To think that ‘gold diggers is just another sexist trope to make women accept shit from men?

[Merryoldgoat]

I read so many thread where a woman is scared of being called a gold digger so she accepts unbelievably asymmetric spending and ‘goes halves’ with everything even though her bf or partner significantly out-earns her and it leaves her short.

And I actually do mean early on in a relationship too.

When my DH and I first started dating in spite of similar salaries he had greater disposable as he was living at home.

He paid for most meals out (I paid for some and I did offer to go halves when I could). If I couldn’t afford something I said so and generally he just paid or we’d not do it.

When we moved in it went to 50/50 obviously, as outgoings were the same.

When I had children and went part time we pooled money and split the surplus equally.

There is nothing wrong with expecting your partner to help you out if they can and paying for things if they have more money and there’s nothing wrong with being pissed off if they don’t.

I accept I may be BU but I’ve read a few threads recently with obviously right wealthy men getting away with shit because the woman is desperate not to be seen as a gold digger.

I don’t think a bf/gf should pick up more costs just because they earn more.

I’d be horrified if my daughter thought a man should pay her way and my son knows costs should be shared and hes not a cashpoint.

I wouldn't expect friends that out-earn me to pay extra or pay for me when we go out so why would I expect a man i'm dating to?

No, it’s not about paying for you or keeping you but in a relationship isn’t it reasonable to think if one of you has more money you’d help out the other sometimes because it’s a nice thing to do?

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I don’t think a bf/gf should pick up more costs just because they earn more.

I’d be horrified if my daughter thought a man should pay her way and my son knows costs should be shared and hes not a cashpoint.

Of course shared. But if your son was an investment banker going out with a nurse, would you think she was a gold digger simply because she earned less? And wouldn’t you expect that your son treated her sometimes? And if they bought a house together would you expect that they’d split bills 50/50 or more equitably?

@Sisterwives

I wouldn't expect friends that out-earn me to pay extra or pay for me when we go out so why would I expect a man i'm dating to?

I have out earned lots of my friends and quite often treat them if they don’t have the money. It’s nice and thoughtful.

They don’t expect it.

My husband earned about 20x my salary and paid for a lot of things once our relationship was established. But initially I made sure I paid my share, not because I thought I'd be called a gold digger (I had no idea what he earned), but because I am an independent person.
As our relationship grew and he wanted us to go away for a weekend (for example) he paid for it as I wouldn't be able to go if I had to pay half.
I gave up work after my second child but I never considered myself. or think anyone else did, a gold digger - I associate that term with a very young woman going with a very much older and wealthier man.

No - it's attitudes like this that encourage acceptance of the woman-as-lower-earner position in society.

@Pelleas

No - it's attitudes like this that encourage acceptance of the woman-as-lower-earner position in society.

I would say exactly the same of the reverse situation.

Well there is still a pay gap and I don't see men spending £300 on their hair so...

I’m not working and on benefits as a carer to my disabled child, when I go out with friends that earn a lot of money they never offer to pay, I wouldn’t expect them to either! That would be so embarrassing.

@Sisterwives

I wouldn't expect friends that out-earn me to pay extra or pay for me when we go out so why would I expect a man i'm dating to?

Exactly!

Early on in relationship don't agree with you op

Established/ semi moved in or moved in etc more so maybe depending and esp when married/ permanent style kids then yes.

The threads I see where Women go without is usually when they've got kids and are married or living together.

And it often seems to be women on MN saying they are hold diggers (not many but it's unpleasant to read).

DH has always outearned me by about 5x. Early on in our relationship, I struggled to "keep up" financially with the things he wanted to do socially - couldn't afford the mini breaks, fancy restaurants, expensive bars, etc. Eventually, I snapped, and told him that either he "cut his cloth" according to my salary, or if he wanted to do those sort of things with me, he had to pay for them.

