The New York Times has another thumb-sucker about the dating problems of female professionals:
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.
Apparently--you're not going to believe this, but I swear, it's true--there are men who don't like it when the women they date make more than them. What's more, there are women who really want to date men who make more than they do. No, really! There was a whole article about it in the New York Times!
It's hard to overstate the fundamental silliness of this story. This is not a "trend", except insofar as this whole "women in the workplace" idea you've been reading so much about is really starting to take off. The upper middle class white women upon whom the story focuses are not facing any shortage of solvent dates. I spent ten years dating in New York City, and have dated the income gamut from hedge-fund manager to aspiring artist with nine roommates. (Yes, I said nine. In a three-bedroom flat in one of the more distant parts of Brooklyn.) I am pleased to report that every year, the Ivy league and its equivalents disgorge just about as many men as women into New York City. Moreover, the men are, by several orders of magnitude, more likely to take lucrative jobs in finance and related industry, while the female art history majors languish on paltry nonprofit salaries.
Yes, if you make a decent salary, some of the men you meet will make less than you. But many more will not. And any lingering problems in this department can be readily overcome by letting go of the fairy princess fantasy where Prince Daddy provides everything worth having; or, alternatively, by not dating men who make less money than you do. If this is still not enough--if you want to date sensitive artistic types who still play the role of Big Earner--well, then, it should be a relatively simple matter to find a lower paying job.
There is a growing male/female education and income disparity. But it is occurring several rungs down the SES ladder from the precious princesses in the story, clipping off price tags and hiding shopping bags lest He realize that she shops at Prada. This problem is afflicting mostly poor women, particularly black and latino women, who have seen their earnings prospects improve dramatically relative to those of the men in their communities. For a paper as liberal as the New York Times to take their plight--which is real, and troubling--and turn it into an exposition on how hard it is to be a female corporate lawyer, is really pretty embarassing.
Well said, Megan. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the quote from The New York Times. Trying to draw conclusions from politically correct data makes no sense.
Yeah, well said. I don't have much to add, except-- is it weird that I would have no problem whatsoever dating someone who made a lot more than me? What's the problem? I understand that that might be a problem from the other direction, if it's true that most woman want a boyfriend who makes more than they do. But otherwise, who cares? I can get my sense of security from being a good listener, a giver of gifts, and by rocking that vajajay.
Freddie's last sentence made me throw up a little bit.
Ummm ... I can't believe it, but this liberal agrees with you Megan.
Except ... how exactly, other than by reputation, is the New York Times liberal?!?
My wife makes about 2.5x what I do, and it has never been a problem. I chose to go into aerospace, she's a physician.
If our personal inclinations were different, the roles could have been reversed - I had several law firm partners tell me that if I got a law degree to go with my science degree I'd be in fat city. They were desperate for attorneys that could understand scientific and technical issues. But being a rocket scientist is what I want to do.
For real. One of your best posts ever.
My only question is, who are these guys? I'm a recent graduate, so maybe it's different for people in their early 30s (though I tend to doubt it), but guys from my expensive private university really don't care about this stuff. I mean, maybe a few douchebags do, but by and large, the guys I know are happy to have girlfriends/wives who make a lot of money. It all goes into the same pile anyway, right? (Err, I guess some couples technically keep things separate, but still...)
Freddie - I always look to Tracy Jordan for my life lessons as well, bravo there.
I get where a "25-year-old software designer" makes more money than guys in "creative jobs". But *that* much more? Nowadays? It sounds like she's spending more money than she makes, not just more than they make.
The best bit in there, though, for those who didn't read it through:
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.
"can be readily overcome by letting go of the fairy princess fantasy..." M
except where they often just go into hiding as resentment... as you mentioned elsewhere, this changes as we get older. The big gasp comes when our femme fatale decided she would really like to take some time off to have kids... If our partners take the steps, make their needs smaller to reflect slaray shrink, things go OK. But if he can't support the household because of the way it's structured, things can get ugly in a hurry. People can be amazingly traditional in their roles. Men are supposed to be happy when their significant other makes a lot more than them, but if she should stop working, well what's his problem?
This is why there is some societal inertia behind this. Assuming men are not deadbeats right off the bat, they will work for money their whole adult lives. Because of the way we are made women often stop working for money at some point, and work on having and raising children. This idea of who should make money isn't a quaint throwback... there was a reason for it. You can't just jettison that.
You can make it work, but you have to aim your expectations accordingly. A lot of people don't.
