Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that women will never have equality until they stop seeing men as walking wallets?

55 replies

mytwopenceworth · 16/09/2007 10:53

This made me wonder...song on the radio

"Girls don't like boys, girls like cars and money"

Bopping away, it suddenly struck me.

How true.

For a man to be desired, he must be solvent. He must buy her things, must pay for everything.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not every woman..not well, er, me for example. I've never cared (and a good job too, as things turned out!) but it seems all around me..so very many women (especially young women) expect to be paid for and have a 'what have you done for me lately' attitude.

It's not very nice, is it? A man's worth is surely not determined by the gifts you get or how fat his wallet is and what proportion of that he spends on you....??

OP posts:
inamuckingfuddle · 16/09/2007 10:55

Personally I wouldn't have looked twice at DH if he hadn't had a flash car and a quayside flat

EscapeFrom · 16/09/2007 10:59

Problem is amplified by the fact that if girl gets pregnant to boy, she loses about 25 % of her earning power for 10 years, so I can see why girls like to know a bloke won't turn round and say, when asked for grocery money "Well, I haven't got any!"

his worth is not determined by the money he has or will spend, but his ability to support you should you have a baby will be displayed if he can't even look after you when you don't. The fear is, if he isn't sovent, he will be looking for a Mummy to bail him out.

Sorry, I know it sounds grabby, but I spent 6 years with a bloke who needed constant looking after, and if there ever is a next time, he better damn well be solvent - ie, doesn't have to be better off than me, but can't be worse (although that would be hard...).

fireflyfairy2 · 16/09/2007 11:01

I earned more than dh when we met. I paid for our first holiday. I paid for meals out.

When we got married I did hours of overtime to pay more than half the wedding...

Dh went self employed after our wedding & 3 years later my place of work closed down.

I am now a student & SAHM.... dh earns all the dosh

I think in our relationship it was swings & roundabouts, but can see how some women fall for money etc..

A past girlfriend of my brother used to date him for his money. She was 3 years above me at school & my brother was 2 years older than her & had left school & was working... I overheard her in the toilets one day cooing about how L would buy her anything she wanted......

edam · 16/09/2007 11:01

I'd love dh to have a shedload more money. Sigh... but I didn't pick him because he had earning potential. Agree with Escapefrom, you need someone who can support your children.

inamuckingfuddle · 16/09/2007 11:03

Escapefrom I agree, DH actually earns less then me and has been a very loving and supportive husband and father and that is far more important than all the money in the world.

motherinferior · 16/09/2007 11:06

Eh? I don't think of the size of a bloke's wallet, and neither do any of the women I know. My current partner now earns quite a bit more than I do, but he certainly didn't when the children were smaller.

nooka · 16/09/2007 11:08

I think that this is how it has always been in the past, after all there was a point that you couldn't work once you got married, so it was pretty essential to be supported. Not sure it's true now, but if you are in the messing around phase of life, then it probably is more fun to be with someone with a lot of dosh. For me I have always been the one with funds, and it has caused no end of problems. dh has only now realised (after 15yrs together) that his attitude to money was irresponsible. If I was to chose to be with someone else I would put solvency high up my list (not lots of money, just sensible about it!). I have been in the position of trailing after dh to get say a takeaway, and have him turn to me when it came to the time to pay not a good thing in a relationship!

EscapeFrom · 16/09/2007 11:12

It would be interesting to see the income of those who say it shouldn't matter, compared to those who say it does.

motherinferior · 16/09/2007 11:17

Is that an implication that I'm just massively loaded with cash, EscapeFrom? I bloody wish.

I do know exactly what you mean about blokes who require bailing-out, though. I spent four years with one chap like that, and then four years with another.

Mr Inferior and I have very separate personal bank accounts

inamuckingfuddle · 16/09/2007 11:18

fair point, but it is an attitude issue too, if he's a lazy layabout type that earns loads but plays no part in bringing up his kids, no housework etc and spends all his time playing golf or the like, is that really better than soemone earning min wage but devoted to his family?

Original poster
mytwopenceworth · 16/09/2007 11:20

Well, I am of the opinion that it doesn't matter, and we've gone from comfortable with me earning twice as much as dh, to dh main earner and me p/t, to me sahm and dh working 2 jobs, to me and dh in business together and broke while setting up, to business taking off and me and dh being very well off, to business collapsing and me and dh losing everything, to dh setting up again on his own and me being a sahm again, to dh having to close new venture to help care for me (now on dla) and kids (autistic).

In terms of cash, we've gone from the highest point of quarter mill to lowest point of income support.

I promise you, I think money should not matter between a couple!

OP posts:
EscapeFrom · 16/09/2007 11:21

No no no, MI.

I mean that those who feel strongly (as I do) that a man should be capable of self support (which is all I mean by solvent) probably feel that strongly because they have been put in a position where they have to support someone when they can't afford to. Someone with the financial ability to support someone else may not feel so bitter about having to!

serenity · 16/09/2007 11:23

When I met DH it definitely didn't matter, as we were both still in school. We've had times where I've earnt more than him, and at the moment he earns more than me (well, I'm pretty much a SAHM so it's not difficult )

'It would be interesting to see the income of those who say it shouldn't matter, compared to those who say it does.' Which way round do you think it would be? FWTW, I know a fair few people who married wealthy men (who got involved with them partly for that reason, nice meals out, presents etc) who are generally unhappy - not enough to leave, but to be dissatisfied I suppose. I'd far rather be with my DH who's home at a reasonable time, isn't stressed but doesn't earn a great deal and be happy.

