I feel silly doubting a relationship over career prospects, but there it is


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt regarding priorities because I have seen a number of people in the church--good people--who encourage sons and daughters to consider income. They do it with the best of intentions and of course we all should strive to be self-sufficient, but I've seen it often get misrepresented where girls are anxiously seeking the "candidate most likely to be rich" and using engagement rings to test out income.

Indeed it can be a problem which is why we need to make sure we understand the various levels.  For example I would not encourage a lady to marry a guy with no provider prospects, any more then I would encourage a guy to marry a lady he had no attraction too..  But that is a far cry from what the world says is a good provider or attractive spouse and making that the standard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

In a recent thread, a young man voiced his struggles over whether his girlfriend and potential fiancée was the right one for him, suggesting that he might meet someone prettier. He was roundly thumped on for such an attitude. I am astounded* that the same people who so willingly got all over him for his "immaturity" and "shallowness" did not similarly condemn this young woman for daring to suggest that her fiancé's new career path might not be as lucrative as she might want.

*I'm not really astounded. I'm not even surprised. This shameless double standard is par for the course.

I did have that thread in mind when I compared the two

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

In a recent thread, a young man voiced his struggles over whether his girlfriend and potential fiancée was the right one for him, suggesting that he might meet someone prettier. He was roundly thumped on for such an attitude. I am astounded* that the same people who so willingly got all over him for his "immaturity" and "shallowness" did not similarly condemn this young woman for daring to suggest that her fiancé's new career path might not be as lucrative as she might want.

*I'm not really astounded. I'm not even surprised. This shameless double standard is par for the course.

I think there is a fundamental difference between the situation here and the guy who was worried about prettier women.

First, I don't think Katrina is "all about the money".  I do think she and her fiance need to have some more open communication, and I think that she is suffering from cold feet regarding the upcoming wedding, and I do think her comments about income being tied to righteousness are dead wrong.  But I think she has at least a somewhat valid concern.

However, I do think that, given the importance of providing an income and how it will directly affect this young lady, she should have at least some say in her fiance's career choices, as she will be tied to them.  Career choices are changeable, and a few good decisions can dramatically impact a family's future.  These discussions need to happen, and good decisions need to be made now while there is still time to get a good plan together.  These discussions can be constructive and can actually be a big relief for the husband.  I am personally very grateful in my own marriage that I am not the only person in the driver's seat when it comes to finances, and it is not entirely my fault when I hit career setbacks, unemployment, and the like.  

In comparison, having a wife that is "pretty enough" is not important for the family's future, and is largely out of control of the wife.  Any discussions on how the wife can be prettier are not going to be constructive or helpful to the marriage (quite the opposite).  The concern about being pretty enough is strictly rooted in pride and little else.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

In a recent thread, a young man voiced his struggles over whether his girlfriend and potential fiancée was the right one for him, suggesting that he might meet someone prettier. He was roundly thumped on for such an attitude. I am astounded* that the same people who so willingly got all over him for his "immaturity" and "shallowness" did not similarly condemn this young woman for daring to suggest that her fiancé's new career path might not be as lucrative as she might want.

*I'm not really astounded. I'm not even surprised. This shameless double standard is par for the course.

Well, for the most part, I see people were pretty consistent.  The ones who pounded the young man also pounded the young woman.  Those who said no big deal to one also said no big deal to the other.  Others only posted on one thread and not the other.

That said, I do think that either attitude may be "just fine" or "need improvement" depending on details.  But the consensus seems to be "as long as that's not the ONLY thing..."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

In comparison, having a wife that is "pretty enough" is not important for the family's future, and is largely out of control of the wife.  Any discussions on how the wife can be prettier are not going to be constructive or helpful to the marriage (quite the opposite).

Says you...  And in your life you rule.

But other people aren't you.   And you don't get to dictate to them on what will make them happy.

If the young man in the other thread has issues with the attractiveness of the women he is dating then he needs to deal.

Because a spouse(either one) being miserable in marriage, makes for a miserable marriage. And that makes it important to and for the family.  It doesn't matter if the cause is not enough income or not enough attractiveness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's sort of an undercurrent in a lot of answers here, which presumes that an American youth living today cannot reasonably expect to be able to live a middle-class lifestyle given hard work, careful planning, and prudent living.

