The article is just what it says - the author’s perspective. She approaches the issue from a certain view, which to some extent determines her focus. I don’t really agree with the simplification narrowing it down to being either a practically minded person or a “gold-digging shrew” with nothing in the middle and no particular regard to individual motivations.
When she says:
I’ve got to tell you, there’s something very attractive about that. And it’s not about the money. When a man can say “Before I even knew you, I was preparing for you and working to build the life we’ll have together,” it helps a woman to feels protected and treasured before the marriage even begins.
That’s essentially true and mind you, it’s from the perspective of a woman who, wanting to be a stay at home mother, spent much of her life preparing to be able to handle the house. It’s fair that she seeks a corresponding contribution. We all seek someone with comparable education, intelligence, even physical attractiveness, so what could be wrong in seeking a man whose earning capacity meets the woman’s house running one? She mentions the man of old, “learned a trade, or got an education, or bought a farm, or did whatever needed to be done so that he would be prepared when Miss Right came along.” That isn’t quite about finding a man with a title and land or the wealthiest merchant she could find or the highest ranking military man that would be interested in her. A good hard-working farmer or artisan perfectly matches this definition and that is someone who is able to provide a comfortable environment, but not a man with access to luxury.
Contrast that to the current generation, where so many men seem to approach marriage with an attitude that says “You’d better get a job and contribute your fair share to the upkeep of this family.” As if giving birth to the children, nurturing them and keeping a busy household running wasn’t a sufficient “contribution.” Let me tell you, that kind of attitude does not make a woman feel loved or protected.
Agreed.
But it goes beyond the physical. We gravitate to men who are at least as “big” as we are in terms of life, goals, accomplishments. Again, it’s difficult to explain because it isn’t necessarily logical. But it’s there and it’s relatively powerful. Maybe it’s about that instinctive desire to be protected, whether or not we have children. But for some reason, we want men whose lives are “bigger” than ours. We don’t want to be significantly smarter or more successful than the men we choose as partners. Not that we don’t want to be smart or successful. Just that we gravitate toward men who in some way seem to match or exceed our accomplishments.
That obviously explains a lot, but on the other hand, natural programming is not a perfect excuse for everything, nor does it need to be obeyed like it’s the law. Reason is what is more important than it and something on which we must base our decisions. Now, some of the arguments are reasonable and we could all agree on this, I suppose. However, a natural inclination is just an explanation, not a moral law.
And often money can serve as shorthand for that. A man who has more money than we do seems somehow bigger than we are. He’s accomplished more. Or at least it seems that way. Maybe he hasn’t at all. Maybe it’s a trust fund. Maybe it’s inherited and he hasn’t done anything but play polo and ride around in his yacht. Like I said, it isn’t logical. I think men, to a certain extent, feel this way as well. As much as they may talk about wanting a “sugar mama,” most men want to know they can provide for the woman they love. I once, back in high school, dated a man who told me that if we were ever to marry, he would divorce me the day I earned more money than he did. It struck me as a ludicrous statement at the time, and indeed it was. But it was the immature expression of a powerful human instinct - the need for a man to take care of a woman.
Again, I would be careful there. Money is
not a reliable short-hand and the biological programming is not a perfect justification. And let’s not try to justify hunting for polo-playing trust fund beneficiaries.
Notice that I never said that it’s a right or good thing for a woman to include “wealthy” in her short list of spousal criterion. A lazy woman who sees a man as simply means to her materialistic ends has no excuse in simply saying “It’s my nature to want to be taken care of.” All of these instincts need to be guided by reason.
But the above makes it rather clear the author practically entirely agrees with what we would say - that reason needs to guide it all (let’s not forget prayer and faith, however).
First of all, is this about the ability to support a family, or the ability to support the daydream you’ve always had about how your family life would look? Sitcom characters usually live in upscale neighborhoods. “The Beautiful People” drive late model luxury cars and carry designer handbags. Spend enough time in this society and it’s easy to believe that we need all of that stuff. We don’t. It doesn’t lead to happiness, and it doesn’t lead to happy families. In fact, the pursuit of materialism can often derail a family’s happiness.
Yup.
So women, try to broaden your idea of what makes a man a man. Don’t view money as shorthand for accomplishment. And please, please purge any inclination you may have to see a man as simply a means to get the “stuff” that you want and haven’t been willing or able to earn for yourself. That’s using, and it’s very, very unattractive.
Got any reason to worry about the article after that?
