This piece is in direct response to several of the criticisms levied against my article titled. ‘A woman’s desire to be with a rich man is a step backwards for society’ and more so to my fellow blog writer Christopher Martin France.
Criticism should not be biased, emotional, based on assumptions about the writer’s views and intentions, baseless and worst of all inaccurate. This seemed to be the trend of most of the responses that the piece has managed to gather.
Let me first mention that the lack of the word ‘SOME’ doesn’t obviate the obvious inference of some, especially since no one has ever derived findings of 100% of any population. If a researcher somehow manages to arrive at findings of 100% of the population surveyed, then it would be made pellucidly clear. I hope this quells the issue of the post being about ALL women.
I found it appalling that some responders resorted to insulting remarks and also the inaccuracy and baselessness of parallels drawn to the psychological issue. My associate, Christopher used the term “slut shaming” to refer to the core of what I’ve written. This was spurious to say the least, especially since none of the content remotely warrants that. Slut shaming was inaccurately used as well. It has to do with promiscuity not conscious choices of romance. It’s inexorably, unforgiveable that a man of his stature would so inappropriately, misuse the term. Quite frankly, it seemed to me, to be a desperate cry for feminine empathy.
The comparisons to non-related issues of gender inequality and other social ills that affect women in society were baseless. You cannot draw certain parallels to this situation, in. spite of whatever minimalist co-relation exists, to justify your arguements. The post was based on the female psyche not social issues. An average single woman does not need someone to provide for her, despite being at a disadvantage in terms of income inequality or other social declination. While I agree that women have it much more difficult than men, in general, this does not entitle them to the pedestal they place themselves on.
The post I made isn’t about women who suffer the consequences of a gender biased world. The post isn’t about those women subjected to poverty, looking for an escape. The post isn’t about those women abused and afflicted by the partners. The post is about the deliberate decisions of otherwise sophisticated women, who disguise their choices as romantic when their contrast is true. The post is about the destruction of sentiment and its consequences. The post is about the liars who say their romantic choices are progressive, when in fact studies show is regressive. The post is about successful, average income, even poor women, who have a choice to pursue their own goals under debilitating circumstances much like their male counterparts, who rise from extreme poverty or other similar oppressive circumstances. Men face the same issues of climbing that social ladder, the same way women do. Some things might not be equal, but this should affect romance, not in the least. I find it extremely callous to even remotely link the two.
Christopher also said, “…put love aside for a moment”. To do that would denigrate one of the principles the piece was based on. It was my intention to show that the reducing sentiment is a major problem in relationships. I intended to show that women are losing their independence to their choices in romance. I want to show how unfair and unequal it is to make conscious decisions as such. I want to show what stripping the genuine romance out of relationships does to our humanity, i.e. Marrying for money. How shameful. The converse of men seeking beauty isn’t has been much more progressive compared to women’s choices. Men used to look for specific signs of fertility now they look for physical attractiveness. This is a direct causal effect of mass media manipulation and can be addressed simply. Irrespective, it doesn’t lead to the kind of socially dismantling situations as women’s choices. It’s a degradation of our humanity to put love aside from anything. Love, and I won’t say arguably, is the greatest thing known to mankind. In transcends everything and triumphs even in the most disparaging of situations. To put love aside is an injustice to ourselves. To put love aside is barbaric. The naked truth of striping love from relationships, is that it reduces it to nothing.
Finally I have to dispel the notions of persons referring to my claims as generalisations. I shall repost the links, which make this technically, a scientifically based piece. They’re listed below.
Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Evolutionary biologists Dr Thomas Pollet and Prof Daniel Nettles, of Newcastle University, used the world’s biggest study into lifestyles to look at the link between wealth and enjoyment of sex.
Indiana University cognitive scientist Peter Todd and colleagues from Germany, England and Scotland used a speed-dating session in Germany to look at what people said they wanted in a mate with whom they actually chose.
Sorry, but women are dependent on men
By DR NICK NEAVE
An Introduction to Social Psychology
On a parting note, let me place this circumstance for you all to ponder under the assumption that the females and males are physically attracted to each other and are at a stage in life where they start thinking long term. Note that there are many other kinds of women and there will indefinitely be exceptional circumstances but these are the average, every day, and run in the mill women that we come across constantly.
John is 21 year old above average intelligent and attractive young man with a charismatic personality. He is from a low income family and recently started attending the University of Guyana, reading for a degree in Business Management because that’s the only course that his job as an accounting clerk could accommodate. Very few know that John attends night school and generally associate him with being reluctant to pursue higher learning.
Now take Adam, who is also 21 and is in his final year at the University of Guyana, almost completed reading for a degree in Economics. Adam is a decent looking young man, with mediocre grades, but is from a wealthy family as exhibited by the car he drives and luxurious his lifestyle.
Imagine that there are four sound minded women, who are each approached by both John and Adam, separately in pursuit of romance, not love or a long-term relationship, just a first date, but could lead to either.
Female number one, Ashley, is a 20 year old Biology major at the University of Guyana, in her final year, with a grade point average of 3.8. She is smart and attractive and hails from a middle income family. Which of the two men do you think Ashley would be inclined to date?
Female number two, Rebecca, is a 20 year family girl. She lives with her parents, who are affluent and prominent members of Guyana’s private sector. Rebecca is fairly smart and plays an active role in the affairs of her family enterprise. She professes to be down to earth and genuine, which of the two men do you think she would date?
Female number 3, Annabelle, is a 19 year old girl who works as a cashier at a retail store. Annabelle is from a low class family and was not able to complete here secondary education because her family could not afford it. She still lives with her mother who is a working single parent and has one little brother to take care of. Which of the two men do you think she would prefer to date?