Does it matter to you how much your partner earns?

[brusslesprout]

Not wanting to start a debate or anything like that just a general musing really if this is a really important factor for everyone?

I wonder when looking at the bigger picture does it make the relationship better/easier?

My bf doesn't earn much which bothers me a little sometimes but on the same merit has no debts or bad spending habits as he's always had to be careful.

Growing up my Dad had quite a well paid job but isn't too good with money so still is in a lot of debt when he should be relaxing into retirement.

So yes does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

Darn, that took me ages to write.

leavenheath "one good thing that comes out of divorce is that children learn the lessons early that fairytales can go wrong.

Both my parents divorced and remarried twice; my mother sleeced my father the first time and in turn was fleeced by her second husband. I still remember aged 12 sobbing to leonard Cohen; I had an eating disorder in my 20s, and it took me years to trust a man enough to commit myself to him - actually it tool my DH to do that.

No child deserves to play a role in a fairy tales tragic ending. No child. And if that means some women need to reject married men then they need to starty rejecting and being feminist enough to respect other women and if they can't do that they need to learn to keep their legs shut.

All women need to focus on getting their own man; not somebody else's.

I've heard some crass things on MNet but suggesting the children are collateral takes the biscuit

'No child deserves to play a role in a fairy tales tragic ending.'

Amen.

Also, for plenty of people, their marriage wasn't a fairytale. Frankly, I think it is far more likely that the people who cheat are the ones who went into it wet behind the ears.

Huh?

I'm at a loss about how anyone can have interpreted anyone's posts as suggesting that the rich are predisposed to dishonesty, or that the quote from my post was endorsing the collateral damage of children.

In case there's any misunderstanding, let me make it quite clear that the point I was making was that if children see a parent having to make major negative lifestyle changes because of the other parent's actions, one of the positives that can emerge from that sad experience is that it reinforces a wise life lesson that when marrying or having children, it makes sense to insure your own economic survival if the relationship breaks down.

I have no trouble deterring young people from blind romanticism or beliefs in fairytales. I'd prefer young people were encouraged to be more practical and sensible about finances than was the case for many men and women of my generation.

Which includes actually, explaining to young women that they don't need to focus on 'getting a man' (their own or anyone else's for that matter). But if they find one they want to make commitments to and have children with, make damned sure it's an egalitarian partnership and if it doesn't work out at some point, that they won't be financially destitute forever more.

lea - well, the thread title is about how much people earn, and now we're talking about people cheating ... I didn't think my post was a leap really! I don't think the rich are predisposed to dishonesty. All I intended to say was that the correlation, if it's anything, will be between people who'll happily cheat in a relationship, and people who will lie about their finances. They're two similar ways of thinking. It's because if you are with someone and you're cheating, you have to tell yourself pretty stories all the time.

So you say 'oh, yes, he will certainly leave, he really loves me,' and you say 'oh, this crappy house in the arse end of nowhere, it's actually chic bohemian abandon'. It's the same kind of wishful thinking.

My issue with the 'fairytale' quotation is that children should not have to be taking on board economic lessons like that. I think it's profoundly sad and shitty if a child has to learn that by experience.

It's also pretty off to assume normal people's marriages are 'fairytales'.

It'd be much better to teach children that they don't necessarily need a romantic relationship to be happy, to teach them to be decent partners, and to let them know that if things go wrong, they will not be judged.

But that's the point. Children don't have to learn those lessons by bad experiences, especially if we raise them to consider practical issues such as work and finances, offering a counterweight to the pernicious Love Conquers All message of fairytales. If we raise kids to really think about their choices and get them to understand that they are never made in a vacuum, hopefully they won't need terrible experiences to teach them those important life lessons.

I don't think I ever said that I assumed people's normal marriages were fairytales, so I'm not sure where that's coming from?

FWIW, I don't think young children should be troubled at all by their divorcing parents' financial wrangles, but again I was thinking of the specific women I know who've been shafted and all of them have kids in their late teens and early twenties. It would have been impossible and impractical to shield those young adults from the practical realities of family homes being sold or their mothers having to eke out a living in low-paying jobs, while their fathers' lifestyles remained unchanged or even got better.

