Help me reconcile my feelings about potentially getting hitched and gaining a dependent (or two)

December 8, 2007 6:20 AM

I’m an early-30’s guy, seeing an early-30’s girl who I think I could be with long term. She is unquestionably an awesome person, and I appreciate the fact that she brings a different perspective and background to the relationship than my own. As with many things, these differences can be a double-edged sword. Read on, below...

For the first time in my life, I’m actually making a decent (though by no means huge) salary. This comes after spending the past 10 years in various stages of academia. I jumped off of the academic ship this summer and took a job in the private sector, which I’m very happy with. For the first time in my life, I feel like I don’t have to worry about money, and that’s a huge relief.

Dear girlfriend (DG) works in a very altruistic field and makes an amount of money that qualifies her as apparently impoverished in our very expensive city. I love her for her work, and I don’t think the fact that she doesn’t make much money bothers me. So what’s the problem?

Despite making little to no money, DG owns a very nice, relatively new, car and has one of those semi-fancy designer dogs. The former was purchased with an inheritance and both were acquired before I met her. When I met her, she had over $10k in credit card debt, which she used the balance of her inheritance to pay down after I expressed my disbelief and questioned our financial compatibility. Recently, the dog has had a series of medical problems, and it looks like he’s going to need surgery that will cost in the range of $1-$3k. Oh, and she really likes diamonds, and has indicated a preference for rings in the $8-$10k range. She has indicated that this is definitely not a requirement.

As I said, I definitely do okay financially. But I also live in a very small apartment, with my amazing mutt (rescued) dog and don’t even own a car. I would like to own a car, and could readily afford to, but I have a hard time justifying it in the city that I live in, which has very good mass transit. The diamond industry sort of grosses me out, but the fact that it would make her so happy trumps my personal misgivings about the ring.

We’ve talked about potentially having a future together and we have communicated a lot about the financial aspects. We haven’t addressed this particular question, yet, maybe because I feel the need to reconcile my own thoughts before raising it with her, but we will. Lack of communication between us is not a problem (another thing I dig about her).

My concern lies primarily in the fact that I’ll be the overwhelming bread winner of the household, yet her recurring expenses might match or exceed mine. I know “what’s mine is yours,” but is “what’s yours that I find excessive my responsibility?”

One additional note is that while I currently like what I do, I would like to maintain the flexibility to transition to something that pays less in the future, if I want to. I certainly don’t want to be bound to my job because it pays well and I have a large number of expenses. The money is fairly meaningless to me, except for the fact that it means I don’t have to worry about money. That said, I don’t ever want to put myself in another situation where I have to worry about money.

So, MeFites, have any of you dealt with this when starting a life with someone? Specifically, did you end up assuming financial responsibility for decisions that they made before meeting you? Are you glad that you did or didn’t? Is there anything I should watch out for here, other than the possibility of general financial irresponsibility on her end, which we have discussed? Basically, I want to know how I can overcome these feelings, but also not be blind about it.

Thanks, and sorry this is so long! In the event that I haven’t provided enough details, feel free to contact me at [e-mail].

posted by anonymous to human relations (50 comments total)

I know “what’s mine is yours,” but is “what’s yours that I find excessive my responsibility?”

So, there's nothing you don't need to live that you spend money on? Nothing at all? I find that hard to believe. There are probably things you spend money on that she thinks are silly, too, so you might want to dial back your judgement (Come on, your dog > her dog? Give me a break!) Nobody's perfect, not even you. And she was surviving before you came around, so I imagine if the two of you talk and hammer out a plan on what you want to dedicate your money to (savings, investments, house-buying), you'll both be able to stick to the plan, more or less.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:32 AM on December 8, 2007 [2 favorites]

Wow. You can't - and shouldn't - overcome these feelings. Your GF needs to reconcile her wants with her own ability to supply them. Someone who works in an altruistic field shouldn't be dripping with diamonds, shouldn't have a designer dog and shouldn't have massive credit card debt. She will sink you with debt that you can't possibly repay if you allow it.

The one positive sign is that, although she likes big diamonds, she can live without them. Make sure she's not just saying what she thinks you want to hear. Otherwise, you will both end up miserable and resentful with the situation you have described.

You sound like a very caring and dedicated guy - I hope she appreciates the fact that that is worth more than money.
posted by clarkstonian at 6:38 AM on December 8, 2007

Also, keep in mind this is one thing that can motivate people to keep separate finances while married- you have your money, she has hers, with a chunk of each going into a joint pot for joint expenses. Might be worth thinking about.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:47 AM on December 8, 2007 [2 favorites]

clarkstonian, there's no evidence in the post that the girlfriend does not live within her means, or that she has asked the OP to pay for anything. All I can see from this post is that she spends money when she gets it, whereas you are quite proud of your frugality.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 7:07 AM on December 8, 2007

And she was surviving before you came around, so I imagine if the two of you talk and hammer out a plan on what you want to dedicate your money to (savings, investments, house-buying), you'll both be able to stick to the plan, more or less.

that's kind of naive... presumably she didn't 'plan' on running up $10K in debt before.

I hate to say it this way (I love dogs) but it sounds to me like this girl is your 'designer dog.' I think you are going to be spending money to keep her happy and you have to decide whether this is what you want. Lots of people seem to make this work, at least for a little while, but don't assume that either her habits or desires are going to change.

It sounds like you are asking: "How can I learn to feel better about the fact that I think my possible future wife is irresponsible with money and likes shallow status objects that I don't value?" That's tough, are you perhaps pretending the relationship is better than it is?

I'm guessing that in some ways, since you worry about money, the fact that she doesn't worry too much about money is attractive. But (from personal experience) this is only going to work out if you continue to bring in enough money to keep your worries at bay and keep getting the objects that make her happy...
posted by geos at 7:16 AM on December 8, 2007

...I imagine if the two of you talk and hammer out a plan on what you want to dedicate your money to (savings, investments, house-buying), you'll both be able to stick to the plan, more or less.

