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.

To be honest, I’ve seen more threads where a financially abused OP says that her partner “treated her beautifully” or “like a princess” when they were dating and that things changed much later than those where there was financial disparity right from the start which the new boyfriend refused to consider.

And the investment banker in your example is likely more aware than lower earning men that quite a lot of women are more than happy to date him simply for his money and lifestyle, hence often being more keen than lower earning men to insist on going halves - that way he finds out who actually likes him and who likes his money.

I don’t think we should teach young women that they should expect a first date or new boyfriend to pay for them as well because it’s “chivalrous” or how a man treats a woman he likes. I don’t think we should teach young men that this is what’s expected of them.

YANBU

Early in a relationship... People with more disposable income usually love to splurge on their dates, so why deny them that pleasure by asking to split the bill? It's the intention that counts: the partner with less income can't book a posh restaurant, but next date they may cook a homemade meal.

Once people move in together: you're a household, of course everyone should contribute... pro-rata to their income. Any other arrangement is unfair. If one doesn't have an income, they contribute their time and energy to running the household. Splitting bills "equally" just screams "we're not really a team, just two individuals who happen to be shagging each others" (even Thatcher never went that far in her atomisation of society: she still believed in families!)

There's nobody more concerned about "gold diggers" than a man with no gold.

Men literally created a society where they were in control financially and women were reliant on them. It's just another example of women being damned whatever they do.

@ComtesseDeSpair

To be honest, I’ve seen more threads where a financially abused OP says that her partner “treated her beautifully” or “like a princess” when they were dating and that things changed much later than those where there was financial disparity right from the start which the new boyfriend refused to consider.

And the investment banker in your example is likely more aware than lower earning men that quite a lot of women are more than happy to date him simply for his money and lifestyle, hence often being more keen than lower earning men to insist on going halves - that way he finds out who actually likes him and who likes his money.

I don’t think we should teach young women that they should expect a first date or new boyfriend to pay for them as well because it’s “chivalrous” or how a man treats a woman he likes. I don’t think we should teach young men that this is what’s expected of them.

Yes, that definitely happens. I am not interested in being treated like a princess and I’m suspicious of anyone who is.

I agree with you though. That’s a viewpoint I’d not considered.

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

Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. I'd also say the same, although there isn't the same wider societal benefit if the situation is reversed.

For me it has to be 50/50. I was in a relationship where there was a big gap in our earnings. It's fine to pay for the occasional treat, dinner or meal but I've never though it was fair that one partner should be paying a greater amount of their wages towards the mortgage or household bills just because the other doesn't earn as much. The person earning more works hard for their money or has made a decision to work in an industry with a higher earning potential, they should enjoy their disposable income and shouldn't be subsiding their partner.

@pennysea

For me it has to be 50/50. I was in a relationship where there was a big gap in our earnings. It's fine to pay for the occasional treat, dinner or meal but I've never though it was fair that one partner should be paying a greater amount of their wages towards the mortgage or household bills just because the other doesn't earn as much. The person earning more works hard for their money or has made a decision to work in an industry with a higher earning potential, they should enjoy their disposable income and shouldn't be subsiding their partner.

The person earning less may work harder. Earning lots is not always reflected in one’s salary.

There is no way if I were earning three times my partner‘s salary I’d expect him to pay the same as me for our mortgage and bills.

I agree with you OP and get the distinction you're drawing between earlier on, during the dating phase, and once a relationship is established - once you become a partnership, a team. I (female) earn more than my (male) DP. We split our joint outgoings more or less as a % of respective income. Getting married next year and I expect we'll more to even more of a pooled arrangement where we each take the same disposable spending money out of a joint pot. Because we're a team. I certainly don't consider him a goldigger.

Women will stop being accused of being ‘gold diggers’ when they stop competing with one another for the affections of rich men. Anyone who has seen with their own eyes the way groups of young women behave around footballers in nightclubs knows this won’t change any time soon.

Men will stop being accused of being sleazy when they stop competing with one another for the affections of attractive young women. Anyone who has seen with their own eyes the way groups of middle aged men behave around their junior female colleagues In hotel bars at conferences knows this won’t change any time soon.

The person earning more works hard for their money or has made a decision to work in an industry with a higher earning potential, they should enjoy their disposable income and shouldn't be subsiding their partner since when did earning more prove you work harder? So if in a long term relationship a teacher and a ceo say want to buy a property, so they opt for a cheaper place?

Sorry, I misread your original post. I do think there is a bit of a distinction between early on in a relationship v once you're established although suppose if it were a significant disparity of income then it wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable for one person to pick up the majority of cost of dates (and that could be either male or female obviously - although of course it's the woman who would be branded a goldigger).

@Lemonyfuckit

I agree with you OP and get the distinction you're drawing between earlier on, during the dating phase, and once a relationship is established - once you become a partnership, a team. I (female) earn more than my (male) DP. We split our joint outgoings more or less as a % of respective income. Getting married next year and I expect we'll more to even more of a pooled arrangement where we each take the same disposable spending money out of a joint pot. Because we're a team. I certainly don't consider him a goldigger.

I think I’ve not been very clear but yes, you’ve nailed it.

