The Women Who Marry for Money and The Ones Who Don't
by kalyani10
Finally women’s propensity for choosing richer partners can be explained by evolutionary reasons. During primitive times when danger lurked in the form of hostile environment and unpredictable food supply, women found that they had the greatest chances of ensuring their own and more importantly their children’s survival by transferring their affections and loyalty to a male partner with who could assure food and safety. Earlier this would have marked men with hunting and physical prowess but eventually this changed to men who controlled larger resources than others. Thus ‘marrying up’ seems to be hard-wired among women, both as a way of securing their own comfort as well as the welfare of the next generation. The arrangement seemed practical for several millennia as a form of division of labor where the male partner earned the resources while the female partner took care of home and family. Unfortunately this also created the grounds for an exceedingly inequitable institution – patriarchy, as the value of domestic labor and care-giving performed by women came to be denigrated in favor of commercial and financial transactions engaged by men.
Women who don’t marry for money
It is this objection to the patriarchal notion of a housewife as an entity with no financial value that lies at the heart of many women who refuse to marry for money. A marriage based only on financial compulsions may lack qualities like mutual respect and affection that are crucial for any long term relationship to survive. If a woman is marrying only for money, she is in a way entering into an employee-employer relationship where she will be rendering some service and as compensation receiving a healthy allowance which in turn will help her live her dream life. In such an understanding, there is little space for empathy, selflessness or genuine affection which does not seek anything in return – the very qualities which motivate a person to enter into a committed formalized relationship like marriage instead of continuing with dating or a relationship of convenience like a man and his mistress. When both partners know that the only impetus for the marriage is money, they are unlikely to respect each other as life partners, at the most only as business partners. A marriage based on love on the other hand is what sets it apart from business and professional contracts – here one can love, respect and trust the person for who he/she is and not what how much money they can pour into the relationship. It is precisely because purely contractual arrangements cannot meet all the demands, whether physical, emotional and social, of a couple that marriage as an institution has continues to survive instead of being taken over by live-in relationships and those of convenience like mistress/paid companion.
However marrying for money does not mean that a woman has to forsake the finer enjoyments of life. It is here that feminism and other equitable institutions of society have made life easier for women. The vast majority of them are now educated and professionally qualified - this means that now women know how to acquire the skills which will help them to earn more money and be able to afford luxuries rather than depend on someone else to buy these for them. The sentiment is echoed in an article on the daily mail2 which reads “the attractions of the Mr. Darcys of this world are waning as women become better educated and better paid”. A study by the Institute for Public Policy Research tracked changes in female aspirations over the past 50 years and found that women in their late twenties and early thirties are increasingly marrying ‘beneath themselves’ by opting for men of lower social classes. Reasons for this trend could range from higher earning power of women themselves to the more practical idea of choosing a male partner with low-stress job so that domestic and family responsibilities are more equitably distributed.
Finally though it is the golden mean which seems to be the most favored position by women when it comes to choosing a marital partner. Just like love, respect and shared values are important to pull along together, so are financial comfort and stability. One is meaningless without the other and every marriage needs both emotional and material sustenance to become a success.
References:
Reasons for marriage can be as varied as the number of people wishing to get married. And yet there are two priorities which seem more common than others - romantic love and related feelings like affection, desire for companionship, sexual attraction as well as money and associated priorities like financial stability, a comfortable lifestyle and so on. This inevitably divides the single female population into those who marry for money and those who don’t. Here are the few thoughts in favor of each group and the complexities of each situation.
Women who marry for money
Even in these times of female emancipation and larger-than-ever participation of women in the labor force, the fact that women want to marry successful partners comes as no surprise. A 2011 article in The Daily Telegraph1 mentions a report researched at the London School of Economics and published by the Centre for Policy Studies, according to which women are more determined than ever to bag a partner who will improve their financial prospects. These women would only be too happy to turn a deaf ear to notions of gender equality and chuck a high-flying career, if it meant a rich partner meeting their every need and comfort. Apparently in the 1940s, 20 per cent of British women “married up.” By the 1990s that had climbed to 38 per cent, with a similar pattern in Europe, the US and Australia. And even though this includes problematic terms like ‘marrying up’ and could be equally explained by social mobility, there seems no disputing the general wish that “women continue to use marriage as an alternative or supplement to their employment careers,” according to the report’s author, Catherine Hakim, a senior research fellow in sociology.
