AIBU to think it’s rather sensible for young women to consider earning potential/ wealth when choosing a life partner?

[OompaLumpaLabrador]

My mum always said that it doesn’t matter how wealthy or otherwise a man is, as long as you love each other. Which I guess is easy to say when, as a young nurse, you fell for a very decent and lovable surgeon ( my dad).

But I’m 43 now, and the life choices friends have made are all coming out in the wash. And the reality appears that those of us who opted to spend our lives with men and women with money have by far the better deal. There’s more freedom around healthcare, education, location, travel and work ( give up, part time, full time). The unpleasant and time consuming household chores are outsourced. There seems less stress in the partnerships because there are no money worries. The partnerships just seem easier. And if it doesn’t work out, a decent divorce settlement means women aren’t left high and dry.

Of course, love comes first. And maybe I’m getting cynical in my old age. But I’m not sure I’ll be giving my daughters quite the sake advice as my mum gave me. AIBU?

Yes,. sensible

And yet it's usually the woman who steps back and the man continues career uninterrupted...

Even if they earn the same etc and have same opportunities and both love their jobs...

Funny that.

The way it's seen as obvious the woman SAH/ steps back/ nanny.

Is just a reflection of the assumptions that are deeply entrenched in society.

And the fact it's just taken for granted means it's harder for couples who want to do something different.

If I had my time again I would choose someone with nice parents. The money side is less important to me.

@NiceGerbil

The way it's seen as obvious the woman SAH/ steps back/ nanny.

Is just a reflection of the assumptions that are deeply entrenched in society.

And the fact it's just taken for granted means it's harder for couples who want to do something different.

This exactly - and there are tonnes and tonnes of women and families rejecting these assumptions. Women being the breadwinners. Both parents working part time, stay at home dads - more and more these things are becoming more common. Which is why the OPs post is depressing.

There is another way of looking at life and millions of people are doing it right now.

And if a couple choose to have the woman as the SAHP and the man and the earner then that’s great - but if it comes from a place of knowledge and choice they will be much more likely to be happy.

Over and over I find that 'the stories people tell' and the way they are embedded so deeply that people will trot them out irrespective of what they know from real life. Is so interesting.

DH says it's easy. Means you don't have to think too much.

‘And if a couple choose to have the woman as the SAHP and the man and the earner then that’s great - but if it comes from a place of knowledge and choice they will be much more likely to be happy.’

Yes I agree it has to come from a place of knowledge and choice. It’s about being honest with yourself. There is no right or wrong. You only get one life and you have to do what’s most meaningful to you. That will vary massively between women (and men) but it’s up to every couple to work out.

For instance, I was a child therapist. As a result, I had absolute certainty that I wanted to be around as much as possible for my own children (4 of them). It was never ever dull or a compromise for me and it’s been fascinating at every stage. If I had my time again I would do the same. That’s just me. I would have been utterly miserable any other way. My husband is a very dynamic type and it’s totally different for him. He was in a position to make the kind of money I would never have made in a million years. So he’s done what he felt compelled to do and it works for us both. Other couple will have different motivations and organise themselves accordingly.

Anyone who is encouraging their daughters to rely on a man for money is essentially setting themselves up for a life of subserviance, compromise and in a worst case scenario abuse.

YABVU.

Encourage your daughters to make their own money.

@THisbackwithavengeance

No-one is pointing out the obvious.

If you are a good looking or beautiful "high status" female with a decent personality, you will be able to attract a high status mate which invariably means someone go-getting, attractive and either a high earner or the potential of such.

If you are less attractive, low status and your personality is not great, you will be stuck with what's left.

It's no good telling all girls to aim high because it's not achievable for all women. If you are a 9 out of 10, you can aim high; if you're a 3, your options are more limited.

Of course there are outliers but generally that's the way of the world.

This is very very true.

I am amazed that so many posters explain that there are myriad of men of various level of ambition, wealth and attractiveness interested in them, and they just need to choose wisely.

I am approaching 40, and I had only two men interested in me sufficiently to ask me out in my entire life. That's the choice.

