Money - or ambition? - and the City

A friend of mine pointed out last night that, in the last year in New York City, he has been shocked by the way his female friends have discussed their human relationships. To quote,

The typical American 'Sex and the City' girl [sees] the boyfriend as a 'deal', and going out together as 'a return on investment', and so forth... The city sport for these girls is to capture the richest guy.

Although I was quick to denounce the so-called 'Sex and the City' girl, this morning I found myself reconsidering the topic, mainly as a result of my own realised habits. What exactly is the thought process behind this typified girl, and how prevalent and common is it? (Note: all 'he' and 'him' written below are interchangeable with 'she' and 'her')

To be sure, it only took a second to mentally create the image of what my friend labeled as the 'Sex and the City' girl: she is the shopper at sales (because no branded item is clearly worth more than $50), the occasional mani-pedi client, the yoga- or pilate-enthusiast after work, who has at least a bachelor's degree from a reknown university and a decently paying job, who attends the sunday brunch with the girlfriends, and then, over a cosmopolitan or a martini or a glass of red wine, talks about her recent (and most likely, failed) date with a man of similar social status, background, and mentality. The immediate topic of discussion becomes his occupation, his firm, his income bracket, and his interests.

Like I said, I was quick to tell him that I'm increasingly weary of people who describe human relationships in market terminology, and that my humble opinion was that while human psychology has much to do with the way the macroeconomy functions, macroeconomic theory and the world of finance can only help explain a small aspect - albeit a crucial component - of human behaviour.

To be fair, I noted, for the longest time men have commodified women, perhaps not necessarily in market/financial terminology but through other means. Only with the rise and subsequent radicalisation of feminism - subversively through media outlets like Sex and the City, Calvin Klein adverts, and maybe more officially through political activism of sorts - did women start commodifying men, at least in the western world, and hence you get stuff like dinner or gifting as a "return on investment" and by proxy, the whole obsession over who pays the bill at the end of the evening, etc etc. So in this way both parties are at fault for the mass commodification of genders.

The primary reason why I'm weary of relationships being described that way is because it glosses over all the important stuff about human relationships (whether it's familial, friendship, mentorship, etc) and prioritises all the stuff that really doesn't matter. They take the icing and forget about the cake. And it's quite mediocre and unfortunate that the 'cake' falls by the wayside.

And one more thing - people who care so little to put their relations into such terms often have little respect for others, let alone for themselves, constructing this false sense of security. And that really bothers me. "Who do you think you are?" becomes the imminent question.

But then, if you 'strip' the 'Sex and the City' girl, so to speak, you come down to a simple, naked fact: we always weigh the costs against the benefits, and take in the pros with the cons. The questions we ask ourselves make a pretty long list: Does he have a good job? Is he good at what he does? How much does he earn? How does he dress? Where does he live? Where did he go to school? Will he really call? Will he call back? Where will we go for our date? Will he pay the dinner bill? And so on and so forth, you get the idea.

Surely this decision-making process isn't such an abominable act?

After some thought I came to the conclusion that there are at least two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, we may all just be obsessed with someone's job title or income bracket or their material assets residing in their apartment. Perhaps after a few years of failed, disappointing, or somewhat mediocre human relationships (friendship, romantic, mentorship, or whatever) we may find both security and solace in someone who shares similar values. Even better would be a situation in which the benefit outweights the cost - they supplement whatever you lack, be it money, status, etc.

On the other hand, maybe everyone actually realises that the less-monetary characteristics are crucial, and yet fail to communicate that recognition as effectively as they truly could. In short, the answers to the aforementioned list of questions merely become indicators of non-monetary characteristics. The fact that he has a good job at a good company, earns good money, and is good at what he does could just mean that he is ambitious. The fact that he calls back, has chosen a restaurant for the date and will pay the bill at the end of the night might indicate roots in chivalry and consideration for their partner.

This latter view would mean that even though we suck at communicating it, we are all actually just attracted to the causes of the effect - the underlying characteristics that result in a good job, a nice apartment, and fabulous style. Of course, all these indicators could also be negative. They could be indicative of greed, immaturity, selfishness, disrespect, etc. But that's not the point. Because more importantly, the fact that we hope that a good job, good pay, and a good apartment are all indicative of ambition, chivalry, or whatever, speaks to the underlying values of the judge (i.e. us). We want someone with ambition, intelligence, compassion (to take chivalry more broadly across both genders), consideration, respect, and then if they have a good job, good pay, good apartment and fabulous style in addition, well, that's just great, isn't it?

What has happened is that, at some point in time, the way we communicate all these things that we want became warped, so that we now convey our preference for certain indicators - the money, the sex - first, before we convey our preference for the relevant characteristic.

