View Full Version : Possessions as Social Capital
On another thread I've started, the conversation has moved on to discussing why people, particularly people with little money, spend money on what seems to be status items. Steve mentioned an article (http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/) in which an interviewee at a job interview was looked down upon because she had a tank top on under her shirt instead of a silk shell. Steve then goes on to say
If I were to interview for another tech job and pulled out an old beat-up flip phone to retrieve a phone number, I would fail to meet the expectations of those interviewing me. I may not need a smartphone (or even want one) but sometimes the appearance it provides offers much more than the cost. And, courtesy of our consumerist society, even pulling out a smartphone is subject to some judgement ("Heh. Prepaid cheap Android phone." "What is that? It has a physical keyboard!").
I know some of what I've written here appears to contradict what I wrote earlier. It's not a simple thing. And we all get to make it up as we go along.
That made me think about the complexity of, well, everything - money, simple living, education, race and social status. My initial response was, "I can't imagine being judged for having an old flip phone, even if I were being interviewed for a programming job." That goes for a lot of things - we lived, by choice, without a car for eight years, and I still want to get back to living without a car. I arrived at the interview for my current job by bicycle, and I had no concerns that I might not get the job because I did not own a car. But when I've spoken to other people wondering why poor people that live in the city still own cars when it isn't strictly necessary, I've been told that they have to have a car if they want to be employed, and some people opt to live in their car rather than rent an apartment because the car is such a necessity for work.
Is it only when you have enough money to own a car that you can NOT own a car with confidence?
I also wonder the degree to which education plays a role. (My wife and I both have Master's degrees. Neither of us has seen a reason to go further on borrowed money. I would like to get my Ph.D., but since my academic "field" is roughly classic Chinese Buddhist poetry, I don't see it leading anywhere.) When my wife was pregnant with our second child, we were reading a bit about how healthy bare feet are, and she convinced her boss to let her be barefoot at work. Is it education that would allow my wife to get away with being bare-footed in a public work space, whereas it would be seen as a sign of poverty in a person who didn't graduate from high school? (And then there's Carrie from "Sex and the City" with her Manolo Blahniks. That's like a side of culture that seems utterly foreign).
And then, how much is just geography? If, instead of living in funky Santa Fe, I lived in the D.C. area, would I be more self conscious of my flip phone? I find that in Santa Fe, I'm only slightly out of sync with the culture, and in a way that people admire. I'm acquainted with the mayor and with some of the city councilors from my work on bicycle advocacy, and not in the way of "Oh my god, here's this guy at the microphone in the city council meeting again," but in a convivial, I'm glad you're part of the community way. I feel like I belong to the community, and I have a positive impact on the lives of the people that live in the community. To a large extent, I think that's because I am in just the right place for me and my predispositions.
I think all the issues go much, much deeper. In spite of my desire for simplicity, there are things I possess that, while perhaps not having mainstream cachet, are somehow important to how I see myself. I argue for them on the basis of quality and durability, but I think they might serve the same purpose as Carrie's shoes. I ride a custom made touring bicycle. I bought it because I couldn't find exactly what I wanted in local bike shops at the time I was looking for a bike, (1999ish. The type of bike I bought at the time has come somewhat back in style). However, from a strictly financial standpoint, a $200 bicycle would have been just as functional as my $4000 one. I wanted something specific to reflect what I was drawn to in the books I was reading. It wasn't to belong to a particular group, or even to impress any particular set of people, (and I'm actually a little embarrassed when someone recognizes the brand and wants to talk about my bicycle), but there was something I wanted to communicate to myself. I also like waxed cotton panniers, wool jackets, very specific vintage backpacking equipment, and so on. I have no idea how these particular items, or this particular style, became lodged in my subconscious, but there it is.
When you have enough money, even if it is just a little money, to have a particular style, maybe it doesn't matter so much what the style is. Maybe my flip phone doesn't project to people, "there's a guy who doesn't have enough money to buy a smartphone" but "there's a guy who sees himself as a flip phone user, (or a bicyclist, or a public transportation user). That's cool."
I should add, in parting, that I of course don't disregard money, however much I want to. I'm always struggling with the budget and family dynamics. I want to get this damn mortgage paid off, and I'm close, but because we don't have an astronomical income, I think I'm going to have to delay when I wanted to have it paid by because family matters keep coming up. (Activities, activity fees, blah, blah, blah). I'd like a tiny house in a pine tree grove with a nicely waxed wooden floor and beautiful windows next to a bicycle path that would take me into the heart of a vibrant and pedestrian oriented city. There are lots of things I want, but I want them because I have a mistaken image in my mind that they would help lead me to a sense of clarity, focus, and beauty. Maybe I see my inner state as my real social capital. Men like Gandhi impress me. Donald Trump, no so much. That clarity of purpose and intensity of life in people like Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh is what I've spent my life pursuing, and I see the preoccupation with and purchasing of various things as a sort of moral failure. (Maybe that's my fundamentalist childhood rearing its head, though my family had no problem with recreational shopping).
Anyway - I didn't mean to ramble on so long - what's your take on the whole complicated issue?
ApatheticNoMore
2-28-14, 12:58pm
If I were to interview for another tech job and pulled out an old beat-up flip phone to retrieve a phone number, I would fail to meet the expectations of those interviewing me. I may not need a smartphone (or even want one) but sometimes the appearance it provides offers much more than the cost.
I'd keep my phone off my person then :). Buying that smartphone is going to keep you locked in aweful tech jobs all your life (dark satanic cubicles, the prison of the soul) spending nearly every penny you make. And who doesn't hope for more than that horrid fate even if it's all they may ever get? Now you may say that smart phones alone will not cost that much on a middle class salary. And that's right they won't! But it depends on what other habits one has. And if you are content to spend all your money I'm tempted to say "keeping up appearances" but Misses Bucket comes to mind :) and on nothing else that may actually have more value for your life (for your real values system, not appearances - maybe it's organic food, maybe it's education to do something other than tech jobs - it's up to you) then ok ..... And if the only reason you own a smartphone is purely for job and job seeking purposes (though they of course won't pay for it) - at a certain point your on a very sad treadmill indeed, spend all your time making money, AND THEN also spend all your money on job related things!!!
Is it only when you have enough money to own a car that you can NOT own a car with confidence?
well yes I think lower paying jobs are more likely to ask if you have a car and care about the answer. Now a car is still awefully convenient in white collar jobs (as it's the fastest means between two points) but the boss doesn't care how you get there, just get there, that much is taken for granted in a higher paying job.
I also wonder the degree to which education plays a role. (My wife and I both have Master's degrees. Neither of us has seen a reason to go further on borrowed money. I would like to get my Ph.D., but since my academic "field" is roughly classic Chinese Buddhist poetry, I don't see it leading anywhere.) When my wife was pregnant with our second child, we were reading a bit about how healthy bare feet are, and she convinced her boss to let her be barefoot at work. Is it education that would allow my wife to get away with being bare-footed in a public work space, whereas it would be seen as a sign of poverty in a person who didn't graduate from high school?
to me it's obviously so. But it's not just about being seen as a form of poverty. And I'm someone who has gotten in trouble several times at work for walking around without shoes (they claim it's a safety issue) - and at more than one job! But back to the question, what you can get away with at a job is quite obviously a sign of bargaining power to me and bargaining power is not very high for low wage jobs. That's why I take it for granted many low wage jobs are treated badly. :(
I think all the issues go much, much deeper. In spite of my desire for simplicity, there are things I possess that, while perhaps not having mainstream cachet, are somehow important to how I see myself. I argue for them on the basis of quality and durability, but I think they might serve the same purpose as Carrie's shoes.
Well I like nice things too :) But I really could give very little what people think of me most of the time, it really really is just all about pleasing yours truly. If I buy something more expensive it's all about pleasing me! But I dress ok, that's one concession I make to the world. So the status aspect of things I really care very little about. But it doesn't mean I don't' see how much money buys from healthy foods, to safer neighborhoods (with better school districts if your care about that - being childfree can't say I do), to convenience (the convenience of owning a car is huge although I very much admire those who go without it but it's a sacrifice around here), to being able to maintain your car, to the security at night of knowing you have an emergency fund, to the better psychological health of not living on the edge, to being able to take a few days off when someone you love is dying and F whether they're paying you (heck F if they fire you over that - just too bad so sad), the whole 9 yards. I'm not naive about that stuff and pretending it doesn't matter. I mean it's a charming thought to pretend so but .... I've never been made of such charming thoughts. I have an idealist streak a mile wide, but it doesn't blind me to reality.
I think you ask a lot of very interesting questions! I've often thought about this.. One time I tried to imagine what outfit a person could wear that would make absolutely no statement about who they were or what they stood for. But I couldn't really think of any. Even if you just grab two random pieces of clothing from the Goodwill bin, that's a statement that you don't believe in outside appearances.
Being a marketing professional, I'm really fascinated by brands and branding. We have shortcuts in our brains so that we don't have to analyze every piece of data that goes in, and branding is one of those short-cuts. So you see IZOD you might think golfer, upper middle class, preppie. You see Prius, you think enviornmentalist, tree-hugger. You see Sears and you might think dowdy, old-fashioned, etc.
So when you walk into an interviewing situation, you are presenting your brand. Your prospective employer has probably already filed away all kinds of associations he/she has for people who wear Rolexes vs. Timex watches; people who don't have a smartphone; people who drive "beaters" vs. late-model luxury cars. It's unfortunate, but we all do it. What I love are people who manage to transcend these branding images and throw us all for a loop--like Erin Brockevich, who at first glance you might think is a cheap, dumb classless chick type if you saw her, but who actually is an impassioned paralegal and environmental activist.
