Are women better off marrying for money?

June 5, 2009

Daniela Drake– Daniela Drake, M.D., attended Wellesley College and received an MBA from Stanford University. She, along with Elizabeth Ford, authored the book “Smart Girls Marry Money.” A former McKinsey consultant, she is now a full-time primary care physician. Drake married (for love) and has reaped the consequences. The views expressed are her own. –

I had to pause when I came across a blog out of South Africa that read, “I think a way forward, or backwards some of you might say, is to encourage our smart, savvy and capable daughters to marry for money.” Since I co-authored a book with a similar premise, this sassy assertion definitely grabbed my attention.

The blog’s author Jackie May, an editor for The Times world pages in South Africa, penned these seemingly heretical comments after learning of alarming research by Dr. Caroline Gatrell at Lancaster University in England. Dr. Gatrell found, “women who explicitly choose career over kids are often vilified at work.”

Huh?

Conventional wisdom says just the opposite: Sacrificing baby-making is often necessary in the calculus of getting ahead at work. Many mid-career women have forsaken motherhood to obtain career goals. Indeed, economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett made news a few years ago when she presented the statistic that 49% of mid-career women who made $100,000 a year or more were childless, compared to only 10% of men.

Yet, despite the sacrifices many women make in order to climb the corporate ladder, women are still woefully under represented in top executive ranks. Eight of the CEO’s on the Fortune 500 were women a couple of years ago. Now, two years later, we’ve got 12. At this rate it will take a little over 100 years for us to represent half of the CEO’s in the Fortune 500, in the year 2128.

Although the number of CEO’s is a lofty benchmark, in general even at the lower reaches, workplace parity is coming at a glacial pace. The reasons are complicated, and it isn’t just sexism. Many have suggested that it has to do with the choices women make to fulfill personal life ambitions.

Even today, many young women don’t foresee that these choices will affect their career success. Hewlett’s more recent national survey found that the typical young woman graduate plans to have a high paying job, take two to three years off to have children and benefit from career flexibility that lets her pop back in to the workplace when the mood strikes.

While Hewlett found the women’s optimism charming, she also noted that this generation follows hot on the high-heels of a generation of women who had similar ideas. By following non-linear career paths, that generation “lost 18…to 37% of their earning power,” and suffered a complete “downsizing of their ambitions.”

But the new graduates aren’t heeding the warning signs of the slightly more senior women’s failures.

These young women are counting on their talents to grant them repeated entrée into a marketplace they were brought up to believe is a meritocracy. The bad old days are behind us, as one co-ed commented to Hewlett, “Back then—when there were dinosaurs—people just did bad stuff to women.”

But is this true, or are people still doing bad stuff to women? If Dr. Caroline Gatrell’s study is right, women who have sacrificed important personal goals are penalized at work. As Gatrell’s study indicates: Childless women are viewed as lacking an “essential humanity” and viewed as unfit to manage others.

Yet at the same time Gatrell assures us that mothers don’t fare much better. Gatrell avers, “Women with children are blamed for combining motherhood with paid work and women with no children are sidelined and discounted because they are not mothers.”

The problem of women in the workplace is so complicated that the answers themselves sound like Orwellian double-speak. Or, have we at long last entered an age when double-speak simply means that both things can be true, that workplace discrimination can take on many forms and that there are no easy answers? But one thing is certain: achieving success in the workplace is like winning a competition. If half the entering team shows up thinking it’s something less than that, then men will still have the home field advantage—and achieving parity may take more than the 100 years estimated by my back-of-the-envelope calculation.

So what will I say if my daughter asks me, “How can I make sure my life is financially secure?”

I would have to pause before I answer. I would have to consider that in all likelihood she won’t live to see true workplace equality. But her life matters now. So I will have my own Orwellian answer for her and offer it with a hefty dose of irony, “Apply yourself at school and at work. And to cover all your bases, marry a man with money.”

