Women have a need for financial support. A man who can provide means security for her and the children she likely hopes to have. Financial support means freedom from one of the most devastating forces to tear at a marriage. Financial support means she has choices. It means she can live in a safe neighborhood and drive a reliable car and have time to relax and enjoy life. It means her children will grow up in a safe neighborhood, receive a good education, be driven around in a safe and reliable car, and she will have the choice to stay home and raise them.
Thus it is readily evident why so many women find themselves naturally attracted to money. For some, certainly, it’s all about them and what they want. It’s not about security, it’s about selfishness and greed - both of which are essentially proper needs gone wild. We call those women gold diggers, interested in men only for their money. For the women of finest character, though, financial support is a legitimate need tied to many very good, logical and sound reasons.
Even women who want a career would like to know that if they had children and wanted to stay home to raise them that the option is open to them. It is not at all uncommon to find a women who, in her younger days, was devoted to her career. She went to college, majored in all the right subjects, went to work for all the right companies, climbed the career ladder, and made even more money than her husband. Then the first baby comes along and she stays home on maternity leave for just a few weeks.
Then she faces the thought of leaving her baby in the hands of a total stranger. Then she ponders the fact that someone else will raise her baby. Then she realizes that she might miss his first steps, his first words, and someone else will hold him when he falls down and cries. The idea of missing all those things weighs heavily on her heart and she decides that she has to stay home to raise her child.
Financial realities preclude that for many women. The lifestyle they have chosen with their husband and the inability of his income to provide for it make it impossible. The home they could have on his income alone make her uncomfortable - she cannot imagine her child growing up in such a dangerous neighborhood, going to such poor schools, having no money for college, scraping together money for food and living from paycheck to paycheck with nothing to show for it. So she goes back to work, often riddled with guilt for missing all the mom moments.
Whether or not a woman returns to work at that moment often depends upon the financial needs of the home. If she is forced back to work, she is often resentful of the need and may spend a great deal of time trying to rationalize and justify it. If it is completely her choice, if his income is sufficient, then even if she makes the same choice, it was really a choice.
INTUITIVE ATTRACTION TO PROVIDERS
Female intuition is often a matter of sub-intellectual consideration of an enormous number of variables. This means that women, in part because they are more aware of everythign that is happening while men tend to be more focused, tend to have too many pieces of a puzzle to think about them all logically. While men are often more capable of thinking logically based upon known and stated facts and be more focused and better problem solvers for defined problems, the typically feminine ability to track a great many subtle things at once, details that are often lost on men, almost precludes articulating all the variables. Because her mind cannot sort out the half a hundred different details it is considering, it interprets what it thinks as a feeling. Sometimes she’s wrong just like men’s logical conclusions are sometimes wrong. Sometimes she’s right.
One of the greatest things feminism did for women is help them articulate those vague feelings in a way that others could understand. Rather than knowing nods from other women who may feel similarly but not be able to articulate what it was or why it was, she could express herself in a way that made sense to men and made sense to women who might not have otherwise considered such a view.
Many women fight within themselves because they’ve been taught that they don’t need a man for money, but they find they still want a man for money. They’ve been taught that they should be reliant upon themselves, but they want to feel they can rely on him so they have a choice. They’ve been taught that they should not marry for money, but for love, and they often interpret this to mean that they should consider only how they feel, not whether or not her husband could possibly support her and a family. But they want a family, and they want their children to be secure. Often, the felt need for financial security is based on the desire for children - and an eighteen to twenty five year responsibility for raising children will have a minimum of financial challenges.
In short, women in particular don’t want the lives they and their children will have limited by money any more than necessary. Mothers of women are often even more senstive to the subject, which may be part of why the typical mother is very concerned with the providing potential of any boy her daughter dates. The traditional question fathers ask young men asking for their daughter’s hand is about providing for her. A declaration of love without evidence of an ability to support her does not endear many young men to the parents of young women. Unless the women really has carefully considered the ramifications of her choice and is willing to truly commit to such a life, she is likely headed for a rude awakening.
