Dear John: I am a 50-year-old bachelor who is an Ivy-League MBA, physically fit and making a very good living. I still have all my hair, and I've been told I "look 10 years younger than I am." I have remained single all my life mainly out of fear of being financially bushwhacked by a female, as many of my friends have been by their wives, after nasty divorces.
I think several "precautions" could have helped them avert many of these disasters. What is wrong with a successful man or woman seeking a partner of similar financial standing? If financial considerations are "part of the package," the other partner brings some "risk equity" to the table, too. I don't mean a straight 50-50 financial partnership, but something close, like 60-40 would be OK with me but not a 90-10 or even an 80-20 split.
Whenever I mention this to most women, the response is that the issue is taboo (with the "have-nots," of course). They think the world operates on "love," and they've convinced some naive men to go along with this assumption! Do you agree? —Money Walks not Talks, in Bee Cave, Texas
Dear Money Walks not Talks: Since you seem to have a way with numbers, let me suggest that your odds of finding a soul mate who feels the way you do are approximately 100 to 1.
If I were you, I'd take the time to rethink the meaning of love. Is it, in fact, equal financial status? Or is it all the indefinable acts that demonstrate monogamous commitment and emotional joy? Love can be qualified, but not quantified.
If you want to improve your odds, I suggest you seek counseling to help you get in touch with your fears about relationships.
Learn to appreciate the currency of the heart, and you'll get a better return on your investment.
Dear John: The man in my life is rather insecure. If I make a statement about my own feelings, "Hank" invariably translates my remark into a criticism aimed at him. He then gets very hurt and offended that I could think so poorly of him. Because of this, it has become virtually impossible to bring up anything that annoys or upsets me.
I understand that men have a need to look good to their girlfriends and the others in their lives, but his reactions seem off the scale. Despite how carefully I word it or attempt to avoid even the slightest hint of blame or criticism, Hank gets so hurt, when I bring up a problem, we cannot discuss it — yet he is extremely concerned with pleasing others and never doing anything to displease or disappoint. How do I communicate with him about this? —Looking for a Better Way, in Charlotte, N.C.
Dear Better Way: Some people are definitely more sensitive to feedback than others. This is not a character deficiency, but rather a character trait. In order to successfully communicate your feelings and needs, you need to take him off the defensive. Before expressing a concern to him, precede the discussion with several examples of things he did that pleased you or that you appreciated. When sensitive people feel successful and realize that they are being appreciated, they feel supported and can better handle negative feedback.
John Gray is the author of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus." Visit his website, http://www.marsvenus.com, for advice on dating, marriage, parenting, romance and workplace issues. Or email him at comments@marsvenus.com. To find out more about John Gray and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 JOHN GRAY'S MARS VENUS ADVICE
|
 |
Comments
|
6 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Hey John - I love your column and usually agree, but LW1 has a point. I know many men, even men who are NOT rich who were raked over the coals by ex-wives. One poor guy I knew couldn't even afford an apartment, he had to live with his parents because his wife, who cheated on him, got everything. I also know a woman who was the breadwinner in the same position! She has to pay her ex-husband, who also cheated on her, alimony!!! So LW1 is not being unrealistic.
I don't think it was always this way...In the1950's, they say "business men married secretaries" and "doctors married nurses" etc. (which yes, I know is sexist but that is how it used to be) but also back then there were a lot less divorces and guys didn't have to worry about things like alimony and having their home taken from them. But we live in a different world now, and I think that people (not just men) for the most part, should try to marry as near to their own wealth group as possible to prevent anyone from being, as LW1 says, "bushwacked".
Sadly, I know women TODAY who teach their daughters as young as 8 or 9 to "marry a rich man so when you get divorced he will continue support you". Yes, in this day and age, I'm not kidding...go figure. This guy should be told that there are dating services that cater to the wealthy and pair wealthy men with wealthy women.
I guess it's a good thing the neither my husband nor I were rich when we met! :) But at least we are happy.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Pam
Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:29 AM
|
|
|
|
John is on the mark about 95% of the time. This time, he is WAAAAAY off in my opinion.
Really? 100 to 1? Give me a break. With the advent of successful women, the IMPLICATION is that women are still looking for just love and if they get 90% of some poor guys portfolio, well that's just the way it is.
There are many successful women who make a lot more money than their men. BOTH of my sisters made considerably more than their husbands. One husband divorced my sister and suddenly want a huge percentage of the joint assets. It didn't matter that he contributed about 2% of the assets, strictly speaking. My sister, I thought, was marrying a great guy. But, she gave him too much and expected too little and he performed appropriately: he literally almost stopped working after about 5 years of marriage and announced that he was only going to be a Mr Mom.
This gent has a RIGHT to feel this way in my opinion and I have a 30 year good marriage myself. There are many thousands of women who scheme and trap welthier guys and then clean them out. There are ALSO men who do the reverse as per the example in my own family.
Bottom line: don't settle. There are GOOD women who like successful men who are SUCCESSFUL women in their own right. Its just harder to find them. Some men are intimidated by women who are successful. The LW1 clearly doesn't seem to have that problem and MORE POWER to him.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Patrick Turner
Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
So LW1 is single because he's afraid that some greedy floozy will take all his money. Poor thing. Maybe he'll end up a rich, elderly curmudgeon like Ebenezer Scrooge, with only his bank account to keep him warm at night.
In all seriousness, though, he did have a good idea that successful and financially secure men should seek out women who bring as many assets to the marriage as they do. The question is, why hasn't HE done it? I am constantly hearing about how successful, professional women have problems finding men, especially those who insist on 'marrying up' (marrying men older and more successful than themselves). I find it hard to believe that a man with all his advantages would have problems finding such a woman. Even if he did and he was still leery of marriage, there's always that new development called a prenuptial agreement.
Instead, he's busy sneering at women who have the temerity to suggest that marriage should be about love, and suggesting that men who agree with them are fools who have fallen into their gold-digging clutches. (He calls them 'have-nots'; if he's an Ivy-League MBA with a good job probably most people look like 'have-nots' to him.) What does he think marriage is, a business partnership?
I don't for a moment believe that he's single just because he's afraid some money-grubbing female will clean him out. I agree with John: he has some other deep-seated fears about relationships and could use some counseling to get to the bottom of it. Of course, people like him usually think counseling is beneath them. Guess he'll just have to be single for the rest of his life. Pity.
Comment: #3
Posted by: JMG
Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Pam, you must know some pretty shallow people. The women I know (heck, the men too) are teaching their daughters and sons to go to school, get and education, and jobs that make you able to support YOURSELF! Really everyone I talk to believes in self-reliance first. But you were correct, back in the day, there were less divorces -- but there were also more cases of spouses killing eachother.
I believe LW1 is correct but isn't that what Pre-nups are for?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jen
Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Agree with JMG and John Gray, that LW1's primary problem is in how he looks at the world. I believe there's nothing wrong with wanting a partner who is able to support himself or herself. But LW1 has defined success as someone who earns what he does (or more). He is so focused on money that he's ruled out just about everyone except those who think as he does -- that their worth is tied solely to their paycheck. I feel sorry for him.
Comment: #5
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Patrick Turner
I was also astonished that John Gray would quote 100 to 1 odds, thinking immediately that more than 1% of women would agree to parity being important in a relationship.
But John says "your odds of finding a soul mate who feels the way you do are approximately 100 to 1". So I now take that to mean the LW will need to meet one hundred women before he meets one who is in his financial league, is his soul mate AND agrees with his philosophy on seeking a partner of similar financial standing.
I guess.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Beguiling Miss Pasko
Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
