GOOD

Why Love is Riskier Than Any Blackjack Table

An economist explains why love in the modern era might be the biggest gamble a woman can make.

A Vegas casino has nothing on the arena of love.

There is a commonly held belief in both the economics and finance literature that men tend to be more “risk-loving” and women tend to be more “risk-averse.” In economics, the same line of logic extends to differences in gendered attitudes towards career risk and bargaining over compensation. It’s been proven that men gamble more than women; men are also better at negotiating for higher wages. They seem willing to bet more often, take on higher stakes, and ask for more (which can be seen as risky in and of itself), leading to bigger gains.


But what about emotional matters? Do men also engage in risky behavior in their personal relationships? In our modern culture, romantic comedy movies are geared toward women and marriage is glorified for women through the wedding industrial complex with shows like “Say Yes To The Dress.” Does this lead to a paradigm where women are perhaps riskier in their believe in love? And, in turn, what economic consequences would this have for women?

I tend to be very risk-averse, or so I thought. The most I’ve ever gambled was $3 on a horse race. I spent the entirety of my 20s with one partner and most of that time I was also in graduate school getting my PhD in economics. Both seemed like safe investments. I trusted that my relationship was stable and I was getting a degree that would increase my earning potential. But after an unexpected divorce a year ago, I’ve reflected—both as an economist and a woman—on the actual conditions of risk that that women face in love and in the economy, and how my perceptions of those risks might have impacted my life.

Men are riskier in financial matters, but they are also more privileged in the economy, rewarded with higher wages and more frequent promotions. Like the majority of opposite-sex couples, the man in my relationship was the higher earning partner. While I will probably do alright professionally with a degree in a well-respected field, my ex out-earned me by a large margin and this, frankly, made me overly-financially dependent. I even wrote a piece for The Guardian explaining my discomfort with the situation and how it conflicted with my ideals as a feminist. By function of his greater earning power, our relationship too, became less of a gamble, a proposition in which he had less to lose.

When we broke up, I found myself in a precarious, typically female financial situation—I wasn’t prepared to independently support myself. Settling down with the person I met as a teenager turned out to be a risky move that led me to question whether falling in love is a particularly bad bet for women.

Love is risky, and I argue that it’s even riskier for women compared to men. Women are more likely to be the lower earning partner in a relationship, like I was, increasing the chances of financial dependency. And when men prefer dating younger women, women have greater risks associated with the dissolution of a relationship once they are past their supposedly desirable age.

My situation, of being left in a vulnerable position after divorce, is not unusual as a woman. Divorce tends to leave women worse off and men better off. One estimate is that women are 27 percent financially worse off after divorce and men are 10 percent better off. So why do we live in a culture where women are encouraged to be risky in love when it has negative consequences, and relatively little discussion on the importance of maintaining financial independence even when married?

The answer probably lies in the continued power of traditional gender structures. Research on gender and risk are rarely related to gender theory. Gender socialization and the culture of gender often reinforce a system where men have more social and economic power. I’m not saying it is a conspiracy where rom-coms are made in order to make women economically dependent on men, but the complex social, economic, and political world results in these conditions and they are very hard to undo.

Rom coms are based on the conflict within a partnership that shouldn’t work, but for some reason—love?—does. Just think about the modern classic Knocked Up, where an ambitious and beautiful woman ends up pregnant by an unmotivated stoner and then settles down with him once he cleans his act up. Does this actually happen? If men are more risk-loving, shouldn’t they be taking more chances on us? This would mean more men would marry older women, where there could be more risks of a shorter timeline for having children, or more men would be simply willing to date challenging women who have ambitious careers and less time and energy for the domestic sphere.

I can’t swear off love, even if it’s risky both for my heart and my financial stability. But I also think that through a constructive feminist dialogue we can begin to at least think critically about how we are influenced by our gender in our romantic and economic lives, given the current structures of power and moving beyond them. I hope to find another partner some day, but I know that with what I know as an economist and as an adult woman will change how risky it will be for me, and hopefully make it less so, in the future.

Articles
via GOOD / YouTube

Last Friday, millions of people in 150 countries across the globe took to the streets to urge world leaders to enact dramatic solutions to combat climate change.

The Climate Strike was inspired, in part, by Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl from Sweden who has captured worldwide attention for her tireless work to hold lawmakers responsible for the climate crisis.

The strike gave people across the planet the opportunity to make their voices heard before the U.N. General Assembly Climate Summit in New York City on Monday.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Julian Meehan

Young leaders from around the world are gathering at the United Nations Headquarters in New York Saturday to address arguably the most urgent issue of our time. The Youth Climate Summit comes on the heels of an international strike spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, who arrived in New York via emissions-free sailboat earlier this month.

Translated from Swedish, "berg" means "mountain," so it may feel fated that a young woman with Viking blood in her veins and summit in her name would be at the helm. But let's go out on a limb and presume Thunberg, in keeping with most activists, would chafe at the notion of pre-ordained "destiny," and rightly so. Destiny is passive — it happens to you. It's also egomaniacal. Change, on the other hand, is active; you have to fight. And it is humble. "We need to get angry and understand what is at stake," Thunberg declared. "And then we need to transform that anger into action."

This new generation of activists' most pernicious enemy is denial. The people in charge — complacent politicians and corporation heads who grossly benefit from maintaining the status quo — are buffered from real-life consequences of climate change. But millions of people don't share that privilege. For them, climate change isn't an abstract concept, but a daily state of emergency, whether it comes in the form of "prolonged drought in sub-Saharan Africa…devastating tropical storms sweeping across Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific…[or] heatwaves and wildfires," as Amnesty International reportsare all too real problems people are facing on a regular basis.

RELATED: Greta Thunberg urges people to turn to nature to combat climate change

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Climate Action Tracker

In 2016, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to combat climate change by taking action to curb the increase in global temperatures. The Paris Agreement requires countries to report on their emissions and what steps they're taking to implement those plans. Now that the countries are coming together again for the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City, it's worth taking a look at what kind of progress they've made.

The Climate Action Trackerkeeps tabs on what each country is doing to limit warming, and if they're meeting their self-set goals. Countries are graded based on whether or not their actions would help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.

According to a recent article from National Geographic, The Gambia, Morocco, and India are at the head of the class. "Even though carbon emissions in The Gambia, Morocco, and India are expected to rise, they'll fall short of exceeding the 1.5-degree Celsius limit," the article reads. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States, on the other hand, get a big fat F. "Projected emissions in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States are far greater than what it would take to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

September 20th marks the beginning of a pivotal push for the future of our planet. The Global Climate Strike will set the stage for the United Nations Climate Action Summit, where more than 60 nations are expected to build upon their commitment to 2015's Paris Agreement for combating climate change.

Millions of people are expected to take part in an estimated 4,000 events across 130 countries.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Ottawa Humane Society / Flickr

The Trump Administration won't be remembered for being kind to animals.

In 2018, it launched a new effort to reinstate cruel hunting practices in Alaska that had been outlawed under Obama. Hunters will be able to shoot hibernating bear cubs, murder wolf and coyote cubs while in their dens, and use dogs to hunt black bears.

Efforts to end animal cruelty by the USDA have been curtailed as well. In 2016, under the Obama Administration, the USDA issued 4,944 animal welfare citations, in two years the numbers dropped to just 1,716.

Keep Reading Show less
Science