The gentlemen amongst us may well be unaware of the following poem. But I am sure the women will have encountered at least one version of this.
Doing a quick internet search, I couldn't believe how many versions of this there were.
This suggests to me how ingrained it is into the female psyche the need for partnering up. Little girls everywhere indulge in this little game from the moment they can speak :-)
I was no exception.
This is the version I remember:
From A.A. Milne of 'Winnie the pooh' fame:
Apparently, this version is played as some sort of 'counting game':
Rather elaborate for a 'counting game', no?
:-)
In fact, the real objective of this rhyme is one of divination or fortune telling. Whilst counting, the last word or term that corresponds to the last available counting item, eg. cherry stones, buttons, is what the future holds.
Sooo, as an example, to the question What shall my husband be? if the last button coincides with thief... then the girl has to think about how she feels about the phrase 'visiting hours'...
Why do we torture ourselves so?
In a more sinister twist (sinister, that is, from the male point of view), if the 'counting item' happens to be boys when a girl is asking the question Who shall I marry? then some poor boy is saddled with a destiny he may never have dreamed up for himself...
I remember doing this to the neighbour boy when I was about 6 years old. When I 'landed' on him during this game he went crying to his Mum and wouldn't speak to me for days afterwards...
Not exactly the kind of validation I was looking for.
:-)
I know a woman who never dates a man unless they are actual or near-millionaires. She is the walking epitome of 'hypergamy' to say the least :-)
She won't date a guy if he is not of a so-called 'glamorous' profession, i.e. doctor, lawyer, CEO of a Fortune-500 company.
The weird thing is, she has dated a lot of millionaires.
And she herself has a not-so-lucrative job.
But...she does come from a fairly well-to-do family.
This is important to her - she wants to perpetuate the 'comfortable living' she was used to growing up.
Is this a bad thing in of itself?
Or is this the sort of thing that makes a man run for the hills?
The whole point of the etiquette on dates, as I touched upon in 'Going Dutch' is really a sort of dance that men and women enact to see what 'fits' in the financial arena.
Given that an important part of the whole mating game is about provision of material goods for a 'unit', otherwise known as a family.
So, it follows that a woman has to choose the right kind of man for her, in this important aspect of her future, whatever her own earning capacity.
She may not see wealth as an important part of a LTR. Or, she may see it as priority number one.
The trick is, the man has to be in agreement with her thoughts on this.
If Ms. Golddigger encounters Mr. Money-no-object who is happy to throw money at Ms. Golddigger, then surely there is no problem?
But what happens if Mr. Rich is also Mr. Miserly?
I fell out with the woman above when she met a wealthy man and on their second date they went shopping for ingredients for a meal she had planned to cook for him. According to her, he was so miserly on the shopping trip, he wanted to buy the cheapest version of everything.
After that date, she never saw him again, despite the fact that he was a great guy in every other respect, even in her own estimation.
When I pointed out that
1. He may well have become a millionaire as a result of his frugality and
2. This was only the second date! She could have stuck it out a bit longer to 'assess' a little bit more before rejecting him
She told me I was wrong.
She was a 'princess' looking for a rich man who would shower her with money. Any hint at a miserly streak and she was out of there...
No allowance for the possibility that this man was just protecting himself from possible golddiggers.
Many men will say that they don't care what a woman's earning capacity is. If she is feminine and attractive and young enough to have a family and nurturing and compassionate, etc, they will commit to her.
Is this accurate?
Really. Is this the whole truth?
Why then are so many women having to work even when they don't wish to after kids arrive?
Is this a reflection of a particularly severe economic crisis, or men's abandonment of their traditional role whilst wishing to impose said traditional roles on women?
Can a man ever be sure that a woman really loves him and is not after his money?
Is there any way to tell other than a super-long courtship ala Prince William and Mark Zuckerberg before marrying the woman?
Seriously, are extra-long courtships the only way?
Have we all in fact lost our way?
53 comments:
This post reminds me of two friends I've known since high school . . .
One of them is the daughter of a millionaire who would very much like to marry a man with whom she could raise their children the way she herself was raised. Note that he would not be the only one in the family bringing in income. She has a good job herself. So she's not a gold digger, but she loves the way she was brought up (with French lessons, trips to Europe every two years and other privileges, along with a house in a good neighborhood, a big backyard, pets, etc.) and would like to replicate that for her children. And I think that she has a good chance of achieving this because of the circles she has moved in all her life. Her single status has less to do with unreasonable standards than with her love of being single.
My other friend's ambition is to be what she calls a "shopping housewife." That is, a woman who not only doesn't have to work, but also gets to shop all day with her husband's credit cards. Unlike my first friend, this one is probably not going to get her wish! :P
@ST
This is important to her - she wants to perpetuate the 'comfortable living' she was used to growing up. Is this a bad thing in of itself? Or is this the sort of thing that makes a man run for the hills?
I should have been clear that this is what I was responding to when I shared the vastly different cases of my two friends. :)
Many men will say that they don't care what a woman's earning capacity is. If she is feminine and attractive and young enough to have a family and nurturing and compassionate, etc, they will commit to her. . . . Why then are so many women having to work even when they don't wish to after kids arrive?
This will have less to do with individual men's preferences than with the economy of where they live. One of my friends reminds me over and over that wages stopped going up in the United States in 1973, which means that was the last year a man could afford to support a family on one income. It used to be that a husband could be a taxi driver and be able to pay off the mortgage in a few years, let his wife stay home, support their children by himself, etc. But that is impossible these days.
Remember the wife who said on my blog that her husband told her before they were married that he didn't want to climb the corporate ladder, so they would always be poor? CD thought that was appalling! Hahahaha! I do understand where she was coming from . . . But it's true that she wouldn't have had such a strong reaction to such a statement fifty years ago.
It's more than possible to raise a family on one income. Women do it all the time including myself. (Despite what the sphere claims, there are plenty of us who do not get child support or government incentives.)
In the case of a man who makes a less than average income, it's actually to his benefit if the wife doesn't work. If you factor in clothing for work, high end hair styles and manicures, transportation costs and prepared meals, and taxation the advantages aren't great. Coupon clipping and shopping for sales are easier for those who have the time. And I speak from experience.
I married as a teen, so I've been poor, and I've been very wealthy. Wealthy is better, lol. But, I always roll my eyes when I hear that old chestnut about how it's impossible. Not only is it possible, you can do so quite nicely, if modestly.
Spacetraveler said...
"No allowance for the possibility that this man was just protecting himself from possible golddiggers."
It's funny... when I got married, I was quite poor, although potential earnings were quite good. A lot of that depended on my own skills in selling software.
Yet, money never entered the discussion about marriage, except that my wife's accounting degree made her the perfect administrator of the household budget. We never talked about a prenup, there simply was no guarantee that I would do as well as I did, in the 90s. In retrospect, this was most likely one of the stupidest things I've ever done, but love can make one stupid... the thought that we might divorce and so on, never really was considered.
What you're describing is less the golddigger and far more the 'entitlement princess'. My wife KNEW I was poor before she became my wife. She KNEW she was going to have to be frugal for several years, minimum, and she was. Had I not married her, and was still single after my business grew rapidly, I would have done exactly as the man in your example. Act the miser, it keeps most princesses from attempting to set their claws into you... because I taught both my sons the exact same idea, and they encountered PLENTY of women who knew they were from a wealthy family. Those princesses were obvious to my sons, because I had prepared them for certain target status from women looking to be a rich man's trophy.
