Its not who you are, its what you do and what you earn?

[Mrs Elliott Smith]

This post is a little depressing. I get the feeling that security is hardwired into womens' brains the same way sex is hardwired into mens'. It's all about children. If you take children out of the equation money loses it's value in a big way if you ask me.

 

People really need very little to live good, meaningful lives, but materialism has taken over. Evolution at work.

 

Makes me want to

 

I don't think it's just about children. It's also about having financial security when you retire.

 

And what you said is absolutely true-- as far as evolution is concerned. For thousands and thousands of years, it was the women who sought out the strongest men (i.e. the best hunters, the best fighters, etc.) because it promised them security. Just how women today seek the same thing in a man... (maybe not the most physically strong, because we don't really need that AS MUCH nowadays for survival and security, but it now seems to dominantly take the form of financial security)... I mean, this is not always the case with ALL women, but it's pretty common. And it was the men who sought out the most healthy, fertile women to have offspring with, so that his genes would be passed down from generation to generation. Just how mens brains, as you put it, are "hardwired for sex" lol

 

I'm not too educated in the field of evolution and all that jazz, so if I'm wrong here, someone please correct me! But I'm pretty sure this info is correct.

[CaptainPlanet]

Whats wrong with being a mail sorter ?

Threads like this make me laugh it is a long held notion that "financially stable" means makes a lot of money particularily if it come from a woman.

[Medguy8311]

Whats wrong with being a mail sorter ?

 

There is actually a lot of substance in that question. The answer is of course, absolutely nothing, and I am sure there are a lot of mail sorters out there who are married with kids, live by their means, and are very happy.

 

This whole "woman-seeks-financially-stable-man" thing is more about social stratification then anything else IMHO. It has everything to do with your background and his/her background and what you have been raised to expect as normal in life (i.e. large house, several holidays a year, nice cars, expensive restaurants, or conversely smaller/normal size house, routine, small(er) town existence, living much more economically on a lower salary etc) The essential thing is that two people who are attracted to each other on a multitude of levels, and are of the same social class can happily live on low income and in more humble surroundings, because that is what they have been raised in and gotten used to.

 

I think the humble surroundings bit used to be much more the way. Social mobility nowadays is a common thing ("nouveau riche") and its a shame that this is screwing up our values system and no doubt causing a high divorce rate - all about keeping up with the Jones' - sad really eh?

[Batya33]

Whats wrong with being a mail sorter ?

Threads like this make me laugh it is a long held notion that "financially stable" means makes a lot of money particularily if it come from a woman.

 

Not to me. I worked very hard so that I could be flexible financially in who I chose as a partner - he could make less than me, he could make a low salary as long as he was financially stable. There is nothing wrong with being a mail sorter at all. I probably wouldn't date or marry someone content with being a full time mail sorter as a lifetime job because we likely would have little in common when it came to values and probably interests.

[Batya33]

I grew up lower middle class and my parents were excellent budgeters and savers. That helped me in my choices later in life so that I was careful not to squander my earnings (a relative term). I don't need or want to "marry up" financially or socially. I do prefer being with a man who I see as more intelligent than me but that doesn't necesarily correlate to income or assets.

[CaptainPlanet]

Not to me. I worked very hard so that I could be flexible financially in who I chose as a partner - he could make less than me, he could make a low salary as long as he was financially stable. There is nothing wrong with being a mail sorter at all. I probably wouldn't date or marry someone content with being a full time mail sorter as a lifetime job because we likely would have little in common when it came to values and probably interests.

 

But how do you make the assertion and base the assertion solely on the fact that the man in question is a mail sorter ? what are you implying about mail sorters that would lead you to believe that their values or interests might conflict with your own ? Why is it to be content with being a mail sorter why is it not simply is a mail sorter, period.

 

Intelligence, ambition and interest are not needed or in my opinion and the opinion of many more credible others, for financial success or social positioning. That comes down more to your ability to climb said ladder which is largely related to your ability to deal effectively with other people. So I cannot understand your reasoning that a mail sorter is not compatible with nor suitable for you based on the only information at hand being that he is a mail sorter.

