![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
M: I've got the money, I've got a great job, and I still get "It's just you?"
Ca: Nah, they're threatened. Buying a place alone means you don't need a man
M: I don't
Ch: Everyone needs a man! That's why I rent. If you own and he still rents, the power structure is all off. It's emasculating. Men don't want a woman who's too self-sufficient.
S: I'm sorry, did someone just order a Victorian, straight up?
I have the entire series of Sex And The City on DVD. I often get teased for this. But there are a couple of good reasons why I ignore the fact that it's probably the most girlie thing I enjoy. The first is that the 4 main characters are major archetypes of women in western society. They can each be identified by the four main Meyers-Briggs categories, and other personality type systems as well, I'm just not as familiar with other typing systems to speak of them. Charlotte is a classic SJ, Miranda is a neurotic NT, Samantha is an incredibly hedonistic SP and Carrie is a bit of a dysfunctional NF. I find the show fascinating because it's a glimpse into the minds of creatures so incredibly alien to me ... American Women.
Another reason is because I actually identify with 2 of the characters, in spite of the fact that I wouldn't make a lot of the choices they all make. Anyone who knows me should be able to guess which characters I find similiarity in, even just by the above MBTI characterizations. I find I agree with Miranda most often, with a little bit of Samantha thrown in. Carrie drives me nuts and Charlotte is just unfathomable. But occasionally Miranda and Samantha say things that make me say "Yes, that's how I feel!"
And yet another reason why I like the show is because many of the conversations the girls have with each other can be used as a tool to foster discussion about important relationship-topics. Whether anyone agrees with their statements or not, whether anyone would ever do some of the monumentally stupid things they do, the girls discuss an incredibly wide variety of topics on how people relate to one another and I find I can use some of these conversations as examples of things either that I believe or that I don't understand but everyone else does.
Plus, the writing is rather witty, even if the women spend 7 years doing really shitty things to men.
Many of the Media Reflections that I plan to write will have to do with something I heard from one of these episodes.
In this case, the above quote strikes a chord with me. I feel very much in Miranda's place a lot of the time with respect to money and independence. Take a conversation I had with my mother. I had a boyfriend not to long ago who did not have a steady job and I was constantly paying for him, supporting him. It wasn't a case of me making *more* money than my partner, it was a case of him not making any money at all and if I didn't support him, he might starve. It wasn't a choice and it wasn't a case of wanting to do more or better things and choosing to pay for him in order to do things he couldn't afford. I felt that my own quality of life was lowered because my meager income had to support two people. Naturally, my mother felt he was freeloading and I should choose someone who was financially stable.
Later, I had a boyfriend who made significantly more money than I did. I was a bit uncomfortable with him paying for me all the time until he explained that he didn't feel he was "supporting" me. He put it like this. He wanted to experience a particular activity. This activity cost money. He wanted to enjoy that activity with me. If I could not afford to pay for myself, he had 3 choices. He could skip the activity, he could go alone (or with someone else), or he could pay for me to go with him. Whenever he offered to pay for me, he evaluated his options and his financial situation at the time, and oftentimes believed that the extra cost of paying for me was worth the opportunity to share the activity with me. Like many activities, we have to trade money for the activity. Sometimes we have the money and we feel it's worth the cost. Sometimes we have the money but feel it's not worth the cost. Sometimes we don't have the money. When dating someone who makes less money than he does, he has to factor in that the cost of the event might include my costs as well as his.
So, in this conversation with my mother, she was going off about finding men who could support themselves and me not taking care of them. To which I whole-heartedly agree. But I made a comment about being equal, and something about it being equally unfair to expect a man to support me. It is my opinion that each adult should be in a position to support themselves, although the level to which they support themselves is irrelevant. Well, my mom suddenly recanted and said that it was OK for me to find a man to support me and that I should let guys pay for me and take me out.
This is a difficult subject for me. On the one hand, I think both men and women should be fully functioning adults who can pay their rent on time and not starve. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with a large financial discrepancy between partners, providing that both partners are OK with the situation. For example, I would actually really like to make enough money to "support" someone. I wouldn't mind having a "housewife", someone who took care of all the domestic duties that I so hate. Of course, I could also just hire a housekeeper. But, providing I actually do make enough money to comfortably pay for all the living expenses for 2 people, and providing that he actually does contribute to the household in non-financial ways (which is something that other boyfriend didn't really do), the idea of supporting someone doesn't bother me and even has a strange sort of appeal to me. I also am much more accepting now of men who want to pay to take me out and do fun things, especially when they can afford to take me to activities that I can't afford on my own.
