Essay No. 3: Money, Marriage, Misogyny, & Melanin
Perhaps about a year ago, I was in a Facebook group, and I was reading a back and forth exchange that I found intriguing. The question for discussion was, “Would it bother you, as a man, if your wife made more than you?” Part of me cringed at the fact that we still had to have these conversations, as late as 2018. Either way though, I perused through the responses, to get a poll for where most people were at.
Among the men, there wasn’t a clear consensus. And I was embarrassed for the male species.
Come on, guys; what is this, the 1930’s? How do you really say, with a straight face, you’d be uncomfortable courting, dating, or marrying a woman that makes more than you? There’s a lot to unpack there, and we’ll touch on some of those themes in just a minute.
I’ll share here a more flushed out version of what I shared there. After all, it’s not fair to critique other men’s responses if I’m not willing to share my own.
“Nnamdi, would it bother you, as a man, if your girlfriend/wife made more than you?”
My thoughts fall into the following 2 categories.
(1). At this point, that’s not particularly likely.
(2). We’d need some intentional discussion, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking.
Let’s start with Observation 1, that’s not particularly likely.
PLEASE don’t take that the wrong way, but it’s true. It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for graduates of my program to take a job with a salary that would put them in the top 5% to 10% of American households. Since women, unfortunately, tend to be underrepresented in higher paying professions anyway, and even when they are represented, on average, they still make less than their male counterparts who do the same work (ie. the gender-pay gap), it’s unlikely at this point for my girlfriend or wife to make more than me (unless, perhaps, if she’s substantially older than I am… maybe 10+ years?).
Beyond that though, not only are women underrepresented in fields with higher pay, but there’s a very pronounced gender-based segregation in the labor market. Women are overrepresented in ‘helping’ professions like social work, human services, K-12 education, non-profit, etc. (much of that may have to do with several centuries of gender-based stereotypes for men and women, but I don’t have time to dive into that now!). Understandably, these, sometimes, offer more modest pay. There’s a disproportionately lower number of women in fields like medicine, law, engineering, finance, and other opportunities in the private sector that may attract a higher base salary. Anecdotally (emphasis on anecdotally), I’m tempted to say this phenomenon is even truer in the church than it is in the world at large. It makes sense, in part. Compassion, empathy, and service are Christian virtues, so it wouldn’t surprise me to find that women of the faith enter ‘helping’ professions at a higher rate than their ‘non-religious’ counterparts, albeit I don’t have data to support that (moreover, I may be experiencing confirmation bias).
I want to be very, very clear, at the risk of being misinterpreted.
I’m NOT saying women are less capable of performing in medicine, law, engineering, finance, and the like. Indeed, there are a number of women, perhaps especially outside the church, who go into these professions and do quite swimmingly. What I AM saying is women are overrepresented in helping professions, and this may be particularly true for women committed to compassion, empathy, and service, which is frequently the case for Christian women.
The implication is simple: It’s probably not particularly likely that my partner of interest would make more than me, although I would have no qualms with that if she did.
**As a caveat, the odds of my partner making more than me may go up if I dated women outside the church, but admittedly, I don’t really have interest in doing that.**
Maaaan, that’s some intro.
Let’s talk about observation 2, “We’d need some intentional discussion, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking.”
It’s true. So, let’s start with the hypothetical situation of me courting a woman who makes more than me. Maybe she has a great job in Silicon Valley, or maybe she has a really fruitful business, or something else, entirely.
That’s perfectly fine. But we need to understand the way the labor market works. With rare exceptions, when you have a higher salary (or compensation, broadly speaking), your employer has license to expect more of you.
It’s 100% true. When you pay more for a product or service, don’t you expect more? Don’t you expect more from a BMW than you do a Kia Optima? Exactly. The labor market works the same way. Usually, when you’re paid more, your job expects more of you in return.
There’s NOTHING wrong with my wife making more than me, but that would clearly mean she has a job where her employer expects a lot of her… and I (will) have a job where my employer expects quite a bit of me, too. So, we need to talk about what that means for us, our relationship, and our potential future family.
That’s it.
Honestly, you should do that exercise with any man or woman you’re courting that’s in a high paying profession. The question is, “Honeybun, exactly what are they expecting of you in return for all that money???”
I’ve seen it for myself. When I worked in consulting, my clients were mostly C-Suite executives, or perhaps one level lower (Senior Vice Presidents).
At least in the private sector, those people have meetings and conference calls all day, from 8AM to 7PM. At 7PM, they go home, presumably have dinner (with their family, if they’re married), workout (if they’re the type to do so), and then they work for another 2 to 4 hours, doing all the work they couldn’t do during the day because they had back to back meetings. They go to sleep sometime between 11PM and 2AM (I know, because they used to send me emails really late), they wake up in the morning, and they do it again.
In return, they make anywhere from $250K to over a million. But it takes a toll, you know.
If my wife makes $250K, I’m perfectly fine with that. But we need to talk about what that job means for our relationship and our family.
I’m grateful as a Professor I have a lot of flexibility, but make no mistake about it, I still have quite a bit of work to do myself… and flexibility or not, work still has to get done, one way or the other.