Even more to the point, I suffered (and I do mean 'suffered') through years of subtle and unsubtle flirtings, because I had money. That simply became a game for me and the wife, especially when the females were blatantly advertising to become a mistress. Gah.
In one viewpoint, I am the lucky one in this marriage... she never even spent one moment thinking about divorce. Murder... well, I'm sure I gave her a couple reasons.
In another viewpoint, she says she is the lucky one, that she married a good man who became a good rich man. We had an agreement, back when a dollar bought you something real: any expenditure over $100 had to be approved by both her and me. She vetoed LOTS of stuff. I never have. Not once. Money actually means nothing to me, and I've often proved it. Consequently, she has a dozen ruby rings, and I still don't have a 1947 Indian Chief motorcycle.
And I'm ok with that. So far.
The Navy Corpsman
@ Bellita,
Your two examples are perfect for this post!
The first girl, I too am sure will get the millionaire she wants. And actually, I don't see anything wrong with her desire for this. If she brings something to the table, why not?
The other girl, on the other hand, unless she is a super girl, I fear she may struggle...
But I might be wrong...there are afterall men who are looking for exactly this type of woman. There must be, right?
"One of my friends reminds me over and over that wages stopped going up in the United States in 1973, which means that was the last year a man could afford to support a family on one income."
This sentence really frightenend me.
So I am soooo glad JV chimed in and put me at ease LOL.
1973? What?!
This can't be right, can it?
Surely you meant 2003??
@ JV,
"In the case of a man who makes a less than average income, it's actually to his benefit if the wife doesn't work."
I have never looked at it this way before, JV. But it makes sense.
The other more common theme I am somehow more familiar with is the chilcare dilemma. I couldn't believe just how expensive childcare is! When a friend with kids told me, I almost passed out - this is no exaggeration, I can assure you.
I seriously wondered why she wasn't at home looking after her kids herself - all her wages seemed to go into childcare...
@ NC,
I could listen to stories of your marriage all day!
I do think both you and your wife are very lucky to have found each other. VERY lucky :-)
It's funny how in several languages I know of, 'lucky' and 'happy' are in fact the same word...
@ST
The first girl, I too am sure will get the millionaire she wants. And actually, I don't see anything wrong with her desire for this. If she brings something to the table, why not?
Let me add that even if she decided to stop working to raise the children full time, she would still have her upbringing behind her. Her husband won't worry that his children are not being raised properly.
The other more common theme I am somehow more familiar with is the chilcare dilemma. I couldn't believe just how expensive childcare is!
Oh, anything to do with children that parents are too busy to do themselves will be expensive!
ST, you know that I work as a tutor. When the global recession came to my country last year, I lost some clients because parents finally figured out that was cheaper for one of them to quit his or her job and take over the cooking, childminding and tutoring duties at home! Not so good for me . . . but of course, very good for the children.
Child care costs are prohibitive. (Can't beleive I left that out.lol)
Bellita's friend isn't wrong. You can't raise a family at the same level on one income as decades past. (That's a whole other story on inflation, printing money out of thin air, and over regulation)but for an organized and determined family, it's doable.
Bellita,
How typically generous of you to say that parents doing home-tutoring is good for the kids!
Even if it meant you lose your clients. I am sorry you lost some clients...
You of course will have no such dilemma as a parent. I already know you are planning to homeschool.
Which I admire about you. I could never do that, except for helping out with homework, maybe free piano lessons (hahaha! - I think I'll make 'em pay if they are naughty once in a while).
JV, almost all of the Christian women blogs I know of touch on this subject of managing a household budget on a shoestring. Because they usually have large families and struggle financially.
But somehow they seem to survive. And they are happy.
Which seems better to me than the rich and unhappy people.
But perhaps it's not as simple as that...
Question: Is it ever wrong for a woman to reject a man if his projected earning power is less than desirable?
That is, if he says something like that woman's fiancé on Bellita's blog, who declared that he was planning on plunging his family into poverty even before it was formed.
Isn't it part of her duty to safeguard some baseline standards?
Note: I think this is not the same as being a golddigger.
The reason I ask this is, once marriage vows are taken, there is no going back, except for extreme reasons, right? So a woman can't say 15 years later, well, he turned out to be a no-good provider, if he showed signs of this before they got married...
Isn't she right to choose carefully on every level?
@ST
like that woman's fiancé on Bellita's blog, who declared that he was planning on plunging his family into poverty even before it was formed.
I must stick up for him now because I'm actually friends with his wife in real life! Without divulging any details about their personal life, let me assure you that he is neither lazy nor irresponsible! But let's stick to what his wife has revealed about what he thinks of money in my thread:
"I want very much for my kids to be homeschooled. That's probably going to mean my wife is going to have to give up her career and stay home with the kids. But I have no interest in climbing the corporate ladder, so we'll probably always be poor."
There are several ideas tied up in that. CD just tripped up on the one about the career ladder. :P But if you think about it, any couple that does not use artificial birth control and has only one breadwinner in the family will be "poor" . . . but only in the sense that they will not be able to give their ten children the same things another couple in the same income bracket might be able to give their two children. And if most of these things are luxuries rather than necessities, then they are not a big deal. Nor will their absence mean that the husband has been shirking his duties.
Here's an example . . . If my first friend has ten children with her millionaire husband, the family probably won't get to make as many trips to Europe as she'd like. But would you say that it is because her husband isn't making enough money? ;)
Having said that, I do see your greater point . . .
Question: Is it ever wrong for a woman to reject a man if his projected earning power is less than desirable?
A few months ago, following the Manosphere guideline that the men who are willing to commit to a woman are already the best she can get, I would have said yes. If only non-millionaires want to marry her, then aiming for something higher will be completely futile and only reveal her inflated opinion of herself.
But now that I'm exploring a new theme . . . namely, the idea that settling is as bad for the one who is settled for as for the settler . . . I say no. :) In this specific case, if a man is going to be the main breadwinner (or even the sole breadwinner), then his earning power is as relevant to his future marriage as his health.
It's not a greedy concept when you put children in the picture.
It is not unreasonable for a woman to want a man who is a high earner.
This is especially true for traditional marriages. Income becomes based on what the man earns and that impacts how you raise the children. Men of the sphere can bristle, but if I had a daughter, I'd be telling her to consider the earning potential of any man she was considering marriage too. That's not gold digging. That's hard cold reality.
Now, the less "nice" aspect of this involves status. ST, you once wrote that a woman's status is not tied in with her husband, I'll have to disagree. I live in a place where blue collar and white collar are pretty mixed in. But several years ago, this wasn't the case. My husband needed some help with starting a business up, and I'm pretty good at that, lol. Unlike other ventures, this was very blue collar. My time spent there was an eye opener. Suddenly I was treated by customers and businesses linked with ours very differently than how I'm used to. My IQ seemed to have dropped by 30 points, and men saw me as fair game, despite my marital status.(Class snobbery pertaining to sluttitude was alive and well back then,)It's something to consider.
“…Many men will say that they don't care what a woman's earning capacity is…Is this accurate? Really. Is this the whole truth?...”
No. Her earning capacity is an asset to the family as a whole. The more she might contribute in this area the better off and stronger the family unit will be. So yes I do care about that.
More importantly however before getting too serious I try to discern a woman’s ability to manage money responsibly. Can she stick to a budget? Is she over her head in debt – particularly credit card debt. Has she saved or invested anything?
