Women "Dating Down"

Very interesting article.

My sister makes A LOT more than her husband because she works in an office building doing contracts. Her husband could never do that and not go crazy from it. He's big and strong and loves to work outside doing physical stuff. That isn't as valued.

My wife and I may reach the six figure household gross this year. I make about 60% of the household income but my wife spends 70 % of total income.
Years ago we had a female boss and some of my less inteligent co-workers could not handle it. Any simple mistake made by her was amplified to the tenth power.
I would love it if my wife made more than I. Right now I would settle if she spent less and saved more.
Too bad some men have to behave like men and not getlemen. I think the more inteligent a man is, the less likely he'll have issues wtith women having more money or brains.
Reminds me of a story of a professor who was asked "Who is smarter, man or woman"
His reply "Which man and which woman"

Oops, sorry about the typo. Freudian slip?

"But enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do *you* think of me?"

This program struck me as an exercise in self-absorption. Perhaps people ought to think more about what they can contribute to a relationship rather than what they can get out of it. If you're honest, thoughtful, kind, and selfless, no person of quality will care how much money you earn. But then any advice coming from me is surely worthless, since I'm single and poor. (Got a Harvard PhD instead of an MBA.)

good article

Very offended. Please explain how a school teacher (the very people who defined who you are today) is now not worthy of your highnesses? Perhaps if you spent a few years dedicated to public service instead of private indulgence you would see that we are hardworking (average a 65-80 hour work week) and have a second job because we are not paid for what we do, are highly educated (a masters degree is the minimum) and not supportive of your current selfish attitude (you would be eaten alive in the classroom, by your principal and disliked by your colleagues).

I thought the comment by the caller (or maybe it was a panelist) was very telling. She stated later in the broadcast that she had moved on from the Advertising guy she was dating because he was still working in the basement of the ad agency and "didnt have any drive to move up". She said he made $75K a year. So who has the issue with money?

I noticed that during the discussion it was hardly acknowledged that some women might be reluctant to date/marry men who earn less than they do. Instead, the phenomenon was described as being caused by male insecurities and antiquated attitudes. I know from personal experience that there are high-income women who very much look down their noses at men who earn even moderately less income than they do. It seems to me that the antiquated social attitudes exist on both sides of the equation.

Please have your guests be careful with who they classify as "less educated/intelligent". Just because I may not earn as much as my college counterparts does not make me (a teacher) less educated. I CHOSE my profession based on my personal and career interests and needs - it does not make me less intelligent.

Second, I believe that although there are many double-income families in the world, it oftentimes still falls on the woman to be the primary caregiver. Not only is she working a full-time job, but also working another full-time one within the home.

Maybe it's just me, but these women on the show seemed disingenuous. They sounded like they are realists, and they live in a hip metropolis, so what's their objection to using dating services? Online or otherwise? Such services have the benefit of full disclosure such that those men who are intimidated by these women's earning power can self-eliminate. Why insist on traditional venues of finding a mate when they are the very poster children for whom feminists have fought so hard so that they can live out their lives in such non-traditional gender roles? This whole thing reeks of self-pitying and unenviable whining that do not inspire sympathy at all.

I have to agree with Laureanna. My wife is a tutor. She doesn't make much but she works a lot hard & at the same time takes care of home. All this while taking care of our children. We don't make much & life is not easy but I m so glad I m not married to such arrogant & selfish women but to an intelligent, humble & giving woman.

Ok..I'm listening to this and all I can say is that the women I know, they would smack the mess out of these 2 women. Will comeback for a full response...

Ok..I've heard the whole recording. The whole time, their thinking is MONEY. They've said that they've dated the gambit of men, when it comes to salary. They haven't truly dated the gambit. I think hat they do use their salary as "leverage" in many ways.

Men are genetically predisposed to be want and need to be the bread winning/head of the house/whatever you want to call it. We're doomed because that's what we are *lol*. I never heard in any of their responses about SHARING/going dutch on a date or whatever. it was either the guy picked up the tab or sometimes, they picked up the tab. Why not, share? I'm sure the men they dated wouldn't felt so bad if that was offered. At least the men would've felt that they at least had some sort of control.