When we moved in together, we paid the same percentage of our salaries into a joint account to cover rent and bills and joint savings/outgoings, as that seemed fair to us even though his percentage amounted to a much higher figure. Once we married, everything got pooled jointly.

He's never thought of me of a gold digger, and we discuss any large spends (anything over about £50) with each other and agree them first.

My 14yo came home from his first "date" mighty pissed off that she kept asking him to buy her stuff. They'd been to the nearest seaside town and she expected him to pay for everything they ate, all the arcades etc. I was quite proud that he knew enough to recognise it wasn't right.

I think in an established relationship, yes, finances need to be managed so that each has similar spending power but early on you need to pay your way.

@cosycatsocks

Well there is still a pay gap and I don't see men spending £300 on their hair so...

Well, don’t spend £300 on your hair then.

I would say exactly the same of the reverse situation.

I don't understand why. What you are saying is that if a woman earns less than a man and they are dating, the discrepancy in expenses should be made up by the man. Therefore, it doesn't matter that the woman earns less because the man will cover it. Except, of course, it does matter because there isn't always a man around to pay for things; and not every woman wants to be beholden to a man in this way. If 'he' always pays, how much choice does 'she' have about their dates?

I’m obviously not talking about every date and not from the very early stages.

I very definitely don’t mean the high Warner should pay everything.

I’m talking about the threads where a woman is clearly desperate to ‘pay her easy’ but therefore can’t keep up and the other party treats her like a leech.

And I very clearly said when there’s a disparity in money.

If I were a nurse, and an investment banker took me to dinner at a fancy restaurant I’d be quite upset if he thought I should go half.

Pay gap appears after having children doesnt it? Not sure it is much in evidence til then. The idea that a bloke should pay for your meals because you choose to spend daft amounts on your hair/clothes/nails belongs in the ark.

I've never spent £300 on my hair ever and I certainly wouldn't if I couldn't afford it. If that's the "price" of catching one of these wealthy men, then yes, that probably is gold digging.

@Pelleas

I would say exactly the same of the reverse situation.

I don't understand why. What you are saying is that if a woman earns less than a man and they are dating, the discrepancy in expenses should be made up by the man. Therefore, it doesn't matter that the woman earns less because the man will cover it. Except, of course, it does matter because there isn't always a man around to pay for things; and not every woman wants to be beholden to a man in this way. If 'he' always pays, how much choice does 'she' have about their dates?

I mean if the woman was the high earner then I’d say the same.

@Merryoldgoat then maybe dont agree to a first date in a fancy restaurant? Once you know you like each other enough for a second/third date then you can take turns to pay and pick the establishment according to your wallet.

And if I was a well paid male investment banker, I’d be pissed off if every date expected me to sub her.

As it happens, I’m a female who works for an investment bank and there’s no way I’d have paid way more than my share especially in the earlyish days.

It depends. I’m from a poor area with low education aspirations and is girls are told from a very young age to find a man who earns good money and marry well. A lot of the girls I went to school with who stayed in the area, it never even occurred to them that they could buy their own house etc. They’re just told to seek a man. It’s sad but it is the reality in a lot of places still and I think men should be wary of it.

Yes I think many men are quick to label gold digger. I miss the art of “treating”- it’s nice for a man to pay for dinner and me to pay the next time etc (obviously if I didn’t want to see him again then I wouldn’t accept a free meal). But the 50/50 mentality is taken to the extreme these days- and I do believe it’s why when a woman is on mat leave many men still expect her to pay 50% towards the bills, why do many men want women to rush back to work, why women say “my wages don’t cover childcare”, even though is reality it’s the woman taking the mental load of the children’s schedules/ appointments etc.

[quote Porcupineinwaiting]@Merryoldgoat then maybe dont agree to a first date in a fancy restaurant? Once you know you like each other enough for a second/third date then you can take turns to pay and pick the establishment according to your wallet.[/quote]
I’m talking about further in, not a first date.

By ‘early on’ I mean in the first year, not the first weeks!