84 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The amount of responses to this article really shows what a hot topic this is!
I’m lucky enough to be an at home mother without a job…though I do freelance when work is offered. When I married, I worked and we still had a modest paycheck. So its not like I married for money…but I did marry someone with ambition and drive and some smarts. We both grew up lower middle class and are fortunate to be very comfortable now. But that does come with sacrifices…no european vacations, cheap cars, more eating at home. Some people aren’t willing to do that. We all have different goals and need to make difficult decisions to accomodate what we want. I wanted to be with my kids and have never had my nails done or the inside of the spa. I can do my own nails and who has time to waste getting a massage?
As for women who don’t have kids, I don’t perceive them as cold hearted. I would much rather a woman not have kids than have some she didn’t want to fulfill expectations.
I doubt I’ll get a decent job when my children are all in school. But I know what I got on my SATs. I know I graduated from a university honors program and had no debts because of scholarships and grants. I chose an unimpressive future to be with my kids, banking a lot on my husband’s continued affections. If that means working retail with undergrads for years, its still worth it to me.

Posted by Erica | Report as abusive

I’m a guy, but I’ll marry for money! Any nice mid-aged women career women out there?

Posted by Jimmy | Report as abusive

And then when you find out your spoiled s**** called kids don’t like you, you can turn to cosmetic surgery .

No no no this well will never run dry. If your not happy it most likely is some external factor that you can pay to fix right? That’s the way this life stuff works now isn’t it?? OH JEBUS SAVE ME!!

“Conventional wisdom says just the opposite: Sacrificing baby-making is often necessary in the calculus of getting ahead at work. Many mid-career women have forsaken motherhood to obtain career goals. Indeed, economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett made news a few years ago when she presented the statistic that 49% of mid-career women who made $100,000 a year or more were childless, compared to only 10% of men.”

Not a single mention of how many of these women are in relationships. I know us men are pretty useless, but for the most part we still play a role here. Maybe this statistics is because these women are also looking for rich men who would much rather flash some $$, as your article title suggests, to pick up a young philly rather than an old mare who also earns cash monies? Maybe??

Way to take a stat and run with your angle.

Posted by Colin | Report as abusive

Surely the dichotomy is between “wage slave” and parent, not “career” and parent? It’s perfectly possible to have a successful part-time career based on royalty earnings – Madonna and JK Rowling being merely the first two names that come to mind.

Of course, if you do decide to marry for money, you’ll presumably have to choose someone not very bright, say an investment banker, and if you choose one of them you’ll have to get in line between all those young Russians in vanishingly small skirts. And, looking at your photo and trying hard not to be shallow, I have to say I don’t think you’d beat them

Posted by Ian Kemmish | Report as abusive

it is just a natural for a woman to marry for money, i.e. to be well provided for herself and her offspring, as it is for older men to marry younger healthy women who can bare him many children. It is hardwired in your genes. It doesn’t mean either scenario will make you happy.

Posted by will | Report as abusive

The comments on this thread are more intelligently written than the article they are addressing.

Posted by getplaning | Report as abusive

The notion of marrying for money reminds me of the conversation penned by a great author of American lore:

background: a man encounters a beautiful woman at a society party

man: You are outstandingly beautiful, would you sleep with me for $10,000

woman: You are a despicable man, get away from me

man: Well would you sleep with me for $1,000,000

woman: Well yes, I would consider that bargain

man: Well then, what if I offer $100,000

woman Absolutely not, what do you take me for!

man: we’ve already established that, we’re just arguing about the price!

A woman who marries for wealth is akin to someone who trades dignity for money. Some of these women earn that money with all the heartache and humiliation that the title of trophy wife entails. Best of luck to them, I hope they don’t ever look back at life and wish they had the opportunity to live a different one. There is not enough money in heaven and earth to grant them this.
DWG

Posted by DWG | Report as abusive

Marrying wealthy will provide food on the table. Anything more remains uncertain. Moreover, the strategy will not solve the fundamental problems that this article touches.

