To not want to date men who earn less than me, even if they’re kind?

[RealPlumEagle]

I’ve worked hard for a certain lifestyle and I don’t want to feel like I have to downgrade. It’s not about love, it’s about compatibility. AIBU or does that make me a snob?

That's interesting, MN doesn't like that to be true when it's the other way around.

Not snobby at all , it's your preference and as you said you wouldn't have much in common with say a guy who didn't work hard and spent his time smoking , drinking and gaming all day as an example

Yes!!!!!

Yeah, OP, you are a snob.

I only dated him briefly but I dated a guy who earned almost half my salary.

I recall he did not mind that per se but he refused to allow me to pay for anything. Which meant we could only do what he could afford. Which was not much.

We were not together long enough for it to bug me but I know it would have eventually.

He also had no ambition. He did not strive to get a better job, retrain, earn more. He just wanted me to be happy with a lot less.

I get you OP, in my view (but I am quite old) there is a difference when a man earns less. Women still end up doing the bulk of household stuff even when they earn more. So you earn more, still do loads and can’t have the lifestyle you want.

However perhaps he’s awesome in the wifework dept so you are equal in that respect?

You get to hold out for whatever red lines you decide on and you don't need our permission.

I'm not going to warn you about all the good guys you might be saying no to. But good luck with the kind of guy who'll willingly choose a woman like you as his life partner! I wouldn't touch that guy with a bargepole.

Also good luck (and a hefty LOL) at the posters who are fixated on a Certain Income but who haven't realised how fragile one's personal affluence can be over the course of a lifetime.

A man who is awesome in wifework is literally my DREAM!

This is effectively our situation too. I was unemployed when we met, but had already paid off a mortgage, so my now wife was able to restart her career by taking an entry-level role in a different specialism (law) without having to fund a roof over her head.

Before kids I did some contracting and sometimes earned more in a day than she took home in a month, but when DCs arrived I stopped to be a SAHD while she pursued her career. She's now a Partner at a national firm (not Magic Circle, unfortunately!).

Who has brought in the money has swung wildly over the course of our lives together, but we've always regarded it as shared. If we couldn't afford 'lifestyle' then we couldn't afford it, but for us lifestyle was always about our family and home life, and our values, rather than what we spent.

As a bonus, besides being able to invest well when I was earning, I have also inherited substantial sums of money and other assets across several continents. My investment income now brings in roughly double the average household income so neither of us even really need to work. We're happy driving a Dacia at our UK base, but I could buy a Range Rover outright on my debit card if I wanted to. We dress ourselves and our kids from charity shops and Vinted, but I have a couple of Savile Row suits for when the occasion requires.

OP would have rejected me outright for my poverty. It sounds like I dodged a bullet.

I mean I don’t see why a guy like the one willing to date OP would be one to avoid. It’s not unusual for a woman to prefer to date a man in her earnings bracket and a lot of men don’t seem to care much.

Even amongst some earlier bad choices of men, I always made it a rule to never date men who live with parents/family (I feel that these types should prioritise leaving that set up before entertaining the thought of a sentimental life) or who I would have to compromise my material life before marriage.
Just by adhering to these two basics, I have never had to stay in a relationship due to "financials" and have only been with men who, even if a few were not too emotionally tethered, have had their adult shit together.
Another thing......I've never been out with a tightwad, either.
The thing about that type is that they expect steak and rice whilst not being expected to flash even sausage and chips money.
And this mentality always seeps into how they express love.

Mumsnet is full of sad tales of woe about kind men who switched.
Imagine one of these broker than you dusty fuckers trying to claim half of your shit when they have contrived to have made the relationship go left?

What if you wife had insisted she wants to be the SAHP?

And why would you had dodged a bullet? I am sure your wife and you both had dating dealbreakers?

