Going through Whatsapp stories, I landed on an intriguing post off my friend, Andrew Pix Musoke's status, and it read; Can you date a man that does not assist you financially, but really loves you?
I re-posted this message on my Whatsapp status feed and the responses were quite fascinating. The slightly older women (30-39) were comfortable dating a man that loves them, even if he did not assist them financially. To the contrary, younger women (20-29), this conversation was a non-starter and would never settle for such a man.
It’s no secret that women fight over strong, handsome, young rich guys, with a lot of money. In a turbulent, unsafe and unpredictable world, who wouldn’t want financial security?
Until the end of the 18th century, a woman would be attracted to a younger, stronger, handsome and healthy man, who could provide security, good care, love, livelihood and procreation.
These days, procreation alone is not enough, therefore money has come into the equation and plays the bigger role. If these requirements are not forthcoming from a younger man, the woman turns to an older man as long as he can provide.
This paves way to the entry of the older, married man popularly known as the ‘Sponsor or sugar-daddy’. Women still need security, care, love and procreation but financial pressures have taken center-stage, sidelining all other human needs.
Yes, the majority of women are not only attracted to men with money but also men who are endowed with all the other typical factors such as strength, health, looks, wisdom, intellectual capacity, love and compassion.
It may seem that maintaining a woman and keeping her happy at the same time in the modern world may not be that easy.
However, it is the responsibility and duty for the man who wants to keep a healthy, happy woman, to work extra-hard to provide for all the necessary services or risk sharing the woman with other men.
With all this said and well known in our societies, why then are the older women not as drawn to men with money today - with their preference, men that really love them?
Many young women in our dusty streets of Kampala tend to 'follow the money' and unfortunately this is why women have a bad habit of ending up stuck in marriages to selfish sociopaths that only care about how much money they have and how they can use it to get what they want.
You’re not supposed to actually love and care about a woman, you’re supposed to show her how much money you have so she can decide what to do with it all then wonder why years later she never ends up with “better” guys.
Today, many young men have discovered that even when you do have money, it’s not guaranteed you’ll get a girlfriend because women who already have boyfriends will think about how to take advantage of you to improve their self-esteem and feel “prettier” instead of just leaving you alone and trying to keep their boyfriends happy.
Even worse, men that don’t have money in my personal experience are at higher risk of being forced into "relationships" by women against their will because they have never heard the word no before and refuse to accept no as an answer.
History tells us that in hunter-gatherer societies, women had a high level of prestige because they provided most of the food for the family. Since the women were the gatherers, at the end of the day they invariably brought back some sort of vegetable foodstuffs - roots, cereal grains, leafy greens, and so on.
Of course, meat is still highly prized, and it was the men’s responsibility to hunt for that. But with only primitive weapons, it isn’t easy. Oftentimes, the men returned home empty-handed at the end of the day, and they had to be nice to the ladies if they wanted a meal.
So it’s clear that women didn’t depend on men to provide for them in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. And that means there shouldn’t be any evolved female preference for men providing resources over those that genuinely love them.
According to social role theory, women’s preference for resources is a response to current social organization. In the transition from hunting to farming, there was a shift in the roles that men and women played in society. Tilling the land and herding animals require great body strength, making the provision of food the man’s job. The role of women then was relegated to domestic chores such as childcare, cooking, and cleaning, as well as cottage industries such as weaving and basket making.
Because women could no longer provide food for themselves, they had to depend on their husband’s resources instead. Furthermore, it was only under agriculture that we began to see the stratification of society into rich and poor.
And once complex civilization arose, the richest men were no longer those who tilled the soil themselves but rather the landowners and merchants and bureaucrats and priests - occupations that didn’t require great body strength. So women really were forced to choose between a loving husband and being poor or a "mediocre" mate and living in comfort.
By the end of the twentieth century, women were making great strides in regaining the gender equality they’d lost at the advent of agriculture. Thus, social role theory predicts that women’s preferences in mates should shift back toward love over resources to the extent that they’re no longer dependent on men to provide for them.
That is why, in cultures where women have more economic and political freedom, like the Scandinavian countries, they place less emphasis on resources and more on love - character when considering potential mates. Perhaps this explains why the slightly older women here had a similar preference.
No comments added yet