But onward. I loved OldFeminist’s perspective, that it’s about a partner’s attitude toward contributing (in every way), not about the money.

When I met my now-husband, I knew he probably made more than I did, because of the very different industries we worked in. What attracted me to him was his quick wit, his passion, his drive, his intellect, and his playful sense of humor (among other things). But when, after three months of dating, I learned almost by accident (he had to find a new apartment, and he didn’t hide his salary from me when we were at the real estate broker’s office) that he made 400% of my salary, I was not only astounded, I was mad.

We finished out the day nicely, but then I seriously had to think for a few weeks how I wanted to handle the vast discrepancy, and whether I could be in a relationship with someone who made so much more money than I did.

I was so pissed off, not with him, but with the very idea that what he did meant that he was worth so much more to society than what I did. He did have one more advanced degree than I did, but that had no bearing on his field of work whatsoever.

Admittedly, this was my hang-up. I assumed that that discrepancy would make for a power imbalance in our relationship.

It did not. And that was entirely because my husband just didn’t think of money that way. To him, everything we have is ours together. It wasn’t at that point, of course, but we discussed the issue a lot because I was so suspicious. And he has always treated me as the equal partner I am, or we would never have lasted.

And you know, I really shouldn’t have worried so. Husband has now been unemployed for five years, and we live on my salary. But we still benefit from the money he made during his salad days.

As others have said, over a lifetime relationships see many ups and downs. I do want my husband to do something in terms of a job in the future, because I want him to be and feel effective, and I want an equal partner. I would love it if he could make some money so that I could feel that we were providing for our children’s and our own future as best we could. That includes providing for our own long-term sustenance. I don’t want to be burdens on our kids. But I know that if we NEEDED him to work, he would. And for now, he is providing childcare and house-husbanding par excellence. And that is worth a lot.

Guess who most people prefer to identify with? It’s very ugly.

People are motivated by greed and covetousness. This is an argument *for* regulation, not against it. “A rising tide lifts all boats” sure, but it totally fucks over those who couldn’t afford a boat in the first place.

If a requirement of more rigorous governance in business is a long-term effect of the current economic situation (and I have no idea if it will be), then a workforce with a higher percentage of women will be desirable. This situation would however, be an extension of the ‘woman as moral guardian and check on the excesses of masculinity’ stereotype.

*sigh of longing* If only Sweden didn’t have such long winters and such strange, lingonberry-laden cuisine…

No, but seriously, I hear this is a huge problem in Italy in particular — the men have very regressive gender roles leading to a low birth rate (because the women don’t want to marry or have kids with a sexist jerk who still lives with his mom) and a huge division still in terms of who has leisure time and who does the household labor. Get with the times, Italy!