Unfortunately in this day and age most women will sooner share their bed sheets than their balance sheets with a man.
Grasshopper
Ah Bell,
I see your point. Actually, my question was incomplete. I should have added at the end, 'if the woman does not so desire..'
Like the millionaire who wouldn't mind showering money on a golddigging woman, a woman can sometimes not really mind about the financial state of things before entering a marriage...if she is like this, fine.
But I think most women are not like this...for the simple reason that they are often thinking about future children, and no-one would want to see their children suffer, even if they themselves would not mind taking a finacial hit.
So I think your friend is unusual for agreeing to her husband's plan.
But in fact she may be one of the lucky ones. Some women do not get this warning...and are plunged into poverty by accident (which is perhaps something that can happen to anyone and I agree that in this situation a woman really ought to be 100% supportive of her husband) or because the man lied, which is infinitely worse...
But even then, can one break marriage vows?? I dunno.
Tricky...
@ JV,
I think on reflection, I agree with you that it is right that a woman 'choose' well.
Knowing that at any given point even a millionaire can end up a pauper.
But I guess it depends on the tastes of the woman. Some women live very simply anyway, so for them even the poorest man would not present a problem. For others who have more expensive tastes, even a high earner may be 'poor'.
I guess it's all relative...
@ Grasshopper,
Would you expect your wife to work? If a woman has worked up till the point you meet and marry her, and she wants to stop working to have the family, and say not work until the kids are at least aged 10 or so, would that be OK with you? Would you reject a woman who never wants to work again after marrying you?
If she is to work, what about your children?
Would you be OK with the fact that they would therefore be effectively raised by strangers? Or if you are lucky, grandma/auntie, etc?
Why did I get the impression that most men held the opposite view to yours and don't care even the least bit about a woman's earning capacity/intelligence/degree?
Perhaps I peruse Manosphere blogs too much - is that the problem?
All I hear is, 'why won't these silly women stay home and look after their own darn kids?'
(Which, strangely enough is a sentiment I agree with, which is why I know I would never marry a man who expects me to work full-time when I have kids with him).
I am a little confused by your comment - are you an outlier on this, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say?
"Unfortunately in this day and age most women will sooner share their bed sheets than their balance sheets with a man."
This is such a damning indictment of modern womanhood. I can't tell you how shameful this makes me feel as a woman.
How horrible for us women that this is what men think of us?
Is any other woman feeling the pain here?
Agh, this is bad.
But perhaps well-deserved though. Can't argue with the truth.
:-(
@ Grasshopper
Very wise.
Spacetraveller said...
"Is any other woman feeling the pain here?"
This is part of the price you pay for equality, true equality. If men judge women traditionally by looks, they cannot complain when women do the same. If women judge men by earnings potential, they cannot complain when men do the same.
Of course, to some, this is why beer and wine were invented.
Fifteen or more years ago, the economy was so good, companies all over the world had to compete for competent employees. Salaries got ridiculous, and no one really sat down and negotiated a pre-nup unless you were already a millionaire. Part of the reason the entire MGTOW movement came to be, was that so many men were introduced to the 'family court' system in the 90s and 2000s. If that is equality, more and more men would rather do without, entirely.
Tell me, ladies... any of you. Which is worse, judging by looks, or judging by money?
The Navy Corpsman
@ NC,
"Tell me, ladies... any of you. Which is worse, judging by looks, or judging by money?"
Judging by money is far worse, (and in fact is not even natural)and wouldn't even make sense, because no matter how much a woman earns, THAT is not the source of her self-importance.
Being able to attract and keep a man is.
This is the Truth, as I perceive it, NC.
Sure, there are variations on a theme, but this is the general principle, no?
If women felt differently, we wouldn't be women...
I never wanted 'equality', that was chosen for me before I was born.
As an adult with my own views and mind, I want 'harmony'.
But since I've got 'equality', that may interfere with my desire for 'harmony', granted...
The two may be mutually exclusive...
@NC
Tell me, ladies... any of you. Which is worse, judging by looks, or judging by money?
Judging by looks is far worse! How superficial can someone be! ;)
Seriously, I don't think ST or any female commenter has been advocating for pure equality here. We're stuck with the bill for feminism just as everyone else is these days, but just because we're helping to pay it, that doesn't mean we wouldn't return it to the sleazy manufacturer if we had the chance.
I think you're rubbing the wrong women's faces into this, NC. (If that is what you are doing.)
If men judge women traditionally by looks, they cannot complain when women do the same. If women judge men by earnings potential, they cannot complain when men do the same.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you saying men and women should have the exact same standards for each other? If so, then I am confused because that advice is impossible to square next to all the men who say they care less about a woman's college and degree than they do about her cooking skills. There are supposed to be different standards.
“…I am a little confused by your comment - are you an outlier on this, or have I misunderstood what you are trying to say?...”
When I was much younger I would have said yes I work and my wife can be a stay at home full time mom. To be honest I thought taking this position would increase my SMV and as a result I would attract a better class of woman.
Unfortunately, just the opposite occurred time and again. I seemed to attract women not interested in working at all. I seemed to draw the lazy ones many who seemed to be constantly looking for an out or excuses not to put the work into anything.
To be fair they had their charms too, one so much so I proposed. It was only when we subsequently sat down and had a serious discussion as to how we as a married couple would manage finances did I get an eye opener as to how bad she was in this area and how that would be a liability to the family I wanted to raise.
I never thought of a woman’s role in the family finances until reality hit me in the face that day. There were other more serious issues and we never married. Dodged a bullet I think.
When the kids are young ideally I’d want my wife to stay home with them full time. As they got older the decision as to when she would return to work will be one we would make as a couple taking all things into consideration. Kids sick a lot and we’ve broken the bank on their medical bills maybe the wife returns to work sooner. Want to help the kids with college – considering the cost maybe she better start working sooner rather than later. Grandpa left us an endowment maybe not so much pressure to return to work.
Begs the question though, if the kids are older and in school, what is she doing to contribute to the family’s welfare if she is not working? Household chores are not a full time job.
I am sorry my last post caused some pain. That was not my intention. I think the world of the women here in the Sactuary, B, JV and yourself ST. You have the courage to take on some difficult issues with a fair and open mind as to the man’s point of view. That is truly remarkable.
Grasshopper
Spacetraveller said...
"I never wanted 'equality', that was chosen for me before I was born.
As an adult with my own views and mind, I want 'harmony'.
But since I've got 'equality', that may interfere with my desire for 'harmony', granted...
The two may be mutually exclusive..."
Not exclusive, but rare. The harmony you seek is not with the entire male gender, but with one particular male. Hence this blog, where you are trying to understand where things went awry, in your life and in society as a whole.
The whole MGTOW was started because men perceived that women only wanted equality in the issues that benefited them, and not in the places where they didn't want to tread. But it really got going when men realized that it wasn't equality, but dominance, that was the ultimate goal of the current wave of feminism. Men started to understand that putting women on a pedestal, having a special type of respect for the ladies was being exploited for nefarious uses.
Understand me, equality is a good thing, in my humble opinion, but like anything good, it has a price. Freedom ain't free. If that equality means that men will start to see women as breadwinners (or not) and women see men as handsome (or not), then what is wrong with that? Isn't that true equality? Hypergamy may be sneered at, but it's eminently practical... and has absolutely nothing to do with love, unless you love money. Lookism is merely an analog of health, certain biological clues that tell men how healthy a woman is for childbearing... and has nothing to do with love, unless you can't see past the breasts of a female.