 

However I can understand if the truth being told for what it is why a woman of high social status would not mix sexually with a man of low social status nor do I protest. But I will protest when it is claimed that this is done under pretenses of incompatibility and not superficial grounds. Unless this is some sort of code for the sake of politeness that i have managed to miss. In which case my apologies are due.

 

[Jay Cutler]

 

Allright, let me break it down for you. Relationships work better (on average, in general, etc) when 2 people have similar life experiences, values, goals, etc. Intelligence, education level, occupational status: Those are 3 items for which similarities can manifest itself. How can you have a happy, long lasting relationship when you are so different from the other person? It can't and does not work well in most cases.

 

Plus college educated women have divorce rates half that of non-college educated women (30% vs 60%) so I have data to back up my preference for educated women.

[Batya33]

Jay Cutler basically covered it, thanks! And I said "probably" I believe as far as my preferences. I will add that if a man were content to be a mail sorter his whole life with no other career (I am leaving out for example a full time artist or actor who does mail sorting to make ends meet - that might be different) even though he was intelligent enough to do a job that required intellectual thought/analysis, etc. we would not have common values about ambition or work ethic. I also would worry about financial stability. If he were not intelligent enough to do a more challenging job intellectually, then we wouldn't have enough in common as far as smarts- w wouldn't be on the same wavelength.

 

Nothing to do with politeness or social status - thanks Jay Cutler again.

[mgirl]

Whats wrong with being a mail sorter ?

Threads like this make me laugh it is a long held notion that "financially stable" means makes a lot of money particularily if it come from a woman.

 

Thanks CaptainPlanet, your post made me smile!

 

There is nothing wrong with being a mail sorter, in fact, i am quite enjoying it at the moment. The only thing that is difficult is the fact that the work is unreliable. Eg, one week you might be really busy and work 3-4 days (it is a casual position) and the next, you may only work one day, like this week. Which can be a worry, because of course, we, as human beings, need security.

 

But anyway, all that aside, there are many people in my position who are financially secure and do the sorting for extra cash. From what i can tell, most of the workers there own their own houses and their husbands work full-time. Put it this way, there are very few shabby cars in the carpark when i turn up.

 

Uhm, but in relation to what i would have in common with the other staff there outside of work hours is another story. They are a lot of fun to work with, but i don't know whether i would have a relationship with anyone there (i haven't gotten to know them that well, so i can't really say with certainty)... we probably wouldn't have that much in common (social causes, politics etc.). I don't know.

 

But, from what i can gather, they are a very happy workforce overall and have satisfying family lives (my impression, but when you see a lot of smiles, you assume people are happy).

 

I have worked in the semi-corporate, professional environment and it was full of miserable, complaining, misled human beings. This, along with having to stare at a computer screen day in and day out, made me depressed.

 

Batya, good point that people could be asking me what i do for general conversation. I don't know though, i've had enough experience to be able to detect judgemental people (also, known as social climbers). Yes, maybe i've been defensive and non-chalant on several occasions, but that is because i feel that everybody has an agenda, an agenda that is not that alturistic. I just can't be bothered launching into the "i am having a break from the workforce, want to start my own business and am doing odd jobs at the moment" conversation.

 

Recently though, somebody else i am working for, and a former colleague of mine expressed interest in what i am doing and were generally interested, so maybe it's not all bad! But yeah, i will take your constructive criticims into account and suss out people from the start to see their intentions.

 

I just have to say, the peverse reactions i give people are sometimes amusing

[Batya33]

That all sounds great. As you noticed, I hope, I was referring to dating a man with potential for marriage where his career aspirations were to be a full time mail sorter. That's not the situation you are in (career wise) so of course my comments weren't directed to you. And, of course, I would have no issue being friends with a person who was content to be a full time mail sorter, assuming we had things in common.

 

Good luck to you!

[skyjuice]

Hi

 

In reality, there is both men and women who would date or marry for money. It is a real life situation, that just happen to my brother. His girl friend dumped him for a rich guy, who she knew only 5 days. She is moving in with this new guy.

