EasyHeart Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 This is an interesting article about women who make more money than their husbands. It focuses on marriages, but I think it's applicable to dating (and maybe a cautionary tale!) http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/ (Warning: the people described in the article may make you vomit a little).
Taramere Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 This is an interesting article about women who make more money than their husbands. It focuses on marriages, but I think it's applicable to dating (and maybe a cautionary tale!) http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/ (Warning: the people described in the article may make you vomit a little). I can only imagine some of the responses that will follow your post here, EH. And I really do mean imagine. LS has been so sour and unpleasant lately that I've resorted to the ignore button. The examples are pretty extreme, aren't they? Most women I know who earn decent money are with men who are in the same position. The only people I know who are earning really big bucks are people who own their own businesses..and in those situations, both parties tend to contribute towards the running of the business. Really, what the entire article says to me is that while there are many obvious advantages to earning big money, it also creates problems. Not least, that there is a disparity of income that results in a power imbalance. Not being prepared to fund a partner's lifestyle so that it is equivalent to your own sounds perfectly fair in theory. In practice, what kind of relationship does it lead to? I think it probably does result in a parent/child situation....unless the person who doesn't bring anything financial to the table brings other things that their partner values extremely highly. Unfortunately, most people do tend to focus on monetary value. It's simpler and easier than trying to quantify the happiness a person brings to your life, or the ways in which you've benefited from knowledge and wisdom that they had, or the emotional support they give you...or the social contacts they make that help you in all kinds of ways. I suspect this thread will be turned into another diatribe against Modern Women (as if those were in such short supply around here). For me, the article is a sad commentary on the inability of so many people of both genders to value anything other than in monetary terms....and how destructive to their own happiness that can be.
Woggle Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 This shows that women are just as caught up in gender roles as men are.
carhill Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Why does money determine who's alpha and who's beta?
Emilia Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Why does money determine who's alpha and who's beta? I was just about to say the same thing. The whole alpha/beta thing is nonsense but according to this article my Paratrooper ex would be a 'beta' because I earned about 3 times as much as him.
Feelsgoodman Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I was just about to say the same thing. The whole alpha/beta thing is nonsense but according to this article my Paratrooper ex would be a 'beta' because I earned about 3 times as much as him. Being a paratrooper doesn't necessarily make you an alpha. In fact, being a good soldier requires beta qualities (i.e. doing what you're told and following orders unquestionably). People have no idea what the term "alpha" actually means.
carhill Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I'll take a stab at the answer... Because a certain segment of society equates money with power over others as the primary function. It's possible to view money in many ways. Some view it as security; some view it as freedom; some view it as independence. As an example, I can be secure, be free and be independent without holding alpha court over others. However, I can also use my money to lord over others, to subjugate them, to hold power over them. The gist of what I gleaned from the article is simply that those data points, or most, had not yet evolved into the opportunities and successes that societal change had/has afforded them. They are living in a new era and still maintain the old ways and philosophies and customs regarding relationships and their own feelings. They can choose differently. I'll remain on the lookout for exceptions.
Emilia Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Being a paratrooper doesn't necessarily make you an alpha. In fact, being a good soldier requires beta qualities (i.e. doing what you're told and following orders unquestionably). People have no idea what the term "alpha" actually means. I fear you are talking about something you have no understanding of .. nothing different from the usual
grkBoy Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I look at marriage and relationships as a partnership, and both sides need to be ready to give. If a woman earns more money than her man, then the man should be there in other aspects. That artist-husband who is at home painting while the wife is working should be willing to take on the "mom" role. Clean the house, cook dinner, go to the PTA meeting. Likewise, the wife should NOT look down on him for it. She should get mad when she's working, cooking, cleaning, going to kid-stuff, and yet he's painting and watching TV all the time. I've met a few successful women who were obsessed with "marrying up", but they lamented often on how the successful men didn't want them, but rather a "young hot slut" to be his "trophy". Guess what? THAT'S LIFE! In each instance, I asked them how they looked at a male teacher or even an artist. They all looked at them favorably, but still seemingly were trapped in the past thinking of how the man should be the breadwinner. I asked them what would happen if they met a "better" man and he wanted her to give up her career to be a housewife and SAHM. I even asked how they would react if he was a millionaire and more or less "requires" her to maintain a beautiful body no matter what? I know this is extreme, but this is what many of these successful women were doing. They wanted a "Mr Big", but can't accept that these guys really don't care about how smart or successful a woman is compared to her face, hair, bust size, and BMI. A few of these women choose to remain single and "never settle". A few actually started to look at men differently and each found love with guys who are responsible, loyal, established, but not earning more than her. If a guy can't handle his woman making more than him, then he should end it and find a "lesser" woman, but not complain how he can't move up the ladder compared to the women around him. If a woman can't handle her man making less than her, then she can dump him, but she should also realize how lonely it gets at the top. Unless she's going to look for a hot broke trophy man, then the hope of "marrying up" will be much harder. I myself might face my fiance making more than me. Dental Hygienists make a lot nowadays. I do well, but she might actually do better. Do I feel my masculinity is in danger? No. I think if she would even dare to look down on me, I'd end it and walk away. That's my male strength. The fact I won't tolerate disrespect. This craptastic economy has hit men harder, so women will need to rethink it all, or keep on complaining how the successful men won't look their way.