People often assume I am a teacher based on first impression, and I've always wondered why. Another interesting thing is how people make associations and assumptions about your "tribe" based on how you look and act. So, my DH was going to a certain bar in Princeton often, and after a couple of months I decided to meet him there (I had never been there). I met some of his acquaintances, and word got back to me that his friends were surprised at what I look like--I'm kind of the Elizabeth Edwards look--vs. what I think they assumed would be more the Ann Romney look--more "done-up" to match DH's dapper, confident, expensively dressed persona.
There was a truly fascinating NYT Magazine feature story about status symbols years back--it was kind of a big infographic about the status symbols all different types of people have... it was really interesting. These status symbols are ingrained in our DNA, I believe. I would bet the existing indigenous tribes have them.
Finally, I read a really interesting book called The All-Consuming Century written by Gary Cross about the history of consumerism in America, and he explains just what you are talking about : possessions as social capital. If you can get it at your library I highly recommend it.
That's all I have time to write now.. but I may be back. This is a fascinating topic.
As a young artistic person, I was advised to study advertising art vs fine arts. Even back then, I did not want to go that route after taking a marketing class and realizing how people are put into boxes and sold to. Decades later, I still search for "authenticity" in myself and others but alas I am weak and often fall for the tribal mentality. I DO drive an old beater by choice because it has saved me immeasurable amounts of money over the years. The other day, I had to drive my work group who are all much younger than I to a lunch meeting. Even though my old Volvo is clean and well-maintained, I felt the usual twinge of shame about driving a 20 yr old car. Guess what, they thought it was cool and I believe they respect me for being so obviously different. I do keep my Tracfone out of sight at work since I rarely use it anyway. The thing is I do know what is important to me and I find it often, but just not in the company of the general populace; I have to search hard for people who have my values. I think the majority of people find great comfort in lockstep preferences, ie fitting in. So yes, if you want to "belong" to a particular tribe, then your possessions definitely serve as social capital. Higher education is the one area I failed in as far as fitting into my demographic. Especially today, not having a college degree is seen as a major failure although there are many very successful people income-wise who did not finish college. I have a lot of street smarts though and I can live with that.
Hi,
I happened to pop in this morning and am so glad I did! I'm very taken with your comment about "clarity of purpose and intensity of life." I'm one of those people who is very intense and highly-motivated when I have a clear purpose or goal. But you hear SO much about the importance of BALANCE, so I've been doggedly pursuing balance. It's not working. I like intensity and focus.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with status symbols. They hold little appeal for me. (and this site makes typing really difficult! what's up with that?)
But I would love to have a conversation about finding that inner "balance," whether that means achieving external balance or embracing our internal makeup (which might not be "balanced/moderate" at all, and maybe doesn't have to be).
iris lily
2-28-14, 10:04pm
O. M. G. Well.
I completely understand techies expecting techies to have something beyond a flip-phone. I would look at you cross-eyed if we hired anyone to do system, network, or programming work who relies on a flip phone. That said, I have a pay as you go flip hone, haha because you know what? I'll be retired in a couple of years and I no longer care to Keep Up Appearances.
I don't do IT, I do data. I love my data and am uninterested, nay--scornful-- of whatever various platform comes along to hold my precious data. (They cause me a lot of trouble.) But that said, I played a little techie game back in the day and had a home computer before any of my work colleagues and before any of my friends. That was back in the day when I had to sort of keep up a facade.
I hauled out my worse-than-a-flip-phone the other day to make a call, and they all laughed at me, thinking it was some sort of antique...
Until I asked them if they had any signal...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iYIzAYfmZqo/UxFEsokjZhI/AAAAAAAAJ44/DZ3lbxIzqIY/s640/Awesomized.jpg
If they'd been nicer, I would have shared the wifi hotspot I set up with it...
I hauled out my worse-than-a-flip-phone the other day to make a call, and they all laughed at me, thinking it was some sort of antique...
Until I asked them if they had any signal...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iYIzAYfmZqo/UxFEsokjZhI/AAAAAAAAJ44/DZ3lbxIzqIY/s640/Awesomized.jpg
If they'd been nicer, I would have shared the wifi hotspot I set up with it...
I haven't seen one of those in years. We had a nice little collection of satellite phones in our office as part of our disaster recovery plan. Of course, we couldn't get a signal in a high-rise and the downtown streets were hit and miss due to their urban canyon characteristics.
Pretty cool when you're miles from the nearest cell tower though.
Pretty cool when you're miles from the nearest cell tower though.
Or when all the cell towers and landlines have been taken out by a wee disaster, which ran for ~10 days.
Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!Wow, Who Ya Gonna Call in a situation like that?
Wow, Who Ya Gonna Call in a situation like that?
With Egon Spengler recently laid to rest, is the team really even worth calling?
If someone rode a bike to an interview I would think that they had a drinking problem. I could care less about what kind of phone they had though.
And I would expect them to dress nice, I don't care what kind of job it is.
If someone rode a bike to an interview I would think that they had a drinking problem.
We must live in different stratospheres. Here it would be completely acceptable as long as you didn't get all sweaty doing so.
We must live in different stratospheres. Here it would be completely acceptable as long as you didn't get all sweaty doing so.
I was in construction, I hired engineers. Rarely did anyone bike to work, not that it didn't happen on a nice day. Any other time someone didn't drive it was because they lost their license. Having a license was pretty much a requirement.
Also don't show up with tatoo's or piercings showing, unless your looking for a job as a laborer. First impressions matter.
onlinemoniker
3-1-14, 10:24am
pcooly--I agree with you. Possessions are social capital. I also think they have more impact on one's acceptance by peers the lower down the socio-educational ladder one is.
I don't have a smart phone or cable tv or even a tv. I am nearly 50 and I just bought the 3rd car I've ever owned the summer before last. I have very few possessions and only purchase new items if they provide utility for me. I am not compelled to purchase because of social pressure partially because I'm not interested but also because I have no TV and so have very little exposure to marketing.
There are 2 qualities about me that allow me to eschew "keeping up with the Jonses'" and that is my possession of an advanced degree and my long-term vegan status. Because of these, I automatically get a pass from having to comply with pressure to consume because I'm educated and kind of weird--in a charming way.
I am really grateful in a way I never anticipated for having made these choices earlier in my life because they give me the freedom to do whatever the hell I want and not have to explain myself for it. In fact, my choices are often considered as a viable alternative to people I meet who wouldn't think that way because I've got this cachet of originality that I guess is appealing. I don't think I am negatively judged at all for living a simple life.
PS--I'm also working like hell to get my mortgage paid off so I can finally be really free.
rodeosweetheart
3-1-14, 11:49am
I think if one has the ability to "choose" a bike to get to work, or choose whether or not to have a smartphone, then one is already way ahead of the game. Most jobs would not let employees walk around barefooted. No job I have ever had outside of academia, which is a very privileged world, has had that. The fact that one can request that, or argue with that, shows that one is already in a very high status position, socially speaking. Where I live, the folks riding bikes in the winter are the folks who have lost their licenses to DUI's, and that is the connotation of bike riding in the winter. Down south, it's the connotation year round, actually.
So many jobs I have applied for lately have asked for my drivers license number. I think it's a quick way to screen for substance abuse issues. If one can choose to go carless, then one is already in an enviable state, social capitally speaking.
The very fact that we can sit here and draw these conclusions about what we have and how we look to me shows that we are way, way up there on the power/social scale and are already extremely, extremely lucky and quite privileged. Those struggling don't have the luxury of sitting here commenting on status, or the luxury of appearing frugal or poor while having a paid for house, a college education, a steady job, etc.
So yes, I say chalk us all up as entitled, privileged, lucky, what have you. Until something happens, like a major illness, and the reality of the chasm that is real poverty threatens. Then, all bets are off.
Another group of non-drivers consists of people with intractable seizure disorders. Also the phobic.
I think rodeosweetheart nailed it. It really boils down to the fact that there's a huge difference between choosing not to have something and not having something because you can't afford it.
I didn't own a tv for all of the 90's. I had a good job. Spent money on plenty of other things that I actually wanted to spend money on. No one would have thought for a second that I didn't have a tv because I couldn't afford one. That said, like Steve's point about smart phones, if I'd tried to get a job at an ad agency (I was a marketing manager at a magazine publisher, so it could have been a rational career direction) and the hiring manager found out I didn't own a tv I would not have likely gotten the job.
Also don't show up with tatoo's or piercings showing, unless your looking for a job as a laborer. First impressions matter.
Is this true for women with pierced ears?
Those struggling don't have the luxury of sitting here commenting on status,
But the poor have their own status symbols and aspirations towards status, as do members of tribal villages, and those coming to this country or other countries with nothing in their pockets. One of the challenges of getting to the point where we can scale down our use of resources is that we (the lucky, "rich" ones) have Been There Done That with consumerism, and we can wipe the cake off our faces and say, "nah, now I want stop consuming for the benefit of the planet." However, the cycle has to go full circle until all the people in first and third world countries (is there a "Second World country?) have had our experience of choice before we can make real serious inroads on backpedaling on consuming.
rodeosweetheart
3-1-14, 12:53pm
Another group of non-drivers consists of people with intractable seizure disorders. Also the phobic.
You are quite right, of course!
I was just talking about the perception where I live. Now where my son lives, Portland, Oregon, that perception is not the same. He commutes to work via bike, as do many.
So I was not trying to say if you see someone on a bike, they have a substance abuse issue, not at all. Just saying what the perception is where I live.
Sorry to be unclear!
ToomuchStuff
3-1-14, 1:00pm
Why do they do it, well, you have to ask them. We make judgments both conscious and unconsciously all the time, for several reasons. (from social to survival)
There are many reasons I am aware of that people do this:
Want (either social acceptance thing, or desire to own one that could be influenced by outside force, or inside force)
Lack of knowledge (for example comes from a poor family, that when they got back taxes, would "splurge it" on some toy then be back to paycheck to paycheck).
Lack of self control (this normally IMHE goes along with, rather then being the only reason. If the only reason, then typically called addiction).