 

His ex girl friend wants 2 sports car and a big house which my brother could not provide now but this new guy could provided.

 

My brother is very heart broken now.

[CreedBratton]

I hope that is not the case, even if it is not every woman is like that.

 

I mean I am attracted to a woman who has ambition and success but not because I want her money, but because I want to be successful in my own life ..... and if things go on the pace they are going on ...... I would be really busy.

 

This is the 21st century ..... women can earn their way .... maybe I am jsut embracing it or something.

 

Anyway, to heck with a woman that is only interested in that anyway.

[tmp0620]

You know what though? People that are concerned with this stuff are doomed to screw themselves over.

 

Love has nothing to do with money. You might have ambition and goals etc. etc. etc.

 

Being driven is a quality of sorts but I know that there are SO many people that screw themselves over with this thinking.

 

Being successful doesn't neccesarily go hand in hand with unsuccessful relationships. But depending on which way you approach it, there's a good chance you're setting yourself up for failure shooting so high.

 

If you want a good relationship you should be concentrating on chemistry and compatablity. And to be honest, if money and success is in the equation for you, you're pretty screwed unless you don't mind your partner cheating on you.

[Cimmie]

I believe to exclude people on the basis of what they do is narrow minded. What a person works at does not say everything about them. Identity is not determined by what you do to earn your bread and butter.

 

I studied hard and got an advanced degree and then spent several years being very unhappy in higher education. There were many reasons for this, partly to do with the area I chose to go into (Arts), partly to do with how higher education is being run where I live (on an industrial model), partly to do with the fact that it is very difficult to attain a permanent contract (most contracts are one or two years) and the cost of living/housing is impossibly high here.

 

I looked around and realised that other workers with essential skills but who weren't as highly 'educated' as I were earning a great deal more.

 

So I decided to get out of academic life and retrain, which is what I am doing. The idea of working a stable, 9 to 5 job with good wages and benefits, in a well-regulated industry, appeals to me because what I need right now is security and independence. I will however be overqualified for the job, and I have had some of my friends say that I'll be 'wasting' my degree.

 

I just don't see it like that. A liberal arts education is about developing your mind, and I will keep my interests and values and intellectual ambitions intact. I will just have a little more self-respect and stability in my life. I certainly hope no-one would make any assumptions about me for having chosen the route I have. As long as I am ok with it, that's all that matters. I just think it's presumptuous to make assumptions about people on the basis of what they do to pay the bills. There's dignity in work of whetever type.

[CaptainPlanet]

Why not become a school teacher ? Students need level headed role models with real world experience.

[Cimmie]

I did think about that, CaptainPlanet. But I suppose I'm a bit disillusioned with teaching generally. It is a difficult job, really a vocation, and takes a great deal of enthusiasm, energy and conviction. I also believe it's a very undervalued profession. Where I live there are lots of problems with pupil behaviour though, and I am just not interested in having to deal with behavioural problems/disrespect on a daily basis as part of my job. Some people can handle that, I couldn't. It's why I'm going into the private sector and getting out of education.

[Batya33]

I completely respect your decision. I don't judge anyone on what they do (and if it happens reflexively, I fight it) but when it comes to finding a person to be with for life, I need common interests and values.

 

I am not sure if I would have enough in common with someone who made the choices you did - and that person would have to be comfortable with the different choices that I made. I've never met a man who achieved a higher degree, chose a job like the one you have, had the goal of marrying, having a family, and being the sole income earner for a few years if his wife wanted to work inside the home for awhile, and who would be interested in and comfortable with a woman who chose to pursue a career related to her graduate degree.

 

If I met such a person I would not dismiss him out of hand (which is why I wrote "probably" above). I have had a few experiences where educated men who chose blue collar jobs have not been interested in me once they found out what I did - and I was very interested.

[CaptainPlanet]

In todays technical day and age most blue collar jobs require an education that in many ways is superior to that received by white collar counterparts. Sorry but its true. An electrician is highly educated.

