I seemed to have missed the memo to "marry rich"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

You cannot possibly believe that. Most women I know who stay home are setting women back decades.

Yes I believe that. Stay home moms are making choices they get to make. That is feminism. Choice. Or do you not believe in that?

This comment is like 50 years behind the times I don't even know where to start with it. But no, your choice to run to the kitchen and the home is not anything that our foremothers were fighting for. Not even getting into intersectionality and how priveleged you need to be for this to be a "choice."

Don’t criticize the decision to be a stay at home mom based on “intersectionality.” Go back and read that Mikki Kendall quote. The whole “is it or isn’t it feminist to stay at home with kids” debate is essentially a white feminist debate. Keep having it, sure, but leave intersectionality out of it.

You obviously do not understand intersectionality if you can call this a white feminist debate at the same time as dismissing intersectionality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a feminist and marrying someone rich are not mutually exclusive.

Being self-sufficinent and marrying someone rich are not mutually exclusive.

+1 This whole post is a logical fallacy.

Being a feminist who maintains her affluent lifestyle and stress-free life that enables her to complain, solely because of her spouse's accomplishments, is not especially feminist IMO. Plenty of loud feminism from people who clearly have it made only because of the man they married.

[Anonymous]

The only rich guys I knew in my dating years were a—holes! I had no interest in guys like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For most college-educated people, doesn't this work itself out? Your pool of partners who you are naturally exposed to are other college-educated people. If you're a high energy person, you find other high energy people. I was never attracted to the guys who sat around their mother's basements or never wanted to go anywhere or do anything or who were generally under achieving. Were any of you?

I never gave a thought to whether my husband was rich, would be rich, etc. We were pretty young when we met.

I do, however, think people are naive about how much harder life is worrying about money all the time.

You can’t just filter for high energy or whatever. My DH had a STEM from an Ivy, and we married in grad school, but he was idealistic and wanted to do “meaningful” work (think environmental startups, educational technology, climate tech) and the only people who make money from they are founders (and DH is smart and works hard but is not hard nosed and ruthless enough for business).

You need to get someone who is focus on the money, and is a bit hard edged to elbow their way up the ladder. I wish I had; I thought DH was nice and we would be comfortable on his technical salary, but costs have far outstripped his earnings.

OP here. To the PP's saying marry within your circle and you will be ok. Well, I did. I met DH at a prestigious post grad internship where I thought ok. If he can get into this program, he is going places. He is decent and a kind man but he is a dreamer and an idealist. He doesn't care for money.

Well 10 years later. Money matters A LOT. I am angry and bitter.

What’s funny is that you did get the memo to marry rich, and you obviously tried to marry someone who would make a lot of money. And then when they didn’t you feel like somehow it is their fault, when it’s really yours for relying on someone else for something that *you* care about so much.

It sounds like you are a very transactional person, and I have no sympathy for you, and a lot for your DH. If you met at that prestigious internship it means you also had the potential to make a lot and you failed, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For most college-educated people, doesn't this work itself out? Your pool of partners who you are naturally exposed to are other college-educated people. If you're a high energy person, you find other high energy people. I was never attracted to the guys who sat around their mother's basements or never wanted to go anywhere or do anything or who were generally under achieving. Were any of you?

I never gave a thought to whether my husband was rich, would be rich, etc. We were pretty young when we met.

I do, however, think people are naive about how much harder life is worrying about money all the time.

You can’t just filter for high energy or whatever. My DH had a STEM from an Ivy, and we married in grad school, but he was idealistic and wanted to do “meaningful” work (think environmental startups, educational technology, climate tech) and the only people who make money from they are founders (and DH is smart and works hard but is not hard nosed and ruthless enough for business).

You need to get someone who is focus on the money, and is a bit hard edged to elbow their way up the ladder. I wish I had; I thought DH was nice and we would be comfortable on his technical salary, but costs have far outstripped his earnings.

OP here. To the PP's saying marry within your circle and you will be ok. Well, I did. I met DH at a prestigious post grad internship where I thought ok. If he can get into this program, he is going places. He is decent and a kind man but he is a dreamer and an idealist. He doesn't care for money.

Well 10 years later. Money matters A LOT. I am angry and bitter.

What’s funny is that you did get the memo to marry rich, and you obviously tried to marry someone who would make a lot of money. And then when they didn’t you feel like somehow it is their fault, when it’s really yours for relying on someone else for something that *you* care about so much.

It sounds like you are a very transactional person, and I have no sympathy for you, and a lot for your DH. If you met at that prestigious internship it means you also had the potential to make a lot and you failed, too.

+10000. OP of this comment, why are you so angry and bitter, if, presumably, you could have made a lot of money and chose not to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

You cannot possibly believe that. Most women I know who stay home are setting women back decades.

