When I was growing up in the 1960's, I somehow took in that anybody worth dating or marrying was supposed to be older, smarter, taller, and better educated than me. Plus cute. Higher income went without saying, since if I was earning a living at all, I'd definitely fallen down on the job of hooking the taller, richer, older, smarter, better-educated cute guy.

Dating up or down? How shallow can you be? I dated a man that made less money than I do because he was funny and sweet and intelligent and phenomenally talented.

Oh, yeah, and HE was the successful one, not me. I have a regular, boring office job. He was a working musician in Nashville, well thought of by his peers and highly in demand for studio work and touring. He simply did not make as much money as I do.

How can the author of this article think that the measure of a man - or woman - has anything to do with earning power?

I don't know which gender should be more insulted by this vacuous article. To reduce the choice of a partner to either marrying up or down is to miss the entire point of why we form relationships. When my husband cleans up our childrens vomit when they are sick or holds me in his arms after I've had a particularly bad day, the last thing on my mind is his or my earning power.

Equanimity in a relationship is achieved in dozens of different ways. The currency of a loving relationship is trust, integrity and responsibility. It doesn't hurt to have a good sex life as well. If you and your partner share these qualities, the rest, as they say is negotiable.

Fantastic, a perfect example of the phenomenon of one partner exploiting unequal power in a relationship, only with the gender flipped. Women can be jerks, who knew?

Why do we keep talking about sensationalistic New York produced articles and television shows as if they have any resemblance to American reality? Who cares about what this writer's anonymous sources say or what Maureen Dowd's (completely contradictory) anonymous sources say?

I used to fantasize about living in New York... until I started reading Salon. Because, to hear it from Salon and the NYC publications they constantly reference, New York's nothing but an echo chamber of stupid, shallow, upper-middle-class white people desperate to say anything that will get them attention and maybe get them laid.

Enough.

One can only hope that women like the ones quoted are the new pioneers. With any luck they'll immediately take off for parts unknown and a few of them will catch Cholera.

Ridiculous and shallow. Anyone's career and earnings can go up and down in a lifetime. Put the celebrity magazines down and start relating to people like a human being.

It never ceases to amaze me what crap men put up with in our supposedly male dominated society. I guess there are explanations, but it grates anyway that women, unlike men, have the right to be both. Given traditonal feminist rhetoric of equality, mutual respect etc. it would be ironic if the effect on women of having the opporunity to be successful in the traditional male sense was to make it emotionally impossible for these women to treat men who have less money than they do as human beings

Oprah did a show on professional women dating blue collar men several years ago. I don't recall these women using the words 'settling' or describing themselves as 'pioneers'. I think the topic is old news. Are all the true feminists really dead?

A story with georgeous photos of the bride and groom:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4437386.stm

Love is love.

I enjoy the single life. I date who I like, live where I choose, and travel extensively for pleasure. I don't buy into the hype that single, professional women are all desperate to find a man who earns more than they do. In fact it's completely the opposite.

We women are the new bachelors. We are the swingin' single males of our generation. Most of the men my age in my profession have settled down already. Good for them, but why should I do the same? Maybe my wandering eye hasn't yet found the right boy to take home to dad. I don't see why I should buy the cow when I can afford my own farm.

As the article says, "At the end of day, the most important thing is to be with someone who treats you well." The time may come when I meet a cute administrative assistant or kindergarten teacher who feels successful enough in his field that he's not intimidated by mine. So I'm not saying I'll never settle down... I'm just saying he has to hook me.

It's news that there are still droves of women who still are nothing but shallow golddiggin bitches who live to make other women feel bad. Oh your boyfriend works at Blockbuster, ha ha, couldn't you do better?

Didn't Sex in the City already go over almost everything in this article?

A career does not mean you are a good person, neither does a large bank account.

What's interesting is that there are women who go around wanting to "date up". How unseemly.

A lonely death in a high-priced assited living facility about 45 years from now.

I feel like this article is based on a very narrow, stale definition of success. It's 2005 people! Please tell me that we're beyond the "fame & fortune" ideal of success, that continues to prove, time and again, to do everything BUT promise happiness. I think success is about contentment and satisfaction. If you are dating someone who challenges you personally, makes you laugh and with whom you are truly happy -- you've succeeded -- regardless of how much money he brings home or what his business cards (or lackthereof) say. I just think we chip away at feminism everytime we make a fuss over this issue, as if women by default should be less successful than their male counterparts.