Is dating or marrying down really a good idea? Be honest...

[faithVA]

@faithVA

Marrying down is a popular term that's being used in the black community on a frequent basis these days. I get what you are saying about not feeling it but I think most sistas really know what marrying down is all about. It can be both income and education or one of the other. Because there are so many more successful black women than black men, lots of people are telling sistas with higher incomes or educations to get with Tyquell the cashier, Tyrone the wannabe rapper or producer (whichever one comes first). Having lived in Atlanta, every other brother I met was "self employed" and trying to be a rapper or producer..............come on now!! Someone brought up white women but I won't use white women as an example because on the whole, white men typically meet the challenge to come up to where their women are. I know white women who are making $80,000 and are married to cops who are making $30,000, to me this is different because although he makes less, he still has a career and making money. I got into a serious argument with a black man who said educated black women deserved to be in the boat they are in because they refused to date black men with high school educations or less (never mind I was dating his ignorant black a$$, guess he was too dumb to realize that), I was like are you serious!! That isn't even realistic butthole. Although it happens because of the circumstances in our community, it really isn't realistic. Sometimes I think this mindset serves to keep black women in a certain position and it's sad.

I just want to clarify. Because to date a cashier who has a high school education and to date a cop who also has an high school education or we date a "truly" self-employed person with an high school education is not the same thing.

So if we are discussing the term it just makes sense to clarify the term.

If a women has a PhD is she marrying down when she marries someone with a BS. What if as a PhD she makes 65K but with his BS he is pulling in $125K.

I know each person has to determine what marry down means to them. But for the discussion of the thread it just helps if we are all talking about the term in the same way.

 

[Iwanthealthyhair67]

I don't think that one should go out and purposefully look for someone out of their 'circle', however if you do meet someone who treats you 'right' and is a hardworking person it can work...

I'm not saying go and find a 'project' but some people already have the drive and just need encouragement, a break or a push in the right direction...

 

[JayAnn0513]

I just want to clarify. Because to date a cashier who has a high school education and to date a cop who also has an high school education or we date a "truly" self-employed person with an high school education is not the same thing.

So if we are discussing the term it just makes sense to clarify the term.

If a women has a PhD is she marrying down when she marries someone with a BS. What if as a PhD she makes 65K but with his BS he is pulling in $125K.

I know each person has to determine what marry down means to them. But for the discussion of the thread it just helps if we are all talking about the term in the same way.

Marrying down:
*she had a phd and he works laying train tracks and places zero stock in education.

*she's a school teacher and he is a drug dealer.

* she's a lawyer making 250k and he works for an after school program as a glorified baby sitter

* she's in law school and no one knows exactly what he does...including her.

* she's a buyer for a luxury department store and he drives the city bus ( no aspirations to do anything else)

These are real life example of people I know or used to know.

 

[faithVA]

Marrying down:
*she had a phd and he works laying train tracks and places zero stock in education.

*she's a school teacher and he is a drug dealer.

* she's a lawyer making 250k and he works for an after school program as a glorified baby sitter

* she's in law school and no one knows exactly what he does...including her.

* she's a buyer for a luxury department store and he drives the city bus ( no aspirations to do anything else)

These are real life example of people I know or used to know.

Thanks. Based on your example then marry down has little to do with education or salary it has more to do with character and values. Because almost anyone marrying these people would be marry down. We used to just call those types of people trifling And only trifling should marry trifling.

 

[StarScream35]

Marrying down:
*she had a phd and he works laying train tracks and places zero stock in education.

*she's a school teacher and he is a drug dealer.

* she's a lawyer making 250k and he works for an after school program as a glorified baby sitter

* she's in law school and no one knows exactly what he does...including her.

* she's a buyer for a luxury department store and he drives the city bus ( no aspirations to do anything else)

These are real life example of people I know or used to know.

Thanks chic! I think the majority of you ladies knew what I was getting at.........

 

[JayAnn0513]

Thanks. Based on your example then marry down has little to do with education or salary it has more to do with character and values. Because almost anyone marrying these people would be marry down. We used to just call those types of people trifling And only trifling should marry trifling.

Lol yes some are trifling indeed. Some are cool guys who managed to
marry women well out of their league. Some have other things in common with their spouses, usually religion or they grew up in the same neighborhood.

