Men, do you care about a woman’s salary or salary potential?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

Anecdotes aside. Statistically speaking, most people marry within their own SES strata. Even if the woman is low-middle income, she's probably highly educated and/or in a prestigious job and/or has family wealth.

Regardless of what individual men may claim about income or professional accomplishments not being important, the "proof is in the pudding." As a group, most educated well-to-do men marry similarly educated well-to-do women.

If income or professional accomplishments are truly unimportant, we would see a much higher number of cross class marriages. A marriage with a big law partner married to a hairdresser is a statistical outlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

+1000 Well explained sir.

Said the low earning SAHM.

[Anonymous]

^fat woman comment above. Her husband left her for the younger hairdresser he had an affair with while she slaved away on her “career” because that was is important to a man. Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

Anecdotes aside. Statistically speaking, most people marry within their own SES strata. Even if the woman is low-middle income, she's probably highly educated and/or in a prestigious job and/or has family wealth.

Regardless of what individual men may claim about income or professional accomplishments not being important, the "proof is in the pudding." As a group, most educated well-to-do men marry similarly educated well-to-do women.

If income or professional accomplishments are truly unimportant, we would see a much higher number of cross class marriages. A marriage with a big law partner married to a hairdresser is a statistical outlier.

EXACTLY. I don't understand why people use anecdotes when data says otherwise. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Men are more status conscious now more than ever. Men do care how much a woman makes. Especially in the age of third wave feminism.

Also, a lot of men are looking to be taken care of -- which is not talked about enough in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

Anecdotes aside. Statistically speaking, most people marry within their own SES strata. Even if the woman is low-middle income, she's probably highly educated and/or in a prestigious job and/or has family wealth.

Regardless of what individual men may claim about income or professional accomplishments not being important, the "proof is in the pudding." As a group, most educated well-to-do men marry similarly educated well-to-do women.

If income or professional accomplishments are truly unimportant, we would see a much higher number of cross class marriages. A marriage with a big law partner married to a hairdresser is a statistical outlier.

EXACTLY. I don't understand why people use anecdotes when data says otherwise. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Men are more status conscious now more than ever. Men do care how much a woman makes. Especially in the age of third wave feminism.

Also, a lot of men are looking to be taken care of -- which is not talked about enough in my opinion.

No one has yet to cite an actual number. If you look, you'll find it's a lot more "people with college degrees marrying other people with college degrees", which no one has disputed, and not "men don't marry women with much lower earnings potential." And status, like education, is different from money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

Anecdotes aside. Statistically speaking, most people marry within their own SES strata. Even if the woman is low-middle income, she's probably highly educated and/or in a prestigious job and/or has family wealth.

Regardless of what individual men may claim about income or professional accomplishments not being important, the "proof is in the pudding." As a group, most educated well-to-do men marry similarly educated well-to-do women.

If income or professional accomplishments are truly unimportant, we would see a much higher number of cross class marriages. A marriage with a big law partner married to a hairdresser is a statistical outlier.

True. The poster who not-so-eloquently called this low class problems isn't incorrect either though. A high earning, educated man can afford to marry the woman with the non-profit job and a masters degree who earns $50K. That man just isn't likely to marry the hairdresser who also earns $50K.

The men earning $150K typically care a lot more about a woman's salary. Big lifestyle difference with a HHI of $200K vs. $300K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s funny because I’m a woman with similar stats. The bulk i didn’t earn, it’s a trust. My income is about the same.

I won’t date a man who doesn’t earn similar- or could.

I’m very not into being a sugar mama after financially paying off one husband- and I travel often and have a fairly large lifestyle. I don’t need men to pay for anything/buy me anything- but they have to be able to pay their own way to tag along.

Even with my income and rare luck (trust), I deeply feel like my job is to grow and protect that money for my kids, not to splash it around loudly on some man. It’s different meeting when you’re both broke in your 20’s, for me, being wealthy and dating in my 40s has made me way less interested in inviting dead weight into my life. There just wouldn’t be enough respect there, I respect drive and self sufficiency too much to be an attracted to a guy who could be “kept”.

Yo Karen the post was not directed towards you. Get off your the world revolves around me mentally.

I know, my post was directed to the Chad above me. He's a high income man comfortable dating low income woman. I presented the contrasting opinion of a high income/net worth woman and why I am not comfortable dating a low income man. But I appreciate your just being bothered by my reply. It proves all that I already sadly know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Who wants a dependent adult leech? Not attractive.

My wife does a lot that doesn’t earn her a paycheck, doesn’t make her a leech. Her getting a job doesn’t make financial or lifestyle sense for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

+1000 Well explained sir.

Exactly. I don't know why some women on DCUM get angry about this. I suspect because they aren't in a good position themselves.

My wealthy cousins all married women who chose to be SAHMs. One was a former waitress, teacher, and one never worked.

They are all still married, so are my other family members. It's about finding a good person you share common goals with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster - I haven't read the entire thread, but the answer is no. Men don't care about a woman's salary, job title or, my favorite absurdity, her "professional accomplishments."

We as men do not view women as providers the way women view us. It's simply not part of the attraction or calculation for us.

A woman who's crazy irresponsible in how she handles money is a huge red flag, but what she does for a living or how much she makes doesn't matter one wit.

+ A million

Looks, looks, and looks barring any big red flags.

Once you pass a threshold of things like personality, etc. It is all about looks.

+1 sexy a** women don’t need an income

BS. if this were true, you'd all be married to hot girls who work at the mall. Or the girl who washes your hair. Or any other number of hot dull women.

