Love conquers money: a first world privilage?

[YPestis]

"You can just as easily love a rich man as a poor man"

Wasn't that a popular saying by mothers back in the days? Are we too quick to dismiss the idea of looking into a spouse's financial prospects when considering marriage? It's so unromantic, to dismiss a person because he/she's too poor. In the US, we would give even less consideration to the in-law's financial prospects, probably dismissed out of hand (unless the last name is Trump or Murdoch....).

My mom grew up under Maoist China which oversaw the birth of the modern marriage. Yet, she is still baffled by how Americans romanticize marriage. In China, one almost always look at the financial prospect of potential spouses, male or female (China has a very high female workforce participation).

When discussing marriage, most singles will look at education level and job prospects. It's especially important for men to have a good income. And just as important that the future in-laws are also financially solvent. Many people strive for educational excellence in part to help better attract high income mates.

When I was younger, I didn't understand why all this was important. It seemed so....unromantic. However, now I realize I'm the one being naive, and showing my ignorance of the economic realities of a developing country.

One cousin married a software engineer whose family had enough money to pay for pay for their apartment and car, is now part of China's raising middle class. Although the family is by no means rich, she and hubby have steady incomes and have inlaws with steady pensions. Her inlaws paid for their apartment and car, which enabled them to save and have more disposable income. She shops at Walmart, buys small luxuries like a professional grade camera, and pays for her daughter's music lessons.

My other cousin married a struggling electrician. With no connections, family money or elite education, she scraps by renting a studio apt. Her inlaws are also poor. Unable to raise her son, he is sent to live with her mom in the countryside. This was especially tragic as the lack of decent schools in the countryside will make it that much harder for her son to better himself. It seems, far from love conquering all, it doesn't even allow my cousin to raise her own son.

In countries with little opportunities for advancement, where family finances can substantially bolster your own situation, is it cynical or just pragmatic to look at income prospects? Even in middle income countries like China, ignoring the financial prospects of spouses and inlaws is considered very foolish. My cousin was warned about this when she decided to marry her electrician. She was very pretty and could have gotten better offers. I supported her decision even as she received flake from everyone else. Now, her decision no longer looks romantic, just filled with regret.

We make fun of how fundies idealize the Edwardian era, how they fetishize SAHM-dom. Do we, modern women, do the same with modern marriage? We are fine with being the family providers, marrying "down", and ignoring the in-laws because it's our life. And yet, this doesn't seem to work well outside of a narrow slice of society. In the rest of the world, limited opportunities for men and women, bias for males, and general poverty all conspire to make marriage still an economic opportunity for people.

What do fellow FJingerites think? Is the US at the forefront of "true love" marriage? Or is "love conquers all" concept just another "first world" privilege?

[debrand]

Your threads are always interesting Ypestis.

In the United States, there are many women that feel that if they want wealth, they should earn it themselves. The notion isn't so much romantic as a part of the American culture and emphasis on individuality and independence.

However, I often get annoyed when people act as though financial success is not important. Money won't buy you happiness but extreme poverty is worse.

[yewchapel]

It probably is a first world privilege - the first world, generally, has good free public schools even in rural areas, and the raising of children is going to be the biggest expenditure for a married couple (if they have kids of course). Most first world countries also have some kind of disability benefit or pension scheme so that whilst a couple where one or both partners is disabled and/or unable to work due to age etc, they can at least live if not particularly comfortably. There is poverty in the first world but it isn't at third world levels, it's not unendurable (said as someone who has been exceedingly poor). However, just because love-match marriages are a first world privilege doesn't make them necessarily foolish or wrong - I know I wouldn't base the decision of who to marry on the person's income or potential income.

[Rosa]

I don't think Americans discount money when we marry, I think we just don't talk about it much.

I mean, how many women talk about not dating a guy who still lives with his parents? Or who dropped out of school? We totally look for class markerts when we marry (and we're highly unlikely to marry outside of our class - the vast majority of women in this country marry a man who has the same kind of occupation as her father did.)

It's considered shallow, and there's also the cultural narrative of the poor person who pulls her or himself up by their own bootstraps to argue for the "outsider" - but in reality, we have a pretty class-stratified society and one that is much less class-mobile than other developed countries.

On the other hand, we don't have a strong habit of associating with only the mother's or only the father's side of the family, and you don't automatically take on the class status of the person you married - in a mixed-class marriage, either spouse's family can support the couple and their children (for instance, I met a girl whose parents were both dirt-poor communitarian hippies, but she went to an expensive eastern boarding school because her grandparents paid for it) and if they do that, they can raise the lower-class spouse up instead of shunning the child who married "down".