I do find it interesting that you and Bellita disagree on which is worse. I submit to you both, that these criteria upon we base our judgments of potential mates are simply the product of the human mind. I'm fairly certain humans in the Stone Age had different criteria. But, I also submit to you that equality has to be across all issues, not just those that benefit women. If women cannot recognize that marrying for money is bad (albeit practical), then there is not true equality. If men cannot recognize that marrying for looks is bad (but having a practical side), there is no true equality.
And as I have said before... vive le difference! If I wanted a woman who was a man, I would have been gay. If I wanted full on, no holds barred equality, I would most likely never have gotten married. I like women, nearly all women, excepting the real hypocrites and liars.
But I only fell in love with one.
The Navy Corpsman
@Grasshopper
Begs the question though, if the kids are older and in school, what is she doing to contribute to the family’s welfare if she is not working? Household chores are not a full time job.
This is a valid point. Housework is no longer the full-time job it used to be. A woman who has figured out a routine for herself and practiced it enough will find she has a lot of spare time left over. Look at all the housewives with more than five children who are still able to maintain Web sites teaching other women how to stretch their budgets and run efficient homes!
The flipside is that the stigma against "working mothers" has lost its basis. These days, a woman could run a small business from home or take freelance work without neglecting her family. Any modern women who think of marriage as a meal ticket really are quite lazy!
Having said that, there is a certain lifestyle that requires that one parent be "not working" all the time. Many school-aged children are signed up for lessons, for instance, that require them to be driven across town and back. I have friends whose second daughter is a very promising ballerina. They enrolled her in a dance studio that is a forty-five minute drive from their home. That's a significant demand on the "stay-at-home" parent's schedule. And that's for only one of their five children!
@NC
If women cannot recognize that marrying for money is bad (albeit practical), then there is not true equality. If men cannot recognize that marrying for looks is bad (but having a practical side), there is no true equality.
Are they still bad if someone is neither aiming for "true equality" nor convinced that such a thing is possible?
Pardon my confusion one more time, NC, but you seem to think that equality is an ideal that both sexes must strive for, and I can't understand why!
Bellita said...
"I think you're rubbing the wrong women's faces into this, NC. (If that is what you are doing.)"
Perhaps I am. But, think upon this Bellita... women have been rubbing men's faces into the sins of their fathers and grandfathers, for nearly five decades. And if you go back to voting rights for women, it's been a century.
Whereas I'm pointing out that equality between the genders is a problem RIGHT NOW. Women (including yourself and Spacetraveler) want equality... but only in those areas or issues that you actually benefit. This is something I believe quite strongly... and I suspect the vast majority of men believe the same; namely, if women want equality in the workplace, earning the same pay for the same job, that's perfectly fine by me. But, equality means women get to fight in combat roles in the military. Equality means that women don't get alimony after a divorce, just because she stopped working after the kids arrived.
And if you don't like those ideas, you're welcome to disagree with me. But you better not claim that women get paid less than men... those statistics are way way out of date. When adjusted for actual hours worked, for overtime, and for the fact that men traditionally take dangerous jobs that pay premium wages, the difference in pay comes out to around 5%, which turns out to be statistically insignificant.
What does all that have to do with which is worse, judging by looks or by money? Simply, that both are bad from a purely generic look at marriage. We cannot possibly generalize to all men, nor to all women. Yes, you, Spacetraveler, just visiting, and I suspect Charming Disarray, all are outliers on the continuum of womanhood. From the standpoint of men, money is not the way to judge a man's suitability for marriage. Same for women vis-a-vis her looks. Money can disappear, looks can fade. Neither is an accurate predictor of being a good husband or wife.
And to paraphrase Forrest Gump, superficial is as superficial does. I'm trying to point out that this is the human condition. It is what we are, and the only thing we can do is remind ourselves of the illogical nature of such a condition. I accept that I look ugly, but when I still lived in the suburbs of a big city, I was the target of many seduction attempts, purely because I had money.
That's pretty damned superficial, Bellita. Especially so, since I was (and am) married. But, I accept that as the way women are... part of their psyche. Most women I know do not care for men who talk to their breasts, but they accept (or resign themselves) that is how men are, part of their psyche.
Most feminists claim they want true equality, but not where it does not benefit them. Consequently, men's rights advocates turn that around and claim that women either take all, or none of it. 21st century politics, extreme polarization, and no dialog leaves the majority of humanity swinging in the wind.
So again, tell me ladies... Is the war in the sexual marketplace, or is the war between the sexes?
The Navy Corpsman
@NC
think upon this Bellita... women have been rubbing men's faces into the sins of their fathers and grandfathers, for nearly five decades. And if you go back to voting rights for women, it's been a century.
So now you're evening the score? I see that you do believe in "equality"! But surely in this thread, if not in the real world, we can avoid holding against each other the sins we didn't commit?
Back to your real point . . . Honestly, NC, I don't think that men and women could ever be equal. They can be "one flesh" in a marriage, yes, but never "equal." And inasmuch as your arguments are hinged on your impression that I have the opposite conviction, I have trouble understanding what you're getting at.
(If it helps you see where I am coming from, let me divulge my dirty little secret . . . I don't vote. I refuse even to register. I think universal suffrage was a mistake.)
From the standpoint of men, money is not the way to judge a man's suitability for marriage. Same for women vis-a-vis her looks. Money can disappear, looks can fade. Neither is an accurate predictor of being a good husband or wife.
I think you imagine we're giving money more weight than we actually are. It's certainly not the #1 criterion, even if it is a practical consideration that should be looked at.
@ Grasshopper,
Thanks for clarifying. That was helpful. Although I am sorry things didn't work out with that fiancée of yours.
By the way, don't feel bad - your comment was fair. I was just mortified that women as a population have such a poor collective rating by men, that's all.
Not so much an eye-opener as an eye-poker lol.
You know, as I said to someone else on his blog, I never dated a woman before, so I really wouldn't know what men see when they encounter women in the SMP. So really I have to believe you men when you report back to us womenfolk what you see. When we have complaints about you men, you can trust that we wouldn't be shy about reporting back to you guys :-)
Bellita,
You are absolutely right about the SAHM thing. These women who do the SAHM thing are far from lazy. They may not be in their former job at a remote office pushing papers all day, but they are still being useful and perhaps earning well, and at the same time because they are at home, or at least not far from hime, their children are not losing out. It's a win-win situation, but I imagine it takes a certain amount of hard work and imagination and creativity to achieve...
You know, I think you are more honest than me not to vote. I am so disinterested in politics that my vote is a total waste of a vote. In the end, I just vote for the guy with the swagger and the alpha qualities...
Just kidding...
But there really is an element of voting just because I have the right to vote. I almost feel guilty if I don't vote because I keep thinking of those women who fought for this right for me. When in reality, I don't really care for this right all that much...
Perhaps I should just be honest like you and not vote at all.
I am sure though, that there will come a day when I really will be interested in politics, in which case I will truly appreciate my right to vote. Sadly that day is not here yet.
@Grasshopper
Don't feel bad . Glad to see you back commenting. I'd missed your insights.
@NC
I'd have to agree with money as a consideration but not the main motivation. In a non traditional marriage, I think it probably is considered even less, as both people would be working. Though, as has already been mentioned, many wives are working from home, or able to contribute financially when the kids are older.