At least when I was growing up, there was a lot of hype about ‘power couples’. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that can be ill-advised in some situations. I’ve worked 93 hours in a week before. I’ve been at the office until midnight before. I’ve had a different flight or a different city every week before. You want to take two of those people and put them together in a relationship??? I’m stressed just thinking about it!
Some (not all, but some) of those power couples don’t see each other regularly. And/Or a nanny spends more time with their kids than they do, because they’re never home, or when they are home they’re working.
I don’t think that’s what I’m going for.
If I’m courting a woman and she makes more than me, again, that’s cool. But we need to talk about the household dynamic we have in mind.
How do we plan on being unified and producing a healthy marriage? Not just for us, but for our kids, too.
That’s it. It doesn’t have to be a huge thing… I’m not disqualifying anyone because they’re going to make more than me. I’m just trying to use wisdom and discretion, as I think we all should. Honestly, as a woman, you should do the same thing. This isn’t gender specific.
I’m not going to lie though… at church, we’ve normalized some unhealthy and toxic masculinity, and it TRIPS ME OUT. I used to let it ride, but I realized a while ago I was actually part of the problem by not saying anything. I still can’t get over some of the responses I read in that discussion on Facebook.
“If my wife makes more than me, I won’t feel needed.”
“If my wife makes more than me, I feel like I won’t get to take care of her.”
It does bring up the interesting question of, “How exactly did we get here in the first place?”
Gender Roles.
It’s actually not that complicated.
Gender Roles.
It’s pretty simple, in fact.
Gender Roles.
That’s the answer to the question.
Gender Roles.
We need to understand. As I’ve said before, the idea of a “working woman” is still a very, very new age development, as far as global history goes (<100 years). That creates… complications.
A world-renowned sociologist at Princeton, Viviana A. Zelizer, has written on the topic. She has a paper on ‘Special Monies’, and a book, The Social Meaning of Money, on a related topic. Much of the discussion that follows is based on her work. Thanks, Viv!
It wasn’t until late 19th century in America that women started to take the limelight more in the discussion of money. Over the subsequent 50 years, the institution of wifehood would begin to change. In the 1880’s, husbands worked, and middle-class wives served as ‘directors of household affairs’. They tended to the house, supported the children, and deployed their husband’s salary to finance their work. But wives had no money. Their activities, in full, were paid for by their husband. Nothing unusual there. But as disposable income increased, and the availability of consumer products, the notion of ‘allowance’ for wives started to be a more pressing concern.
What on earth would women need money for? Does a wife have any entitlement to her husband’s money? Is this a private matter, or is there any legal precedent if an agreement can’t be reached?
These were different times, people. There was no such thing as Miss Independent. Sorry, Ne-Yo.
In 1914, a man in New York, Charles Montgomery, sued his wife for the $600 she saved from household expenses over the course of their marriage. Justice Blackman of the Supreme Court, Brooklyn, ruled in favor of the husband.
So, to answer the question, YES, there is a legal precedent. NO, a wife was not entitled to her husband’s money, unless it was given as a gift (according to the judge).
Even so, domestic “fraud” in the early 20th century became rampant. Wives picked their husbands pockets, padded bills (to get a little extra cash), and even practiced sexual blackmail. This was serious business, people. Wives were not playing about the money. But the men weren’t having it.
Misogynistic? I’ll let you decide. Sexism is, somewhat, a product of the times.
As the economy evolved, and the institution of ‘female monies’, so did the disputes. By the 1920’s and 1930’s, the discussion shifted to ‘dolling out’ money vs. offering wives an allowance. Doling out money is probably the equivalent of what parents today would do for young children: if the child wants something, the parents give them money, and they buy it. An allowance, on the other hand, functions the way a parent would probably treat an older child: parents offer kids an allowance, and they spend the money as they please.
To be clear, this was a contentious debate, and it was highly politicized. Many prominent women’s magazines wrote on the issue, and woman after woman would write anonymous letters to the editor vocalizing their fiscal grievances against their husband. Media outlets published surveys, so women could see the distribution for women receiving allowances vs. receiving dole vs. neither. For many of us, raised in a different generation, this just seems highly irrational. But it’s somewhat rational, if we understand the logic.
Ultimately, this boils down to control and security. Always has, I think. Let’s start with the former, control.
The reason men in the early 20th century were against the allowance for wives was because it undermined their control. Whereas previously, there was only one (adult) in the household with regular access to money, now there would be two. The wife would have money of her own, and for the most part, there wasn’t a good way to regulate how it was spent. Further, since it was an allowance, it wasn’t contingent on performance. Even if a husband came home and the house wasn’t clean and dinner wasn’t ready, the wife still gets her allowance.
Although the institution of wifehood and female money have both evolved substantially, male thinking, and the conceptualization of manhood, hasn’t caught up. To be a husband, or man, means to have control. Period.
In 2019, not only is it entirely possible for a wife to make just as much as her husband, but now it’s quite possible for her to make more. For men who see their leadership (and control) as rooted within their pay, or greater professional success, they’ll naturally be uncomfortable with that. In fact, by that logic, since their wife makes more, they should have more say in fiscal matters than they do.
