I don't know about money being the root of all evil, but it is unquestionably the root of some great discus-sions.
No one Single-minded column has sparked as many calls, letters and apparent debates as last week's about the priority women place on a man's stable income.The largest response came from women who called to say, "Right on!" Some said they had discussed the article with sisters, roommates, friends and those they encountered at church. Women left messages on my answering machine at home. They called at work. The consensus: Women indeed place a high priority on a man who earns a good living. (Not to be confused with rich. The women who called didn't mention the "r" word. They talked about stability and security.)
The next largest response was letters from angry men. I can't remember the last time I was called so many names! Defensive. Hostile. Prideful. Career-oriented. Elitest and barren. Career-oriented was my favorite. (Guilty!)
But a close friend likes the combination of prideful and barren. "You prideful and barren woman," he said, trying out the sound of the words. "I like it. I think I'm going to call you that when you get out of line."
Once past the anger, the men's letters pleaded for deeper values than money. "I still believe kindness, honesty, willingness to share, moral cleanliness and a good work ethic should be qualities of major consideration," wrote one man.
But the response that worried me the most was hard-working men making good livings who read last week's column and concluded they weren't doing enough. Not rich, guys! Women didn't say rich. They said stable and secure.
When I hear women express concern over a man's financial stability, I hear things like: "He still lives with his parents"; "He doesn't have a job"; "He doesn't have a car. He wants me to go out with him then asked if we could take my car"; "He lives in a dive. I mean it's this tiny, basement apartment with almost no furniture."
These women are talking about men - and sadly, there are a lot of them - who can barely afford to take care of themselves and yet wonder why women won't consider them for a serious relationship.
Rich isn't the issue here. But yes, money is. And frankly men, they don't consider such concern to be crass. They consider it to be pragmatic.
Women who talked to me took three approaches to a man's finances, depending on where they were in their own lives. Women who have already had their children are less concerned about a man making a "good" living as opposed to a "decent" living. If they commit to this man, their cost of living probably won't jump that much, they reason. So if each can take care of themselves now, there should be no problem in the future.
But such women still expected a man who can afford to take good care of himself. "It's not so much the money itself, but what it says about his drive and ambition and energy," said a single mother of two.
Women who still plan to have children held higher financial standards. Professional women told me they invested in their own education and careers not only for themselves but for the families they wanted to have. They want a man who made a similar investment. Women in the $25,000-$45,000 range said they were adamant about a lateral move (a man who made as much) because they believed that's the kind of money it takes to provide children with a stable, secure middle-class life. (Women who made less hoped to marry up.)
"I want to know that I have the option to take several months off to be with a baby after it's born or go back to work only part time," one woman said. She can't do that if married to a man who makes little money. These women don't see such goals as crass, worldly, grasping, materialistic and all those other lovely things some men wrote and accused them of.
These women feel a strong responsibility to the family they want to have; seeking relationships with financially stable men is part of honoring that responsibility.
The third group of women includes those who sought well-paying careers because the good life is important to them. They place a priority on the neighborhood they live in, the kind of car they drive and a chance to travel. Most of these women value those things because they grew up accustomed to them. They seek men of a certain professional standing because their fathers and brothers hold such standing. If they are younger women, they are themselves lawyers and accountants. If they are older, they resent having been discouraged from seeking such careers themselves when they were younger and have done everything they can to maximize the career they have chosen.
A good standard of living is as natural to these women as air and water. Men who don't meet those standards probably find that these women don't meet some of their criteria either. The men most angered by last week's column said they wouldn't want a woman who expected more of them financially anyway. Both groups then will happily seek commitment elsewhere.Men enraged by women seeking financial stability should take a sec-ondlook at themselves. The man who chided me for mentioning money in the face of virtues like "kindness, honesty, willingness to share, moral cleanliness and a good work ethic" talked earlier in his letter about how difficult it is to meet desirable women.
"If you eliminated the ones who are obviously overweight . . . ," he said at one point. Excuse me? What does a woman's weight have to do with her kindness, honesty and willingness to share?
Forgive my candor, guys, but I can think of few men who would overlook a woman's appearance in favor of the sterling qualities mentioned in the Bible. Why then, do you expect women to overlook financial stability in favor of those same qualities? Frankly, I think the women in this case are taking the higher road. Seeking financial stability makes a lot more sense to me than seeking physicial beauty.- The Deseret News welcomes comments from readers on this topic or others pertinent to the Single-minded column. Please address le