Teachers. You know, teachers may not be perceived as more than any other profession in the urban/big cities areas, but outside of Ifey and the other woman's sphere of reality, teachers are larger than life. I've dated a few teachers and have worked with teachers. To lessen them in that way, I was very upset when I heard that. I know of many teachers and even college professors whose husbands make in the range of less to the same and more than their teacher wives.

Me personally...I don't have a problem being involved with a woman who makes more than me. Currently, I'm a professional college student, with many years under my belt, but I haven't finished my undergrad degree yet. But, I've worked with many women, much older than me and some closer to my age who have Masters and PhDs and yet I was an equal to them because of my knowledge and experience. Actually, there was a colleague that I was very interested in who has a Master's and working on her Ph.D (of course I've never told her) and I think that she would've had no problem with the possibility of a relationship (hopefully). So, these 2 women who were on the show, all they really see is money as a factor, why didn't they mention other factors or LOOKED at other factors. Maybe if they did, it wouldn't be so hard to find a man to date, even if salaries are different.

The word I was trying to think of the entire time they were talking I couldn't think of, but now I got the word...condescending. That they were.

It seems to me that "On Point" missed the point on this topic. I don't get it. It would seem to me that by age 14 young women have the rudimentary understanding of how to haunt the thoughts of a young man. They seem to know how to capitalize on "viva la difference". They write notes, deliver fresh baked cookies (personally, not their personal assistant) and otherwise make them believe they are the most important person in the world. What man has not be captivated by the scent of a woman's hair as she tossed it back his way, by the intensity of her stare, and her focused attention and delightful responses to what he had to say? Maybe the surprise of how beautiful where her lips as she shared a bit of his frozen fruit bar, or how gracefully she exited a car, or how lovely the play of light on her face as she gazed out the window. And 10,000 other ways that the feminine captivates the masculine such that a young man can't sleep or seem to think of anything else for days and even the memories 20, 30, 40 years later are a warm spot in the otherwise cold heart of an old man. If a man can have this he is content, if it comes with a couple hundred thousand extra bucks, where is the problem? I really doubt this phenomena can be laid at the feet of "men can't handle successful women" but maybe rather all that pursuit of all this success has suppressed the feminine magic they once possessed in Jr. High School.

Or maybe it is a matter of the proverbial question of "who gets invited to the prom?". It is not the "village bicycle". I would not try to suggest I know anything about the guests place on the "promisquity spectrum", but it would seem reasonable to mention that in contemporary times young women have been mentored extremely well by their society, their sorority and even to some extent their matriarchs on how to assist the man to have an orgasm (as if there was ever a problem here). And in the process may have not set themselves up as the type of girl that is a keeper. And indeed the men that they are encountering have been conditioned to expect the women to exercise such skills, and such easy access to sex allows them to easily add variety to the list of personal demands. Maybe this all reduces the whole matter of male/female interactions to an exercise in how to satisfy today's appetite, with little need to worry about tomorrows. So these successful young women might ask themselves if maybe this is as much or more a factor as to why fulfilling relationships are so hard to come by.

As to the point of the article, I married a woman who made twice as much as me. I think that any relationship worth its salt has the element of the partners feeling a sense of how amazing the other partner is and how lucky they are to have his/her affections returned by such a being. I certainly feel that way. The qualities I appreciated in her were also appreciated by her employer, her youth and beauty being a component for both of us (a topic for another show). And though I now am very comfortably earning well into the six figures and she earns no income, I still know that I am the dope in the relationship and she is the incredibly successful one. And it brings tears to my eyes to think that my children and my community have a person of that caliber so focused on making the world a better place. It is a good result, and would have been silly for me to have been resentful in those early days of the relationship.

And I think it is silly for young women to blame their income on their inability to have a satisfying relationship. I am not coming to that pity party. But I do have pity for young women who have gained the world and are missing out on the things that bring meaning to it. I think they have been deceived and for that I am saddened.

