|
Most people grow up in families where no one talks about
money. People may argue about money: He doesn't make enough
or she spends too much. However, there generally is no real
education about what role money plays in relationships. Very
often children become adults having no idea of how much money
their parents have saved or what they earn. Talking about
money is taboo and people often become adults carrying irrational
attitudes, beliefs and anxieties about money or not knowing
how to handle money. When they later enter a coupled relationship,
these anxieties generally emerge.
ROLES
Boys are taught to earn money and serve as providers- - to
be the primary breadwinners. Some theorists believe that it
is through earning capacity that the husband receives a major
portion of his affirmation of success in life and vindicates
his existence. For men, aspects of independence, separation,
and competition fostered in childhood become assets for future
endeavors with corporate America. However, it is possible
that these attributes possibly inhibit their emotional development.
For many men, financial distress exerts a powerful influence
on how they experience their marriage overall and how they
interact with their wives because of the importance they place
on financial competence and success.
On the other hand, girls are socialized that the earning
of money is a personal choice and often view money as a reward,
and/or as a haven for emotional security. For women, Money
is merely a small piece in the grander scheme of relationships
and a medium for purchasing goods and services. While they
appear to be more confident in expressing their feelings and
concerns about money to their partners, they are more deficit
in terms of the competitive component of acquiring money.
So then how is the relationship affected when wives make
more money than husbands? Tichenor (1999) examined marital
power dynamics when wives earned more money than their husbands,
when they worked in higher status occupations. She explored
whether they were able to exercise more power when this occurred.
She found that they were not related. She concludes that power
in relationships is more related to gender than status and
income. She then suggests how these couples do gender that
reinforce the husband's power.
THE EFFECT OF CHILDHOOD
Some individuals strive to acquire money in hopes to compensate
for its lack in childhood, or remedy a shattered self-image
and or substantiate a self-worth that is dependent ion outside
validation. If an individual is frugal with earnings, hesitant
to share his or her money with his or her mate, it can be
a reflection of his or her upbringing. For some, their childhood
families could have been deprived of resources and/or necessities.
Or perhaps the mother spent too much money and the father
hoarded it or visa versa. Partners may feel personally rejected,
unloved, unwanted, or taken for granted when spending becomes
synonymous with affection and love. It is probably true that
a person who is withholding money is likely to be withholding
feelings as well. At times money can be used as a means of
punishment toward a partner for not fulfilling his or her
affection needs.
The misuse of money in marriage can often be the result of
observing manipulative power plays between parents around
money issues. In turn, as an adult,the learned behavior may
be used to manipulate one's mate.
MONEY AND MARITAL SATISFACTION
Many individuals have a problem relationships with money
and when they enter marriage, money matters can become a trigger
for arguments.
Research appears to show that economic attainment is correlated
with marital satisfaction. Satisfaction with marriage appears
to increase with income and its mutual agreement regarding
its distribution. This then leads to increased spousal satisfaction.
It is possible that when partners are disappointed with the
amount of money the couple has, they find their entire relationship
less satisfying.
It is reasonable to suggest a correlation between money and
power in marriage. Leiter (1991) agrees...." He who has
the money has the power...he who controls the purse controls
the relationship (p.79). The decision-maker position in a
relationship is often determined by the individual who earns
the higher income (often the male in heterosexual couples).
This affects the balance of power, i.e. control over allocation
of personal spending money and access to joint money. The
relative income of each spouse can have consequential psychological
and pragmatic consequences on a relationship.
It can be said that the ultimate test of a marriage comes
when the wife is higher earner. Neither husband nor wife likes
to contemplate any change in the balance of power from the
traditional. In this case males may experience feelings of
bitterness, embarrassment, and jealousy when their mates'
income exceeded their own.
MONEY STYLES
Mellan (1999) states, If opposites don't attract right off
the bat, they create each other eventually." (page 1).
Generally speaking, hoarders will marry spenders.