Yes I believe that. Stay home moms are making choices they get to make. That is feminism. Choice. Or do you not believe in that?

This comment is like 50 years behind the times I don't even know where to start with it. But no, your choice to run to the kitchen and the home is not anything that our foremothers were fighting for. Not even getting into intersectionality and how priveleged you need to be for this to be a "choice."

Don’t criticize the decision to be a stay at home mom based on “intersectionality.” Go back and read that Mikki Kendall quote. The whole “is it or isn’t it feminist to stay at home with kids” debate is essentially a white feminist debate. Keep having it, sure, but leave intersectionality out of it.

You obviously do not understand intersectionality if you can call this a white feminist debate at the same time as dismissing intersectionality.

Oh boy I have so much to say about this but for now let me ask you this. PP said that “running the kitchen and home is not what our foremothers fought for.”

Whose foremothers? Whose foremothers were running their kitchens and their homes? Black women? No. Black women didn’t have that choice. Black women had to spend their days taking care of White women’s kitchens and homes (and children). For a lot of Black women, the chance to take care of their own children, their own kitchens, and their own homes is their dream.

When we have SAHM arguments, how often does race come into the discussion? Sexual orientation? Even class and capitalism? It’s not frequent. I am a Whiten stay at home mom and I participate in these back and forths but I acknowledge that I’m not typically doing it from an intersectional perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For most college-educated people, doesn't this work itself out? Your pool of partners who you are naturally exposed to are other college-educated people. If you're a high energy person, you find other high energy people. I was never attracted to the guys who sat around their mother's basements or never wanted to go anywhere or do anything or who were generally under achieving. Were any of you?

I never gave a thought to whether my husband was rich, would be rich, etc. We were pretty young when we met.

I do, however, think people are naive about how much harder life is worrying about money all the time.

You can’t just filter for high energy or whatever. My DH had a STEM from an Ivy, and we married in grad school, but he was idealistic and wanted to do “meaningful” work (think environmental startups, educational technology, climate tech) and the only people who make money from they are founders (and DH is smart and works hard but is not hard nosed and ruthless enough for business).

You need to get someone who is focus on the money, and is a bit hard edged to elbow their way up the ladder. I wish I had; I thought DH was nice and we would be comfortable on his technical salary, but costs have far outstripped his earnings.

OP here. To the PP's saying marry within your circle and you will be ok. Well, I did. I met DH at a prestigious post grad internship where I thought ok. If he can get into this program, he is going places. He is decent and a kind man but he is a dreamer and an idealist. He doesn't care for money.

Well 10 years later. Money matters A LOT. I am angry and bitter.

Is it the lack of money or is it the way he spends it, his attitude toward it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

You cannot possibly believe that. Most women I know who stay home are setting women back decades.

Yes I believe that. Stay home moms are making choices they get to make. That is feminism. Choice. Or do you not believe in that?

This comment is like 50 years behind the times I don't even know where to start with it. But no, your choice to run to the kitchen and the home is not anything that our foremothers were fighting for. Not even getting into intersectionality and how priveleged you need to be for this to be a "choice."

Don’t criticize the decision to be a stay at home mom based on “intersectionality.” Go back and read that Mikki Kendall quote. The whole “is it or isn’t it feminist to stay at home with kids” debate is essentially a white feminist debate. Keep having it, sure, but leave intersectionality out of it.

You obviously do not understand intersectionality if you can call this a white feminist debate at the same time as dismissing intersectionality.

Oh boy I have so much to say about this but for now let me ask you this. PP said that “running the kitchen and home is not what our foremothers fought for.”

Whose foremothers? Whose foremothers were running their kitchens and their homes? Black women? No. Black women didn’t have that choice. Black women had to spend their days taking care of White women’s kitchens and homes (and children). For a lot of Black women, the chance to take care of their own children, their own kitchens, and their own homes is their dream.

When we have SAHM arguments, how often does race come into the discussion? Sexual orientation? Even class and capitalism? It’s not frequent. I am a Whiten stay at home mom and I participate in these back and forths but I acknowledge that I’m not typically doing it from an intersectional perspective.

I'm so glad you brought this up. To this day most black women don't have the luxury of being able to care for their own children.

I think being a feminism gives you choices. I also hate when feminist are so proud of their choice but don't acknowledge the choice their partner has to make. You have your choice but by you having your choice I have no choice because we have to eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For most college-educated people, doesn't this work itself out? Your pool of partners who you are naturally exposed to are other college-educated people. If you're a high energy person, you find other high energy people. I was never attracted to the guys who sat around their mother's basements or never wanted to go anywhere or do anything or who were generally under achieving. Were any of you?

I never gave a thought to whether my husband was rich, would be rich, etc. We were pretty young when we met.

I do, however, think people are naive about how much harder life is worrying about money all the time.

