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.

Yes, but I don’t meN pay for everything - I clearly said I paid for some stuff and once we moved in it was 50/50 until kids.

I really don’t mean ‘man picks up the tab for all’.

I am not articulating myself very well at all - that much is clear!

I suppose I just mean you can see how woman (usually), so worried about being seen as a gold digger accept really stupid financials with no consideration to actual fairness.

I don’t think that the richer partner should pay everything, I do think that costs should be split reasonably evenly quite early on, but if the partner wants to do something expensive with the lower earner knowing it’s out of their price range, they should pick up the tab.

I get what the OP means, unless a woman goes 50/50 on every date it does seem that some men like to throw around the word “gold digger”.
If a man or woman has never treated the other then it’s unsurprising that x amount of years down the line there may be issues when pooling money and resources. Many men seem to resent having to financially give more to a relationship during maternity leave for example; many women feel required to be able to afford “their mat leave” or “their childcare”.

I remember my SIL once referred to me in such a way to one fo her friends when my husband and I first got together, it was absolutely laughable considering he was studying and I was keeping us afloat working 12 hour days.
I’d have had to be absolutely stupid to hang in here for a decade, in the hopes that one day he makes it big, just so I can laze around the house drinking cocktails and spending his money.

You only tend to get the reverse for men if the woman is older/more put together/comes from a wealthy family, and he doesn’t.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I get what the OP means, unless a woman goes 50/50 on every date it does seem that some men like to throw around the word “gold digger”. If a man or woman has never treated the other then it’s unsurprising that x amount of years down the line there may be issues when pooling money and resources. Many men seem to resent having to financially give more to a relationship during maternity leave for example; many women feel required to be able to afford “their mat leave” or “their childcare”.

Where were you when I was trying to form a coherent thought, eh?

Yes - this is what I mean clever person.

I see it around me constantly in the most outwardly “stable” relationships. Men who could easily afford to support the family themselves “making” their wives return to work within 6 months of having a baby, waiting until their wives save up enough to take another mat leave. Decades ago men supported their families with a sense of pride, now their woman is seen as a scrounger. Yet bizarrely we haven’t become more equal with running the home or children’s schedules etc.

But if your son was an investment banker going out with a nurse,

Encourage the daughter to be the investment banker from the off

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.

an investment banker would generally date women in similar careers with similar resources.

If my son dated a nurse I’d think he was dating a decent human. I’d be very happy for a child of mine to date a teacher, a nurse etc....I don’t solely put emphasis on money, and don’t expect my child to either.

I do notice that many decades ago the men supported the family with pride. Now the woman is expected to contribute 50/50 financially at all times, while also doing the lion share of the housework, child rearing, caring for extended family and life admin. Overall the split is far from equal.

As we don't always meet partners through work, a nurse is a perfectly reasonable date for an investment banker but, unless he was particularly treating her for her birthday or something, I would expect early dates to be somewhere they could both afford.

DH and I haven't always earned the same but our earning power is very similar, reaching us has had periods when we were the higher earner.

I do sometimes wonder how it feels to know your lifestyle is down to someone else. I'm not sure I'd feel very comfortable/secure in that position and equally, I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to be supporting someone else. Obviously, some people make it work but it must come with challenges.

I never ever let a man pay more for a date than me. Even when he was the cliched banker and I was doing the worthy but less well paid job.

I’m not accepting the “I offered but he insisted” excuse. All you have to do is insist back. Not place yourself into a sexist societal norm. You are defining yourself and your role right there. Sliding doors and all that.

No I’ve never heard anyone use the term gold digger outside of a bad romantic novel. It does appear on MN but I assume the OP is a writer of bad fiction trying out their bollocks story.

Freeloading is a term I have heard used for men and women who let others pay for them. There’s no need to freeload off a date. If you can’t afford to eat out then go for a walk.

Sharing is the term used for people in a committed relationship.

Men who could easily afford to support the family themselves “making” their wives return to work within 6 months of having a baby, waiting until their wives save up enough to take another mat leave. Decades ago men supported their families with a sense of pride, now their woman is seen as a scrounger

Poor wife eho has to work too. How about she battles for her OH to do more around the house rather than insisting she is entitled to stay at home?