Men with decent financial potential and an ounce of common sense want a woman with either an impressive resume or earning potential. There are literally millions of women in this country who are generically "hot", and men don't want. Because they do in fact care about a women's aspirations/career/financials. They may try and act cool on this thread like they just care about boobs, but it's bullshit. And those that legitimately only married for boobs, in my experience, are pretty damn unfulfilled by their 30s.....

I actually tried, but found it difficult to approach really hot girls. Ended up marry a doctor who is pretty hot, only because we had been able to meet professionally and hit it off.

I am as average looking as they come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to a low class or middle class issue. When you have the funds you can marry or date whomever with worry of income expectations. Low class problems

Ironically though, study after study shows that men of upper class and with money marry women with money and top degrees (i.e., high earning potential).

The men i know who "didn't care" about their future wife's earning potential were all solidly middle class, degree from a mediocre college, but making good money in sales-type jobs - almost scraping into UMC. They were very concerned about projecting their newfound economic status - but they were never "UMC" in the social class sense.

A 'top degree' could be a law partner married to someone with a masters in education. That's assortive mating, but her income potential is totally different from his. Or she has a PhD in a cool field and a prestigious job, but not much income potential. I see plenty of those couples. The idea that upper class guys are only marrying the woman with the big MBA or law degree isn't true, and isn't what studies show.

+1 Known plenty of big law partners who married low end earners. It’s not alway a high priority for mating.

I posted yesterday, or something like that. And now someone else has posted about a BigLaw partner, who married a hair dresser.

Truth is, a friend of mine, back in the day, a partner-track attorney at a big DC law firm who was then making 500K-plus, found himself very attracted to the woman who was cutting his hair every two weeks.

He asked her out, she said yes and they wound up married. She turned out to be a wonderful person for him to be with and a wonderful mother to their two children.

He didn't give a Goddamn about her job, just her as a person.

Trying to explain this to women is like talking to a fence post. Women insist we should value their advanced degrees and their "professional accomplishments."

We don't care about this crap in pursuit of potential mates. We as men simply do not think as women do.

+1000 Well explained sir.

Exactly. I don't know why some women on DCUM get angry about this. I suspect because they aren't in a good position themselves.

My wealthy cousins all married women who chose to be SAHMs. One was a former waitress, teacher, and one never worked.

They are all still married, so are my other family members. It's about finding a good person you share common goals with.

I posted about my buddy marrying his hair dresser. Women who post here are always inclined to demand who or what men "should be" attracted to. If we told women how they "should feel" about a particular issue, that of course would go over like a lead balloon, but they will do it to us.

Attraction is rooted in evolutionally biology and tempered with modern intellect. Ask any anthropologist.

Men are viewed by women as providers and protectors. We view women as nurturers.

Women, broadly and generally, are physically attracted to tall, powerfully built men. That's because, all things being equal, he could bring home the most bison meat and fight off the pterodactyls when they come for her and her offspring. Her modern intellect tells her that advanced degrees and/or high paying, prestigious jobs, offer the same benefits to her. She'll marry a short lawyer, but not a short janitor.

Men, broadly and generally, are attracted to physical qualities that indicate fertility and good health. These are the qualities we call "hotness." She needs to produce offspring and to live long enough to nurture them to sexual maturity and adulthood. Puppies need a year to get there, human children, WAY longer.

Men's modern intellect considers kindness, intelligence and yes, education to a degree. It's just that a master's degree or fancy job title are not part of the criteria when we consider potential mates.

We just don't view women as providers or protectors the way the do us and I think for whatever reason, this ticks off DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

The previous poster is spot on. Sad these women need to overcompensate valuations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but I make good money. If I didn't, perhaps I would.

This, but even before I made good money I didn’t care. Work is an investment, I would rather DW invest in other things.

None of the other investments pay so much or so reliably.

[Anonymous]

Everyone I know from law school married another professional. All the people at my job are married to other professionals. Really wealthy men, at least top 5%, don’t care about a spouse’s income. The other 95%/ those making less than $200K care. Times have changed and we live in a two income society. That doesn’t work well if you marry someone who can’t bring in an income.

DCUM is skewed, because every man here makes over $400K a year. For the rest of America, it matters. For my husband who makes $150K, it mattered. He would “date” women who didn’t make much money, but never consider marrying them. I was marriage material because he was attracted to me and I made money. Enough women running around with decent jobs today that men can hold out for one that makes an income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone I know from law school married another professional. All the people at my job are married to other professionals. Really wealthy men, at least top 5%, don’t care about a spouse’s income. The other 95%/ those making less than $200K care. Times have changed and we live in a two income society. That doesn’t work well if you marry someone who can’t bring in an income.

DCUM is skewed, because every man here makes over $400K a year. For the rest of America, it matters. For my husband who makes $150K, it mattered. He would “date” women who didn’t make much money, but never consider marrying them. I was marriage material because he was attracted to me and I made money. Enough women running around with decent jobs today that men can hold out for one that makes an income.

That's because, silly, professional women dominated those men's social circles. Those were the women in their dating pool.

These men didn't care about the money or the job titles, only the relative "hotness" of fertility, health and nurture. Heck, I know lots of guys who married women like this. They were all "hot." They didn't marry the homely, overweight and harsh woman with the most "professional accomplishments."

We care about the latter very much in evaluating job candidates, just not in evaluating potential mates. Women just don't get that and demand that we "should be" attracted to those whom you direct.

It ain't never going to happen, sorry.