Els Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I look at marriage and relationships as a partnership, and both sides need to be ready to give. If a woman earns more money than her man, then the man should be there in other aspects. That artist-husband who is at home painting while the wife is working should be willing to take on the "mom" role. Clean the house, cook dinner, go to the PTA meeting. Likewise, the wife should NOT look down on him for it. She should get mad when she's working, cooking, cleaning, going to kid-stuff, and yet he's painting and watching TV all the time. I think this is a very good way of looking at things. I've met a few successful women who were obsessed with "marrying up", but they lamented often on how the successful men didn't want them, but rather a "young hot slut" to be his "trophy". Guess what? THAT'S LIFE! In each instance, I asked them how they looked at a male teacher or even an artist. They all looked at them favorably, but still seemingly were trapped in the past thinking of how the man should be the breadwinner. I asked them what would happen if they met a "better" man and he wanted her to give up her career to be a housewife and SAHM. I even asked how they would react if he was a millionaire and more or less "requires" her to maintain a beautiful body no matter what? I know this is extreme, but this is what many of these successful women were doing. They wanted a "Mr Big", but can't accept that these guys really don't care about how smart or successful a woman is compared to her face, hair, bust size, and BMI. A few of these women choose to remain single and "never settle". A few actually started to look at men differently and each found love with guys who are responsible, loyal, established, but not earning more than her. I think both genders make this sort of mistake - picking and choosing parts of traditional roles that favour them, and discarding those that don't. Plenty of men who believe in a 50/50 split of cash contribution to everything, but also desire the woman to perform traditional female tasks.
carhill Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Man is a retired business owner; woman is a practicing lawyer. His earned income is next to nothing but he has millions in assets and spends his time and some of his money contributing to the community. His wife has a sizeable income tax bill at the end of the year due to her high income as a lawyer. They live in one of the many homes he owns and vacation at others. How can we tell who is the alpha and who is the beta? After all, his millions could have come from a few timely inventions he has patented while working away in relative obscurity, along with some smart business sense. He could definitely be the beta in the relationship. Is he a trade-in? Perhaps. I would hope he got an iron-clad pre-nup.
blueskyday Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) I think marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. All duties, money, etc. are to be negotiated. I stayed home for years and raised kids. My ex husband was a powerful man who had great earning potential. WE decided I would stay home and take care of the kids. It could have easily been him if we had decided that. He was completely capable. Running a house is like running a business! All of our assets were in BOTH of our names, and he set up an IRA for me. I was an excellent cook, housekeeper, and first teacher for the children. He cut the grass, took care of the cars, cleaned the house on the weekend, etc. We both WORKED every day. Neither of us was lazy. When he got home at the end of the day, we both took care of the kids and house. No one sat on their butt while the other one cleaned up. Even though it looked like a stereotypical male/female traditional marriage, it was a CHOICE, and we played to our strengths, whatever they were. I see how lucky I was to have that. Money is to be shared. If I made $270K like the woman in the article, I would consider it to be BOTH my husband's and mine. If the roles were reversed and the husband made that kind of money, a stay home wife/mother would be furious to be told that it is not HER money, too. What emasculates men is the attitude that it is all separate. I can't imagine my husband leaving me an IOU or "giving him a spending allowance." It's all OURS. He could spend $100 on a tennis lesson if he was taking care of our house, children, etc..It's his choice....Wow, what a controlling wife to say "he isn't at the $100 level of tennis playing." It's not about money at all. It's about the mind set. There is so much value to a man who takes care of a house, kids, or simply has the time to pursue his art if there is enough money made that he can do that... What happened to wanting your spouse to be HAPPY in order for you to be HAPPY? Edited November 29, 2011 by blueskyday
eerie_reverie Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Most of the men in that article sounded like losers/ freeloaders to me. I don't need a man who earns more but he should at least be working as hard. I would hate to be in a relationship like that.