My advice to my daughter as to own career vs partner's career would, in all honesty, depend also on how attractive objectively she would grow up to be. The cost of error is much higher for unattractive women.

YABU

You should marry someone for a variety of reasons- love, friendship and companionship, shared values and goals etc. Should you marry someone wealthy/with high earning potential so that you can be “kept” by your spouse and/or if you divorce you can benefit financially? I think that’s a pretty rubbish reason to marry someone and surely significantly increases the risk of the marriage failing as it was not built on a strong foundation (compatibility, love, shared values).

It’s also a horrible way to treat someone- marrying them for their bank balance and not because they are valued for the person they are. Do you think most people would marry someone who suggested to them “I’ll marry you because you are wealthy (or I think you will be), your other qualities are either of secondary importance or utterly irrelevant”? I think they’d run a mile.

Can you imagine if the genders were reversed? And someone came on here and said men should only marry women who will earn well… or if you changed it to “beautiful/ attractive”, or “will stay at home to look after the house and children”. They’d be condemned.

I think it’s a terrible message to send to girls and young women too. Women should forge their own success and independence too, not rely on finding a man who can fund their lifestyle.

I would marry my husband all over again even he is didn't have a dime.

You can't buy happiness, you can try but why bother. You could miss out on the love of your life for someone who you do love but you've settled for because they have money.

Woman have the opportunity to make their own money these days, that's the best option

The only thing you could say is that it is quite possibly true that shared values and goals- and that may well include level of ambition and education and career goals/attainment- should be shared. So women who are ambitious, or highly educated or successful in their careers are more likely to seek partners who are also ambitious or have achieved similarly academically/career-wise. In the same way it’s often the case that attractive people tend to have attractive partners- not in every case, obviously, and attractiveness is “in the eye of the beholder” to some extent, after all.

@AliceinBorderland

Eg your parents situation of the nurse marrying the surgeon is not as common as two doctors marrying each other. The boss doesn’t really marry the secretary anymore …

That's funny because I know a consultant married to a nurse. Both in their 30s 🤷🏼‍♀️

There's always the exception that proves the rule, but I agree with PP that it's less common than in the past

My mother used to say that it's as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man - how i wish i'd taken her advice!

I've told my daughter that if she plans on having kids, the better off she and her partner are, the more options she will have to stay home when they're little, if she wants to, to take them on trips etc. But to be realistic, a woman needs a partner with money if she's to take the first couple of years of her children's lives off work.

I was a single parent and i had to go back to work far sooner than i wanted - or was good for my daughter - if i had a well off partner i would have had a lot more choice. Being broke and being a parent is not romantic.

[quote Dexy007]**@PurpleOkapi* but why does anyone* have to stay at home? I don't have children - architect son and engineer daughter are fictitious examples - but I would want them to marry their equal so that neither partner has to stay at home, and they can both have challenging and fulfilling jobs.

I have a big circle of girlfriends who are all solicitors in London. I think some of them outearn their husbands and vice versa but both parties in each marriage would be classed as higher earners. Every single one of them (and I am talking about a pool of 8 women) has had at least one baby and every single one of them has gone back to work, because they are not in that dreadful position of 'oh well your salary barely covers childcare what's the point'. I expect they could afford to stay at home, but why should they? No one has to sacrifice their career to have children, that is toxic nonsense. Will they suffer barriers at work? Discrimination? Be passed over for opportunities? I'm sure, but none of them just thought 'oh this is me now, I'm a mum, why don't I just quit'.

Honestly these attitudes. I despair.[/quote]
No one has to, obviously. But if someone wants to and their income isn't necessary for a lifestyle that makes them both happy, I don't see what's so wrong about it. At least, not to the point where it's reasonable to be disappointed in your child for marrying such a person, rather than proud of them for having the sort of career that makes it an option and happy that they're able to choose a life that they find fulfilling. If telling women that balancing work and motherhood is difficult is "toxic," then telling them that they're disappointments as human beings if they don't earn enough is much worse.

@MenoMom I think there are some assumptions in your post, I'm not sure I agree.