Showoffedness (I realize not a word, but what word has been coined in some discussions I have had. Dealt with those that believe live for today because of various reasons to those that have a car payment, and instead of having money in the bank, they spent that money on new rims, drove like an idiot causing engine issues, then didn't have money to fix the engine, lost job, couldn't make the car payment, and wondered why they didn't get to keep the rims when the car was repossessed).
The effect of it is worse on those with lower incomes, but I don't doubt it affects higher income people. The big question being how much of what I am aware of, is actual and how much of it, is actually a commercial (think about Oprah and Martha Stewarts, good things, for example). The line will blur there, where the "sex in the city" example is clearly commercial, because those people don't exist/can't also influence the decisions.
For the other examples, if one were to apply for a network admin job, with a flip phone, I would be asking (as the interviewer) about their other phone, that they could tether to and remotely access the network, in case of emergency.
While I know a few people that have ridden bicycles due to loss of license, I have seen more of them on 49cc scooters and riding lawn mowers/tractors. Bicycles are good exercise, but if you live in an area where your going 10 miles one way, to have to go back and 10 miles the other then, they are not as friendly an option. They also wouldn't work for someone like me, whose job entails shopping/ordering/picking up supplies and such. (brought back 1500lbs of supplies in one trip two weeks ago, in a 100 mile trip)
ApatheticNoMore
3-1-14, 1:06pm
Well there's doing what you need to to look ok to an employer (though I don't know that I've ever had any phone on me in an interview - I was unaware I should be flashing the smart phone in the interview. Wouldn't having your phone ring in an interview be considered rude by itself?). But beyond doing what one needs to to get a job for the income, why should one worry about what anyone else thinks of one? Yes one has to appear a certain way for a job, but outside of the job, why care?
Even the not wearing shoes, maybe in some jobs they fire you for it, but I've only ever been told to put on shoes. I don't have the clout to fight them on it, and why would I? I mean really I'm going to die on that hill.
I don't know if DUI would be assumed if you biked to work around here (because really if you had a DUI I think they would figure you at least took public transit), but eccentricity certainly would be, because almost noone does it, mostly because who lives close enough to work to bike to work, you know? And biking is pretty dangerous, cars will run you over, dedicated bike lanes are few etc.. Public transit is a more used option I'm sure and some of my coworkers use it (we're all coming from different places of course and sometimes it's more or less convenient). Still most people do use cars.
rodeosweetheart
3-1-14, 1:15pm
One of the challenges of getting to the point where we can scale down our use of resources is that we (the lucky, "rich" ones) have Been There Done That with consumerism, and we can wipe the cake off our faces and say, "nah, now I want stop consuming for the benefit of the planet."
I guess I see it rather differently. I live in a very cold climate. It is tough to figure out how to pay the propane tank. I can pay the propane bill now, when I am working. If I elect to stop working, or I get fired, or I get sick again and can't work, then I may have to rethink where I live. So I don't see it that I am in the Marie Antoinette category. And it is incredibly wasteful, really, for 2 people to live in this 1100 square foot house--we could easily get more people in this house, enjoying the warmth of the propane, so if I am going to do what you are saying, then i am going to need to invite a couple more people to live here, which I am probably not going to do unless they are related to me, in which they are welcome to come.
I just think if you have the choices, you are very well off, but rich--well, if I lose the job and can't heat the house, as many do around here, then they lose the house, then they lose the car--I just don't seem much security in our current society, and a lot of confusion about what is rich, what is poor. I had to pawn my wedding ring to buy food for my kids. Does that make me poor? I have an IRA. Does that make me rich?
My mother said at her dad's funeral many, many people came up to her and said that her dad kept them going through the depression. That he let them live in rental properties and didn't collect rent for years. That he gave them credit at his little grocery store. He lost most of his business in the depression.
IMHO, if one owes creditors one is poor, but if one has the opportunity to make money, the income making ability, the health to make it with, one is rich. I don't buy the categorization of poor and rich that you are using, with the rich "scaling down their use of resources" to help the poor--I don't see the connection, really, and don't accept the categories; they just don't make sense to me anymore.
Well, I guess if you are really, really rich, and can support yourself and your family ad infinitum--just thinking about the definitions here.
Is this true for women with pierced ears?
That of coarse is fine. But within reason, no big holes you can stick your finger through or your entire ear riddled with earings. I don't care what anyone wants to do, but you are representing the company. I was hiring engineers, starting pay was 60k fresh out of school, with a vehicle back in 2006. That was good money for a 22yr old and we had plenty of applicants.
If you want to express yourself you can maybe get a job at the music store or pot shop. Just a fact of life in the mid-west. It may very well be different where you are at.
Paul, thank you for creating this thread; it's an excellent question and I'm very pleased to see the participation!
I think catherine made an excellent point:
So when you walk into an interviewing situation, you are presenting your brand.
For people who are just getting to know you, and for better or for worse, that brand depends heavily on appearance. We all want to see signs of success in those we hire: we're likely to be less confident about the lawyer who shows up in an ill-fitting suit and has poor diction or in the mechanic whose tow truck wheezes and bangs when he arrives to pick up your car.
But the possessions are situational, if you will. In IT that current smartphone is important, partially for what it can do and partially because it's a symbol that you stay current with technology and are willing to spend your own money on it. To address a couple of ANM's points specifically, if I wanted to provide my interviewer with some detail (s)he wanted to know, I have no problem consulting the phone (my contacts and notes) quickly for that detail so we could conclude that part of the conversation and move on. The phone can serve as a status symbol, but I'd say its absence speaks more loudly than its presence. And I disagree about getting into that debt/have-to-work cycle for a smartphone given the salaries these jobs pay. It's just as easy to get into that debt/have-to-work cycle for much more expensive things co-workers never see (like vacation homes, a woodshop full of power tools in the garage, an ATV or motorcycle, ...).
For my friend who makes her living painting fine art, a smartphone might serve as an indicator of success ("I sell enough art to afford to buy and feed a smartphone") but no one would think less of her artistic ability if she did not have one. I would argue that 20-somethings find smartphones more of a must-have than his/her parents and grandparents because it meets their communication styles; yet 20-somethings have not bought into the idea -- as their parents and grandparents have -- that owning a new car is worth paying several hundred dollars a month for several years. Those possessions as social capital differ generationally.
To tie this into yet another current conversation on this board, I think possessions as social capital are tied into the notion of "clarity of purpose and intensity of life." Clearly, Steve Jobs, with his everpresent black turtleneck and khakis, did not use possessions as social capital personally despite being able to afford whatever he wanted to wear or drive. In fact, there's kind of an irony that Apple has made so much money on the perception that Apple products are "what all the cool kids buy". (I do differ on that point to a degree.)
I doubt that anyone here could name what Lady Gaga drives or how big her TV at home is or even if she owns either item. And I believe people would not think as long about Lady Gaga being TV-less as they would the person in the cubicle next to theirs. Maybe it's because the person in the next cubicle is so similar to us that we expect the same kinds of possessions.
I suspect we are, indeed, more willing to excuse absence of possessions by people who choose to do without them than people who cannot seem to afford them. In the article Paul and I linked, if the woman being interviewed had a reputation as a star in her field, having been referred by former coworkers, maybe her choice of undergarments would not have hurt her chances for the job.
Looking forward to more responses...
I suspect we are, indeed, more willing to excuse absence of possessions by people who choose to do without them than people who cannot seem to afford them.
This just popped up on my FB feed: http://sftimes.co/?id=127
So what are the judgments that go through your head when you read about him vs. the two other photos that follow:
http://sftimes.s3.amazonaws.com/b/8/0/e/b80e99353806dedbd6a8d0bc92be38a0.jpg
vs. him:
http://outkube.com/go_/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Homeless-person.jpg
vs. her:
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1597/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1597-79706.jpg
rodeosweetheart
3-2-14, 10:48am
Here are the honest thoughts that went through my head looking at the photos.
No judgments, just thoughts, as I thought them. So maybe perceptions ?
Oh I hope that old man must love birds
I hope he has enough to eat and a place to sleep
What a beautiful bedspread on his bed
My, he collects money for orphans--that is a beautiful thing
The young people are hope of country;s future--how wonderful that the old can help the young
What are these other pictures of?
They seem different--are they other people in the town who are homeless
I hope I do not end up like that middleaged lady who looks about my age and is holding the sign about jobs
So I guess the only judgment was that the people looked like life was very hard, and I hope they have enough to eat, and then I hope I do not follow the same trajectory of the lady with the sign
Were the last two supposed to homeless women in America?
What judgment were we supposed to be making or not making?
Why judgment?
Yes, the photos of indigent people trying to survive as a comparison is jarring. Being homeless and poor is horrifying. We as a nation should be ashamed.
What judgment were we supposed to be making or not making?
Why judgment?
Thank you for posting your observations!
I just asked you to observe your thoughts and judgments because the OPs original question is, to what extent do we use, or are our possessions used by others, to gain or deny us entrance into our tribes or social circles? I think it's a great question. And Steve followed up with how choice with regard to our possessions or lack of them plays into how others perceive us.
So the reason I posted those specific pictures is because it looks like all of those people have no money, either by choice (as in the first case) or circumstance (as in the second two cases. Furthermore, the second two pictures MIGHT represent different things to different people We have undoubtedly created stories about all of these people in our heads after looking at the pictures without having spoken to them or met them. And we might decide on the basis of those stories whether or not we would like them to be part of our social circle. Are we comfortable "hanging out" with any of them? If I had posted pictures of Jordan Belfort (the real Wolf of Wall Street), and Kim Kardasian, and Martha Stewart, who, if any of them, would you feel comfortable hanging out with? And to what extent do their possessions dictate that? You might really think Belfort is cook because he expensive cars and watches, or you might think Martha Stewart is cool because she has an awesome kitchen, or you might think none of them are enough like you to gain them entrance into your social circle. o it's not a question of haves or have nots at all. Your "tribe" is who you identify with and want to hang out with.
