I don't have much time, but I feel an urge to write about something that's been on the brain for a spell. I can't claim complete credit for the idea; it's from a Ben Stein Op-Ed in the NYTimes called "Lessons in Love, by Way of Economics", which also isn't that revolutionary of an concept to reasonable people. Despite my relative youth the notion of mates, marriage, family, life, etc. has been plauging my thoughts of late. One thing in particular that I would like to highlight is the process of choosing among members of the opposite sex in a manner that will yield the best results and acquisition of a scarce resource (in this case love) possible.
I'm going to discuss two types of boys; on one hand we have a traditionally Southern gentleman(?), perhaps, who would seek to make you into an effective housewife and child rearer while he leaves the house every day to conquer the legal world and make lots and lots of cash. Great. It is widely known that one of the main reasons why marriages fail is due to a lack of financial security, thus the key to wedded bliss is that comfort in knowing you don't have to argue over the cash, a concept made even rosier when there is one sole bread winner. A life like this would be greatly appealing to a vast array of women, especially when you factor in the bang for the buck and slower pace of life one could lead in the state where everything is bigger. He's nice and all, and sure he'll listen to you babble on about liberal ideology and how we can achieve a better world and affirmative action and feminism and equal rights but at the end he just nods his head and thinks about what a great subservient role you'll play in the relationship. It's been iterated to me lately that women should "know their role" in society, and utilize their intellect for things such as raising chilren in an effective manner, making sure the floor are sparkly clean, and making sure the toilet seat is clean after son 3 of 7 children aims it the wrong way and gets piss all over the wall. As for me, I have a starkly different idea of what my relationship with a mate will look like, which includes a New York Times (nice n' liberal) on the stoop every morning, an apartment with exposed brick walls (in a major metropolis), attending ALC yearly, working to alleviate educational inequality, and being bossy goddamnit.
On the other hand, let me briefly evaluate the mentality of another boy, he might be from the north-maybe. He can be rude, not very thoughtful crass, vulgar, call you a female-body-part, piss you off drive you insane and make you wish you'd never met him (this is a compilation of personalities that refers to no person in particular) BUT at the end of the day he loves your sass, confidence, intellect, passion, drive, focus, strong character and good heart. Odds are he probably can't wait to see what you're going to use that intellect to do in a career, admires your desire to to Teach for America while getting a Masters in Education, fucks with the CBC and places you in the top 25 percentile of women due to your confidence and ability to chill (oh yes).
In conclusion, I've found that the inherent difference is how these two starkly different case studies of men interpret the women's intellect; one would seek to suppress it and the other wouldn't mind unleashing it for good or evil. One pursues you to find a wife, put a ring on your finger and subject your body to ruthless pain and agony by being subjected to having 8 lb human beings rip through your vagina and eventually wind up looking terrible (I digress) and the other sees beauty in your ability to hold them down and keep them sharp; you might start to feel like becoming a feminist when dealing with ole boys' antiquated views, but I for one sure as hell wouldn't mind giving up my power for a fresh breezy who might know who Saadiq is, fucks with an SLR & sends zshares on the regular. All in all, in the words of Ben Stein, "Junk situations can look appealing and seductive, but junk is junk. Be wary of it unless you control the market".
Posts
