High Maintenance?

[Nika]

The shoes that I am wearing now were $40 at Kohls and they feel great. $550? Why? Where did you get them at? What is so special about them?

They were Thierry Rabotin shoes, and the only special thing about them is that they are super-light, comfortable, and have a 2.5 inch heel.

I have tried hundreds of shoes in hope of finding something -- from cheap brands like Aerosoles, mid-range like Cole Haan and Kenneth Cole, and hundreds of high-end ones like Tods, Gucci, Chanel, Tory Burch, Ferragamo (they are pretty but so inflexible, you can hammer nails with those shoes!). It is frustrating to see so many gorgeous shoes that SUCK!

[disneysteve]

I have tried hundreds of shoes in hope of finding something -- from cheap brands like Aerosoles, mid-range like Cole Haan and Kenneth Cole, and hundreds of high-end ones like Tods, Gucci, Chanel, Tory Burch, Ferragamo (they are pretty but so inflexible, you can hammer nails with those shoes!). It is frustrating to see so many gorgeous shoes that SUCK!

I think many fancy designer shoes are all about looks. It doesn't matter if they make your feet hurt as long as they're pretty. While I can't speak from experience, I think you get better quality, support and comfort from something simple like Rockport (for guys - can't speak for the women). I wear Rockports to work every day and have never had a problem.

[BuckyBadger]

Lord, it must be exhausting to be so judgmental!

Why does anyone care what people spend on their stuff? I understand if someone is complaining about being poor and then spending hundreds on a pair of shoes. That's annoying, I agree. But if someone wants a pair of $400 shoes and that same person can pay for that $400 pair of shoes without in turn living on the street, why do you care?

I am pretty damn low maintenance. I can shower in 10 minutes, throw my wet hair back in a ponytail, and go out and about with no makeup on. But sometimes when I'm going somewhere fancy I'll blow out my hair, shave my legs, and put on some makeup. I have one purse from Coach that cost $175. I have a few pairs of nice shoes that I got when the outlet mall store was going out of business.

So if you happen to catch me on a day that I got a little dressed up, am wearing my nice shoes, am carrying my Coach purse, and have on makeup you're going to label me high maintenance and condemn me as undatable? Your world must get really small really fast.

But on to the question at hand.

I think being "high maintenance" is more emotional than monetary. There are plenty of high maintenance people who have nothing and spend nothing and there are plenty of down to earth rich people. For cases of the first, watch Teen Moms on MTV. For cases of the second, come hang out at my barn where wealthy women get tossed off into the dirt from their horses, muck stalls, and get sneezed on constantly.

[disneysteve]

I think being "high maintenance" is more emotional than monetary.

That's a great way to put it. I know people who earn a ton of money and have really nice (and expensive) stuff who I don't consider high maintenance. They buy what they like and can afford and that's great. But I also know people who are of much more modest means but are totally high maintenance even if there isn't much (or any) money involved.

Getting back to the orginal question, yes, how someone handles money is totally important to me for dating (back when I was dating) and how high maintenance someone is is totally important to me for dating (back when I was dating).

[YLTL_Dan]

Hey, I have standards. They're low, but they're still there
So it takes your wife over an hour to get ready to go out without make-up?

Haha.. no, it has taken her an hour with make-up*

*It doesn't take an hour every time**
**but I feel like it does

[nick__45]

My Red Wing cost 300 dollars. I am sure people can adequately protect their feet with Walmart steel toes for a few days or even weeks, doing the same type of work I do. However, their feet will be trashed from such low quality. This is why so many people in America have foot problem and there are markets catering to folks with such problem; however, people are too dumb and cheap to do prevention.

Without needing steel toes, waterproof, puncture proof, electrical hazard, and other protection I would be happy with a 40 dollars pair Asic or Puma shoes when they are on sale. Even Nike Air or good New Balance shoes can be had for under 50 dollars for the higher end edition when there is a sale going on. But for work boots, it is more important to prevent problem from occurring then wasting time and money at doctor offices to find a temporarily relief.