We are raised in the expectation that today only the sky is the limit. In actuality, our options are very much limited. The greatest limit in our lives is time. Most people are able to execute only one task at a time well. Our social lives are just more complicated than driving a car. We are not very good at parallel processing complex situations and multitasking. It is simply impossible to do everything equally well. Hence, pursuing a power career and raising children requires a continuous balancing act. Its chances of success are greatly improved when both partners join in the effort extensively. The effort requires more than just writing checks, and our engagement may take more than twenty years, that is two decades per child during which life is not only about us. On the other hand children permit us to share experiences we would have never had without them.

Whether careers are worth the sacrifice is a very personal question. Just the other day I was reminded of the controversial and distinguished career of Wernher von Braun, the man whose name will forever be synonymous with manned space travel. In 1961, he promised in a letter to Vice President Johnson that the United States could send people to the moon in seven years. He missed his self-imposed deadline by about a year. I hardly know of anyone who made such audacious promise and was only a year late in its fulfillment. However, his greatest ambition, to send people to Mars, remained a dream.

Could a woman have accomplished this? I am sure she could have, had they let her. The first rocket pilot was a woman named Hanna Reitsch.

I asked myself, would I want to be like Wernher von Braun? Could I still muster the time and the energy to instill in my children the knowledge that they may need to grow into self-sufficient, responsible citizens? The prospects were intimidating. Money is the least of all worries, when ambitions come into play.

You may wish to read more about Wernher’s dream here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/0 5/von-brauns-dreams-milestones-in-space. html

They used to call such women “goldiggers” and the only men stupid/desperate to have anything to do with them were balding old men with prostate problems/ED as well as spare tires expanding faster even than their bank accounts.

Posted by Gerry | Report as abusive

What does marrying for money say of the man (to presume on a man/woman marriage) being married? His worth as a person?
Being married to a rich “tool” is sure to make a woman unhappy and then all the money isn’t going to help. That said, being married to a poor “tool” would leave you unhappy AND stressing over finances.
Better to marry someone you like spending a lot of time with and hopefully lights your fire occasionally. If you’re happy and doing what you love, money will usually follow AND the occasional lack of it will not be quite as pressing.
I guess the key is to protect your finances guys – and girls get the best pre-nup you can and then set about making your own money (and protecting it too). Marry for love and common interests.. Money comes and goes.

Posted by Rodger | Report as abusive

Not many want to hear the truth, The article in my opinion, is correct. Not only do women marry for money, but many men do too. We women just don’t want to talk about it. Fear that if we did, we would be called not “smart” but “stubid”.
Women do not help each other to achieve success because of jealousy. Men do help each other more; that is one reason that you don’t hear about men who marry for money. Men defend each other and build each other up.
It is no wonder that we have CEO’s and high level executives from different country’s. American’s simply don’t help each other as we really should to create a better America.

Being in my late twenties, struggling to be financially stable and wanting to have kids in the near future, I can understand her point. I grew up wanting what my mother had; she took three years off to have kids, then got into her career and now makes more than my husband and I combined yearly – and good for her. Unfortunately, I don’t see my future being so successful, at least not at the moment. There was a middle class back then, and overall life was much more affordable, but not anymore. I chose to married someone I loved, but marrying for money could offer many opportunities that aren’t guaranteed in my choices in life such as healthcare, ownership of real-estate, savings, vacations, etc.

And in regards to women in the workplace, women definitely have an advantage…or disadvantage, depending if you want to sleep your way to the top. Sexual harassment is all too common in the workplace and is a significant problem for women my age. So, I suppose much of success is centered around how much you want to compromise yourself.