That seems like alot of imagination. She squandered her inheritance on a late model car and whatever she'd bought with the credit card debt. It's not unreasonable to suspect that his higher income might end up serving the same purpose as the inheritance.

If you go forward with a more serious relationship it's good advice to talk thoroughly about finances in general and about all the major expenses you might have in life but don't limit it to good faith. Making agreements is well and good, but I think you need to ruminate on what you'll do if she continues to live beyond her / your means. It's obviously causing some worry to you now and you don't want the tension to gradually build up until some large purchase that seems like extravagance makes you snap.

You're right that, if you're really committed to her, the thing to focus on is how to relieve tension and deal with consequences rather than confrontation. But occasional and consistent tough love in the name of financial prudence and fairness, if done understandingly and honestly, with self-awareness and admission of your own vices, may make everything simpler in the long run.

---

From some of the other comments, it seems significant to note along with the advice whether having more than 10K in credit card debt is living within your means... for me, it's not, and I think that my income is more similar to the poster's than to DG's.
posted by XMLicious at 7:20 AM on December 8, 2007

People generally have different ideas how to match their spendings to their income. That's fine as long as one is responsible only for ones own financial situation. But that changes obviously when you merge your financial situations.

So
1 either you keep your financial situations separate, as tps suggested,
2 or agree on a similar balance between spendings and income and merge your financial situations
3 or just merge your financial situations despite differences in how you spend

Scenario 2 and 3 are rather risky in my mind. I don't think people always choose the way they act in this respect. As a result people aren't always able to change their ways. So you might end up with mutual resentment.

I guess your best bet is to switch of the romantic perspective ("what's mine is yours") for a moment and negotiate openly with your GF. What is really important to you and what are you willing to compromise on? Similarly for her. Can you find a common ground? Or should you keep your finances separate?
posted by jouke at 7:36 AM on December 8, 2007

This sounds like something that will always be nudging at the back of your mind if you marry her and will no doubt explode sometime in the future (like when you come home exhausted one night from your second job to find her watching the diamond hour on the Home Shopping Network with a credit card in her hand). If she inherited enough money to buy a car and pay of a $10,000 debt, then it sounds like she grew up in a fairly "comfortable" family. She never had to worry about money, so she is not used to denying herself anything that catches her eye. She's now in her early 30s and still spending money she doesn't have - do you think that will change any time soon? And if you two get married and she reins in her spending (whether in deference to you or because the two of you simply can't afford it), will she end up resenting you? "We never go anyway nice, our car is 10 years old, I have to buy my clothes at Loehmann's and it's all your fault."
posted by Oriole Adams at 7:37 AM on December 8, 2007 [2 favorites]

I hate to say it, but the altruistic wife - rich husband combination is a pretty common combination in big-city nonprofits. She may be getting her ideas about consumption from the women she works with.
posted by footnote at 7:40 AM on December 8, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm wondering if your girlfriend came from a relatively affluent family. Because her attitude towards money seems to be common among children of well-off parents—including myself, to some extent. The idea that you can buy what you want and the money will somehow take care of itself (getting an inheritance only reinforces this).

It took me a long time to shake that attitude. The OP seems not to be saddled with it, which is good, and it's this difference that they really need to resolve—by the DG giving ground.

There have been a lot of threads about money and relationships here on AskMe, and a lot of good advice. Each couple comes up with their own modus vivendi. One thing that I'd urge the OP and DG to do is track every penny they spend for a few months. This can be very instructive, and it gives you a point of reference for discussing how you'll arrange family finances in the future.

indicated a preference for rings in the $8-$10k range
Tacky. Maybe the way it came up wasn't tacky, but presented this way it is.
posted by adamrice at 7:49 AM on December 8, 2007

The diamond industry sort of grosses me out, but the fact that it would make her so happy trumps my personal misgivings about the ring.

A ring, a bauble, trinket, something easily lost down the bathroom sink drain is what would make her happy? Even without the credit card debt, the status dog, and the $8-10k parts of this post I would be concerned about what this person is really like, were I in your position. You mention a job in an altruistic field, but outside of that, she sounds, for lack of a better term, shallow. Unfortunately, I don't know more about her. There could be a million other reasons why she is great to balance out the things which I've decided are "bad" from your post. From what I have read here, I would vote that she is a vapid, shallow, status loving person, and if that's not what you are, do not marry or otherwise co-mingle finances with her. You'll keep trying to keep her in check with your level of spend, and you'll resent her for it, nine times out of ten.
posted by kellyblah at 8:05 AM on December 8, 2007 [4 favorites]

Prenup.
posted by paulsc at 8:10 AM on December 8, 2007

I guess I read the post as meaning that she had the credit card debt at the same time as having the remainder of the inheritance in a bank account — kinda silly, but not living outside your means. So I might be wrong on that.

But just based on some of the more judgmental comments here, I would be wary of approaching the prospect of married life with the belief that people are somehow unacceptably shallow, tacky or guaranteed to bring you financial nightmares in the future, just because they a) have a dog that's different to yours, b) drive a car in a city with good mass transit, and c) would quite like (but not insist upon) a sparkly ring for their engagement. Because you're going to rule out a lot of people.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 8:14 AM on December 8, 2007 [3 favorites]

Jouke's advice is totally solid.

On the "keep your finances separate" idea -- it sounds good but this isn't as simple as just "we'll decide how it works." Depending on the laws regarding marital finance in your state, once you're married, you might not be able to just disclaim any debt she incurs that you don't like; you might have the liability whether you want it or not.

The spouse and I set up a "his / hers / ours" arrangement, on advice of our pre-marital counselor -- upon realizing that, both in our 30's, we were fully-fledged adults with fairly strong ideas about retaining at least some financial independence. We agreed on a percentage of salary that each would contribute to a joint "TCB" account (out of which the savings, mortgage, bills, groceries, all common expenses are paid).

The remaining amount, we each keep as discretionary and it goes into our respective individual accounts. If he wants a new guitar, that comes out of his account. If I want a designer dog, that would come out of mine. Sometimes, if one of us wants a high-dollar item, we might have to save for it. It's "don't ask, don't tell" on the personal purchasing, as long as the transactions are cash (although we don't have real secrets except around holidays and birthdays).