(my brother is the kept husband of a fairly intensely rich woman, btw. It's a little different because he's American and she's not, so he brings in more earning power and social cachet than a man of similar background who was from her own country.)

[yewchapel]

I don't think Americans discount money when we marry, I think we just don't talk about it much.

I mean, how many women talk about not dating a guy who still lives with his parents? Or who dropped out of school? We totally look for class markerts when we marry (and we're highly unlikely to marry outside of our class - the vast majority of women in this country marry a man who has the same kind of occupation as her father did.)

It's considered shallow, and there's also the cultural narrative of the poor person who pulls her or himself up by their own bootstraps to argue for the "outsider" - but in reality, we have a pretty class-stratified society and one that is much less class-mobile than other developed countries.

On the other hand, we don't have a strong habit of associating with only the mother's or only the father's side of the family, and you don't automatically take on the class status of the person you married - in a mixed-class marriage, either spouse's family can support the couple and their children (for instance, I met a girl whose parents were both dirt-poor communitarian hippies, but she went to an expensive eastern boarding school because her grandparents paid for it) and if they do that, they can raise the lower-class spouse up instead of shunning the child who married "down".

(my brother is the kept husband of a fairly intensely rich woman, btw. It's a little different because he's American and she's not, so he brings in more earning power and social cachet than a man of similar background who was from her own country.)

I wouldn't necessarily say that saying no to someone who lives with their parents or has dropped out of school is about money (and indeed, the former will probably be less of a problem in the future as so many young people have to move back in with their parents after college for financial reasons). It's about what it says about the person - dependency on your parents as an adult and failing education are seen as character flaws, not connected to money as such. And there are many reasons why those things happen anyway, some of which wouldn't be seen as character flaws - my best friend had to drop out of school at 14 due to serious illness and had to be cared for at home by her mother. She also lived with her mother until moving in with her husband for the same reason, her illness preventing her from living alone. Clearly, in her case, living with parents and dropping out of school weren't reasons for her husband not to marry her.

[Rosa]

People still get dates, but there's definitely a public stigma on it - it's totally acceptable to say you ditched someone because he still lives with his mama.

And what would those be about, if not about signs you're not going to make money? The supposed "moral failings" attributed to those who don't finish school are exactly the moral failings we falsely attribute to poor people - laziness, mostly. When as you pointed out that's often not it at all.

Americans never like to talk about class, we mask it - we talk about "good schools" or "good grooming" or that we want someone who is "professional" (which is TOTALLY about class. Professional housepainter is NOT what people mean by "professional" on a dating website. But we're pretty cut-throat about it in real life, partly because it's really fucking hard for working-class or poor people to end up middle class in this country. We have less upward mobility than Canadians or Western Europeans, and more income inequality, and we also link more things (higher education, health care) to class. We do better than developing countries, so we can afford to pretend like we aren't evaluating our partners on earning potential.

[flyaway]

I don't think wanting a fellow professional is as much about class/money as about relatability. I simply wouldn't have a whole lot of interests in common with the vast majority of blue collar workers. Not a lot to TALK about. And not a similar worldview either. I can say this with confidence because most of my family is working class, and a large proportion of my high school classmates are too. I make significantly more money than my husband, and I don't care too much what my husband makes, as long as he has the motivation to pursue SOMETHING stimulating.

I disagree that Americans have less upward mobility than Western Europeans, or at least compared to Germany, which is the only Western European country I've lived in. I grew up feeling very, very different in a rural southern U.S. town (I'm liberal, atheist, academically oriented, without the slightest consideration of ever staying in my hometown). I got out. My father was retired military, and my mother was a teacher. Lower middle class, and plenty of money troubles. I was one of fewer than 10 of my high school classmates who went to our state flagship university. For the next step in my education, I went to a top ten law school. I finished at the top of my class and now I'm an attorney at a top ten law firm. I'm about to leave to pursue a PhD at an Ivy League university, to help me in my dream of becoming a law professor. With some talent and a whole lot of hard work, I managed to move up the "class" scale every step of the way.

I'm not saying I'm absolutely the norm -- tons of my colleagues did go to prep schools and Ivy undergrads and law schools. And sometimes I have a bit of an inferiority complex about it. It takes more tenacity and motivation to attain things you haven't been groomed to attain. But it's absolutely doable in this country.