As a 26-year old software developer, yes. That much more. Not as much as 10 years ago, but still a pretty penny, especially if you're good at it.
Speaking as a 26yo software developer, having worked for a few companies in few parts of the country, a developer with 5 years experience and some talent could pull six figures in Manhattan. If she is a consultant, jump that by some, and if they are working at an investment bank jump it a little more.
Amazon was hiring out of college at 75-80 2 years ago, and Seattle is significantly cheaper then NYC. The bubble isn't back, but talented CS or EE grads can and do move up the salary scale quickly.
I made it a personal financial goal to find a sugar momma. It worked!
Chalk me up as one guy who doesn't really care that his wife makes nearly 50 percent more than he does. After all, if your wallet size makes you feel inadequate, it's probably symptomatic of deeper inadequacies.
As for the whole wife wanting to work less after the kids issue, D is right... it's about setting expectations and acting to meet them. My wife wants to go part time, which will make us near equal in salary, but we were smart enough to buy a house we could afford on a part time salary (hers) and a full time salary (mine). It's all about communications and planning.
Funny. I've never had a problem with a man's salary, but when I tell men what I do for a living (engineering), they leave skid marks. I've had long talks about this with friends--engineers married to bubble-headed women in pink-collar jobs until the kids come--and the word they use is "emasculating." Most middle-class American men outside of NYC still want to be the guy on the white horse giving a woman everything she needs, and I guess the dream is compromised by a woman who can set up her own electronics and pays her own way.
I wish someone had told me this before I went to college.
My wife makes 30 percent more than I do. I would be ecstatic if it were 30 times more. So would she!
Girls with money are hot. Good legs don't hurt, either.
Megan, remind me please not to comment while enjoying a pre-dinner scotch.
The NY Times is only Liberal by the admission of their former Ombudsman, the discount they gave the Move-On add (in contravention of their own policies), the makeup of their staff and about a million other factors. I suspect that our protagonist here likes the artsy types, but hasn't figured out that "starving artist" is a stereotype because it is true - she must be too good for her fellow programmers.
So does this artlicle mean that the NYTimes will finally STFU about the gender wage gap? Not holding my breath.
I, for one, welcome our new suger-mama overlords.
As an educated, white, 30-something man with no girl-friend, no prospects and an underpaying job I hate, I'm fresh out of the remotest hint of a shadow of sympathy for wealthy females having trouble finding dates. What does that make me? An oppressor.
Heather -
I've never had a problem with a man's salary, but when I tell men what I do for a living (engineering), they leave skid marks.
Clearly, you need to date geekier guys. Actually, this is the solution to most higher-educated women's dating problems.
It's not like New York Magazine covered this in greater depth and more insightfully months ago, which was linked on Fark.com weeks ago. NYT, bringing you worse versions of months old articles from a service journalism magazine! Way to get "all the news that's fit to print".
On the subject... there are a lot of dumb and horrible people in the world, and this article and the one in NY Mag found a bunch of them. I loved how the women were hiding the cost of what they bought by "clipping price tags". So they normally wear things from Prada or Chanel with price tags still attached?? Or do they go out with people who have no concept of what Prada means vs JC Penney house brand?
If you are running household finances where the wife makes substantially more money, then you HAVE to plan for children. That means downshifting your lifestyle YEARS before you have kids so that you have enough money saved up to cover the time off. Or else just don't date the artist types and stick with guys in finance or engineering.
On software jobs... if you have any sort of talent you'll be making VERY good money, especially 3-5 years out of school. Especially in the NY area, there's rather substantial demand for programmers and mathematically skilled people in finance (hedge funds employ huge numbers of technical grads rather than MBAs). Compared to a starving artist waiting tables or making espresso - easily a 10x difference.
Well, speaking strictly as an educated single man, how much money a woman makes or doesn't make is totally irrelevant to me, even moreso than what career she chose to pursue. It's her bad attitude more than anything else that turns me off, and I mean quick. By that I mean that most of the women I've dated since high school want to make everything all about them. In other words, she's a selfish player, not a team player. And as everyone who has ever worked or played on a team, when you have selfish player who wants to make it all about him or her, the team loses.
Dating is one thing. Marriage is quite another. The problem is that the former is the prelude to the latter. If she wants to make everything all about her on every date, what's the marriage going to be like? Pure hell.
Marriage is a legal contract involving money. There are two and only two things you can do with money. You can invest it in an asset, or you can waste it on a liability.