Two Spenders will fight over who is the more super of the
spenders. This forces the other into the hoarder role because
someone will have to set boundaries.
The Worrier and the Avoider - Avoiders don't focus on the4
details of their money such as interest rates or if there
is enough money to buy something, they just spend. A worrier
will turn a mate into an avoider just to escape the avalanche
of worry. And an avoider will turn a mate into a worrier.
Hoarders are usually worriers and avoiders are usually the
spenders.
The Planners. These are detail oriented and dreamers who
are the visionaries. Others who feel that money corrupts so
it's better not to have too much. The amassers accumulate
money. They are not hoarders. They invest to watch their money
grow.
The longer the couple is married, the more they lock into
their polarized roles. Then they argue about their differences.
Usually couples argue about what money represents. Specific
times when couples fight over money: tax time, when it is
time to begin a family, buying a house. Such as he wants to
go on vacation and I want to save for retirement.
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Rob Becker in his play, Defending the Caveman, portrays men
and hunters and women as gatherers. Men will go out and buy
a shirt and wear it until it dies. Only then will they go
out and kill another shirt. Women on the other hand gather...They
will buy a present for their mother's birthday and then another
gift for their nephew. In addition, men tend to see the world
as hierarchical and competitive. In this view, there is a
winner and a loser...whereas women see the world as collaborative
and democratic and thus can be needy and vulnerable. These
differences can lead to problems between the genders regarding
decisions concerning money. Men will buy a car and women will
say, Why didn't you consult me? I thought we were partners.
He will say, you aren't my mother. I don't have to ask your
permission. Men are socialized into believing that they are
good with money while women are socialized in believing that
they are not. Confidence levels differ between the genders.
Men believe they are good with money whereas women do not
even though they both are rated as having the same knowledge
about money. When men make money in the stock market they
credit themselves as being good investors. When they lose
money, they blame their advisors. When women make money in
the stock market they credit their advisors and when they
lose money they blame themselves.
In relationships men want to merge the money yet maintain
the decision making around spending it. Women want to keep
at least some of the money separate. Men are trained to believe
that money equal power. Power and control are not compatible
with intimacy. Relationships that are successful are when
partners are willing to show each other their vulnerabilities.
Straight can be seen as a symbol of value, control, security,
status, success, independence, trust, guilt, indifference,
envy, desire, comfort, authority, power, and freedom. It is
an essential ingredient in the survival of individuals in
the market economy. Strong and serious pressures and placed
on relationships by the economic system of the United States.
Money is so vital a constituent in the social interaction
process. It functions as a means to communicate the values
of each individual to his or her significant other. Money
often carries a connotation that is synonymous with love.
Giving to one another in the form of gifts is commonly perceived
as a symbol of affection, or metaphor for love. Personal relationships
with money affects all other relationships. Money influences
humans in that it can serve to make people happy or miserable,
bring people closer or create distance, make us altruistic
or selfish.
MONEY AS METAPHOR
The present author believes that metaphors might be a useful
way to move out of the couple's verbalized content andinto
the process of the relationship.
In many couple relationships, money is more taboo than sex.
Couples are more likely to discuss their prior sex lives than
their history of money. Discussions of money generally are
not topics for discussion in first marriages although are
becoming increasingly more important in second marriages.
Many therapists believe that beliefs and expectations about
money should be topics of discussion before marriage. Couples
may decide whether they want to spend the rest of their lives
together based on financial attitudes and aspirations. Marriage
is an economic union as well as a social union. America society
stipulates that people should marry for love and not money.
Money generally means something different to each spouse.
A couple's economic planning and activities before marriage
generally affect the financial partnership they form after
marriage.
Money can't buy happiness.
Money is the root of all evil.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Money makes the world go 'round.
Save your pennies for a rainy day.
Mo' Money.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
You can't take it with you.
Render unto Caesar...
A penny for your thoughts.