But (and this is a big but), when it comes to credit tools, we agree to discuss everything, because we live in a state where one spouse can legally bind the other's credit. Whether we will get this credit card or that one, will it be joint or individual, whether we will make high-dollar purchases, how long we will carry the note, et cetera -- our agreement is that the high level decisions get cleared with the other first, since we are equally liable.

Anon, I don't know whether this would work for you and DG... and I'm not necessarily advocating that what worked for my house is the be-all, end-all. But one thing that jumped out at me from your post was this:

"My concern lies primarily in the fact that I’ll be the overwhelming bread winner of the household, yet her recurring expenses might match or exceed mine. I know “what’s mine is yours,” but is “what’s yours that I find excessive my responsibility?”

The answer is (unhelpful as it sounds): "it is, if you agree that it is." If you come to terms with the idea of the communal pot, and that she can occasionally spend from it in a way that might not always be commensurate to the percentage she contributes to said pot... and you and DG discuss this up front, and agree what is excessive and what isn't, then those are the rules and you're both expected to play by them.

What you can't do, once you've both agreed on how it will work, is continually feel resentment toward her because she cares more than you do about buying nice things, even though you're bringing home the bacon. Marital finances are more about equity than equality.

Look inside and make sure that what you really want isn't for DG to become thriftier. Because, as has been speculated by other people upthread, how a person feels about and uses money is very much a part of how they grew up, and how they got to where they are today. If you secretly want DG to change who she is financially, you're in for a big let-down.

But she doesn't have to change who she is to be a good financial partner in marriage. She might have to make some adjustments to how she consumes, but that's an unavoidable fact of making a life with another person. And, I don't see the huge warning signs that others do. Yes, she acquired a big credit card debt -- but she also had the means to pay it off herself... and was willing to do so when you balked. Yes, she has a fancy new car -- but, again, she bought it herself and isn't carrying a note on it (from what Anon says). I see a girl who likes nice things, and is willing to pay dearly to get them... but she is paying. She's not running up bills she can't cover, so we shouldn't outright assume she would in the future.

The action to take is to talk about every last detail of this with DG, at the point where you think it's fairly certain you want to marry her. Talk about a pre-nup, see how she feels about the idea; it's a topic that definitely brings up lots of financial opinion. (I personally was amenable to one because I had absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain, and would have been more than happy to demonstrate the good faith. We ended up not going that route, but we certainly considered it.) Talk about "what if I go back into academia" and "I don't know how I feel about $3000 in pet care, maybe it's time for you to investigate pet insurance," that sort of thing. And, give her the opportunity to voice her feelings about your finances.

Like adamrice said, every couple has to find their own path. The key is to communicate openly, early on, to find that path -- and not come into the conversation with the flat expectation that the other person will change to meet your needs.
posted by pineapple at 8:40 AM on December 8, 2007 [9 favorites]

I guess I read the post as meaning that she had the credit card debt at the same time as having the remainder of the inheritance in a bank account — kinda silly, but not living outside your means.

C'mon, though, even in your interpretation: having to commit someone else's life savings to keep your credit card debt in control? How could someone living within their means end up in that situation?

If a teenage heir spent the entirety of an inheritance on a car and credit cards, there wouldn't be any question whether that was financially responsible, right? I don't think it matters that DG is in her early thirties.

I don't think that it should be outlawed or anything, I just can't construe it that she's the kind of person who's at all careful with money. That's more than "kinda silly" when it consumes other people's money, even when you're married or related.
posted by XMLicious at 8:59 AM on December 8, 2007

Ant, meet grasshopper.

You tend to be frugal, save money, avoid debt, be financially conservative. That's a reasonable way to be.

She tends to spend some money, buy nice things she likes, and has tolerance for some debt. That's a reasonable way to be.

You need to talk to her about your different approaches to money and spending, and find your middle ground, and ways for you to both be satisfied. After years of frugality, you might like to get more comfortable with spending. After growing up with money and maybe with consumer debt, she might like to learn the joys of debt-free living.
posted by theora55 at 9:24 AM on December 8, 2007

I have been with my partner for 14 years, and we have survived a couple of potentially relationship-ending crises, and I will say that financial issues are among the most intractable things for us to deal with. So it's good that you're getting started early working on this, and good that you're both willing to talk about it.

One thing we do is periodically put all of our goals on the table, and approach our financial decisions with the idea of trying to meet as many of our goals as possible. For instance, you might be honest with her about wanting to keep your finances unencumbered enough that you have the flexibility to change jobs; at the same time, you can put her $8-10k diamond on the table. How can both of those things be achieved? Well, you might put off the diamond until there's cash to pay for it (my mom got her diamond for her 25th wedding anniversary, for instance). Can the diamond be bought used to keep its price down, so you're not paying for it with debt that will undermine your other goal of being able to be flexible in your job? I hear that she's not pushing for a diamond right now--I'm just using this as an example. Thinking creatively about different ways to meet goals, being honest about what your 100% would be, and keeping all the goals in mind at the same time have made a difference for us.

One thing that has helped my partner and me is working on developing a habit of non-judgment about what the other wants. I have accepted that he will want to buy gadgets and have new computers more often than it would occur to me they were necessary, for instance. He has accepted that my idea of "enough savings" takes more disposable income off the table than he would prefer.

We still make mistakes--he's more comfortable with debt than I am, and I'm unhappy right now about a new car purchase we made about a year and a half ago. I wish we didn't have those payments. It's not the end of the world; I've learned from it that next time we need to buy a car, I need to speak up more strongly in favor of buying something used or waiting until we've saved more of a down payment or doing without for awhile. But I'm not letting it be a source of conflict between us, even though it is something of a source of internal conflict for me. Different money-management styles is not a problem you solve once and get past; it requires long-term attention, adjustment, flexibility, honesty, and patience.
posted by not that girl at 9:30 AM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

you have your money, she has hers, with a chunk of each going into a joint pot for joint expenses. Might be worth thinking about.