Gasp.
So, yes, I do think this is about control. At least in part.
Let’s talk about the other element of this, security. For many men, it’s absolutely devastating to their male ego to be with a woman that makes more than them. “How do I take care of a woman who makes more than me? How can I be Prince Charming, or a Knight in Shining Armor, when my wife doesn’t [fiscally] need me? I want my wife to be proud of me… how can she be proud of me when I make less than her?”
In the best-case scenario, this is just really silly, and a wife reassures her husband, to help him be more secure (that’s assuming he chose to pursue a relationship with a woman who makes more than him to begin with, which is unlikely, if he’s insecure). In the worst-case scenario, however, this can spiral into toxic masculinity. More on that later.
But this talk on ‘Special Monies’ is certainly interesting for bringing up an age-old discussion between men and women on control and security, in the context of marriage or otherwise. Indeed, the Bible even notes, as early as Genesis, that there will be strife between man and woman (see Genesis 3, starting in verse 14). It’s not coincidental.
Okay, let’s see. We talked about money. We talked about marriage. We talked about misogyny… what was that last thing? Oh yeah!
You know, every so often, a conversation will come up between some friends on [dating] preferences. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary. I remember when I was younger, there was a subtle (or not so subtle) encouragement to be with a Nigerian (or at least African) woman. That’s pretty normative, all things considered.
I’m an immigrant to a foreign country. And my family is proud of their heritage and culture. It’s not unusual for there to be a subtle (or not so subtle) encouragement to be with a Nigerian or African woman. The only issue with that is I’m stubborn. It probably has to do with being the youngest of 5. I was interested in being a physician, until I realized just how many people expected me to be a physician, because my dad, brother, and sister are. After I realized that, I virtually lost all interest in being a physician.
I don’t like doing things because people… expect me to. I’m not here for it. Call me a brat. It’s whatever, really.
Because I’m the youngest, I feel like it can be hard to just… be… sometimes. It’s almost like there’s a subtle (or not so subtle) expectation from people for you to follow the path of those who came before you. Perhaps that’s especially true in Nigerian culture, where there’s a really strong emphasis on elders, seniority, hierarchy, etc.
So, no, I won’t be a physician. Similarly, when I was growing up, the more I felt pressured to marry a Nigerian (or African) woman, the less interested I was in doing so. Again, I just wanted to be my own person, so the rebel, immediately, came out.
But something happened.
As I got to college, and graduated and started working, I started meeting a lot of Nigerian (and African) women. And these women are absolutely gorgeous. They were back then, and they still are now. I’m talking about, like, super-model gorgeous. And they’re not just cute. They love God. They’re absolutely brilliant. They have good credit. Daaaaaaang.
So, yeah. I know I was talking reckless when I was younger, but throw all that trash out the window. I’m down with marrying a Nigerian or African woman… as long as her family isn’t super intense, which happens sometimes… I’m not with that.
I’m not about to sit here and tell you I’m only interested in black women, though, because that’s not true. In fact, after a 6 year hiatus from the dating market, the last woman I took interest in was Hispanic (Mexican), and throughout college, all the girls I was crushing on were Asian. So, I’ve been [physically] attracted to lots of different kinds of women. I’m definitely not compatible with every type of woman though. *Shrugs*
I could make this a much, much longer conversation, but I’ll try and boil it down to a single statement and expound on that.
Whoever she is, she needs to be down with the brown.
For a number of reasons, a lot of America is really uncomfortable or unsettled by blackness. I get it. I think the unfamiliar is always a bit uncomfortable, but I also think that is disproportionately true in the case of blackness.
So, I hope she’s down with the brown. I’m not getting any lighter, after all.
I think people of color in this country, perhaps especially black people, have faced much adversity. If you grew up in a middle class (or upper class) mostly white suburb, I’m completely fine with that… and you should be unapologetic about it. But I’d also like you to understand the plight of people who are different from you, perhaps especially black people, because I’m black.
Gotta be down with the brown.
And it can’t be because you’re dating/married to a black dude. It can’t be because your man has a PhD, and he’s often right on these things. It needs to be because you have that conviction for yourself… you’re a GROWN-BEHIND woman; you need your own opinions on these things.
You gotta be down with the brown.
If I do get married, given the household income, we’d probably qualify as America’s ‘upper class’, whatever the heck that means. But I think Christ calls for us to be empathetic and compassionate, particularly concerning people who have less… even though their problems are so far from ours. There are all kinds poor people in America, and around the world, but in America at least, those in deep poverty are disproportionately black and brown. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. No surprises.
She needs to be down with the brown.
You don’t need to be Nigerian. You don’t need to be African. You don’t even need to be black. But I do think you need to be down with the brown. If not, I’ll be honest… I don’t know if I think this will work very well.
To borrow a line from Charles Barkley,
“I may be wrong…………..but I doubt it.”
Feel free to weigh in. Some Random Thoughts.
Essay No. 3: Money, Marriage, Misogyny, & Melanin
Nnamdi