So here's a question that's been bugging me...

[flexagon]

Dear Internet,

Give me your theories on why men don't generally seek out women who are high earners. I am, of course, talking about the heterosexual dating scene in the USA, there being lots of other dating scenes but none that affect me and my friends quite so directly.

The argument for a spouse (mate, partner) who brings home the bacon is pretty obvious, right? If both of you bring home the bacon, then the two of you have double bacon. Each of you can live in a strange but lovely world where all joint purchases are half-price, because you buy them together. If either one of you brings home enough bacon then the other can work less or even stay at home -- but the case I'm mostly thinking about is someone who already works, and looking for someone else to be with. Women instinctively seem to understand my bacon-math... men, well, the guys I'm thinking of could be trying to date people who earn what they earn, but they're not.

Theory #1 (from a friend) is that men want to be taken care of -- so they want someone who has time to make them a high priority, and who isn't super stressed about her own work. This is reasonable enough, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be gender-specific. After all, I like being petted and made a priority too.

What gives, boys? I'm not even asking why men don't want to be supported by women. I'm mostly just wondering why they don't look harder for people who earn the same amount they do.

Sincerely,
a DINK who doesn't understand gender issues

P.S. It was either this or a long list of the petty little things I'm grouchy about today. Cooking artichokes, grrrrr, so not worth it.

Comments

[randysmith]

Wow. And I thought *eating* artichokes wasn't worth it (pulling out each leaf and dipping them in lemon sauce and eating just the little bit of flesh at the bottom ... over and over and over ... :-}).

In terms of your main question ... this is hard to judge. It's even harder, as I'm not sure how useful looking into my own heart is--I at least *think* I've love to be involved with someone who makes as much (nay, more; support me, support me! :-}) as I do, but since I'm not, maybe I'm hiding some interesting neuroses from myself because they aren't being rubbed in my face, you know? Having said that, I'm going to assume I don't need to second guess my self-perception, and toss out some random thoughts.

I do perceive in myself a sense that I need to provide household income enough to live on. Someone I'm involved with has the option of contributing or not, but I don't have that option--if I'm (life partner level) involved with someone, and we're not making enough money to live on, that's a failure in my responsibility. I could imagine that that could lead to some interesting mental twists; people's expenses often rise to meet their income (not always, I know, but I think you and I are exceptions to a general trend). If you're living above the ability of your income to support the couple/family, you're not making enough money. And if you get involved with someone who makes approximately the same level of money as you do, that could easily happen. Not a real plausible guess, but I don't think impossible.

On a more psychological level, I think gender patterns and power dynamics within a relationship interact in some interesting and strange ways. I perceive there as being a very strong feeling of vulnerability in many (het) men towards women. And I really believe that power dynamics matter in relationships, whether they're consciously chosen and worked with or not. If men feel in themselves very emotionally vulnerable to women, they may feel like they need to have the financial power otherwise the relationship doesn't feel even--if the woman involved makes plenty of money *and* is good looking *and* is smart *and has a good personality, why would she stay with "me"??? :-} :-|. (Yes, I realize this makes men in general sound like insecure wimps. What do you think the macho posturing is a cover for?? :-} :-|.)

But at the end of the day, I don't feel like I have a lot of insight. I've dated women making more than me and it didn't seem weird. It was the exception rather than the rule, though.

[flexagon]

If you're living above the ability of your income to support the couple/family, you're not making enough money.

Very interesting; thanks for your response. This is a whole new kind of "two income trap" that I hadn't thought of. I guess the bug and I are both doing our job, by your definition -- we could both live on either salary (though we wouldn't be able to save very much under either condition, and neither of us would like it).

I agree 100% that power dynamics matter in relationships; I think about them all the time and, not coincidentally, wouldn't want to be the supported partner for mostly power-related reasons.

[nahele-101.livejournal.com]

Cause it threatens what society has raised us men-folk to believe. Man provides, women cares. End of story.

It threatens your "manliness" if you make less then here. You are less worthy as a man and partner. You are less in society's viewpoint. Etc, etc, etc.

Me...I don't give a damn. If the redhead goes into law and makes it, she will probably make two to three times what I make. I don't give a rat's ass.

DINK=awesome.

[soong.livejournal.com]

Dunno. I don't have that problem. I want my partner to be an equal partner. My current candidate in this field is likely to be making lawyerbucks in a few years. Great!

Artichokes? Meh, so not worth it in any form not prepared by somebody else, and then they're just ok.

[a-kosmos.livejournal.com]

I will take any and all unappreciated artichokes. I love them inordinately... hence the icon. Usually we just stem them. Sometimes I eat them with the garlic caper butter, but I like them just as well plain.

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

There are so many different things going on here.

The first order of business is to understand what you mean by "seeking out women who are high earners." You could mean that a man might use earnings as a "qualification" criterion --- that women who didn't earn enough money would be disqualified and deemed ineligible as partners. Or you could mean that you think men actually *prefer* women who earn less than them. What did you have in mind?

Theory #1. Most men, all else being equal, do prefer a woman who earns more money rather than less, but it's not very high on their list of what's important, and in that sense they do not "seek this out." Certainly this is how I myself feel. The marginal utility of being with someone who makes about as much money rather than much less is positive, but it's not nearly as large as being with someone who I'm physically and emotionally attracted to.