FWIW, my parents do this. My stepdad came into the marriage with bad financial habits and a heap of credit card debt, and my mom had trust issues from previous relationships screwing her over money-wise. It works out really well for them.

Also, not to be fatalist, but if the relationship doesn't work out long term, it'll be easier to go your separate ways if you're not entangled in a joint financial situation. I'm going through a divorce at the moment and the financial stuff has definitely been the toughest to sort out, just in terms of practicality.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:46 AM on December 8, 2007

this is a tough one. Some guys like to be caretakers and some women like to be taken care of. Someone out there would love to buy her a $10K ring. But there are plenty of us who don't like those roles, in both genders, or at very least have a much diluted version of them, and are really seeking an equal partner. There are plenty of people who love toys and spending money, and then plenty who feel kinda yucky about it. So it may be one of those personal differences. If everything else is really great, it doesn't have to be a huge thing.

So, there's nothing you don't need to live that you spend money on? Nothing at all? I find that hard to believe. There are probably things you spend money on that she thinks are silly, too,

well, this is worth addressing - do you love to spend money on stereo systems etc? But if not, and contrary to this comment, there are people whose interests are different, then you have a simple difference of personality to accept or take into account. I dated someone once who loved to spend money, and I've always been the sort to be frugal and starving-artisty, and we had some disagreements over it, but all in all that wasn't why we broke up, I don't think (though it might have pointed to deeper disconnects, it's kinda hard to say). Our first christmas together was weird because I thought the point was games and food and making stuff and a few fun personally selected gifts, books, art supplies etc, and she thought the point was piles of stuff from the Gap and Bed Bath & Beyond, or whatever. But in our time together I learned to lighten up about spending money a bit, and enjoy what we could afford, and she learned to try making stuff for me sometimes instead, since it always made me so much happier.

People do change, a little bit - neither party is reborn, but both sides sort of inch toward a middle ground and alter their perspective a little. That's why it's important to be with someone you really love - someone you want to become more like. When you choose to be with someone, you're committing to mutual influence & growth, like two trees entwining, so if there's stuff about them you really don't want to embrace, you will probably start to feel more resentful about it. But usually "bad" traits are flip sides of "good" traits - for me, it seemed like my partner spent too much, but on the other hand, she was being spontaneous and festive; it seemed like she cared too much about material things, but on the other hand, she was considering what would actually be useful for us. And while I thought being artsy and making shit was fun and creative, it could have been annoying and pointless to people who received my imperfect presents, etc. Which is all to say, if everyone tries to understand the other side, it's possible to find agreement.

re: the altruistic job, as someone above mentioned, it is not uncommon for wealthy women to make a second but not serious income in non-profits (the modern version of the wife working in charity). If she did grow up in a wealthy family, and she met you already in your rich guy job, she may have a whole different set of assumptions about "how things go"...
posted by mdn at 9:58 AM on December 8, 2007 [3 favorites]

Single, young people sometimes do not have a good idea of what means to share financial responsibility. This is not necessarily a red flag, but it is something to worry about. When I was younger I used to spend money on things which many others wouldn't, such as gadgets and travel. Thing is, I grew out of it, in the face of having to consider that someone else would have to pay for it. So, I think you shouldn't underestimate her ability to reason through this.

Therefore, you two must talk. Pick an opportune time, not like when her car is at the shop or her dog needs urgent medical attention, but a time that you are discussing about your future together. I do not see this as inappropriate, I think it is honest and fair for both of you to voice your concerns. I hope you are not afraid you will lose her if you talk. Ask her whether she will be able live with a $1k or less wedding ring, or a used car, or inexpensive shoes. Ask her what would happen if you wanted/needed to take a less lucrative job. Turn it around, as in "would you still love me and want to be with me if I could not provide all this for you?" Ask her tenderly, not forcefully. Gauge her attitude.

Financial problems arise in life frequently enough and cause friction even within couples which more or less agree on these matters. I wish you the best, you sound a very sweet person.
posted by carmina at 9:59 AM on December 8, 2007

*to clarify, I am very against the attitude "having to provide" for your gf/wife, but phrasing it this way you might get her to admit whether she expects you to cover and to what extend her finances.
posted by carmina at 10:04 AM on December 8, 2007

Does she like diamonds for their look? Can't you get manmade diamonds for pretty cheap? (that would also deal with most of the ideological problems). If she likes them *for* their expense and for status, that's a different thing that would give me pause on multiple levels.

For the rest, first, I don't know anything, second:

I think you should be really really careful. She's probably not going to change and if you're going to resent her and you're not willing to make some compromises over how you spend your money, both of you are probably better off if she finds someone who will both like her how she is and be happy to support her habits. There are people like that. Or, if not, that she'll get herself a job that lets her have the lifestyle she wants on her own.

Since your attitude towards money seems to be that it's there to let you avoid stress, I think that her approach to money will probably be a super source of stress for you. So I think in addition to everything, some counselling with a specific view to negotiating money stuff could be really good for the pair of you. You also need to get a real sense of how she's willing to compromise. Like others have said, how you spend can be really really hard to change, but maybe she'd be willing to get into a more lucrative job. Moreso, with your attitude, I think that if she's not willing (or able!) to compromise, your resentment will build to awful levels even if there aren't actual financial stresses.

I just want to say, in case it seems like it, I don't think there's a thing wrong with your attitudes about money! It's not about better or worse, but about compatibility between you and her.
posted by Salamandrous at 10:13 AM on December 8, 2007

One additional note is that while I currently like what I do, I would like to maintain the flexibility to transition to something that pays less in the future, if I want to. I certainly don’t want to be bound to my job because it pays well and I have a large number of expenses. The money is fairly meaningless to me, except for the fact that it means I don’t have to worry about money. That said, I don’t ever want to put myself in another situation where I have to worry about money.