Overall, I feel like it’s a loose/loose situation for women in my generation – at least in America. The only reason I want to be successful in my career is to provide for a family, but if I take time off to have kids, I can’t afford them, and even if I just want to have some success in business and no kids, I need to compromise my values and marriage…?? All I have to say…I look forward to all the baby-boomers retiring; I’ll get to move up the economic food-chain without sleeping my way to the top, and I’ll get grandma to watch the kids when I go back to work.

Posted by meg | Report as abusive

The grass is always greener on the other side…

Most women want what they can’t have. (same with most men too).

I am a new father and all I want to do is spend more time with my child. Most people feel the same I me but there are many who are power hungry or just plain greedy. They covet more than what will make them just simply happy.

I think the Rolling Stones sang it best with “You can’t always get what you want…but if you try sometimes, you find out you get what you need…”

Hell, I’d love to have my wife work and me stay home. She’d be my “Sugar-mama”. I hate my job but I have to do it.

Posted by bby_70 | Report as abusive

Here’s the deal:

In the postmodern age, which is well beyond the era of socialism in a Marixst analysis of history, there is an immense saturation of media images that portray different ways of living, including a woman’s role in society. The United States and Europe have education programs, government advertising, and financial incentives designed to dissuade people from having too many children for the purposes of population control. This is considered to be better than the African alternative, which is a child mortality rate of nearly 30%. Since over-population ranks at the top of the list on the ruling classes world problems list, it isn’t really surprising.

You should probably just not get married unless you are planning on raising children and have a good idea about how you are going to do it right. You really shouldn’t have wanton sex outside of marriage either, but with the spectacle driven into the ecstatic, I suppose sexual relationships can be a refreshing, real, and healthy experience and are positive for many people without causing too much stress or drama. lol

The libido is certainly stimulated to the extreme in post-modern societies: there is of course natural animal attraction and a natural urge to have children, but in addition, media images saturate not only absurd and alluring fashions, but also flatter romanticism and simplicity.

It’s not like you have free will anyway, too bad your freedom to choose who you marry really is decided money and not your romantic notions.

It’s all rubbish.
But if a woman is to marry, she must consider the financial aspects of setting a house with a shared income: any previous debt from both sides, for instance, and the capability to a stable economic married life. But that doesn’t mean she has to marry some rich guy – who may prove reckless with money, drag her into debtland and is not straightfoward in affection or anything else, for that matter.
If a woman choses not to marry and not to have children, her choice must be respected; she is no less of a human being for it. Same as with a man.
I find, many times, married women with children at work to be overbearing and overconfident that they are better bossing around because they have kids, especially when it’s a fact their kids have them wrapped around their finger, they took an epidurial, and have them in day care from month 1.

I don’t care for people who marry for the social aura it gives them, or as an excuse to throw a party – but not as a committment to last more than a few months.

The silly aspect of it is that you can marry poor but have the intelligence to build up to a sizeable estate together, and one must also consider that it’s the intelligence and the educational level that many women and men go for. College grads marry college grads because they have their education, intelligence and overall culture in common, though they are in debt paying for their school loans.

Perhaps the “Desperate Housewives” and silly series about Manhattan women have gone to the heads of writers and readers alike.

Posted by Van | Report as abusive

I would say this to young women: You must get the best quality education that you can afford, and you must apply it to a career for at least a dozen years before you even think about marriage and children; and even then, even if you have a great husband and job and an equal division of labor(and good luck with that)once the children are born there is a fundamental, permanent, and profound change in your life and your focus. Remember you are dealing with a million years of evolution here.

If you actually think you can marry a “rich man” and do whatever you want: as in “I want my own business” “I want to travel” “I want to manage investments” “I want to collect art”

You are dreaming babe. These men can have and do have whatever they want at any time. You play their game or they unload you in a heartbeat. They will eat you alive.

And not in a good way. Complete and total independence is best. Dealing with anyone from a position of strength is better.

Children are a beautiful blessing from God, but girls, kiss your life, as you know it, goodbye. Men have a much better deal when it comes to marriage. And childbearing years and career building years are the same. 25 to 40. And there you have it.