Basically, the way I handle things is this. If someone invites me out, I consider if I can afford to pay for my own expenses and if the activity is worth the expense. If it is, I agree to the activity, prepared to pay for myself, but I don't argue if he insists on paying. If it is not affordable, I say so and allow him to either offer to pay for me or express his regret for me not attending. If I invite someone else out, I first make sure I can afford to pay for them in the event they cannot. If I am not in a position to pay for my guest but I want to invite them anyway, I try to find a way to bring up the cost up front, so they are aware they are expected to pay for themselves.
Now, back to the quote. I realize that we have made a lot of progress with respect to rights and social issues in the last several decades, but I am constantly blindsided by examples that says we are not as evolved as I would hope. Like my mother giving me the double standard in a phone conversation. Like me offering to buy a guy dinner or a movie ticket and him refusing on the grounds that a girl shouldn't "have" to pay for him, or it's the "man's job" to pay for dinner. Like men who automatically hold my door open but who refuse to let me hold the door open for them. Men and women that I meet seem just dead set on maintaining the old-fashioned satus-quo. Women think I'm crazy when I say I want a "housewife" (and I do not request a specific gender ... but househusband is just clunky), that I *want* to be the "breadwinner" and support someone. Men seemed thrilled to have a "sugar mama" but seem appalled when they realize the job description includes actually keeping house. I'm ashamed for my gender and my society when I hold the door open for a man whose hands are full and he reacts with surprise and even comments on it for its rarity. And too many people of either gender still seem to agree with (and have no desire to change) the idea that a woman can't make as much or more money than her male partner, can't own her own property, would be the one to give up her house to move in with him, give up her last name to take his, and quit her job to take care of the house and/or kids while he supports them. There continues to be studies that show women *feel* more responsible for household issues in addition to their jobs than men do, that men don't put as many hours into housework as women do, and that men make more money and/or advance more in their careers than women do - whether this is actually true or not, people still *feel* this way in their own lives. That says to me that these gender-differentiated ideas are still alive and kicking.
Sorry, we don't serve those here. You'll have to order your Victorian, straight up, at another establishment.
Ca: Nah, they're threatened. Buying a place alone means you don't need a man
M: I don't
Ch: Everyone needs a man! That's why I rent. If you own and he still rents, the power structure is all off. It's emasculating. Men don't want a woman who's too self-sufficient.
S: I'm sorry, did someone just order a Victorian, straight up?
I have the entire series of Sex And The City on DVD. I often get teased for this. But there are a couple of good reasons why I ignore the fact that it's probably the most girlie thing I enjoy. The first is that the 4 main characters are major archetypes of women in western society. They can each be identified by the four main Meyers-Briggs categories, and other personality type systems as well, I'm just not as familiar with other typing systems to speak of them. Charlotte is a classic SJ, Miranda is a neurotic NT, Samantha is an incredibly hedonistic SP and Carrie is a bit of a dysfunctional NF. I find the show fascinating because it's a glimpse into the minds of creatures so incredibly alien to me ... American Women.
Another reason is because I actually identify with 2 of the characters, in spite of the fact that I wouldn't make a lot of the choices they all make. Anyone who knows me should be able to guess which characters I find similiarity in, even just by the above MBTI characterizations. I find I agree with Miranda most often, with a little bit of Samantha thrown in. Carrie drives me nuts and Charlotte is just unfathomable. But occasionally Miranda and Samantha say things that make me say "Yes, that's how I feel!"
And yet another reason why I like the show is because many of the conversations the girls have with each other can be used as a tool to foster discussion about important relationship-topics. Whether anyone agrees with their statements or not, whether anyone would ever do some of the monumentally stupid things they do, the girls discuss an incredibly wide variety of topics on how people relate to one another and I find I can use some of these conversations as examples of things either that I believe or that I don't understand but everyone else does.
Plus, the writing is rather witty, even if the women spend 7 years doing really shitty things to men.
Many of the Media Reflections that I plan to write will have to do with something I heard from one of these episodes.
In this case, the above quote strikes a chord with me. I feel very much in Miranda's place a lot of the time with respect to money and independence. Take a conversation I had with my mother. I had a boyfriend not to long ago who did not have a steady job and I was constantly paying for him, supporting him. It wasn't a case of me making *more* money than my partner, it was a case of him not making any money at all and if I didn't support him, he might starve. It wasn't a choice and it wasn't a case of wanting to do more or better things and choosing to pay for him in order to do things he couldn't afford. I felt that my own quality of life was lowered because my meager income had to support two people. Naturally, my mother felt he was freeloading and I should choose someone who was financially stable.