If you marry this woman and have a family with her, you are almost certainly going to have to give up the idea that you don't have to worry about money. Frankly, if you marry anyone and decide to have a family in an expensive city, you will probably have to give up that idea, unless you marry someone independently wealthy or making a lot more money than you and happy to support you. The only way out of the well-paying job circuit is moving somewhere much cheaper. Would your gf be willing to do that?
Consciously or not, I think your gf pretty much expects that she is going to marry someone that will support her. Generally speaking, people with expensive tastes don't go into poverty-wage fields unless they have something to fall back on. Ask her what she thinks her life will look like in 5 or 10 years. What are her goals and expectations? What does her "dream" life look like? That will tell you a lot. If her dream life involves nice things, a nice place to live, kids, etc, she is almost certainly expecting someone else to provide those things to her. So you need to decide if you are willing to be that someone.
posted by ch1x0r at 10:32 AM on December 8, 2007

Financial problems and disagreements can sink a marriage quicker than just about anything.


Marrying someone with different values can be very problematic. I'm not so concerned about the designer dog or the enjoyment of diamonds as I am she was able to rack up that much debt all by herself. That to me would be an immense honking red flag.

If you really want to marry this woman I suggest prenuptial counselling stat.
posted by konolia at 10:49 AM on December 8, 2007

There are a lot of assumptions, many of them sexist, going on in this thread. For example, "Generally speaking, people with expensive tastes don't go into poverty-wage fields unless they have something to fall back on." That's simply not true-- some people prioritize their career fulfillment over financial fulfillment and put the fancy cars, stereo systems and suits on hold, save up to buy them, or scrimp in other ways so they can still have Marc Jacobs pumps or whatever. Non-profits are overwhelmingly female and it's not because they are staffed by women hoping to get a rich husband; often it's extremely dedicated women who sacrifice their own earning potential to help others.

I get a feeling that this girl is being viewed as some sort of Paris Hilton gold-digger because she has a little dog and wants an engagement ring. She's a financially stable woman in her early 30s and 10K in credit card debt is not very unusual, despite all the Judgey McJudgersons in this thread. I might add that she's since paid this debt off. Who knows why she racked it up in the first place?

Frankly, the OP sounds to me like he thinks his girlfriend is shallow and materialistic. I think she sounds fairly normal (especially if they're living in NYC, where expensive clothes and jewelry are much more typical of young women than they are in other cities, to the point where executive assistants making 24K will eat ramen for a month to buy a Balenciaga), and I think that he should be very very careful that this doesn't turn into male contempt of frivolous female spending patterns, which is an incredibly destructive dynamic that can destroy any relationship.
posted by alicetiara at 11:22 AM on December 8, 2007 [11 favorites]

and I think that he should be very very careful that this doesn't turn into male contempt of frivolous female spending patterns, which is an incredibly destructive dynamic that can destroy any relationship.

Are you seriously suggesting that the sexist position here is not embracing the stereotype of a materialistic female as central to womanhood?

Plenty of men spend money on less than necessary stuff (not always for clothing & jewelry, though certainly there are guys who like nice suits and watches, but spending on electronics and leather couches is the same fundamental thing) and plenty of women are uninterested in spending money that way. These are personality types. Perhaps there are more women who like to spend money, but it isn't a necessary aspect of being a woman.
posted by mdn at 11:50 AM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

You will not change her. If you think she will ruin you financially, be prepared for that or move on.

Having said that.... I've been in a pretty much traditional marriage fore 23 years, raised two kids, and for all that time I've been the major (or only) breadwinner and it works out reasonably well. A difference in income isn't a deal breaker. A difference in spending values is.
posted by Doohickie at 11:55 AM on December 8, 2007

She's a financially stable woman in her early 30s and 10K in credit card debt is not very unusual, despite all the Judgey McJudgersons in this thread.

"Not unusual" and "financially stable" are not the same thing. What would she have to do make you think she's not financially stable if racking up 10k in credit card debt doesn't count?

I might add that she's since paid this debt off.

With someone else's money!
posted by XMLicious at 12:02 PM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

With someone else's money!

I had a bit of ick feeling earlier around the presumptions that seemed to come with the mention of DG's inheritance, and I swallowed it, but now feel compelled not to ignore this since it keeps coming up:

It wasn't someone else's money. It was her money. Yes, someone died and left it to her -- but it was legally her money, free and clear. No, she didn't come by it from the sweat of her brow, but that doesn't somehow mean she was sponging off someone else or spending money she didn't rightfully have.

If it had never been mentioned in the original post that DG bought her car and paid off her credit card with inheritance, we would have just assumed that she earned the money and paid the debts the way many people do: over time, from their earned income. And, no one would have felt compelled to speculate as to the relative wealth of her family, and what that means for her upbringing and her attitudes toward money.

I realize that the notion of inheritance comes with a lot of class baggage, but in the interest of fairness to the poster, we shouldn't assume that the inheritance in question was an Onassis-style trust for a spoiled rich girl who immediately blew through it like Monopoly money. For all we know, her grandfather clutched DG's hand on his deathbed, and made the girl swear (begrudgingly) to take the modest savings he had accumulated over fifty years and finally replace that deathtrap jalopy she'd picked up for a sawbuck at a county auction while working her way through college.

Yes, that fiction is as silly as any other we might assume -- but my point is, we're just assuming... and lots of people receive help from their family in some form or another. Only, we don't make every one of those people out to be a coddled, lazy brat looking to marry a caretaker who can keep her in the style to which she's grown accustomed.

So, it will probably be more helpful to the OP if we focus going forward on the parts where we have concrete knowledge, and try to avoid painting DG with a Paris Hilton brush.
posted by pineapple at 12:37 PM on December 8, 2007

Money becomes a big issue in every marriage. If you are questioning it now, it will be even bigger when her debt becomes yours. Nothing kills love faster than money. Tread carefully in this relationship. A girl who wants an 8-10k diamond doesn't sound like the kind of girl for an academic. My guess is that looks-wise she's a league or two higher than the girls you've had in the past. It can work if you don't mind being a doormat for the rest of your life. I have a friend who is very happy with his wife but everything he makes goes around his wife's neck.
posted by any major dude at 12:51 PM on December 8, 2007

It wasn't someone else's money. It was her money. Yes, someone died and left it to her -- but it was legally her money, free and clear.