Individual cases will always vary, of course; but speaking in generalities:  I do not think that America is so far gone.  Speaking generally, in first-world countries abject poverty is avoidable; and I think we do our youth--especially our young women--a grave disservice if we don't teach them how to avoid it and how to spot a potential marriage partner who seems to be moving in that direction.

And while I recognize that modern American culture is a hodge-podge of double standards where gender issues are concerned, I am sick unto death of folks (not here) who seem to think that fresh-faced Mormon girls have a God-given duty to enter into matrimony with the first nominally Mormon boy who expresses an interest in them.  Sisters:  dating is not a charity program, and you are not theologically bound to "give him a chance" or "refrain from judging" some skull full of mush just because he's a Priesthood Holder.  This is your future life partner you're talking about here; and if a guy isn't meeting your standards and you're willing to be single rather than compromise those standards--cut him loose.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, for the most part, I see people were pretty consistent.  The ones who pounded the young man also pounded the young woman.

We must be living in separate universes. I don't want to point fingers or harp, so I won't pursue my case. But my observation stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Because a spouse(either one) being miserable in marriage, makes for a miserable marriage. And that makes it important to and for the family.  It doesn't matter if the cause is not enough income or not enough attractiveness

I do believe there is a difference between attractiveness and income.  Survivability.  Forgetting "happiness" for a moment, the ability to survive together is what coupling and marriage is, first and foremost.  For the more religious among us, that would include surviving spiritually -- ie avoiding spiritual death as well as physical death.

If either partner is less attractive, they can survive, and eat, and go to church and...  But if there isn't enough income in the home that creates some problems with survival.  The question really is only about "how much is enough to survive".  The answer to that is where the two are more likely to be equated.  In the United States, it is amazing how little we can actually live off of.  But it is equally amazing how much we can choose to spend when we have the means to do so.

Beauty, doesn't change any of that.

If you're a single income home with a bunch of kids and the breadwinner loses a job, that is devastating to the family and may end in tragedy.  If you've been happily married a while and one of you gets into an accident or has some weird disease which disfigures your face and body... what do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I do believe there is a difference between attractiveness and income.  Survivability.  Forgetting "happiness" for a moment, the ability to survive together is what coupling and marriage is, first and foremost.  For the more religious among us, that would include surviving spiritually -- ie avoiding spiritual death as well as physical death.

If either partner is less attractive, they can survive, and eat, and go to church and...  But if there isn't enough income in the home that creates some problems with survival.  The question really is only about "how much is enough to survive".  The answer to that is where the two are more likely to be equated.  In the United States, it is amazing how little we can actually live off of.  But it is equally amazing how much we can choose to spend when we have the means to do so.

Beauty, doesn't change any of that.

If you're a single income home with a bunch of kids and the breadwinner loses a job, that is devastating to the family and may end in tragedy.  If you've been happily married a while and one of you gets into an accident or has some weird disease which disfigures your face and body... what do you do?

 

I understand that... I agree with that...

But I find it highly irrelevant to many who are miserable over it anyways

And in this case it is about a unmarried (yet) guy changing his major and his girlfriend getting a bit of a freak out over it.  Given how many people end up struggling to find work after getting a degree and end up in totally unrelated fields.  It is not really a good indicator of his future prospects.  Therefore it is about as relevant as about how attractive a person is.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

But I find it highly irrelevant to many who are miserable over it anyways

Well, again, I wasn't addressing "happiness" in my last comment.  That's a whole different discussion.

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

And in this case it is about a unmarried (yet) guy changing his major and his girlfriend getting a bit of a freak out over it.  Given how many people end up struggling to find work after getting a degree and end up in totally unrelated fields.  It is not really a good indicator of his future prospects.  Therefore it is about as relevant as about how attractive a person is.

Yeah, I can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, for the most part, I see people were pretty consistent.  The ones who pounded the young man also pounded the young woman.  

I would say pounded is a bit strong, but otherwise I agree. My response to both was the same, essentially re-examine your priorities, Eowyn's as well.

 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it does not come off like I am pounding the guy from the other thread here.  I don't think he was "all about the looks" anymore than the poster here is "all about the money", and that both are trying to do something that is very difficult - to describe the source of their uneasiness in words on an online forum.  I have no reason to doubt that both are fine people who will get it all figured out.

