What would you do for money?
Would you flip burgers?
Would you work overtime?
Would you cold-call to sell people products they don't need?
Would you evict a poor tenant?
Would you pollute a community?
Would you sell medicine to the sick and needy?
Would you build cluster bombs?
Would you sell out your nation?
Would you bring down the World Trade Center to kick off WWIII?
Many of these you wouldn't do, though others would (and did).
But, what about marrying someone you're not physically attracted to?
Women regard healthy finances as more important than good looks in a man, according to a survey[.]Before you jump to stereotypical conclusions about men, women and money. Let's examine this carefully.
Almost half (45 percent) said a healthy bank balance is more significant than physical attractiveness in a potential partner, according to National Savings & Investments' (NS&I) latest quarterly savings survey.
Just 22 percent of men, however, rate finances above looks in women.
Who conducted this survey? And what do they want us to believe?
In 1861 the Palmerston Government set up the "Post Office Savings Bank" - a simple savings scheme aiming to encourage ordinary wage earners "to provide for themselves against adversity and ill health".This of course is in England. But, the same sh*t happens here in America.
The scheme [emphasis mine] quickly became very popular, and the deposits found their way from the Post Office to the Exchequer, providing a fund which the then Chancellor, Gladstone, could borrow for putting towards public spending.* * *
Significant expansion over the next century included the introduction of Savings Certificates during the First World War to help finance the war effort[.]
They tells us to 'work hard' and 'save' our money 'for a rainy day.' Meanwhile, they spend it on wars of conquest on behalf of corporations nurtured by the same political traitors who supposedly watch over our 'savings' in good faith.
Getting back to the subject of what you would do - or sacrifice - for money, it should be obvious that an entity like National Savings & Investments benefits when more and more people 'save their money' and subsequently 'invest it' with them. So, they have a vested interest in making people believe that money is more important to relationships than it really is.
That is not to say that the results of their survey are inaccurate - unfortunately, many find money very important - it merely indicates a conflict of interest and a reason to scrutinize the survey for bias. For example, notice that the report fails to mention the parameters of the survey - like how many people they interviewed and their socio-economic upbringing. Readers are supposed to simply accept that most people feel this way about relationships and money.
Nevertheless, probably most readers are not surprised at the results because, to some degree or another, money seems to be increasingly important in relationships these days. But, Why?
Is it because people think that 'money can buy happiness,' like the senior savings strategist at NS&I suggests?
Or, is it more likely because people think that money can buy security? Or at least give the false impression of security.
That would explain why women find 'financial security' more important in a relationship than men do, since historically women earn less money than men (perhaps because they are less willing to exploit others for money), and by nature women are more vulnerable than men in general, and during child-rearing specifically.
Thus, the disparity between men's and women's attitudes toward money and relationships does not necessarily reflect a more materialistic outlook for women, or a more carnal outlook for men, but merely mirrors their natural state of vulnerability, hence women's increased willingness to trade some pleasures for the promise of security money offers.
Unfortunately, like the forbidden apple Adam and Eve fell for in the garden, having money 'in the bank' offers nothing but a false sense of security plus a whole host of other evils which accompany the concentration of large sums of money in the hands of a few greedy souls who would do ANYTHING to secure money and the power that accompanies it.
Indeed, by foolishly putting our faith in 'money' and in turn trusting bankers to 'invest it' we actually empower the same greedy bastards who make life less secure for us by consolidating our industries, outsourcing our jobs, and increasing our cost of living without regard for consequences on people and the environment.
So, who benefits from a trend that sees more and more people requiring their potential mates to have large amounts of money in the bank to qualify as a candidate for marriage? Not working women or working men - but bankers.
This kind of survey, and the feelings of disdain for relationships it engenders, serves only to exacerbate tensions between men and women (who tend to fear one another's motives) and increase our dependency on money and bankers.
To men it says, women love you for your money - so get more of it. To women it says, men love you for your looks, leaving them feeling insecure and making it more likely that they'll demand more money so that when men eventually leave them for a prettier woman, they have their money to rely on. In short, it's a vicious cycle - a self-fulfilling prophecy that only enriches bankers and insurers.
Wakeup people. We're being had on a grand scale. George Carlin was right on target - "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Bankers sell us security - for everything from our homes, to our health, to our retirement, to our national defense - but they deliver only lies and corruption.
Don't trade your soul for a false sense of security. Put your faith in God and eachother - not in money - you neither know where it's going or where it's been.