Men are conditioned in this society to think that's what they do -- earn the money. And frankly, lots and lots and lots of women have been conditioned to want them to be the breadwinner. That kind of thinking by WOMEN has to make men feel uncomfortable when they find out the woman earns more and it reinforces centuries and centuries of defined male/female roles. Let's not blame the guys alone on this one, this one really is the patriarchal system -- the guys just happened to be born into it like us. It's wrong thinking, but it's pretty widespread among men and women.

Oh, please NYTimes. My father has made about half of what my mother does for the past 30 years. That's not at all a problem for him and he still manages to be sexist sometimes. If you can't even learn to deal with a woman making more money than you, you have a long long way to go.

My thoughts are as follows:

Aren't men offended by this? How could a man read this and think, "Yeah! Treat my fragile ego with care! 'Cause I'm a strong, virile man!"?
If you're so manly, you can handle the fact that your s/o makes more than you. Otherwise you're a sexist baby and she (whomever she is) should dump your ass.
I make more than by boyfriend but he has WAY more disposable income than I do because my rent is almost double his. So in the end we go halvsies on almost everything and buy each other stuff at the same rate. The gender thing has never even come up.

If you make more money than him or treat him to dinner, you are emasculating him, but if he treats you to dinner and you are a huge "dinner whore."

I spent the first few months with my fiance arguing about why I would pick up the check. He was raised up to believe that a gentleman always pays for dinner. I was raised up to believe that you pay for what you can afford. Eventually I got him to understand that I would be paying for the meals which I suggested, and he could pay for the meals he suggested, or we could even split the check if we wanted.

I also explained to his mother, who was a little surprised when I picked up the check for all three of us, that I do it because I think it shows affection in its own way. I love him, and I want to treat him to something nice where he doesn't have to worry if he can afford it.

Ah, what a lovely journalistic trend. Has anyone bothered to name this purported phenomenon as women's being socially punished for their success?

I predict that close on the heels of this trend, we will we be treated to yet another spate of articles on women's inherent fear of success.

Pretty much, nbrice. It's a catch-22 for women. If we do allow men to pay for us (when we first start dating), they expect us to put out. It's not romantic if you think you're owed something in return.
So glad I just have no part of it.

I think younger men (i.e. my generation) have much less of a problem with this, although I guess it depends on background a lot too. I've only ever dated one guy who felt it was his place to pay for everything. It ended up being one reason the relationship didn't work - for both of us. Still, my attitude with regards to things like that has always been, if he can't handle it, I don't want him.

I haven't had much experience with men taking me out to dinner. I've only had one boyfriend to do this. In fact the majority of men I dated insisted we each pay for ourselves.

Currently I make a significant amount more than my fiance. So normally its me taking him out when we go out. But he still takes me out once in a while when he can afford it.

The money thing use to be an issue. Every now and then he'd make snide comments about it. But they stopped after he got some a really nice guitar for his birthday one year.

My boyfriend wouldn't date anyone that expected him to pay for everything. I wouldn't date anyone who wanted to pay for everything. I also love going out to eat, especially to places I've never been before. Sometimes my boyfriend treats me, sometimes I pay, sometimes we even just split it.

What really gets me angry is when I pay and the server comes back with the bill after charging my credit card and sets the bill in front of my boyfriend and says, "Thank you sir". Grrr... that totally destroys the usual generous tipping I give.

I think this is basically a "white guy" thing. I have noticed that men of color don't seem to equate money with masculinity. This is a white bourgeois attitude, that somehow it is "unmanly" to let a woman pay.

Right now my husband is earning more than I am, but for several years before this, I was the major breadwinner. Naturally he was sensitive about it, but with the uncertainties of this economy there will be this kind of shifting.

A lot of men--particularly the relatively older ones---were raised with the idea that their earning power represented their worth, so naturally having it be lessened created relationship problems. Men need to be educated in the vein that money is simply money---it's not their self worth and it's not their dick.

"What really gets me angry is when I pay and the server comes back with the bill after charging my credit card and sets the bill in front of my boyfriend and says, "Thank you sir". Grrr... that totally destroys the usual generous tipping I give."

AGREED! Or even worse, AFTER I hand them my credit car to pay, they still return it to HIM for signature! And my name is no way something you can mistake for a guys name. So come on!
I make the same as my boyfriend, although I was making more than him for a while. I paid for what I could and vice versa. I don't understand the need to analyze it further than "this is what I can afford." It doesn't make me feel awkward, it doesn't make him feel like less of a man, it just makes us feel full after a nice dinner! :)

It's never been an issue in any of my relationships, but my mother (she's 46) has recently started dating after a divorce and it has certainly been an issue. She owns her own business and a lot of men her age seem to be put off by that. A couple stopped talking to her completely once finding that out.
Her current boyfriend REFUSES to let her pay for anything even though she makes a good bit more money than he does. That is certainly not the end of his "why are you dating him, mom?" qualities, but that was the first one to appear.

wow, to think my husband married me on the assumption that i would always be the main breadwinner b/c i initially outearned him a bunch! How did THIS happen? Didn't he know his weenie was gonna wane?

Good thing we love each other so much despite my being an emasculating bitch and him being an emasculated wuss.

Or maybe we're just grownups and we'd rather fight about leaving the toothpaste cap on like other adult couples...

I just spent the entire week depressed because I got a 17% pay raise, but its not because I now make more hourly than my husband. It's because I realized I'm going to live and die a teacher, and probably never get my PhD because I'll never have enough money to pay for the higher degree and the time off to write my doctoral thesis.

Any man who wouldn't date a woman because she makes more money than he does is a total chump.

Not that I'd ever defend the Times's dismal coverage of feminist issues, but I think Jessica is mischaracterizing the story. The writer focused on the discomfort and semi-resentment that young WOMEN feel when their male dates can't/won't pay (at least half of) the cost of eating in nice restaurants.

The image of some dude insisting on paying for X, Y and Z even though he can't afford it, while the woman can and is willing, is just *so* pathetic and unattractive I can't stand it.

"If you make more money than him or treat him to dinner, you are emasculating him . . . "

But see, he's not always just conjuring that up through his pig-headed male-pride imagination. Too many of us are part of that. Like the woman in the article who found the boyfriend's deficient earnings indicative of lack of drive. Come on, lady! You mean "lack of drive" as in "men are supposed to kill themselves working while women make babies"? Please! It's a code word for "low earning potential." WE emasculate the low earners (not US, the readers of this Web site, I hope) but many women simply don't want to "date down" -- I've had this discussion in various forms with women -- many are not nearly so equality-minded as we are when it comes to this. And guess what? THE MEN KNOW THIS, so is it so hard to understand why their pride gets in the way of our equality? They don't want to be rejected -- duh! We -- women -- need to get on the same page about what equality means and then communicate that. We need to educate our sisters, some of whom were even quoted by the NY Times!!

I know personal anecdotes are worth squat in the marketplace of ideas, but let me regale you with the following: it's never been a problem in the illicit workplace dating between me and my supervisor at the East Austin Shaved Ice and Oil Change Emporium. She makes $5.95 and hour and I get all the expired pina colada syrup I can drink.

BTW, does anybody have a kidney they can donate?

That's not gender relations, that's fucking math.

Hee. Good thing my partner's a math teacher! As soon as we moved in together, we combined bank accounts- no question of who made more or paid for what, we just paid from the joint account. I made about 10X as much as he did for a good long time because he was still a student. But it was OUR money- not his or mine, even before we were engaged because the argument was so silly to us.

Actually Unree, that's the secondary part of the article, imo.

My husband and I married pretty young - I was still in university and he was just starting out working. Given my graduate work years and child-rearing years, he's always been the primary bread-winner.

Now, I'm on the verge of a very exciting promotion/career change that would see that role reversed. My husband couldn't be happier - for me and for our family. I'm succeeding in something that I've always wanted to do and he's thrilled. Sure, I'll be earning about $30,000/yr more than him. He's kind of thrilled about that, too. He was shocked when some of his co-workers tried to tease him about being a 'kept man.' I say that they tried to tease him because you can't tease someone about something that doesn't bother them in the least.