Is she going to be my life partner? Is she going to be my helpmate? Is she going to be the mother to our children? If the answer to all three of those questions is not an unqualified yes, then she isn't worth the time of day to me. I don't need the drama, and I'd rather have the money.
The modern American girl is supposed to be so much smarter than me, but she's so stupid she can't figure that out?
If you are regularly called emasculating, it probably has nothing to do with how much money you make.
The NYT article is 'dry labbed;" I'm guessing Whitney Hess is a nom de article and is a friend of a friend and there was a deadline and this is the last gossip the writer had heard, so went with it. In NYC, "software designers," male or female, are around the middle of the pay range for people who have a skill-based job. If the author is including non-skill jobs, then, of course, they are much higher, but then income is no longer one of the major impediments to social activity. Physician, bond trader, union electrician? Then, maybe. But not software designer -- few of those signed up at eHarmony are going to be intimidated by seeing they are matched with a software "designer." In fact, that designation isn't even used anymore. Bogus, late, space-filler article.
*** but when I tell men what I do for a living (engineering), they leave skid marks. ***
Er surely not with YOU, but let me posit that in SOME cases, the amount of conversational time it takes for a woman to reveal her occupation happens to equal the amount of time it takes her to expose what a disagreeable or unlikable person she is. I'm sure some women misconstrue the cause of the skid marks.
I've known lots of guys dating and marrying up to higher incomes -- don't think most guys have a problem with it. I sure wouldn't -- the more money the better. Ceteris paribus.
Thus spake NYT: "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."
Perhaps it is her rampant materialism, and not her tax bracket, that worries these men.
Helpful dating tip: If you are the type of woman to give interviews to the NYT, the issues your man has with you go way beyond your job.
When he says "You've been shopping again? Don't you ever do anything constructive in your spare time?", he isn't critizing how much you make.
But what about the gender-based pay discrepancy we always hear about?
One thing that I'd noticed when dating in NYC at that age is that if a girl makes 80K a year, she's spending 100K. Young women tend to spend a lot of money on their apartments, clothes, entertainment etc.. This can be intimidating - e.g. "I can't afford this sort of lifestyle, we'll never work out".
Women like money and status, this isn't a recent innovation. Of the women I've dated, only two truly didn't seem concerned about my 'prospects' - one was a lunatic maoist and the other had family money.
Goes well with a story I just saw in the WSJ about law school graduates angry about making only 50k a year starting. Crying about $20/ hour. Poor, poor people. Maybe if they tipped more I could have more sympathy.
A real egalitarian society will mean that about half the time a woman will be making more money than her mate. If we're not comfortable with that, we need to either embrace polygamy (so women can share the rich men) or give up on educating women.
Or we need to stop telling men that they have to be the provider when the women they are providing for don't need them. And tell the women that working for a living means that they're going to pay the bills, too.
This is uncharted territory. A modern egalitarian society is still a pretty new thing, and it's working itself out down the generations.
as a 32 year old Manhattanite...my 3 cents:
"My only question is, who are these guys? I'm a recent graduate, so maybe it's different for people in their early 30s (though I tend to doubt it), but guys from my expensive private university really don't care about this stuff."
guys under 40 don't care about that stuff. the women in the article (and I've met one of them) are lying. we don't care.
what we do have a problem with is women who make more than us and still expect us to pick up the tab....which only describes the majority of Manhattan women....especially if they're from certain ethno-religious backgrounds.
"Goes well with a story I just saw in the WSJ about law school graduates angry about making only 50k a year starting. Crying about $20/ hour. Poor, poor people. Maybe if they tipped more I could have more sympathy."
you're an idiot. if I made 50K a year in NY with a 120K in student loan debt (pretty typical for law grads)...I'd be in a world of hurt.
This is a very old phenomenon.
As women's income increases, the pool of men with equal or lesser income decreases. A substantial number of both men and women still find the idea of a man making less than the women uncomfortable or unattractive. Women look for mates with equal or more income and/or status so as they rise up the food chain they have a progressively smaller pool of potential partners . Men by contrast do not mind a mate with less income and/or status lower than they, so as they rise up the food chain they have an increasing pool of partners.
IIRC, this pattern was first identified back in the 1920's among upper class women. Perhaps changing times will alter the dynamic but I think it will be a couple of generations coming.
If "Whitney Hess" were saving more of that money and conspicuously conuming less of it, she might end up saving enough to buy a house so when she has to interrupt her income (at least a little) to have kids, there's much less financial worry.