I agree with your last paragraph, Kent. I know of many women who have rush hard and worked hard to get a good education, a great career, but are so bitter because they cannot have a relationship to match. Maybe it's because they worked so hard and didn't take the time to smell the roses. And yes, I fully agree with this statement:

"Or maybe it is a matter of the proverbial question of "who gets invited to the prom?". It is not the "village bicycle". I would not try to suggest I know anything about the guests place on the "promiscuity spectrum", but it would seem reasonable to mention that in contemporary times young women have been mentored extremely well by their society, their sorority and even to some extent their matriarchs on how to assist the man to have an orgasm (as if there was ever a problem here). And in the process may have not set themselves up as the type of girl that is a keeper. And indeed the men that they are encountering have been conditioned to expect the women to exercise such skills, and such easy access to sex allows them to easily add variety to the list of personal demands."

And then on the other side of it, "the prom queen". They've had it handed to them on a silver platter all of their life, look down on any and everyone. So, now that they are at the top, what's works for them in the past doesn't. But they too still have gotten the mentoring of other women who maybe like minded.

While my comments may seem bitter, they are not Because if the show was about men in the same situation, women wouldn't be as considerate to the viewpoints.

Well, I guess I can understand the negative feelings about these women--we love to disparage those who are wealthier than we are, it makes us feel better about not having what they have. I can see how these rich, successful young women could come across as condescending and arrogant. However, I have to say that in the matter of dating I find myself very much on their side.

I have never made nearly as much money as they do, and I'm at least ten years older. But I've experienced much the same thing. The show is meant to catch the attention, so it garners examples from the extremes, but this kind of thing goes on all the time among the lower income brackets too. We are always turned off when the talk turns to money, as if money shouldn't have a place in relationships. It does. In the real world, money matters. Aren't most marital fights about money? Aren't a lot of divorces considerably embittered by battles over money? It doesn't matter if the stakes are $2,000 or $2,000,000, money affects life. If you and your partner can't agree on managing money, the relationship is bound to founder at some point. I'm not saying it can't work when two people have very different financial expectations, but it is naive to pretend that these young women shouldn't consider income when deciding who to date or marry. They are being realistic about their wants. You don't have to agree with their wants, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid.

But money is also more than money. It's often an indicator of other values and, as such, it's important information for people looking for a lasting relationship. Let me be clear here that I'm not talking money in any particular amount--the ideas are valid no matter where you place the parties on the current scale of prosperity. I can't tell you how many single men I've met who aren't simply insolvent, they are unemployed and have no interest in being employed. Yes, one might expect this when a person is in their 20s. But when a person gets to be 35, 45, 55 and is still living at home, or drifting from temp job to temp job… that's a warning signal if you are looking for a stable home and a family. It's unfortunate that this whole discussion got couched in terms of dollars. It's really about values--work ethic, dedication, and responsibility. If a person, man or woman, is devoted to a career that is not lucrative, and they know how to live within their means, great! That is commendable. But if a person is stuck in a job (any income level) because they can't figure out what to do with their life and don't want to take advantage of opportunities that might get them a more interesting (not necessarily a better paying) job, that's a problem. I wouldn't date that person, because if they don't have enough dedication to work for themselves, why should I expect they'll work on a relationship with me? If a man of 45 or 55 can't pay rent when he's living with 3 roommates, that's important information. It tells me that it's very unlikely he'll be able to support a child and woman on maternity leave. If a person can't set goals for themselves and work towards what they want, whether it's a new backpack or a new yacht, why should I believe they are going to suddenly change, and be willing to work towards common goals in a relationship? If I meet a man who is unemployed because he just doesn't have the energy to get out and look for a job, can I really believe that he'll have the energy to devote to a relationship with me? Like it or not, job and income do occasionally--maybe even half the time, maybe even often--have some correlation to perseverance, responsibility, and education level. Why should these young women pretend it doesn't matter? In their position I'd do exactly the same thing--look for older men who have worked hard and enjoy similar things. (Notice that income is not necessarily a part of this statement).

