Better judgement is an interesting notion. We always go against it. Why? A month after the 'who should pay first date' debate, I had another outing with the same man. Flowers and brunch in Hoxton. We discussed first date scenario. And agreed to differ. He's very right-on. Everything is 50:50, everytime. In case someone ends up ten quid out of pocket long-term, I suppose. As an enthusiastic giver, and very happy recepient, it got me thinking. As my childless friends get older, they spend huge amounts on themselves. But always qualify what they spend on others. Whether it's a plumber or a parent, they seek a return on investment, either personal or material. On the other hand, friends with children - or with nurturing jobs like teaching - continue to be generous. For the pure joy of exercising the facility. It's like they become all-round parents, and the childfree regress to adolesence: what's in it for me?/why should I?/who said so? This youthful self-obsession is charming in early maturity. In middle age, it's crass. And the root of the old stereotype: sour spinsters and curmudgeonly bachelors. Of course I'm generalising. But going through my Rolodex last night, it worked as a broad rule of thumb. Which brings me back to better judgement. As my lunch companion fixed a crook-lock on the steering wheel of his common or garden hatchback, I saw the cardi and slippers in my mind's eye. But instead of running off screaming, I laughed:-(
Monday, October 16, 2006
Better judgement is an interesting notion. We always go against it. Why? A month after the 'who should pay first date' debate, I had another outing with the same man. Flowers and brunch in Hoxton. We discussed first date scenario. And agreed to differ. He's very right-on. Everything is 50:50, everytime. In case someone ends up ten quid out of pocket long-term, I suppose. As an enthusiastic giver, and very happy recepient, it got me thinking. As my childless friends get older, they spend huge amounts on themselves. But always qualify what they spend on others. Whether it's a plumber or a parent, they seek a return on investment, either personal or material. On the other hand, friends with children - or with nurturing jobs like teaching - continue to be generous. For the pure joy of exercising the facility. It's like they become all-round parents, and the childfree regress to adolesence: what's in it for me?/why should I?/who said so? This youthful self-obsession is charming in early maturity. In middle age, it's crass. And the root of the old stereotype: sour spinsters and curmudgeonly bachelors. Of course I'm generalising. But going through my Rolodex last night, it worked as a broad rule of thumb. Which brings me back to better judgement. As my lunch companion fixed a crook-lock on the steering wheel of his common or garden hatchback, I saw the cardi and slippers in my mind's eye. But instead of running off screaming, I laughed:-(
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You are perspicacious as always. A further excavation of this theme is that people with children are living on the edge of bankruptcy at all times and do not care, but at least have the delusion their children will care for them in old age; whilst singles know they will have to pay for their own care and support and comfort in the twilight years and must thus be very careful. But your general theory is well observed and true
D'you know, I've had a few twinges since writing that entry. Because his outlook is as valid as mine. And more modern;-) It's a failure to respect the principle inherent in giving, that has fuelled my approbation. Whether it's buying lunch, putting up shelves, or getting out of bed early on a Sunday to drive someone to the airport, what we're doing is expressing love and inclusiveness. We don't peg the value of those we hold close and dear (or wish to) to their ability to match our actions, whatever the form of those actions. Inevitably, where two people have a connection, there will be an equivalence if not a like for like equality. Ho hum;-)
Post a Comment