You can’t just filter for high energy or whatever. My DH had a STEM from an Ivy, and we married in grad school, but he was idealistic and wanted to do “meaningful” work (think environmental startups, educational technology, climate tech) and the only people who make money from they are founders (and DH is smart and works hard but is not hard nosed and ruthless enough for business).

You need to get someone who is focus on the money, and is a bit hard edged to elbow their way up the ladder. I wish I had; I thought DH was nice and we would be comfortable on his technical salary, but costs have far outstripped his earnings.

OP here. To the PP's saying marry within your circle and you will be ok. Well, I did. I met DH at a prestigious post grad internship where I thought ok. If he can get into this program, he is going places. He is decent and a kind man but he is a dreamer and an idealist. He doesn't care for money.

Well 10 years later. Money matters A LOT. I am angry and bitter.

Your situation is far more common than people want to acknowledge or admit.

He probably earns a good salary!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only rich guys I knew in my dating years were a—holes! I had no interest in guys like that.

Yea you gotta live with them for a lifetime afterall! Plus have them as the father of your kids! It's a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

You cannot possibly believe that. Most women I know who stay home are setting women back decades.

What does this mean? Setting women back! From what? Decades? You are saying words but I suspect there is no critical thinking happening. “Setting women back decades” is meaningless- unless you can justify your thesis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

You cannot possibly believe that. Most women I know who stay home are setting women back decades.

Yes I believe that. Stay home moms are making choices they get to make. That is feminism. Choice. Or do you not believe in that?

That's called "Choice Feminism" for a reason and it's pretty...fraught with issues. So no, you making a choice just because you are a woman does not make your choice a feminist choice. And that's fine, all choices don't have to be feminist, but being a feminist does generally include pushing forwards women's rights in spheres outside our own immediate decisions and our families to advance the greater good of women, which many can reasonably argue you do not do.

DP - but I simply reject your premise that women working outside the home (in a capitalist, patriarchal system designed by and for men, no less!) = advancing the greater good of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism is about empowering women to do what they want. Not just to get high paying jobs. If a woman wants to stay home -- that is feminism. And other women should not be making comments about it.

Agreed. But this forum is filled with women that did that and did not expect to end up divorced or with a cheating spouse in their late 40s/50s after never having been in the workforce. Alimony is minimal and kids are older so child support won't be there when they are 18.

I think people advocate for some form of employment (even part-time, minimal) to keep one's foot in the door so they have options and aren't stuck in marriages or abusive relationships solely because they can't afford to divorce and live w/out their spouse's salary.

Honestly, one reason I have continued to work at least part time and to maintain career contacts is that I fear my partner dying or getting so sick he can't work). His father got cancer twice (two different types), and the second time it killed him. We both have parents who have dealt with longterm medical issues that started in their 50s and lasted the rest of their lives. I could never be comfortable just 100% relying on my spouse for money because anything could happen, and not only do I need to worry about me, I have to worry about our kids.

That said, I still think it's a choice people can make on their own and I think the often angry and judgmental response to SAHMs on this forum is really more about internalized sexism that devalues care work than it's about making sure women are making smart financial choices. You see the same negative attitude about it when a woman has the resources to not have to worry (for instance she has family money or tons of savings from her own career). It's because a lot of women confuse feminism with women doing what men do. It would be awesome if there were more focus on getting men to do more of the care work and housework that all women (SAHMs and WOHMs alike) generally do far more of than their male counterparts. We can't solve gender inequality by just helping the most privileged women gain access to jobs historically dominated by men. That's such a limited and privileged way of thinking about the problem.

+1. This is a great comment, although it may be a wasted one here on dcum.

OMG yes. Fantastic comment.

Yes, best comment on this whole board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a feminist and marrying someone rich are not mutually exclusive.

Being self-sufficinent and marrying someone rich are not mutually exclusive.

+1 This whole post is a logical fallacy.

Being a feminist who maintains her affluent lifestyle and stress-free life that enables her to complain, solely because of her spouse's accomplishments, is not especially feminist IMO. Plenty of loud feminism from people who clearly have it made only because of the man they married.

A woman's beliefs about the rights and value of women don't get wiped way simply because of the income of her spouse.

A woman isn't defined by her spouse.

[Anonymous]

NP - after graduate school I dated the son of an extremely wealthy family (think private jet wealth) and I was briefly really caught up in that life and it can be very intoxicating. At the same time I worked with a very nice guy who I knew had an interest in me. I dated the rich guy for a year but came to realize that the only thing he really had going for him was his money. The guy I worked with was smart, fun, sweet and he had ambition and as time went on I realized I was making a big mistake. So I broke up with the rich guy and asked the nice guy out on a date and we’ve been together over 30 years and I’m incredibly happy. He has also been incredibly successful so that has been a nice bonus. The rich guy has never mounted to anything other than being rich.