My wife dumped some of her wildly inflated Silicon Valley income into real-estate before we started dating, and we're now in a pretty nice financial situation, even though she's making significantly less since the tech bubble popped.
When I married my wife 14 years ago, she earned approx. 20 percent more than I did. It was a sad day when she decided to leave the Navy.
Do you have data, Megan, or just anecdotes?
I manage in the IT area, where six figure incomes are common among both men and women..and some of them range quite high.
Many of my best are women, and I know that in some sectors that is a common experience. I wonder if you are reporting impressions, or real information. Look at the VP ranks among Fortune 1000 global companies. You will find women in great abundance and that the percentage is growing rapidly. Look at the diversity initiatives that many global companies are aiming at their best suppliers. Women in management are a strategic advantage...and sometimes decisive.
Are you being local to your experience. Or are you truly looking at the data?
As a New Yorker, born and raised, I thought that this is the very definition of New York liberalism, at least as it is known on the Upper East and Upper West sides.
I think Brian, above, makes a good point. He states "...Clearly, you need to date geekier guys. Actually, this is the solution to most higher-educated women's dating problems.
And that, to me, is the central problem here. Of course one is not likely to get anywhere near the truth of the matter when the N.Y.Times is in its "Trend that's not a trend, except for my unacknowledged friend Mitzy from 77th and Broadway" reporting mode.
The problem is not that men particularly care what women do for a living at all,or even struggle with the idea of a woman earning more, especially if all careers are professional. Nor is there a problem when it comes to settling down, assuming everyone is on the same page regarding family responsibilities.
The problem is that women very rarely want less than almost everything, and are not willing to leverage down their visual expectations in order to find a man who matches their income, or accepts them having a higher income.
Thus, they are not too enthused that Orville, Ivy educated and working for a non-profit, is perfectly willing to love them, high income and all.
He is not attractive enough, or the life of the party, or sufficiently ambitious. His friends are doofi. Yes he's sweet in a Marvin the Martian kind of way, but when you introduce him to the girlfriends, they won't envy you and you suspect your kids might end up with dumbo ears. He has awkward pauses when he talks and doesn't wear boxers.
There are a million guys out there who are perfectly willing to accept most women at whatever level they are, the fixed factor being that the average man is a bit needier than the average woman. Women have had that advantage with their brains (and income potential) tied behind their back. That hardly disappears when brains, income and boobs are all up front.
But women are very, very mercurial.
[NYT] 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 .... gulf in education: 53 percent of women employed full time in their 20s were college graduates, compared with 38 percent of men.
BTW, can't say without additional data, but this COULD simply imply that a lot of non-college graduate women in their 20s are able to avoid working full time, while most non-college men in their 20s do work full time. If true, that would likely yield such a statistical result.
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.
And this is framed as a problem for the women? I understand that the old idea that it's ok for a woman to be dependent on a man (and not the reverse) hasn't completely died out yet. But if those education figures were reversed, wouldn't the NYTimes likely have called this a national crisis?
Maybe it isnt so much this young woman's wealth as it is how she chooses to flaunt it.
My older brother always says that he's got it made because he's got a color TV, and a wife. And they both work.
I knew my first wife for 20 years before we married. I put her through medical school. We had 3 kids. The day she graduated from medical school, she had time to file for divorce, which means she had it already prepared by the lawyer's.
She gets half my aerospace retirement. I get nothing from hers.
Men, find a likely young lady and knock her up. You get no added rights from being married, and a bunch more liability.
If you have a family legacy, follow the advice of Cicero: find a promising adult, and adopt him.
--- when I tell men what I do for a living (engineering), they leave skid marks. I've had long talks about this with friends...and the word they use is "emasculating."...I wish someone had told me this before I went to college.
I'd believe you except it means you somehow ignored this effect while you were an engineering student in college. Please. Women would-be-scientists and engineers experienced this boorish behavior quite often, and then they learned how to stop hanging out with boors. Lo and behold, they found young men who didn't act this way once they stopped looking to see this behavior everywhere and in everyone.
I'm guessing it's something else in your conversation or delivery that's emasculating.
So where do they find these people? How does the Times manage to find so many obnoxious people whose first instinct is to blame their woes on the patriarchy? Sometimes I wonder if they're just making fun of these people. Also, Ms. Weiss makes a good salary, but with student loans and Manhattan rents, it's probably not enough for regular shopping binges. Maybe she would have better prospects if she were minimally responsible with money, as many young lawyers I know are, male and female.
