Dating economically dominant women

brainstorm

Not sure whether this is a relationship topic, social science, or a bit of both. The title of the thread may also be misleading. The issue I was thinking of is how dating and relationships would work if women became economically dominant in the way men used to be (and still are in some ways and sectors). Specifically, there used to be a stereotypical wage and employment gap that meant women were more typically homemakers while men would work for wages. I think even when people got divorced, women were more likely to "stay home with the kids" and had to make due with what little money they could garner without being able to submit to the scheduling demands of well-paying employers.

Now, the thread question is how well-paid career women will feel about being in relationships with men who are homemakers and/or in similar financial/economic positions as many women once were. Men of that time didn't seem to mind if a woman he dated was relatively poor, because that meant she would be that much more appreciative of whatever he had to offer her, however little. Modern independent women, on the other hand, seem to be much less interested in dating men who are unemployed, homemakers, or otherwise not on a successful path of career-achievement (or at least hard-working in their job(s).

So the question is whether relationship-culture is developing in the direction of zero-tolerance for careerless people or whether some women are going to acquiesce to a somewhat antiquated culture of seeking to support (male) homemakers. If so, what kinds of qualities do you think such women would value in their homemaker men?

BTW, this thread is obviously biased toward heterosexual relationships but if you think that increasing female career-independence will result in more lesbianism or women choosing to remain unattached and live alone, or some other cultural choice that averts supporting "deadbeat men," feel free to discuss those ideas as well.

drakewolf

Salary differences between men and women are still alive and well. Although the situation might be improving, I'd like to point out this article:

12 Numbers Highlighting the Wage Gap - Newsweek

Another reason men may be willing to settle for a partner who earns less than them is that there simply aren't that many women who make as much as they do.

I can't speak for the modern independent woman in general, but from my point of view as a female, the education and salary of my partner is irrelevant. I find more value in personality and hobbies than whether they have hit the books, or can take me out to fancy restaurants. However, most of the guys I have dated are equal in education level (since I run into them so often) so maybe the statistics will turn out in favor of educated women marrying other educated men due to proximity? The limiting factor in my field is definitely not single men (unfortunately for them).

I think more women may choose to remain independent, since being involved in academia can make it very difficult to have children. On the other hand, having a stay-at-home dad would be great in case she does want children. In this case, the qualities I would look for are compassion, respect, a good personality, etc. These are the same qualities I look for in men anyway.

I don't think career-less people have anything to be afraid of.

Evo

I've always made much more than the men I dated, and it rarely seemed to be a problem.

rootX

I have often heard on the radio about males who take care of the house while their spouses work.

I wouldn't go for women who are from too high or too low economic classes relative to me.

lisab

Salary differences aren't a big deal. It's a lot more important that other things match up - ambition and curiosity, for example.

rootX

I think some differences do matter and salary is one of them. Your salary "can" determine what kind of people you go out with and what kind of lifestyle you live. You would be willing to live with someone who has similar lifestyle, no?

@drizzle:
Plus, there would be unnecessary pressure on other person to change their ways and be someone who they are not.

Gad

Based on what? Just want to know the reasons, share thoughts. Good thread btw. I would go with Lisa, if there's enough understanding and trust, it won't be a big deal.

Edit: read it. Too slow.

brainstorm

All good answers but here's a very basic scenario: Although women are often assertive enough to ask men out for a date, they also like to be asked "the old fashion way," (some seem to express this anyway). So when a man asks them out and has the self-confidence that comes with being financially independent, etc. it can come across as more attractive that when a man acts passively, waits to be asked out, shows grace and gratitude for you taking him out, etc. Those are things that chauvinistic men used to love (or some seemed to have, at least). So the question is whether women will really start to respect and feel attracted to relatively passive men who are economically submissive. I find it hard to imagine that women won't at least prefer men who hold their own economically. I can't imagine the old fashioned scenario where a man approaches a meek woman and treats her chauvinistically (opening doors, ordering food, etc.) being gender-reversed and having the same effect for women. Maybe I'm thinking too stereotypically, though.