My point was not that she didn't have the right to spend it or that she spent it too quickly or something, it's that as far as financial stability goes she doesn't get points for paying off her credit card debt with the inheritance. She didn't do it via planning or discipline or changing the ways that got her into debt in the first place. Even if it was her relative's dying wish that it be spent that way, it was deus ex machina.

I don't think that she's a bad person, I don't even think she's necessarily materialistic - I've known people who get deeply in debt more because they're happy-go-lucky and carefree than because they're really into stuff. But if she went 10k into debt through her normal spending habits that's not sustainable behavior as far as finances go. She quite probably does have virtues that make money problems insignificant but there's no reason to pretend that they aren't money problems.
posted by XMLicious at 1:14 PM on December 8, 2007

A girl who wants an 8-10k diamond doesn't sound like the kind of girl for an academic. My guess is that looks-wise she's a league or two higher than the girls you've had in the past.

Something makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable about how you're typifying DG here. Just because she doesn't tend towards asceticism doesn't imply that she's some pretty princess golddigger.
posted by thisjax at 1:29 PM on December 8, 2007

Never said she was a gold digger just a woman who's tastes are more suited for a hedge fund manager rather than a professor of esoteric philosophy.
posted by any major dude at 1:40 PM on December 8, 2007

Holy man, I'm shocked at how much judgement there is in this thread. Because the woman spent her money on things that she "shouldn't have" because of the field she works in, because she has a little dog, because she likes diamonds, she's irresponsible and looking for someone to be her sugar daddy?

Isn't there reason that some of y'all are snobby toward the trappings of materialism because you believe that the things don't make the person?

I am a successful woman in my early 30s and I spend my money. I spend it on guitars, on creative pursuits, on shoes, on color-stay lipstick, on whiskey, on books, whatever. It's my money. Oh yes, I should probably be more responsible. I should probably save more. Doesn't matter how I got it, it's mine. Nobody gets to tell me what to do with it. The fact that I am female and like to buy things that make me happy in no way means that I expect a man to show up and take care of that for me were I to settle with him.

If I were in a partnership with someone who was concerned about how we were going to split up money, who wanted to make it clear that they didn't want to support me going forward, that's one thing. If that person framed it to me as "the things you buy are frivolous and I don't like the things you buy, and I won't buy them for you if we get married" -- I would probably break up with that person on the spot. It's a judgement of her tastes and desires, and she has a right to them, she is an adult.

The fact that she likes things you don't think are worth the money in no way suggests that she expects you to buy those things for her, in fact you mention in your post that she expressly told you she does not expect it or require it from you.

If you're getting serious, if you're talking about an LTR in which you share a life and finances, you should certainly discuss your desire to remain financially secure, to have the confidence that you could scale back your earnings should you desire -- I hope you don't mean that she'd support you if you did that, if you're not willing to do the same in return. It's entirely possible that you'll have this discussion and she'll tell you that she DOES hope that you'll support her tastes, at which point you can address that. Maybe she's a little financially irresponsible, maybe she doesn't think about it that deeply. Maybe a deeply loving and supportive relationship is more important to her than an expensive ring. Maybe she bought herself some nice things from her inheritance because it was a way of celebrating the life of the person who left her money and she loved; maybe that person who died and left it to her would have wanted her to spend it that way. You won't know until you talk to her.

FWIW, I personally find diamonds distasteful, just as I find gas-guzzling SUVs distasteful and other extravagant items that seem to display a callous disregard, or at least a blissful ignorance, of the nuances and political strife and suffering in the world at large. I am also currently lusting over a $400 pair of shoes.

OMG Im in ur world bein a complex person OH NOES!!11

You're not talking about that, you're talking about how you're going to organize your finances in the future should you get married or otherwise hitched. Make it about that.
I would caution you to frame your conversation as much as possible in what you want, and leave the judgement of the way she spends her money out of it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the sexist position here is not embracing the stereotype of a materialistic female as central to womanhood?

I believe that alicetiara is seriously suggesting that feminism is not just for the women who give all of their discretionary income to Greenpeace. It is sexist to make assumptions that a woman is a gold digger because of how she spends her own money.
posted by pazazygeek at 1:50 PM on December 8, 2007 [4 favorites]

I guess I read this totally different than a lot of people on here that think your gf is one step above Paris Hilton in terms of shallowness and irresponsibility.

Ok, so she makes almost no money. She got her inheritance and god forbid she splashed out a bit and bought a car and a purse. Let's get this in perspective. She likes diamonds? Yeah most women do. She doesn't require one though? A lot of women would.

To me she just sounds like she isn't that good with money, not that she is an out of control shallow shopaholic. The fact that she paid down some of her debt after you told her she really should, tells me she can probably learn to be more responsible with her money. She also doesn't appear to expect you to buy stuff for her, which tells me that if you got married and were in charge with the budget she'd probably respect that. There is a huge difference between just not being that good at managing your money and being a selfish gold digger.

That being said, it is probably a very good idea to sit down with her and nicely say I could see marrying you one day, but I'm kind of worried about how you handle your money and if you would really be ok with me vetoing things we really can't afford and living within our means.

Also, no offense, you sound slightly cheap. There is nothing wrong with this, but I think you are really over judging some of her extravagances because of it. Men oddly seem to have absolutely no problem living in a really shitty apartment in a crack neighborhood and eating ramen, a lot of women do and will choose to go into a little credit card debt to avoid it. Your gf may not be living within her means, but when your means are that small, that is pretty easy to do. It doesn't necessarily mean, that if given access to more money she would then radically up her spending. She may have done that a little with her inheritance, but for one, that was all her money and after the relative destitution that it sounds like she has lived in, it really is understandable.