We brand ourselves, like it or not, and so our possessions and even our lack of them to some extent are our social capital. Many of us would love to associate ourselves with Mother Teresa, but would we love to associate with some of the lepers she housed?
I have a friend who is homeless and he and eight other men live in tents down by a river nearby. They have their own social capital, part of which may be their possessions. If I set up a tent next to them the possessions I brought into the tent may or may not buy me into their circle.
I'm just asking questions provoked by Paul's OP, that's all.
Yes, the photos of indigent people trying to survive as a comparison is jarring. Being homeless and poor is horrifying. We as a nation should be ashamed.
Why?
The responses to this thread are wonderful. Thank you everyone.
One thing that occurred to me after I posted this thread. At the time I was hired, the human resources director at the place I was hired also did not have a car and bicycled everywhere. (He has since, like me, purchased a car, but we both still bicycle most of the time). I guess that may have insulated me a little bit from any judgement over my transportation choice, and also fits in to my theory that in certain geographic regions in the U.S. people may be more or less compelled to be conformist.
Why?
Because we have built a society that allows our fellow human beings to suffer and die in abject poverty, while others have extraordinary wealth. It is wrong.
Because we have built a society that allows our fellow human beings to suffer and die in abject poverty, while others have extraordinary wealth. It is wrong.Does poverty automatically equal suffering? As a child, we lived in extreme poverty, although I only remember happiness and comfort. I remember those families who were better off made me a bit jealous, but I never held it against them. It wasn't their fault we were poor.
Is "wealth" zero-sum? If Person A has "wealth", did it come from food taken out of the mouth of Person B?
Being homeless is desperately terrible, and yes, leads to suffering, illness, and early death. Poverty that is such that basic needs are not met -- food, shelter, medical care, education, safety -- leads to suffering and misery. Both are preventable, and we know how to do this. We have enough in our world for all to be adequately cared for, and as a congregate species, we are capable of it.
Is "wealth" zero-sum? If Person A has "wealth", did it come from food taken out of the mouth of Person B?
I think it is vastly more complex than that - more so, I admit, than I understand. At this point, I think the damage to the planet caused by pollution and extractive industries cause the biggest impact on peoples whose lives do not involve such a large degree of consumption. As Alan pointed out, a family can grow up without much money and still have a much higher return of love and happiness than a vastly wealthy person, but when the landscape you depend on falls apart, or your community begins to suffer birth defects because your relative wealth makes it easier for your community to be a corporate chemical dumping ground, then your lives are negatively impacted by the wealthy of the world who give no thought to such things. I like to support working toward a lesser degree of consumption not because I think my extravagance takes food directly out of the mouths of the poor, but because I do not feel the planet can support the degree of consumption we have grown accustomed to. Do I think it is unfair that I can afford an iPod while a poor third world person might not? No, not really. I'm not going to be embarrassed by the accident of where I was born. But I'm going to think twice before I replace something that doesn't need to be replaced when I think of the people in poor countries exposed to toxic fumes as they try to burn the precious metals out of all the e-waste that is shipped to them.
One can be happy living a minimal life in a hunter-gatherer society on a healthy, relatively clean planet. But I think as a race we know have to consciously work toward that end.
Because we have built a society that allows our fellow human beings to suffer and die in abject poverty, while others have extraordinary wealth. It is wrong.
Your free to take in as many as you like.
Your free to take in as many as you like.
How condescending of you. What is your point?
How condescending of you. What is your point?
If your concerned about the homeless, and you have a home that I assume has more than one bedroom, why don't you take some in?
Or do you just want to use other peoples money?
If your concerned about the homeless, and you have a home that I assume has more than one bedroom, why don't you take some in? Or do you just want to use other peoples money?
Do I understand that your solutions are either me housing people or using "other people's money" to solve homelessness?
I have taken a few people in for short times. All but one got on their feet, one didn't want to be helped, just wanted to be a leech.
Do I understand that your solutions are either me housing people or using "other people's money" to solve homelessness?
I'm asking what are you doing about it.
I'm asking what are you doing about it.
Briefly, as I am off to the doctor shortly:
I worked in the shelter system for 16 years, as a domestic violence expert, helping women & children break the cycle of violence in their lives that left them homeless. I did this in MO & WA, in rural communities & in Seattle.
I was on the founding board of an affordable housing organization that has built scores of homes for marginalized people.
I've testified several times in both our State Lege and City Council about housing and the needs for affordability.
I was the development director of an urban housing org, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure housing for marginalized people.
I started a Community Kitchen which feeds between 60- 100 people, who also do all the cooking, in my neighborhood. The all volunteer org is eight months old, and going strong.
My DH & I have housed three people in the midst of divorce who were faced with losing their housing (at separate times), until they were able stabilize their lives. This included the two children of the father we housed.
I've been active since 1976, both in paid and volunteer roles, to support individuals to get stable, as well as to create systems that counteract the root causes of homelessness.
I earned my MA in community development, with an emphasis on housing and asset based approaches to community development. I'm highly knowledgeable about this topic.
redfox, I don't think you need to justify your position.
But this video does an unbelievable job at doing it for you! I just happened to watch it today, and if you guys have an hour to spare, please watch it: it's a documentary, I AM by Tom Shadyak, who directed a bunch of comedies like Liar, Liar and Ace Ventura, but who has gone through an amazing shift after a bike accident and long bout of post-concussion syndrome. Honestly, it is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vdk6mGevOqI
Good for you, but why aren't you housing anyone now?
Good for you, but why aren't you housing anyone now?
Two reasons:
I am rebuilding my health after a cancer diagnosis & treatment last year. Second, we provide shelter to people we are aquainted with or are in our circle of friends. No one currently is in need that we're aware of. Gven my health recovery process, though, it's unlikely we'll be offering space till I am 100%.
i'm interested in your experiences housing folks. I'd love to hear your stories! I'm waiting to be seen in the ER right now, so I may be offline.
ApatheticNoMore
3-2-14, 8:12pm
I think it is vastly more complex than that - more so, I admit, than I understand. At this point, I think the damage to the planet caused by pollution and extractive industries cause the biggest impact on peoples whose lives do not involve such a large degree of consumption. As Alan pointed out, a family can grow up without much money and still have a much higher return of love and happiness than a vastly wealthy person, but when the landscape you depend on falls apart, or your community begins to suffer birth defects because your relative wealth makes it easier for your community to be a corporate chemical dumping ground, then your lives are negatively impacted by the wealthy of the world who give no thought to such things. I like to support working toward a lesser degree of consumption not because I think my extravagance takes food directly out of the mouths of the poor, but because I do not feel the planet can support the degree of consumption we have grown accustomed to. Do I think it is unfair that I can afford an iPod while a poor third world person might not? No, not really. I'm not going to be embarrassed by the accident of where I was born. But I'm going to think twice before I replace something that doesn't need to be replaced when I think of the people in poor countries exposed to toxic fumes as they try to burn the precious metals out of all the e-waste that is shipped to them.
+1
Two reasons:
I am rebuilding my health after a cancer diagnosis & treatment last year. Second, we provide shelter to people we are aquainted with or are in our circle of friends. No one currently is in need that we're aware of. Gven my health recovery process, though, it's unlikely we'll be offering space till I am 100%.
i'm interested in your experiences housing folks. I'd love to hear your stories! I'm waiting to be seen in the ER right now, so I may be offline.
I only took in a few that I knew somehow, and only to give them a place to stay while they got a job and back on their feet. I did take a kid in one time, he was hanging around the house a lot and I was having to run him off at night. He was 17 and my kids were 15 at the time. My boys then told me his parents had kicked him out. His parents lived about a block away, both Doctors, but they wanted nothing to do with him. He was smoking pot and he was fighting with his mom. I really didn't want him around my kids either. The police wouldn't do anything because he was close to being 18. I contacted a local church and they found a place for him to stay and a job. He took off about a hour after I dropped him off. My sons said he just started bouncing from one place to the next for a while. Don't know what happened to him.
I don't come into contact with anyone in need, and don't go looking for them. The last time I saw a homeless guy was at Key West. He looked to me like he was where he chose to be. I don't worry about it much anymore.
I only took in a few that I knew somehow, and only to give them a place to stay while they got a job and back on their feet. I did take a kid in one time, he was hanging around the house a lot and I was having to run him off at night. He was 17 and my kids were 15 at the time. My boys then told me his parents had kicked him out. His parents lived about a block away, both Doctors, but they wanted nothing to do with him. He was smoking pot and he was fighting with his mom. I really didn't want him around my kids either. The police wouldn't do anything because he was close to being 18. I contacted a local church and they found a place for him to stay and a job. He took off about a hour after I dropped him off. My sons said he just started bouncing from one place to the next for a while. Don't know what happened to him.
I don't come into contact with anyone in need, and don't go looking for them. The last time I saw a homeless guy was at Key West. He looked to me like he was where he chose to be. I don't worry about it much anymore.
What a solid you did for that teen. My parents took in a friend from high school under similar circumstances. It made a big difference in his life, but the influence didn't show up till some years later. He credited his time in our basement as critical to his getting on a road that was much more productive. I hope that was also true for the teen you housed.
Regarding the homeless dude in Key West, I wonder how one would assess what choice meant for him?
What a solid you did for that teen. My parents took in a friend from high school under similar circumstances. It made a big difference in his life, but the influence didn't show up till some years later. He credited his time in our basement as critical to his getting on a road that was much more productive. I hope that was also true for the teen you housed.
Regarding the homeless dude in Key West, I wonder how one would assess what choice meant for him?
He was there because every choice he had made prior put him there. I would think he made poor choices, but they were his. At least it was warm. He was an eyesore though, he was just sleeping on the ground at a park.
He was there because every choice he had made prior put him there. I would think he made poor choices, but they were his. At least it was warm. He was an eyesore though, he was just sleeping on the ground at a park.
