Ey, remember that Ask Code Switch in which a (non-Black) woman of color who made twice what her white, upper-middle class partner asked if she should ask him to pay more than her for things? And we sorta sided with her and people lost. their. shit?
good times.
good times.
(to this day, that might be the most contentious Ask Code Switch question/answer we've ever taken on.)
anyway, we had a chance to revisit that convo at length at this series of mini-talks we gave up in NYC this week. we were at this place that does...well, i'm not sure what they do, but the office was full of young folks and signs about "inspiration" and "market share."
so what they do is capitalism.
anyway, @AskLeezul and i were giving the "diversity" talk — turns toward camera — but Leah (and Shereen, who wasn't there) decided to spice it up by having us play both that question and the two very diff answers we got from the experts we spoke to.
woooo. y'all.
woooo. y'all.
so in these convos this week (as in the responses when that episode originally dropped), the people who disagreed were like "wait, so she wants her boyfriend to give her reparations?"
and that's revealing for a few reasons, but it was clear that that's NOT what she was saying.
and that's revealing for a few reasons, but it was clear that that's NOT what she was saying.
more context tk, but the first expert, a BW and a personal finance columnist, is like "it's the income they're bringing to the relationship that matters. it's not *his* fault that he comes from wealth and she doesn't. he shouldn't have to shoulder that in their relationship."
*turns to camera again*
the second expert is an economist (and also a BW): @janellecj. She's like, "hell YEAH, he should pay more and here's why." she talks about the wealth gap, and the differences between wages and wealth, and how a high-income earner with no wealth has little stability, etc.
people were not having it. and i expected the white folks to not get it, but just like when that ep first dropped, the people who were most resistant to it were women of color.
(there were about 100 people across our sessions total, and 5 Black men in our sessions all day, and i'm sad to say that these brothers did not cover themselves in glory. Only ONE was not on some bullshit.)
i should correct that and say, the people who were the biggest wild cards were women of color. Like some of them were like, "absolutely not! that's not fair to my white partner" and others were like "how is this even a question???"
more TK.
meeting.
meeting.
okay, back.
so yeah, as these conversations went on over the day — there were five separate sessions — and I kept hearing the experts' tape over and over again, i became even more convinced that @janellecj was right on this one.
it's not surprising that a financial advisor, who thinks abt wealthy up close and personally, and an economist who thinks about wealth in averages and aggregates, landed in diff places on this.
but i think the responses to their positions gets at how bringing up race, even among a lot of people of color, still clouds people's thinking.
a thing we heard a lot of when the ep drop and just this week was: "my relationship is not abt society! it's about me and my partner."
a thing we heard a lot of when the ep drop and just this week was: "my relationship is not abt society! it's about me and my partner."
these are Black/brown people saying this.
like, what kind of relationships are these people in that societal forces and history have no consequences for them?
like, what kind of relationships are these people in that societal forces and history have no consequences for them?
okay, so some background on the woman who wrote in with the question:
her: first-gen college student of color, makes twice what her dude makes.
him: from a family she described as "upper middle class" but also which she said owns beachside cottages. plural.
her: first-gen college student of color, makes twice what her dude makes.
him: from a family she described as "upper middle class" but also which she said owns beachside cottages. plural.
actually, lemme correct this. She said "MUCH more" than he makes. my bad.
now if you're first-gen college student, you prolly immediately see all the issues here.
She might be making 150k and carrying something close to 100k in student loan debt, with all sorts of financial obligations to her family.
She might be making 150k and carrying something close to 100k in student loan debt, with all sorts of financial obligations to her family.
He might make waaaay less than her and, because of his family's wealth, is way less vulnerable than she is. he could more easily cover the startup costs for adulthood — security deposits for housing, car notes, etc.
There are all sorts of quieter ways his family wealth shows up, even if it's not money from his parents going directly into his pocket. He has more flexibility in employment than she has — he can take jobs or pursue a career because it's in a field he's interested in.
he's not susceptible to shocks in the economy the same way or whatever.
And as one Black woman in a session pointed out, her money also doesn't move like his. there are homes she won't be able to buy and loans she won't be able to get BECAUSE she's not white.
And as one Black woman in a session pointed out, her money also doesn't move like his. there are homes she won't be able to buy and loans she won't be able to get BECAUSE she's not white.
so what equity looks like in their relationship is actually not at all abt their income.
And the fact that she is a first-gen student and his family has been stacking wealth for generations is bc of historical discrimination and contemporary, ongoing discrimination.
And the fact that she is a first-gen student and his family has been stacking wealth for generations is bc of historical discrimination and contemporary, ongoing discrimination.
it actually costs her more over the long term to go 50/50 re: income. she's not saving that money; he ain't gotta save. and she might have access to some of his wealth if they get married, but what if that's not what she wants or they don't make it that far??
tuh.
tuh.
And since women's earnings tail off once they have children, these might be her prime income-earning years.
So what she's saying is: should i talk to my partner abt how racism and sexism make me uniquely financially vulnerable in a way that you aren't?
So what she's saying is: should i talk to my partner abt how racism and sexism make me uniquely financially vulnerable in a way that you aren't?
can you pay more in the name of equity so this relationship is actually fair and just?
like.
i really can't figure out why this made people so mad.
there was a woman in a session — a Black woman — in one session who was telling us about how much harder her professional road has been, and how she estimated that she's three years behind where she should be.
i really can't figure out why this made people so mad.
there was a woman in a session — a Black woman — in one session who was telling us about how much harder her professional road has been, and how she estimated that she's three years behind where she should be.
despite graduating cum laude and despite her five internships, she was making less than similarly aged/situated colleagues. I asked her why she thought this was. she said it was because "external factors outside of herself."
ma'am!
and she was not having any of this argument!
ma'am!
and she was not having any of this argument!
"if i had a white partner, why is my income situation his problem? that's not fair to him. he shouldn't have to solve racism by paying me reparations."
siiiigh.
it was a LOT.
siiiigh.
it was a LOT.
it was a really fascinating set of convos. And again, the vocal variation between BW/WOC in them swung so widely.
BM, again, were consistently on some bullshit. "women like to be paid for so as the man, we are supposed to be hunters and..."
BM, again, were consistently on some bullshit. "women like to be paid for so as the man, we are supposed to be hunters and..."
THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT THIS CONVO IS ABOUT, PLAYBOY
they were consistently wrong abt an a tangentially related conversation
you hate to see it
but yeah, not much variation there
you hate to see it
but yeah, not much variation there
people were mad
1.
1.
2.
3.
"Bringing the macro-issues into into a loving relationship is just fucked."
like. i don't know if this is some NBPOC shit, but...imma be Black in any relationship i'm in, and the drag of antiblackness is going to play out in my relationship whether we talk abt it or not.
like. i don't know if this is some NBPOC shit, but...imma be Black in any relationship i'm in, and the drag of antiblackness is going to play out in my relationship whether we talk abt it or not.
are these ppl not going to talk about race with their biracial kids? or are they on that "swirling will save us all" shit?
ionno, man.
you're talking about finances with your partner, presumably. you're talking abt your respective means, presumably. but explicitly making it clear that the conditions that make it so you two have disparate means are ongoing and intractable is outta bounds???
k.
you're talking about finances with your partner, presumably. you're talking abt your respective means, presumably. but explicitly making it clear that the conditions that make it so you two have disparate means are ongoing and intractable is outta bounds???
k.
"white supremacy is as system with consequences for people of color and redounds to benefit of white people...except my boo. you leave them outta this!"