In a way, I think it might be easier to be judged on money, especially as women get older. A dollar has the ability to be earned. Beauty diminishes. In fact, I think that's been one of the complaints in the sphere. Women are treating their earning potential as an attraction trigger for men. Apparently, the men have a few things to say about that. I'm conflicted on it. As I get older my hamster wants to believe that my ability to generate wealth is as or more important than beauty. Sadly, no. Not fair or equal, but ...reality.
@JV….. thanks I needed that!
I guess I am in the minority or as ST puts it an outlier on this issue but I do think a woman’s earning potential adds to her SMV.
This view does not come from any feminist indoctrination but from my personal experience as I related earlier.
Grasshopper
@ Grasshopper,
As a woman with adequate earning 'potential', or even good earning 'reality', I SHOULD be pleased that there are men with your views.
What surprises me immensely is that it am not.
That is honestly irritating to me, I can assure you!
:-)
The reason I am not as thrilled about your view on this as I should be is that I would actually prefer to be 'wifed up' (for want of a better term!) for my womanly skills rather than my ability to work (outside the home) which I now see more and more as a manly skill.
So yes I can work (I got the proof :-) but I don't want to be defined by that...
Does that make sense?
It sounds illogical even to me, but I am being totally frank.
I wonder if I shall change my view on this in due course? I dunno...
I suspect I have always felt like this, even though I have seemingly acted otherwise by working really hard at my profession.
Like I said, it doesn't make sense, even to me.
You know what's strange? When I hear of these super-rich women who are 'divorced raped' by their poorer ex-husbands, I feel sorry for the woman in a way that is totally different from the kind of 'sorry' I feel for a man who is similarly 'divorce raped'.
I am positive the women here can understand what I am talking about.
Anyone care to help me out?
I can't express myself properly on this issue...
Need some feminine help!
As you know ST attraction is a complicated multi-faceted thing. I see good earning potential in a woman as a plus but lack of it is not a deal breaker.
Maybe hard working is a better way to describe the quality. A neighbor’s wife has a garden I see her working constantly in. She raises all kinds of veggies that I am sure contribute to reducing her family’s grocery bill as well as healthier meals for them. She is not earning money doing this of course but it is an example of what I am trying to describe.
(Note to self: Add Green Thumb to your list of desirable qualities in a woman).
Grasshopper
Bellita said...
"Pardon my confusion one more time, NC, but you seem to think that equality is an ideal that both sexes must strive for, and I can't understand why!"
A bit disingenuous Miss Bellita, but more of an ad hominem. What I said was, if 'true' equality is desired, then you have to take the bad with the good. I also said vive le difference, a common phrase borrowed from the French to signify that men and women ARE different, and thank goodness for that difference.
Things like hypergamy are bad when the intent behind it is bad, from either a societal or personal standpoint. Some people believe hypergamy is perfectly practical, logical and sensible. Much of society disagrees with that. Many people might decry judging on looks, but there is a 10-20 billion dollar industry serving the beauty wishes of the human female. I'd say that is proof that society accepts such silly standards.
Rats, that last comment at 8:14 AM was me.
The Navy Corpsman
Bellita said...
"So now you're evening the score? I see that you do believe in "equality"! But surely in this thread, if not in the real world, we can avoid holding against each other the sins we didn't commit?"
I believe that if we, as a society, are going to advocate equality, society has to be truly equal, or we're just playing at social reform. Perhaps I was rubbing your face in something that really trips your trigger? I was not blaming you nor any woman posting here for the mistakes made in the name of equality. Nor am I willing to accept the blame for 5000 years of patriarchy, nor accept credit for 5000 years of civilization. I'm trying to shine a mirror at us all, realizing that there are still things about traditional gender interactions that we should strive to correct, in my humble opinion. I'm also trying to shine a little light on how we, as individuals and as entire genders, view each other.
I recognize that you're an outlier, as Spacetraveler puts it... a traditionalist. I noted this earlier in this thread. But, I want you to see her comment that judging by money (whether male or female) is worse, in HER opinion. It's little points like these that set the tone for complete misunderstandings between the genders, and can easily result in what has been called the 'War Between the Sexes' for fifty years, or more.
You also said:
"I think you imagine we're giving money more weight than we actually are. It's certainly not the #1 criterion, even if it is a practical consideration that should be looked at."
Never imagined you gave it any weight at all. What I have been trying to get across, is that a small amount of judging is human nature: that we base our attraction to another human being on those things tangible and intangible, BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN. Right or wrong, it is what we are. Declaring you would only marry a millionaire is going too far, in my opinion, just as declaring I would only marry a supermodel would be too far. Declaring you would only marry a man who can support you and the children you have together, that's the practical, logical face of it. Summers in Monaco... well, if it comes about, great. Demanding it? No.
Wanting a physically attractive woman (to me)? Fairly practical, I've touched on the health issue, and there are other points to it. Stating that I won't marry fat chicks? Downright wrong.
But the truth of BOTH these stereotypical behaviors, is that they have been going on for as long as there have been humans on this Earth. And the truth is, nothing any one individual says or does, will change that. My question about which was worse was aimed at pointing out there are differences even within genders about these behaviors. To understand ourselves, is to understand humanity as a whole, a little better.
The Navy Corpsman
just visiting said...
"In a way, I think it might be easier to be judged on money, especially as women get older. A dollar has the ability to be earned. Beauty diminishes. In fact, I think that's been one of the complaints in the sphere. Women are treating their earning potential as an attraction trigger for men. Apparently, the men have a few things to say about that. I'm conflicted on it. As I get older my hamster wants to believe that my ability to generate wealth is as or more important than beauty. Sadly, no. Not fair or equal, but ...reality."
Well said... today's women have been taught that a job and so on will get them treated by men better. Most men see that sentence and say, "Why? I've had a job since I was 12, big deal."
Read any pickup artists' blog, and you'll come away with the sense that men are attracted to women who are comfortable with being women, and not to women attempting to be men. How difficult is that to believe? Science has proven to us, that men and women think differently, even in what were assumed to be completely gender neutral situations. Instead of embracing the differences, instead of respecting what we are, we've allowed a few people to tell us how to think about each other, and worse, we've let them pass laws doing that very thing. I've said it a dozen times on this blog and elsewhere... my wife and I are different, but we're equals.
Yes, beauty fades. But money can disappear, as the world has learned to its' misery, the past four years. Jobs can evaporate and practically speaking, ruin a marriage. My wife tells me she knew I was "going places" and that I was quite a catch, back in the day. Such talk makes me feel good, but I'm not so sure. By the same token, she was hit on by three men at the same party, all while being eight months pregnant with our first child... there is a huge truth to the 'radiance' a pregnant woman possesses. Not to mention she has always been a knockout. Still is.
Always will be.
The Navy Corpsman
@NC
A bit disingenuous Miss Bellita, but more of an ad hominem.
It was not intended as an ad hominem. Having read it again, I don't even think it counts as one, but I'll apologize for offending you, anyway. When I don't understand where people are coming from, my tone can go all over the place. But I really just had no idea what you were trying to say and was putting out feelers.
What I said was, if 'true' equality is desired, then you have to take the bad with the good.
And the source of my confusion was that "true" equality is NOT desired . . . at least not by me. And I just reread the comments by everyone else before your first comment about equality and think it's safe to say that no one else was agitating for it either.
