Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sooo How Much Do You Make?
I was talking to a male friend of mine, and he said that he doesn't date women who make less than $30,000 a year, and if they have children, that goes up by $10,000 per child. At first, I was shocked because that seemed very superficial, but when I thought about it, it made some very decent sense. Why would you date someone who had four kids and making minimum wage? I know some women are reading this and feeling attacked; not at all, but can you blame a guy if he doesn't want to an instant bank to you and the basketball team of children that you have? And if you have that many children, I hope that you were married at least once and not having children with every man you were in a relationship with...but that's another topic for another time and I digress. Anyway, back to what I was thinking; not judging in the least, but how can a woman adequately be able to provide for themselves, their children and still be able to equally bring to the table? In today's economy, couples can't afford the luxury of just one being the breadwinner. Then I took it to another level; how many women would eliminate that drama of bad men and relationships from their lives if they adopted that same attitude? Women are always complaining about their broke men and baby mama drama, well if this became a criteria, then there would be less drama to be had. And if a man was making decent money and NOT taking care of his child, then that would help you eliminate a "boy" from your dating pool. For men, this would hopefully be a wake up call to do better by your children and also be more aware of the consequences and responsibilities of casual sex. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that you should date someone based on their income, but I do believe that you should date someone that is at least on your level or better; dating someone and trying to bring them up only drains and burdens you. You end up giving your time, money and energy to that person rather than using that to uplift and better yourself; who is that helping and how is that worth it? Say what you will, but I kinda like how my friend thinks; kinda thinking of using this in my own dating life...oh and I make well over $30,000 and have no children, so I don't want a man for his money; but I do want someone on the same level as me or at least near it...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think its always interesting when I hear women refer to men on their level. Often, though "level" can be a very comprehensive word, it’s often used to refer to their potential mates economically. Mental virtues of intelligence, patience, kindness, perseverance, etc etc..become secondary to finding someone on your "level." Which I think is interesting especially for a Black woman in the American context. If your preference is Black men, then your dating pool of someone on your level becomes smaller, especially in the years of your youth. Many younger Black women actually pass Black men in job and income aspects shortly after college, though the male may catch up and even pass her, the staples of "stability" aren't there early on. I find it interesting that some of the most successful and loving marriages I can immediately think of compose of a woman who was more economically stable and a man who was striving, had potential, had wonderful mental traits that were apparent, but was broke.
ReplyDeleteAt this point the idea of being on the same "level" was more of a comprehensive understanding. I think most women who are dating in our contemporary society often lie to themselves and others when they deny how important money actually is to them, partially because of how important our society has made it. I think a lot more is decided upon economic lines than any of us are comfortable admitting.
However, as I look closer at this issue, at both men and women’s use of their verbage, words used to help some not sound shallow/materialistic/unspiritual are often exchanged among men and women. As a matter of fact I’ve noticed that men and women tend to vary about what they want in their mate depending on their economic class. This may or may not be slightly offset by religious beliefs, but that offset usually only really occurs in lower-middle income brackets. Their standards tend to be more intangible. They want a "good" man, kind, patient, protective of his loved ones, perseverance, not prideful etc..But in middle- higher income brackets standards in a mate become increasingly riddled with material standards.
This is not to say either set of standards tangible or intangible are wrong, but it should be understood that if "level" is translated as income or some derivative thereof, than many good men and women (but more so men, because of many factors) will be alienated from many pools of interest which ASSUME that people of lower income will be draining of yourself (yourself-which is a wholistic term, that's being drained by a factor that will always wax and wane, which is problematic), or a burden (your assuming you have to pick it up, which is also problematic). We give a lot of flak to the economically broke, but very little to the mentally or spiritually poor, i.e. I know women who've dated and still date men with cash but no character. I know men who'll date women with bodies but no beauty. I suppose it’s because material standards are easy to judge, but spiritual, and intellectual standards don't yield a return that's flashy enough to captivate the eye. If its about finding a person on your level and it only takes one factor to disqualify that person, we may need to think about how important that one factor is, and should it be. And if its not, than what in our level have we been neglecting to look for in a mate that could be the one we spend our lives with?