You are aware of all of his prior choices? And, you actually consider the sight of another human being as "an eyesore"? I've never heard this!
The one thing I bring with me from my Catholic upbringing is the line "there but for the grace of God go I". I am no longer religious in that sense but I have lived long enough to see that bad things can happen to anyone regardless of status, education and or career. It isn't always about bad choices. I believe that kindness and empathy is one of our greatest possessions but it is really hard for some people to grasp without judging:(
We had a homeless man in the village here last week. He was sleeping in lobbies of some of the small stores in town, after hours, because it was cold, icy, and snowing, and he apparently had no local knowledge. A complete stranger to all in the community. Looked a bit rougher than the local homeless-by-choice folks.
He turned out to be an unregistered sex offender, a child predator, who had made the *choice* to somehow get to the mainland ferry terminal from his release point, and the choice to spend $$$ to buy a ferry ticket for the 90 minute boat ride out here, then the *choice* to hitchhike or walk the 10 miles from the dock to the village, and then the *choice* to camp out in the middle of 5-6 schools and preschools.
I'm not sure why he made the *choice* to get all the way out here. I have some theories though.
The one thing I bring with me from my Catholic upbringing is the line "there but for the grace of God go I". I am no longer religious in that sense but I have lived long enough to see that bad things can happen to anyone regardless of status, education and or career. It isn't always about bad choices. I believe that kindness and empathy is one of our greatest possessions but it is really hard for some people to grasp without judging:(
Indeed. I too have had the blessings in life to have several major crises happen to me. House fire, divorce, drug addiction in my immediate family, cancer, huge financial struggles. All have given me the gift of understanding that bad things happen to good people, and that none of us has any clue what the road has been for anyone else.
Every time life presents its inevitable struggles, after a good cry & some time, I have come to feel grateful for the way my heart has broken open to all who have been and will be in similar circumstances. Rather than an eyesore, I view homeless people, in the words of Mother Theresa, as "Jesus in all His distressing disguises".
Though I'm not a Christian, I love this way of reframing those who cause us to want to turn away. Why do we do this? Why an eyesore? Perhaps because we're all so close to being abject in another's eyes, if not in actual reality. We all share the same life force and desires for love and happiness. Most especially the ill, hungry, exhausted, tattered man that we see by the roadside. There is a reason that every wisdom tradition venerates the least of us as being the Wise Crone or Man. I am sad for those who feel separated from life and cannot see our common humanity.
When my rightie cousin asked me why I was still a liberal after all these years, I replied "because I've seen what people go through." I didn't bother to ask him why he was still the way he was. I suppose I should have. I've made a lot of dumb decisions in my life; fortunately none of them led to homelessness.
You are aware of all of his prior choices? And, you actually consider the sight of another human being as "an eyesore"? I've never heard this!
I know that he chose to be spread out in the middle of a walkway were people had to walk around him. And he made the choice to be there. And yes he was an eyesore.
Obviously he made some poor choices somewhere along the line. But he did manage to be in Key West and not New York so I will give him that. Maybe he was exactly where he wanted to be. But he looked like hell to me.
What is the eyesore part, dmc? What is it about him that makes you want to turn away?
What is the eyesore part, dmc? What is it about him that makes you want to turn away?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyesore
He was filthy, unkept, you could smell him as you had to walk around him. It was a lovely park. We were not there very long, hopefully someone came along and made him move.
Unless DMC is suggesting that one person can house all the thousands of homeless people, other people's money, or other people's houses, are going to have to get involved. One caring person can make a lot of difference, but one person can't house hundreds.
onlinemoniker
3-3-14, 9:37am
bae: That sounds like a lot of hassle/expense just to put himself in proximity of several schools. Aren't there lots of schools on the mainland, too? Was that your theory?
dmc: I can't imagine what type of personality would choose to be homeless. That sounds like a miserable existence.
Jane: I don't understand why your cousin would think you're likely to change your political/philosophical leanings "after all these years."
There's a lot about this thread I don't understand.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyesore
He was filthy, unkept, you could smell him as you had to walk around him. It was a lovely park. We were not there very long, hopefully someone came along and made him move.
It was painful to see and smell him? Sad? Embarassing? Revolting? It made you angry? What was your experience of him?
I don't know whats so hard to understand. He was in the way and he was revolting. Maybe he does provide a good example for some as to what bad choice's in life lead to.
Is "wealth" zero-sum? If Person A has "wealth", did it come from food taken out of the mouth of Person B?
I would argue that many (not all) have become wealthy on the backs of those who struggle to get by. If you employ 100 people and pay them less than a living wage while the company earns more than is required to keep the business healthy, then the zero-sum in this situation is reality that the profit means more to you than the well-being of your employees.
Here's a radical idea proposed by St. Augustine: "Determine what God has given you, take from that what you need. The remainder is needed by others." At this point, I think this should be a personal choice and not a political imperative. However, it's certainly not our current mindset or modus operandi either individually or collectively.
I actually don't believe in a zero-sum game when it comes to "wealth" but it depends on how you define wealth. With all the abundance available, and the way nature works, there is enough for everyone's need. But, to paraphrase the famous quote, those who have a "what's mine is mine" mentality tend to foster a separation-from-others mentality that leads someone being up and someone being down which leads to perceptions of fear and scarcity, which leads to there not being enough for everyone's greed.
iris lilies
3-3-14, 11:08am
I work across the street from the largest men's shelter for the homeless in this region. Buses from the county drop off homeless here weekly. During nice weather they render the nearby city park unusable by anyone other than their groups. I am talking about a hundred people out milling around at any one time.
Vagrants or the homeless, whatever you want to call them--are threatening in large groups. They shout obscenities, fall into random fights in front of you where you are physically in danger, strew their stuff all over the area, and urinate and defecate wherever. There are killings in this 1 block area about every 2 years.
I am stunned by the naivete in thinking that providing charming cottages will solve this. But hey, go for it. Let's just buy each homeless person a Tumbleweed house, problem solved.
I would like to know for each person who has answered on this thread: when is the last time you were surround by 10+ homeless men? Not just one lone guy, but 10+? I am, daily, in that situation.
...
Jane: I don't understand why your cousin would think you're likely to change your political/philosophical leanings "after all these years."
....
You know that philosophy that says people who are liberal when they're young and idealistic turn conservative as they become wiser? We hadn't talked for years...
IL, I'm curious--if you are against the shelter in your area, where should these people be housed?
As for me, I don't think buying each a Tumbleweed House is the answer, although there are real problems with the shelters that are available. If we think creatively we can figure out a way to provide safe shelter for people who don't have it. I'm not a city planner, or an architect, but I can certainly see the possibilities in individual pod housing that keeps the homeless safe, and keep neighbors feeling safe.
As I said to redfox when she responded to dmc's question, I don't have to give you a resume of my interactions with the homeless, and I do have one and I'll leave it at that.
Dismissing them and wishing them away is simply not going to solve anything.
There was some kind of pilot program here for awhile wherein they found apartments for the homeless. They followed one fellow who cleaned up his act quite a bit. I guess living on the street--unable to bathe or easily find a bathroom, being scorned--leads to depression and worsening substance abuse. Who knew? (Insert sarcastic tone.) Many of the homeless are mentally ill, but Reagan led the way in clearing out mental hospitals as a cost-cutting move. So this is what we get.
But, to paraphrase the famous quote, those who have a "what's mine is mine" mentality tend to foster a separation-from-others mentality that leads someone being up and someone being down which leads to perceptions of fear and scarcity, which leads to there not being enough for everyone's greed.
Frankly, the "I got mine" mentality sickens me. So many of those who hold that view have been lucky from the get-go -- born of the majority race/religion/ethnicity, not visibly handicapped, typically educated. As Molly Ivins used to say, "...born on third base and thought [they] had hit a triple." People who believe that others are where they are in life entirely out of their own choices, ought to get into the real world and meet some of these folks. None of us chose to be born the race we are, to be the gender we are, or in the country we were born to the parents we have. Maybe in some rose-colored world everyone is treated equally. But real life is quite different.
And while it's admirable to think that problems of poverty and xenophobia can be handled in the private sector, again, real life is quite different. I believe we should help those who need help. That does not mean elevating them to the highest levels of society -- it means providing the shelter, food, and medical care necessary to help them become as much a part of society as possible. We, too, have housed people who were having trouble finding their footing. But there's a limit to how many people we could serve that way. My almost-80-year-old mother believes we should help, too, but she doesn't have a spare room or the wherewithal at 80 to take on the task.
Government has evolved (at least in representative governments) to be a (fairly) impartial proxy for policies that voters have decided should exist. We decided it might be bad to just let invaders roll across the borders. So we have armed forces and a border patrol that watches for people and goods we don't want in this country. We used to let food producers and drug companies regulate themselves until it was plainly obvious they could not/would not do it themselves, so most of us voted to regulate those companies for the sake of safety.
If the majority of a government's citizens have decided our long-term interests are served by providing a sustainable useful net of basic services, and, despite all exhortations from the right, the private sector cannot/does not do it, then how does it get done? The need does not go away. The public apparently has no interest in the public executions it would take to eliminate spending tax dollars on the homeless and the severely handicapped and the deeply mentally ill. Maybe we made a huge mistake in letting the Code of the West go away. If the issues cannot be addressed by individuals, what collective takes on those tasks?
I am deeply affected when I see people on the street begging or keeled over drunk. For whatever reason, when I see another struggling human, I visualize them as a child. It pains me that I live in a society that doesn't seem to care. Who knows what life scenario they have had to endure? Child abuse, alcoholic parents, mental illness... Sometimes I think if I were in that state I too would choose the streets. And the other alternative, institutions that housed the mentally ill no longer exist.
I work across the street from the largest men's shelter for the homeless in this region. Buses from the county drop off homeless here weekly. During nice weather they render the nearby city park unusable by anyone other than their groups. I am talking about a hundred people out milling around at any one time.