I do have a personal problem with men who really are "all about the looks" (and, unfortunately, I have known many of these types of men, some who are even in the Church).  I have a daughter who is, at 4 years old, is already hypersensitive about her looks.  I feel I need to protect her from these predatory types of men, who will do nothing but hurt her with their toxic outlook.  These types of men are not going to appreciate my daughter for her personality, or her spirituality, or for any other reason other than looks.  Many of these types of men are addicted to pornography (which is the ultimate source for being "all about the looks") and have no respect for modesty or chastity.  These types of men have helped create an environment toxic enough that my daughter is already worried about wearing pants instead of a dress to school because pants aren't "pretty" enough.  They are the types of men who, if they date my daughter, will chip away at her self-esteem by either covert or overt comments and actions.  I know these types of guys are everywhere, and I intend to do my best to protect my daughter against them.  Just being honest as to how I feel.

If being "all about the looks" is what makes them happy, fine.  I just ask they stay away from my family.  And don't expect me to respect this outlook, because I don't.

I should probably be just as revolted by women who are truly "about the money".  But are these women who are "all about the money" doing the same level of damage as men who are truly "all about the looks"?  I'm not so sure...

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

I understand that... I agree with that...

But I find it highly irrelevant to many who are miserable over it anyways

And in this case it is about a unmarried (yet) guy changing his major and his girlfriend getting a bit of a freak out over it.  Given how many people end up struggling to find work after getting a degree and end up in totally unrelated fields.  It is not really a good indicator of his future prospects.  Therefore it is about as relevant as about how attractive a person is.

 

 

 

 

I'm reminded of a young coworker I mentioned who was flipping out over her husband's low-income first-job-out-of-college. 

Who knows what career paths will happen?

On a field trip last month, I was chatting with the director whose husband graduatefor with mine, and then pursuedo his masters in the same focus. 

He installs solar panels right now. 

Our husbands did not study solar panels.

It's an interesting time of careers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I should probably be just as revolted by women who are truly "about the money".  But are these women who are "all about the money" doing the same level of damage as men who are truly "all about the looks"?  I'm not so sure...

In a way, yes; if men's sense of self-worth is as tied to their earning potential as women's sense of self-worth is tied to their looks.

It's a messed up society that we live in; but when it comes to dating and marriage--I think all we can do is be as kind as we can to everyone, while still holding firm to whatever standards we feel are essential in a mate.  Women will inevitably be (hopefully kindly) passed over by men who don't find them attractive.  Men will inevitably be (hopefully kindly) passed over by women who don't feel they earn enough.  Dealing with that rejection, and moving on, is part of being an adult.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take a little different approach on this. Looking for the qualifications in a husband that can provide for the family != the same as looking for the prettiest girl.

The Proclamation on the Family explicitly states:  By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

In other words, a husbands role and job is to provide (i.e. earn income for the family) and the wife's job is nurture and take care of home. It is my opinion, this young lady's concern is not without merit. A comparable concern would be if a young man has worries about whether his potential wife would be a good nurturer-i.e. homemaker.  These are certainly valid concerns.

If one looks at the GA, almost to a T all of them have the traditional family structure, i.e. the husband provides, the wife nurtures.  So I like a lot of JAG's previous response.

There is the potential for shallowness with this line of thinking; i.e. how much is enough to provide. This is subjective and has changed as the general standard of living has increased. Personally, I think providing means enabling the wife to do her job. So I would turn the question around, not whether he makes enough-but is he going to be able to enable me as a wife to fulfill my obligations as a wife and a homemaker.

And yes this is part of my beef with today's society. Just as many woman do not understand their role in the marriage-many men do not either; rather than provide for their family they want to do what "makes them happy", whatever that is.  Not too many years ago, men found a career that they could generally live with and then learned to love their career-not some mythical rainbow job (it's great if you've got one-but more likely than not you've got to learn to love your job). In other words, men found something they were good at, figured out how to make money at it and learned to love it.

