Jump to content

Should women settle for second best?


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted
That's because the middle class has been squeezed to death and consumer spending on frivolities is still out of control. Not a positive trend.

 

Very true. Conservatives vote for politicians that make it damn near impossible to have the traditional setup they love to promote.

Posted
I agree. Would anyone like to guess one of the top, if not, the greatest cause of divorce?

 

Money of course.

 

Our society is screwed. My father got out of high school and got a high paying job with a pension, and couldn't go to college prior because his family was poor.

 

Now he's been laid off once and is facing it again. People work twice as hard to make half as much nowadays and it's wrong. Globalization and greed has made everything a giant mess basically.

Posted
consumer spending on frivolities is still out of control. Not a positive trend.

 

This is the real problem right here. If people were responsible with their money and lived within their means there would be no problem with people finances.

 

If you NEED to blame somebody (when in my opinion it's the people themselves' fault) blame the media that makes people think they need the biggest new best toys and if they don't have them then they are failures in life.

 

If people didn't spend money they didn't have, they wouldn't be as screwed up as they are, simple as that.

Posted
This is the real problem right here. If people were responsible with their money and lived within their means there would be no problem with people finances.

 

If you NEED to blame somebody (when in my opinion it's the people themselves' fault) blame the media that makes people think they need the biggest new best toys and if they don't have them then they are failures in life.

 

If people didn't spend money they didn't have, they wouldn't be as screwed up as they are, simple as that.

Of course people are ultimately accountable, but I think that many forces in modern society conspire to encourage irresponsible spending and consumption. Most people are easily led, and the media, ad industry, and product-pushing corporations exploit human weakness expertly to separate people from their money.

 

These notions of a personal buffet of entertainment in your pocket 24/7, "luxury" for everybody, pressure to upgrade to every slight enhancement in technology are mainstreamed and perpetuated at every turn. It's tragic and disgusting.

Posted
Of course people are ultimately accountable, but I think that many forces in modern society conspire to encourage irresponsible spending and consumption. Most people are easily led, and the media, ad industry, and product-pushing corporations exploit human weakness expertly to separate people from their money.

 

These notions of a personal buffet of entertainment in your pocket 24/7, "luxury" for everybody, pressure to upgrade to every slight enhancement in technology are mainstreamed and perpetuated at every turn. It's tragic and disgusting.

 

I agree with all of that. However I don't think the media is at the root of the problem. It's the whole idea of 'does art reflect life or does life reflect art'. In this case I think the 'charge' mentality came before the media did. And even if it didn't you can't blame anybody except the person who actually picks up the TV, Car, Stereo, What have you, that he can't afford and charges it.

 

We need more personal accountability in the world, I firmly believe thats one of the big reasons we run into some of the problems that we do, people are too ready to blame somebody else.

Posted
We need more personal accountability in the world, I firmly believe thats one of the big reasons we run into some of the problems that we do, people are too ready to blame somebody else.

I agree.

 

(msg too short)

Posted

The thing is, I do agree with the whole 'it's the individuals fault for buying into the media' etc. However, in the UK, people were forced to turn to credit in order to pay bills, for petrol (gas) etc in order to survive and keep up with the rising costs of living. A lot of people weren't being paid enough to cover the costs, their annual rise was lower than the rise in what it costs to live in the UK. That means that utility bills are rising, food shopping is going up etc etc, and it's no wonder that people do resort to measures such as credit cards, loans etc when faced with spiraling bills. Just thought I'd throw the notion that we aren't all just in it for the gadgets...

 

As for settling, I vote 'not in a million years.' Sorry. I wouldn't want to be with someone I viewed as settling for. I'm not saying it's black and white, it's not, no one is 100% anything, but sometimes you're on a date and the guy either cuts it or he doesn't, he's either who you want or he's not. It is as simple as that. Sure, a guy may be lovely and have loads of desirable qualities, but if it's not there, it's not there. I wouldn't ever advise someone to settle for lukewarm when they should have scalding hot.

Posted
The thing is, I do agree with the whole 'it's the individuals fault for buying into the media' etc. However, in the UK, people were forced to turn to credit in order to pay bills, for petrol (gas) etc in order to survive and keep up with the rising costs of living. A lot of people weren't being paid enough to cover the costs, their annual rise was lower than the rise in what it costs to live in the UK. That means that utility bills are rising, food shopping is going up etc etc, and it's no wonder that people do resort to measures such as credit cards, loans etc when faced with spiraling bills. Just thought I'd throw the notion that we aren't all just in it for the gadgets...