Actually, we're seriously considering having a stay at home parent again only this time, it will be him!

SweetZoeJane: I'll third that annoyance! That's my biggest pet peeve when we go out to dinner.

I had a boyfriend who originally thought he should pay for everything, but when I explained that we can split things, or I can take him out, too, it changed. For a while things were equal, and then it got to where we would go to a movie, I would buy our tickets, and then at the concessions stand, he would order and then just wait for me to get my wallet out and pay. He didn't ask. All of the sudden I was expected to pay for everything. It was bizarre.

Now, my boyfriend and I alternate paying for things, or base it on who of the two of us has money. We're getting an apartment in January, and have already decided that rent will be paid by figuring the proportion of our total income each of us makes. Like, if he makes a third of our combined income, he'll pay a third of our rent.

pineapple, the same thing happened to me for a little while. My bf got a little dependent on my income for a bit too and started working less. I had to explain to him that, just cause I make more money fulltime than he does fulltime, doesn't mean he can work less hours and party more.. ack. so annoying.

Can I ask someone, whats with the combined bank account thing? I'm getting married next year but I'm not combining my bank account with my FH... do most people do that?

I just saw this as another thinly-sourced NY times "trend story." I mean, they interviewed what, three women? And they were all around age 25? I'd venture to say that most 25 year olds of either gender don't have money and don't go out to fancy places. Most 25 year olds didn't start a business at 18 or whatever that one woman did (very impressive but RARE). Most 25 year olds are either still in school or are working entry-level jobs. So, I'm not convinced that "men" hate "women" who make more money; it's probably more that 25 year old guys are still living the post-college lifestyle (futons, pizza, aimlessness), and when some woman comes along who's living more like a 35 year old in terms of spending power and lifestyle (expensive restaurants, travelling, dayplanners) it puts them off. Heck, it would have put me off at 25 and I'm a woman. And furthermore, if these women want to date men who live the lifestyle they live, I can tell you from my own dating experience that there are plenty of such men available. Most of them live in DC and are on match.com. Most of them are in their 30's or older. I know because I personally try to avoid dating those type of guys like the plague and I still ending up meeting a ton of them. (I actually like going to dive bars and eating at cheap restaurants, thanks much).

Did I miss something, or did the NYT article fail to cite any survey data in which a large portion of men said they would not be comfortable in a relationship with a woman who earns more? I never believe a word of these "trend" stories. A few interviews with (only) women giving anecdotes is not enough to convince me of anything.

Julie: I cannot believe that you are calling out the STYLE SECTION of the NEW YORK TIMES for lack of statistical rigor!

"Lori Weiss, a lawyer, hides her spending power from dates who might feel threatened."

CHECKMATE! P.S. Lori call me, I totally promise not to feel threatened apart from the cholesterol in the gourmet cheesecake you can buy me.

TFQ: About the combined bank account thing.

My boyfriend and I just signed up for a combined account. The main reason for doing this was to make it easier for us to pay for things that are for both of us (furniture, rent, date nights, etc.), as well as to be considered domestic partners for insurance reasons. How we do the bank thing to make sure it's balanced is very simple: we each keep our own separate bank accounts, but we'll contribute 100% evenly to our joint one. So I'll come home and say "hey I put 200 bucks in our account today - match it tomorrow," and he does. This makes it extremely easy for us to make sure one person isn't slacking in supporting the other one. Also, if we happen to break up, we'll just split the pot 50/50 and no one will be out anything. We both have access to the account, so it's completely transparent.

I make about double what my boyfriend makes. Seeing as he is a very egalitarian feminist (who also happens to be poor but likes to buy shit), this doesn't bother him too much - and the only reason it bothers him at all isn't because of his ego, he just doesn't want me to have to carry an unnecessary burden. I have to say, though, even though I make more than him, I still don't make all that much, and paying 100% of the rent is wearing thin. A lot of stress is also created because he came into the relationship with no savings, a fair paying job, and bad credit/debt. I'm 6 years younger than him but have a significant savings, no debt, and perfect credit. I'm basically in charge of his finances now - everything he buys goes through me. Um, I don't like it (I signed up for a boyfriend, not a kid), but if I want to remain sheltered with a decent lifestyle, someone's got to teach him.

What's dumb, too, is that they're kind of conflating money with lifestyle differences ... all the women keep talking about art museums and fancy restaurants and how the men make less and want to eat at diners and stay in and watch movies ... but not all people who make money like going to art museums, and plenty of people who do make money like dive bars ... it seems these women's problems with their mates wasn't really all about salary differences but also general hobbies, habits and goals ... that doesn't make for as easy a cliche, though ...

The other side of the coin is the pressure you get from other people if you're financially supporting your husband or boyfriend. The judgement can be overwhelming no matter how cool with it you and your partner are.

So wait. I thought the trend was lazy, jobless man-boys in search of someone to mooch off of so that we can play video games and tell fart jokes to our buddies all day.

Anyway, I think women who pick up the check are great, and I’ll have the lobster.

Actually, lizriz, it goes even further than that -- even if one boyfriend/fiance is financially self-supporting, sometimes one still gets flack from family for not finding a man who can support you as well (or at least help raise your standard of living).

elyzabethe - When did museums become expensive?

I'm gay, so that's not really a problem, but I can see where you're coming from. My mother made more money than my father when they got married, but my father had more money saved (so he pretty much paid for the major expenses, like the mortgage, etc.). Soon after they married he went back to law school, because he didn't think he would make enough money to support a family as an engineer. When he did become a lawyer, my mom became a stay-at-home mom.

When the woman is financially self-supported, a different dynamic is created in the relationship , I think. My dad actually cooked and did chores and helped out when my mom was rolling in the dough. After he switched careers and began making 200,000+ annually, my mom became a genuine housewife.

I wouldn't know, but I guess the same dynamic, in one way or another, would apply to even casual dating.

Let me tell you my sister and my brother-in-law...

