As for marrying for money, I won’t marry or even date someone who is not educated. Now, there is a caveat to that statement. I would be with someone who owns their own business (an entrepeneur) because it shows they are hard working, responsible, etc. But why would I work hard to put myself through school, manage my money wisely and built a solid foundation for myself and then throw it all away on someone who didn’t do the same?!?! Plus, I think the more level you are with your partner when it comes to education/money/etc. the better your relationship is because you are closer to real “equals” in every way. Don’t marry for money, marry for love…but do it with an open heart and a sound mind! Too many ladies think they’re in “love” before they really know the person they’re with. Learn who you are, learn to love yourself then find your REAL prince charming. ;)

I see what you’re saying there. I guess I was a bit put off by the original phrasing because my husband has an “invisible” disability — I mean, you can see it if you look at his eyes, but many people don’t understand that his wobbling eyes reflect an actual inability to see well, and just interpret him as being “shifty-eyed” or something — so he actually runs into problems with people who don’t consider him disabled. He had to argue with a gatekeeper when we were dealing with an issue where he was supposed to be the only one allowed into the office, because it was his problem… but they were expecting him to read and fill out forms with tiny print, and he wanted me there to read for him because with his magnifying glass it would have taken him much longer to read. He told them he needed me because he’s blind and they were all “You look like you can see.” And it’s an issue he’s very sensitive to, because he *does* make good money and in a lot of respects he has so many societal privileges that people often don’t want to accomodate or acknowledge that yes, he is disabled.

So I guess I wasn’t so much trying to say “hey, you could marry a person with a certain type of disability!” so much as objecting to language that it seemed to me was saying “only people who cannot work are disabled”, but I see that that isn’t what you were going for. I agree that the ideal should be that everyone in a partnership does all that they can, not that everyone does exactly as much as each other.

Just a thought.

“A good relationship is not one where both people put forth 50%, it is one where both people put forth 100%.”

Trite, I know. But applicable.
The former frame is where non-normative people fall into trouble.
The latter frame is broad, inclusive, and appreciative. And that’s the frame we should be emphasizing.

(The following is not a judgment on your particular situation but a response to the general argument you put forth.)

Thing is, I simply do not see how it is better to say that language excluding anyone who cannot match an able-bodied ideal is not a potential partner, still allows for PWD who can closely match that ideal, so therefore it’s OK — I don’t see how that argument is really any better. Because it’s still (and now deliberately) excluding anyone who can’t closely approximate that ideal, and that *is* prejudice and exclusion.

I appreciated Jill’s response and clarification because she specifies that she sees relationships as a partnership of two people who put forth 100% of what they are able to give, and that is what makes it fair. OTOH, saying that you would never be with someone who does not put forth an absolute amount *based on the able-bodied norm* is contributing to the framework where PWD aren’t “contributors” to (partnership/family/community/society) because they don’t match that norm, that their inability to participate in a way that approximates that norm means are therefore not whole people, that the able-bodied norm is *The* measuring stick to judge by, and what everyone should aspire to, and therefore people who simply will never fit that norm are lesser persons.

This is not what you are trying to say, or what you mean or intend. But that is the dominant framework and such an approach reinforces that framework nonetheless.

So, y’know, when I read stuff like this, I can kinda understand why they are saying it. I wish I could make my own bucks, but the only skills I have for pay that anyone MIGHT want are writing ones. If I could program or do math I’d go into a hard science or something else, but nope, all I am is a writer and nobody wants those any more. (Just came from a career counseling appointment.) So I can’t make my own bucks unless a miracle occurs. And in the case of my ex, I was the “breadwinner.” This was bad. So yeah, I don’t think I’d want to marry another retail worker, or maybe another writer either. I probably could really use someone with a better paying job as a spouse at the very least so I can have health insurance/financial backup if my job tanks. And much as I hate to say it, that’s an option straight women have that most everyone else doesn’t. It’s disgusting, but true.

Of course, love makes you stoopid, so odds are I’d probably find another loser rather than strategically marry someone with money anyway. But I can see WHY they are saying this. Love doesn’t win out so much over no money and stressing out over it.