So to the young lady, is your concern shallow-no I don't think it is (but do remember if you are going to find a husband who provides very well-make sure you do your job very well also-otherwise you end up unequally yolked and that is a recipe for disaster).  As a GA said, keep your eyes wide open before marriage and shut afterwards. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do also disagree slightly with the righteousness equal wealth. On a society wide level and even at an individual level, the more righteous the people the more prosperous the people. But just because your are more prosperous doesn't mean you will be rich or even wealthy. What it means is that in general you will be more wealthy than you would have been had you not been righteous. 

Now this is not always the case in each instance, as I've personally had instances where doing the right thing has cost me in pay raises-but on a whole I am most definitely more wealthy than had I not been righteous.

In many cases this is easily demonstrated by living some of the basic laws of the Gospel. For example, no fornication means you won't have a baby out of wedlock (which leads to less wealth), living a righteous live with your spouse means you won't get divorced (which leads to a significant decrease in wealth).  Living the word of wisdom and not smoking means you probably won't get lung cancer (and won't have to spend money on it), etc. etc. etc.  

So in the temporal sense it tends to lead to more wealth and in the spiritual sense it leads to more wealth also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

And yes this is part of my beef with today's society. Just as many woman do not understand their role in the marriage-many men do not either; rather than provide for their family they want to do what "makes them happy", whatever that is.  Not too many years ago, men found a career that they could generally live with and then learned to love their career-not some mythical rainbow job (it's great if you've got one-but more likely than not you've got to learn to love your job). In other words, men found something they were good at, figured out how to make money at it and learned to love it.

Ugg, yes.  Fundamentally, work is work--if it were fun, they wouldn't pay us to do it.  Find something you can do well, that you don't hate, and that lets you meet your domestic obligations.  If you love it, even better: but don't expect your wife and kids to scrimp by for the next few decades so that you can indulge your hobby all day and get paid peanuts for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Katrina said:

My fiance and I have been engaged for about two months. I know this probably sounds incredibly shallow, but he has recently changed his major in school and wants to go into education rather than the psychology program he was in. He asked me my thoughts about it, and I at first I didn't mind and just wanted to support his dream.

I would also ask where he is at in his schooling.  If he is changing his major and this is his 2nd year at college-maybe not that big of a deal since a lot of people take a year or two to really find what they want to be doing.  If he is a junior or senior and changing, then that brings up additional questions.  Like JAG said, it is reasonable to expect him to begin providing in a reasonable amount of time after marriage.  Now if he is a very driven individual and plans on getting a PhD and you are getting married when he is a sophmore-then that reasonable time frame is probably going to be 5-6 years. If he just wants to get a BS and get out, then that time frame should be 4-5 years from when he started college.

The long and short is that being a husband and a provider is a big responsibility and as such you want to marry someone who treats it as such; sometimes as a provider that means sacrificing personal "happiness" and "finding yourself" for the good of the family.  The last thing you want to do is marry someone who does not understand the awesome responsibility that it is to be a husband and provide for your family (and this comment doesn't have much to do with the amount of money one makes more about the attitude).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ugg, yes.  Fundamentally, work is work--if it were fun, they wouldn't pay us to do it.  Find something you can do well, that you don't hate, and that lets you meet your domestic obligations.  If you love it, even better: but don't expect your wife and kids to scrimp by for the next few decades so that you can indulge your hobby all day and get paid peanuts for it.

Exactly! As a society we have really screwed up our kids by telling them crap like "you can be whatever you want to be", and "just do what makes you happy". Umm, no if you aren't good at math, I don't care how much you love rockets-you ain't gonna be creating them.  If you are 5'5" you're never going to play professional basketball.

IMO I think a lot of this has come about b/c of parenting but also b/c of where we are parenting.  Parenting in a suburb is a lot harder . . .how do you teach your kids hard work (pick up your toys???). 100 years ago the vast majority of the population lived on farms so kids learned to do the crap jobs they didn't like doing b/c you had to do it. Cows need milking, corn needs planting, etc.  So you had two choices you could either learn to love the work you do or be miserable doing it. You have to do it regardless so you might as well learn to love it.

So, even though I don't live on a farm, I try and teach my kids there are some things you just have to do, you can either gripe about it or just do it with a smile.  The same thing with a job, you can either learn to love it or be miserable but as a husband you still have to provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My qualm with some of the comments and the OP is the idea that the lifestyle isn't "good enough". Despite observation of other teachers providing just fine for their families, albeit without much glamour, the OP wants a higher lifestyle. Then other comments suggest that while of course we should be humble, a real man would make more, because we all need a higher standard of living. Because the standards for humble living have changed.

