From time to time when I get bored, I’ll browse through Wikipedia reviewing different topics that happen to pop into my mind (and seeing where the cross-links take me). And today was one of those days.
One particular topic that had always intrigued me was “Trickle-Down Economics”, as it seems so illogical on the face of it … and it seems to work equally dismally in practice.
And yet much has been accomplished politically in that direction, notably including big tax cuts slanted toward the top brackets by past American presidents including Reagan and Bush (the Younger).
To recap, the theory holds that giving more wealth to the already wealthy layers of society will in turn result in making the poor better off, as that extra wealth at the top layers will eventually “trickle down” to those below. It’s sort of a similar metaphor for rainwater that trickles down through the soil to the water table far below.
To some degree, it probably does work that way on a limited basis … doubling the net worth of a billionaire probably would prompt him to buy a bigger yacht (benefiting some shipyard workers if the yacht was American-made). And he’d probably add a few more mistresses, trade up to a newer trophy wife or at least spend more on the ones he had.
Not so amazingly enough, this trickle-down theory (euphemistically called “supply-side economics” to make it more politically palatable) sounds like a great idea to the wealthy folks at the top of the economic food chain.
“Trickle-Down” versus “Trickle-Up”
But it’s hard to imagine how the resulting benefit to the lower socioeconomic layers would be anywhere near as large as if the process had been reversed (as had been suggested in William Jennings Bryan’s famous “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896). His counter-proposal was that:
“… if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them.”
I like to think of that concept as the “trickle-up” theory.
But although I’ve long been fascinated with topics in economics, that’s not an exciting area of discussion for many people. In romance, however, there’s a parallel to that “trickle-down” theory.
Dating, Relating and Mating
There’s no official name for this version, so I’ve had to invent my own descriptive phrase for it: “Do more … and expect less in return”.
If you read through most of the published advice on dating, relating and mating that has ostensibly been targeted toward men in the last few decades, the underlying themes can usually be condensed down to the maxims of “Do more” and “Expect less in return”.
It all focuses on the woman. That is, if you’re not doing as well as you might like in the dating, relating and mating arena, then you’re not doing enough for her. And/or you’re expecting too much from her in return. So you should work harder at it and settle for less from her.
Enduring Cultural Imperatives
That sort of lopsided payoff matrix for men was necessary in an earlier era, when the strength of the family was the key to survival both of the individual and of the society. Toward that end, men’s needs were sublimated for “the greater good” of the women, the children and therefore the society as a whole.
But in modern societies, sublimation of male’s needs is no longer absolutely necessary as governments have taken over many of the protection and safety net duties that once had to be provided for families by individual men.
However, cultural practices do seem to gain a life of their own. Consider for example that the “summer vacation” given to students in elementary and high schools persists even today despite the underlying rationale for it (so that the children could help out with planting and harvesting chores a century or more ago when America was still a largely agrarian country) no longer being relevant.
And quite similarly to the trickle-down theory of economics, this “trickle-down theory of romance” is popular with its ultimate beneficiaries (women, in this case). Unsurprisingly, women are often rather fond of having men place women’s needs above their own and therefore tend to be eager to maintain that aspect of the existing status quo.
”What’s in it for you?”
The one snag with trickle-down romance advice is that it’s bad advice for the men who accept it at face value. In a way it’s analogous to the advice that is sometimes given to job-seekers to work as hard as possible and accept as low a wage as possible in order to make yourself “more attractive” to employers.
Sure, that may be a good deal for employers but what’s in it for you?
At best, you’ll “just get by” financially, and that’s the main reason for working: the financial rewards. Even if you do succeed (by successfully benefiting your employer), you’ll still fail (in terms of your own benefit received).
The reality is that most employers will take advantage of employees who will settle for that sort of minimal treatment. And most women will do the same with the men who will settle for minimal treatment.
In both cases, that’s just human nature and it’s easy for the perpetrators to justify. After all, why should they respect you if you have so little self-respect that you allow yourself to be treated that way? If you deserved more, you’d demand more.
“… Don’t settle for crumbs …”
The better strategy is to stand up for yourself. Don’t settle for crumbs. If you’re light on qualifications, then by all means work on improving on those qualifications. But insist on fair treatment. And never be afraid to walk away from an overly lopsided arrangement.
Don’t hope for the trickle-down effect; rather, insist on getting good results. And move on to potentially greener pastures if those results aren’t forthcoming fairly quickly.
Stay tuned,
Mack Doppler