Vagrants or the homeless, whatever you want to call them--are threatening in large groups. They shout obscenities, fall into random fights in front of you where you are physically in danger, strew their stuff all over the area, and urinate and defecate wherever. There are killings in this 1 block area about every 2 years.
I am stunned by the naivete in thinking that providing charming cottages will solve this. But hey, go for it. Let's just buy each homeless person a Tumbleweed house, problem solved.
I would like to know for each person who has answered on this thread: when is the last time you were surround by 10+ homeless men? Not just one lone guy, but 10+? I am, daily, in that situation.
Glad I live in the county.
When does the victim mentality end Steve?
Gardenarian
3-3-14, 1:21pm
I am sad that the OP's thoughtful comments devolved into an argument about who is responsible for homelessness.
The homeless have no status symbols and are clearly on the lowest rung of the social ladder, and look at the antipathy and revulsion they evoke - simply by existing.
This is judging by appearances again, just at a different level.
I feel I have more to say but I am lucky enough to have a job I have to go to.
When does the victim mentality end Steve?
What is the victim mentality?
I am sad that the OP's thoughtful comments devolved into an argument about who is responsible for homelessness.
The homeless have no status symbols and are clearly on the lowest rung of the social ladder, and look at the antipathy and revulsion they evoke - simply by existing.
This is judging by appearances again, just at a different level.
I feel I have more to say but I am lucky enough to have a job I have to go to.
It is amazing, isn't it, how often a thread started in any forum winds up being a Public Policy debate.
It devolved partly because without our possessions, either mental or physical, we are seen as having no value.
It devolved partly because without our possessions, either mental or physical, we are seen as having no value.
Yes. All too true.
What is the victim mentality?
Look it up. Use whatever search engine you like.
It devolved partly because without our possessions, either mental or physical, we are seen as having no value.
Some people are just liabilities.
Some people are just liabilities.
Interesting that you used an accounting term.
Look it up. Use whatever search engine you like.
Ok, victim mentality: The delusional belief held by a small minority of people that poor folks get what they deserve. Those who suffer from victim mentality often express anger, revulsion, and blame directed at others. No known medications treat this disorder.
Ok, victim mentality: The delusional belief held by a small minority of people that poor folks get what they deserve. Those who suffer from victim mentality often express anger, revulsion, and blame directed at others. No known medications treat this disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality
Maybe if some would stop blaming others for their place in life and look for solutions they would be better off. I guess its easier to just blame others for their failure.
Maybe if some would stop blaming others for their place in life and look for solutions they would be better off. I guess its easier to just blame others for their failure.
I wish we could have this convo in person over a good brew & some wings. I find the written back n forth not very satisfying.
Sounds like you prefer to not hear people complain about their circumstances. I'm not sure I've heard people blaming others.
I wish we could have this convo in person over a good brew & some wings. I find the written back n forth not very satisfying.
Sounds like you prefer to not hear people complain about their circumstances. I'm not sure I've heard people blaming others.
Some people overcome their circumstances and some just complain. It's easier to complain.
I started a new thread in Public Policy. You can solve the homeless problem there.
Some people overcome their circumstances and some just complain. It's easier to complain.
You would prefer a world where no one complains, and everyone overcomes their circumstances?
Some the glass is half empty, others its half full
Should we hate them only until they have "overcome their circumstances?" Or should we offer help on the chance that they'll take it and better their situation?
Gardenarian
3-3-14, 6:44pm
To get back to the OP's subject, which I think is an important one (look how many threads it has spawned!)
Anyhow, I think job interviews are a unique situation and don't reflect the way we present ourselves in everyday life. I have one suit and the only time I wear it is to job interviews, funerals, and for speeches.
The way we present ourselves every day is another question. I would say that I don't think about it much, but I've got a closet full of clothes that prove me wrong. Maybe it's all subconscious, but I am trying to project some image of myself out there.
I spent high school and young adulthood in Boston, and people seem to be much more status or class conscious there than here in California, and much more homogenous. As soon as you meet someone in Boston they start trying to place you - how educated you are, what your ethnic background is, if you come from money. (Maybe that's changed in the past 25 years.) In California there is some of that going on, but it is such diverse state that there is no one standard that everyone uses to judge status.
I understand rodeosweetheart's objection to the word "brand." I don't like to think of myself as a product I am trying to sell. It's just a word that has become part of the new vocabulary - perhaps because of blogging?
{Fail}
ToomuchStuff
3-4-14, 3:57am
Some the glass is half empty, others its half full
Completely full, half with liquid, half with air.
I tend to be cynical, when I see someone who represents themselves as homeless. The reason I word it that way, is I have seen those that live in certain area's that put on clean clothes, and grab a fake bundle and go out and beg. (shaven and unshaven) I've also seen kids, back when I was in high school, go out to a thrift store, tear up what they got, dress down, and do the same thing. Also seen those collect various forms of welfare, while living with their long term boyfriend and driving a new car (all done in his name to keep their benefits). I could list more examples.
But I have also seen examples where I knew I could help somewhat. (recent immigrant whose residence was torched, his family got out but he lost all his tools needed for livelyhood) Can't judge just by a photo you have to be there to know.
I can't say I entirely agree (or for that matter disagree) with Redfox, because what is typed could be read wrong, incomplete thoughts, etc. etc:
Everyone has built into us a basic drive to create and to participate. If that drive in buried under mental illness, addiction, and trauma, then how do we help folks uncover their capacities? How do you decide if someone "is able"?
My baseline is that those who are homeless are doing the best they can under really horrific circumstances. Our obligation to our brethren is to help them out. So that they can get to the point of being able to have agency in their own lives, and in turn, reciprocate to help others.
I don't believe that is our obligation, until we have our own houses in order. I understand doing what you can, but have seen those with what most of society think of as nothing, trying to help out, to the point of keeping themselves down.
As for deciding if someone is able, since one answer doesn't fit all, I am going to throw this question back... At what point does one not try to help? I remember a drunk on a bicycle, that my dad gave a few rides to, after his bicycle broke once. When his sister finally got tired of him not seeking help she kept trying to get him, she kicked him out. He showed up at my parents, saying he was ready to move in (wasn't going to happen).
When do you drop any safety net, that they may get to the want to change point?
Also as a whole, when should a thread get moved to the political section of this forum?
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-14, 4:14am
Some the glass is half empty, others its half full
mostly empty, all that empty space between atoms
When I was young and maybe more idealistic, I talked to the homeless on the street occasionally. I met one person who claimed to be voluntarily homeless for the freedom. I quite admired that!!! Of course I also met a homeless person dying of cancer and their tale was pretty aweful. They mostly wanted me to pray for them: "please pray for me".
Everyone has built into us a basic drive to create and to participate. If that drive in buried under mental illness, addiction, and trauma, then how do we help folks uncover their capacities? How do you decide if someone "is able"?
It probably takes decades. Things learned early on are nearly intractable (they certainly are in me! And not for lack of trying!). It's a lot faster to just provide shelter, heck yea. But the homeless problem is so huge that even that is overwhelming. A few people may just be helped by meds though.
onlinemoniker
3-4-14, 9:00am
Free enterprise/capitalism is the toughest economic system to succeed in. If you don't have special skills (especially the entrepreneurial spirit) forget it.
Free enterprise REQUIRES that most will only have ordinary lives so that a FEW can succeed and be wealthy. If everyone was a millionaire, it would lose all meaning.
Free Enterprise also requires approximately a 3.5% unemployment rate at all times to guarantee that labor doesn't become too expensive for producers, otherwise producers will stop producing. Today in the US our unemployment rate is so high that there are 2 unemployed (willing, able and actively seeking employment) people for every job vacancy.
When, as a nation, we decided upon a capitalist system (rather than communism, say where everyone has a guaranteed job and place to live) we established a social contract where we decided that as we would be supporting entrepreneurs and helping them find opportunities to become wealthy with economic policies that support business, infrastructure and a cheap and well-educated workforce, we also decided to have a support system in place to help those who can't make it in this cutthroat economic system.
People are homeless right now because the social contract has broken down. Fewer people believe in it like they used to. Those who don't have the skills (educational, emotional, physical) to make it in a free enterprise are getting short shrift. Many people who used to be in mental hospitals are now on the street (as an example) because state hospitals were seen as sadly lacking and so were shut down rather than being overhauled.
I am at a loss to understand why the government (the people) has decided to continue to support the entrepreneurs in their quest to become wealthier and wealthier but yet has decided that the poorest, least educated, sickest and most vulnerable of society are just scammers too lazy to work at jobs that don't actually exist.
It sounds very sad and cruel to me.
I started a new thread in Public Policy. You can solve the homeless problem there.
Sorry. I don't participate in the Public Policy forum anymore.
Some people are just liabilities.
And this is exactly why. The Public Policy forum here (on most any site, really) seems to be where reality goes to die. Ideology holds absolute sway over real life.
You still have not suggested a workable solution to the issue of so-called "liabilities". Should we just rocket the old and poor and handicapped and homeless into space in endless orbit? Maybe let them justify their shortcomings by performing a few scientific experiments before they die? Should we shoot a few of them at every dawn? Find what remaining ice floes haven't melted and just ship them off, Viking-funeral style? Should we engage in genetic testing before birth and off those who are likely to develop illnesses that prevent them from contributing "fully" to our great Capitalist future? What happens if one of the afflicted is you? Or a member of your family? Up for a mercy killing?
I'd be happy to think that we've progressed beyond the Wild West and haven't yet approached a Mad-Max future. But as long as human beings are seen as "non-depreciating assets", what's to discuss? Enjoy your insulation.
Oh, and to answer the question of when the "victim mentality" goes away, it will go away when those nominally in charge are no longer threatened by non-factors like the color of someone's skin, or the shape of their genitalia, or the wrinkles they have on their skin, or whether they wear the appropriate symbols to show "belonging."