I had a modeling career, a stage career, and was actually in films before I had two kids in two years.

Five years later I became a writer and started my own business.

Profit making business.

Of course women should marry for money. So should men. On the other hand, don’t wait too long. It’s a little foolish for either a man or woman over the age of, say, thirty, when the looks and the body are starting to go, to expect to have the “value added” commodity that can command a price.

While I read the article these are the questions that crossed my mind
1. Is money everything in life?
2. What about the selfesteem of a woman who wants to spend somebody else’s money even if he is her husband?
3. Can all human beings man/woman make it to the top always. Is that the objective?
4. Women had a late entry point into these domains. Does it not take more time to establish and reach where they want to?
5. Have government policies not been changing to facilitate more and more women to work?
6. Do we need to compromise laziness for selfesteem?
7. Did the author think that men are dumb enough not to know your intentions?
8. Do men always fall for pretty faces or beautiful bodies? Are there no other expectations?

Well there can be nobody admirable than a women who has been able to manage here career, children and life equally well with a little effort and patience to seek cooperation. Men have also been changing and are more cooperative over the years. Is it hard for a woman to be herself?

While, I seldom make comments on articles, especially assigned ones such as this article, but it is irritating how some people use statistics to promote their agenda. Moreover, when the agenda deals with race, ethnicity or gender a minimum amount of contextual information is needed or the article will be incredulous.

First off, no one would argue that the social problem of women being underrepresented in the work place is not important issues that must be addressed, however, statistics regarding CEOs of fortune 500 companies are not the same issue. The author is incorrect in using raw, random, uncontested statistics comparing Fortune 500 genders to equating to financial security…financial security is not financial apex.

Operating under the authors skewed statistical indicators, Obama should have tried out to succeed in professional sports and not run for president. Have we not left the 50’s mind set of women needing to marry for money? Better statistics would be what percentage of women marrying for money, actually procure such financial security. Inexplicably, the author left out the statistics of the women who married for money, foregoing pursuit of work and were then divorced and do not have financial security, one would presume in an era where the divorce rate is around 50% that such statistic may be equated into an analysis of marriage for money.

That article is not analysis it is not even true feminist propaganda, it is anti-male extremist spew. The President of the United States cannot even join the Country Club where the Masters Golf Tournament is played, so should he have not run for President?

Lastly, if someone gets married for money (money only), they become bought /property, so while, I don’t have an MD or a degree from Stanford, I do have the integrity to teach my daughter to marry for love and the sky is the limit for what she wants to achieve financially.

Great Article, great arguments, excellent reasoning…all or nothing statistics to promote points were extremely impressive, I guess since the author is not a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, she should have married for money?

Posted by Sam | Report as abusive

I’m a professional, educated, single parent who has worked full/part-time/free-lance/combinations of both, since my son was 3 weeks old, in order to provide financial security for myself & my son.I’ve had no maintenance from my son’s father.
The main reasons we survived financially without a man:

a) I’m an education professional & was in my late 30s & established before I got pregnant
b) I owned my own flat before I got pregnant
c) I benefited, at our leanest times, from Gordon Brown’s working tax credits-thank you Gordon for helping us at the worst times (& thanks from millions of other single parents)

It’s been at times a terrifying, lonely roller-coaster of always presenting myself as the ‘calm, well-dressed professional’ whilst coping with the stress of an ill/challenging child- employers don’t want to know about domestic problems.

