"[name withheld]can not wait till I have a wife of my own, and kids of my own, but unfortunately I could not afford them if I had them....
This was recently posted by a friend from high school to a message board I belong to and it immediately struck me. The guy posting this is white, christian and just finished college. It wasn't that the post was unexpected by this friend, what shocked me was how much he believed in it.
Two problems strike me about this post. The first problem is the notion that a wife (partner) and children are property who must be provided for by the man. The fact that this friend cannot "afford them" reduces his hypothetical spouse and children to helpless property, like a pet or house.
This outdated, seemingly almost quaint notion reeks of a man who feels like he's not getting the privilege he thinks he's due.
The other problem I have with this post is the perception that this friend doesn't have enough money to meet a partner because that's all that matters. This friend is a nice guy who deserves to meet a nice partner who cherishes him. I worry that his inability to value a woman for anything other than her ability to put a meal on the table and run around pregnant hampers his ability to get a date more than his financial position.
Posts like these make me shake my head in wonder. I don't even comment on these because it's counter-productive.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Could not Afford Them if I had them.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15836
Maybe he'll meet a woman who says "Hey, I can work, too. In fact, I want to work. And help provide for a family, if we decide to have one."
I think that's the way to get people who make comments like this to realize we aren't helpless wimmin folk. To be told by someone you love that they can do something just as well, and want to is more poweful than being told by a friend, stranger, book, etc.
It's partially, I think, take it for what you will, a kind of a way he's excusing himself for not having either in his life. It's probably a Freudian slip, too, as you noted. Men often, for better or for worse, engage in this kind of talk to seek some degree of validation among themselves, though as you might have guessed, such things are certainly never said when women are within earshot.
The assumption in what he's saying is that women make demands that can only be satisfied by spending money and sometimes it seems like they're more trouble than they're worth. It's really just part of that tired old war between the sexes crap that I wish we could get away from altogether.
I remember what it's like to think that way. As a guy who grew up in a very conservative (read patriarchal) environment, maybe I can offer some perspective. I don't think along these lines anymore, but it's amazing how long it takes to shed the assumptions you grow up with...
Anyway, for me, I was wanting to marry my girlfriend and start a family - but felt that I needed a strong stable job that made plenty of money to be able to support a family. It wasn't even that I didn't want her to work - it just felt like it was MY DUTY to make sure everything financial is taken care of (whether or not she decided to work or not). It was as if I wasn't masculine enough to be married if I couldn't fulfill that duty. Thinking about it now - I guess it's sort of the way a parent treats a child: providing for them, etc... I can remember those lines of thought, but it doesn't make sense to me anymore...
About this person - I don't think it's ill-intended (at least consciously), but it is so misguided (by so many years of conditioning).
I think this guy is gunning for a pity party but I also think there is a strong amount of conditioning and group (read: religious) think involved with him too. He is as patriarchial as it comes but also a genuinely nice guy. Just very misguided.
I'm seeing a lot of interpretations that automatically assume that this guy is sexist, or that he feels that it's his duty to provide for his wife and kids (because the wife shouldn't work, etc), that he's "conditioned" by his religion or whatever.
Maybe that's all true... but I really wouldn't be so quick to assume it with how little context we're given here.
For example, I (a woman) could see myself posting the exact same thing. I can't afford to get married and have kids right now! Yes, I am living with my partner, but to me getting married would be a bigger financial obligation, because it would mean being responsible for my partner's debt, as well as his financial well-being long-term -- exactly as I would want him to be responsible for mine. If I'm unemployed for a while I would expect him to support me, just as I'd support him in the reverse scenario. And I just can't afford to take that risk right now.
And I don't really see what's wrong with a man saying he can't afford to have kids. It's reasonable for anybody not to have kids if s/he can't afford to support them, and we don't bat an eye when a woman says "I can't afford to support kids right now."
Seconded. These were exactly my thoughts on reading this post.
Which isn't to say that this guy isn't steeped in patriarchy and inclined to view women and children as property, just that stating that you can't afford to get married and/or have kids doesn't necessarily translate as that.
It took me and my spouse years to finally get married, and we're still waiting on kids - all of this was and is primarily mandated by financial concerns on both of our parts.
This.
Agreed.
Average cost of raising a child to age 17, before college tuition around $190,000 and up is considered:
Anywhere from $134,000 to $284,460, based on income level, according to Dept. of Agriculture stats from 2004.
I saw the "affording" a wife and kids comment as rooted in patriarchy as well--perhaps he believes that he should be the only one to provide for his family--but didn't see this comment alone as particularly privileged. That's a really big assumption. Maybe a true one, OP, since you knew this guy and have a better idea of him than we do, but I don't see privileged in this comment alone.
Kids ARE expensive. Really expensive. As for just getting married and not having kids, well, I suppose you could get married at city hall and live together like college kids do, but a lot of people want to see getting married as their transition to real grownup life-- not to mention the obligation to support each other through things like unemployment and health problems.
So I think its reasonable to say that you can't financially afford to get married, and its definitely reasonable and smart to realize you can't afford to have kids.
We're all just people. The more we can look at those of the opposite gender as just people, the further we've come.
He might have meant that he cannot afford childcare, but to me it came off more as "If I had money I would get a girlfriends, then worry her and she will be a house wife, no questions asked." If he had a girlfriend or partner and couldn't afford marriage then thats one thing. But if he doesn't, then it implies a lot more.
*girlfriend