Wolf18 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Man is a retired business owner; woman is a practicing lawyer. His earned income is next to nothing but he has millions in assets and spends his time and some of his money contributing to the community. His wife has a sizeable income tax bill at the end of the year due to her high income as a lawyer. They live in one of the many homes he owns and vacation at others. How can we tell who is the alpha and who is the beta? After all, his millions could have come from a few timely inventions he has patented while working away in relative obscurity, along with some smart business sense. He could definitely be the beta in the relationship. Is he a trade-in? Perhaps. I would hope he got an iron-clad pre-nup. Having money and "assets" does not make you an Alpha male.
stillafool Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I think marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. All duties, money, etc. are to be negotiated. I stayed home for years and raised kids. My ex husband was a powerful man who had great earning potential. WE decided I would stay home and take care of the kids. It could have easily been him if we had decided that. He was completely capable. Running a house is like running a business! All of our assets were in BOTH of our names, and he set up an IRA for me. I was an excellent cook, housekeeper, and first teacher for the children. He cut the grass, took care of the cars, cleaned the house on the weekend, etc. We both WORKED every day. Neither of us was lazy. When he got home at the end of the day, we both took care of the kids and house. No one sat on their butt while the other one cleaned up. Even though it looked like a stereotypical male/female traditional marriage, it was a CHOICE, and we played to our strengths, whatever they were. I see how lucky I was to have that. Money is to be shared. If I made $270K like the woman in the article, I would consider it to be BOTH my husband's and mine. If the roles were reversed and the husband made that kind of money, a stay home wife/mother would be furious to be told that it is not HER money, too. What emasculates men is the attitude that it is all separate. I can't imagine my husband leaving me an IOU or "giving him a spending allowance." It's all OURS. He could spend $100 on a tennis lesson if he was taking care of our house, children, etc..It's his choice....Wow, what a controlling wife to say "he isn't at the $100 level of tennis playing." It's not about money at all. It's about the mind set. There is so much value to a man who takes care of a house, kids, or simply has the time to pursue his art if there is enough money made that he can do that... What happened to wanting your spouse to be HAPPY in order for you to be HAPPY? Wonderful post blueskyday!
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 I've never looked at relationships as a one-up-one-down arrangement. Life happens. I want someone who will be with me through thick or thin. I don't want to feel like I can't accept a promotion because it will make my SO insecure. I also want the man I'm with to know that if his career takes a hit, I will be there for him too. We're supposed to be a team. Not competitors. That said, I do agree that work/family balance is something we all have to negotiate. I've avoided the men with the super-high powered careers mostly because they are never home. Not because of $$ differences. The reverse is also true for men who might stay at home while I worked. He needs to be passionate about something!! That is what keeps things interesting. If all anyone does (man or woman) is sit around the house and drink/smoke/eat with nothing productive to show for their time... then that would be a problem. Probably for just about anyone.
