Why do some women buy into the idea that when wanting to find a life-long partner financial-stability trumps love and affection?
Ok, so money does buy you a lot of stuff, and that’s good.
Seriously, there’s not a lot I can come up with that speaks of money as if money where a bad thing; not even about having money. Even if my sensibilities make me cringe when money is used to demonstrate worth, money is good. Money pays for room, food and clothes; money pays for education; money gets you places. The more money the better and it’s all good, really.
And women are as equally capable as men when it comes to attaining financial stability.
I’d say that women are in-fact better suited to procure wealth than men. Even in light of the misguided differences that the world makes between genders (and how because of these misguided differences women have it tougher than men), there are plenty of examples of women that have built wealth. From the humbling histories of women beneficiaries of micro-loans by Women’s World Banking Network, to the amazing careers of women entrepreneurs such as Estee Lauder, Madame C. J. Walker, Oprah Winfrey and Mary Kay Ash amongst others; women are unbelievable wealth creators.
But contrary to the evidence of their wealth-creating possibilities and abilities, many women still believe that the only (or better) way into wealth is through mating.
It’s even become a very lucrative industry. So much so that a simple “marry rich” query on Google offers a whopping TWO HUNDRED AND TWO MILLION results (same query on Amazon offers FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND ELEVEN). So much so that women run for advice from single “Millionaire Matchmaker” Patti Stanger (I mean really?). So much so that a simple post on Craigslist by a woman seeking advice on where to meet the over $500K-a-year men created quite a stir on the Internet a few years back.
All of which are easily disregarded as to catering to “gold-diggers”.
And even if the first thing that comes to mind when touching on the subject of “sugar-daddies” is the dreaded common for “gold-diggers,” mating for financial stability is not exclusive to them.
When in reality “gold-diggers” are but reflections of the aspiration by many women to marry “financially-stable” men or “sugar-daddies.”
Thing is that “gold-diggers”, impossible loves (and “deadbeats”) aside, many women feel that at some point they will have to decide between loving and being loved, and the financial security that allows for becoming wives and mothers. If for nothing else than as illustrated by the common theme in entertainment, and where at a wedding ceremony just before the bride says “I do”, her life-long-love comes through the door and tearfully declares his love to her and asks her to run-away with him; the romantic history of many women is to have been in love, been loved, and then they marry (a “sugar-daddy”).
What most don’t think about though, is that when forgoing love and affection for financial stability they are too forgoing the mutual symmetry they deserve (and many long for) in their relationships.
Or as stated by one Mr. Ezra Bowen: “If thee marries for money, thee surely will earn it.”
Because if women marry into money for money’s sake and by doing so they will be sure to earn it without making it their own, one is left to wonder what’s up with women (and “sugar-daddies”)?
Next post: Women and “balls” (February 1st, 2012)