If you think it's unattractive for a young woman to cavil at the fact that her date seems stuck in a dead-end job or doesn't have the funds to go to the opera, let me tell you that it is fully as disgusting to hear from a man of 40+ "oh good, I'm glad you have a PhD, I won't have to work any more, you can support us" or "It's so nice that you have a job, because what I'm really meant to do is lie on the beach all day" or "whoops, I left my wallet at home, but that's ok, you make more money than I do anyway". Sure some women take advantage of men financially, but don't think it doesn't happen the other way. I work hard, whether I'm working inside or outside the home, and I expect my partner to do the same. I expect *shared* responsibility. No, I don't expect a palatial dwelling or a bank balance in the seven figures, but do I expect a long-term partner to help me put food on the table? Absolutely. And if we can't ever agree about what kind of food it should be, well, that's a problem. Might be outweighed by other factors, but don't deride these young women for not ignoring very real lifestyle differences. There seems to be a strong opinion that they should give the young men a chance, that they should look past the lack of wealth to the boundless stellar qualities that only need to be unleashed. Um, excuse me, but how often does a man say after *one* date, "the chemistry just wasn't there"? Seems to me women are dismissed every day because they aren't thin enough, pretty enough, dressed right, or don't fit the type a man likes. It takes about 30 seconds for some men to decide that woman simply isn't right, so it's a bit disingenuous to berate these women for giving a relationship a good try and discovering it just didn't work. They have every right to pursue what they want. I wish them success and happiness.

I have to throw a monkey wrench into all this.

I pretty much don't have issues with women who make more money than me. In fact, my biggest gripe about my prior relationships is that the women gave me too much power and I wanted them to be more assertive about their needs (while also recognizing mine better). I come from a background of growing up with two older sisters and was even the only man at my undergrad who worked as a work study student at the Women's Center and even the Women's Studies program.

Since that time I've found that many of the more traditional women simply don't empathize with the experiences and pressures that men experience. Thus, I have actively sought out the very women who were guests on this show. At one time I had multiple personal ads in which I stated up front that I wasn't going to be a provider and that I was looking for an assertive caring woman who would accept an egalitarian man. The silence was deafening.

I don't know about the guests on the show, but in my experience many of these successful women don't want what they think they want. They say the men have the issue with the money, but deep down I think they do as well. Maybe the guests on Tom's show are just more desperate than other women (and I don't mean that as an insult) and have thus opened their minds to new ideas. In my experience, the two guests on the show do NOT represent them women I've met who clearly make more than I do.

I thought this was a great show. However, there was one thing which stuck out for me, and was never touched upon during the show. Both of the guests, and one of the callers who shared a similar situation, all admitted to working very long hours, indicating much of their time is consumed by their jobs. Simply put, that's going to make it hard to be in any relationship and that probaly have something to do with why guys may have a problem dating them. The same goes for guys working a lot, although they seem to get away with it longer, but it often catches up with them too, sometimes after they've already married.

Whether they like it or not, their success in their careers, currently, signals that is their top priority, and that doesn't neccessarily translate into an attractive quality in a personal relationship. Some choices need to be made here, burning the candle at both ends won't work if they're serious about having a relationship. That isn't to say they can't be successful, just that they need to look into something that doesn't require 80 hours a week at their desk. And, they should look for guys who will do the same.

No guy with any degree of self respect would even consider getting involved with a women who earns more than he does. My mother has always calls it, "Being a kept man."

However, today I think that the phraseology has evolved. Yesterday's "kept man" is now today's "boy toy"! Who needs that load of crap? The movie "Mr. Mom" came out in the early 1980's and I've never met a guy who's mentioned it as being one of his favorite flicks.

The fact of the matter is that there's still plenty of sweet, available and willing secretaries and waitresses in this world so that no guy should ever have to be forced to play the role of "boy toy" or "Mr. Mom" unless that's what he sees as his role in life.

The fact of the matter is that "power women" rarely marry and they rarely have children: just like all the women now living in Russia and China! That statement tells you exactly where we're headed as a society!

"Women's lib" has liberated many American women right out of the gene pool! Bring on those "senoritas" from Mexico! You can be replaced!