A woman with a high earning partner will certainly have some options, but she is less likely to have options like returning to work while her husband is a stay at home parent and does all the housework, or for both parents to reduce hours and share the childcare.

A woman who is the main earner will have different options, but not necessarily more or less.

While I know many women want to stay at home and be supported, there are plenty of women who want to work and aren't able to, which can be equally miserable.

All our life choices will effect the options we get later. The only thing you can control is whether you do it alongside a decent person.

No, women should consider getting their own well paid career so the don’t have to rely on a man. That way they can marry whomever they want. Relying on other people to take care of you for the rest of your life is a very risky strategy. Apparently OLD is full of divorced women wanting to find a man who can give them the life to which they’ve become accustomed.

No, women should consider getting their own well paid career.

I love how people say this as though all you have to do is want a well-paid career and you'll get one. Most people will never have a well-paid career, whether they want it or work hard or not.

@MenoMom

My mother used to say that it's as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man - how i wish i'd taken her advice!

I've told my daughter that if she plans on having kids, the better off she and her partner are, the more options she will have to stay home when they're little, if she wants to, to take them on trips etc. But to be realistic, a woman needs a partner with money if she's to take the first couple of years of her children's lives off work.

I was a single parent and i had to go back to work far sooner than i wanted - or was good for my daughter - if i had a well off partner i would have had a lot more choice. Being broke and being a parent is not romantic.

That's true... if she wants to. But also she would have to find a well off man who wants a stay at home partner too. That can't be assumed, just because he earns well. He may want a wife who also earns well so they have even more charmed a life or so that he can have time off with his children or so that he can go part time as can she. I really hate how it is just assumed women are the ones who can just on a whim choose to rely on their partner so they can stay at home. Fair enough statistically we see that but then men are also conditioned to be breadwinners and feel not enough if they can't be. In reality many men probably want to be home too but that isn't a choice so readily available.

I mean... even if everyone had equally high intelligence, skills and educational opportunities, there wouldn't be enough well-paid careers to go around, would there? Who's going to do all the badly-paid jobs?

@Strangevipers

I would marry my husband all over again even he is didn't have a dime.

You can't buy happiness, you can try but why bother. You could miss out on the love of your life for someone who you do love but you've settled for because they have money.

Woman have the opportunity to make their own money these days, that's the best option

I agree and also not only that but you cannot guarantee where you'll end up. You could marry someone super rich and the chances of them staying rich are decent.. but the statistical chance of marrying someone super rich if you yourself have nowhere near those credentials is surely low. Marry someone well off but not super rich and you never know if they'll die young not leaving much, or lose their job and not find another paying well, or decide to change career for one much lower paid, or go bankrupt etc. Point is this is why you're so much better relying on yourself, marrying for love and then working together to build wealth. It takes longer and isn't guaranteed but win or lose on the money front you still have love.

@lazylinguist

No, women should consider getting their own well paid career.

I love how people say this as though all you have to do is want a well-paid career and you'll get one. Most people will never have a well-paid career, whether they want it or work hard or not.

You're not wrong. But I guess rather than the plan being to rely on finding a well off man (also not guaranteed) plan for yourself first.

I would say it more important to marry someone who will take on their fair share of responsibilities.
Doing 50% of childcare, housework and the mental load is worth more than money and makes it easier for both partners to work.

And with that attitude, why would a man who is comfortably off bother with a woman who isn't?

I think you've got the question the wrong way round. You have to look for a partner who has an outlook and aspirations that are compatible with yours. So, yeah, if eventually you'd like a house with a swimming pool, then you should probably not commit to someone whose dream home is a yurt within hiking distance of Stonehenge. But that's not because you're considering long-term earning potential. It's because you're considering long-term compatibility.

One of my daughters is considering a profession which makes her happy but which is unlikely to make her materially 'successful'. She's aware of that, and she knows what she's doing.

Good for her, I say.

Neither is she on the look-out for a life-partner with 'earning potential'.

Good for her, I say again.

Also, I know some fucking miserable rich couples.