The NYT know how to play to their audience. And it seems that this sort of "It really sucks to be a young woman with a good job in Manhattan" piece is what they like to read.
Ah, the New York Times' advice on dating... I recall an article not too long ago about the fine young women of Manhattan complaining that you just can't find a good man in Manhattan anymore. For example, they don't consistently pay for the first date. Or, quel horreur, one unfortunate fellow ordered (shocké) white (oh, I hardly dare say it) wine.
I would think the authors would be embarassed to have their real names on the bylines, but they just keep cranking this crap out.
Allison and Heather, it may not be boorish behavior. Guys often play the odds, and lots of women in the sciences are ball-busters. Some enjoy running men off. It seems to give them a rush of pride.
So, does this mean that the "statistic" about women making 71% of a man's salary is officially dead?
This article was the funniest thing I have read in months... Watching the PC Libocrats continuously reinvent the market of female resentment and backhanded male-bashing is one of the most entertaining spectacles of our time. This piece is a classic of the genre. The "tragedy" of there not being enough wealthy, goodlooking, heterosexual mancandy to squire our young wannabe carrie bradshaws around the movie set version of manhattan is indeed a heartbreaker... I mean all those opportunities to throw away money in glitzy overpriced cafes and mindnumbingly uncreative designer shops and there are too few young wealthy men available to foot the bill... LOL... sorry, I can't finish... all too funny and all so very true of contemporary manhattan.... Ladies, you should be very happy we men have never thought to look as closely and critically at you, as you do at us.... Very happy, and very lucky....
Heather,
Date an engineer. An aerospace engineer.
I hope my next wife makes more money than me so I can take it easy. I would have no problem with my wife/girlfriend making more than I do oh wait a minute, when I was a young Marine and started dated the future she was making more money than me. You have got to be kidding my, me thinks it not so much the paycheck as the attitude. To put it bluntly for some reason (this is just an observation Ive had over time) when someone of the "you go girl" generation makes a good living they seem to want to rub it in mens faces, sad but I think there's going to be a huge segment of of current 18-25 year old women who have been trained to do everything they can to beat the men of thier respectiver demographic into the dirt. This I would say is all friendly competition but as they get older and decide they want relationships children etc it will come back and bite them in the ass, no its not the salary you make its your gloating about it that has chased off your 'boyfirends'
Wow! The never-ending Battle of the Sexes goes on and on. I'm so glad I'm a lesbian. So many heterosexual men and women just don't like the opposite sex. Do you?
But not software designer -- few of those signed up at eHarmony are going to be intimidated by seeing they are matched with a software "designer." In fact, that designation isn't even used anymore.
I should have clarified that my skepticism about her salary was based on that point. Maybe it's the writer who came up with that term, not Whitney Hess, but the highly-paid developers and architects on Wall Street aren't called "software designers".
I've had long talks about this with friends--engineers married to bubble-headed women in pink-collar jobs until the kids come--and the word they use is "emasculating.
As with the guy in the other thread claiming that a third of his wife's colleagues have stay-at-home husbands: such people may exist but in my entire career (scientist, in this case, not an engineer, but I know plenty of engineers) I've never met one. Unless you throw around "bubble-headed" and "pink-collar" *really* freely.
A woman with Gucci in her closet has never intimidated me, but doesn't particularly appeal. A woman with a Perazzi in her closet is a different story though.
Wow, there's a lot of frustrated, angry dudes on this thread.
I'm backing up Cincinnatus 100%.
And I think a lot of people of both sexes have way too many goddamn requirements for just dating. Ratchet down your expectations and just have a good time.
Reading about these successful women b*thching (heh) about the lack of monied men was a real trip down memory lane. I remember this stuff all the way back to law school, where lousy women were complaining that their brains, "success", whatever intimidated men, so they were unable to find dates or mates. Never once did they ask anyone with a "y" chromosome why we actually were not asking them out on dates--they just presumed they knew.
Truth is, we didn't like them much, and we already had options in the form of other women less concerned about whether we were "good enough" to date them.
After I got married, I was a Fortune 500 attorney in a large city while I put my wife through graduate school so she could obtain a Ph.D. in a biological science discipline. I earned five or six times her grad school stipend. Similar story during her post-doc. I sure wasn't intimidated by brains or success. Heck, I sought those out in my wife and helped her achieve them.