LOVE AND MONEY
While starry-eyed young women might be blinded by love, it is often because they have internalized the ideal that love conquers all. This is a half-truth. Agape can and does conquer all, but Phileo and Eros are easily destroyed and Agape is a matter of mutual character. The challenges of day to day to life naturally wage war with the romantic notions of happily ever after, and the inability to pay rent, threats of repossessed cars, and every decision limited by the checkbook quickly dispels romantic notions and hits marriage hard. Mutual character can hold a marriage together in these times, but without mutual Agape character, the marriage will fall apart - with or without a divorce.
A woman often finds herself longing for what could have been, for the life her father gave her - at the least - making marrying a woman with a wealthier family a dangerous proposition for a man without means. She starts to see the life she thinks she could have had, whether or not it is true, and the financial limitations dictated by the life they have drive a wedge between her husband and her. Finally, they divorce. While a thousand fights may have erupted with a thousand subjects and a hundred different attacks, the trigger is often financial - not enough money for one thing or another, and her life limited and controlled by a paycheck.
MONEY AS A MASTER
The Bible talks about serving God and Mammon, or God and money. The Bible indicates that you can only serve one, and it should be God. If you try to serve both, you will love one and hate the other. That means that when they conflict, you choose one over the other. Two masters can only be served so long as their call on your life does not conflict, and at the moment they do, your choice tells you which you truly serve.
Men often understand that their lot in life in to be a provider. If they’d rather avoid the rat race altogether and stay home, they know that the commands of God and the force of society only make that an option if he has managed to become independently wealthy. If he relies on inherited wealth or on her wealth or income, society tends to see him as less than a man because of the force of culture demanding a man do something to provide. Thus, when more money is required for something, men often head out into the world to try to earn more. Sometimes they sacrifice what they want to get their families what they want for them.
My father was one of those. He made a choice. His children were going to have a home. They were going to grow up with everything they needed, and they would live in a nice neighborhood and be driven around by his wife in reliable cars. They would have no want for clothes, food, college funds or anything else that might give them a step up in life. The sacrifice was his life, the ability to be a dad. Honestly, he didn’t know much about that, and had he been around, he would have needed much training in how to be a daddy. My mother was left to raise us, but she was given every financial resource she might need to do so.
She made sure we saw our father, and he did well being a father, just not a daddy. As we grew older, we grew closer to him as we reached the age to which he could relate. He made an effort to come to little league games and soccer games and track meets. He involved us in his business, that thing that kept him from us for ten years, but provided all the creature comforts of life. From the age of twelve, I learned what it was and how it worked and how he treated his employees. As the years wore on, the time my mother and father spent apart took it’s toll. Without a husband around, my mother had precious little practice at being a wife. Likewise, the master businessman had little practice being a husband. Eventually, their lack of practice and the consequential lack of skill tore at the relationship and they divorced.
Even in the divorce, my father was determined to provide. He made sure the family home did not have to be sold, and when he remarried, he made sure his new family would have a home of similar quality. He made sure money was available for school, and until he died, he made sure the financial needs of the family were fully met. At the need for financial support, he excelled.
My father, like many men, made choiced based upon how well he could provide for his family. The very character traits that made him so successful at business often tore at his marriage. The skills to win the Rat Race often turn men into rats. The dog eat dog world of business often means men must suppress their feelings and go after the competition that will put them out of work if they lose. It often means making choices they do not want to make because they know a home is on the line. The people they become sometimes hurt the very thing for which they are working so hard to provide.
Money becomes a master two ways. One is by chasing after it. For some, no amount of money is ever enough. He or she always needs more. He or she judges his or her value based upon income, wealth and stuff. They don’t just want to keep up with the Joneses, they want the Joneses to have to keep up with them.
The other way money becomes a master is by not having enough of it. If you have to make a single decision by the checkbook, money has guided that decision. If money dictates that you must rent, you cannot buy, money has made the decision for you. Everytime the best decisions must be set aside in favor of bad choices we can afford, money has become a master. This is a reality for almost all of us, and just as we try to master other controls in our life as we mature, so should we try to master money. We need to adopt a lifestyle in which we are comfortable and abundant resources to live at that lifestyle so we make decision by the value for our lifestyle choice, not checkbook limitations.
THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT NEED UNDER ATTACK
Financial support suffers from a truly bizarre series of attacks. On one hand, money is treated as though it is innately evil. Materialism is thought to be the having or the desiring of nice things. Doing things for the money is considered greedy, and rich people are obviously greedy people who won life’ lottery. On the other hand, money is routinely one of the top two triggers for fights between married couples (the other is sex). Lack of money causes all sorts of problems, and homes are lost, cars are lost, college becomes elusive, clothes, food and virtually everything in life that must be purchases suffers. Money is both lauded as necessary and desireable, but also attacked as evil and evidence of covetousness and greed.
Furthermore, both men and women often pick up romantic notions that teach that money isn’t important. All we need is love, not money. With love, we can get through anything. However, with love but no money, where will you live? With love and no money, what will you eat? What will you drive? What will you wear? If you have a home, how will you pay for a phone, or electricity, or an oven, or a refridgerator, or dishes? The questions are endless. We need money to survive in a modern industrialized society.
To complicate matters even further, we are taught that women can work just as well as a man. We are taught that a woman’s career hold’s equal value to a man’s and that she is just as capable of earning a living as he is. So both often work, contributing to the household income. Thus she is told that she doesn’t need him for money at all. But so many marital fights take place over money that he knows that it can’t be true.
This is one of those cases in which the stated principles and the rhetoric crash headlong into the realities of married life. While certainly not always the case, the conflict tears at each spouse individually as well as at the marriage.
MEN, WOMEN AND INCOME
There are some financial realitites that often come to bear. One is that a woman working full time will only earn about 60% of what a man earns if a full time job. Obviously this is not always the case, and profession by profession things are changing. This often means that a man and woman are both working similar hours, but she isn’t contributing financially to the household. She feels she is working just as much as her husband, and he feels he’s still carrying the largest load. Thus, she often feels little appreciation for his extra income because they are working the same hours, and he feels he’s still entitled to financial leadership because most of the money is earned by him.
There are some very good reasons for a large part of the financial discrepancy. A huge chunk of this has to do with occupational choices. Women commonly choose to enter into occupations that pay less. They often choose what they wish to do for reasons other than compensation. Men often choose occupations because of the income potential. They often look at their skills and pick the highest paying job for which they feel they can adequately compete.
Women are also more likely to choose professions that allow them greater flexibility. They tend to gravitate to positions that they could easily leave if they decide to stay home to raise their children. They often look for jobs that will allow them to go home for a day or two if the children get sick. Also, when her husband has a career opportunity, women are more likely to move for a husband’s career and start over somewhere than husbands are likely to move for a wife’s career.
Also, women are more likely to leave a job for personal reasons, only one of which is because a husband needs to move for his career. Women are more likely to leave a job because an office romance has gone sour, or because a boyfriend or potential husband lives elsewhere. Women are more likely to treat a job as though it is expendable, hoping to quit either when they marry or when they have children.
All these reasons for women to be paid less are something women can do something about. She can choose a career for its income potential. She can put her career first, sacrificing relationships and family, if necessary. She can take jobs even if it means separation from family, from husband and child. In short, she can treat a career the same way the typical career-minded man treats a career. One thing she can very little about, however, is discrimination.
Part of the discrimination problem is based upon typical behaviors of women in the workforce. As people of an identifiable group generally behave in a specific way, there is a general expectation that any given member of such a group is likely to behave in a similar fashion until proven otherwise. Statistical truisms are treated as probable unless someone demonstrates that they are not part of the majority.
A case in point was an English teacher who wanted to buy a home with her husband. The bank did not want to consider her income when they calculated the amount of the loan they intended to give. The loan was a typical 30 year note, and the bank told her that the reason they did not want to include her income was because she might get pregnant and quit her job, or even just take a prolonged sabbatical, and the bank officer wanted to make certain the household would have the income necessary to pay the mortgage if that happened.