IOW, it will never go away. It calls for a level of enlightenment that is being disrupted by the transmission of ideologies that perpetuate the status quo.
Oh, and to answer the question of when the "victim mentality" goes away, it will go away when those nominally in charge are no longer threatened by non-factors like the color of someone's skin, or the shape of their genitalia, or the wrinkles they have on their skin, or whether they wear the appropriate symbols to show "belonging."
IOW, it will never go away. It calls for a level of enlightenment that is being disrupted by the transmission of ideologies that perpetuate the status quo.
Word.
onlinemoniker
3-4-14, 12:12pm
Word.
+1
Yet I find myself engaging over there! Hah! Well, I do appreciate the back & forth, and the challenges. It helps me sharpen my thinking and gain a deeper understanding of my beliefs. Always a good thing.
onlinemoniker
3-4-14, 12:22pm
I don't go over there, either. I can imagine it's really volatile on that thread given the number and frequency of the posts. Too much stress in life already, I don't want to have to listen to a bunch of shouting.
Men like Gandhi impress me. Donald Trump, no so much. That clarity of purpose and intensity of life in people like Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh is what I've spent my life pursuing, and I see the preoccupation with and purchasing of various things as a sort of moral failure. (Maybe that's my fundamentalist childhood rearing its head, though my family had no problem with recreational shopping).
Donald Trump also has a clarity of purpose and intensity of life. The difference is in the purpose!!
I don't mean to sound flip - your post is very interesting and thought-provoking, and I'm going to be thinking about it for weeks. The sentence I quoted really jumped out at me, because I think it goes to the heart of what you're saying about status, power, and access to resources.
Sorry. I don't participate in the Public Policy forum anymore.
That's a shame. I wish more people would.
And this is exactly why. The Public Policy forum here (on most any site, really) seems to be where reality goes to die. Ideology holds absolute sway over real life.
I think ideology does make itself known there, but is that a bad thing? Being exposed to different points of view shouldn't be threatening, although I can see where it might be upsetting to some.
In theory, that particular forum should act as a receptacle for political and/or social ideologies, keeping them out of the other forums. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. Just like all other communities, there's always someone who feels free to interject their thoughts on "right wingers", "those tea party folk" and their "penis-mobiles", etc., into any discussion, while simultaneously lamenting the very existence of the forum designed to house those areas of discussion.
I'd like to think it's just a blind spot.
Ok, just when did I miss the penis-mobiles?
Ha! I was just wondering the same thing...Personally, I drive an Oldmobile. :~)
Sorry. I don't participate in the Public Policy forum anymore.
And this is exactly why. The Public Policy forum here (on most any site, really) seems to be where reality goes to die. Ideology holds absolute sway over real life.
You still have not suggested a workable solution to the issue of so-called "liabilities". Should we just rocket the old and poor and handicapped and homeless into space in endless orbit? Maybe let them justify their shortcomings by performing a few scientific experiments before they die? Should we shoot a few of them at every dawn? Find what remaining ice floes haven't melted and just ship them off, Viking-funeral style? Should we engage in genetic testing before birth and off those who are likely to develop illnesses that prevent them from contributing "fully" to our great Capitalist future? What happens if one of the afflicted is you? Or a member of your family? Up for a mercy killing?
I'd be happy to think that we've progressed beyond the Wild West and haven't yet approached a Mad-Max future. But as long as human beings are seen as "non-depreciating assets", what's to discuss? Enjoy your insulation.
We kill many unborn children. Are they not just considered liabilities to some?
Sorry Alan, that should have been in the Public Policy forum.
Ok, just when did I miss the penis-mobiles?
I had one for a short while. Maybe I still do. I think the definition was anyone having a big truck that isn't using it to pull a trailer. Or a bigger vehicle than ones needs beyond basic utility.
I had one for a short while. Maybe I still do. I think the definition was anyone having a big truck that isn't using it to pull a trailer. Or a bigger vehicle than ones needs beyond basic utility.
Gosh, does the light rail I commute on count? It's the biggest vehicle I own a share in!
Gosh, does the light rail I commute on count? It's the biggest vehicle I own a share in!
It would probably depend on how many passengers are riding with you at the time. Some times it may qualify.
Gosh, does the light rail I commute on count? It's the biggest vehicle I own a share in!
Maybe the person who introduced the term on these forums will weigh in. I've never been clear on the basis of his definition, although I think DMC expressed the gist of it.
All I know is I've lately been afraid to mention my 10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome on these forums for fear of being called out. I'm sensitive that way. ;)
ToomuchStuff
3-4-14, 2:03pm
That's a shame. I wish more people would.
I think ideology does make itself known there, but is that a bad thing? Being exposed to different points of view shouldn't be threatening, although I can see where it might be upsetting to some.
In theory, that particular forum should act as a receptacle for political and/or social ideologies, keeping them out of the other forums. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. Just like all other communities, there's always someone who feels free to interject their thoughts on "right wingers", "those tea party folk" and their "penis-mobiles", etc., into any discussion, while simultaneously lamenting the very existence of the forum designed to house those areas of discussion.
I'd like to think it's just a blind spot.
Blind spot as much as a lack of moderation maybe. I rarely go into that forum and asked if it was blockable, because I would like to NEVER see it. I come from a family where politics and religion have done a lot of damage, to the point where I was told I shouldn't have been ever born and am not human, by a relative on their death bed. (last conversation). There is a big difference between understanding there are different viewpoints and being expected to believe one can spit in the wind and not have it fly back (don't see people changing their minds).
What is interesting to me is that intelligent people can look across the ocean and observe that political and religious differences are causing great hardship and anguish in other lands but cannot see that it is close to the same situation at home. The Simple Public Policy is an eye-opening read for those who simply sit and observe from a distance.
I rarely go into that forum and asked if it was blockable, because I would like to NEVER see it.
You know, it's funny, but until today, there hadn't been a single post in that forum for nearly 3 weeks, and only a couple of posts for the last month. Most of the contentious stuff shows up in other places, such as here.
It's weird.
Maybe the person who introduced the term on these forums will weigh in. I've never been clear on the basis of his definition, although I think DMC expressed the gist of it.
All I know is I've lately been afraid to mention my 10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome on these forums for fear of being called out. I'm sensitive that way. ;)
If you call it a tiny house, you may be OK. But you cant drive it.
I had one for a short while. Maybe I still do. I think the definition was anyone having a big truck that isn't using it to pull a trailer. Or a bigger vehicle than ones needs beyond basic utility.
Corvette comes to mind for me. Always has.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/2014_Chevrolet_Corvette.jpg
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-14, 2:53pm
You know, it's funny, but until today, there hadn't been a single post in that forum for nearly 3 weeks, and only a couple of posts for the last month.
Yea something I attributed to people having entirely given up on making any changes or improving anything in U.S. politics, a sentiment I would sympathize with greatly. As in "politics is f'in hopeless, I dont' want to talk about it anymore". I mean to REALLY SEE how bad things are politically is to be consumed with despair! And things are likely going to have to get much worse before they get better at any rate since there is little resistance at present. :\
What is interesting to me is that intelligent people can look across the ocean and observe that political and religious differences are causing great hardship and anguish in other lands but cannot see that it is close to the same situation at home. The Simple Public Policy is an eye-opening read for those who simply sit and observe from a distance
yea but some people just see debate as intellectual debate. I mean if people want to make things personal and all about me then I'll fight, but it's pretty clear when things become personal (oh so it's all about me now ...). Whereas I think others see debate as such and arguing impersonal theories as "fighting". And I don't.
Y
yea but some people just see debate as intellectual debate. I mean if people want to make things personal and all about me then I'll fight, but it's pretty clear when things become personal (oh so it's all about me now ...). Whereas I think others see debate as such and arguing impersonal theories as "fighting". And I don't.
I'm with redfox, can't we all meet somewhere and have a beer or glass of wine and enjoy the debate? That would be so great.
Corvette comes to mind for me. Always has.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/2014_Chevrolet_Corvette.jpg
Ive had a few in the past, now I have a Porsche. They do get OK gas mileage. And most don't go to the junkyard after 10yrs or so.
My first car I bought with my own money was a 1966 Corvette Convertable, I loved that car. I'll bet it's still around.
Yea something I attributed to people having entirely given up on making any changes or improving anything in U.S. politics, a sentiment I would sympathize with greatly. As in "politics is f'in hopeless, I dont' want to talk about it anymore". I mean to REALLY SEE how bad things are politically is to be consumed with despair! And things are likely going to have to get much worse before they get better at any rate since there is little resistance at present. :\
yea but some people just see debate as intellectual debate. I mean if people want to make things personal and all about me then I'll fight, but it's pretty clear when things become personal (oh so it's all about me now ...). Whereas I think others see debate as such and arguing impersonal theories as "fighting". And I don't.
What happened to that "Hope and Change"? At least I'm older, and somewhat affluent. I'll be fine, just tell me the rules that we are following today.
I'm with redfox, can't we all meet somewhere and have a beer or glass of wine and enjoy the debate? That would be so great.
We would have to be careful to not be considered a terrorist threat.
Gosh, does the light rail I commute on count? It's the biggest vehicle I own a share in!
Classic overcompensation, redfox. ;)
Free enterprise/capitalism is the toughest economic system to succeed in. If you don't have special skills (especially the entrepreneurial spirit) forget it.
Just curious, which is the easiest?
Maybe the person who introduced the term on these forums will weigh in. I've never been clear on the basis of his definition, although I think DMC expressed the gist of it.
* raises hand * I don't know whether to be disappointed so many people missed the reference or happy that people actually read my posts. :confused:
I was raised to not waste things. Regardless of whatever station I may achieve in life, I know I do not live alone. We all use the air and water around us. Resources are not limitless. No one has a legal right to waste and I believe there is a moral component to that as well. Any of us can be victims of bad luck or bad choices. And we live in a government of law because the alternative is not sufficiently appealing. I also was raised by my father to understand that it wasn't physical strength or aggressive behavior that made a boy a man (particularly a gentleman). Given that the world seems to do pretty well with these concepts and that the opposite has produced no end of problems, I'll stick with those beliefs.
