The 99%: Money Can't Buy You Love (and it Might Get in the Way)

Last night's premiere of The Bachelor was, well, about the same as every other premiere of The Bachelor.  Some things never change: there were, of course, no discernible women of color for bachelor Ben to choose from. There were women who inexplicably sobbed over losing the chance to marry a man they'd known for only a few hours. And there were, as always, a few women who drank a bit too much of the free-flowing champagne and engaged in the first of the season's "cat fights." 

And, of course, there were all the trappings of wealth at play—the mansion, the evening gowns, the champagne flutes, the limousines, and the previews of jet-setting dates and $50,000 engagement rings.  This, apparently, is what romance is supposed to look like: lavish displays rather than real connections. We all know ABC is not dabbling in actual matchmaking; if so, they would have gone out of business long ago given their abysmal success rate. But they do prop up the idea that this is what romance should look like. And I think that's why the show works—not in the sense that it forms real, lasting relationships (it doesn't), but in the sense that the opulent, manipulated fairy tale nearly always leads to (seemingly) typical adults agreeing to marry someone they've known for about two months and never dated exclusively.  The luxurious dates are intoxicating, even if the person you're dating isn't.

While The Bachelor may be the epitome of dating in excess, it's clear that ABC is footing the bill for each of those dates. If you want the over-the-top dates to continue after the cameras stop rolling, you better visit Millionaire Matchmaker's Patti Stanger.  She'll set you up with a millionaire, but, ladies, you'll pay the price: you'll have to "dumb it down a little" and remember that "you're not the leader in this situation; you let the man lead."  (I should note that she sells men short, too—women have to play stupid because "men aren't that smart" and the men who want ambitious women "fail at chivalry" and need to "shut their mouth[s].")

In TV world, money can buy you a faux romance and gender hyperconformity, but surely real-world dating is something different? Perhaps not. These shows didn't invent the fairytale romance, or even the "gold digger" or "trophy wife" stereotypes—they just wrap them in modern accoutrements and capitalize on them.  In an analysis of 1.5 million users, the dating site OKCupid found that people exaggerate their income by about 20 percent, with men exaggerating more than women and the exaggeration increasing with age. (They also found that people lie about their height and the recency of their profile pictures.) The clincher? Men with higher reported incomes receive more messages on the site (from both men and women, as far as I can tell).  I'm not arguing that women are all money-hungry gold diggers (or that all women are interested in dating men), but I am suggesting that the age-old cultural narratives about female dependency, male financial responsibility, and importance of money in a romantic relationship are reinforced by these "reality" dating shows—and they're bad for both women and men.

All of this display, of course, masks the fact that social class difference can be a real challenge to romantic relationships. We might like to think that finding a partner with money is just a lucky windfall, but it's of course much more complicated. In 2005, the New York Times featured a series entitled "Class Matters" with a piece specifically on cross-class relationships:

Marriages that cross class boundaries may not present as obvious a set of challenges as those that cross the lines of race or nationality. But in a quiet way, people who marry across class lines are also moving outside their comfort zones, into the uncharted territory of partners with a different level of wealth and education, and often, a different set of assumptions about things like manners, food, child-rearing, gift-giving, and how to spend vacations. In cross-class marriages, one partner will usually have more money, more options and, almost inevitably, more power in the relationship.

Class difference, then, is not a boon for the less privileged person in the relationship, but a real challenge and potential source of conflict.  Even those with a higher class background are denied real connection—while one may be "gold digging" the other is "slumming" and expected to move on to a more worthy (more privileged) partner once the novelty of the cross-class romance wears off.  Of course, this power dynamic is particularly challenging when, in heterosexual relationships, the woman is the one with more money and a more privileged class background.

Shows like The Bachelor and Millionaire Matchmaker not only reduce romance to opulent displays of consumerism and gender conformity, but they distract us from actual consideration of the role of class in relationships and the need to negotiate those differences on a real, ongoing, interpersonal level.

 

Previously: Welcome Home, Deserving People! Thoughts on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Champagne Toasts and Caviar Receptions: Buying the American Wedding

Guess what? Subscriptions to Bitch—our award-winning, 80+ page print quarterly—are 20% off to help us reach our $25,000 funding goal by September 30. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

3 comments have been made. Post a comment.

Indirect Indicators?

Two considerations:
1. 'Provider' indicators like money success and status are rough indicators of more obviously desirable partner traits - intelligence, assiduousness, leadership / teamwork abilities, genorosity, etc. A convenient (and marketable) catch-all first-impression, which, when paired with good looks and a rocking bod, may signal optimal fundamentals. Tough to tell what's noise.
2. The analogous female currency is sex (beauty). Lots of studies on attractiveness-disparity issues; how would one design a probabtive look at the beauty / income disparity cross-sections? Hm.

+1 to what is above in

+1 to what is above in regards to 'Provider' indicators. I don't care how much money my partner or potential partner makes, but I want to know that they are stable enough to hold a job (or finish school) and they won't start relying on others to provide everything for them once they are partnered off. I am completely financially independent, and for the most part, I expect and desire the same of my partner.

I think in some ways they're

I think in some ways they're correlated, but in others they aren't. For example, I know lots of nonprofit professionals, public school teachers, and graduate students that are intelligent, hard working, committed, ambitious, and generous, but just don't make a lot of money. I suspect, in fact, that they might be better partners than an investment banker who (thought intelligent, hard working, etc) logs 80+ hour work weeks and has little time for a meaningful relationship. Plus, people rarely lie about their jobs to make themselves more desirable, but apparently they frequently exaggerate (by a lot) how much money they have. If income is shorthand for what kind of person you are, well, what you're talking about is just another symptom of the problem, rather than the reason behind it.

I'm not really going to get into the female currency as sex point, but it some seem like this simplification sells both genders short (as well as presuming heterosexuality). I don't know how you'd design a study to look at it, mostly because I don't understand what the point would be, so I'm not really trying.