http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/blogs/smitten/2011/08/5-dating-dealbreakers-to-recon.html

"A person would have to be pretty extraordinary in other ways to make up for low income, never paying, poor finances (lots of debt), roommates, and marriage hesitancy. However, it isn't beyond comprehension."

"Sorry but settling is settling. If these things weren't dealbreakers to you to begin with then fine, but I sure wouldn't settle for an unemployed guy who didn't want to get married. There are still people who are doing well, even in this economy. No you can't set your standards TOO high, but I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of financial stability."

"I disagree, totally with #2...a bad economy should not be an excuse for guys to stop being gentlemen, strive for chivalry, ladies! I believe that if he REALLY, REALLY likes you, he'll WANT to take care of the check..."

A recent post on the Glamour magazine website (see the link above) listed five dating “dealbreakers” to reconsider in this economy. The actual list is not very surprising, and I personally agree with the thrust of the article. In such dire economic circumstances and with the entire globe suffering financially, men and women playing the dating game should stop putting so much emphasis on status and wealth.

           

The comments, however, really surprised me. (I pasted the ones that annoyed me the most). Perhaps only women employed and bringing home big fat paychecks commented on this post. Perhaps the ones happily dating underemployed men were too embarrassed to comment. Or perhaps the women who read Glamour tend to be superficial gold-diggers. Regardless of the explanation, the lack of compassion and understanding and the unwillingness to look beyond a person’s name, job title, and account balance really distress me.

           

I thought that in the 21st century women had graduated to caring more about the portfolio of a man’s character than his stock portfolio. While for most of human civilization the institution of marriage has carried explicit economic overtones, the three hundred years since the Romantic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries have spread the idea of marriage based on romantic love: you marry the person you love, not the pocketbook your family wants. Some cultures still arrange marriages out of economic, rather than emotional, compatibility, but in 21st century mainstream America, if women do not wanted to be treated as simply walking vaginas, then it follows that those same women should not treat men as simply walking wallets. An individual is not just a job, a place to sleep, and a dinner to pay for. Every individual, regardless of career path, has dreams, desires, flaws, faults, hobbies, interests, and passions. I sincerely hope that the women of the United States can see that.

           

Perhaps the lukewarm reaction to this list has something to do the Carrie Bradshaw-fueled regression back into 18th century mores. Carrie Bradshaw, heroine and icon of the 90s and 00s, was disgustingly materialistic, as financially unstable as 1920s Germany, and yet, strangely, prone to dating very rich men. She ended up with the gazillion-aire Mr. Big, whose economic capacity greatly exceeded his emotional capacity. The Sex and the City viewer always knew about the content of Mr. Big’s bank account: he was the next Donald Trump, wore fantastic suits, stayed at lavish hotels, bought vineyards in Napa, and could fly off to Paris at a moment’s notice. The viewer never saw too many positive figures in the account book of Mr. Big’s character, however: he lied, cheated, neglected Carrie, and couldn’t commit emotionally. He did like jazz and did have a great record collection, but he went to the opera only to please his wife. We do see him read the newspaper, but we never hear him offer his opinion on literature or art.

           

Even more than the possible over-appreciation of a questionable cultural touchstone, what troubles me about the comments in response to the Glamour posting is a lingering problem with feminism and the modern role of womanhood. Women in the 20th century worked extremely hard to get men to see a woman as an individual—as a whole being with a mind and a body—instead of just a replaceable cog in an economic and reproductive system. Now, it seems that some women in the 21st century will not do the same for men.