All the women I know who work ft have partners who do as much as them because that was the deal from the start.

Women are always crying about their right to independence and self reliability but then moan if their partner doesn't want to be the sole bred winner.

Gold digger in my world is the young woman who targets boys on the path to a good career or a rich mum and dad. I removed them at Uni, they didn't deny their intentions and the fact they went out to places where the guys studying law or medicine went to.

That or the elder woman who refuses to go on a date with anyone who doesn't earn at least £80k when she herself earn little or nothing.

@OneRingToRuleThemAll

I do notice that many decades ago the men supported the family with pride. Now the woman is expected to contribute 50/50 financially at all times, while also doing the lion share of the housework, child rearing, caring for extended family and life admin. Overall the split is far from equal.

Not in this family, home or network of people. Women can set their own expectations and live by them.

Yes I totally agree with you OP. I literally had no idea until so joined MN that MARRIED people have separate bank accounts and effectively different incomes. Usually it’s the women who are on the lower incomes and they seem to have persuaded themselves they are delighted with this malarkey as it’s “independent” and more “feminist.” Never mind that they’ve had to go part-time or put career progression on hold relative to the DH because of the kids. No, let’s conveniently gloss over that and let ourselves believe we MUST have our own (usually lower) accounts within a marriage for “independence.”

If this isn’t patriarchy at a whole new level, I’m not sure what is. Bollocks to that. I’ve never heard so much nonsense in my life.

I haven’t worked for a loooong time because we have 4 DC. DH is a very high-earner, but I met him before he was earning much at all, so not a gold-digger and I know this full-well so it’s irrelevant what anyone may or may not think. I’ve supported him in one way; he’s supported me in another over the years and who earns the money is just one aspect of a relationship. I would NEVER live with a man who thought it was ok to have separate accounts. Must be joking.

"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."
I've read them too! And quite often the boyfriend is the sponging git, expecting his girlfriend to prove she's not living off him by spending weekends at hers where he provides no food, no alcohol because its her place and she should be hosting him properly. Gah!!

IMO the problem seems to be that despite the disparity in incomes (before living together), the higher-income partner expects the lower-income partner to 'keep up' to their usual spending patterns. Whereas I think the higher-earner should rein it in and suggest dates that are more affordable to the lower-earner; cinema or drinks, not an expensive restaurant. If the high-earner wants to do something the low-earner can't afford then yes, they should fucking well pay for that, not guilt their lower-earning partner into going halves and only being able to afford beans on toast for the rest of the week!

But the real problems seem to be when couples live together.

Quite simply - you're either a unit, or your doing a house-share with sex thrown in. And if it's just a house-share, then, again, the high-earner is being a selfish fuckwit if they insist that they run a house that only the high-earner can afford. You want to go halves? Then move in to a house that your lower-earning partner (ooh, there's an assumption, that they think of the person they're shagging as a PARTNER) can afford too.

I would not consider a man who sees his earnings as his and his only as a life partner. There are times in life when one partner will earn less, maternity and early years being the obvious ones, but also redundancy and illness, which he could suffer too. Would he still insist on 50:50 if he were made redundant, or would he expect his lower-earning partner to shoulder more of the joint costs? I think the type who expects a lower-earning partner to cover half the costs of his higher-earning lifestyle would go for the latter.

When DP and I were first together I tried going halves or taking it in turns to pay for dinners etc.

I’m on a low income and tax credits etc, he earns a 6 figure salary.

He would suggest taking my 3 DCs out for dinner to a chain restaurant - somewhere like Wagamama - and would it come to £70-80 plus tips, as he’ll ask what everyone wants to drink or suggest some starters/sides, whereas when I take them on my own I’ll say it’s water for everyone, no sides, and make the younger kids eat from the kids menu as the ramen portions are still big, but half the price!! I’ll suggest we stop at a shop and buy pudding on the way home whereas he’d let them order desserts too, as that’s how he is with his own DCs.

When the younger DCs would leave half their meal or then need a second drink because they’ve downed their extortionate smoothie in 5 seconds I’d get quite twitchy at the expense!! Whereas it didn’t phase him as he’s used to spending that sort of money on eating out. He enjoys food and is happy to pay for it.