On our first date DH paid, I offered as soon as the bill arrived to split it but he was adamant. In those first weeks I offered every time and he refused. I took him out a few times, cooked for him etc.

If he suggested going out but I didn’t have the cash I’d say ‘I’m a bit skint, can we stay in?’ And he’d either say ‘yes’ or ‘don’t worry, I’ll pay’.

The threads where a woman has saved to fund her maternity leave because she’s expected to fun it herself. They make me feel so angry.

When dating/early in the relationship I think everything should either be 50/50 or take it in turns to pay for things. Obviously if one person is short on cash activities need to be within their budget, but fun really doesn’t have to he expensive.

Once you move in together clearly it’s different and there needs to be a financial arrangement everyone is happy with. My preference would be to pool all money and then give each adult x pocket money each month and have joint savings. My boyfriend isn’t as keen on that so we have gone for putting the same proportion of our salary in the bills account and having our own savings and when we want a certain thing e.g holiday we pay a proportional cost of the holiday from our individual savings. If we end up getting married when we will pool all earnings and he’ll go on the mortgage/deeds.

@HappyPear

There's nobody more concerned about "gold diggers" than a man with no gold.

Men literally created a society where they were in control financially and women were reliant on them. It's just another example of women being damned whatever they do.

Yep. When DH and I met I was a single parent. I had a house and a well-paid job, but MIL's first words to DH were that I clearly had an eye out for a wealthy man.

Despite me paying my way, paying the exact same amount towards the deposit on our house and working throughout our entire time together it will never be enough for those people who think that a man earning a higher amount than his DW means she's only with him for his money.

But @Merryoldgoat you’ve made the assumption that men earn more than women in the early days when that’s incorrect. Nowadays there is actually no pay gap until women start having children/ going on mat leave/ part time. So a young child free woman should able to pay on average the same as young child free men. Why should he therefore pay more for their dates?

The sad truth is the higher earner would have to frequent the places I could afford if they want my company, friends or partners.

@Holyrivolli

But *@Merryoldgoat* you’ve made the assumption that men earn more than women in the early days when that’s incorrect. Nowadays there is actually no pay gap until women start having children/ going on mat leave/ part time. So a young child free woman should able to pay on average the same as young child free men. Why should he therefore pay more for their dates?

Because the threads are almost always that way round. I’ve said at least twice that I’d feel exactly the same if the woman was the higher earner.

@Doingtheboxerbeat

The sad truth is the higher earner would have to frequent the places I could afford if they want my company, friends or partners.

What’s sad about that?

High earner: do you fancy dinner at [fancy place] tonight?

You: mate - I can’t afford that shit. Pizza express?

HE: deal - as long as I can have the chocolate cake.

All I’m saying I’d that if they insist on that stuff then the lower earner shouldn’t be expected to shell out if they can’t afford it.

There's nobody more concerned about "gold diggers" than a man with no gold.

I agree.

I think the term goldigger is used quite losely.

My understanding of the term is a woman going after a man primarily for his money/wealth...where they wouldn't have given him a second glance otherwise.

A bit like Bernie Eccleston's wife....he's 89...she's 44...

OP you keep moving the goalposts.

Your op said even from very early.
Then you said early-ish.
Now you're taking about mortgages.

It's making the thread very confusing.

FWIW the dynamic with money is odd. But very few men or women are on mega bucks.

Maybe be more specific. Give an example. He earns this she earns that. How old are they. Etc.

I work in the city and there is some stuff with what you allude to but I've not seen that outside that area ever in my life.

@ShinyFootball

OP you keep moving the goalposts.

Your op said even from very early.
Then you said early-ish.
Now you're taking about mortgages.

It's making the thread very confusing.

FWIW the dynamic with money is odd. But very few men or women are on mega bucks.

Maybe be more specific. Give an example. He earns this she earns that. How old are they. Etc.

I work in the city and there is some stuff with what you allude to but I've not seen that outside that area ever in my life.

I know, and I’m sorry.

It’s because it’s really hard to articulate what I mean.

What I’m essentially saying I suppose that perfectly normal people in perfectly normal jobs sometimes get together with people with much more money and, in an effort not to be seen as a gold digger (which is a horrible slur), they accept really unequal division of costs.

Always buying loads of groceries when the other one comes over; paying half for everything even if it leaves them short; being scared to ask for any owed money back etc.

And I’m talking about real earnings differences - not one earning £25k and one earning £30k, the £25k vs £80k etc.

I know it’s confused and I’m sorry. I think I posted it reactively because I’m so sick of seeing (mostly) women diminished just because they earn less than their partners,

In an established long term relationship, married for instance, it makes sense that the higher earner pays more. But expecting the man to pay more for everything because they earn more when you have been in a relationship for all of two minutes is gold digging.

@sst1234

In an established long term relationship, married for instance, it makes sense that the higher earner pays more. But expecting the man to pay more for everything because they earn more when you have been in a relationship for all of two minutes is gold digging.

That’s clearly not what I mean

Op, I don’t understand the maternity thing either but sometimes I think there is more to it than seems.

Oh OP, you really do need to make your mind up, you're befuddling yourself

You're saying now 'no that's clearly not what I mean' when you've said the opposite previously.

"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"

"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"