She considered it discrimination, and she told her students about it and held it up as an example of how women are discriminated against in society. She had to get a note from her doctor that she was on birth control and sign a form saying that they had no intention of having a baby.
The bank officer relented. He wasn’t going to risk a discrimination law suit, and they had provided all the information to most thoroughly deal with the issue as stated. She and her husband got the loan. They bought the house they wanted.
The following year she got pregnant. Then she took maternity leave. Then she stayed home to raise her child. The bank was right after all. What she said was discrimination turned into a fact. This, of course, starkly brings to light the question of whether the bank’s action was really discrimination, or probable reality based on their experience, experience which this English teacher reinforced by her claim followed by conflicting conduct.
I have no information about whether she ever went back to work, but considering their home loan was based upon both their incomes, she probably had no choice. After her lectures on discrimination against women and how ridiculous the bank was being, it was telling that the bank was not only right, but she was flat out wrong in less than a year. Students who were not graduating seniors the year she made her statements all saw what happened.
MEN, WOMEN AND SPENDING
A curious thing about gender related spending is that while men earn more money than women, women spend more money than men. My mother once commented that she never felt bad that her husband could earn more than she could because no matter who earned it, she was the one who spent it. This is true not just in her case, but generally.
In marriages husbands generally earn more than wives, but wives either control more of the spending or more of the money is spent on what she wants than on what he wants. In retail space, more space is devoted to women’s things than men’s things. In gender-specific retail sales, the lion’s share is spent on women, either women buying things for themselves or other women, or men spending their money on women.
Even what they get tends to favor women over men. Men actually desire the practical things that will let them do projects around the house. Give a man a power tool for Valentine’s Day and he’s happy. Give a woman a kitchen appliance for the same holiday, and she’s more likely to fume than be grateful. There are always exceptions, of course, but men are more likely to appreciate the tools that let him do projects around the home as romantic gifts. For a woman, it had better be about her and have nothing to do with anything practical that makes “woman’s work” easier for her. Those things she’s supposed to get because they help her do her work. Gifts are about things she wants for herself.
This gift rule isn’t just a selfish thing, though for some it may be. It’s about being cherished. It’s a gift to express love. It isn’t to make her life easier. It’s to show she’s special. The easier life things are part of financial support, and gift giving is supposed to be somewhere outside of that.
A power tool to a man is a gift that expresses respect for his ability to do things, something important for a man and tied to the need for Admiration. It’s a way a woman says “You’re a real man!” Real men have power tools. It’s strange, even to me as a man, but I love power tools. Few thing make me feel more masculine than to do a job that needs a power tool. As atypical as I’m told I am, I have that odd male trait.
Something women need to remember, though, is that no matter who earns the money, the true power of money is in the hands of whomever spends it. The benefit from money rests upon whomever it is spent. In each case, statistically - not always, both who spends it and upon whom it is spent are women.
MASTERING MONEY
There have been volumes written about how to master money. There are fast ways and slow ways. There are gambles and slow, sure methods. There are some that work, and many that are nearly certain to lead to poverty. One basic skill is always useful: live beneathe your means.
Just spend less than you make. The farther beneathe your means you can live, the more you can save. The most common course of action is to spend as much as you make, sometimes more. Consider the financial long run, and remember that the years will pass one way or another. When they do, where will you be financially in five years, in ten, at retirement age?
You don’t master money by renting the nicest place you can afford. You master money by deciding to live as inexpensively as possible while you build your savings and learn to invest for the future. A mere $10,000 put in a 10% yield mutual fund will assure a retirement at age 70 as a millionaire. All that takes is a 16 year old putting $2,000 a year into a retirement investment. Even if he only saves a portion of his money and spends the rest, he can do that working a minimum wage job an average of 16 hours a week or less. If he manages to never touch that money again until he retires, he can live off of $8,000 a month and give himself a raise every year. By the time he’s 70, that might not be a lot of money, but if his house is paid off by then and his children grown, that will likely be plenty.