Theory #2. We can't actually tell what men "seek out". Your peer group seems to consist largely of highly paid technology professionals. These fields are mostly male, and are simultaneously sufficiently highly paid that it is difficult to find people outside the field who make about the same amount of money. [Partnering with a female doctor seems to work, if you can do it.] Therefore, a man who highly prioritized his female partner earning about as much as him would have very few options. With a little thought, I can name ten reasonably attractive, socially capable men in my socioeconomic bracket who are single, and I pretty much can't think of any women who are. Choices are heavily shaped by available options. Observing high-earning men dating lower-earning women doesn't directly say those men wouldn't prefer higher-earning women were they available.

Theory #3. Many partnerships are formed with child rearing as a key goal. Frequently, the woman will spend a large fraction of her prime earning years raising children rather than working outside the home. [I know many MIT-educated women who are more-or-less stay at home moms.] If this is part of the plan, how much money the woman earns becomes less relevant. [In some ways this theory is a modification of #1, but I bring it up separately because I think it's a key sorting criterion for many, and probably doesn't apply to you in the slightest].

Theory #4. Men tend to value certain traits in their female partners that are negatively correlated with high-earnings. For instance, being competitive and aggressive tends to increase one's earnings, and men may tend to not like women who are competitive and aggressive, preferring instead a more traditionally "feminine" personality emphasizing traits like caretaking and nurturing.

Theory #5. Gender and power dynamics. Men are often happy in a relationship where they feel powerful, dominant and in control. Earning more money makes the man feel powerful, dominant and in control. In my own socioeconomic strata [e.g., high-end technical work], this doesn't seem to be what's going on: nerds tend to be both more egalitarian and more practical-minded, and the benefit of having more money "obviously" outweighs the benefits of being more powerful in the "partnership", but from what I read, this seems fairly common in terms of relationship dynamics in other groups. I have little first-hand experience of it.

I think some amalgamation of these theories has a lot of explanatory power. We can get a little more explicit. I think men tend to value physical attractiveness as well as traditionally feminine personality traits fairly highly. There are only a small number of women who exhibit these traits and are also high earners. The typical high-earning man simply will not be able to partner with such a woman. The right tradeoff to maximize his utility is frequently to partner with someone who earns less who he is attracted to who will be a good mother and homemaker.

How'd I do?

[birdofparadox.livejournal.com]

Not surprisingly, I'm in favor of bacon for everyone. DOUBLE BACON!

[godream.livejournal.com]

Hah, wish I knew. :(

My money's on "because he wants to feel like the provider", though. My latest favorite gender book (http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393068382/) suggests that actually even when she brings home equal/greater bacon, statistically she also cooks the bacon and does the rest of the household tasks as much or more than when she's not the primary bacon-eer, which seems to me to argue against "because he is looking for a domestic provider instead".

[godream.livejournal.com]

[I'd leave the original referenced study instead but I left the book at the office and can't go look it up -- which reminds me, I have a book to return to you...]

[flexagon]

Sounds to me like it argues for "he demands a domestic provider, no matter what else he's also getting". This statistically representative guy is one annoying dude.

[elbren]

i earn much more than my husband.

[flexagon]

Did he seek that out or is it just happenstance?

[elbren]

I sought it out, because it seemed wasteful to have two high earners in a single household, and because, in my previous marriage to a high-earner, I felt that the gender dynamics prioritized his career over mine, regardless of the comparative enjoyment or remuneration. he sought it as well, for the obvious economic comfort reasons.

[elbren]

that is, my current husband sought our current situation. I don't think this is uncommon for low-earning men.
of course, there are also class issues involved, which seem to have overlooked by others here.

and also, my husband and I are compatible in a myriad of non-financial ways, which constituted the most important part of what we were seeking. the financial situation is only one of the many ways we work well together <\newlywed_gushing>

[flexagon]

Hee. Newlywed gushing! I'm happy for you guys.

I don't think anyone's ignoring class issues on purpose; I probably could have phrased my whole post in terms of socioeconomic class.

For my part, I earn around what my husband makes (he makes slightly more, but same ballpark), and I really like the fairly equal power distribution that results.

[niralth.livejournal.com]

I earn several multiples of my husband's previous income (he is now a stay at home dad). Income did not enter into our courtship or decision to marry. It was a non-issue, just like our 8 year age disparity. (I'm 8 years older than he is)

[flexagon]

It was a non-issue for him too? Great, but see, this post is wondering why. :)

If I were him, your income would have made you more attractive to me as a long-term mate.

[niralth.livejournal.com]

He says it was a non-issue, that it never entered his mind one way or another. I think that if I (or he) were deadbeats with no ability to hold down a job or stay out of crippling debt that would probably be a compelling negative. But that the opposite wasn't on the radar. Compatible personalities and life plans and family hopes and what not were what we talked about and thought about.

[godream.livejournal.com]

Related and totally depressing (both from a content standpoint and a "wait really, that counts as journalism?" standpoint): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/world/europe/01iht-letter.html?_r=1

[flexagon]

Hmm. Yes. The advice for well-paid women is actually pretty good though:

"find your life partner in your 20s, rather than your 30s, before you’ve become too successful. And go after men who draw their confidence from sources other than money, like academics and artists."

Obviously the first one is not 100% within a person's control, but one can put more or less effort toward it at different times of life. As for the second one, it's a good start, but I think to some extent it overlooks the double win of guys who make a lot and still draw their confidence from sources other than money. Allow me to suggest engineers. :)