Let’s face it, as much as we talk about it there is still very little being done to address gender inequality

Earlier today my colleague Mario Joseph wrote a post titled A WOMAN’S DESIRE TO BE WITH A RICH MAN IS A STEP BACKWARDS FOR SOCIETY“. While I certainly understand his point-of-view I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out a few things I feel he should have taken into consideration.

Now in his post, Mario likened a woman looking for a wealthy man to marry to a time where a man’s attractiveness to a woman was determined by his prowess as a hunter.  The reason why a woman of that era chose a mate based on such a criterion was because the most important thing in a mate then was not only procreation but also a mate who could provide food for her and  whatever offspring their union happens to produce.  I ask the question, what has changed since then? Let’s take love out of the equation and be realistic here. The most important factor in selecting a mate remains who is the best “hunter” , i.e., who can provide for her (as it should be).

Women aren’t lazy and they aren’t necessarily gold diggers. The fact remains that there is still a huge disparity in income between genders. It has been shown time and time again that a woman is expected to earn far less than a man working in the same position with the same qualifications. In the U.S. the average woman earns 77 cents for every dollar her male counterpart in the same job earns. In 27 European Union member states there is a gender pay gap of 17.5% and  the same number was found in Australia. It was suggested that women should get educated, have their own goals and ambitions but that isn’t the issue. The issue is regardless of whether a woman gets educated or not, she simply starts at a much greater disadvantage than any man would. To even suggest a woman get her own goals and ambitions, implying that said woman may not in the first place, is presumptuous and a bit tactless.

Unfortunately women are at a disadvantage. They cannot provide for themselves or their families the way their male counterparts can. The way the article was written came off almost as “slut-shaming”. The article seems to have been written with the intent to shame a large group who quite frankly may have been unfairly lumped together. Which is another point: it is unwise to make sweeping generalizations about a large, rather vaguely defined group of people. It is easy to judge a “gold-digger” but you don’t actually know her or her circumstances. I should also point out that the women you speak of in these relationships don’t come to the table bringing nothing. I found it quite funny when Donald Trump’s wife Melanie once retorted to a reporter who had asked her if she would still be married to him if he wasn’t as rich as he was “do you think he’s be married to me if I didn’t look this way?”.

Understand that I am in no way advocating “marrying up” but merely pointing out that it isn’t as black and white as you try to present it. Before we start the slut-shaming let’s advocate for gender-equality in the work place. I am a man and I’d be lying if I said women are treated fairly by our society. So let’s start there. Young women need to be afforded the same opportunities as men. That should be what this dialogue is about, not gold-diggers.

4 thoughts on “Let’s face it, as much as we talk about it there is still very little being done to address gender inequality

  1. The post was based on the female psyche not social issues but moral ones. I do not believe you can draw a parallel of a conscious choice to income inequality or any other social issue. An average single woman does not need someone to provide for her, despite being at a disadvantage in terms of income inequality. While I agree with you that women have it much more difficult than men, this does not entitle them to the pedestal they place themselves on. And I don’t appreciate the fact that everyone keeps referring to my post as a generalisation, when in the comment section of the original post there are several citations to validate the specifics of my claims. And I shall repeat, the post is a psychological one, not a mainstream social one.


  2. Another thing, its kind of insulting to refer to a scientifically based piece as “slut shaming”. There are no inferences of slut shaming, just a not so startling, trend. It isn’t limited to gold diggers because in my observations, even well set women engage in the same psychological deliberations on the subject matter. In that aspect, I admit my piece is vague.


    1. Maybe labelling it “slut-shaming” may have been insulting but your “scientifically based piece” did not come off as scientifically-based as you may have intended. Instead it seemed personal, a rant almost, which is why I likened it to slut-shaming. It came across exactly the way slut-shaming does. As I said before I definitely see the intention behind your post but I believe a more nuanced approach would’ve served you better. As it stands the post seemed very angry (passionate too but that was lost in what seemed like just an angry telling-off). Between that and the aforementioned generalizations the post was sure to rub a few people the wrong way.


  3. [“The post was based on the female psyche not social issues but moral ones.” ] Mr. Joseph,you will find that by engaging in more scholarly research (not the daily mail) on a person’s psychological development that scientists have found that even if “genes pre-dispose a specific behaviour but the environment does not support it, it does not develop”- TROM Documentary on the Environment.


Leave a Reply to mariojoseph700 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s