Security. This word means different things to different people. For the mother of a family who serves as the primary caregiver, financial security is a luxury, but a luxury that most would prefer.
Many people look down upon those who consider physical appearance and monetary success important aspects in a life partner, calling them shallow and superficial. But when you take a step back and analyze why these qualities are crucial, then searching for a partner who possesses those traits does not seem so ridiculous.
Basic biology tells us that humans are attracted to those who would make good mates. Height, weight, facial features and other physical aspects all are processed subconsciously to determine if we find someone attractive or not. You are physically attracted to a person because your body tells you that they would be a sufficient partner for healthy offspring.
That being said, I think we can all agree that we want our partner to be attractive to us. Physicality is definitely an important part of a romantic relationship; it is one of the things that draws the line between romance and friendship. I think everyone has realized by this point that physically showing signs of affection is much more enjoyable when you are actually physically attracted to the person.
However, we do not all have the same idea of what is attractive. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so really, everyone has a fair shot, just not with the same people. Everyone is shallow for wanting a partner whom they find attractive.
Now for tackling the fiscal issue: this seems pretty simple to me as well. A woman wanting a man who has money does not strike me as odd; it strikes me as clever. You have to take the traditional roles of the family into consideration. Most of the women who do this will have children.
Men cannot bear children. They just cannot. Clearly, both partners’ roles in parenthood are very different.
So why is it ridiculous that a woman would want a steady source of income to support her family? Financial security relieves so much stress from families and allows them the funds to travel, have a nice home, etc. I don’t see why this is such a shameful wish to have.
I understand that women can make money and provide for the family. But she will always be the one to have to take months off whenever she has a child, and perhaps years if she doesn’t want to hand them over to a babysitter or daycare.
As much as this women empowerment thing has popularized, we still have to realize that men and women will always be different, never equal.
We are brought up told that we should go after what we want; what if what we want is a lot of money without having to earn it?
It is resourceful for females to use their assets to find a partner that will give them everything they want. If they want to work, then they’ll work, but not everyone enjoys labor or has the same drive. Not everyone finds productivity appealing. Some women want to work, and others don’t.
Why should those who don’t be labeled as weak and self-degrading? If they find a successful man, then they have achieved what they want; why isn’t that okay? Where has the traditional concept of the stay-at-home-mother gone?
Why is it that, if that is your ambition now, you are looked at as being shallow? My mother stayed at home with my family; she was essentially available to us when we needed her. I wouldn’t trade that time for the world, and I think she has one of the most respectable jobs (not to mention one of the most tiring) out there.
Basically, in the case of any relationship, if the relationship is happy, then everyone wins.
And isn’t that what matters?
Wendy Morell is the opinion editor of The Reflector. She can be contacted at
[email protected].