In those cases, I cannot see how it's a bad thing for those kids to learn that sometimes the promises people make to eachother get broken, but that it can be more painful and depressing to be poor and with limited potential to improve one's financial outcome and heartbroken, than heartbroken but economically self-sufficient.

'WRT sympathy of course I feel for the children who are being short-changed by these asset-hiding fathers, but if one good thing can come of that parlous state of affairs it's that children learn the lessons early that fairytales can go wrong and it's unwise to put complete trust in another person if your survival depends on it.'

I was thinking of this post.

You say you feel for these children, but you think maybe one good thing could come of this situation, that those children learn not to trust fairytales.

I don't think that is ok.

I also don't really understand how a child young enough to see his or her parents' relationship as a fairytale could possibly be old enough to be able to think about being economically self-sufficient?! Surely such a child will simply not understand what the heck is going on.

If you meant adults in their early twenties I do understand, but that is not what I understood you to be talking about at all.

Oh I see where there has been potential for misunderstanding. My apologies.

My view is that fairytales are damaging to children of any age- and I'm thinking specifically of princes, princesses and Happy Ever After tales about couple relationships. However, I don't think young children who are exposed to this nonsense should be drawn into their parents' personal battles or financial wrangles, or that an adult or parent should use this experience to teach them lessons in an overt way.

But if they are unfortunately forced by the circumstances they find themselves in (which were not of their own choice) to experience a drop in income and worsening living standards, it can be quite a positive outcome if they learn as they grow up that this fate doesn't have to be theirs or their own children's. It motivated me and taught me those lessons, without anyone overtly blaming a specific person, but hearing wise reflections on what constraints women faced in a different era.

I wish I shared your optimism that it's only young children who believe in fairytale relationships though. I still hear people in their thirties and forties talking about 'The One' and 'Soulmates'...

I don't think it is only children who believe in fairytales, no. I assumed you did because of your reference to 'early' times in a person's life.

But yes, you're right, these beliefs last, sometimes with really damaging consequences.

My issue is ... well, how far can people's standards drop?! I don't see how that's positive. I guess I am biased, but I've friends who have worked very hard to hide from their children the fact that their finances were precarious. Poverty isn't a nice life lesson, surely?

I really don't see why we need to bring children into it at all. Teaching children better lessons about relationships is one thing; making this sort of thing into a positive lesson is different and seems wrong and cruel to me.

(And I'm sorry, I certainly don't mean to be rude or speak cross-purposes here.)

Speaking from a child's perspective, it was impossible to shield me or my siblings from having to switch to free school meals or suddenly having to rely on second-hand clothes, amongst other lifestyle changes that were obvious. I reiterate that this isn't about overt teaching, but more about imperceptible absorption of life lessons.

So the poverty itself isn't nice and like someone said upthread, it's profoundly irritating when that gets romanticised too. However, it can produce a positive life lesson and as I mentioned downthread, I will be forever grateful to my clever mum for talking to us all about how important it is to have financial independence throughout life.

I'm sorry you went through that. I don't mean to come across as if I'm suggesting it's somehow bad that you were able to see it in a positive light: it's not.

But I don't think it is ok to suggest if children end up in that situation, it should be seen as something positive, automatically. Really, that's another kind of fairytale.

What about people who can't be financially independent? Or people who weren't well-off to start with, for whom the trade down wasn't to free school meals or second-hand clothes, but to being homeless?

It's as much a fairytale as anything else, that there's a good life lesson here.

Is that what Leaven is talking about though, LRD? I'd taken her meaning to be more along the lines of "pulling whatever positive you can from a really shitty experience", rather than looking at the whole experience in a positive light.

Yes, I think that is her meaning - that's what I was trying to acknowledge.

I just meant that I think it is important not to take this idea too seriously and pass it on to children, who can't be expected to be responsible.

Agreed. And like with all children, some of them will react against their childhood and do their level best to ensure that they do things differently, where others will grow up to repeat the patterns of their parents.

True.

Hopefully one of the changes that feminist thinking has brought about is that you can be inspired by either parent.