 

[Syrah]

I think the values thing taps into semantics. Especially depending on what those "values" are. Furthermore, betting on men with equal or better values in the hopes that said values will one day parlay them into a better socioeconomic, cultural, or educational standard is evidence that these things are indeed important on some level. So much so that we're using values as a means to secure (and sustain) an end.

At any rate, I'm not getting in the business of telling anyone what they should and should not view as important in terms of marrying up or down. That is highly individual, and it's really no one else's place to determine that for another. There's no right or wrong answer. We all had (or have) our negotiables and non-negotiables and it's best to be introspective, and decide which things fall into which category for you. Marrying down based off of any of one's non-negotiables is a really bad idea IME.

I don't think its a bet. If the values are on point and there's substance (action) behind the values, its not a crapshoot that he'll parlay that into some degree of socioeconomic, cultural and educational standards. A man who truly believes in his role as a provider for his (future) family isn't going to accept being a gas station cashier, because associated provisions become extremely limited.

I guess I'm such an advocator of value based dating because it worked for me and it was advice I absorbed on LHCF (and echoed by my Dad). I was the college educated sister, with the fun lifestyle wondering why I was ALWAYS meeting men that never stacked up - why it was always the flossy dudes with no substance, and the "I'm fixin to ____" men with no action. When I focused on values, the quality of the men that stuck around improved exponentially as did our interactions.

I had the salary, education level, job title criteria, and I had to realize that they don't translate to anything worthwhile. When I changed how I "sized up" (for lack of better words) men, how they responded to me changed in ways I never expected. Not just men in dating but men in general.

All that being said, I 100% agree with sticking to whatever things are non-negotiable. I just wish more folks would take a better look at what they consider non-negotiable and REALLY think about what it is that they are after.

 

[aribell]

This spoke to me. I always THOUGHT I'd find someone with a similar education background (MBA) in the corporate world, making 6 figures or more! Strangely (or not so strange) that has never happened for me. With each step of my education, I didn't always date someone with the same education. In college, I sometimes dated men who were also in college or just 'hung' out on college campuses LOL.

Right now, I'm with someone who has been in law enforcement for about 20 years, owns his own home, healthy investment egg, and has very lil' debt. I'm sure he's making more money than I am even with a darn masters!!!! Bad investment on my part. I hope to earn more (this job ain't cutting it) and have ambitions of starting a business. I know he went to college, but not sure he finished and well...it doesn't bother me. My ex, I considered one of the most brilliant men I've EVER met, never went to college.

However, with the current SO, our personalities and cultural background click VERY VERY well. I've never dated a Haitian man, and I'm Haitian (and vice versa.) Certain things we 'get' that I could never share with a non-Haitian. We both chuckle about that fact. However, our family values are aligned, our views on life, religion, travel, parenting, financial and self-improvement/betterment are also aligned. I'd be lying if I said it never crossed my mind about whether I should hold out for the 'corporate' man but einh, I'm happy.

OK one last dream- The wife that stands proudly as her husband receives an award for some great corporate accomplishment. *sigh* But who is also being cheated on. <end nightmare>

I understand this. Thus far the man who has come closest to meeting what I want in a husband and father does not have the same level of education or earning power that I do. But at the end of the day, given my vision of life, it doesn't matter. I suppose I could decide that I ought to have someone more "accomplished" but why? It would mainly be simply for the sake of image and that's not worthwhile.

 

[divachyk]

Thank you to whoever broke down the definition of marrying down. I truly didn't understand the degree of separation in status to deem it 'marrying down.'

 

[Britt]

I think people focus too much on "up and down" in terms of salaries and education levels rather than values and goals.

I would date/marry up or down in terms of education and finances, but in terms of values, up only. My first real boyfriend was a downgrade in terms of values and goals and I will never do that again. Ever. Despite how I felt about him, it was a waste of time and emotion.

Dating down in terms of values is NEVER a good idea.

Yep, all this right here... my SO is the first man to have pretty much the same exact values and morals as myself. Actually, I look up to him in a lot of ways. Financially we're pretty much on the same playing field, and he def has the capacity to make more $. If for some reason my SO and I don't work, I will never ever accept another man that doesn't treat me the way he does and has the same morals and values... EVER. Total waste of time and emotion. There are certain values that we have to be eye to eye on. Writing this makes me miss my other half now.