TIP: Millionaire Match has many single millionaire men from USA, Canada and Europe and women who want to date or marry them.
An easier way to understand this group of women’s practicality to financial considerations would be to consider what marriage entails in the first place, especially as opposed to a casual relationship like dating. Marriage is a way of declaring love and commitment to a partner in a way that grants the relationship social and legal validity. Unlike dating, marriage requires the spouses to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities to each other along with enjoying certain rights in the relationship. As soon as two individuals have responsibilities to a relationship, they must have the resources to fulfill those too. It is here that money becomes important since a husband and wife need a level of financial resources to function as a socio-legal unit – they must have enough money for essentials like food, clothes, housing, healthcare and comforts too. For this reason, a marriage which lacks financial resources to meet necessities and common comforts is bound to flounder.
Then again, “man does not live by bread alone”. In these times, one cannot have a good quality of life if only the basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and healthcare are met. Human beings must have access to recreational facilities and avenues which nurture and thrill the soul as well. Theater, music concerts, travel and fine dining all these activities which are a staple of dating activities and romantic outings cost money. So if a marriage has to survive and indeed thrive, couples need to have enough money to spend on recreational and romantic activities.
Finally women’s propensity for choosing richer partners can be explained by evolutionary reasons. During primitive times when danger lurked in the form of hostile environment and unpredictable food supply, women found that they had the greatest chances of ensuring their own and more importantly their children’s survival by transferring their affections and loyalty to a male partner with who could assure food and safety. Earlier this would have marked men with hunting and physical prowess but eventually this changed to men who controlled larger resources than others. Thus ‘marrying up’ seems to be hard-wired among women, both as a way of securing their own comfort as well as the welfare of the next generation. The arrangement seemed practical for several millennia as a form of division of labor where the male partner earned the resources while the female partner took care of home and family. Unfortunately this also created the grounds for an exceedingly inequitable institution – patriarchy, as the value of domestic labor and care-giving performed by women came to be denigrated in favor of commercial and financial transactions engaged by men.
Women who don’t marry for money
It is this objection to the patriarchal notion of a housewife as an entity with no financial value that lies at the heart of many women who refuse to marry for money. A marriage based only on financial compulsions may lack qualities like mutual respect and affection that are crucial for any long term relationship to survive. If a woman is marrying only for money, she is in a way entering into an employee-employer relationship where she will be rendering some service and as compensation receiving a healthy allowance which in turn will help her live her dream life. In such an understanding, there is little space for empathy, selflessness or genuine affection which does not seek anything in return – the very qualities which motivate a person to enter into a committed formalized relationship like marriage instead of continuing with dating or a relationship of convenience like a man and his mistress. When both partners know that the only impetus for the marriage is money, they are unlikely to respect each other as life partners, at the most only as business partners. A marriage based on love on the other hand is what sets it apart from business and professional contracts – here one can love, respect and trust the person for who he/she is and not what how much money they can pour into the relationship. It is precisely because purely contractual arrangements cannot meet all the demands, whether physical, emotional and social, of a couple that marriage as an institution has continues to survive instead of being taken over by live-in relationships and those of convenience like mistress/paid companion.
However marrying for money does not mean that a woman has to forsake the finer enjoyments of life. It is here that feminism and other equitable institutions of society have made life easier for women. The vast majority of them are now educated and professionally qualified - this means that now women know how to acquire the skills which will help them to earn more money and be able to afford luxuries rather than depend on someone else to buy these for them. The sentiment is echoed in an article on the daily mail2 which reads “the attractions of the Mr. Darcys of this world are waning as women become better educated and better paid”. A study by the Institute for Public Policy Research tracked changes in female aspirations over the past 50 years and found that women in their late twenties and early thirties are increasingly marrying ‘beneath themselves’ by opting for men of lower social classes. Reasons for this trend could range from higher earning power of women themselves to the more practical idea of choosing a male partner with low-stress job so that domestic and family responsibilities are more equitably distributed.
Finally though it is the golden mean which seems to be the most favored position by women when it comes to choosing a marital partner. Just like love, respect and shared values are important to pull along together, so are financial comfort and stability. One is meaningless without the other and every marriage needs both emotional and material sustenance to become a success.
References:
- Log in to post comments