He: Delivery-man

She: Lab technician

They: Happily married for 2 years.

~~~~
Re: SarahMC

Aren't men offended by this? How could a man read this and think, "Yeah! Treat my fragile ego with care! 'Cause I'm a strong, virile man!"?
If you're so manly, you can handle the fact that your s/o makes more than you. Otherwise you're a sexist baby and she (whomever she is) should dump your ass.

THANK YOU!

I have experience with both sides of this! In high school, my ex at one point found himself unemployed at a time where I actually had a job (in high school and the first part of college, I was a bit of a slacker who preferred to be between jobs when at all possible). So we stopped going out. I'd want to go out and he didn't because he couldn't afford to treat. I finally managed to convince him to let me start paying for things by pointing out that I was actually pulling in an income and he'd been paying for me for months. It didn't particularly stick once he had a job again, however.

My current boyfriend makes more money than me, but he's not in school and not planning on getting an advanced degree beyond an associates whereas I'm hoping to finish a masters. So we're both thinking I'm going to be the primary breadwinner in the house. We're both okay with that. We're actually in the process of deciding if once we have kids it wouldn't be a good idea for him to take time off and take care of the kids. He's also planning on taking my last name. Sometimes I'm not sure where he came from but I'm damn sure not about to tempt fate with this one.

I think the men who feel they must pay for everything and the women who can't stand the thought of paying their own way deserve each other. It keeps the field clear for everyone else.

Women are encountering forms of hostility they weren’t prepared to meet, and are trying to figure out how to balance pride in their accomplishments against their perceived need to bolster the egos of the men they date.

I get why this statement would be an accurate representation of a certain kind of (privileged) situation, but I can't stop boggling at the framing of this issue as "women experience hostility, therefore women should change behavior/perception to avoid hostility." Why not focus the article on men who are trying to be less hostile? Why not focus the article on women who are confronting this hostility and insisting on equal treatment? Because our culture so easily accepts the notion that all women, including (and perhaps especially) very successful and privileged women, ought to revise themselves and their actions if it makes men uncomfortable. There's just so much violence inherent in the concept of this article, and even the invocation of a term like "hostility" just rolls of the journalistic tongue without a hint of trouble. It's exhausting to feel this much generalized hate sometimes.

As for my personal situation, my husband and I met in law school, and he worked for the government while I worked in private practice, so I out-earned him basically 2-1. We switched gears for a while, and now he's working at a big firm and I at a small firm, so he out-earns me, and it's somewhat up in the air whether or not I'll work after we have a kid this winter (my income post-nanny might not be enough to justify the stress, and I'm just not happy with my job, so it's a good time to cut loose and re-assess my career path). Then he'll really make more than me. But very little of this has mattered over the years. We make nods to traditions, like him giving me an engagement ring, but because I wanted a more aggressive timeline for getting engaged, I gave him a family ring to give to me -- and later paid for my wedding ring myself. As far as I know, his cock is still the same size as it was when we met, so it would appear that my moneyed, toothed vagina hasn't done too much damage over the years.

There are clearly many men who are uncomfortable dating women with means, so the article is probably fairly correct. And of course, along with those men there are plenty of women who want to be paid for and who will neither offer nor feel comfortable paying for dates.

What the article ignores, though, is why anyone would want to date the men or women in question. Maybe they just date each other...?

People insistent on paying for their dates = yuck.

People insistent on NOT paying for their dates = yuck.

@TFQ: combined banking
It depends what you are comfortable with. My partner and I have no separate accounts- all our money goes into the joint account and honestly, I have no idea what the specific difference is in the amounts. I make more than he does because at tax time it's pretty obvious, but I also pay for the insurance and daycare with a FSA.

I'll be honest, I don't get the split accounts. I know there are a lot of people who that works for, but my mind always goes to stuff like, well, if he watches more TV than I do, should he pay for the TV? If my showers are longer, to I pay more of the water bill? What gets split? What doesn't? It freaked my parents out when we combined our accounts before we were married but his income was so little, what would I have done? Charged him to live with me and give him spending limits?

We have an over $50 rule- you can't spend over $50 without discussion, and usually any shopping trip gets a heads up from the person to make sure accounts are o.k. We screwed up one Christmas because we didn't want each other to know what we were spending. We don't do that anymore :)

My rule of thumb has been: If I ask you out, I pay for it. If you ask me out, you pay for it. There.

Though I will admit I broke my own rule on one date where I insisted I pay, because the guy I was on a date with was one of those entitled, "I just bought you X,Y and Z" types and I didn't want him to feel like I owed him anything. He still paid (insulting me while at it) and I didn't even bother to kiss him goodbye, I just briskly walked to my car. :)

Really?

I once dated a woman who made like three times as much as me and I thought it was awesome. She'd pay for all the expensive dates. We were always at her place so I didn't have to clean my apartment messy, at one point she even offered to buy me plane tickets for a vacation.

The only problem was she market researching executive (who actually thought market research made the world a better place) and would yell at me for my quasi-communist beliefs.

And I do think she wanted to date a man who made more than her, but just couldn't find one.

On the combined accounts:

My husband and I did not totally combine our money. I didn't want to. It made him a little nervous at first (like I didn't trust him, or didn't want to completely share my life or something), but now that he's used to it, we love it.

We figure out roughly what our annual expenses for running the household and childcare, and each put a percentage of our income in a "household account" to cover those expenses, plus a little extra for emergencies. The rest is our own to do what we please. We never ask permission, and neither of us have to feel the pinch if the other splurges. We do have to sometimes negotiate how we spend the household expenses, but it's rare. It helps that we have a similar philosophy on spending and saving.

sorry to reference kind of a silly show, but this reminds me of the sex and the city episode where miranda wants steve to accompany her to some swanky work function, but he doesn't have a suit and he would rather stay home than let her buy him one (which she can obviously afford).

i remember wanting to punch him so hard. as a professional woman i would feel deeply hurt and insulted if i was dating a guy who would rather sit at home and watch tv instead of going out because he couldn't deal with me picking up the check.

as for the other side of the coin--the women complaining about their less affulent dates' "lack of drive", i don't have a lot of sympathy for hypocrisy either. i get that most women with MBAs might not want to date a burger king manager because he seems unmotivated and lacking in passion (especially if the woman in question feels passionate about the work that she does). that makes some sense to me, but i honestly think people let their jobs define them all too often.

Let me tell you my sister and my brother-in-law...

He: Delivery-man

She: Lab technician

They: Happily married for 2 years.

I'll add to that my parents:

She: Principal at a public school

He: Bus driver

Happily married for 40 years in December!!!

I make more than my husband. My sister makes more than her husband. None of the men in my life seem to have a problem with it. Who cares?

As for the bank account thing, we have joint bank accounts. As someone else said, it just makes more sense for us (easier to pay bills, keep track of income, etc), BUT, both of us are trustworthy with the money. My last long-term SO I had split accounts with, very untrustworthy with money.

We don't have a common account. Each of us has our own account, and we've apportioned the household bills according to income. In other words, he pays the mortgage, the utilities, his student loans and his everyday expenses from his account, and I pay the credit card bills, the life insurance premiums, an amount for savings, my student loans and my everyday savings from my account. That way each of us manages some part of the household expenditures, but there's no feeling of how much one contributes vs. the other. We have a little bit of privacy/independence insofar as we usually don't have to access each other's account, but we remain interdependent to the extent that, if necessary, we each have the ability to transfer funds from the other's account (and to monitor what's in the other's account, to the extent that's ever necessary).

If we had done a combined account, we'd have to talk a lot more about money, which is something both of us hate to do. This way we have our own little areas of responsibility, and we each have the freedom to spend little bits here and there when we want to without talking about whether or not it's okay. It's only really when we have to do long term planning or significant budgeting that we have to sit and talk about money, which works out well for us both.

There was a time when I was itimidated by women who earned more than me. I was dissatisfied with my life and had a pretty low self-esteem so I wasn't doing much to improve it either. Other people had expectation that I would become a high-earner like many of my high school and college classmates. I was extremely jealous of the confident and succesful. I rarely actually communicated my financial situation; I'd just convice myself that I couldn't afford to date that person and wouldn't ask again. It took a good long time and a lot of personal growth before I was confortable with my more modest ambitions and supportive of those who had more of it. I had way too much of my personal worth tied up with career instead of qualities like honesty and kindness.