I believe that if we, as a society, are going to advocate equality, society has to be truly equal, or we're just playing at social reform.
You already know that I disagree with that belief of yours, but the real source of the conflict here is that I don't think this post of thread is "playing at social reform." So while I can see what you're opposing, I don't think your opponent is here.
We're really just talking about whether, for women, a man's earning power is a valid or a superficial consideration, and how, for men, a woman's true attitude toward money can be determined. Pretty much the only nod toward "equality" is the tacit agreement that a husband and wife must agree about the value of money, how to spend it, whether there should be two incomes, etc.
I want you to see her comment that judging by money (whether male or female) is worse, in HER opinion . . . My question about which was worse was aimed at pointing out there are differences even within genders about these behaviors.
If I seemed to ignore ST's answer to you, that's because I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make. (So I'm completely lost when it comes to relating this to "equality.") The Socratic method is wasted on those who can't follow leading questions. And as embarrassing as it is to admit this, NC, sometimes things have to be spelled out for me. (As my mother likes to say, "Bellita is intelligent, but not smart.") I'm not trolling you. I just really don't get it.
So let me go back to an earlier comment you left:
"If women cannot recognize that marrying for money is bad (albeit practical), then there is not true equality."
To me, the assumption is that the women you are currently arguing with want "true equality." And if we indeed want "true equality," then we will not "marry for money." But the assumption already misses the mark. (Unless ST and JV would like to contradict me on this point?)
This also implies that marrying for money is okay if people don't care for equality, when the reality is that there are other arguments against it that have nothing to do with the ideal of equality.
@ NC
I get your point were equality is concerened. If a society wants to be equal, the assumption would be that a woman would seek to develop that aspect in herself. Though that would mean that if women were judged in such a way, beauty would be less important. The natures of men and women run counter to us being judged the same.
I also get where marrying for money can end up biting some one on the rear end. It doesn't account for financial ruin, or unpleasant personality.
But gold diggers aside, I doubt a woman would marry a man on money alone anymore than a man would marry for beauty alone.
As has been stated on this blog, women will also take a chance on a mans potential. Risky, but a chance some women will take. I haven't met a man yet who was willing to take a risk on a womans potential beauty.
I think part of what;s rankling is the greed issue. How much is too much? A man having the ability to support a family vs French lessons and a fabulous lifestyle. Would a woman toss over a great guy if a less than great guy with more money was part of the picture? It happens.
The equivalent being, would a guy toss over a great girl, if a less than great girl who is more attractive was in the picture. It happens.
I'm more of a venture start up type myself. I'm willing to look at potentials and help develop.
@ NC,
So to answer Bellita's question as to my views on equality, I have to agree that I don't want equality either.
I have to say that I do not agree with your statement that men and women are different but equal. Although I do believe it is true. It is just not my truth.
I believe that men and women are equal only before God.
On Earth, men and women are complementary, different, antonyms of each other, anything but equal.
I can sympathise with Bellita's confusion with your arguments because I have the same problem somewhat. But where Bellita and I diverge from each other (and I think JV is with Bell on this one) is the issue of whether women should be judged on looks or their ability to earn money. Or rather, which is worse for us, to be more accurate. I suspect NC that you interpret the 'dissonance' in Bell's and JV's answers as 'picking and choosing' which bits of 'equality' they like and rejecting the rest. I thought you might have a point, until I realised that in fact in the good old days of succesful and 'arranged' marriages in the West, eg. in Victorian England, many wealthy men picked similarly 'well-born' ladies as wives - and her looks were actually irrelevant in the entire process. She just needed to be young (and therefore fertile) and that was it. Her family money was more of a consideration than her looks. Sure, it may not have been HER money, (most likely her father's money) so not strictly speaking her own ability to earn money, but the principle was the same. And similarly, for the lower classes, a woman who could sew or bake or knit was in high demand because even if these skills were not used to earn money outside the home, they still earned money of sorts, because the family would not need to procure these skills from outside the home as is so common now. So again a 'handy' woman was more valued than simply a beautiful one. So whilst my answer may have been based on the 'animal instincts' side of the mating process (and I am sticking with this!) I think on further reflection, JV's and Bell's answers may have more bite to them because they take into consideration the fact that a woman is only really useful if she brings to the table something other than beauty - which is frankly ubiquitous - and doesn't make her special in of itself. I reckon my answer may have been a knee-jerk reaction of sorts. I am so keen to distance myself from a feministic point of view that I may overcompensate sometimes. I think in many ways I am more extremist than I should be, and I definitely do take the hard line on may issues, surprising even myself. I had this tendency of mine expose itself in a similar discussion I had with PVW.
Does all of this make sense to you?
If it does, you deserve a medal.
If it doesn't, join the club :-)
Because I tend to confuse myself whenever I try to argue a deeply-felt point :-)
@ Grasshopper,
I think you nail it on the head for me!
Bravo.
I could never quite put my finger on why I had such a confused view of this issue.
Hardworking is the word.
I would rather be known as 'hardworking' (at whatever the task may be) than as a specific career/job which for me may be exciting and fulfilling, but is not as self-defining for me as it would be for a man.
That's the key, for me, I suppose...
The example you give of the green-fingered lady is a great example. That's my ideal too.
Now PVW made a totally valid point on another thread that should my husband die, what would I do if I didn't work?
And I hope I made a good case that I am not at present or hopefully not ever skill-less. I still have the skills that saw me progress in my career. Even if that particular skill is lost over years of absence, there are many allied skills, or even new skills that can be learned and used to earn a living. And whilst I am not necessarily looking for a 'finished product' in a man or even less, a millionaire, I still expect the basic requirement of a man who can feed at least himself and one other. Given that for the moment at least, I can do this. Even with my inferior strength and stamina compared to him. The implication being, so why can't he, if not?
So though it may seem like a 'fitness test', it is actually a 'non-negotiable'. In many ways, this is my way of asking a man: What do YOU bring to the table? But by the time I need ever ask this question (not literally of course), the assumption would be of course that he would have already asked me this question in one form or another (again not literally, I would hope!) and would be happy with my answer - which he would be able to 'see' i.e. I am HIS idea of 'attractive', I am young (if that's what he wants), I am HIS idea of 'feminine', etc. For if each other's answer is 'wrong' then clearly we are not compatible.
@ ST
Yes, exactly. It's not about the career or education and feeling entitled empowered and liberated. It's about "handyness". Bringing more to the table than beauty. An ability to helpmeet if you will.
@ST
But where Bellita and I diverge from each other (and I think JV is with Bell on this one) is the issue of whether women should be judged on looks or their ability to earn money.
Since my answer to that question seems to be more important than I thought it was when I gave it, I think it's time to reveal that I didn't actually think about it when I said so. Did you notice the winking emoticon at the end? :P That was my way of signalling that it was a bit of a joke . . . Which I made because I thought the point NC was trying to make was that women are more superficial than men for judging on money, when it is looks which are the "real" superficial criterion.
But as I told CD when she tried to get me to say that an expectation of homeschooling is "unreasonable in and of itself," I don't care what random people's standards are when they don't affect me. Looks, money, homeschooling, whatever. It's my own that I have to worry about most, those of potential partners that I have to worry about second, and perhaps those of my dear friends that I have to worry about third.