[yewchapel]

People still get dates, but there's definitely a public stigma on it - it's totally acceptable to say you ditched someone because he still lives with his mama.

And what would those be about, if not about signs you're not going to make money? The supposed "moral failings" attributed to those who don't finish school are exactly the moral failings we falsely attribute to poor people - laziness, mostly. When as you pointed out that's often not it at all.

Americans never like to talk about class, we mask it - we talk about "good schools" or "good grooming" or that we want someone who is "professional" (which is TOTALLY about class. Professional housepainter is NOT what people mean by "professional" on a dating website. But we're pretty cut-throat about it in real life, partly because it's really fucking hard for working-class or poor people to end up middle class in this country. We have less upward mobility than Canadians or Western Europeans, and more income inequality, and we also link more things (higher education, health care) to class. We do better than developing countries, so we can afford to pretend like we aren't evaluating our partners on earning potential.

I'm not American but in the UK, so I may have a different perspective - I have noticed much less stigma towards people who live with their parents here, possibly because we have much higher house prices, especially in London. Also it's quite rare for people to drop out of school here unless it's for illness or pregnancy.

[yewchapel]

I don't think wanting a fellow professional is as much about class/money as about relatability. I simply wouldn't have a whole lot of interests in common with the vast majority of blue collar workers. Not a lot to TALK about. And not a similar worldview either. I can say this with confidence because most of my family is working class, and a large proportion of my high school classmates are too. I make significantly more money than my husband, and I don't care too much what my husband makes, as long as he has the motivation to pursue SOMETHING stimulating.

I disagree that Americans have less upward mobility than Western Europeans, or at least compared to Germany, which is the only Western European country I've lived in. I grew up feeling very, very different in a rural southern U.S. town (I'm liberal, atheist, academically oriented, without the slightest consideration of ever staying in my hometown). I got out. My father was retired military, and my mother was a teacher. Lower middle class, and plenty of money troubles. I was one of fewer than 10 of my high school classmates who went to our state flagship university. For the next step in my education, I went to a top ten law school. I finished at the top of my class and now I'm an attorney at a top ten law firm. I'm about to leave to pursue a PhD at an Ivy League university, to help me in my dream of becoming a law professor. With some talent and a whole lot of hard work, I managed to move up the "class" scale every step of the way.

I'm not saying I'm absolutely the norm -- tons of my colleagues did go to prep schools and Ivy undergrads and law schools. And sometimes I have a bit of an inferiority complex about it. It takes more tenacity and motivation to attain things you haven't been groomed to attain. But it's absolutely doable in this country.

I don't think class is entirely about wealth - there are plenty of upper-class people living in crumbling family manor houses in genteel poverty, and working-class people with plenty of money - being a plumber pays well for example, at least over here. But then class is possibly more about family background here in the UK.

I have to say that I think the idea that working-class people have inherently different interests from professionals - and there are many professionals from working-class backgrounds - is very classist. There is nothing about being working-class that means you automatically have different interests from other classes - my very working-class engineer dad has always loved poetry and classical music, for instance. I am from a working-class background and am entering a very middle-class career, and have friends from across all social classes - as in, I have friends who went to Eton and friends who grew up with single parents in Hackney. We all have plenty in common. People not having things in common is down to personality, not class.

[flyaway]

I don't think that over here an engineer would be considered "working class." Certainly not blue collar.

Of course not every blue collar worker is precluded from liking poetry and classical music. But as a matter of probability -- it's a lot less likely that someone with less education is interested in those things.

I don't think class is perceived the same way in the US and the UK. It has more to do with educational level and money here, IMO, than family background.

[Smooth Beans]

This is a very interesting subject, and one near to my heart. I'm part of a mixed-class marriage and navigating the various pitfalls and differences has been interesting at best, bang-my-head-on-the-wall frustrating at worst. America claims to be "classless", but it is so not true. I tried my best to pull myself up from my working-class roots by going to college, but ended up dropping out due to severe untreated mental illness (there's a whole 'nother ball of stigma there!).

I feel like my in-laws hold this against me. They make snide comments about me watching tv and drinking beer, despite 4 of their 5 adult children doing the same. Don't even get me started on the glares I get when I pick up the wrong fork. It's like they expect me to apologize for their son falling in love with me.