Right now, spouse earns a little more than me and I like it just fine. More would be fine too.

Anyway, some of those 25 year old men will come around. If they don't do so pretty quickly, thier problems are probably deeper and won't go away any time soon.

Lots and lots of good comments here.

RE: "[o]ur culture so easily accepts the notion that all women, including (and perhaps especially) very successful and privileged women, ought to revise themselves and their actions if it makes men uncomfortable."

I don't read the article as saying that. I read it as saying "look at these dumb, unenlightened males who, of course, are having a hard time with our success. What are we to do with them?"

Yes, the dumb men have got to change their thinking, but THAT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL LOTS OF WOMEN CHANGE. We need to get those women (I dare say a majority of American females -- none, I suspect who read this blog) to quit EXPECTING the man to be the breadwinner and to pay. Hell, even the NY Times, presumably interviewing enlightened women, found some of that crap.

Is it any wonder the poor dumb guys think they HAVE to pay, when so many WOMEN act like they expect it? They don't know what the hell is going on nowadays. It's so f-ing engrained in the male psyche, he feels like he'll be rejected if he doesn't pay -- and guess what? He WILL BE rejected by most women!!!

If you think I'm full of shit, just remember all the people who voted for Bush/Cheney in the last presidential election. That's the way it is in America, sisters.

Here's a creepy story I heard this weekend: A family friend, a professional guy in his early 30s, has a very good job in a big corporation. Through work, he met a woman who worked in a company in the same field, and they started dating. They'd been dating a while when she was recruited by his firm. When she was hired, he informed his supervisors of their relationship. Shortly after she started, they called him in and gave him a gigantic, totally unexpected raise. The reason: In order to recruit her from her previous position, they'd needed to pay her significantly more than he was making. But they didn't think she should be making more than him, so they raised his salary to make it higher than hers. When I heard this, I was flabbergasted. Is that legal? Certainly, they're happy, because they're getting married and their joint income will be enormous. But otherwise, it's terrible.

@sara: legal? Sure. Companies can pay whatever they want to employees with no real regard for any sort of fairness. Hilarious? Yes. What sort of patriarchal BS made them think it was necessary. Can you imagine that meeting??? Well, Jim's dating her, and we like Jim, he's a good guy- let's keep Jim happy by bumping his salary. It's what we would want, no?

Here's to hoping they wind up throwing a ridiculous party to celebrate their newly "earned" wealth. Gah.

A year ago, my wife's last raise gave her a higher salary than mine. I've still got a big happy grin on my face over it! Makes more money and cooks better than me! What's not to like??

@noname: you clearly don't live in NYC!

RE sara's post: "In order to recruit her from her previous position, they'd needed to pay her significantly more than he was making. But they didn't think she should be making more than him, so they raised his salary to make it higher than hers."

Not creepy and not necessarily patriarchal. We did the same thing at my lawfirm when we hired a woman who was long-term friends with one of the guy attorneys -- we gave her more than she asked for because she was on his level. Employers pay people as little as they can get away with, and if you know that one person will feel justifiably slighted, you need to think about raising the salary of the person who would feel slighted.

I promise you, unless that company is run by morons, they didn't raise the guy's salary because he was a guy. They want to keep him there, obviously, and didn't want to chance him feeling slighted. If they didn't want him, patriarchy or no, they'd fire him.

I can't stop boggling at the framing of this issue as "women experience hostility, therefore women should change behavior/perception to avoid hostility." Why not focus the article on men who are trying to be less hostile? Why not focus the article on women who are confronting this hostility and insisting on equal treatment? Because our culture so easily accepts the notion that all women, including (and perhaps especially) very successful and privileged women, ought to revise themselves and their actions if it makes men uncomfortable.

Awesome, ekf!

Ah, yes, we should revise ourselves until we are all, in fact, the same person .

Since women should be interchangeable with one another except for that one measure youth/looks, right?

And they could never possibly address the idea that perhaps it is the norm that is the problem: that men have so much more power/money than women in our society, that what they want is SO much more important...to the point that we have escalating child poverty and violence against women.

Why just today George Bush vetoed a bill to provide health care to children -- because (a) it being "socialized medicine" it might cut in to the profits of the Men Who Hold Big Pharma Stock and (b) he needs that money for opening up yet a third front in the "War on Terror."

Personally, I'd be terrified if I had a sick child and a low income, but that's not what life's about is it -- noooooo, it's about pleasing men on dates. Riiiight.

I'm in my mid-forties and have finally met a man who is gainfully employed. Do I let him pay? Hell yes! I never say no.

Since women should be interchangeable with one another except for that one measure youth/looks, right?

Smooches, wagadog! You're so right. The more the patriarchy can set the standard, the more women can be judged by how they do not fit it, and the standard is always with the idea that women are disposable and interchangeable. I hadn't connected the two concepts before, but you're totally right that they're linked.

I mentioned this article to my partner this morning and he sneered "I'm so sick of the Times writing articles about rich people's 'problems.'"
Remember that one a month back about multimillionaires who feel poor? Uhg.
Although these little anecdotes may be true for the few younger women in the country making hundreds of thousands a year, how is this relevant or important?
UHG UHG!

Although these little anecdotes may be true for the few younger women in the country making hundreds of thousands a year, how is this relevant or important?

I agree that it's frustrating to read these lifestyle pieces about people who are already pretty awash in privilege, but I think that the best response to your critique came from the Linda Hirschman "Get to Work" book. Women in positions of privilege influence policy, media and power balances generally, so what happens to them is important -- not so much in an absolute sense, but in terms of how their influence affects other women. People in positions of privilege (with apologies for the alliteration) are used as normative examples, whether or not their experiences are relevant. So another story about rich people is treated as a universal and part of a broader social phenomenon.

Need we look any further than the fall TV season to see that gender norms show a large amount of anxiety about women acquiring power and independent financial success? That's all about rich people, too, but they betray a value judgment about the social role of all women.

Stories like this one, shows like so many of what's being offered for fall TV by the networks -- it's used as a barometer to indicate what "society" thinks about "women," not just what the media thinks about rich women.

"Although these little anecdotes may be true for the few younger women in the country making hundreds of thousands a year, how is this relevant or important? "

I think it is certainly more common than that. In three of my last four relationships I made less money than my partner, and none of them made anywhere close to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The woman I dated for 3.5 years made twice as much money as me and was more successful in her field than I am. Psychologically, that didn't bother me at all.

Practically, however, it does create issues when your partner has much more disposable income than you in terms of entertainment, how to split the bills, etc., when the norm is that the male typically pays more often or at most splits things 50/50.

I have to admit that sometimes I walk on eggshells when telling my boyfriend about a milestone I reached at work, a new project I've been offered, a new opportunity, etc., etc. He gets raises more often than I do but he's paid at an hourly rate while I make salary and he earns less. I don't know if it has anything to do with internalized gender roles or if it's just my being sensitive to his dissatisfaction at work. I think it's the latter but still...

"AGREED! Or even worse, AFTER I hand them my credit car to pay, they still return it to HIM for signature! And my name is no way something you can mistake for a guys name. So come on!"

Hmm.

If he did sign after you paid with your ctredit card, then would the meal still be billed to your account, or would the restaurant have ripped itself off by essentially asking for an incomplete payment procedure...?

Last month I went on a coffee date with a man (our first date) and while we were tentatively approaching the ordering he jumped in front and ordered and the woman asked 'separate bills?' and he said 'yes.'

I have to be honest here and say it made me feel a bit annoyed that he didn't pay my way but in the whole scheme of things I realized that not only was he being respectful of me, he was treating me equally.

The rest of the story is this: It was just my birthday and he invited me for a coffee date and expressly told me it was on him ie. gift

Now that's a classy guy.

Ive had two long-term boyfriends that have made less than me and both had the same result: both of us struggling with ingrained ideas of the traditional male/female relationships. The guys: loving the idea of the modern woman, threatened by the independece and wanting the cook/nuturer. Me: Loving the independece, hating the cooking 5 days a week yet wanting the security of a strong & successful man that takes care of the house/finances/cars/etc. Those ideas are the reality but as long as both parties are aware of the issues and open to talking about it and working through it - then no big deal!

Money is a trap. Be creative, have a life, have desires that are about growing and learning and exploring. Don't want to go to an expensive restaurant - learn to cook! Don't have the money for a big birthday present? Write a poem, make a sculpture, create an ambiance, do interpretive dance, SOMETHING besides watching tv. It's not that novel.