Myself for example, I'm not fabulous with money, however I more or less do not up the amount of money I spend. Which is good when I have more money, not so good when I have less. I can cut out the vacations and big ticket items, but day to day I have a hard to changing the status quo. This means I have a baseline amount that I need to make, but it doesn't mean I would burn my whole paycheck if I made double that. I don't know if I'm explaining this well, but your gf sounds a lot more like someone like me than someone that is just looking for a sugar daddy.
posted by whoaali at 3:04 PM on December 8, 2007

mdn wrote:
and I think that he should be very very careful that this doesn't turn into male contempt of frivolous female spending patterns, which is an incredibly destructive dynamic that can destroy any relationship.

Are you seriously suggesting that the sexist position here is not embracing the stereotype of a materialistic female as central to womanhood?

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear. My point is that many men view women as intrinsically materialistic, and believe that spending money on clothes, household items, or "non-necessary" goods is frivolous or inappropriate. This is sexist. It is a stereotype that has been around since the 1920s or so (I will refrain from boring you all with my PhD exam on consumer culture). These same men will often justify spending money on gadgets, cars, etc. as appropriate. The point is that this is a double standard. I have seen many relationships turn sour because the man could not deal with a woman spending money on things he thought of as inappropriate.

Finally, as I was musing this question over I realized that academia is the ultimate fantasy of genteel poverty: you are essentially giving up your prime earning years to make poverty-level wages during your 20s which will then skyrocket (/sarcasm) to at best the low 60K's (US) once you graduate. This is an indulgence which many people pursue for the love of their subject, but it is hardly the financially responsible choice. I am unsurprised that nobody has suggested that people in academia are making this financially irresponsible choice because they are waiting for rich husbands and wives to support them, although there is an extraordinarily long history of women supporting academic husbands through the lean times of their early careers. I wonder if the OP would have been equally discomfited by dating a well-off woman while he was slogging through graduate school.
posted by alicetiara at 3:22 PM on December 8, 2007 [4 favorites]

I totally agree with alicetiara. I know I've read more than a few threads on askme where the men attacked the women for buying designer jeans and purses and then tried to pretend that buying an iphone was any different.
posted by whoaali at 3:26 PM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

There are a lot of assumptions, many of them sexist, going on in this thread. For example, "Generally speaking, people with expensive tastes don't go into poverty-wage fields unless they have something to fall back on." That's simply not true-- some people prioritize their career fulfillment over financial fulfillment and put the fancy cars, stereo systems and suits on hold, save up to buy them, or scrimp in other ways so they can still have Marc Jacobs pumps or whatever. Non-profits are overwhelmingly female and it's not because they are staffed by women hoping to get a rich husband; often it's extremely dedicated women who sacrifice their own earning potential to help others.

You grossly misconstrued my point. I absolutely agree that most people in these sorts of jobs are prioritizing some sort of career fulfillment over financial fulfillment. But if this woman expects to both continue to work in this sort of career and have lots of nice things, then she must expect some of those nice things to come from someone else. Maybe family money, maybe her husband, maybe from winning the lottery. You can't scrimp your way into an upper-class life on poverty-level wages.
posted by ch1x0r at 3:30 PM on December 8, 2007

I for one don't think that women are more materialistic or more given to buying extravagant or frivolous things than men. I've more frequently been shocked by outrageously unwise purchases made by guys I know versus women.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with what DG chose to spend her money on, I just think that it quite potentially bodes ill for their mutual finances that she consumed the entirety of her inheritance between those purchases and normal spending habits and that she would be deeply in debt otherwise.
posted by XMLicious at 4:11 PM on December 8, 2007

Original poster: Some people have suggested that your GF is shallow; others have suggested that you're shallow. What's really important is that the two of you honestly discuss what you want from life and from each other, and work it out from there. That applies whether either of you are super-deep, shallow, or somewhere in between (as is the case with most everyone).

alicetiara: You make a good point about the sexism that sometimes lurks behind judgments of appropriate spending, and I can't help but see some truth in your musing about the academic life as a "fantasy of genteel poverty". But it seems odd, nonetheless, to equate financial responsibility with maximizing income. Surely one can be financially responsible without aiming to make as much money as possible -- or even without aiming to make a little bit more money than one does now -- just as one can be financially irresponsible by living beyond one's means despite having maximized one's earnings, no?
posted by alaaarm at 9:53 PM on December 8, 2007

I've kind of had a stereotype in my head of women who aren't really intellectually deep and pursue jobs as counselors and social workers. I guess I've always thought of them as aspiring trophy wives. I may be off but your gf sounds like one and I would probably go into taking that pee-marital counseling thing to better understand how she really feels. 10k on a ring is a waste. I bet the money you fork over fr the wedding will be insane. Better spent on property as a downpayment.
posted by onepapertiger at 10:54 PM on December 8, 2007

I meant pRe- marital counseling not pee-marital. Sorry:)
posted by onepapertiger at 11:01 PM on December 8, 2007

I don't entirely understand how the ring thing came up if she doesn't require one. I mean did you walk past a jewelry store and there was a ring in the window and she said, "ooh pretty" and then you noticed it was 10k? It just sounds rather odd to me.

And wow what an insult to counselors and social workers. Trust me trophy wives in training don't generally seek out the poor and needy. I don't know a lot of women who have met their rich husbands while going through family court hearings with an abused child. I mean seriously social workers and counselors have to have at least college educations and social workers at least are unbelievably overworked.
posted by whoaali at 11:17 PM on December 8, 2007

I don't think that there's anything wrong with what DG chose to spend her money on, I just think that it quite potentially bodes ill for their mutual finances that she consumed the entirety of her inheritance between those purchases and normal spending habits and that she would be deeply in debt otherwise.

I agree with this. Separate finances sounds like a good idea.
posted by languagehat at 7:32 AM on December 9, 2007

you are essentially giving up your prime earning years to make poverty-level wages during your 20s which will then skyrocket (/sarcasm) to at best the low 60K's (US) once you graduate. This is an indulgence which many people pursue for the love of their subject, but it is hardly the financially responsible choice.

so the purpose of life is to make as much money as possible? Without $400 shoes we're being irresponsible? I feel kind of alienated by this attitude, from men or women - as I said earlier, I don't think it's particular to one gender. $60K is a more than livable salary.