I did that because she is a great person and a good friend who has tons of talent and brains. But she knew I expected her to eventually pull a similar share of the household expenses once her credentials were garnered. Now we earn about the same amount b/c I slowed down and she got a job as a professor. Our two kids benefit from having two incomes and two involved parents.
I never would have done that 10 year sprint for those ugly gals described in the article or similar ones I met in law school and the business world. Do you really think they would appreciate the sacrifices made on their behalf over that decade?
Oh, and god help you if you ended up working for one of those gals *after* they realized they are likely going to end up unmarried and childless. If they weren't turning you into a surrogate husband (i.e., expecting your emotional support and complete devotion), they hated you for your young wife and young kids. The mess they are doesn't end in their twenties or thirties--they have decades of this stuff ahead of them.
It has always been the case that HIS income is THEIR income while HER income is HER income. If he doesn't have more income than she does, he will be encroaching on hers.
I can't believe no one has seen the obvious need for a essential government program here. When a guy is "officially" (there will be forms!) dating a gal who makes more than he does, he should receive a subsidy sufficient to make his income, say, 10% greater than hers. This will overcome his reluctance to associate with someone more successful than him, while simultaneously increasing his appeal to successful women.
Of course, we will have to tax someting to pay for this. I suggest we tax high-income women. This will further enhance the desired outcome.
Stories like that of Miss Hess "We broke up because he could not handle me being successful", always make me imagine a man saying, "We broke up because she could not handle being ugly."
Maybe it's me, but I do feel a little suspicious about who left who and why.
"Perhaps it is her rampant materialism, and not her tax bracket, that worries these men."
~Posted by Mark G
Right on. My wife makes twice what I do, but then I have no stress, no worries, and a full life. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Whitney.
BTW, I wouldn't live in NYC for $10 million a year, too many people like Whitney and her "Sucks in the City" friends.
Not that this will change anybody's mind about anything, but here goes:
* Being in the engineering arena myself, there are plenty of guys in college who, as an introductory question, would ask, "So, what are you studying?" and would take "Engineering" as a cue to leave.
* There are also plenty of guys who will stick around, though, if you return the question with a smile.
* Lots of guys don't have a problem with a woman who makes more than they do. I'm married to one.
* There are guys who just have a problem with the idea of a wife/girlfriend making more than them. Sometimes even with the idea of them making more money eventually.
* Some guys get over this fairly quickly. Some guys just can't. Some guys only get over this after making your relationship hell, realizing that they'd screwed up, determining that they wouldn't do that again, and become interested in your roommate.
* Yes, that did actually happen.
* There's actually a good explanation about the women at 70% of men's earnings one way and equality the other. Many women take time off to have children and work part-time to rear them. They don't get the same raises or senority perks during this time as they would in full-time jobs, but they get the same as men would in the same situation.
* There are sexists in the business world today.
* Most men aren't sexists and will resent being depicted as such.
* One of the leading causes of divorce is money. Knowing spending/saving styles, budget styles, and debt load comfort levels is not to be overlooked. He's a spender, but budgets. I'm a saver; I rarely budget, but my idea of a normal splurge costs less than a grocery run. If we didn't communicate honestly and often, this could have lead to nasty fights.
This is ridiculous. It seems that one thing that screams out from this article but is not commented on much is that men who earn less typically don't have much money to spend on the date. It sounds like part of the problem is that women in the article says things like this:
“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.”
A guy who doesn't earn that much can't afford to keep up, or doesn't want to suck up the cost. With men, they might pay for the women all the time, I don't know. But there is the same problem the other way around as well. I mean, it is not just, as was mentioned, that men don't like the materialism. Some of the "artist" men may not give a crap about going to fancy restaurants rather than diners. Did the more well off women go to diners? I am not saying that women who want and can afford to have a richer lifestyle should not. But why expect some "creative types" to keep shelling out money for things he probably couldn't care about; or if he likes them, the cost is too great relative to his income. So yes, it might be easier for some women to date people in their income bracket, IF they don't want to pay for the men AND they want to go even to moderately expensive places. But that isn't the same as men feeling threatening MERELY by women having higher income. The latter certainly is the case oftentimes, I would think. But a few women here seem to have the impossible triad of (a) dating less wealthy men (b) wanting to go to expensive or moderately expensive restaurants all the time, and (c) not wanting to pay for them all the time (or feeling weird as the result of our norms). My guess is that it is easier for men to take out women and pay, so (c) is not a concern. Men are not as likely to feel bad themselves about doing that. I'm not saying this is a good norm, or that women should feel OK about it. It comes from the patriarchy. But if a higher income man demanded all (a) (b) (c) such that the lower income women's pockets were drained, this would, I guess, contribute to strain on the rleationship at the very least.