Money can't buy me love.Money used as competition in a marriage.
Money used as equivalent for love and often serves as a payment
or substitute for attention and affection. Relatives suing
each other over wills divorces. Hard to know whether people
stay attached for love or money.
In many relationships money is highly regulated. In the corporate
world there are elaborate contracts protecting individuals'
money. No such regulation of money occurs within the family,
primarily because we view the family as a trusting warm loving
place. Risk futures on the idea that blood is thicker than
water. Just bringing up money brings an ugliness into the
discussion that smacks of mistrust and lack of good feeling.
We know about the injustices that occur frequently in divorce.
Very little is known how money is shared, divided or used
in families and with what circumstances. Explicit and implicit
rules about money. Historically there have been clear guidelines
and rules, i.e. dowries, bride prices, primogeniture, the
transfer of property from one generation to another. These
arrangements were not left to chance or to the judgment of
individual families because in these cases, the structure
of society was tied to the way people dealt with money.
In the days of old the economic basis of marriage was made
explicit...now it has been replaced by romantic love.
The middle class appears to be more affected by this than
the upper class who have more clearly defined ways of protecting
vested interests and maintaining status and position, not
spoiling children, giving them too much when young, spend
only the interest not touch the principal so can be handed
down. Aside from state laws that regulate divorce and wills,
there is very little intrusion into how families handle money.
Principal of children should be given equal amounts regardless
of needs. Maybe there was a need to regulate usage of money
because there really wasn't much at stake. There is also an
ethos of autonomy and when money is earned by individual achievement
there is a lack of wanting to impose social or group norms
and rules on it.
Now however, there is the post war boom and money being passed
down to baby boomers in terms of accumulated money from houses
and stocks etc. So that for the first time in the middle class
there will be a substantial amount of money transferred to
children through inheritance.
This study explores the relation between love and money and
how often there are negative consequences when they can't
be disentangled. It is further difficult because of the compound
problem of separating financial decisions from emotional ones.
As both Shakespeare and Marx have noted, an ugly man with
money can buy himself a beautiful woman and therefore not
suffer the consequences of being ugly. For intents and purposes,
he is not ugly- money gives him a different face. Money, being
the ultimate measure of value, winds up creating reality.
Money often becomes the ultimate measure of worth and the
primary determinant of identity. Money is a primary source
of power in relationships. Without it we are dependent/ Having
money enables us to control other people, or to be rid of
them and it allows others to be free of us. Money can be an
adhesive- - gluing marriages together that otherwise would
not have lasted. When you don't have enough money to get a
divorce or to free yourself of your partner, you have to make
the best of things. How many nightmarish stories of "live-in
divorces" do we hear where couples have lived together
in exceedingly estranged circumstances because they did not
want to share the family "money."
Putting your money where your mouth is.
Dollar wise and penny foolish.
Spending money like a drunken sailor.
When market researchers investigate our spending habits,
expenditures they are not only assessing the relationship
between income and expenditures....they are seeking the connection
between self image and what people will spend their money
on. We don't just own our possessions; they own us.
In wills, the way people disperse money can even control.
Money is used to control children, punish estranged spouses,
measure a person's true feelings, buy freedom from relationships,
or stop a partner from leaving.
Lionel Trilling described how money can take over, invading
spaces it wasn't supposed to reach. "Money is both real
and not real, like a spook. We invented money ad we use it,
yet we cannot either understand its laws or control its actions.
It has a life of its own which it properly should not have;
Karl Marx speaks with a kind of horror of its indecent power
to reproduce, as if he says love were working in its body.
For those of you who are interested in couples and their
relationship to money, please take the following survey. If
you are interested, you will be provided with results if you
wish. The entire survey is completely anonymous and all answers
are confidential.
To take the survey, please click the link below:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=nXWEZm4_2bDk6Qwe0Th7TJCg_3d_3d?
Joan D. Atwood, Ph.D.
|