I don't have a problem with spending money, and obviously I have plenty of stuff that is "unnecessary" in basic survival terms (the fact that I'm online is proof enough of that) but isn't some perspective and moderation worthwhile? Money isn't the ultimate goal - it's just a means to some comforts which we hope can increase various pleasures along the way.

I believe that alicetiara is seriously suggesting that feminism is not just for the women who give all of their discretionary income to Greenpeace. It is sexist to make assumptions that a woman is a gold digger because of how she spends her own money.

Sure, everyone has the right to spend their money how they want to. But it sounded like the suggestion was that women like to spend money more than men do, and that should be respected rather than judged... It seems to me that a lot of the stuff that women traditionally spend a lot of money on is to make them look super hot for the guys. There are the kind of guys who like women who wear the sexy dress & hot boots and look all fashionista - probably the kind of guy with an expensive haircut and nice shoes or whatever, so won't have a problem with $ spent...

And then there are the kind of people of both genders who don't like to spend a lot of money on that stuff. Of course (especially since in reality the world's complicated and most of us don't fall exactly into a category) there are the couples that cross lines, and you have a spender and an artsy-cheapo together. As I said above, I have been in a couple that was like that (though it was a same-sex couple, so maybe different dynamics) and we were able to deal with it and learn from each other, etc, but it is a difference in approach to the world.

Maybe there are more women who are spenders and more guys who are cheapos, I don't know. But even if there are I don't see how that should be a feminist issue. If the claim is that the guy spenders don't recognize their video games / sports tickets / iPhones as equivalent to designer shoes, or that they don't recognize that they love how hot their GF looks all dressed up but still shake their heads at what it costs, then I'd agree, though I don't think that's sexism so much as cluelessness. But if the guy is spendthrifty himself, and would be just as happy with a woman who just wore ordinary clothes and carried a manhattan portage bag, or whatever, then it's an actual disconnect between two people that has nothing inherently to do with gender.

It's about your lifestyle - that's why the first time you see someone's apartment is so important. We all have our own idea of the right balance - probably everyone here would see some level as too indulgent, and some level as too sparse, but what we deem comfortable or normal or sensible or whatever, what we think is somehow "a good medium" is going to be different. Some people have ruby encrusted cell phones and some people choose to sleep on boards in monasteries. The rest of us will disagree about shoes and cars and home entertainment and how much we really need to spend on a new mattress.

I do think it's workable, so long as you can learn to understand each other's interests. It becomes a frustration if you really just can't relate at all. (...sorry for length...)
posted by mdn at 12:14 PM on December 9, 2007

$60K is a more than livable salary.

not in New York if you're supporting a family on that.
posted by footnote at 2:42 PM on December 9, 2007

$60K is a more than livable salary.

not in New York if you're supporting a family on that.

If that's true then wouldn't choosing to live in New York be the same kind of luxury that alicetiara is saying an academic life is? I've known several families who moved away from NYC to stretch their income while the children were growing up.
posted by XMLicious at 3:34 PM on December 9, 2007

What you are struggling with is something that all couples struggle with. Many successful couples have one person who is the spender and one who is the saver, and that is part of what makes the partnership work.

It sounds like she has expensive tastes, but it doesn't sound like she's some scary out-of-control person. You aren't pointing to a lot of specific problems, just this general feeling of unease.

The way a lot of people resolve this is that they each contribute a certain % of their income to a shared "household" account, which is to cover actual household bills, rent, utilities, food, etc. The person who makes more usually does end up contributing a higher %. What remains in your individual accounts is yours to spend (or not spend) as you see fit. Usually, they also come to an agreement about what % they each need to contribute to savings.

I was much younger than my husband when we met, and when we joined our lives financially, I inherited some of his problems from the past. I don't have any bad feelings about it though, because he and I are a team, and his problems became my problems. It wasn't like I could ignore his money issues because they also impacted me, and the life we were trying to build together. And over time, there has been an ebb and flow to our financial lives the same way the rest of our lives have been in flux. There was a time when I was the main breadwinner as he started over from entry level in a new field. Then I went freelance and he carried the burden. Even if I hated him tomorrow and we started divorce proceedings, I still wouldn't regret it. You can't untangle individual contributions to a team.

You can't be that totally financially incompatible, because it sounds like you are successfully dating, and that involves money and choices on what to spend it on. Does she always want to go out to spendy things and expect you to pay? Do you hate eating in nice restaurants, but do it because she wants to? Are you both happy to stay in and order pizza and watch a movie? A financial personality shows itself in every choice about money, are you bothered by anything you see on a real, day-to-day scale?
posted by Mozzie at 4:33 PM on December 10, 2007

$60K is a more than livable salary.

not in New York if you're supporting a family on that.

If they're in New York and have a family, they will more than likely have two incomes. $60K is more than respectable for your share of the burden.

And really, of course you could support two adults and a baby on 60K; it's just that a lot of NYers wouldn't want to deal with the lifestyle changes that might entail for them.
posted by mdn at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2007

Well, I'm totally late to the discussion, but it seems to have really jumped the gun, past "what should I do next" into fortune-teller territory. You're probably way beyond this issue now, but if not, I think you'd learn a lot by talking with her about this. The goals of the conversation would be to figure out how she thinks about money, whether she's willing to live within a budget, and whether she'd support you taking a pay cut to go back to academia. The questions will be very different depending on where your relationship is at, but might sound like:
* "In the future, I really might want to quit my job and return to academia. I've been concerned because -- assuming we stay together -- I'm not sure how we'd support our standard of living then. What would you think of me taking a paycut a few years down the line?"
* "I'm curious what you've thought about how you see yourself in the future supporting yourself and maybe even a family, have you thought about how you'd afford the things you need?"
You say you've talked a lot about the future, so maybe you could even start mapping out a budget for it. I'd lay out ahead of time your idea of going back to academia so that when you do two scenarios there (she may not have realized the financial implications of that) she'll already be aware it's an important dream of yours.
posted by salvia at 1:53 PM on December 18, 2007