I know how it will sting Wayne Rooney that Coleen is now breadwinner – my men were put in their place financially, too

The Sun

a day ago

WHEN it comes to relationship experience, I am a self- declared scholar.
Variety is the spice of life and I've had all kinds — big and small, serious and fleeting, good, bad, heartbreaking and passionate, and sometimes even indifferent and insignificant.
8
8
8
But the one thing that has remained constant in my adult life — dating back as far as my early 20s — has been the fact that I have always earned more than the men I've been with — I've more or less always been the main breadwinner.
And the news this week that the relentlessly loyal Coleen Rooney may soon overtake hubby Wayne in the earnings stakes brought me great joy.
She has had massive success over the past few months, thanks mostly to her stint on I'm A Celeb.
Her business ventures are booming far past those of Wayne, who was reportedly on £500k a year as ­Plymouth Argyle manager before he left at the end of last year.
Oh my, how the tables have turned.
Long gone are the days when ­Coleen was a mere gymslip of a girl dedicated to her undeniably plain but talented school boyfriend, Wayne, whose star was so sharply in the ­ascendence that there was no hope in hell that she would be able to keep up with his fame, let alone his finances.
And yet she went on to raise four lovely boys and keep a stable and consistent home for her hubby while he was pushing the marriage fidelity boundaries over and over again.
Throughout, Coleen stayed loyal and true to herself and steadfastly put up with all his shenanigans over decades.
That must really suck
She maintained a dignified silence while gradually starting to carve out her own career on the sidelines.
Wayne, on the other hand, who was always used to the adoration and adulation of football fans, is now a not overly successful jobbing football manager for minor clubs, while ­Coleen walked away from her ­stint in the TV jungle to the sound of success and more lucrative work offers.
Ouch.
That must really suck for him, despite his popularity as one of the many ex-pros on the TV punditry merry-go-round.
He is probably mighty proud of ­Coleen, but Lord, it must really sting to be known as Mr Coleen Rooney after all this time.
I bet even he couldn't have foreseen this turn of events.
And Coleen is not the only one.
Hailey Bieber — formerly of fairly sparse and sporadic Baldwin fame — is now a billionaire thanks to selling off her cosmetics company and achieving fame in her own right.
Meanwhile, her pop star hubby Justin is more often than not seen looking dishevelled and lost leaving the gym or just smoking a bong because he's got nothing much else to do.
Then there's Kim K, who we all thought might be in it for the fame and the pay- day when she tied the knot with Kanye, but she is now the one basking in the glory of her own sunshine and bathing in squillions, while her ex has been cancelled and is but a vague memory.
And without wishing to exaggerate her success, Duchess Meghan of Sussex is trying to make a killing selling raspberry jam in the hope that Jeff Bezos starts to stock her goods, while Harry, the spare heir, is mostly sitting around twiddling his thumbs wondering what he can moan about next.
Traditionally, we have the view of women that some will attach themselves to a wealthy man, ­regardless of the ­personal price they may pay. Like Anna Nicole Smith, whose oil tycoon husband J Howard Marshall — 63 years her senior — passed away the year after they married in 1994.
She got a lot of flak for that.
Sometimes there is no price to pay.
The man they fall in love with just happens to be a billionaire.
But there are men out there who have no qualms about living off a woman.
Enjoying a champagne ­life- style on lemonade money.
'Love has nothing to do with money' is something only ever said by those without it, but attaching themselves to it.
My own personal experience in this field is quite extensive and has instructed me over the years that men — many men — love the idea of a woman who is financially and ­professionally independent.
They love a strong woman, ­especially one who isn't needy or desperate or weak or helpless.
They admire a woman who stands on her own two feet or who runs her own race.
A woman who makes her own decisions and is capable of not ­needing a man and instead chooses to be with one is sexy as hell.
Some even claim it's a major turn-on.
Well, that's what it says on the tin, anyway.
If you dig a little deeper, it tends to be a little more ­complicated. For men.
The reality soon starts to grate, intimidate and emasculate — because money is so closely ­associated with power, and men often feel it is their human and societal right.
Having a woman own that power by herself becomes very jarring.
And I can only imagine if, like Coleen, a woman usurps that ­financial position, it means that the man will feel 'less than'.
Maybe less manly, less powerful, less able. Who knows?
They love a strong woman, ­especially one who isn't needy or desperate or weak or helpless.
As women, we are expected to accept the reverse.
We are supposed to naturally assume the role of being the person who earns less — because that's just the way it's always been.
I've been married three times and none of my husbands earned more than me.
None of them were considered wealthy in their own right.
I have no idea whether the appeal for them was my bank ­balance or my ability to make a mean ­moussaka.
I know money wasn't a thing for my first hubby, who knew me when I was a 'nobody'.
Obviously, my ability to earn good money made for an easier relationship in many respects.
We didn't have to suffer economic uncertainty.
The world was our oyster.
8
8
This was most likely facilitated by my approach to life — that what I gained was also the collective gain.
I worked hard for 'us'.
I was in one relationship where the disparity was so stark that the situation became unsustainable because the other person did not work.
This meant I felt huge resentment towards him for quite plainly and unashamedly 'living off me'.
A great sign of the times now is that it's less rare to see a man together with a wealthier woman, though it's still not that common.
Financially inferior
For some reason, we always 'admire' a man for having the ­ability to be in a financially inferior position.
We always say it takes a 'big man' to stick that out.
Which is an insane idea, because women do it all the time, and we're never applauded for managing to be with a richer man than ourselves.
No, we're castigated for it, often with claims that we're lazy.
This is probably why many men struggle with it.
Not all, but many.
They see it as a kind of ­subordination, that they are lower in rank and status — and perhaps, most of all, in importance.
And we all know men like to feel important.
To be a 'kept man' is seen as possibly the weakest thing a chap can be.
Traditionally, when a man has more money, it's often his greatest way of keeping a woman in the relationship. He knows that because women often fear economic vulnerability, they will tend to stay rather than up and leave.
It's a man's silent weapon.
Wealth so often weaponises relationships.
For a man to surrender that power and be at the ­financial behest of a woman will forever be viewed as admirable.
Of course, we still all have ­affection for Man United and England legend Wayne — he will always remain in our footballing consciousness.
But it might be interesting to see if the shift in balance changes the dynamic of his marriage to Coleen.
She always seems to call the shots, so I suspect there will be no change in that regard.
Here's hoping he will have the humility to accept his wife's change in financial fortune and that he can keep up with her, because I reckon we will be seeing more and more of this as women alter the ­narrative, at work and in society.
To paraphrase Aretha Franklin, sisters really are doing it for ­themselves.