My mother gave up work when she married as that was expected and genuinely enjoyed being a SAHM to us when we were small and doing various voluntary things on the side. Very much as she had been brought up although she had a nanny and went to boarding school as opposed to her more hands on role. However her life was pretty much the same as most of the other mothers in the family. She then studied and started to teach when I (the youngest) went to secondary school, again pretty much the norm. She then got really into a particular charitable role more and more, went part time and retired. She was really great at that role, I really admire her for the success she made of it (not at all easy) and I wondered how much more she could have achieved if she hadn't felt she had to give up her working life way back when.

My dad had a great job that he really really enjoyed, where he was highly respected and that made him wealthy. He only finally fully retired at 75. He was my role model. Growing up I thought he had the best deal by far.

My mother thought we should all have her life, with jobs that could easily go part time or be dropped and picked up later, and essentially support successful husbands. I on the other hand looked for a 'wife' . I've never been that highly maternal person who yearned to be with her children and it irritates me that that stereotype is pushed so much. Where I work parents can take a year off shared between them, and it usually is split between the parents. Fathers can be plenty maternal too.

I learnt Leavenheath's lesson. That's why I drove myself to earn in my 20's, that's why I had my own home before I met my DH, why I took a very long time to settle down, why I would not have married my DH if he had not shared my outlook and my work ethic (it wouldn't actually have mattered if he hadn't been wildly successful because I brought the initial financial security to the relationship), that's why I had a "pre-nup". That's why my life has revolved around our home (but yes I do work full-time) and children and making sure that to the greatest extent I can make happen they have absolute security and a joyful and carefree childhood to look back on.

That's why my life has been about planning and discipline and to a certain extent success. It's also why I mourn not having fun a bit in my 20's, why I mourn spontaneity and why I have very little about my years from 9 - 18 that represents happy family memories let alone a fairytale existence yet none of those memories comprised poverty or want, just major emotional disruption and domestic upheaval. It still saddens me at 53 that during that time some of my lights went out and I lost a little bit of the joy that every person should have and became rather quiet and serious but sadly not very hard working at school because I had too much to deal with. That's why a childhood shouldn't be replaced by a lesson in wisdom.

I have done loads and am very satisfied with what I have achieved not least a very happy marriage and home but there are things I missed: I didn't go to university, I didn't travel the world (too spontaneous, impact on career), I didn't go clubbing or have wild nights out or take part in fashion (although to be fair, it was the 80s). Instead I bought a flat at 22 to start making sure my future was secured because I didn't actually have a home I could return to if life went tits up. So when everyone else was having fun I was paying the mortgage in those early years and working and working.

That is not a lesson I want my children ever to have to learn. That's why I'm not sure if I'm a feminist although I believe totally in equality between men and women and totally that women should be financially independent but I became financially independent so that one day I could be secure enough to have children and make them my priority (with DH) and provide them a safe and happy home.

Having said all that I think it's been a good debate. Don't you lot ever go to bed - some of us have to get up for work in the morning - see still missing out on the action because of work.

NearTheWindmill you still could go to university. DH and I both went as mature students. I just knew if I didn't go I was going to regret in when I was older.

Nearthewindmill - I dunno about the others but I'm in Australia, so it was early afternoon for me! (11h ahead at the moment).

Your post is interesting - you have achieved everything you set out to, and congratulations on that - but somewhere down the line you feel you've missed out, and that is sad. Sad because you missed out but also slightly sad because it's possibly colouring your feelings about how fantastically well you've done in life. But your life isn't over - you've still time to do some of those things, travel, be spontaneous (I wouldn't necessarily recommend clubbing, one night stands, and hangovers every weekend though!) and you can do that safe in the knowledge that you did the sensible and safe things first. Be very proud of yourself - you should be. :)

Rudy - when I was teaching on a degree course, we had students who had retired and gone back to university! Never too old. :)

Thanks creamy I did prof quals when I went back to work at 43 - rare without a degree but they made an exception. I then did a Masters on the back of them so that one's out of my system! I doubt I'll do much travel - DH isn't very intrepid but I really don't have many regrets except for not having the security of sorted parents to enjoy "freedom" in my youth. I think I have it now. I'm not temperamentally very wild :)