I suspect NC that you interpret the 'dissonance' in Bell's and JV's answers as 'picking and choosing' which bits of 'equality' they like and rejecting the rest
If this is what NC is thinking, then no wonder he and I are failing to understand each other!
This reminds me of the time I registered for an Anne Rice fan forum to ask what I thought was a straightforward question about her novels, only to keep coming back for weeks just to explain to the regulars there that my question didn't mean what they thought it meant. In the end, I got my answer . . . not because they and I finally came to an understanding, but because one of them was really long-winded and happened to drop the answer in the middle of a thousand-word comment!
I am so keen to distance myself from a feministic point of view that I may overcompensate sometimes.
I think that women are either going to be easier on each other or harder than each other than men will ever be.
An American woman I know who works as a paralegal shared a surprising insight about misdiagnosed breast cancer cases. (Those in which women sue doctors for telling them they had breast cancer and making them undergo treatment, when they really didn't have it.) She said that if the woman is the plaintiff, the worst juror to have is another woman of similar age and background. That juror will always ask, "Well, why didn't she get a second opinion? A third opinion? Why didn't she notice something was wrong earlier? . . ." The implication is that no matter what the doctor did wrong, it's still the patient's fault.
The best juror to have? A middle aged man, background irrelevant!
So such a plaintiff would actually fare better with NC on her jury than you or I!
More interestingly (if also more off topic) . . . The paralegal's analysis was that the woman juror will just not want to believe that that sort of medical nightmare could happen to her. So she comes up with all sorts of "reasons" it wouldn't and doesn't want to consider that sometimes bad things do happen to people who have taken every precaution.
And that's as off topic as I'm going to get tonight!
I wrote out a long post and erased it, and typed this:
I asked which was worse, because I wanted to know how you each thought of these judgement calls. Again, here's my thoughts:
Taken to extremes, obviously both are going to bite you on the ass, either as the judge or judged. I wanted to know which YOU all thought was worse. If I implied that I was attempting to argue your opinion with you, then I'm sorry, that was not my intent. I saw a logical disconnect and I attempted to get more information.
Clearly, we could play 'what if' all year long, and not get these kinds of issues resolved. But, seeing as the original post was about rich men and hypergamous women, I was curious to know.
The Navy Corpsman
P.S. Physical beauty may be ubiquitous, but true beauty is scarcer than hen's teeth and more valuable than gold.
@NC
I wrote out a long post and erased it
You are officially the John Cage of ST's blog threads! ;)
I saw a logical disconnect and I attempted to get more information.
If you're not too tired of this topic, NC, may I inquire what the logical disconnect was? Did it seem as if we were all only going to marry millionaires?
@ NC
P.S. Physical beauty may be ubiquitous, but true beauty is scarcer than hen's teeth and more valuable than gold.
You're a rare man NC. Pity there aren't more like you.
Bellita said...
"If you're not too tired of this topic, NC, may I inquire what the logical disconnect was? Did it seem as if we were all only going to marry millionaires?"
No, it seemed that you (in particular, since your comment) were advocating golddiggers you knew were out for money, and that was bad, and yet lookism is worse than hypergamy. I realize this is all difficult to quantify, but it struck my curiosity.
Who is John Cage? If he is on TV, never mind, I don't watch it.
The Navy Corpsman
P.S. Good luck, on the millionaire thing. We're all assholes.
:-)
just visiting said...
"You're a rare man NC. Pity there aren't more like you."
(Insert old man codger-like grumblings)
I'm not much of a social liberal. My grandparents raised me, and they remembered the Luisitania, World War I and II, Lindberg crossing the Atlantic and all the Apollo moon flights. Not to mention they were both Elders in the Cherokee nation, and consequently, very traditional... and matrilineal.
Yes, matrilineal, but not matriarchal.
Grandfather taught me a lot about the natural world, and Grandmother taught me a lot about Grandfather.
Some quotes:
On Sex: Women have to be in the mood, your Grandfather just has to be in the room.
On Marriage: Marry someone you love, love the one you marry.
On Marriage II: Better to marry for more than the heat, eventually everyone's fire goes out and you'll want something there when you run out of steam.
Lots more, but I'll save those for more appropriate posts.
The Navy Corpsman
P.S. My wife and my Grandmother absolutely hated each other before they met, and absolutely loved each other after they met.
@NC
Who is John Cage?
He's a composer who composed a piano sonata, promptly erased it, and then put on many performances of it. Those performances consisted of him sitting at a piano for about three minutes, playing nothing.
One of my Music teachers just loved him. :P
it seemed that you (in particular, since your comment) were advocating golddiggers you knew were out for money
Wow. Really? In this thread, I defended a husband who told his wife that they would always be poor because he didn't want to climb the corporate ladder.
If this is about my two women friends, remember that the first one is the daughter of a millionaire. Back in high school, if you asked any other girl where she got her new necklace, she'd say, "At the mall." If you asked this friend, she'd say, "In Rome." She just wants a husband from the same income class so that she can raise their children in it, too. But if her refusal to consider a middle class wage earner makes her a gold digger in your eyes, then I will defer to your definition.
As for my second friend, I did say that I didn't think she would get the wealthy husband she wanted. For one, it's a completely unrealistic dream for someone like her . . . For another, she's not hot enough to be a good trophy wife. :P It seemed pointless to condemn her ambition in the face of her inability to achieve it.
@ Bell,
"In the end, I got my answer . . . not because they and I finally came to an understanding, but because one of them was really long-winded and happened to drop the answer in the middle of a thousand-word comment"
Hahaha, Bell, talk of needle in a haystack!
But somehow, I always find that when I get answers this way (buried under lots of layers that make it hard for me to extract what I am looking for), I appreciate that answer more!
When I get a straightforward answer, I hardly hear it ;-)
Ah, I see - you were joking when you answered NC's question. I miised that! (Temporary humour bypass). But actually, I think, as I explained above, this answer is in fact the more correct one (than mine) although I accept that my answer is the one that happens 'naturally' for men and that some women have no problem with, at least those who have the same definition of 'steak' as KK on your last post.
The best answer of all woud be of course that a woman should be judged on text both her looks and what ealse she brings to the table - perhaps in that order! but NC framed his question in such a way that one was forced to choose between the two!
@ JV,
"You're a rare man NC. Pity there aren't more like you."
+1.
NC is such an outlier on so many issues that I am beginning to suspect he is an alien!
(As in, ET-type green man with his own 'mother-ship' and all).
:-)
@ NC,
"On Sex: Women have to be in the mood, your Grandfather just has to be in the room."
Hahahaha!
Go Grandpa!
It never ceases to amaze me how you men can be 'ready' AT ALL TIMES like this. Isn't it...well, tiring?
Silly question, I know...
@ Bell,
"Back in high school, if you asked any other girl where she got her new necklace, she'd say, "At the mall." If you asked this friend, she'd say, "In Rome.""
This is hilarious! I bet she would of course say that like it is normal...
Slightly off-topic but we
have a family friend who has a small daughter who is a very fussy eater. She is very hard to persuade to eat anything. She is just one of those children (I don't think this is some kind of eating disorder or anything). Once, her Mum asked her to eat something, and she looked at her Mum with a straight face and said to her: But I ate yesterday!
Hahaha!
Re John Cage (I didn't actually know the name of this composer but I recognise who he is from your description of his antics)...my music teacher also loved him! But it must be said, my music teacher was just as eccentrice as him!
@ST
Ah, I see - you were joking when you answered NC's question. I miised that!
