Should women marry for love or money?

[Ruan Chun Xian]

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/for-love-or-money-20090608-c0j3.html

I had to pause when I came across a blog out of South Africa that read, “I think a way forward, or backwards some of you might say, is to encourage our smart, savvy and capable daughters to marry for money.” Since I co-authored a book with a similar premise, this sassy assertion definitely grabbed my attention.

The blog’s author Jackie May, an editor for The Times world pages in South Africa, penned these seemingly heretical comments after learning of alarming research by Dr. Caroline Gatrell at Lancaster University in England. Dr. Gatrell found, “women who explicitly choose career over kids are often vilified at work.”

Huh?

Conventional wisdom says just the opposite: Sacrificing baby-making is often necessary in the calculus of getting ahead at work. Many mid-career women have forsaken motherhood to obtain career goals. Indeed, economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett made news a few years ago when she presented the statistic that 49% of mid-career women who made $US100,000 a year or more were childless, compared to only 10% of men.

Yet, despite the sacrifices many women make in order to climb the corporate ladder, women are still woefully under represented in top executive ranks. Eight of the CEO’s on the Fortune 500 were women a couple of years ago. Now, two years later, there are 12. At this rate it will take a little over 100 years for us to represent half of the CEO’s in the Fortune 500, in the year 2128.

Although the number of CEO’s is a lofty benchmark, in general even at the lower reaches, workplace parity is coming at a glacial pace. The reasons are complicated, and it isn’t just sexism. Many have suggested that it has to do with the choices women make to fulfill personal life ambitions.

Even today, many young women don’t foresee that these choices will affect their career success. Hewlett’s more recent national survey found that the typical young woman graduate plans to have a high paying job, take two to three years off to have children and benefit from career flexibility that lets her pop back in to the workplace when the mood strikes.

While Hewlett found the women’s optimism charming, she also noted that this generation follows hot on the high-heels of a generation of women who had similar ideas. By following non-linear career paths, that generation “lost 18…to 37% of their earning power,” and suffered a complete “downsizing of their ambitions.”

But the new graduates aren’t heeding the warning signs of the slightly more senior women’s failures.

These young women are counting on their talents to grant them repeated entrée into a marketplace they were brought up to believe is a meritocracy. The bad old days are behind us, as one co-ed commented to Hewlett, “Back then—when there were dinosaurs—people just did bad stuff to women.”

But is this true, or are people still doing bad stuff to women? If Dr. Caroline Gatrell’s study is right, women who have sacrificed important personal goals are penalised at work. As Gatrell’s study indicates: Childless women are viewed as lacking an “essential humanity” and viewed as unfit to manage others.

Yet at the same time Gatrell assures us that mothers don’t fare much better. Gatrell avers, “Women with children are blamed for combining motherhood with paid work and women with no children are sidelined and discounted because they are not mothers.”

The problem of women in the workplace is so complicated that the answers themselves sound like Orwellian double-speak. Or, have we at long last entered an age when double-speak simply means that both things can be true, that workplace discrimination can take on many forms and that there are no easy answers? But one thing is certain: achieving success in the workplace is like winning a competition. If half the entering team shows up thinking it’s something less than that, then men will still have the home field advantage—and achieving parity may take more than the 100 years estimated by my back-of-the-envelope calculation.

So what will I say if my daughter asks me, “How can I make sure my life is financially secure?”

I would have to pause before I answer. I would have to consider that in all likelihood she won’t live to see true workplace equality. But her life matters now. So I will have my own Orwellian answer for her and offer it with a hefty dose of irony, “Apply yourself at school and at work. And to cover all your bases, marry a man with money.”

Daniela Drake, MD, attended Wellesley College and received an MBA from Stanford University. She, along with Elizabeth Ford, authored the book Smart Girls Marry Money. A former McKinsey consultant, she is now a full-time primary care physician. Drake married (for love) and has reaped the consequences.

Reuters

Discuss.

[Mattias]

Depends what you hold in highest regard, I guess.

The list, in my opinion, is something like this:

Family, Truth(knowledge), love, philosophy, winning, success(money), overall happiness, power, your country, your morals.