 

Same situation in the US, inflation (cost of living basically) has averaged 4% over the past 10 years, yet many of those 10 years have seen pay freezes and lay offs, not raises. So its no different over here. While there maybe be some people out there that have a legitimate reason for being financially in trouble, in my experience (which spans hundreds of couples) most of the time that isn't the case. Yes I don't have any personal experience in britain, so the situation may be different, but it's certainly not different based on what you just said. Thats all the same as my side of the pond.

Posted (edited)

Yes. Other factors in the US are profit-based health care and insufficiently funded education.

 

I'm a start-up business owner, and I pay a pretty astronomical amount for crappy health insurance that doesn't cover anything. And I'm a young, healthy person with no pre-existing conditions.

 

I paid my own way through college, and even though I chose an affordable university, tuition increased by 600% during the FOUR YEARS I was there. By now, it's gone up more than 1,000%. I got a lot of merit-based scholarships, work study, and grants, and I worked at least 20 hours a week in addition to taking the maximum allowed course load of 17 hours a semester (so I could finish faster and minimize costs), but I am still paying off my student loans.

 

I could not afford health insurance while I was a student, and routine medical and dental expenses along with one emergency room visit for an accident set me back almost $10,000.

 

The past 20-30 years have been very hard on working people.

Edited by Ruby Slippers
Posted
As part of my chosen proffession I sit down with alot of married couples and talk about their finances, and I'm here to tell you a good 70+% of marriages BOTH people work full time. There are very very few marriages where only one person works full time and the other part time/no time. And of the few that do work that way they are often the most financially screwed up people I see.

 

It is VERY difficult to work with just one income nowadays. With the exception of the first year or two of a childs life both man and woman should be out working if you want your finances to survive at all.

 

Yep, I'v been running numbers through my head lately and I've concluded that on my salary ($65k, which is more than what 65% of the households in the US make!), it is impossible to have comfortable and secure family life. Both parents need to - and will - work full time in my case. And I'm not talking about any extravagant spending. I drive an 10 year old car (paid in full), and have less student loans than most. If I were to support a family on that, we would be living paycheck to paycheck, with zero savings and zero occasional comforts (e.g. travel, holidays, whatever). It certainly can be done, but it would be a pretty miserable life.

 

While there is a lot of frivolous spending going on in the economy, I don't see how the middle class problems can be explained with that. Housing, healthcare, education, and transportation consume the majority of household budgets. Which is fine in a sense that nobody is starving, but also nobody is getting ahead financially, which is baffling at this level of income.

  • Author
Posted
Yep, I'v been running numbers through my head lately and I've concluded that on my salary ($65k, which is more than what 65% of the households in the US make!), it is impossible to have comfortable and secure family life. Both parents need to - and will - work full time in my case.

 

You obviously have no idea how much childcare costs!! My partner works full time and I stay at home with the children simply because it would cost more than I coud earn to put the children into a creche full time. Also my partner earns much less than 65k a year and we are doing fine. Fair enough were not rich but we have everything we need :) Some savings and NO loans as we'd rather save for the things we want than get in debt!

Posted

 

You obviously have no idea how much childcare costs!! My partner works full time and I stay at home with the children simply because it would cost more than I coud earn to put the children into a creche full time. Also my partner earns much less than 65k a year and we are doing fine. Fair enough were not rich but we have everything we need :) Some savings and NO loans as we'd rather save for the things we want than get in debt!

 

In my neck of the woods childcare for the average family runs between 600 and 1200 dollars a month depending on the number of kids. If you worked full time it shouldn't be hard to find a job that paid more than 1200 dollars a month. If it works for you great, I'm very happy for you really I am, I understand how a family that never goes into debt can get by alot easier than people who make more but have a debt load to carry. But the idea that childcare is so expensive that it doesn't even make sense to go to work is not true, at least not in my experience I have no idea if its more expensive in other parts of the country.