However, although wer’e OK financially, we are very poor compared to my sister who never worked, had no quals beyond O levels but who married a rich man! And they get richer every year- as do their offspring,who seem to be left copious sons of money from various relatives…

Am I unusual- NO- I could introduce you to loads of similar, strong, professional, educated single working mothers…..all who’ve survived without marrying a rich man…EDUCATION is the key…not a rich man…

Posted by strong-working-mum | Report as abusive

Some very erudite comments. My one relevant personal experience was as an organisational troubleshooter in what admittedly was a particularly dysfunctional public sector organisation. I came across a pattern of behavior which was damaging to the organisation where a number of women holding fast to senior level director roles which they were not able to effectively perform whilst pregnant and after returning from maternity leave. Some were cynically relying on employment law as it relates to maternity as a defense against disciplinary proceedings to cheat the organisation and the taxpayer for a number of years. I don’t know the answer to this and directors taking advantage of organsations and taxpayers has no gender or public or private sector bias as the recent banking crisis proves. However, I could not see how someone can act effectively at a strategic level over a period of years and combine it with child bearing and rearing without a very significant infrastructure supporting him/her.

Posted by mark | Report as abusive

As a nation we are to large to be a sustainable democracy Christinemarie. We will inevitably become 5 or 6 smaller nations as did ancient Rome.

People in each region of the country are concerned with what effects them only. Flooding in the midwest, drought in the south and southwest, economic devestation in the rust belt etc, etc,…. “If it doesn’t effect me and my neighbors I don’t care”. The extremes of right and left have further divided us on issues of human rights, gun ownership, and religion.

If there is one unifying concern we can all agree upon is the abject failure of our elected representatives to lead not withstanding their habit for exercising all forms of corruption and indecency. Then again maybe this will the catalyst that will bring the demise of the Union.

Posted by Anubis | Report as abusive

Thank you for this article which summarizes many womens everyday experience.

One comment though: what about the “essential humanity” of women who marry for money, meaning sell themselves instead of on the job market on the meat market?

Posted by Petra | Report as abusive

Considering the number of women who dream of being CEO isn’t that big, it seems to me that the author missed out on the most obvious solution: Women who don’t want to sacrifice their career for their children should marry men who do.

Also, her back-of-the-envelope calculation is stupidly calculated. Assuming a linear pattern is faulty because it leads to all Fortune 500 CEOS being women, and then there being more than 500 of them. The curve is more likely an exponential one that asymptotes near half in about 25 or 30 years.

I am male and 37 years old, I am not from America. I was married for 10 years, and divorced because we did not have any children.

There have been a lot of strong negative comments about this article, mostly from men. The author is correct, it is not easy to succeed in business and it is more difficult for women than men for a number of different reasons. My point is that she is correct, women do marry for money, but that does not mean they marry only for money. Love is a complicated and difficult thing to understand, love comes with time, and is based on friendship and mutual respect, as well as physical attraction. The way I understood her, the author meant that if you are a woman trying to decide whom to marry, if you are also thinking about financial security, then give some preference to the man with the good job, or the man with money over the man whose financial future seems uncertain. This is because you cannot easily achieve financial security by yourself, just as strong-working-mum says, she worked really hard just so that she and her son could survive without the help of any man (except Gordon Brown).

Financial security does not mean being a multi-millionaire, it means being able to support a comfortable lifestyle for yourself and family. The model (phoenix1) explained that these rich men will ‘eat you alive’, and she is right, it is impossible to become really rich without learning to ignore what does not matter (in many cases this means what your partner wants) while getting what you want. But I do not think the author of this article was talking about marrying a multi-millionaire.

Many posters have made allusions to prostitution, and how a woman that ‘marries for money’ is in some way a prostitute. I think these people do not really understand what prostitution is and how different the two ideas are. If a woman can marry a rich man, whom she cannot stand, only for finacial security, and she can live with him although she does not love him, then she has made some difficult choices, and has good control over herself, but she is not a prostitute, she is just somebody’s wife. There are two kinds of prostitutes, forced and by choice. Forced prostitutes are either drug addicts or are coerced by other illegal means. By choice prostitutes want a lot of money and independence at the same time, and they achieve both through paid sex with many partners. They are not attaching themselves to one man (or woman). The joke that someone posted is not really fair, almost anyone would have sex with someone they wouldn’t normally have sex with if they were offered a million dollars.