So are we saying that the bread winning teachers of good families aren't "doing enough"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

My qualm with some of the comments and the OP is the idea that the lifestyle isn't "good enough". Despite observation of other teachers providing just fine for their families, albeit without much glamour, the OP wants a higher lifestyle. Then other comments suggest that while of course we should be humble, a real man would make more, because we all need a higher standard of living. Because the standards for humble living have changed.

So are we saying that the bread winning teachers of good families aren't "doing enough"?

IMO, the threshold for "good enough" is as a provider do you provide enough to allow your wife to take care of her obligations; generally speaking I think this means as a provider are you earning enough to provide a roof over your families head, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies and in today's society transportation as the sole income generator.  Now granted everyone's circumstance is different and sometimes a disability strikes, sometimes health or job conditions change, etc.

But the ideal is for the man to provide the financial backing to allow his wife to concentrate and focus on the home (and for a significant period of time this will include raising children) and community. In the end I don't really think the Lord will care whether we made 50k vs 100k, he will care more about whether we faithfully fulfilled our obligations, responsibilities and duties.

I give advice like I would to my daughters . . .it is their choice who they marry, but considering I have been on this rock for a decent amount of time and seen my fair share of problems and come out alive if they ask for my thoughts I'll certainly give them. If my daughter came to me asking about if they should marry a teacher, I'd probably have some questions. 1st question I'd have is does he treat you right, second question I'd ask is are you comfortable living the teacher's lifestyle? The average regular teachers salary is anywhere from 50-70k and starting out is more in the 30-40k, depending on where you live.  Certainly, enough to provide the necessities of life and enough to provide, but you will most likely live a very humble lifestyle (unless he decides to be a college professor-that is a gravy train!). Granted teachers generally get great retirement, but 30 years is a long ways to wait for retirement. If you are perfectly fine living a humble lifestyle-go for it, if not then you should think about it some more.  

Go into marriage with eyes wide open, understanding that no one you marry will be perfect.  If you don't choose this spouse but another one you trade one set of problems for another set-b/c neither you nor your spouse is perfect. It's a matter of can you live with the problems your spouse has and can they live with your problems. If living a humble lifestyle is going to be a problem then best deal with it now rather than have 20 years of conflict over it.

This is actually one of the reasons why Romeo & Juliet, etc. and the common love stories about happily ever after are such bunk and have caused much pain and suffering. It is also why arraigned marriage were a thing.  A lot of making a marriage work comes down to working together with common goals and one purpose.  Much of those goals and purposes are set before Harry ever met Sally! Children generally grow up to be similar to their parents and tend to emulate them.  So if you grew up in an affluent household, you most likely will come to expect to living an affluent lifestyle.  Therefore marrying someone who isn't affluent will tend to led to conflict.  This isn't always the case and there are always exceptions, but in general we replicate to some extent our upbringing.  It is why children of divorced parents are more likely to divorce, why abused children are more likely to be abusers, etc.

So in sum, IMO in the Lord's eyes, whether you are a teacher or a doctor is irrelevant-it's about whether you are providing the necessities of life for your family. If you have the ability to do so and are doing it-then check that box. If as a spouse you are perfectly fine living that lifestyle go for it, if not, think about it.

And finally . . .what is it with young people asking random strangers on the internet for marriage advice? You'd think they'd go to the one source who they should trust most on this earth . . . their parents!!!! (or are their parents to scared to give open honest advice or are they too afraid to get it???)

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts. Some of them were a slap in the face, but I was prepared for that. 

To answer a few questions, my fiance is a sophomore, has mostly just done some generals, and I'm a junior. We dated before our missions and for a year after before getting engaged. I also grew up with not much fancy, but my parents were always pointing out the importance of showing the world just how good Mormons can be. I guess I was always taught that we need to be an example in all things, and that includes being successful in careers. I realize there are plenty of wonderful Saints in third-world countries, but those aren't here. 

My fiance was planning on working in public counseling, but he has talked about teaching since high school. I get where he's coming from.

It might be cold feet. I will take the suggestion to go the temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share