[nick__45]

I think many fancy designer shoes are all about looks. It doesn't matter if they make your feet hurt as long as they're pretty. While I can't speak from experience, I think you get better quality, support and comfort from something simple like Rockport (for guys - can't speak for the women). I wear Rockports to work every day and have never had a problem.

If only Rockports makes steel toes.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Bucky she's commenting that women who are successful, professional, between 25 and 35 aren't getting married because they are primary breadwinners.

I pointed out it's because they are high maintenance. There are plenty of women that age getting married who are career oriented, successful, professional who find someone. I also pointed out that a lot of friends who married at 38, said after 35 a lot of their standards in dating changed.

They became more open minded about the types of men they date. Divorced with kids, bald, shorter, older, musician/teachers (low pay or less educated) but they were happy. Something they didn't do when they were younger.

And I agree high maintenance is a more than the car and purse and shoes, it's the whole package. I think it's more when the person cares more about appearances and material things than just the person themselves.

[thekid]

I remember having backed away in the early dating stages when the person seemed to have bad money management skills/CC debt, etc. I meet my wife when I was 24, so prior dating was in university and before and I can assure that I wasn't thinking of a partner in terms of their financial situation, it's that bad money management skills are often symptomatic of other personality traits (lack of discipline, lack of maturity, lack of planning skills, etc.) that were not what I was looking for in a long term partner (even if it wasn't exactly well articulated in my mind). I choose to get serious with my wife because, in no small part, she was serious, trustworthy and family oriented...someone you can build with. Honnestly, finding that is fairly difficult in your 20s. My wife is low maintenance, but she could have been high maintenance (as in liked to buy nice things) and I would not have cared if she could have afforted it and it made overall sense. The important thing for me is the personality traits and whether or not a person is in control of their life, not whether somebody spends or not (I think there is fault with being too frugal as there is with being too much of a spender...none of it makes sense outside of a plan).

btw, I'm the 100$ Rockport type of shoe guy. I've heard from many european friends that the quality of shoes here is attrocious. A pair of work shoes (black dress shoes) lasts me about a year. I've often heard that higher quality shoes (in the 200$-300$ range) do last longer, I've just never tried it (I'm the typical guy that walks into a store once a year and basically buys the same shoes over and over, when on sale ) but if, say, a 200$ shoe lasts 2 solid years as opposed to 1 year for the 100$ shoes, then both shoes are the same price. I have a feeling that it won't work out that way and since I don't actually care about shoes, I don't pay a premium for it (beyond what is required to look fine for work purposes -suit and tie office job).

[thekid]

As in aside, I don't think I've meet many guys (outside of a few outdated types) that would be put off by smart, driven women. Those are usually strong pluses for many guys. Sounds like an easy excuse (ie. i'm single because i'm too smart and driven and it scares guys).

[NuggetBrain]

Bucky she's commenting that women who are successful, professional, between 25 and 35 aren't getting married because they are primary breadwinners.

I pointed out it's because they are high maintenance. There are plenty of women that age getting married who are career oriented, successful, professional who find someone. I also pointed out that a lot of friends who married at 38, said after 35 a lot of their standards in dating changed.

They became more open minded about the types of men they date. Divorced with kids, bald, shorter, older, musician/teachers (low pay or less educated) but they were happy. Something they didn't do when they were younger.

And I agree high maintenance is a more than the car and purse and shoes, it's the whole package. I think it's more when the person cares more about appearances and material things than just the person themselves.

Or, here's a thought. Maybe they just don't want to get married. Maybe they're tired of hearing people talk about how they "should be married by now" or trying to get them to go out on dates so they use the primary breadwinner excuse. Maybe they're more focused on their career right now. Maybe the guys they know ARE intimidated by them. Maybe they have some emotional or financial issue with marriage. Maybe they can't get married because they're gay.

There are probably far more women that aren't getting married for reasons OTHER than they're "high maintenance".

[disneysteve]

Or, here's a thought. Maybe they just don't want to get married. Maybe they're tired of hearing people talk about how they "should be married by now" or trying to get them to go out on dates so they use the primary breadwinner excuse. Maybe they're more focused on their career right now. Maybe the guys they know ARE intimidated by them. Maybe they have some emotional or financial issue with marriage. Maybe they can't get married because they're gay.