Posted by SingleLine | Report as abusive

Actually one is far better off marrying someone whom shares the same values, who wants to create an equal partnership. If you do that, the money will come. My parents are proof of that. You would have a “rich” life in every way that mattered, truly.

If the relationship is too lopsided in either direction and the parties do not have the same mindset, the likelihood of divorce is much higher.

As for the workplace, I work with many single and married parents and the majority of those had children at an early age. Thus, they lack financial security that one needs to enable being a good parent and provider. The real key to being rich is delaying parenthood, whether marriage turns out to be a factor or not.

Posted by nika | Report as abusive

There are just 10% (or less) of men are rich in the world,but there are some many women in the world, to bear down some many rivals and get the quota for the 10%, I don’t think it is easier than getting success in wworking. It is not a good idea!

Posted by Jenny | Report as abusive

Are women better off marrying for money?

Of course not. Just ask 30% of all women. The big money is in divorce.

Boom-boom!

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

I am a man in my 30s, happily married and with children…

Men are dumb enough to be manipulated by girls until they turn 20. Adolt men, and finnacially attractive men are smart and experienced enough to understand women.

So, what men think is that one cannot buy emotions, one cannot buy love. And, believe me, men want love. If a girl doesn’t trylly love me, I would not have my children from her, it’s that simple.

Posted by Ananke | Report as abusive

As a reproductive biologist, I think that the love for money is reasonable. Generally speaking, the female mammale always choose the supportive and steady male as their fixes partner, and this choice is benefit to her babies.

Posted by sunnyprof | Report as abusive

In a largely capitalist economy where money rules, everything you do should be tempered with money in mind. Lazy lay-about GW Bush would never have become president if it weren’t for the Yale schooling, one-year AWOL military service in light duty away from, and more that his parents wealth provided him. Everyone should marry money if they can–men and women–it’s a lot easier than the uncertainties of trying to earn it.

Posted by advocatusdiaboli | Report as abusive

Well I believe we in Malaysia can marry for love and money at the same time. We in Malaysia are enjoying high growth and high inflation, I do not understand all this complaining for choices, you can have both love and money. After all money is easily available in Malaysia by jumping to a higher salary! We have to thank China for our strong growth as our economy was going down until March 2009 and China rescued us by buying our commodities. Currently there is strong job market, 2 jobs for every worker, we have to import in foreign labour to do jobs that locals do not want to do ! We have high inflation, an example is a local dessert called “cendol” selling for $1.20 in local currency a month ago, is now selling for $ 1.80 in local currency. Thats a hefty increase, so don’t complain, enjoy the World boom and marry for both money and love !

Posted by Chris Leow | Report as abusive

There is a third choice, technically easy but emotionally difficult: choose a high-ROI profession, then opt out of the materialist rat race. Here’s an example.

Dentists in the US make much more than non-specialized MDs, yet need less than half the schooling. Working just 15 hours a week, a dentist can earn $50k a year while still in her 20s, with very high job flexibility and security.

$50k is not a lot. Or is it? Depends where you live. Modest homes in small-town Iowa cost $60,000. That’s a down payment of $6,000 and monthly payment of $350. Move there, work your 15 hours, and you’re set for life, with or without a rich husband. People there have bad teeth, so the strategy is evergreen.

The hard part of this is not in the mechanics. The hard part is choosing not to live in NY, SF or LA with all your graduate-educated friends. Our pride, our competitive spirit, entraps us.

Reminds me of a quote a smart friend once told me: “Trapped in the walls of his paper prison, he waits out his time like the fool that he is.”

Posted by Odious Swaggering GSBer | Report as abusive

In 40% of american households (with married couples), women are now the primary breadwinners. So I don’t know what this woman is blabbering about. Progress is being made and the fight for gender equality has certainly been worthwhile and continues to be.

Posted by ennemkay | Report as abusive