Posted
In my neck of the woods childcare for the average family runs between 600 and 1200 dollars a month depending on the number of kids. If you worked full time it shouldn't be hard to find a job that paid more than 1200 dollars a month. If it works for you great, I'm very happy for you really I am, I understand how a family that never goes into debt can get by alot easier than people who make more but have a debt load to carry. But the idea that childcare is so expensive that it doesn't even make sense to go to work is not true, at least not in my experience I have no idea if its more expensive in other parts of the country.

 

 

Same in my area (a major, though not too expensive, city). Childcare is more expensive than income only if we're talking about minimum wage jobs. Any lower middle class salary brings in at least double that (and the rest would be sufficient to cover a sensible mortgage, hypothetically).

Posted
Same in my area (a major, though not too expensive, city). Childcare is more expensive than income only if we're talking about minimum wage jobs. Any lower middle class salary brings in at least double that (and the rest would be sufficient to cover a sensible mortgage, hypothetically).

 

There are definitely advantages to having a wife/husband who stays home and takes care of the house. If one partner makes enough to make it possible, personally, I'd actually prefer it that way. Unfortunately it's not possible most of the time.

  • Author
Posted (edited)
In my neck of the woods childcare for the average family runs between 600 and 1200 dollars a month depending on the number of kids. If you worked full time it shouldn't be hard to find a job that paid more than 1200 dollars a month. If it works for you great, I'm very happy for you really I am, I understand how a family that never goes into debt can get by alot easier than people who make more but have a debt load to carry. But the idea that childcare is so expensive that it doesn't even make sense to go to work is not true, at least not in my experience I have no idea if its more expensive in other parts of the country.

 

 

I'm in Ireland and I was quoted 2.5k per month for full time childcare for 2 children. (Euro's not dollars). My mortgage is only 1200k per month - it doesn't make sense to pay double our mortgage for child care. I also have a huge problem with people having children and then paying other people to raise them. In my humble opinion if you can't afford to raise your own kids then don't have them.

 

P.S We've kind of gone off course here, can we get back to the thread i.e Should women settle??

Edited by Lipsy10
Posted
I'm in Ireland and I was quoted 2.5k per month for full time childcare for 2 children. (Euro's not dollars). My mortgage is only 1200k per month - it doesn't make sense to pay double our mortgage for child care. I also have a huge problem with people having children and then paying other people to raise them. In my humble opinion if you can't afford to raise your own kids then don't have them.

 

P.S We've kind of gone off course here, can we get back to the thread i.e Should women settle??

 

 

We haven't gone that much off-course, because this whole discussion started with how "reasonable" is the expectation that a woman would stay in the home, while the guy shoulders all of the financial burden. My conclusion is that at present this is an extremely unreasonable expectation, and, if a woman has it she better be prepared and willing to be the traditional stay at home mom in all senses of the word, which includes accepting very low level - if any - of economic freedom - e.g. in terms of discretionary spending.

Basically either choice is fine, but either comes with a tradeoff. When women say that they will not "settle", this typically means that they will not compromise on anything, aka they will not bear any of the cost of any of the inevitable tradeoffs. I.e. you can't have a high-powered career AND glamorous standard of living AND being able to stay at home with a kid indefinitely all at the same time. Something's got to give...

 

(What would be off topic is the whole debate of "how evil" daycare is :rolleyes:. Beyond the first 1-2 years it is far more beneficial for a toddler to interact with multiple people and socialize than be stuck with mom at home all day, with the limited stimulation a single adult can provide)

  • Author
Posted
We haven't gone that much off-course, because this whole discussion started with how "reasonable" is the expectation that a woman would stay in the home, while the guy shoulders all of the financial burden.

 

What??? eh no.. the thread started off about lori's book about women looking for Mr. Perfect and how maybe Mr. Goodenough is well goodenough :p basically should women settle for second best? No where in the opening thread was money mentioned although I do realise money is a factor when choosing a partner its not the be all and end all. {or at least it shouldn't be}

 

 

My conclusion is that at present this is an extremely unreasonable expectation, and, if a woman has it she better be prepared and willing to be the traditional stay at home mom in all senses of the word, which includes accepting very low level - if any - of economic freedom - e.g. in terms of discretionary spending.