I was joking then, but haven't come up with a serious answer since I admitted it, because I don't accept NC's framing of the issue. (Or what I think is his framing of the issue.) That one is "worse" than the other doesn't actually mean anything. Might as well ask, "What's worse: judging people by how many books they own or judging them by how well they take care of their shoes?"
And because you seem to like it when I bring up Catholic trivia . . . the Catechism quotes St. John Chrysostom's argument that if something is good (or bad) just because something else is worse (or better), then it's not really good (or bad). The value of something is not dependent on where it is in the hierarchy of values. Chastity may be a lesser virtue than justice, for instance, but it's still a virtue.
So when I thought NC was saying that something was bad because it was worse, I dug my heels in. It didn't help, of course, that he was actually saying something completely different! Hahahaha!
But I ate yesterday!
Oh, dear! Hahahaha! But there really are children, I know, who don't like feeling very full. And even at that young age, they can take it to extremes. :/
Now one more story about my rich friend, because you seem to like her . . . ;)
Many years after both of us had graduated from college, I was chatting with her about the weather and said something like, "It's too hot to walk to the post office to pick up my parcel!" And she said, "Just ask your nanny to do it for you."
HAHAHAHA!
She was a woman in her twenties and her nanny still lived at home and ran errands for her. So she assumed everyone else's old nanny did, too. :P And well, it's the case with many wealthy families here that if a nanny is truly beloved of the children, she will be kept on after they are grown. But my own family was never that rich.
John Cage strikes again.
Not to pick on your faith, but:
"The value of something is not dependent on where it is in the hierarchy of values."
Wow, my first grade teacher Sister Mary Margaret would have a real issue with that. So do I. Mortal vs venial sins? I suspect Aristotle is not your favorite Greek, is he?
Certainly, I can see that Virtue simply is. But St. John Chrysostom was (in my opinion) merely arguing that all good is good, and all bad is bad. Great. Not very helpful in reality, but certainly worth noting as 'obvious' as St. Paul pointed out in the fifth chapter of Galatians.
I think we've done this one to death, and I'll be more careful in the future to phrase my questions in the form of an answer.
:-)
The Navy Corpsman
@NC
I will defer to Sister Mary Margaret. No comment on Aristole, whom I don't know well enough to snub. I agree that I phrased that clumsily, to the point of error. All I meant to say is that when something is good, it's good . . . and when something is bad, it's bad. A venial sin does not become good just because it's better than a mortal sin.
And I didn't think it was "obvious" inasmuch as you were making such a big deal about which was "worse": judging by looks or judging by money. It seemed to me that you were trying to manipulate the women here into admitting that judging by looks (more of a "male" thing) is okay because judging by money (more of a "female" thing) is worse. That's why I playfully answered that judging by looks is worse. :P But I really don't think one is worse than the other. There are so many nuances to both looks and money that they can't be discounted as criteria just because some people remain superficial about them.
Then it turned out that all you wanted to say was that judging can be taken too far. That's a neat general statement to make, but it flops as a description of my first friend's standard. Her preference for a husband from a similar background (which means, in the baldest terms, a millionaire) has less to do with loving "summers in Monaco" than to wanting to raise her children with the same values she was raised with. I don't know what the social strata are like where you live, but over here, culture and money are still very closely related. I don't think she could marry someone "poorer" and expect him to be understanding about some traditions she holds dear.
(Having said that, I know several very rich women who've married very rich men of different religions. I can't imagine money giving me more in common with a man than religion, but that's just me.)
And you really think we've done this to death? Hahahaha! Even if you stop now, ST and I could keep going for another week. ;)
Bellita,
"I will defer to Sister Mary Margaret. No comment on Aristole, whom I don't know well enough to snub."
I don't know why this makes me laugh so, but it does.
@ NC,
"And you really think we've done this to death? Hahahaha! Even if you stop now, ST and I could keep going for another week. ;)"
You know that Bellita's not kidding here, right?
She and I could talk the hind legs off a donkey.
:-)
I fully expected Bellita and Spacetraveler and Just Visiting to all say that hypergamy was the lesser of two evils. That's just natural, to defend your own ideas and beliefs.
It wasn't my intent to manipulate, but rather to show that anything done to extremes can be bad; even if you yourself agree that a small amount of hypergamy is not bad per se.
And Bellita, I understand culture can have a huge relationship with money, after all I live in the USA, where materialism has developed to its' highest level. Your pal can claim it's all for her future children, she can claim she wants to continue to live in the lap of luxury, she can make any excuse she wants. I still would not have anything to do with her. I've done some traveling around the world, and I've seen 'social classes' in many countries, such as the caste system in India. If it works for her, so much the better. I'm frankly astonished that you accept her claim that she wants to raise her children with the same 'values', when it sure appears that those values are purely about money, wealth, privilege.
Again, I apologize if I came across as manipulative, but I never said one was worse than the other... I merely questioned your comment that lookism is far more superficial. I brought in the point about equality to show that social change, regardless of the source, cannot change basic human nature. Feminists claim they want equality, but only when it benefits them, including not wanting to give up hypergamy. I'm not calling you a feminist, I'm pointing out that those feminists are still VERY traditionally female, when it behooves them to be so.
just visiting said...
"But gold diggers aside, I doubt a woman would marry a man on money alone anymore than a man would marry for beauty alone."
I fully agree, few women or men, are like that. And maybe Bellita's friend is not hypergamous in that she isn't looking to marry UP, she is looking to maintain her social status in that culture. But, I think Bellita would agree, her friend still wants to marry for money, even if she has plenty of her own.
Bellita said...
"But I really don't think one is worse than the other. There are so many nuances to both looks and money that they can't be discounted as criteria just because some people remain superficial about them."
Exactly. Thank you.
The Navy Corpsman
Spacetraveller said...
"You know that Bellita's not kidding here, right?
She and I could talk the hind legs off a donkey.
:-)"
I've been married long enough to NEVER comment on a woman's ability to talk.
I'll just shut up and eat my soup.
The Navy Corpsman
@ NC,
"I'll just shut up and eat my soup."
As the Germans would say, klasse!
:-)
@NC
I'm frankly astonished that you accept her claim that she wants to raise her children with the same 'values', when it sure appears that those values are purely about money, wealth, privilege.
Now it's my turn to pull a John Cage. I wrote several paragraphs explaining why I'm defending my friend's values and decided to nix them after I realized a third of them were about the history of the Philippine Revolution, and another third were about the politics of the Latin Mass community (which I'm not even a member of). :P
The gist of it is that I think it's a good thing when the aristocratic class stays aristocratic. There are many traditions and values in the culture (which rich and poor alike share) that we would not still have if they had dropped the ball. As there are many others that we have lost because of the times they did fumble.
And in case I've been misrepresenting myself, I don't think it boils down to money alone. The rich women I know who have married rich Muslim foreigners are wrecking the traditions a million times worse than they would have if they had married "poor" Catholic compatriots.
The choice of a husband or wife is, of course, up to the individual. But it is rarely that I find someone who can bring both the long-term future and the long-term past into consideration when picking a mate.
"I wrote several paragraphs explaining why I'm defending my friend's values and decided to nix them after I realized a third of them were about the history of the Philippine Revolution, and another third were about the politics of the Latin Mass community..."
Oh Bell!
I would have loved to hear about this stuff. It's all part of the education for me and any others who might find it useful/interesting.
Post a Comment