Later, I had a boyfriend who made significantly more money than I did. I was a bit uncomfortable with him paying for me all the time until he explained that he didn't feel he was "supporting" me. He put it like this. He wanted to experience a particular activity. This activity cost money. He wanted to enjoy that activity with me. If I could not afford to pay for myself, he had 3 choices. He could skip the activity, he could go alone (or with someone else), or he could pay for me to go with him. Whenever he offered to pay for me, he evaluated his options and his financial situation at the time, and oftentimes believed that the extra cost of paying for me was worth the opportunity to share the activity with me. Like many activities, we have to trade money for the activity. Sometimes we have the money and we feel it's worth the cost. Sometimes we have the money but feel it's not worth the cost. Sometimes we don't have the money. When dating someone who makes less money than he does, he has to factor in that the cost of the event might include my costs as well as his.
So, in this conversation with my mother, she was going off about finding men who could support themselves and me not taking care of them. To which I whole-heartedly agree. But I made a comment about being equal, and something about it being equally unfair to expect a man to support me. It is my opinion that each adult should be in a position to support themselves, although the level to which they support themselves is irrelevant. Well, my mom suddenly recanted and said that it was OK for me to find a man to support me and that I should let guys pay for me and take me out.
This is a difficult subject for me. On the one hand, I think both men and women should be fully functioning adults who can pay their rent on time and not starve. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with a large financial discrepancy between partners, providing that both partners are OK with the situation. For example, I would actually really like to make enough money to "support" someone. I wouldn't mind having a "housewife", someone who took care of all the domestic duties that I so hate. Of course, I could also just hire a housekeeper. But, providing I actually do make enough money to comfortably pay for all the living expenses for 2 people, and providing that he actually does contribute to the household in non-financial ways (which is something that other boyfriend didn't really do), the idea of supporting someone doesn't bother me and even has a strange sort of appeal to me. I also am much more accepting now of men who want to pay to take me out and do fun things, especially when they can afford to take me to activities that I can't afford on my own.
Basically, the way I handle things is this. If someone invites me out, I consider if I can afford to pay for my own expenses and if the activity is worth the expense. If it is, I agree to the activity, prepared to pay for myself, but I don't argue if he insists on paying. If it is not affordable, I say so and allow him to either offer to pay for me or express his regret for me not attending. If I invite someone else out, I first make sure I can afford to pay for them in the event they cannot. If I am not in a position to pay for my guest but I want to invite them anyway, I try to find a way to bring up the cost up front, so they are aware they are expected to pay for themselves.
Now, back to the quote. I realize that we have made a lot of progress with respect to rights and social issues in the last several decades, but I am constantly blindsided by examples that says we are not as evolved as I would hope. Like my mother giving me the double standard in a phone conversation. Like me offering to buy a guy dinner or a movie ticket and him refusing on the grounds that a girl shouldn't "have" to pay for him, or it's the "man's job" to pay for dinner. Like men who automatically hold my door open but who refuse to let me hold the door open for them. Men and women that I meet seem just dead set on maintaining the old-fashioned satus-quo. Women think I'm crazy when I say I want a "housewife" (and I do not request a specific gender ... but househusband is just clunky), that I *want* to be the "breadwinner" and support someone. Men seemed thrilled to have a "sugar mama" but seem appalled when they realize the job description includes actually keeping house. I'm ashamed for my gender and my society when I hold the door open for a man whose hands are full and he reacts with surprise and even comments on it for its rarity. And too many people of either gender still seem to agree with (and have no desire to change) the idea that a woman can't make as much or more money than her male partner, can't own her own property, would be the one to give up her house to move in with him, give up her last name to take his, and quit her job to take care of the house and/or kids while he supports them. There continues to be studies that show women *feel* more responsible for household issues in addition to their jobs than men do, that men don't put as many hours into housework as women do, and that men make more money and/or advance more in their careers than women do - whether this is actually true or not, people still *feel* this way in their own lives. That says to me that these gender-differentiated ideas are still alive and kicking.
Sorry, we don't serve those here. You'll have to order your Victorian, straight up, at another establishment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 8/17/07 01:59 pm (UTC)From:I like your method of planning for paying for activities - that's a very sensible way to go about it, imo.