I think depending on what is your priority, you will do the corresponding act- marry for love or money.

I don't think love is the most important thing in the world, but I would still only marry for love and not money. However, maybe I am biased, as I am a male, and probably get the short stick.

I think ultimately though, there is no problem with either one, so long as you can live with your decision and be able to rationalize it.

I guess that's all I have to say...

[Sandwich]

I always think these things are sort-of like saying "Should women buy high heels or wellingtons?". Obviously you don't want to go to a fancy restaurant in your wellies any more than you'd clear out a stable in your heels. They're two totally different sets of footwear which're appropriate to their own individual situations. Many people have both, some people only have one or the other, dependent on what sort of a person they are and whereabouts they live.

To me, marrying for love or money amounts to much the same thing. Some people do both, some people do one or the other, and it totally depends on what sort of a person they are. I'd say that, on the whole, most women value love over money in their lives, but it doesn't mean stereotyping all women as always picking love, or condemning anybody who doesn't.

As it's the role of the woman to have children (biological fact on that one) we naturally expect all women to be interested in having children, and I guess it's hard to shake that judgement out of the psyche. I don't think it's a cultural thing either, or a way of being which has been inculcated in us by society or any groups around us, it's just instinctive. Many sterile women commit suicide-- women who can't have children often suffer from great depression, and you get IVF and related treatments being sought out. That sense of having children is natural and instinctive, and although we have a lot of strong women in our society at the moment (although apparently not as prevalently in the business & political world as in other professions), we still expect them to be interested in children purely because it's natural. Not because women have some kind of cultural imperative, but just because that's what the whole continuation of the human race has always been about.

Fact is, it's important to women themselves to have children, and for the majority, I'd say it overrides career plans. For other people, children aren't the big thing, but I think we'll always note them down as they're in the minority. Nowadays everybody gets maternity leave, and having a child doesn't mean screwing up your career. Plenty of people take several weeks off, have a child, come back to work. That's not career-destroying.

Anyway. My opinion is that this is another scenario where dictating how it should happen is pointless, in many respects, as different people will take different decisions and it's based on individuals and what they want.

[TJBARU]

It depends. Some think money can buy love. So if you have money then you can get love too. Some think that with love, you don't need money. So you'd marry for love. Both of these are, imho, wrong. Love can never eradicate human desire/greed, and I don't think, imho again, that money can create love. So it's about a balance.

But interestingly... Should men marry for love or money?

[Chelleee]

hmm,

well there are many ways to look at it

it really varies on the persons belief and circumstances

marrying for love is probably the ideal,

but nowadays the prospect of marrying for money doesn't seem uncommon

does anyone else from an asian background remember the saying "marry a rich white guy"?

so, as for whether women should marry for love or money

marriage no longer holds the same value as it did previously, so a woman should marry for love, but it wouldn't be a surprise for a women to marry for money either

[Mahuta ♥]

From MY point if view, most women look for emotion more than they do for money. I think women should marry for love is they know they can live properly. I dont think it is enough for a woman to have ALL the money in this world from her husband but her husband hates her to death and she knows it, that will suck. Living with someone you love with limited amount of money is better than living in a very fancy lifestyle yet not having a loving husband.

If I were to get married, I would definatly consider love before anything. I cannot live with someone i do not love and he doesnt love me even if i was the richest on this planet. As long as this guy can make a living which keeps me alive in not so hard conditions, I would marry him, obviously after I find all my other criteria, lol. But yeah, seeing that I am planning to be a professor, marrying a very rich guy wouldnt be one of my wishes.

As I mentioned before I see women as being a bit more to the emotion side, which may suggest that perhaps women naturally look for love more than money, but that is my opinion anyways.

[Vvi]

What's sad is that I've had girls in my class throughout my school years who would only date guys with money. When I was 15, a classmate starting dating a guy because he was rich (his dad worked for Shell) and he would buy her expensive presents/food from the school shop. She was dating a guy for food? A girl in my current graduating class looks down upon anyone without money (even though her family isn't rich), and always asks "Are they rich?" about any new guy that someone mentions. I dislike people that use others for their money; a lot of people in my old school used to be friendly with the rich people because they'd buy them snacks and things at break. It was pathetic.