TiramisuTartsandPiesInOrbit · 16/09/2007 11:36

Good post mytwopenceworth.
Where is LOVE if you concern yourself about money from the word go? Life throws allsorts at you, and you cannot predict.

I met dh when I was at UNI. He worked in a pub, studied IT on the side. Then he got a good IT job, I was a student and he supported us. Then I got an extremely well paid job, and it ensured he could set up own company and earn just about nothign for a while. Then I resigned my job, and we have struggled along together on what the company brings in. We have also gone from very low, to very high, then to just about managing. And really, it doesnt matter. It is about doing it together, not one living off another. And even if that was the case, at certain points, it still didnt matter as we were together about building and managing our lives.

I resent the "my money and your money" attitudes some seem to have, as well as the "oooh, support me" attitudes.

EscapeFrom · 16/09/2007 11:39

But what is love without respect? And how can you respect a man who makes no attempt to look after you?

I don't mean buying new cars and stuff, I mean that if you ask him to pick up milk on the way home, he doesn't have to come and get some out of your purse first!

TiramisuTartsandPiesInOrbit · 16/09/2007 11:45

But escapefrom that is what I mean, in an equal partnership BOTH parties work hard to ensure they can sustain their living. If there are periods where one earns more than the other (because they are setting up a business, retraining etc) it shouldnt matter as the couples goal together is to long term ensure that both contributes, in the way they can.

I would not respect a man who makes no attempt to work, to educate himself, to contribute. And then there would in the end be no love either.

Women should not have to look to men and think about them in terms of the WALLETS only, they should be as capable of self support (at least till they bring forth children). But equally, it would be stupid to settle with somebody who is a "nohoper" or without any earning potential to start with.

I would think it was more important to look at the general picture of the bloke, is a good father potential, has he any education or plans for training, has he got any ambition to have a good job, is he nice, could we form a good partnership together, rather than look for a "sugar daddy".

WideWebWitch · 16/09/2007 11:48

I've never looked at a man based on the size of his wallet but I've pretty much been financially independent all my life.

Mind you, woman at work who wants babies and marriage, is 39, panicking, won't look at anyone who earns less than £75k (which to be fair is about what she earns) because she wants to have babies and be a sahm. Hmm.

TiramisuTartsandPiesInOrbit · 16/09/2007 11:49

Lol, well good luck to her...

EscapeFrom · 16/09/2007 11:49

I do agree.

But I generally find that the men who bitch that women are all gold diggers generally reveal themselves to be tight arsed bastards who expect their wife to exist buying her own clothes from a charity shop, and taking a packed lunch everywhere, while having 2 cars and a motorbike (while their wife can't drive!)

God I have issues with my parents a well balanced view of things.

TiramisuTartsandPiesInOrbit · 16/09/2007 11:53

I would be extremely surprised to hear a man call his wife a gold digger just because he earns more, and yes that would show him in a very tightarsed light. I think in general terms, we agree!

WideWebWitch · 16/09/2007 11:53

I also have a friend whose dh contributes millions financially but doesn't pull his weight with the children/anything else at all and is a selfish arse (imo, his wife mostly doesn't mind so who am I to say?) who goes off on skiing hols sans wife and children and pretty much does anything he pleases.

A mutual friend considers that because he contributes so much financially that's fine - I'd rather have the involvement/presence than the cash and I think he's a selfish arse.

serenity · 16/09/2007 11:56

So does that mean that when I'm taking money from DH to pay for things, for example Friday night I got him to put some petrol in the car because I don't have any money until tomorrow (he doesn't drive btw, no benefit for him) he's going respect me less?

It's not my money and his money, it's our money. At the moment he contributes more, but that doesn't make me a less equal partner - and that should work the other way around if in the future our roles are reversed.

Obviously if we're talking about relationships where one partner is a lazy freeloader then it's different. Doesn't matter whether it's the woman or the man then, if someone is unwillingly supporting someone, just because they can't be arsed to work or whatever then of course you're not going to respect them.

hatwoman · 16/09/2007 11:56

I think Tiramisu mentioned a crucial thing here - kids ("at least til they bring forth children"). the - unfortunate - reality is that being single and/or the only solvent half of a relationship that becomes a family is particulary hard for the woman. Certainly the who doesn;t want to pop her babies out at lunchtime and be back at her desk the next day.

I think those of us (including me) who hooked up when we were too young to have a clue what our financial futures might be would still have had that underlying/implicit trust, responsibility and partnership thing as a factor in our youthful attachment.

FairyOnTheChristmasTree · 16/09/2007 11:59

I agree with the OP. Look how many girls desire to be WAGs, merely for the lifestyle the footballers can provide for them.

WideWebWitch · 16/09/2007 11:59

serenity, I agree, it's joint money in our case too.

Swipe left for the next trending thread