|
Men and Money
I was reading an article in the NY Times a few
weeks ago about the vast disparage of wealth in
America. It compared the lives and social/financial
construct of a number of homeless men along with
the many thousands of people who make so much money
that to waste time thinking about spending it costs
them money. The author borrowed a "joking" phrase
from a venture capitalist to describe it. He called
it the F.E.U., or Fundamental Economic Unit. It is
"the amount of money a person will spend without
thinking about it, because shopping around would
not be worthwhile." For a commuter it might be
$3.50 for a fancy espresso whose raw ingredients
cost 25 cents; for a techno millionaire it might be
half a million dollars, for a home bought on a
whim; for a homeless man it might be 99 cents for a
hot cup of coffee on a cold night at the
Seven-Eleven.
Where I live, in the San Francisco area, the
average F.E.U. has risen so high that people bid
twice the asking price for houses they haven't even
seen while the homeless population continues to
increase at an alarming rate. The latest government
figures are for 1996 and one would have to guess,
if only by their observable numbers, that it has
increased dramatically in the succeeding four
years. It is not surprising to find, according to
those statistics, men dominate among the homeless.
Among the single homeless population, the gender
ratio is 23 percent women vs. 77 percent men.
It is not my intention to make light of homeless
women but it is a huge subject and not really
separable because may women are homeless due to the
irresponsibility of some, or many, men, often men
making social rules and laws. That stated, it is
the masculine aspect I would like to touch on and
try to look at the role money plays in the
process.
Until the industrial revolution the vast
majority of the world had only enough money to
purchase those items they could not grow or make
themselves. Life, tough as it was, was about basic
survival rather than quality of life by comparison.
Today's world is a far different place and
comparison of the kinds of consumable items,
literally none of which are produced by the end
user, is the test of a successful life. So the more
money one has, the more successful he/she is seen
to be. There are, of course, alternate views of
reality here, but this seems the dominant one in
our culture at this time.
Like it or not, correct or not, it is still the
man who is perceived by our society to be
responsible for this accumulation of wealth and the
woman who is the primary benefactor. If the man
fails to provide, the woman generally makes other
choices depending on her talents, abilities, looks
and position in life. This is a continuation of the
kinds of stereotypes that women revolted against
during the past few decades...or did they? Most
research shows that, although less than forty years
ago, women still consider the level of income that
a man is capable of producing as a primary factor
in their choice of a mate. There is a biological
basis for this reality. One can find an explanation
of it in Robert Wright's book, The Moral Animal
(Vintage Books, 1994) and it is the essence of the
field of Evolutionary Psychology. It all boils down
to the idea that women are unconsciously driven by
the need to procreate (whether they choose to do so
or not) and that successful procreation is
dependent on the choices a woman makes in selecting
the man to father her children and improve the
species. When unsuccessful choices are made the
species deteriorates and goes extinct. Wright (and
Evolutionary Psychology) argue that the choice is
biologically driven and not available for social
argument.
So, that's why the rich guys get the beautiful
girls, and the homeless guys have no hope at all.
But does it have to end with that? Perhaps if we
learn to measure ourselves by the quality of our
life values and the rigor of our integrity, rather
than our income potential, we can also learn that
these virtues can accomplish the same things in the
forward development of the species...and give us an
edge in earning a nice income besides. I'd like to
suggest we begin to measure ourselves with the
F.E.U. mentioned above but change the definition to
Fundamental Evolutionary Unit which would reference
how we are making ourselves better people, more
aware and responsible men, more capable friends,
fathers and sons and so that we can truly deserve
the rich girls that are coming up fast behind
us.
© 2008, Kenneth F.
Byers
Other Transition Issues,
Books
* * *
A permanent state of transition is man's most
noble condition. - Juan Ramon Jimenez
Ken Byers
holds a Ph.D. in psychology with an emphasis in
Men's Studies, one of the few ever awarded in the
U.S. Ken is a full time Certified Professional Life
Coach specializing in working with men in any form
of transition and an instructor of design at San
Francisco State University.
His books, "Man
In Transition" and
"Who
Was That Masked man
Anyway" are widely
acknowledged as primers for men seeking deeper
knowledge of creating awareness and understanding
of the masculine way. More information on Ken, his
work and/or subscription information to the weekly
"Spirit Coach" newsletter which deals with elements
of the human spirit in short commentary, check the
box at www.etropolis.com/coachken/
or www.etropolis.com/coachken/what.htm
or www.etropolis.com/coachken/speak.htm
or E-Mail
You are welcome to share any of Ken's columns with
anyone without fee from or to him but please credit
to the author. Ken can be reached at:
415.239.6929.
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