I've never cared about money, and get embarrassed when people buy me expensive presents. My attitude probably results from the society I come from; in Finland, most people are middle class and there aren't a lot of poor people, or a lot of really rich people either. I don't know anyone that has married for money, but if you come form a poor background and want to lift yourself out of poverty quickly, then that's the way to do it.

[__inthemaking]

I think most women would obviously prefer to marry someone that loves them and that they're in love with over a rich, old guy for money. But it all depends on circumstances..if the woman is intelligent, does well in school and has a career ahead of her, she has no need to marry for money (except for extra security), so she will most likely marry for love. But if the woman doesn't have her own career and has dropped out of school or something, she is more likely to marry for money because she can't support herself otherwise.

For myself personally, I will definitely be only marrying for love because I am determined to have my own career, and chances are that if I succeed in becoming a veterinarian, I may end up making more money than my future husband anyways .

[moneyfaery]

Why not both?

[Tilia]

Hopefully we will one day reach a society where there is no need to marry for money, so people can marry for love.

[herbert]

Ahhh

Well, I think logic dictates that women should marry for love, right?

Because you marry someone because you love them, right?

But yeah, I'm not naive. I know that women (Although I'm sure men have as well) marry for money.

Should they?

Well, I really don't think it's that bad.

I mean, who says love has to come in the form of marriage?

You have your parents, your siblings, your friends...

And besides, when you marry, you at least must like the person right?

So even if he happens to be rich, at least you don't hate him.

I really don't think it's all that bad, because love isn't the most important thing in the world.

[Taigan]

I think that women should marry men for love, not money.

Although it would be perfectly understandable if money was a factor when deciding when to marry someone.

I think everyone has the right to feel secure and if money does that, then a person has a right to take this into consideration.

[Center Field]

Love. No guy wants to marry a gold digger. And we can usually tell.

[Asheee]

Why only the question should women marry for money? What about men, men also have been known to marry for money. Personally, I'm marrying for love. I'd never marry for money. There are so many important things in the world than money. I think people who marry for money are greedy and selfish. A marriage is supposed to show a commitment between two people, through thick and thin, and rich and poor. if people marry for money, it really isn't showing much about the strength of their relationship. But hey, each to their own, I'm a traditionalist

[1-2-3]

Hm, I think a girl should marry an intelligent and practical guy. Love and money should follow.

[Moe]

Theres oviously only 1 answer that I agree and that is they should only merry for love. Nothing else.

[Austin Glau]

For love. It depends on what the women wants.

[balloon]

The article keeps referring to women in top CEO positions. If you want that sort of money, sure, marry a CEO, but you can still obtain considerable amounts of money these days withought making it to the top wrung. It has always been my plan to work incredibly hard in University to get a good job so that I can gain enough money to marry someone poor (If I love him) and still have a feather to fly with. I guess it depends on the type of life you envisage for yourself. For me, I don't ever want to be in debt, and would like to command perhaps a few simple elegancies (i.e. to buy new clothes without tearing my hair out as to the cost). I would call this situation 'having money', and a CEO position (or even a position of much distinction) would not be required to secure this type of comfort if you are smart. I think it depends on your life goal. Do you want to be rich (then marry for money), secure (work hard), happy (marry for love) or lucky (do all three). I honestly think the safest thing to do is to work hard, not just in your professional career, but also upon yourself as a person, so that if you do happen to meet someone who you love or who is rich, they will actually be interested in you because you've taken the time to understand and develop your own character and identity instead of relying on a man or money to do that for you. If you make yourself into a stronger person from within, then you are so much more able to defeat dissapointment when it inevitably comes. Afterall, there are only so many rich men. They are real people, and they want to marry a real person. Be careful that you don't neglect to develop your own humanity when searching for your goal.

[lyrox18]

Women (and men also) should definetely marry for love!

"The flavor of life is love." -Mariama Ba (So Long a Letter) <-- one of the books I enjoyed reading

[Summer Glau]

Women should marry for love. Money can't buy true happiness