How would it feel getting married and knowing that come what may, that retirement has already been addressed? What sense of certainty would that give to the future? No matter how the financial game plays out, so long as you can protect that asset, you’re retirement is secure. What a difference that can make?
If you have been living beneath your means, a similar fund established for a child with just $2,000 of savings put into a special fund for college will yield somewhere around $15,000 for college, which will at least ensure that a modest college education will be possible. If you’ve been living beneath your means by even just a couple of hundred dollars a month, you can put this money together during a pregnancy. What sense of freedom would it give parents to know that even if things don’t go well, at least college is paid for.
This creates severe limitations on what you can do, but they are self-imposed limitations, not money-imposed limitations. While on the outside it may appear that money is still making decisions, because the amount of money made available for spending is entirely the choice of the individual or couple, as applicable, it is a choice to control money, not money controlling the choice. It may seem like a distinction without a difference to some, but if you have the money but you choose not to use it for one thing because you’ve committed it to another thing, you made a choice. You could pull it back and do what you want with it, but your mastery of it, you own control and choices regarding it, decide how spending and investing will be prioritized. The ability to change that at any time means you have control, you are the master.
Almost no matter what your career path, it is possible to live beneath your means if you so choose. Consider the long term effect on the choices you make. I rented apartments for years until I realized that I had spent more than $35,000 on living space and literally had nothing to show for it. I moved back in with family and there I stayed until I could afford to buy a home. While my wife and I certainly would have preferred our own place, we decided together that the offer to live at her grandmother’s home for free (the home in which she grew up) was a wiser financial decision. During those struggling years, living on $300 a month for our food and entertainment combined, we built our marriage and found love and joy and happiness and learned that our relationship did not depend upon money.
However, at the same time, we both worked toward financial independence. We trusted God, worked diligently at our business, and she totally supported me in my work, notably me writing. We provided value far in excess of the payment we demanded and poured ourselves into the lives of our students. We learned to trust God for all our needs while at the same time working to build some wealth. We failed to get ahead many times, but we knew that failure is only everlasting if you stop trying.
The first task was to clear the credit cards. The interest rate on those cards can eat at income dramatically, making you pay for things forever. The business had racked up thousands of dollars of expenses, and as cheaply as we lived, that took time. Then we saved some money for investments and expected to lose some and win some, probably losing first as we learned the financial games. We discussed our choices and established our philosophy. Since we didn’t have children and our basic needs were taken care of, we decided to start off with a higher level of risk and steadily work our way down to safer investments.
We started with nothing and a business that was more of a struggling ministry than a business. But we kept providing value and we kept honing our skills to provide more value. Gradually, as others saw the value in what we did, our business expanded, our income expanded, our investment opportunities expanded, and we moved forward financially.
Without living beneath our means, it would have been impossible. Without thinking about the life we could give our children and working as a team to create that life, it would have been impossible. Without an understanding of the risks and costs and a committment to push through failure after failure to learn the lessons and achieve success, it would have been impossible.
Every once in a while my wife would ask me if I really believed we would ever be rich. What she wanted to know was whether or not I had lost hope as things took longer than expected. Because we were dedicated to the cause, pursuing wise stewardship and a life for our children, not selfish riches to spend on our own pleasures (except insofar as both being able to be home to raise and homeschool our children was for our own pleasure), I could always assure her that the answer was “yes.” That is, so long as we kept doing what we were doing, success was just a matter of time.
Anyone can use a similar tactic. Live beneathe your means. Consider the future. Secure various financial goals one at a time - perhaps retirement or a college fund for the children - or maybe a down payment on a home. If family will put you up for a few months and your rent money can be put in a fund for a down payment on a modest home, you can start building equity with your monthly payments rather than just paying for space.
It is a discipline, just like it’s a discipline to stay in good physical condition, it’s a discipline to stay in good financial condition. For a married couple, it takes teamwork. If you want to be financially secure later, you have to make those choices as soon as possible. If you have not already made those choices, right now would be a good time.