'Does it feel right for a woman to earn more than a man?' poll

Barneysmom

I have been the only one bringing in money for the last 6 years.
I would love hubby to earn more, I'd love him to earn less than me.
I wish he was well enough to work. But for richer or poorer that's the way it is and probably always will be.

MSE_Martin

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

While you're doing such a ridiculous survey, perhaps you'd also like to do a parallel one with the question,

"Does it feel right for a black person to earn more than a white?"

Thats a nonesensical comparison. This is about people's views of earnings within a couple. There has been a historic misbalance of this and we're testing attitudes.

Your question would be an analogy to "should men earn mroe than women for the same job" a completely different question.

Money in relationships is a massive cause of friction and divorce. Understanding attitudes to it is both interesting and important. Please re-read the actual question.

Martin

DigForVictory

The way the dice landed, we didn't get much of a choice. We've three cracking sons, but they need a lot of parenting, & when the civil service part time term time post was listed for redundancy, the only difference was I became the sole breadwinner. He's the Stay At Home Father (a crock - he's out & about, and doing loads of things for & with the lads) & my sons are happier & better behaved than if I tried to do his job. (Last I had a try, they were under 4 & had me on the ropes within an hour.)

Don't get me wrong - I'd love him to earn more than me, or even as much as me but on his part time terms - but this way our sons are guaranteed a fulltime parent even if there isn't a lot of money or a lot of time with Mum.

We started off both fulltime working, but I got into the job market sooner & so always earned more. I didn't marry a man who couldn't afford the mortgage, but expensive nights out have never been part of our style. (Just as well, really.) Some of my collegaues sniff that I'm keeping a very expensive Manny, but what they don't see is how happy our home is. (So long as you do not equate happiness with worrying cleanliness...)

My tombstone will read "It Worked For Us" - we keep on having to explain situations that way...

rhubarbpie_2

You are joking!

This poll is borderline offensive.

Barneysmom

I can't think why people are offended by a simple question?

MSE_Martin

rhubarbpie wrote: »

You are joking!

This poll is borderline offensive.

I simply don't understand it - as noted in the question - its to find out

"Have attitudes really changed?"

Why would you find asking that offensive. I accept you may not like the result, if it shows that many people still think in what is now perceived to be an old fashioned way - but that doesn't make the question offensive.

Martin

DirtyDick

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Well I'm happy to be non-pc... I have no interest in a man who either earns less than me, or does not have the potential to earn more in the long run. The reason is simple, I don't want to have to return to work after giving birth because it would destabilise our financial position if I didn't. Who wants to have to keep a man full stop, let alone at the pastoral expense of their child?? So men should man up and understand this legitimate concern.

How is 'legitimate' concern different from an illegitimate one, or a tawdry one, or a selfish one?

Your concern is an old-fashioned one, expecting a man to 'keep you', but by no means an illegitimate one. The husband may very well ask the same question of you, why keep a wife who could be out working once the children are at school to enhance the family's income?

Society and expectations have changed so that, unless one is earning well above the national average, a joint income is necessary for maintaining a 'middle class' house and lifestyle.

Tigsteroonie

DigForVictory wrote: »

The way the dice landed, we didn't get much of a choice. We've three cracking sons, but they need a lot of parenting, & when the civil service part time term time post was listed for redundancy, the only difference was I became the sole breadwinner. He's the Stay At Home Father (a crock - he's out & about, and doing loads of things for & with the lads) & my sons are happier & better behaved than if I tried to do his job. (Last I had a try, they were under 4 & had me on the ropes within an hour.)

Don't get me wrong - I'd love him to earn more than me, or even as much as me but on his part time terms - but this way our sons are guaranteed a fulltime parent even if there isn't a lot of money or a lot of time with Mum

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

Marley is the SAHD in our household, and he's making a darn good job of raising our little boy. I'd love to be home more, but it's more important that one of us is home with littl'un and why should I be selfish just because I'm the Mum? With one of us at home and one working, it makes financial sense for me to be the breadwinner.

liz545

I earn around 20% more than my partner, and it's not really an issue for us. We both earn enough to live on, and we're roughly on the same page with money (although not always!) It doesn't really bother me at the moment, but the thought has crossed my mind that when we start a family, I'd rather not feel obliged to go back to work full time to keep our finances afloat. I'm hoping that he'll catch up with me earnings-wise over the next couple of years, but if that doesn't happen, it'll still work out ok.

wozearly

rhubarbpie wrote: »

You are joking!

This poll is borderline offensive.

I'm struggling to see how the poll question is offensive. Investigating people's views towards traditional social stereotypes isn't offensive...its perpetuating them that some people might find offensive.

As mentioned in the opening to the poll, if you looked back a hundred years then most men would overwhelmingly have chosen to be sole wage earners - being able to 'keep' a family without the women and children having to work was seen as the mark of a successful man and was what society at the time expected from a man, in order that his wife could devote her time to raising the family and keeping the home.

Conversely, it was expected for a woman to aspire to doing this and be judged on how well behaved and successful her children would be, how happy the home was, etc. If she had to work, and actually earned more than her husband, then clearly she'd made a bad decision of husband. Women weren't supposed to seek success in the man's end of the world, and vice versa.


Those attitudes now seem completely archaic, but its interesting to see how much of it might remain in some shape or form. The only 'problem' with the poll is that we don't know why people might have picked certain options.

For example, a man might prefer to be the sole wage earner because this makes it a given that he won't be asked to stay at home and raise a family, which may honestly not be something that he would want to do or feel he would do well. Likewise, a woman might prefer the man to be the sole wage earner for the opposite reason. In this case, the gender of the wage earner is irrelevant; its more about having the economics of being (or not being) the wage earner on your side to get what you want from the relationship.

Or they could both be stuck in the values of 100 years ago, of course.

The results of the poll so far seem to suggest that attitudes are primarily "it doesn't bother me", with a significant minority hedging slightly towards the traditional stereotype, and the rest scattered across the other options.

A victory for equality...at least amongst the MoneySavingExpert site visitors. Might be a different picture if the poll was asked by that well-known bastion of traditional values, the Daily Mail... :cool: