Social Class Considerations

[Anonymous]

"Class" sometimes is an imperfect surrogate for IQ.
I would have no trouble partnered with a very intelligent carpenter. I could not last with a dumb person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a consideration, but you cant generalize - it really depends on the people. Where this match is most likely to have problems that aren’t obvious until it’s too late is kids, like if the UMC partner wants private school, golf lessons, SAT tutor, etc., and the LMC one thinks its a waste of money because they turned out fine without it. Money issues with parents too - go to the family forum for plenty of those stories.

All of this. My ex-DH envies all the ways I have given our kids a headstart in life. I don't think he realized just how early the upbringings of UMC kids diverge from that of LMC kids until he saw all the ways I strategize our kids' success. It's really weird how resentful he gets about it. Almost as if he doesn't want the kids to do better than him on a very deep level that he denies to himself. I think even the sincere desire to have your kids do better and the willingness to work to ensure that (not just vaguely hope for it) also differs among the classes.

This just made me vomit in my mouth

It’s TRUE though. Poster is correct and a good parent.

+1. We all strategize our kids futures on DCUM— big 3 or bust; travel sports; regional/national competitions in science, art, and music; colleges to apply to.

I’m curious why this comment made the pp vomit in their mouth.

You think this mindset is healthy? What if, for a million reasons, a Big 3 wasn't going to be a good fit for your kid? You'd force them to go anyway? That idea makes me want to vomit. And my kids are in a school that is actually consistently ranked higher than all the Big 3 schools, just in another part of the country. But the school is a good fit for both of them (so far, they're in middle). If it wasn't, I wouldn't make them stay because them being at another school didn't align with my "strategy."

[Anonymous]

I think women are more focused on social class when dating than men are.

Men do not really care what a woman’s social class is if the woman he is dating is young ➕ hot.
Sounds bad but imo it is the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a consideration, but you cant generalize - it really depends on the people. Where this match is most likely to have problems that aren’t obvious until it’s too late is kids, like if the UMC partner wants private school, golf lessons, SAT tutor, etc., and the LMC one thinks its a waste of money because they turned out fine without it. Money issues with parents too - go to the family forum for plenty of those stories.

All of this. My ex-DH envies all the ways I have given our kids a headstart in life. I don't think he realized just how early the upbringings of UMC kids diverge from that of LMC kids until he saw all the ways I strategize our kids' success. It's really weird how resentful he gets about it. Almost as if he doesn't want the kids to do better than him on a very deep level that he denies to himself. I think even the sincere desire to have your kids do better and the willingness to work to ensure that (not just vaguely hope for it) also differs among the classes.

This just made me vomit in my mouth

It’s TRUE though. Poster is correct and a good parent.

+1. We all strategize our kids futures on DCUM— big 3 or bust; travel sports; regional/national competitions in science, art, and music; colleges to apply to.

I’m curious why this comment made the pp vomit in their mouth.

You think this mindset is healthy? What if, for a million reasons, a Big 3 wasn't going to be a good fit for your kid? You'd force them to go anyway? That idea makes me want to vomit. And my kids are in a school that is actually consistently ranked higher than all the Big 3 schools, just in another part of the country. But the school is a good fit for both of them (so far, they're in middle). If it wasn't, I wouldn't make them stay because them being at another school didn't align with my "strategy."

Extremes are unhealthy in everything but there is no intelligent and involved parent who does try to strategize for a good future for their kids. Even if they are raising with bohemian style, there is an strategy of giving them a carefree life.

[Anonymous]

*doesn't

[Anonymous]

Lets not forget that half of the marriages are failures or end up in divorce. About 25% are ho hum and only 25% are really happy, healthy and successful so you can only try, no guarantee of success even if on paper you are perfect match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think women are more focused on social class when dating than men are.

Men do not really care what a woman’s social class is if the woman he is dating is young ➕ hot.
Sounds bad but imo it is the truth.

I think that's less true than it ever has been since women have become educated and financially independent. Sure, there are outliers, but the days of a surgeon who grew up UMC marrying a waitress who grew up in a trailer with only a GED are pretty thoroughly over. The true upper class never really did that either; they marry amongst themselves. Note, I am not defining class strictly by money. The new, tacky money who gets rich off of, idk...bodybuilding supplements, may have different mores but the educated UMC and UC are locking down with equals on the whole. Some would say that's an issue as social mobility is at an all time low. The UMC in particular, who do well but can't rely on generational wealth, has been closing the ranks around them to maintain a hold on that status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a consideration, but you cant generalize - it really depends on the people. Where this match is most likely to have problems that aren’t obvious until it’s too late is kids, like if the UMC partner wants private school, golf lessons, SAT tutor, etc., and the LMC one thinks its a waste of money because they turned out fine without it. Money issues with parents too - go to the family forum for plenty of those stories.

All of this. My ex-DH envies all the ways I have given our kids a headstart in life. I don't think he realized just how early the upbringings of UMC kids diverge from that of LMC kids until he saw all the ways I strategize our kids' success. It's really weird how resentful he gets about it. Almost as if he doesn't want the kids to do better than him on a very deep level that he denies to himself. I think even the sincere desire to have your kids do better and the willingness to work to ensure that (not just vaguely hope for it) also differs among the classes.