dasein Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Alpha/beta distinctions are inapplicable to human beings because we don't live in packs with multiple adults, we have an overlay called "society" consisting of laws and culture, standards that animals don't have, and we are possessed of self-reflection, unlike animals. If there were the possibility of a comparison, most truly alpha male men are in prison for behavior that wins for animals but loses for us. So starting off with that silly title, no idea what the point of the article is. Women have benefitted from affirmative action for decades now, and have been equal to men in the workplace for even more decades, so no idea why the phenomenon the article describes is considered unusual or anomalous. Just another NY mag page filler. If income is important to people, they should marry accordingly, and if they marry people who earn less, and then start rolling out BS characterizations such as "parental" later in the marriage to describe a mere income disparity in an effort to assuage their own venal guilt, those people are dishonest a-holes. Moreover, the type of people who would lose sexual attraction to their spouse based on income or career success are emotional infants. I'm thankful that my Dad (nor any man in my family) lost sexual interest in my working mother due to her making less than he did, or inflict some BS characterization of their relationship as parent/child due to income disparity, they likely wouldn't be married today.
carhill Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Having money and "assets" does not make you an Alpha male. I'm commenting on the article. What are you commenting on?
CarrieT Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I lived with a man for almost 12 years and in the last decade of the relationship, I was the breadwinner. And, yes, I began to resent the hell out of him and it killed any sexual desire I had for him. I was working three jobs to buy all the STUFF that we had to have and the best job he could get was as a night stock clerk at Target. That was no big deal when we were in our late 20s, but by the time I was approaching 40 and I had made professional headway and he had not, I broke up with him. But I realized that I became bitter for being the parent in the relationship - it was definitely not a PARTNERSHIP by any stretch. Interestingly, for me the relationship I am getting involved with now (with a wealthy doctor), is going the opposite: He wants to pay for things and I am insisting that I pay my fair share. It is the only thing we really argue about.
AHardDaysNight Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Wait, how does the amount of money you make make you an alpha?
CarrieT Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Wait, how does the amount of money you make make you an alpha? For most people in most relationships, he or she who brings in the most income is placed in a position of power or authority. Rarely does someone bring home a huge chunk-o-change and have the other partner decide how that money is spent.
AHardDaysNight Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 For most people in most relationships, he or she who brings in the most income is placed in a position of power or authority. Rarely does someone bring home a huge chunk-o-change and have the other partner decide how that money is spent. What if both of you are broke? Does that suddenly make you both beta? :lmao:
fortyninethousand322 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I lived with a man for almost 12 years and in the last decade of the relationship, I was the breadwinner. And, yes, I began to resent the hell out of him and it killed any sexual desire I had for him. I was working three jobs to buy all the STUFF that we had to have and the best job he could get was as a night stock clerk at Target. That was no big deal when we were in our late 20s, but by the time I was approaching 40 and I had made professional headway and he had not, I broke up with him. But I realized that I became bitter for being the parent in the relationship - it was definitely not a PARTNERSHIP by any stretch. Interestingly, for me the relationship I am getting involved with now (with a wealthy doctor), is going the opposite: He wants to pay for things and I am insisting that I pay my fair share. It is the only thing we really argue about. Did you resent him because he could only get a job at Target, or because he wouldn't work three jobs like you did? If he had gotten two or three low paying, low skill jobs would you still have resented him?
Els Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 What if both of you are broke? Does that suddenly make you both beta? :lmao: Hrm, I don't think Carrie said per se that earning power makes one a 'beta' or 'alpha' - I don't even agree with the terms to begin with, but anyhow. All she said was that the person who earns significantly more, usually has greater control over how the money is spent. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with her statement. Flipping the genders around, so that I don't get accused of being a feminazi, as I expect I will be: If a woman is a SAHM and wants to go for $100 manicures every week, I would imagine her partner is entitled to tell her (nicely, of course, not like the lady with the $100 tennis husband in the article) that he feels she should not do that. OTOH, if that woman is working and wishes to spend $100/week on manicures with money gleaned from her own savings, I don't think he is entitled to do so. Certainly compromise, being reasonable, etc should be top priority of both partners, but I do feel the person who brings home the cash deserves to have greater control over it. This does initially seem like it favours the breadwinner, but inherent benefits from division of labour pretty much exist in any case. For example, the SAHP usually forms a closer bond with their children due to being the one taking care of them most of the time, compared to the other partner. We can't tell the children 'daddy is working to bring home the bacon for you, so you must feel as close to him as you do with mommy'. It doesn't work that way. And if they have no children and the partner stays at home just to take care of the house, well, that confers benefits of its own, namely that he/she would have a much more free and relaxed life than the working partner.
Recommended Posts