[Batya33]

Right. In the example mentioned, it was a mail sorter which, according to the poster, does not require a higher degree. If the person and I had compatible values about education and work ethic/ambition, that person might make a suitable life partner. As I also mentioned, I have dated men with college degrees who did blue collar work - no issue with that whatsoever. With few exceptions, I would not consider someone who hadn't achieved at least a college degree, which is basically the norm in the area in which I live (and I only date within my religion, where a college degree is the norm).

 

With few exceptions I would not consider someone who was chronically unemployed or otherwise financially unstable, whatever his job or career, suitable for a mate. I also would not consider someone with a higher degree who chose a type of blue collar or white collar job based on a lack of ambition or work ethic. I ask for nothing different than I offer with respect to education and financial stability.

 

I am not sure why you quoted my post which was not contrary (and in some cases irrelevant) to your response.

[Cimmie]

The job I've chosen is not 'blue collar'. It has good promotional prospects, is interesting and and is very well paid, it's just not in education. In my experience, academics get treated appallingly anyway! I expect, ironically, to get more respect in the profession I am now entering.

Also, I have an avocation which is the major part of my life, but which does not make me enough money to live on.

I think it's hard to generalize here: one can have preferences and so on, but really, it depends on the individual you meet. My point was that a person's career choices may say more about them than initially meets the eye.

[kmartin85]

When I was reading this I felt like I wrote it. I expect the same thing. If I am able to support myself and pay my bills and be finacially responsible then I expect the guy to be as well. That does NOT mean I expect him to make as much money as I do or have as nice of things as I do or live in as nice of a condition as I do. He could live in a little studio apartment with mattresses on the floor for his bed and a couch from Goodwill and nothing else and I would be happy if paid for it and supported himself. I think this is where you(OP) are getting confused. Most of the women I know are in the very early 20's and live in on their own and have good jobs and are able to support themselves while most of the guys I know, most of them in their mid to late 20's live at home with their parents, don't really have a career path in mind, or just have no ambition to move out or support themselves. I am not saying this is true of all guys, but that is probably a big reason why it can be misconstrued that a woman is a golddigger. I am sorry, when I have sex with my boyfriend I do not want to have to put a pillow over my face to be quiet so I do not wake his parents. And if that makes me a golddigger, then well, I'll own it.

[CaptainPlanet]

Agreed. However thats a fair side different to career ambitions and education level. I am about to move back in with my parents after leaving home when I was 18 because I am now a uni student.

[Batya33]

The job I've chosen is not 'blue collar'. It has good promotional prospects, is interesting and and is very well paid, it's just not in education. In my experience, academics get treated appallingly anyway! I expect, ironically, to get more respect in the profession I am now entering.

Also, I have an avocation which is the major part of my life, but which does not make me enough money to live on.

I think it's hard to generalize here: one can have preferences and so on, but really, it depends on the individual you meet. My point was that a person's career choices may say more about them than initially meets the eye.

 

I completely agree with you. If I wanted to meet a man who chose a blue collar job (unlike you, I understand yours is not) and had a higher degree and was financially stable it would be hard for me to do where I am from. If I met a man in that situation I would (of course) not dismiss him out of hand just because he chose a blue collar job, although it would be very unusual relative to most people I know in my area with a higher degree.

 

I could not date, for the purposes of marriage, someone who chose a job that did not allow him to make ends meet, that wasn't just a temporary choice or a choice so that he could pursue higher education. I could be friends with that person.

[poloplayer]

Jay -

 

Plus college educated women have divorce rates half that of non-college educated women (30% vs 60%) so I have data to back up my preference for educated women.

 

Do you have a link for the data? I once read that educated women have HIGHER divorce rates than non-educated women. Educated here meaning college, grad, and post-grad.

[psychoanalytical]

Man you gotta be kidding if u don't think that women look at status and money. In fact, it's not just women who do it, it's everyone. That's reality. Even ur kids are going to judge you on status and money. That doesn't stop you from being a good person tho. It just means you need to know how to work the system as well as being a good person. I don't think it comes down to a choice of who you are vs. what you do and what you earn. It is, "who you are, what do you do, and what you earn". Gotta have it all!