Because she's of poor character. Not just materialistic but a bit thick on account of how she thinks a man's projected earnings can be guaranteed after she meets him. Men who'd put up with that poor character tend to be either similarly materialistic, or willingly to put up with someone like her just for sex (in which case they'll go elsewhere for it the minute she ages a bit) or afflicted with a big dose of Traditional Gender Roles (which will come back to bite her sooner rather than later - yes he'll pay for your dinner now but he'll also expect you to be good little domestic wifey in the kitchen forever). Or all of the above!

Why is she of poor character?

This suggests poor character?

I get that might sound “wild” to some people but I’m not choosing money over love, I’m choosing compatibility alongside love.
For me, lifestyle isn’t a superficial extra. It affects daily life, future plans, stress levels, and how two people build together. If someone is my “dream man” but we’re constantly out of sync on how we live, spend, or plan, that tension can erode even the best emotional connection.
It’s not about a man needing to fund my lifestyle, it’s about not wanting to carry someone financially or constantly compromise on the kind of life I’ve worked hard for. That doesn’t feel romantic, it feels exhausting.

Also have you read all of her posts? It doesn’t seem like you have.

There is also nothing wrong with traditional gender roles if both parties to the relationship want that are there?

What poor character? I think she sounds considered and decent. I lnow plenty of men in highly paid jobs (far more so than I've ever been) whom I don't think would ever expect anything retrogressive or weird from a successful partner. They may not all have partners who earn exactly as much but they're all successful and established in their own right.

My parter earned more than me for a few years, now I out earn him. It’s not about up or down grading. It’s about who the other person is and how they live their life.

Ah, the classic ‘women must set their sights low, or be maligned and humbled’.’Good’ women won’t know their worth, and they must be willing to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to prove they’re not ‘shallow’ (and women for some
reason are obliged to really fear some people thinking badly of them).

OP hasn’t claimed that a secure financial future is guaranteed. Indeed, no one has. That a secure future is not guaranteed is no reason to put yourself at a disadvantage in the here and now and compromise what is important to you.

and LOL, because only wealthy and secure men cheat, believe in traditional gender roles, and possess terrible character traits. Women that settle and have no aspirations as to lifestyle are rewarded with happily ever after, and are never abused and/or cheated on. Oh, wait.

IME assortative relationships based on wealth/income/future earning prospects and education are more explicit and ruthless in America though generally not leading on average to a longer nor happier marriage. It turns out the Ivy League then investment banking/consultancy/white shoe law firm with the same for the spouse and long hours tends to lead to 'starter' marriages, infidelity and divorce based on anecdata.

Sounds like you both did, given obvious incompatibility?

Is OP supposed to be missing out by not dating men she doesn’t want to date?

My cousin was like this. Any man that she would give a chance to had to be good looking with a decent job. She was also desperate to get married and have children. She is 50 now and is single with a 10 year old DS. She has had 2 relationships, one in her late 20s for a couple of years and then one at 39 for a few months with someone who then buggered off as soon as she was pregnant and has never seen or wants anything to do with his child. I do think had she been less picky about who to be with her life might have turned out differently.

I would hate to miss out on the right person for me because if his salary. I can't imagine having that mindset but each to their own.

My very successful friend spent her 20s and early 30s looking for her ‘equal’. Mid 30s she met a lovely guy with a ‘lesser’ career. He ended up becoming sahd and she’s blossomed in her career with that support and has a very happy family life. She says she feels lucky because if she had married someone as career driven as her she would have likely been the one to compromise career for kids and she hasn’t had to do that.

so it really depends what you want.

@Bruisername One of my neighbors is similar, although he had a similar career when they met. He’s stayed at home with the children and she’s done really well career-wise.

Different combinations work for different people.

Really?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/husbands-with-much-higher-incomes-than-their-wives-have-a-lower-chance-of-divorce-

ifstudies.org/in-the-news/why-wealthy-people-are-less-likely-to-divorce#:~:text=Divorce%20rates%20have%20long%20been,dynamics%20unique%20to%20affluent%20relationships.&text=Financial%20stress%20is%20one%20of,which%20help%20avoid%20financial%20disputes.