:eek: you seem to think stay at home mothers or women who want to be stay at home mothers are looking to sponge off their men. My partner and I are exactly that partners. I didn't decide to get myself pregnant! WE decided to have a baby. WE both decided that he would take on the bread winner role. WE are a family. It's not me spending his money as all money that comes into our house is shared equaly. My partner has not once complained about this. Infact when I offered to go back to work so he could stay at home with the children he wouldn't even consider it because its not easy being stuck in a house with two small children as anyone with children knows.

 

(What would be off topic is the whole debate of "how evil" daycare is :rolleyes:. Beyond the first 1-2 years it is far more beneficial for a toddler to interact with multiple people and socialize than be stuck with mom at home all day, with the limited stimulation a single adult can provide)

I never said daycare was "evil" I said I don't agree with having a baby and then dumping it in daycare from 8 in the morning till 6 in the evening which is what you will have to do if your gonna work full time! My children will go to a playschool for 3 hours a day when their old enough to mix with other children.

 

But again all of this is off topic ;)

Posted

I'm happy it works for you.

It wouldn't for me. All I'm saying (and in that, I guess I am just like a woman :laugh:), that I would have a hard time respecting a woman unless she has a career and pulls in at least some of the income, including after kids. Staying at home with a young (1-2 years) baby is one thing, but being a SAHM for years - quite different, and not very attractive to me personally.

Posted

I dont think settling is a nice word. A lot of times women (and men) have no clue on what it is they want or are still searching. That's fine. If you discover what you want, and you have all the necessary tools to achieve these wants (looks, wealth, culture etc) then you should find someone that is truly made for you.

 

Steve Jobs put it together nicely:

 

Posted

Lets be honest most average couples "settle" in terms of they cant acquire any better then their partner,their ideal Men or Women is unattainable and they did as good as they can with what they offer but arent with their ideal or dream/fantasy person..

Posted

If your first choice doesn't want you, are you really settling by taking the guy who does or just being realistic?

 

How do you know the guy you couldn't get would stick with you & treat you right 5 yrs down the road?

 

Lots of guys hide the fact their complete jerks from women until they have them hooked.

 

Then the women come here & post about these HORRIBLE guys their in love with wondering what to do.

 

do these women think they got their #1 choice?

I do. Why try & hold onto 2nd best?

Posted

I think the term "second best" is a little loaded and misleading. Both men and women could do with a reality check. "The One" is a myth. The One is a lie. If you spend your entire life holding out for The One, you may well miss out on the great loe of your life. No two people are perfectly compatible. All relationships require work. If someone--male or female--thinks it is all about finding an ideal mate, they're sadly mistaken.

Posted
I think the term "second best" is a little loaded and misleading. Both men and women could do with a reality check. "The One" is a myth. The One is a lie. If you spend your entire life holding out for The One, you may well miss out on the great loe of your life. No two people are perfectly compatible. All relationships require work. If someone--male or female--thinks it is all about finding an ideal mate, they're sadly mistaken.

 

Definitely.

 

I would add that if you can't put up with, or it requires too much sacrifice/work on your part to make it work, then you know that you can't 'settle' for this person.

 

The myth of 'The One', the 'soul mate' is just that, a myth. I fell into that trap for a long time. Now I just want to be alone. Another trap to fall into, when you just give up and say 'Stay away from me'

Posted

The concept of "settling" is a false construct in most cases.

 

So is that of the possibility of someone "better."

 

If the person is not a good match for you, you are making a big mistake by "settling" because you don't think you will get anyone "better."

 

On the other hand, having a set of external standards that need to be met is a set up for failure.

 

Can people not be honest about their dealings with other people?

 

"The One" or "Soulmate" might be fake romantic myths, but finding a partner with whom one shares an uncommon and deep connection, in my opinion, is more important than anything one could write down on a list. This kind of connection includes chemistry but also encompasses respect, shared core values, great communication, trust. Lots of relationships look great "on paper" and fail miserably.

Posted

I don't think there is 'second best'.. Either he is right person for you or not. Speaking of the best and the second best, I think the perspective is more from factors like job, age, look, education, rather than your feelings for him. In everyone girl's fantasy, we want to be with the perfect guy, but in reality, most of us would settle for other factors.. 'If I can't get the top guy, maybe I can settle for something less' exists somewhere in our mind. It may not be a bad thing, but it could destroy your chances of pursuing the best guy.

The decision is largely depending on what you want. If you have high standard, don't settle for less. If not, getting the second best isn't bad at all..:cool:

×
×
  • Create New...