This is ridiculous. It seems that one thing that screams out from this article but is not commented on much is that men who earn less typically don't have much money to spend on the date. It sounds like part of the problem is that women in the article says things like this:
“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.”
A guy who doesn't earn that much can't afford to keep up, or doesn't want to suck up the cost. With men, they might pay for the women all the time, I don't know. But there is the same problem the other way around as well. I mean, it is not just, as was mentioned, that men don't like the materialism. Some of the "artist" men may not give a crap about going to fancy restaurants rather than diners. Did the more well off women go to diners? I am not saying that women who want and can afford to have a richer lifestyle should not. But why expect some "creative types" to keep shelling out money for things he probably couldn't care about; or if he likes them, the cost is too great relative to his income. So yes, it might be easier for some women to date people in their income bracket, IF they don't want to pay for the men AND they want to go even to moderately expensive places. But that isn't the same as men feeling threatening MERELY by women having higher income. The latter certainly is the case oftentimes, I would think. But a few women here seem to have the impossible triad of (a) dating less wealthy men (b) wanting to go to expensive or moderately expensive restaurants all the time, and (c) not wanting to pay for them all the time (or feeling weird as the result of our norms). My guess is that it is easier for men to take out women and pay, so (c) is not a concern. Men are not as likely to feel bad themselves about doing that. I'm not saying this is a good norm, or that women should feel OK about it. It comes from the patriarchy. But if a higher income man demanded all (a) (b) (c) such that the lower income women's pockets were drained, this would, I guess, contribute to strain on the rleationship at the very least.
So, Spartee, did we go to the same law school? Glad I never relied on you for fun companionship.
You said: Reading about these successful women b*thching (heh) about the lack of monied men was a real trip down memory lane. I remember this stuff all the way back to law school, where lousy women were complaining that their brains, "success", whatever intimidated men, so they were unable to find dates or mates. Never once did they ask anyone with a "y" chromosome why we actually were not asking them out on dates--they just presumed they knew.
Truth is, we didn't like them much, and we already had options in the form of other women less concerned about whether we were "good enough" to date them.
I say: Most of my single women lawyer friends identify themselves as a stewardress if they are trying to meet men, even in a fun setting like a bar, for a reason. I have a feeling your female law school classmates had no interest in you personally, and you are trying to turn this around on them. Were the women in your class really hanging around the student lounge saying, there are no rich guys to date? I don't remember any of my law school girlfriends saying that. If you wanted to date a lawyer, they were all around you. Non-lawyer guys were harder to meet because law school is so time consuming and a lot of men just flee from women lawyers.
You said: After I got married, I was a Fortune 500 attorney in a large city while I put my wife through graduate school so she could obtain a Ph.D. in a biological science discipline. I earned five or six times her grad school stipend. Similar story during her post-doc. I sure wasn't intimidated by brains or success. Heck, I sought those out in my wife and helped her achieve them.
I say: And how smug you seem to feel about it now!
You said: I did that because she is a great person and a good friend who has tons of talent and brains.. . . [UNLIKE]those ugly gals described in the article or similar ones I met in law school and the business world. Do you really think they would appreciate the sacrifices made on their behalf over that decade?
I say: Sorry to hear every single woman in your class in law school, and all the 'gals' you have met since are thankless snots who could not appreciate the sacrifices you made so a woman could owe you all her education and income.
You said: Oh, and god help you if you ended up working for one of those gals *after* they realized they are likely going to end up unmarried and childless. If they weren't turning you into a surrogate husband (i.e., expecting your emotional support and complete devotion), they hated you for your young wife and young kids. The mess they are doesn't end in their twenties or thirties--they have decades of this stuff ahead of them.
I say: It's sooo much better to work for a man who is on his third twentysomething looker of a wife (2 former secretaries, one washed up model) who thinks he is entitled to have sex with everything that walks. You get to pick up the slack during his divorces and eventual heart attack from overuse of viagra. The wife suspects you of having an affair (no, Cindy, he was really at the Hair Club for Men all afternoon), and he needs at least one person to talk to whose implants have not leaked into her brain cells - his hapless female associate).