Creativity turns me on. Having money or lack thereof can be a trap of rules. It is what you (and I) do with money or lack thereof that makes a person.

Ive had two long-term boyfriends that have made less than me and both had the same result: both of us struggling with ingrained ideas of the traditional male/female relationships. The guys: loving the idea of the modern woman, threatened by the independece and wanting the cook/nuturer. Me: Loving the independece, hating the cooking 5 days a week yet wanting the security of a strong & successful man that takes care of the house/finances/cars/etc. Those ideas are the reality but as long as both parties are aware of the issues and open to talking about it and working through it - then no big deal!

Money is a trap. Be creative, have a life, have desires that are about growing and learning and exploring. Don't want to go to an expensive restaurant - learn to cook! Don't have the money for a big birthday present? Write a poem, make a sculpture, create an ambiance, do interpretive dance, SOMETHING besides watching tv. It's not that novel.

Creativity turns me on. Having money or lack thereof can be a trap of rules. It is what you (and I) do with money or lack thereof that makes a person.

I live in the South and I've dated a lot of guys that were raised to always pay for the girl on a date. As much as I protest and insist to pay for myself, they'll get to the waiter first and pay for me. (And of course when the waiter asks, "together or separate?" and we both answer differently, they listen to him over me.) I know they are just trying to be polite and it is so hard to break these boys! How do you tactfully INSIST to pay for yourself on a date without making scene and being rude? Any ideas?

Great comments today! I have one friend in particular who I argue with about this all the time... she is single and SO hung up on having men pay for her. She is educated and has a high paying job, but she will only date men who make more than her, and has dumped guys that I thought were gems because they didn't offer to pay every single time they went out. She's baffled when she tries to share this with me and I can't relate - she says all the other women she knows would dump a guy for the same reason!

I am in a relationship where my partner and I make approximately the same amount, but I'm recently graduated and stand to make quite a bit more in the near future. It's never even come up except for "wow, that's really great for you. Now you can pay off more of your student loan debt!" I agree. We have lived together for over 2 years, we share all expenses 50/50 (he's in charge of 1/2 the bills, me the other half, and we collect from each other at each billing period), we each have our own accounts. Works great for us!

Gee, I'm reading lots of thought-provoking comments here, but I'm also sensing some mixed signals about who should pay -- e.g., the lady who was "a bit annoyed" that he didn't pay, and others who say let him pay. Why don't you all decide amongst yourselves if you're going to be insulted if the guy pays or angry if he doesn't and then get back to us.

I have some serious advice for you that may sound terribly sexist: you see, lots of guys want to pay not because of any primitive "male pride" (truth be told, they'd rather spend the money on video games) but because they want to create a sense of, ahem, obligation on the part of the woman, if you get my meaning. This is even more insulting to women than the "male pride" thing and shows how generally stupid the members of my gender are that they think a woman can be "bought" with a dinner or two. Trust me, that's how a lot of us (not me) think. Accordingly, whether you make more than him or not, you all should insist on paying your own way, all the time.

I did not catch on to that common male trick until after I was married, and by then it was too late for me to take advantage of it.

Mina: your signature on the check is a complete formality. You can sign Mahatma Gandhi and no one will care. If you dispute the charge only then it may come into play.

Fortunately, payment always been very simple for me. Whoever asked the other out-or suggested the venue- pays for the meal.

Let's note that the article was talking about a pretty specific circumstance, of guys wooing women who made much more than them. That's very different from what some people have talked about here, a couple who met in law school or whose wife gets a raise after they were already secure in their relationship.

I don't know that if "intimidated" is the right word, but I've been on dates with women who made multiple times my salary. I do pretty well, but it's not like I can regularly take foreign trips or get box seats at ballgames. I sorta felt like I might have difficulty keeping up with their lifestyle, or go broke trying to woo them. But it was never a major issue or something that stopped me calling someone.

Some of those guys in the article seemed like insecure losers ... although obv. you're not hearing their side of the story.

That said, if you sense that your partner (or potential partner) is judging you on something, it's easy to feel inadequate about it. Would any of you women feel secure about your bodies if you got a sense -- an unspoken sense -- that your boyfriends wanted you to have bigger boobs or a smaller waist?

"How do you tactfully INSIST to pay for yourself on a date without making scene and being rude? Any ideas? "

So as a guy, I'm typically in the position of being expected to pay for the first date. If a woman offers to pay, that's definitely bonus points. But I feel still feel that expectancy that I am "supposed" to pay.

Here is my general strategy. If a woman offers to pay, I say "Can this time be my treat? You can treat next time!". Which seems to go over well (for me) and is also useful because it signals that you're interested in a second date and set things up with the idea that I'm into reciprical relationships, alternating give and take, etc.

So, thinking from a woman's perspective, you could say "I'm happy to let you treat me this time, but I get to treat next time!". If the guy refuses even that, well, then, you probably aren't ideologically aligned with him anyways.

The strategy still might be a little too close to gender conforming for some people, but I've found it to be a useful strategy for dating.

I NEVER had a girlfrend. So, I haven't had to worry about that portion. But if she wants to pay the majority of the dinner, then it is perfectly OK with me.

This post is pretty interesting; its about how a couple of guys feel about the article.

On a first date at a lounge in Hell’s Kitchen, Thrupthi Reddy, 28, a brand strategist in Manhattan, watched her date down several cocktails to her one, then not even flinch when she handed the waitress her credit card. Initially miffed, she recognized her own contradictions.

No contradictions there. Thing is, back when men paid, women were expected to order off the middle of the menu - i.e. select food that was in the middle of the price range. Whenever someone is treating you, that's just good manners.

I've found, anecodatally, that men who pay are more invested in a serious relationship. It used to really bother me (and I used to insist on paying my share - which was almost always less than half, as I have cheap vegetarian food) until I realised that the men who pay are the ones who are serious, while the men who happily let me pay my share (or don't take me out to dinner) are just playing the field.

Principle collides with practicality. What to do?

As for out-earning men... it's not just earning power, ladies. Engineers and lawyers are very professionally competitive with me; as a rule, I now do not date them. I am tired of having my achievements, research, papers, or grades compared to theirs (and, invariably, they do the comparing and feel like they don't measure up). Money is but one manifestation of this.

Here is my general strategy. If a woman offers to pay, I say "Can this time be my treat? You can treat next time!". Which seems to go over well (for me) and is also useful because it signals that you're interested in a second date and set things up with the idea that I'm into reciprical relationships, alternating give and take, etc.

I like that! I'm stuck trying to reciprocate by cooking meals. I really like the idea of taking turns treating each other instead of going Dutch. Even if it works out to the exact same thing, it's much nicer to let one person plan and treat.

PS. If the waiter/waitress gives your credit card to your boyfriend/brother/male cousin, don't just leave a bad tip - leave a note.

When you write on the credit card slip, say, "I would have tipped 20%. After you gave MY credit card to my boyfriend, however, I am going to leave 10%. His name is not Amy."

Men are competitive with successful women? I've got news for you: Men are competitive with successful men, too, in case you haven't noticed.

When we're out with a male friend who is much more successful, we feel uneasy about that, too.

So call it "hunter instincts or some such shit" or whatever you want to call it, but you ain't gonna change it by calling it "patriarcy or some such shit." It's just the way it is.

Hey Judge, I mentioned your super-secret reason men insist on paying for dates way upthread.
It's why I don't find said insistence "romantic" or appealing. We're pretty hip to your games, and the consensus on this thread seems to be that stubborn insistence on paying all the time is not cool.
And I think many of us are in agreement that the party to initiates the date should pay, whether it's the man or woman (in heteo relationships). UCLA's suggestion for handling dates is perfect. One person pays this time, the other the next. Or one person pays for dinner and the other for ice cream and the movies... whatever the case may be.
Don't blame feminists for non-feminist women's insistence on traditional gender roles.

Judge,

Heterosexual men refuse to date successful men because they are heterosexual and the party in question is not female, not because the party in question is successful.

Men will be friends with uber-successful men. They will not date (or long date) successful women. I know many men who have their boy's club of super-successful, achieving guy pals - but they all look for "smart but not as smart" women.

As for the patriarchy... babe, you're never going to find me blaming it. So I don't know where you got that. :)

I was in a long term relationship and while my boyfriend and I were both students we made about the same amount. We alternated paying for dates, usually with the person who suggested said date paying for it. It pretty much balanced out and after it became habit we never had to worry excessively about money or insecurities. And when I hit a rough patch and was pretty broke, he picked up the slack and paid for dates and paid for my birth control (which, when I thought about it, I should have asked him to chip in for long ago).