This just made me vomit in my mouth

PP here. That's totally fine. People with your mentality should marry each other, as should people of my mentality. The two groups don't mix, especially when it comes to child rearing, and all the love in the world can't change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a consideration, but you cant generalize - it really depends on the people. Where this match is most likely to have problems that aren’t obvious until it’s too late is kids, like if the UMC partner wants private school, golf lessons, SAT tutor, etc., and the LMC one thinks its a waste of money because they turned out fine without it. Money issues with parents too - go to the family forum for plenty of those stories.

All of this. My ex-DH envies all the ways I have given our kids a headstart in life. I don't think he realized just how early the upbringings of UMC kids diverge from that of LMC kids until he saw all the ways I strategize our kids' success. It's really weird how resentful he gets about it. Almost as if he doesn't want the kids to do better than him on a very deep level that he denies to himself. I think even the sincere desire to have your kids do better and the willingness to work to ensure that (not just vaguely hope for it) also differs among the classes.

This just made me vomit in my mouth

It’s TRUE though. Poster is correct and a good parent.

+1. We all strategize our kids futures on DCUM— big 3 or bust; travel sports; regional/national competitions in science, art, and music; colleges to apply to.

I’m curious why this comment made the pp vomit in their mouth.

You think this mindset is healthy? What if, for a million reasons, a Big 3 wasn't going to be a good fit for your kid? You'd force them to go anyway? That idea makes me want to vomit. And my kids are in a school that is actually consistently ranked higher than all the Big 3 schools, just in another part of the country. But the school is a good fit for both of them (so far, they're in middle). If it wasn't, I wouldn't make them stay because them being at another school didn't align with my "strategy."

Extremes are unhealthy in everything but there is no intelligent and involved parent who does try to strategize for a good future for their kids. Even if they are raising with bohemian style, there is an strategy of giving them a carefree life.

I'm the PP who wrote about strategizing my kids' success and you get it. There are people who are very threatened on a nearly existential level by the idea of not just letting your kids float through life. Those mentalities tend to correlate with coming from a lower middle class background. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's nearly impossible to get such people to stop being hostile to the idea that there are steps you can take throughout your children's childhood that will make it very probable they end up doing well for themselves. I don't know what it is that some people find so threatening about that. Maybe they don't feel they can pull it off or maybe they feel scared about all the work they think it takes.

When you've been raised by parents who take a deep interest in your well-being and outcomes, it almost comes naturally to do the same for your kids. It's not something one can pick up as an adult very easily though. I learned this the hard way by marrying someone from a background with less parental investment and a lot less savvy. There's a lot of class envy, along with a rejection of the idea that parenting should be intentional and require more than the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think women are more focused on social class when dating than men are.

Men do not really care what a woman’s social class is if the woman he is dating is young ➕ hot.
Sounds bad but imo it is the truth.

Third world mindset. Middle income people and humanistic societies have progressed past this stage of human development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything is a consideration, but you cant generalize - it really depends on the people. Where this match is most likely to have problems that aren’t obvious until it’s too late is kids, like if the UMC partner wants private school, golf lessons, SAT tutor, etc., and the LMC one thinks its a waste of money because they turned out fine without it. Money issues with parents too - go to the family forum for plenty of those stories.

All of this. My ex-DH envies all the ways I have given our kids a headstart in life. I don't think he realized just how early the upbringings of UMC kids diverge from that of LMC kids until he saw all the ways I strategize our kids' success. It's really weird how resentful he gets about it. Almost as if he doesn't want the kids to do better than him on a very deep level that he denies to himself. I think even the sincere desire to have your kids do better and the willingness to work to ensure that (not just vaguely hope for it) also differs among the classes.

This just made me vomit in my mouth

It’s TRUE though. Poster is correct and a good parent.

+1. We all strategize our kids futures on DCUM— big 3 or bust; travel sports; regional/national competitions in science, art, and music; colleges to apply to.

I’m curious why this comment made the pp vomit in their mouth.

I really can't tell if the previous comment was sarcasm or not. Maybe I'm not smart enough since my kids are not in private school, have never done travel sports, and have never competed in any science, art, or music competitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you consider the social class background of someone when you’re dating them?

I really wonder if a harmonious match can be made in a cross-class union. An UMC woman married to a LMC man? That wouldn’t end so well!

Don't do it. I married what I thought was a striver from a LMC background. I thought we'd have similar values since we were both white collar professionals and he claimed to want better than he had been shown growing up. Well, I learned that people revert to their hardwired upbringing regardless of what they profess.

The class envy and gnawing insecurities over what others have, the refusal to live within his means, the inability to value skills-building activities over consumerism (he'd fight me to the death over weekend language classes for the kids, but thought nothing of dropping $10k we didn't have on a three-day Disney trip), the pound foolish mentality (refused to buy higher quality clothes that fit well and lasted a long time and thought he was saving by buying cheaper clothes that he would then pay a fortune to have tailored only for them not to last more than a few months)...all of it was so tiring and ruinous.

I left the marriage a lot poorer but finally understood why my parents' "elitism" was actually just wisdom. The values that different SES families pass on truly are VERY different and they do explain why some people will never get ahead. My younger "progressive" self didn't see that.

This.