When you've not been raised in middle or upper middle class American surroundings, it can be maddening to decipher all the unwritten "rules". It's like a secret code full of little tests to determine class background.

[Lady]

I think in America we look for the possibility of money vs actually having it. For example, an auto mechanic might have more money right now than a fiscally insecure medical student but down the road things will reverse.

[yewchapel]

I don't think that over here an engineer would be considered "working class." Certainly not blue collar.

Of course not every blue collar worker is precluded from liking poetry and classical music. But as a matter of probability -- it's a lot less likely that someone with less education is interested in those things.

I don't think class is perceived the same way in the US and the UK. It has more to do with educational level and money here, IMO, than family background.

Could you define blue collar please? Just because I'm not familiar with what it consists of in the US. And surely even blue-collar people would get exposure to poetry and classical music in school? And there are plenty of interests that transcend class.

[pixydust]

I don't think wanting a fellow professional is as much about class/money as about relatability. I simply wouldn't have a whole lot of interests in common with the vast majority of blue collar workers. Not a lot to TALK about. And not a similar worldview either. I can say this with confidence because most of my family is working class, and a large proportion of my high school classmates are too. I make significantly more money than my husband, and I don't care too much what my husband makes, as long as he has the motivation to pursue SOMETHING stimulating.

Do you realize just how classist that comes off as? Not everyone has the luck to do something stimulating . My husband didn't go to college because his parents wouldn't give him the financial information that he needed for scholarships. He was accepted into a college, and couldn't go because his parents couldn't be bothered to dig up some papers. It's not all motivation and choosing a career...sometimes you do what you have to do, and you work your ass off everyday, and come home to your family and friends for the stimulation.

Also, liking poetry and classical music has nothing at all to do with education. :roll:

[flyaway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-collar_worker

We get less exposure to poetry and classical music in primary/secondary school than you might think.

And of course there are things that transcend class -- but when you are looking for a spouse among the general population, and you want *a lot* of things in common, including worldview, people who have similar educational backgrounds will typically be a better bet. Maybe I overemphasize this because of feeling so different from those in my hometown. Maybe I'm conflating regional differences with class. Maybe if I were from the northeast I'd feel differently. But I look at all of the blue collar fundie lites still in my hometown and know I could never ever have married any of them.

[flyaway]

Do you realize just how classist that comes off as? Not everyone has the luck to do something stimulating . My husband didn't go to college because his parents wouldn't give him the financial information that he needed for scholarships. He was accepted into a college, and couldn't go because his parents couldn't be bothered to dig up some papers. It's not all motivation and choosing a career...sometimes you do what you have to do, and you work your ass off everyday, and come home to your family and friends for the stimulation.

Also, liking poetry and classical music has nothing at all to do with education. :roll:

I get that not everyone is not equally fortunate. But I don't get needing your parents to dig up papers. Any kid can do that at the library or the guidance counselor's office. I'm not trying to be an asshole. But that's what I did, and I think lots of other kids do too.

Edited: I get what you're saying -- his parents own financial statements. That's very tough luck.

[yewchapel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-collar_worker

We get less exposure to poetry and classical music in primary/secondary school than you might think.

And of course there are things that transcend class -- but when you are looking for a spouse among the general population, and you want *a lot* of things in common, including worldview, people who have similar educational backgrounds will typically be a better bet. Maybe I overemphasize this because of feeling so different from those in my hometown. Maybe I'm conflating regional differences with class. Maybe if I were from the northeast I'd feel differently. But I look at all of the blue collar fundie lites still in my hometown and know I could never ever have married any of them.

My dad is blue-collar according to that - he was an engineer for a car company and worked with their welding machines, before being made redundant.

And what if you couldn't afford college? Would you still have married one of the people in your hometown? I'm guessing not, since your personality doesn't match with them - and that's fine, but that's not to do with class. Them being fundie-lite and you being an atheist would have more of an impact.

[flyaway]

My dad is blue-collar according to that - he was an engineer for a car company and worked with their welding machines, before being made redundant.

And what if you couldn't afford college? Would you still have married one of the people in your hometown? I'm guessing not, since your personality doesn't match with them - and that's fine, but that's not to do with class. Them being fundie-lite and you being an atheist would have more of an impact.

I was very lucky to live in a state that gives free college to high school graduates with good grades. And with grant and loan programs, most people who want to go to college can. But, of course, the student loan problem has gotten out of hand, and this is probably less true now than when I was that age.

[lilith]

I think marrying purely for love is a luxury anywhere.