There are probably far more women that aren't getting married for reasons OTHER than they're "high maintenance".

Very good point. Once effect of women entering the workforce is that many no longer need a man to take care of them, to provide for them. Many working women are quite capable of taking care of themselves. Not all want a life partner. I know a number of older single women, some have never been married. Some were married and later divorced for one reason or another and are now content to live independently. Perhaps it doesn't fit society's definition of "normal" whatever that is, but if it works for them, so be it.

[NuggetBrain]

Not to mention there is nothing on earth more annoying then when your female friends start getting married, and either a) decide that, since they've joined the ranks of married folk, they need to bring you into the fold as well. As quickly as possible. Or b) they are suddenly looking at you with either pity or smugness (which the "high maintenance" falls into for me because, honestly, I think it's a way to make it "understandable" as to why other women aren't married) because you're still single.

I was with my husband for 9 years before we got married. By the time we were 25 people were already squawking about why we weren't married yet. I can only imagine how much more obnoxious it must be for single women in their late 20's onwards.

[thekid]

The blog starts with "when women lament their single status or worry about the trends which point to ever fewer desirable men available"....that doesn't seem to indicate that they want to remain single.

No doubt there is social pressure to get married (my wife and I married at 32 after being together 8 years) and social pressure to have a baby and then to have another baby. Then, maybe not so much pressure to have a third, and probably reverse pressure if you want 4-5 or more. That's the way society works, it pushes individuals towards conformity with the norm of the group. It's part of being a complex social animal. Whatever, great news is you can ignore it and live YOUR live (we choose to travel alot, get set in our careers and really know each other before pulling the trigger and getting married and having children and that's worked well for us, so what do I care what others may have thought).

If a person trully wants to remain uncommitted and single, more power to ya. Sure you'll face social pressure to conform, but so what?...you are free and if you are sure that's what you want....you can have it your way and be happy.

However, I didn't actually get that from that blog nor is it my perception that very many people want to remain single. I actually think that what they really want is to be in a long term relationship, but are not necessarily ready to make the required compromises and commitments. Marriages/long term relationships are hard work. You have to be fully committed to making it work, you can't just dabble in them or expect it to work automatically. Marriages/long term relationships are even more difficult when both are equal, both are financially independent, both are college educated, etc. It sure is much easier to make a relationship work when one is dominant, than when you are a team of equals basically sharing (most of) life together. If either partner comes in with thoughts of "I don't need this", "I'm my own person and can make my own decisions" and whatnot, it's going to be difficult. I think you need two people focused primarily on making the unit work.

The question then is "do you want to be part of such a unit" or do you want to stay "independent". Both have considerable advantages and disavantages. Personally, wanting to raise a family ranked higher than anything else, so I acted accordingly. That may not be the case for everybody and that's absolutely fine. What isn't so fine is thinking you can have it all (ie. married family life while not giving much of yourself to it).

[LuckyRobin]

On the subject of shoes, I think it really depends on the reason why you are paying a lot of money for the shoes. If you are buying them to be a fashion plate, well, that's high maintenance. If you are buying them for comfort, fit, quality, safety, walkability etc., that's smart money management. I had a pair of gorgeous leather boots that I wore for 20 years and they looked sharp. I paid far more for them than I'd ever want to admit, but I knew they would last and last and they did. They were a classic cut and could be worn folded down or not so two styles for the price of one. I had them resoled a few times until the leather wore out. Well, worth the cost of them in the long run.

I have paid more for a purse of high quality because I have thrown away too many $10 Kmart purses that have fallen apart after six months or less. Not as expensive as a Coach (though if you are going to use it for years or can find one second hand, one might be worth that investment, I just find them unappealing visually, ususally), but still a designer bag. I was lucky to find it on sale, but I bought it because it was well stitched, good quality leather, in a beautiful color that matches or complements most of my wardrobe and doesn't clash badly with the remaining 10%. I will pay more for a good quality jacket that will last me for several years. But I am perfectly happy in my WalMart jeans (which have lasted up to three years with heavy usage) and pony-tail most of the time.