So now if we eat out, the understanding is that he’s paying if we’re going somewhere for steak or proper dinner, and I’m paying when we get KFC, carvery or something more modest. He’s ok with that because he’s seen me get into huge debt trying to keep up with his spending, and has happily helped me out, so he’d rather just prevent the problem in the first place than keep bailing me out.

Of course I’d love to be earning £100k a year but that’s not going to happen by me insisting on paying for my own noodles.

Poor wife eho has to work too 6 months after giving birth? You consider it a luxury to stay at home with newborn? Funny because most men still don’t share mat leave- guess it’s not that fun. Zero value on raising babies and preschoolerS- that’s the sad attitude, only value placed is on a monetary contribution.

As we don't always meet partners through work, a nurse is a perfectly reasonable date for an investment banker but

Perfectly reasonable but unlikely. If they didn't meet through work they'd meet socially and the point if this thread is that the high earners can afford to socialise in places the low earner can't. I know one nurse married to a high earner and he's a class A drug distributor. She turns a blind eye because she enjoys having her 4 kids at private school

When I first met my husband we had a conversation quite early on about this. He earned a lot more than me and we both liked going out a lot. He said he was more than happy to pay for me and if I insisted on paying for myself I wouldn't be able to 'keep up' (if you like) so we'd both have to stay in. Anyway, he ended up paying for me. If I was a gold digger, I was pretty shit , because he is far from rich.

@redbluepurple

But if your son was an investment banker going out with a nurse,

Encourage the daughter to be the investment banker from the off

Wtf?

No I’ve never heard anyone use the term gold digger outside of a bad romantic novel. It does appear on MN but I assume the OP is a writer of bad fiction trying out their bollocks story.

Really? That’s the only assumption? I’m an accountant as it goes - not a writer (quite obviously) 🙄

do notice that many decades ago the men supported the family with pride. Now the woman is expected to contribute 50/50 financially at all times, while also doing the lion share of the housework, child rearing, caring for extended family and life admin.Overall the split is far from equal.
Not here is isn't.

I've never been interested in a man who thinks equality is us both working full time but I do all the wife work and should always make my career second to his.

Some men are lazy or man children or generally hold sexist views about division of labour. They are entirely responsible for their behaviour. Nobody has to accept this and most of those situations aren't abusive, it's women enabling lazy behaviour from their partners by continuing to pick up after them. Just yesterday there was a thread where a poor OP had been back to work after maternity and her DP had done nothing, not fed the baby and then wanted to go and play golf the second she got in from work. There were seriously posters arguing she should have stopped assuming he'd know how to mop a floor, did she not show DP how to do chores, maybe she should have sorted dinner.

Either way, being a gold-digger isn't just about being in a relationship with someone who earns more, it's looking for a relationship with someone because of their wealth and hoping to get the lifestyle you want by marrying into money.

I’m not accepting the “I offered but he insisted” excuse. All you have to do is insist back. Not place yourself into a sexist societal norm. You are defining yourself and your role right there. Sliding doors and all that.

Well I didn’t give you the full details of our conversation did I? Because that’s as daft as your assumptions about me.

I quite clearly said we were 50/50 when we moved in and had different arrangements when I was part time and on mat leave for obvious reasons.

This whole investment banker vs nurse argument shines a light on a totally different issue. Why aren’t there more women in that profession. Of course there are a lot of reasons, children being one of them. But even with a lower fertility rate in the last 40 years, women are lagging. Women wouldn’t say no to an investment banker partner but tend to be put off from joining such professions because of how financially superficial they age (huge generalization I know, but bear with me). We have to encourage girls to stop seeing money focused professions as inferior to caring ones. Nurses don’t exist in a vacuum, someone has to pay for them. And why shouldn’t it be more women in pinstripes suits.

I agree OP, I've seen some awful stories on MN where people are scraping together money to get their kids shoes while their 'partner' is effectively living a completely different lifestyle with expensive hobbies and lads' trips away. Every thing is equal yes, but that definitely doesn't translate to everything being fair.

In the early days, sure, but when you're in an established relationship I can't get my head round someone happily watching their life partner struggle unnecessarily. People are so reluctant to be seen as a gold digger that they put up with too much.