It's easier in societies with social mobility and easy access to education - if you and the person you fall in love with have similar ideals and ambitions you can pursue them together, and even if they don't work out you will still be able to educate your kids and are unlikely to starve. In other societies that's not the case, and you would be crazy to marry someone who couldn't help you ensure that your family was fed, clothed and educated.

It's relevant in the west too, probably more so than most would admit. When I re partnered after my divorce, with three young kids, I wasn't going to consider anyone who wasn't financially stable and settled in his career. The luxuries of choice I had as a young single woman with no responsibilities weren't there for a single mother responsible for three kids. Now I never would have pursued someone I didn't love just for financial stability, but I also didn't even consider pursuing men who weren't financially stable, responsible, and ready for a family.

[pixydust]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-collar_worker

We get less exposure to poetry and classical music in primary/secondary school than you might think.

And of course there are things that transcend class -- but when you are looking for a spouse among the general population, and you want *a lot* of things in common, including worldview, people who have similar educational backgrounds will typically be a better bet. Maybe I overemphasize this because of feeling so different from those in my hometown. Maybe I'm conflating regional differences with class. Maybe if I were from the northeast I'd feel differently. But I look at all of the blue collar fundie lites still in my hometown and know I could never ever have married any of them.

Could it be more that they are fundies and you are a liberal (atheist? agnostic? I think you said so up thread?), more than they are blue collar? A fundie isn't going to be reading Dylan Thomas or Poe and have probably never heard of the "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" or even read the poems in "Alice and Wonderland", they will not have an opinion on "Doctor Zhivago" , or probably be able to tell you the difference between the musical styles of Mozart and Tchaicovsky because of religion, not their careers.

My blue collar, raised in a hick town in NC husband? Loves Poe and hates Longfellow....likes Buddy Holly more than classical....can rebuild my car's engine and then relax with a good glass of wine....and enjoys a Broadway musical just as much as rock crawling in his Jeep. He has many dimensions, as do most interesting people out there.

[valsa]

I would never date anyone who didn't have their financial house in order. That's very important to me. I don't have a problem with someone having a setback (job loss, illness, whatever) that puts them into debt but I wouldn't commit to anything big with them unless they were back on their feet and making serious progress towards financial health.

On the other hand, the finances of my in-laws really aren't that important to me (unless they're going to be mooching off us...) Maybe it's because there can be such a big discrepancy between generations when it comes to finances. For instance, various grandparents on both sides of my family are actually very well off as far as gross-income in concerned. However, one side manages it well by living fairly conservatively and making intelligent choices while the other side blows all theirs on poorly (or non-) thought out ideas (like rental properties they don’t really know how to manage or letting significant others run up massive amounts of credit card debt because they don’t want to be alone) The next generation, my parents, were technically middle class when I was growing up, but we lived like poor people because they made very stupid choices with their money. Lastly, I’m pretty much dirt poor but I manage what little I have very well.

[Rosa]

A lot of academic sources show the US as having less class mobility than Western Europe or Canada. This is a news article but the link back to several sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha ... wanted=all

[flyaway]

Do you think your husband is typical (or even not unusual) among blue collar workers from hick towns in NC?

I get there are individuals who could have surprised me. But looking for love among blue collar workers from rural southern towns seems a less fruitful enterprise for me than looking among fellow professionals living in big cities.

[yewchapel]

Do you think your husband is typical (or even not unusual) among blue collar workers from hick towns in NC?

I get there are individuals who could have surprised me. But looking for love among blue collar workers from rural southern towns seems a less fruitful enterprise for me than looking among fellow professionals living in big cities.

I get that, but I think it has more to do with religion than class - certainly, non-religious people are easier to find in big cities. Again, if for whatever reason you hadn't gone to college, would you still have found a good match in your hometown?

Edited to add that I think perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on the college issue. Plenty of couples have one graduate partner and one non-graduate partner, college isn't a requirement for even all careers - for example over here, nurses don't need degrees.

[flyaway]

A lot of academic sources show the US as having less class mobility than Western Europe or Canada. This is a news article but the link back to several sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha ... wanted=all

I'm not sure you can generalize that to less class mobility as a whole (but I didn't look at the underlying studies). It certainly supports the point that the very poorest and the very richest classes tend to remain stagnant. I still believe that class mobility between lower-middle to upper-middle classes (which is a pretty darn big difference in lifestyle) is very possible with education, hard work, and good fortune.