Antiphon

Every woman I've ever known wanted their men to make more money than they did. A woman views a man who makes less than her as an inferior provider for her. Which of course is true.

PhysDrew

I'm kinda in that situation at the moment. After spending almost a decade in the army, I decided to discharge and go back to uni to finish off a life long dream of getting a physics/math degree. My wife is now the main bread winner, and she's earning quite a lot of money. So she works whilst I study and look after our 3 kids. I don't look at it like she's economically dominant, it's just she does something different to me at the moment. There's no real problem.

DanP

This is not a single sex issue. What do you think, would you date a deadbeat woman , buried in credits, for a serious relationship ?

brainstorm

I think the stereotype of the "high maintenance woman," who likes to shop a lot and renew her wardrobe often, indulge in new makeup, perfumes, etc. fit in well with the old male chauvinism where the desire to fund female indulgences was seen as part of the thrill of dating a 'vivacious' woman. The taboo that existed for discussing issues of money (which still exists in some ways, I think) meant that no one was paying attention to HOW you got your money, just what you did with it. So like the song says, "hey, big spender, come a spend some time with me," meant that attractive women would want to spend time with men who displayed economic power by spending money. Then, although it was women's job to be economically submissive toward men, they probably tried to invest in their appearance in a way that would make them an attractive accessory for a successful man.

There are still probably men today who would not mind happening across a woman with lots of debt because they would see it as an opportunity to play hero and save her from her debts (and enjoy the forthcoming gratitude for his heroism). I don't know if there are women who would be attracted to this level of chauvinism in the reverse, even if they had a very high salary or were otherwise very prosperous. Probably some would if they were interested enough in the man, but the question is how many men would feel comfortable having their affections "bought" in such a way? Of course, no one who engages in these kinds of relationships views them as people "selling themselves," because prostitution is taboo. I have, however, still heard women say that if men really like you they should be willing to spend money on you. I assume this also means they should be willing to work to make that money and ultimately contribute to the woman's prosperity (i.e. supplement their own spending with more in the form of gifts, etc.). I know there are women who also like to shower each other and men with gifts, but I don't know if women would want to be in the position of having to be financially responsible for a man who doesn't contribute money to her spending as much as he spends her money for her. I guess it would depend on what she ended up with in exchange for what he spent.

This is all assuming high levels of consumerism/consumption, though. I wonder if there would ever be women who want men to conserve their money and discipline their spending OF MONEY THE WOMAN MADE. Traditionally men have disciplined women's spending and women have managed family budgets for men, but I think if the roles were somewhat reversed and men were disciplining women's spending AS managers of women's family budget, women would not like this because it would feel like returning to the culture of female subjugation where husbands act like fathers trying to control their wife's spending habits as if she was a wild teenager.

Anyway, this post went way beyond dating but I guess the issues sort of expand to the whole gambit of economic relations in heterosexual relationships.

Gad

Well, it depends, it's a personal matter I believe. But generally, if they both are willing to move on together, they both have to change their lifestyles to limit any possible gap could build up from their relationship.

Topher925

I for one would absolutely love to have a sugar-momma.

brainstorm

Do you think about the obligations that come with accepting money or do expect to just get showered in money and be completely free to act however you please?

Topher925

What obligations? Do you mean like never being able to refuse to cuddle because she bought me a new oscilloscope? Yeah, I think about those, and I accept them.

Wait, are we talking about girls my age or cougars?

brainstorm

No, more like not bugging her about where she was and why she came home late, or not at all. Or like putting your own emotional and sexual desires second to avoid making her feel obliged to take care of your needs instead of the reverse. Or keeping the house in a state that pleases her and dressing a certain way or acting and treating her in ways that keep her happy. It all depends on how demanding and picky a person it is. Some people pretend to be very flexible early in relationships (and probably believe it themselves) and as they settle into the idea that their partner isn't going to leave them, they grow less flexible. If you like the money you're getting from her, your tolerance level for that sort of thing will have to be that much higher than if you were totally financially independent of one another.