A "penis-mobile" is any item (not necessarily a car or truck) that encourages someone to act with disregard for those around them.
Example: I ended up behind a huge pickup truck for several miles once; it was jacked up, the diesel engine had been tweaked to make more noise, and there was a huge exhaust stack plunked right in the middle of the bed so the driver could "roll coal" -- floor the accelerator at low revs to make huge amounts of black smoke pour out of the stack. There was a sticker on the back bumper, too, warning other drivers to not get too close or "feel my wrath". And the guy drove aggressively -- jackrabbit starts, lots of passing,...
Years after the encounter, I'm still unsure what the driver is trying to say about himself. Courtesy of that stack, he can't use that truck for its intended purpose. Rolling coal does not enhance fuel mileage and it certainly doesn't improve the air all of us breathe. If the driver intended to entertain us, he could have painted the truck neon green or put a moustache on the front. Only thing I can figure is that he thinks this presentation will enhance the appearance of his power and influence in the society in which he lives.
I don't buy it. Being a biological male depends on a certain amount of testosterone, sure, but I've never found swagger attractive in anyone. Too much of anything is ... too much. And it doesn't take huge body parts to be a leader, whether you've got 'em or not.
All I know is I've lately been afraid to mention my 10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome on these forums for fear of being called out. I'm sensitive that way. ;)
Ha ha. A "10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome" is not a "penis-mobile" unless it's what you use as a regular grocery-getter. It's fit to a task; it's used for that purpose. Or it sits, rusting silently. No problem at all with that. But that wasn't the point of your comment, was it?
You know, it's funny, but until today, there hadn't been a single post in that forum for nearly 3 weeks, and only a couple of posts for the last month.[snip] It's weird.
Doesn't surprise me at all. IME "discussing" anything there became pointless. History lessons and ideology seemed to be used to dodge answering practical questions. I didn't see many attempts to reach a middle ground, just dismissive reductio ad absurdum.
I am still waiting for a certain member still participating in this thread to provide practical suggestions on the issue of what to do with "liabilities". But I guess it's just easier to snicker and repeat talking points. In which case I'm done with this discussion, too.
I'm the one that said some are liabilities. You yourself mention that resources are not limitless. At some point we have to chose where our resources are spent. We are already making that choice. Thus some are sleeping in the park or under the bridge. That is their options at this time.
iris lilies
3-5-14, 12:18pm
The first post on social capital by pcooley was interesting. I agree with a PP that everything we wear projects a particular message. Sometimes the message is very quiet as in: wearer doesn't care much about clothes and pulls on any old thing that is clean and that fits. Other messages are much louder, from the fashionista crowd.
One web site where I hang out has a thread right now about the social message of engagement rings. The poster is from a very wealthy family, old money, where the women in the family may each have 1 ring, usually a diamond, and it is heirloom. It's not ostentatious. This poster is marrying a self-made man in her own profession (she doesn't have to work, but chooses to work.) She told him "please go out and buy a ring for me and surprise me with it." Well he surprised her all right with--horror of horrors--a 1.5 carat solitaire from Tiffany & Co.
In her family Tiffany is considered to be a mall store. It is declasse'.
So now she has a dilemma--tell the BF that he flunked her "test?" He wasn't able to discern that she really wanted something very very simple and not new? He wasn't able to read the secret code of her values that you don't spend thousands on rings because no one values them UNLESS they are old and have a history?
Ugh, the games that women play. The poor guy probably figured that a nice diamond in a simple setting was appropriate for her. The poor guy will have a lifetime of this, he needs to re-think this marriage thing.
Ha ha.[/I] A "10 cylinder, 9 mpg motorhome" is not a "penis-mobile" unless it's what you use as a regular grocery-getter. It's fit to a task; it's used for that purpose. Or it sits, rusting silently. No problem at all with that. But that wasn't the point of your comment, was it?
No it wasn't. The unsaid, yet implied point was that often, judgemental, blanket characterizations hit possibly unintended targets.
Doesn't surprise me at all. IME "discussing" anything there became pointless. History lessons and ideology seemed to be used to dodge answering practical questions. I didn't see many attempts to reach a middle ground, just dismissive reductio ad absurdum.
However, continuing to have those same "discussions" in other threads where rebuttals of reductio ad absurdum are less common seems to me to invalidate the complaint that it's the particular forum at fault. That's where my "weird" observation comes in.
I am still waiting for a certain member still participating in this thread to provide practical suggestions on the issue of what to do with "liabilities". But I guess it's just easier to snicker and repeat talking points. In which case I'm done with this discussion, too.I can't speak for that person but I think you might find the continuing discussion, which moved to the other forum, to be enlightening. Of course I'm talking about the subject itself, not the thoughts or beliefs of any particular member, so it may not be as satisfying as you might wish.
Speaking as a fan of the Public Policy forum, I'd love to see you engage over there.
SteveinMN-Based on your common sense and rational approach to these things, I am betting you are of Scandinavian heritage. I am reading a book now called the Almost Nearly Perfect People about the Scandinavian mindset. Overall, they don't tolerate waste or excess in themselves or others. DH and I joke about p---- cars or p----- houses quite a bit. There are just some people who feel the need to wear a big sign by virtue of their possessions. Lots of those honkin' big trucks down here in Texas.
The first post on social capital by pcooley was interesting. I agree with a PP that everything we wear projects a particular message. Sometimes the message is very quiet as in: wearer doesn't care much about clothes and pulls on any old thing that is clean and that fits. Other messages are much louder, from the fashionista crowd.
One web site where I hang out has a thread right now about the social message of engagement rings. The poster is from a very wealthy family, old money, where the women in the family may each have 1 ring, usually a diamond, and it is heirloom. It's not ostentatious. This poster is marrying a self-made man in her own profession (she doesn't have to work, but chooses to work.) She told him "please go out and buy a ring for me and surprise me with it." Well he surprised her all right with--horror of horrors--a 1.5 carat solitaire from Tiffany & Co.
In her family Tiffany is considered to be a mall store. It is declasse'.
So now she has a dilemma--tell the BF that he flunked her "test?" He wasn't able to discern that she really wanted something very very simple and not new? He wasn't able to read the secret code of her values that you don't spend thousands on rings because no one values them UNLESS they are old and have a history?
Ugh, the games that women play. The poor guy probably figured that a nice diamond in a simple setting was appropriate for her. The poor guy will have a lifetime of this, he needs to re-think this marriage thing.
Wow. I don't get it. I mean, I've seen women like that, but I still don't get it.
iris lilies
3-5-14, 2:19pm
Wow. I don't get it. I mean, I've seen women like that, but I still don't get it.
I know this is hard to believe but she actually sounds like a nice young women. She is well aware of her own family's snobbery and their secret status markers. But she wasn't aware that she sent her poor boyfriend out into the world with no information to navigate those same markers. She really wanted him to spend very little money in order to negate her upbringing. He tried to meet what he thought was her expectation, given her family background.
So I think she's going to learn form this: open communicaiton is key.
I got my wife a lovely .270 Winchester hunting rifle as an engagement "ring", so we could go hunting together more often. She still has it, we're still together, neither of us own diamonds.
I got my wife a lovely .270 Winchester hunting rifle as an engagement "ring", so we could go hunting together more often. She still has it, we're still together, neither of us own diamonds.
No diamonds here, either. Our anniversary gifts to each other are usually 10 yards of compost, a fruit tree, etc. This fall is our 10th wedding anniversary. We'll probably choose to travel somewhere inexpensive.
I had an engagement ring made for DW. It contained a few small diamonds from a ring of her mother's and a little larger one from a ring of my mom's. She lost it 2 or 3 times, but it always found its way home. Then it was stolen by a family member who was battling addiction and that was that. She never said a word about trying to replace it with anything and that's ok with me. I still have my $28 / 10 ct. gold wedding band from Service Merchandise on my hand. Haven't removed it since she slipped it on my finger 3 kids and a couple decades ago. Probably a miracle my finger hasn't turned green...
rodeosweetheart
3-6-14, 6:23pm
Ah Gregg, that is a really sweet story.
My husband has lost three wedding rings, from working on house to working on Alfa Romeo, etc.
Maybe he is trying to tell me something. . .
I don't wear jewelry myself, not even a watch. My wedding ring is in a box somewhere. But my wife likes to wear jewelry and diamonds and gold still have value. I have a friend who is a jeweler and I have bought a few diamonds from him from time to time when someone wants to sell to him. I pay at wholesale or less, so I either have the money sitting in the bank or have it made into something.
I have never sold any, but we have given some to our sons for their wifes wedding rings. We do carry extra insurance for it, but its not that expensive.
I guess I missed the part were jewelry is bad to have. Isn't it just another form of art? Its been around for a while now.
I guess I missed the part were jewelry is bad to have. Isn't it just another form of art? Its been around for a while now.
No, I don't think jewelry is bad to have at all. Many people love it. In India, women get lots of gold from their families for personal security of sorts--at least that's what I hear. It is beautiful, like art, as you said, and a really fun way of self-expression.
My own personal thing against it is that it has no intrinsic value. I know you can sell it for money, as long as other people value it, but in terms of its large "investment", you can't eat it, it doesn't keep you warm, and it's really just a pretty rock. Also, I have a very bad track record with expensive jewelry in terms of losing it. It's just not for me. Diamonds are NOT my best friend. Plus, their value is very artificially inflated.
For the record, I do LOVE cheap jewelry made by good artists.
And I responded to IL's post because I really don't understand how wrapped up some women get with their engagement ring expectations. In her story, all that ado from the woman's family just seems like a waste of time and stress. But to each his own.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.