|
TRANSITIONS
Ken Byers, Ph. D.
MEN AND MONEY
May 2000
Men and Money by Ken Byers
I was reading an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago about the
vast disparity of wealth in America. It compared the lives and
social/financial construct of a number of homeless men along with the
many thousands of people who make so much money that to waste time
thinking about spending it costs them money. The author borrowed a
"joking" phrase from a venture capitalist to describe it.
He called it the F.E.U., or Fundamental Economic Unit. It is "the
amount of money a person will spend without thinking about it, because
shopping around would not be worthwhile." For a commuter it might
be $3.50 for a fancy espresso whose raw ingredients cost 25 cents;
for a techno millionaire it might be half a million dollars, for a home
bought on a whim; for a homeless man it might be 99 cents for a hot cup
of coffee on a cold night at the Seven-Eleven.
Where I live, in the San Francisco area, the average F.E.U. has risen
so high that people bid twice the asking price for houses they haven't
even seen while the homeless population continues to increase at an
alarming rate. The latest government figures are for 1996 and one would
have to guess, if only by their observable numbers, that it has
increased dramatically in the succeeding four years. It is not
surprising to find, according to those statistics, men dominate among
the homeless. Among the single homeless population, the gender
ratio is 23 percent women vs. 77 percent men.
It is not my intention to make light of homeless women but it is a
huge subject and not really separable because may women are homeless due
to the irresponsibility of some, or many, men, often men making social
rules and laws. That stated, it is the masculine aspect I would like to
touch on and try to look at the role money plays in the process.
Until the industrial revolution the vast majority of the world had
only enough money to purchase those items they could not grow or make
themselves. Life, tough as it was, was about basic survival rather
than quality of life by comparison. Today's world is a far different
place and comparison of the kinds of consumable items, literally none of
which are produced by the end user, is the test of a successful life.
So the more money one has, the more successful he/she is seen to be.
There are, of course, alternate views of reality here, but this seems
the dominant one in our culture at this time.
Like it or not, correct or not, it is still the man who is perceived
by our society to be responsible for this accumulation of wealth and the
woman who is the primary benefactor. If the man fails to provide, the
woman generally makes other choices depending on her talents, abilities,
looks and position in life. This is a continuation of the kinds of
stereotypes that women revolted against during the past few decades...or
did they? Most research shows that, although less than forty years
ago, women still consider the level of income that a man is capable of
producing as a primary factor in their choice of a mate. There is
a biological basis for this reality. One can find an explanation of it
in Robert Wright's book, The Moral Animal (Vintage Books, 1994) and it
is the essence of the field of Evolutionary Psychology. It all boils
down to the idea that women are unconsciously driven by the need to
procreate (whether they choose to do so or not) and that successful
procreation is dependent on the choices a woman makes in selecting the
man to father her children and improve the species. When unsuccessful
choices are made the species deteriorates and goes extinct. Wright (and
Evolutionary Psychology) argue that the choice is biologically driven
and not available for social argument.
So, that's why the rich guys get the beautiful girls, and the
homeless guys have no hope at all. But does it have to end with that?
Perhaps if we learn to measure ourselves by the quality of our life
values and the rigor of our integrity, rather than our income potential,
we can also learn that these virtues can accomplish the same things in
the forward development of the species...and give us an edge in earning
a nice income besides. I'd like to suggest we begin to measure
ourselves with the F.E.U. mentioned above but change the definition to
Fundamental Evolutionary Unit which would reference how we are making
ourselves better people, more aware and responsible men, more capable
friends, fathers and sons and so that we can truly deserve the rich
girls that are coming up fast behind us.
©Copyright 2000, Kenneth F. Byers
Dr. Ken Byers is a personal coaching professional with a thirty year
background in business, industry and therapy. He specializes in
telephone based Men's Life Coaching and cross-gender personal coaching,
helping businesses and individuals identify, define and achieve their
life vision through Essential Self-management Technology.
Ken can be reached at: 415/239-6929
E-mail: mekendar@pacbell.net Website: http://www.etropolis.com/coachken/.
IC F Website: http://www.coachfederation.org/~icfcrs/coach_display.cgi?ID=1000721
©Copyright 2000, Kenneth F. Byers
Dr. Ken Byers is a coaching professional with a thirty year background
in business, industry and therapy. He specializes in telephone based Men's Life Coaching and cross-gender personal coaching, helping businesses and individuals identify, define and achieve their Vision through Essential Self-management Technology.
Ken can be reached at: 415/239-6929
E-mail:
mekendar@pacbell.net
Website:
http://www.etropolis.com/coachken/.
TheMensCenter
MENSIGHT
| 
