four-and-a-half decades later the basic goal of the act has not been realized.
J Jan 28th 2008 at 12:25 am 46
I appreciate both Hadley and Verbosity taking the time to reply to my posts and respect both of you and your opinions/feelings. Thank you for your time and your efforts.
I think some of the numbers that still exist today are still likely to be a bit depressing and disheartening in a lot of areas - for both men and women. Whether they pertain to the dating, job/work force, financial, or other realms.
Though the world is a much better place for the most part - for most people - than it was in the past. More opportunity/opportunities overall than anyone had 50 or 100 or more years ago. And even more recently than that.
So I find myself trying to focus on whatever the positive numbers or information might be or I get too discouraged.
I do agree though that when one is seriously tempted to take something too personally, being able to look at statistics and percentages and say, Aha - 60% of men tend to not write back after a first date or 80% will go for bigger boobs and sex if they can get it, or 74% of women would marry for money or 65% of women won’t date what they consider a short man … (NOTE: Made these numbers up except for the one quoted by Verbosity about women and money) - is very helpful.
After, of course, I have looked to see if I might HAVE done or said anything that did contribute to the undesired action/reaction, situation, outcome, etc. It still takes two people to make, or break, a friendship, relationship, partnership or whatever. Even if we didn’t do anything directly, or don’t think we did, the choices we did and didn’t make still play into it.
In some cases, we may find we still keep managing to date men who look at us more for our bodies (or what we don’t have) and rate us by hot or not even though there are men out there - somewhere ; ) - who could see us as beautiful and enticing because we have a brain and a great personality, sense of humor, and a giving/caring heart. Same goes for men - some of it is that yes, there are a lot of people out there who pre-judge us for surface (some say shallow - I think that depends on the degree in which these factors hold weight, and how much weight they hold) reasons in general - but if you find that you are constantly with that kind of person, then it does also have something to do with who you seem attracted to, the choices you make, probably your mindset at the time.
There are great men out there - I know this, because I have dated some of them - and a lot of really good women out there. It just takes some real work to find, and KEEP, one of the