As far as that "secret" bullshit motive some men have for paying for dates, it is usually pretty easy to tell if that is their reason for wanting to pay or if they were just raised to think they were supposed and don't know how to react to a suggestion otherwise. I did have one date who insisted on paying and it was clear that he was doing it so that I would "owe" him. He was being such a jerk about it that I let him pay, which I considered a payment for wasting my time.

I don't think anyone has really pointed this out, but the whole story is based on anecdotes. Many of them rather exceptional ones at that.

I'm sure there are lots of guys who are jerky about women making more than them, but a lot of them don't care.

Anyway, I always offer to pay for dates, but most women offer to pay for half and I'm annoyed if they don't.

Judge...why exactly do you think "that's just the way it is"? I mean, did you even put any thought into that before you said that?

Some of these issues were actually covered, in a very even-handed fashion, in a book written some years ago: Some Girls Do by Margaret Leroy.

"When you write on the credit card slip, say, "I would have tipped 20%. After you gave MY credit card to my boyfriend, however, I am going to leave 10%. His name is not Amy.""

This is an excellent idea, Oenophile.

"[Men] will not date (or long date) successful women."

Um... several people have posted experiences indicating otherwise.

In fact, I'm really glad to hear that my situation (female breadwinner with male partner who's fine with that) is not unheard-of.

"The other side of the coin is the pressure you get from other people if you're financially supporting your husband or boyfriend. The judgement can be overwhelming no matter how cool with it you and your partner are."

"...even if one boyfriend/fiance is financially self-supporting, sometimes one still gets flack from family for not finding a man who can support you as well (or at least help raise your standard of living)."

So true, Lizriz and DAS.

i agree with everything everyone else said. but something has GOT to be said about how freaking heteronormative all this is...

who is "supposed" to pay in a same-sex relationship? where are the "dating rules" for queer women?

although its probably a good thing that shit like that isnt as widely dictated within the queer community...

I know they are just trying to be polite and it is so hard to break these boys! How do you tactfully INSIST to pay for yourself on a date without making scene and being rude?

Honestly, it's hard to characterise talking over you and refusing to listen to your wishes as "polite", or even respectful. It sounds more like a rather creepy need for control that would be enough for me to just walk away.

Who are the fuck are these people who insist that men don't like free money? My reaction to a woman offering to pay for dinner has always been "WOOHOO! NO RAMEN TONIGHT!"

Financially successful women DO have trouble dating for a much simpler reason: they don't make it their top priority. People with lots of success and self confidence don't need to hang around bars or scour the web to find somebody who can inflate their sense of self worth. And I'm not saying that's the only reason people date, but it's certainly one of the biggest reasons young men date.

Um, obviously these writers haven't talked to any real men, in like 20 years. Every man I know would be happy to date a woman who could support them. My boyfriend is pushing me into college so I can one day pay our bills while he stays home with our daughter. Several of our friends are or have dated women with high incomes and it wasn't an issue. Also, who are these men that start talking about money while picking women up? Once again these people create completely unrealistic stories in order to sell papers.

Yes, Rock Star, I know why that's just the way it is. Sadly, or not sadly, depending on your point of view, men and women are different. Have you noticed that, Rock Star? I happen to fall into the "not" sadly camp. (Oh and, ah, it's the fault of the patriarchy. Whatever.)

You know, Id be very happy –as I always am- to pay my own way. Or perhaps on occasion, pay for someone else, or even have them pay for me, it really isnt set in stone for me. And I am most definitely not scared of “successful� women! So I guess that’s another tick on the list of men who don’t need their egos stroked regularly, unlike that article seems to suggest.

Honestly, this kind of shite is exactly the reason that makes me glad I not only dont want to be in a relationship on ANY level, not even careless “flings�, but that even if I did, I wouldn’t have much success anyway.

So I guess that makes me twice the anomaly in regards to being a man. Not only do I have no “hunter instinct� (or whatever bollocks it was) but I don’t seem to have a very strong “mating instinct� either.

"I think this is basically a "white guy" thing. I have noticed that men of color don't seem to equate money with masculinity. This is a white bourgeois attitude, that somehow it is "unmanly" to let a woman pay." (quote - Murph56)

Speaking as an Asian man, I would have to contest that opinion.

In Asia, the expectation has always been and still is that the man pays, regardless of how much he earns in comparison to the woman. Guys who don't pay for their dates are considered "cheap" and "ungentlemanly" and such behaviour is usually frowned upon.

Yes, even though it's the 21st century, this way of thinking is still currently entrenched in the minds of many of the current generation. Men who don't pay when they are out with a woman are considered to be "not serious" in pursuing a romantic relationship or just want a platonic relationship. The thinking is that if he doesn't pay, he's not worth your time as he's a cheap, stingy bastard. Needless to say, this feeling is especially stronger when it comes to the older generation, so for a man to not pay when he is out with his potential parents/in laws...this causes a HUGE amount of what we call "loss of face".

One thing that is ALWAYS stated is how men feel threatened by women who make more than them. But the opposite is rarely mentioned as it would be "politically incorrect" - that there are successful women who prefer to go out with men who make MORE than them because men who make less are not able to take care of them financially or losers for not having high-paying jobs. It is still a very common thing for Asian parents to tell their daughters to marry successful men, in which by that they mean, doctors, lawyers, etc, men that earn a good income.

A recent poll done in an Asian country showed that 67% of young women would resign from their job if they felt that their husbands/potential husbands could take care of them. A majority of the women polled also believed that HIS money is THEIR money but HER money is HERS.

I think men in America or other Western countries have more opportunities to be more family oriented. Just judging from these comments section, it seems that men in said countries are able to be the parent that remains at home to take care of the children. In Asia, that would be incredibly and unbearably shameful, and the men would be considered losers for not getting a job and being "successful", for not doing his "duty" to provide for his wife and family.

Just a different POV from me.

I think this is basically a "white guy" thing. I have noticed that men of color don't seem to equate money with masculinity. This is a white bourgeois attitude, that somehow it is "unmanly" to let a woman pay.

I disagree. I think men are men and most like to feel that they are King and primary provider. We live in a patriarchal society and men of all races can be weak and insecure.

Judge/Rock Star: Yes, men and women are different -- I say with all due respect to you, Judge (I assume you really are a man), but on the whole, men are testosterone poisoned. It's foolish to ignore biology. Every guy I know beyond a certain age is super-competitive. (My boyfriend just bought a plasma TV he can't afford; he refuses to admit it, but he's trying to keep up with a wealthy guy friend who has virtually the same thing.) The shrewd guys learn to control it, to use it in more healthy ways. The younger men seem better adjusted, more relaxed (less poisoned?), and I hope they stay that way. We (women) surely have our problems, too, but at least we don't have this junk being pumped into our bodies at anywhere near the rate men do!

Whither the cheapskate?

Men are testosterone poisoned? And this hyper-competitiveness is biological? I think that's...well, I guess sort of sexist. To say that men are poisoned by their own hormones...that just rubs me the wrong way.

kissmypineapple, it's a poor way to put it, and I apologize, because it does suggest that men are inherently defective. That's wrong and counterproductive. We can't ignore biology in gender studies, and males' increased levels of testosterone enhance aggressive behavior -- including competetiveness -- but it also enhances risk taking in innumerable ways that have benefited socity.. What I should have said was that testosterone isn't responsible for just bad things.

In this particular case, though, I think women who are succeeding are feeling a bit of that male competitiveness, and it's raining on their parade.

Sadly, or not sadly, depending on your point of view, men and women are different.

"Nothing to see here! no siree!
Men can't overcome their 'biological need' to pay for dinner and subjugate women!
Anyone who does is a freak of nature!
Let's stop talking about this because it might force me to examine my male privilege and I'm too lazy and comfortable to do such a thing. Carry on now; nothing to see here!"

I'm with KMP, I was doing pretty well with this thread until someone started bashing men as a group because of the behavior of some of their fellows.

Some guys were raised to think they're failures if they don't pay for a date. Some guys would love a chance to freeload if they were given it. And some guys (most of the ones I've dated) are equality minded and willing to let everyone chip in towards the financial costs of the relationship, one way or the other. Men aren't a homogenous group anymore than women are.

That said, I've loved hearing people's different strategies for coping with this issue. Having gotten dumped last month, I'm going to have to start dating again soon, and this has been a nice refresher course. *grin*

Because men and women are different, men have a biological need to "pay for dinner and subjugate women!"?

Wow!

I think you need to take a walk around the block and get some fresh air.