This may have been a result of a historically and socially implanted positive relationship between a good job and good values, even though the wiser in us all inherently know that that's a very flimsy correlation. Maybe it is exacerbated by the stresses of the daily life, the pressures of the working world, the jade that comes with age, and the insecurity we feel at the end of the day. Maybe we just want it all - the job and the pay with the ambition, the intelligence, the respect and compassion combined with the great body and style. And I'm not about to speculate on why we want all these things. But regardless of whether this is inevitable or preventable, admirable or dispicable, it's certainly something to be aware of.

And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge the 'Sex and the City' girl/boy as a pebble in a pile of rubble - it may just become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Read more!

Commodified complacency

Earlier this week, one Google Alert email, among the bazillion of others that bombard my work inbox daily, caught my attention: “The state of dating on Wall Street,” it read. The link led me to a Fortune Magazine article called “Wall Street’s $25,000 matchmaker.” Compared to the other bland (but sometimes exciting in a geeky sort of way) items I read in my morning hours, this one seemed much more entertaining.

As it turned out – entertaining it was, but at the same time, unreal. A matchmaker that costs that much money, to me, seems to undermine the whole idea of a matchmaker, not least because it’s simply idiotic to hash out $25,000 (that’s one year’s worth of university education in some places!) to find someone to date. Doesn’t the fact that you would pay $25K for a dating service say something quite significant about yourself, beyond how much discretionary spending money you have? Or has certain parts of society reached a stage where spending thousands of dollars to find a good match is totally justifiable by reasons such as lack of time available, lack of opportunities to meet people – and what does that say about society itself?

Of all the industries to be considered as consumer discretionary, one would think that third-party dating services would be one of them. But apparently, such is not the case and south Manhattan is by no means the exception to the rule. Because when times get tough, purse strings get tighter but the heart gets looser. Or, at least more amenable to romantic possibilities. Internet dating – Match.com, OKCupid, DatingDirect, eHarmony, and the like – has seen more subscribers, for reasons ranging from more time available to devote to one’s private life, a perceived need for a supportive companion, and a means to split costs.

That’s all well and fine, but a matchmaking service that costs $25,000 seems rather crazy, especially considering the insight Samantha Daniels is giving. To the question, “Now that "I'm a hedge-funder" no longer does the trick, how would you advise bankers to market themselves romantically?” Daniels gave the following answer:

When you meet a woman, you should go back to the basics of who you are as a person – how you live your life, your interests. But it's also good to let someone know that you're doing well and have a stable job in this environment. The number one thing women are attracted to is confidence.

Right. In my humble opinion, that there are people out there who need to be reminded that on your first date, you don’t firstly talk about your income level (“I have an annual salary of $100,000 plus a $50,000 bonus”) and your job title (“I’m vice president of ___”) and the company you work for (“I work for JP Morgan, which is one of the few first-tier investment banks left in the world”), seems simply bizarre. Obviously, if that’s your starting point, then you’ve effectively narrowed yourself down to a pool of people who are looking for exactly those qualities, not the ones who look beyond that. So follows the question, “How do you convey financial stability without handing over tax statements?” and the answer, “My clients have a lot of toys and own a lot of homes. But if you tell someone that you own your own plane on a first date, it sounds like you're overcompensating for something.” Hammer that last nail in the coffin, why don’t you.

Of course, if that’s what you’re looking for, then good for you. By choosing a service such as Samantha’s Table, one does filter out those who allegedly wouldn’t be described as “ultra-successful, ultra-busy, ultra-cultured, and the ultra-educated.” But clearly, Daniels’ clients are not all looking to dig gold (or are they?), as the fact that her clients would pay $25K shows that people are doing whatever they can to find a good match, and one of such criteria – not the only – happens to hinge on income level (see “Money – or ambition? – and the City”).

What ultimately really bothers me about the proliferation of ‘exclusive’ dating services is that, it’s another way by which social categorization is effectuated. It’s subversive because it plays on our tendency towards the familiar, our fear of the unfamiliar, and our preference for convenience. It produces, encourages, and glorifies a social structure that is really based on purchasing power but is masked with labels like ‘success’, ‘culture’, and ‘intelligence’.

Surely, there is nothing wrong with someone seeking another of similar social standing, income, education, background, along with interests, lifestyles, hobbies, and the like. Just as our nature to greed, to hunger, and to reason can never be fully satisfied, nor will our tendency to stick with what we know, seek stability, and choose the easier way out. And to be sure, the subject of these actions can vary: we can greed for wealth or for justice, we can hunger for food or knowledge, we can reason with someone or out of a situation. But to put in place purchasable services that banks on people being lazy about human relationships can’t do very much good.

After all, relationships are supposed to require effort, pull you out of your comfort zones, make you think – often both about the other person as well of yourself – and push you to strike a balance for pretty much everything between you and your partner. They are full of prolonged sessions of diplomacy that for some eventuates in years of peace and hopefully, brief moments of turmoil. A service that tries to get you out of doing that will only make one complacent and naïve about what it takes to build human relationships, break them, and find ways to rebuild them.
Read more!