Ranting On...Money, Ambition, and Dating

I was chatting with a friend the other day about the difficulty of dating, and she was mentioning around a topic that I knew she wanted to broach, but was appeared uncomfortable discussing.  I prodded, and she talked about how she and her boyfriend were about to celebrate their one-year anniversary, to which I gave a hearty congratulations and made the requisite "do you think he's going to pop the question?" comment that inevitably follows such a remark with friends.  She said, "I hope not," and I asked why, and then she confessed something that is totally valid that you never are supposed to admit in dating for fear of being called an elitist.  She said that she worried that his job, which is part-time and seasonal, won't provide enough for them to live on and she worried about being the breadwinner and about his lack of ambition.

This is something that I find myself relating to a lot as I get older and try harder to find a partner, and something that a lot of people experience but don't feel comfortable discussing, but particularly women and those in same-sex relationships.  Historically, men have been the top earners and the holders of the higher degrees in relationships, but that has changed.  Enrollment in grad programs and colleges have shown a disproportionately larger number of women, and women are increasingly making gains in the corporate, legal, and medical worlds.  As a result of this, more and more women are encountering situations where they will be the breadwinner or the sole providers (in US households, this number recently hit as high as 40% of all households, and continues to rise).

This is great in many aspects, of course.  Equality is something we're constantly striving for, and it makes sense that women continue to gain on this front.  However, result is that progress is sometimes harder to catch up with our own expectations.  This is something that I am positive straight men experience too, but they have societal norms on their side to comfort them.  The reality is that if you're seeking out a partner, income and education levels should be discussed and are part of what you consider.  It's an ugly truth, but a very real one.  You're not attracted to money, but there's an attraction to someone who is ambitious or who wants similar things that you want, and there's nothing wrong with that, even if it feels a bit unsavory.

I find frequently on dates, especially with men roughly around thirty, that you can run the gamut of single men.  Occasionally you get guys that spend all of their time crisscrossing the country on a jet or arguing cases in courts or who have twenty direct reports at their business.  On the other hand, you also get guys that are 34 and still claiming they are "going to go back to college" even though they've been saying that for fifteen years and if they were going to do it they would have done it by now or who live with their parents and have the same job they did in high school.  This is a mean and admittedly judgmental way of looking at things, but it's the breeding ground for animosity, particularly if this is a sore subject for the lesser earner.  If you have a solid career path, a house, a retirement account, a degree, and a decreasing amount of debt, these are all things that can be considered attractive, but society instructs us to be PC and not judge a potential mate when they don't have these things.  It seems pretty hypocritical, particularly since one of the questions you always ask on a first date is "what do you do for a living?"-every other interaction on a first date is sort of a test of compatibility, shouldn't this be one too?

This also seems odd because having these financial advantages in some part is a sign of personality.  I'm dismissing for the moment something critical which would be personal background and opportunity, but frequently people end up dating someone from a similar socioeconomic background.  Most of these people (including a lot of guys that I date) had the option to go to college but skipped it.  Therefore, there is a key aspect of compatibility that is dismissed as a result of this lack of "being in synch" on education.  It's also the same thing with retirement planning, career-ambition, and home ownership.  Your priorities and financial obligations after a decade of adulthood should be somewhat similar, because it shows how you'll run a household and prioritize your finances, children, and retirement in a similar way.  This isn't to say that people of disparate income levels can't have a long and successful marriage (of course they can, and have been able to for decades), but what it does mean is that if you're not on the same wavelength, your marriage is more likely to end unsuccessfully.  Four of the most common reasons for divorce are arguing, unrealistic expectations, lack of equality, and lack of preparation, all of which relate back to levels of responsibility and how one spends his or her money.  It's something financial advisors are constantly addressing (ever watch The Suze Orman Show-it's swimming with references to couples who are arguing over how to best save and spend).  As a result, I think it's time we start to be realistic and realize that while you can certainly have differences in income and education within a relationship, you need to have conversations that make sure you're on the same page so that animosity and frustration don't accompany those differences, and to admit that this is something that we should consider when we're selecting a mate.