"Men are testosterone poisoned? And this hyper-competitiveness is biological? I think that's...well, I guess sort of sexist. To say that men are poisoned by their own hormones...that just rubs me the wrong way."

I'm not a big fan of the phrase either. The origin, though, is from a feminist article. Basically the argument is that male behavior is consider normative and women's behavior is not. Women are viewed as being ruled by their hormones and this is why they are moody, soft, passive, and cuddly.

But if you actually consider the behaviors that testosterone fuels (status seeking, mate seeking, aggression), and all the harm testosterone can cause (running down of the immune system, fighting, injury, etc.), then maybe we shouldn't think of male behavior as normative - rather, they are poisoned by their testosterone, not helped by it. The phrase first appeared in Ms. Magazine [

"We can't ignore biology in gender studies, and males' increased levels of testosterone enhance aggressive behavior -- including competetiveness -- but it also enhances risk taking in innumerable ways that have benefited socity.."

I certainly agree with that. I think it is more accurate to say that testosterone level fuels response to threats to one's status or dominance rank (which may include aggressiveness), rather than simply aggression. In other words, if you just load up a guy with testosterone, that isn't necessarily going to make him more aggressive. However, if you give a guy more testosterone and then insult him/threaten him/put him in a competition, then he will be more aggressive than he would have been.

Also, testosterone responds to competitions - people who lose competitions show a decrease in testosterone, which helps them avoid future competitive interactions where they might lose.

By the way, you also get some of these same effects for testosterone in women.

If biology determines a man's need to pay for dinner and/or be the primary breadwinner, then I guess my husband is just broken. Thankfully.

MsPitt, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Sexists often trot out the "men and women are different!" line to excuse sexist behavior, as though it's actually an explanation. You and I are different too. All people are different from one another. It's what sexists say when they don't want to use their brains to THINK about anything. When they don't want to evaluate their own behavior and prejudices.

"Because men and women are different, men have a biological need to "pay for dinner and subjugate women!"? Wow! I think you need to take a walk around the block and get some fresh air."

I dunno, I could see an interesting study there.

Are men who are higher in testosterone (and therefore more likely to respond aggressively/assertively to threats to their social status) more likely to refuse when a woman offers to pay for dinner and insist on paying (which would be perceived a threat to his status).

You might expect that the effects of testosterone would be strongest among conservatives who would be more likely to believe that a woman paying would be a threat to his status (a nice hormone X culture interaction).

And, if the reverse pattern is also true: do women high in testosterone offer to pay more.

Could be an interesting study.

[I realize that the original poster wasn't thinking along those lines, but it made me think of this possible study :-).].

Um, obviously these writers haven't talked to any real men, in like 20 years. Every man I know would be happy to date a woman who could support them.

Not to single you out here, since this sentiment has been expressed by several people in this thread. But this is just not the case--I have dated both: men who were threatened or insecure that I made more than they did (and because we met while both of us were in school and very low-wage, it took a couple years for that dynamic to emerge, and when it did it was very surprising to both of us), and men who weren't threatened at all and who were proud of my successes. Both types are out there, and as much as we would all love it if the first type were an aberration, I just don't believe it is. I think that speaks to the fact that gender roles are still very ingrained, not to the fact that these men are necessarily louts or that these women are necessarily hypocrites.

I see a lot of bagging on this article, and I, too, have done my fair share of bagging on the NYT for their "cultural paradigm" articles written by one privileged person and his or her circle of five or so privileged friends, but come on now. I see something really interesting in this article (though maybe it is interesting to me because it has been echoed in my own life). You've got these women who are defying gender roles in their professions by entering highly paid, high-status professions or starting their own successful businesses (in the case of one woman who could an NYC apartment when she was freaking 18!!!) who still feel constrained by gender roles in their personal lives. And on the flip side, you've got these guys who, let's assume, are by and large not assholes, who think women just as inherently qualified as men to hold these jobs, but who are stunted in their own personal lives because they've absorbed this cultural pressure that they must be breadwinners or be utter failures. I really wish the article had highlighted this a little more, because at its heart, I think the story here is not about a bunch of whiny rich kids and their dramatic romantic lives, but about how hard it has been and continues to be to fight these gender-dependent cultural expectations about how to measure a person's worth, and how not successfully dispelling these internalized, sexist ideas harms everyone, men and women alike.

For whoever it was who posted about this article being heteronormative, it certainly is. There is an interesting series called Sleeping with Money over at www.queercents.org (a queer-focused personal finance blog) examining similar issues in same-sex relationships, though, if you're interested.

ack, sorry, the correct address www.queercents.com

I understand that testosterone can account for some of the aggressiveness and competitiveness in men and women, but to blame these types of behavior on hormones isn't right. We, as human beings, have rational thought processes that allow us to overcome our hormones. I'm female and have more estrogen than my male counterparts, but that makes me no less driven, competitive, or aggressive than most of the men I know. Social conditioning accounts for a lot of this.

My brother isn't particularly competitive, and is less likely to become aggressive than either my sister or me. In fact, she engages in far more risk taking behavior than my brother ever would. And, I know it's just a personal anecdote, but I observe these differences in all of the people I know.

Yes, hormones and physiological facets of people play a role, but give me a break. Testosterone is not to blame for some men's vehement reluctance to let a woman pay his way or to date women who are more "successful" than they are. We teach men that their value is tied up in money, and so when a woman can pay, it makes him nervous. There are plenty of men who have evolved past social norms and are accepting of women's power and success, without feeling that it affects their identity as men.

Also, constantly insisting that it is the women who have to change!!! is missing the point. Yes, there are women who were raised to believe that men must be their providers, and so even if those women make a million dollars, they feel that their partner has to make a million and one. That means women and men have to change their ideas. It's a slow process, but it's happening. Just because some women are "gold-diggers" doesn't mean that they bear the blame for men's feelings of inadequacy when confronted with financially independent women.

Yes, SaraMC, I am being "deliberately obtuse" because I agree that men and women are different! Or perhaps I am being sexist because I acknowlege it?

Please! Spare me the personal attacks! The fact that I acknowledge that there are differences doesn't mean I approve of men's behavior when it holds women back, or that men (and women) shouldn't change how they think to keep women from being held back. It's deeply ingrained thinking, by culture AND biology, and it's going to take time to change. But the mere fact that some man wants to pay for dinner doesn't "subjugate" me -- if I don't want him to do it, I say "no," and if this characteristic is a dealbreaker to the relationship, I move on. The alternative is we can all say "to hell with" almost half the population of the world, which I am not willing to do.

This is an eye opening discussion. The most important point, for me, is something Saramc said early on: "Aren't men offended by this? How could a man read this and think, 'Yeah! Treat my fragile ego with care! 'Cause I'm a strong, virile man!'?"

Right on! And, yes, I am offended by this attitude -- I'm sorry to say there are still guys out there like this. (I make fun of guys I know who treat their significant others like children.)

Frankly, I'd have a problem if my significant-other automatically expected me to hop to the traditional "male party line" and always be the breadwinner. I've gone through times working for myself when my wife has supported both of us. It more than evens out when my business is humming along. She's fine with it, and I'm fine with it as long as she is.

This is an eye opening discussion. The most important point, for me, is something Saramc said early on: "Aren't men offended by this? How could a man read this and think, 'Yeah! Treat my fragile ego with care! 'Cause I'm a strong, virile man!'?"

Right on! And, yes, I am offended by this attitude -- I'm sorry to say there are still guys out there like this. (I make fun of guys I know who treat their significant others like children.)

Frankly, I'd have a problem if my significant-other automatically expected me to hop to the traditional "male party line" and always be the breadwinner. I've gone through times working for myself when my wife has supported both of us. It more than evens out when my business is humming along. She's fine with it, and I'm fine with it as long as she is.

And what does "men and women are different" have to do with anything, MsPitt?
Black people and white people are different, too; they have different colored skin and are of different ethnicities. And? What's your point?

Ever seen a Scotsman pick up a check?

"This place is emptier than a Scottish pay toilet!"

Go for a walk, SaraMC.

There's an "h" in my name.
Is that all ya got?

That's all I got. I can't stand to watch a woman throw a hissy fit.

Actually, SarahMC's been quite calm and you have yet to have explained your stance in the slightest. So people are different (men/women, young/old, rich/poor, short/tall, smart/dumb). What's that got to do with the current discussion?

No difference which is inherent to men excuses or explains a refusal to treat women as equal partners. Therefore those differences are, for the sake of this discussion, meaningless.

If you have an argument in oppotition to this, please present it. Simply repeatedly telling SarahMC that she needs to talk a walk or is throwing a hissy fit (which she patently isn't), makes you look both condescending and overmatched.

In other words, you're stalling.

Damn straight.

:)

You'd swear I was typing in all caps or with excessive exclamation points, the way MsPitt tried to distract everyone by accussing me of having a hissy fit. Haha!

I am being transfered to Europe for my Job as a producer and my husband quit his job to move with me. He's cool with it, Excited to go and knows it's a great opportunity for me. But since he quit, the other guys at his work have been going on and on calling him a pussy. So lame. I told him they are just jealous because we get to go to Europe and travel and go out all the time while the guys he works with bitch about going home to their wives cause they will have to do chores. They say a man should be the head of the family and then they go to strippers after work and dread going home. Maybe if they treated their wives as equal partners, life would look up for them./

I am being transfered to Europe for my Job as a producer and my husband quit his job to move with me. He's cool with it, Excited to go and knows it's a great opportunity for me. But since he quit, the other guys at his work have been going on and on calling him a pussy. So lame. I told him they are just jealous because we get to go to Europe and travel and go out all the time while the guys he works with bitch about going home to their wives cause they will have to do chores. They say a man should be the head of the family and then they go to strippers after work and dread going home. Maybe if they treated their wives as equal partners, life would look up for them./

I apologize to SarahMC for overreacting to the "deliberately obtuse" remark. My comment to you was flippant and counter-productive -- I was out of line. I do not disagree with either you or Kimmy. You both seem to have taken my comments as excusing or making light of conduct that hurts women. If so, it is because I did not express myself properly. I do not condone or excuse any such conduct, pure and simple. Men and women are different because of biology and culture (our patriarchal system); it is ingrained in lots and lots of men and many women -- some more, some less -- that men are supposed to be the breadwinners. It will take time to disabuse our society of this notion which is unhealthy not only for women but also men. We all need to work at it. This Web site helps. My apologies for not expressing this better, and for overreacting.

Thanks MsPitt. I also apologize for calling you obtuse, but it really seemed like you were defending injustice "because men and women are different."
I stand by my position, but there's no hard feelings or anything.

"Sexists often trot out the "men and women are different!" line to excuse sexist behavior, as though it's actually an explanation. You and I are different too. All people are different from one another. It's what sexists say when they don't want to use their brains to THINK about anything. When they don't want to evaluate their own behavior and prejudices."

Thank you, Sarah, for saying what I was struggling to come up with. I recently had an argument with someone who had that for the entire basis of why It's The Woman's Job to Stay At Home and Other Sexist Ideas.

Not to sound like that part in "A Wrinkle in Time" where Meg resists the brain, but people can be equal without being the same.

There is obviously a huge spectrum of family wealth, earning power, inhereted wealth, potential wealth, intellect, ambition, and drive among both men and women. The appropriate question is how we deal with such disparities - and pretending that they don't exist on account of "equality" doesn't cut it.

Men and women are physically different - that's sexual dimorphism. I would rather frame feminist philosophy as a "who cares whether or not we are the same, we are EQUAL" theory, rather than a "We are the same; ergo, treat us equally" theory. The latter is subject to "scientific" (i.e. social science, oxymoron that it is) attack. We don't want every single brain scan of men and women to undermine equality. We are far better off pointing out that the overlap in the bimodal distribution is far more significant than any disparities at the ends; that the presence of such a distribution cannot and never should be the grounds for differing treatment.

So men have more testosterone. As feminists, there should be one response: BFD. We aren't going to treat people unequally on that account. The next generation of women could be three-foot-tall midgits who uniformly love to cuddle and make babies, or they could be six-foot-tall, testosterone-driven, Mia-Hamm meets Marie Curie - women. Either way, they should be treated equally.

Rant over.

Oenophile, I thought that's what most people were saying. And, yeah, men and women have different sexual organs and hormone balances, blah, blah, blah. Like you said, BFD.

The thing is, of course men and women are different. Women are also different from other women, and men are different than other men. I don't see why it's such a problem to point out that, really, we all are the same...in that we are all people. I get sick of talking about how men and women are different from each other, because, like you said, it's a moot point, and also because so many people act like there are only those two categories. Men are different from women, but within each category, they're all the same.

I especially bristle when people argue that men and women's behavior is dictated soley by their hormones. It treats the human condition as though it is static. Like, women can't help desperately wanting to be pregnant and bake and clean and coo over men in the same way they do their precious, precious babies. You know, b/c they're poisoned by estrogen. And men can't help that they're so violent and agressive and powerful and ambitious and have no control over where they put their penises. You know, b/c they're poisoned by testosterone.

It's a stupid argument. People are people, and there are physical differences between everyone. No one's pretending they don't exist, but since they don't matter, why do we have to point it out every time a topic like this comes up?

The differences don't matter, so, why don't we stop emphasizing them, and let's concentrate on how we are the same. We are people, and people all deserve the same level of respect and dignity, and we can all work to effect that change in the world.

KissMyPineapple,

I think you missed some of my point. I do think there are some differences, on the average, between men and women. We should be advanced enough to recognise those differences but not let them affect how we treat people in the social and legal sphere. I notice that I'm one of the few (read: only) women who volunteers in law school on non-sociological issues. Perhaps some of it is social; perhaps some of it is physiological.

It is REALLY simplistic thinking to see MsPitt's argument and trash it in the "We are not ruled by our hormones" manner. Hormones are a factor in how people behave. Ask anyone with a hormone imbalance. How do you think some psychotropic drugs work? Testosterone is related to sex drive, aggression, and competitive behaviour. Trial attorneys have higher levels of testosterone than the general population. Now, other law schools may be different, but no one asked us to pee into a jar while we were waiting in Career Services.

Yeah, hormones matter in how people behave. They are not the only factor. Point is, they shouldn't matter with how people are TREATED.

Oh, yeah, and you can whine all you want about how "most people are saying that." I apologise deeply for missing the memo where I'm not allowed to join in with "most people." /sarcasm

Oenophile,

I didn't think I was whining, but that's neither here nor there.

I was trying, apparently poorly, to point out that we seem to essentially agree, but have different reasons for that.

I am fully aware of how psychotropic drugs work. What I was saying is that, yes we have different amounts of different hormones that work in different ways, but people who don't have an imbalance can't pass off their attitudes about women or men on their physiological make-up.

Just as you said that those differences should have no bearing on how people are treated, I believe they should not dictate how a people treat others. I can't say, well, I'm female, and so that makes me expect men to provide for me. That's not true. That's not an intrinsically or exclusively female attitude. And competitiveness, sex drive, etc., are related to testosterone levels, but these are also related to social norms. Women are just as capable of being extremely competitive as me, and they are capable of having a sex drive that surpasses that of a man's.

I thought Ms. Pitt and SarahMC came to an understanding of each other. We can disagree on some points, and agree on others without you characterizing my posts as whiny. I only said that I thought most people were in agreeance with you, b/c your post read to me like it was trying to bring to light a contrasting point.

I so fed up with the slew of advice aimed at women saying that we must be less successful than men (or appear to be) in order to catch a man. What the fuck?! Like so many of you have pointed out, if a guy's masculinity is that easily intimidated, than something is wrong with his masculinity, not the women he dates.

Secondly, it's another tricky attempt to discourage women from pursuing the careers that conservative factions would consider "a man's job".

Third, it's an attempt to reenforce the idea that men are "supposed to be" superior to women, and therefore, should have "dominion" over them. Religious conservatives say it all the time. It's the patriarchical powers-that-be trying to reassert the old hierarchy again.

This isn't to say that all men are guilty of this. Far from it! There are a lot of women guilty of this sort of thinking, and would prefer to be conform to oppressive norms. They would sell out other women for a little bit of male approval. This author is one!

Conversely, there are a lot of men who would like to see the end of these stupid norms so that the women in their lives can lead better lives. My dad is one. My boyfriend is another. He loves a fearless, competent woman!

These sorts of advice given out by our facist media play on women's worst fears of rejection. It's completely despicable! We as a society must see through this manipulation, or we slide down together, towards the stinking mud hole of the dark ages, where the Muslim societies are.