Shall we call a truce? You don't sound all bad. Women in law and business are not uniformily ugly or nasty any more than the men in those fields are. As you know, professional school is stressful and does not bring out the best in everyone. Women do get resentful when they have to choose between parenthood and partenrship, when it seems like their male colleages just drive on regardless of how many kids they have -- sometimes they only seem to have the kids' pictures on the desk - they never actually seem to take a child to a doctor's appointment or attend a parent teacher conference. If someone has taken that frustration out on you, I'm sorry, but it sounds like your life has worked out well. I'm not suprised if BOTH men and women you work with are jealous!
Did anyone on this thread - incl. Megan - even read Beveridge's study (or a summary of it)? Not only is this the NYT article lame, but the ensuing commentary on this post leaves little to be desired too. Megan's right that this article is skewed towards affluent, white women, and a narrow subset of them (ages 21-30). But there's no need to heckle them, and presume that you know who they are because of quotes potentially taken out of context, or because of your own personal experience with the Ivy's or dating in Manhattan for "10 years" - a place that I'd argue is more culturally consumed by money than most cities, and where the dating environment is statistically stacked against women, who outnumber men, especially as they age.
The actual data that these women are supposed to represent reveal enduring gender inequity, rising income inequality, wage stagnation, and the increasing returns to education (and implicitly, the rising cost of education) that are worthwhile topics of discussion in a more sophisticated vein than offered here.
If you're interested, my analysis of the actual data is here:
http://www.grahamad.com/blog/2007/08/08/show-me-the-money/
Some excerpts:
the median wages of women ages 21-30 exceed those of men in several large cities in the U.S., incl. Dallas, NYC, and Boston. Factors in why this is the case incl.:
- the higher number of women graduating from college than men;
- the higher percentage of women in urban areas than men;
- the single, childless status of many of these young women (ever heard of the "motherhood penalty"?);
- women choosing and building careers earlier than men in response to the lurking biological clock;
- and women’s contemporary freedom to choose their careers and locations vs. subordinating these decisions to their husband’s.
What’s...remarkable about the stats in this article is how men’s real wages have sharply declined in the last 35 years, while women’s have held or grown (modestly) in the same period. (The comparative wages in NYC over the three decades also point to the city’s rising affluence overall.)
...college educated women’s median wages are still only 89% of men’s in NYC, and 82% nationwide. Also, the jobs cited in NY where men continue to outearn women are both a) feminine-gendered professions (e.g., nurse, teacher, bank teller), and b) within greater reach in terms of education (namely, cost and access) for the general population than many of the professions in which women have surpassed men, such as doctor, architect, economist, and lawyer. ...women are still earning less than men even though they tend to outnumber them dramatically in certain sectors...it’s women’s achievement in particular advanced degree programs and career paths that have pushed their median earnings past men...though we’ve been attending college in higher numbers than men since 1980, the wage gap between college-educated women and men has shrunk by only 6% in the last 25 years. The study also points out the now common trend of rising income inequality according to educational status.
Less than 30% of U.S. workers have a college degree. If MIT [my grad. school] is any indication...tuition is rising about 5% per year. [Overall], gender and class parity in earnings, opportunity and life chances remains disappointingly bleak and moving in the wrong direction.
[ps:] Manhattan is the only borough where men’s median earnings are higher than women’s...
"But it is occurring several rungs down the SES ladder from the precious princesses in the story, clipping off price tags and hiding shopping bags lest He realize that she shops at Prada. This problem is afflicting mostly poor women, particularly black and latino women,"
Absolutely and the point everyone seems to miss here. The MSM seems completely unable or unwilling to consider the existence of any humans outside the realm of white, upper middle class.
Not only does this phenomena occur with black and latino women, but also women born and moving within the lower class stata of white folks. Women who go to college, even a small college and find the motivation to get good paying work will often find themselves alone, surrounded by resentfull friends and family and caught in a culture clash between the men they feel comfortable with and the ones who actually share their new world view and support their ambitions.
But fah! Why bother with such difficult social questions, it might require some actual thinking while writing!
maybe some of these guys are pragmatic enough to admit that they cannot entertain certain women in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
I've never dated anyone who cared when I made more, and how much my significant other makes has never concerned me one iota.
Trend articles are crap.
"Whitney" is a real person - I actually know who that is (verified). It was indeed a friend of a friend thing. Hard to believe the NYT has a hard time filling the pages with hard-hitting news with all the crazy things that are going on in this world.
hi
i am from iran,i am worker in this days my wife is illness and i need money for hospital,please tell me can u help me?
thanks
MESSAGE