 

[curlycoquette]

I don't think its a bet. If the values are on point and there's substance (action) behind the values, its not a crapshoot that he'll parlay that into some degree of socioeconomic, cultural and educational standards. A man who truly believes in his role as a provider for his (future) family isn't going to accept being a gas station cashier, because associated provisions become extremely limited.

I guess I'm such an advocator of value based dating because it worked for me and it was advice I absorbed on LHCF (and echoed by my Dad). I was the college educated sister, with the fun lifestyle wondering why I was ALWAYS meeting men that never stacked up - why it was always the flossy dudes with no substance, and the "I'm fixin to ____" men with no action. When I focused on values, the quality of the men that stuck around improved exponentially as did our interactions.

I had the salary, education level, job title criteria, and I had to realize that they don't translate to anything worthwhile. When I changed how I "sized up" (for lack of better words) men, how they responded to me changed in ways I never expected. Not just men in dating but men in general.

All that being said, I 100% agree with sticking to whatever things are non-negotiable. I just wish more folks would take a better look at what they consider non-negotiable and REALLY think about what it is that they are after.

I'm not at all opposed to value based dating, it's not an "either or" process, which is part of my problem with the way it's being presented. I just don't see it as an isolated entity, separate from the other important criterion any selective woman would use to find a suitable mate.

The thing is, my post doesn't claim that these value based investments are "crapshoots" (my point isn't even about the likelihood of values leading to ideals). What it does do, however, is illustrate that education/career/income (which were being downplayed in significance) are indeed important for many women (and rightfully so). Especially when (as your examples thoroughly detail) disparities in values are cited as the culprit for less than desirable careers or incomes. The bold actually supports my point, because it 1) indicates that the career (gas station clerk) is not desirable, 2) assumes some innate disparity in values led to this undesirable job (a theory I understand, but can think of many instances where it would fail).

I appreciate the importance of matched values, but I don't see their importance as separate from other relevant criteria for assessing potential. I found the way in which it is being presented, particularly as a means to downplay the importance of things like education and career ambition, as well as earning potential, etc to be somewhat misguided. I also found the conflation of having a non-substantive, flashy lifestyle with higher educational attainment and socioeconomic status, problematic. To say nothing of the problem of ascribing value judgements on someone based on their occupation or income, which I won't even really dig in to. When it comes to values vs. ideals, vs. other criteria, the truth is that none of these occur in a bubble, because humans are complicated beings, and so many factors play into and impact ones desirability. I feel all these things should be viewed in their totality, and with respect to proper context. I just wanted to highlight points I felt were being lost in what was becoming an argument of value hierarchy, clashing with personal ideals and muddied by semantics.

 

[StarScream35]

curlycoquette

So in other words, many of the posters here are saying that education and income really aren't important compared to values when generally speaking many times they actually are?

 

[Theo]

education, career, income, values, its all important to me. i think i would be incompatible with anyone who was very different from me in anyone of those areas.

 

[BEAUTYU2U]

If you consider your relationship as dating/marrying "down" then no, it's not going to work. I think it's half reality and half mentality. You'll know when you're doing it cause it's going to bug the hell out of you. Of course, that's totally different than settling on a few minor qualities you're looking for as opposed to major qualities.

 

[Glib Gurl]

To me, dating "up" or "down" relates to social class . . . even though it's not as strictly defined here as in some other cultures, to me it translates into being with someone who will be comfortable in your world and you'll be comfortable in his. Someone who you will be proud to bring around your friends and family and won't have to worry about how they'll behave.

I always think of the dinner scene in Disappearing Acts when Zora and Franklin try to have dinner with her bff and her man and they get into a contentious conversation about "real jazz" and she tries to steal his toothpick (which he then pokes her with). Sure, he could lay pipe, but at the end of the day, he couldn't bring home the bacon.

If you are living a lifestyle where you go to posh restaurants and fancy corporate events, you want to be able to bring your mate and not be afraid he's not going to know which silverware to use or that you're not supposed to do the stanky leg in front of the clients. Likewise, you want to be comfortable going to a cookout in his neighborhood . . . you don't want to be worried about his family thinking your siddity because you won't eat the collards or pigs' feet.

Does that make sense?

Exactly. On LHCF you'd believe that black women are the only ones marrying men whom they out-earn.

It isn't just black women. Its women.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/