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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.