Ever since feminism became rampant, this idea that women should provide for themselves simply provided a social mask for women to think they don't need men, but simultaneously hididng and denying (aka lying) that they don't DESIRE a man for money.
Just as a man is hardwired to mate and have sex with more than one woman.
But men also try and deny their natures as well. Because of society.
Why is it that you can believe a dark side in MEN due to evolution but as soon as anyone suggest there's one in women that you scoff or get offended?
If men have to fight their natures, are women just built perfect?
Or do they also have to fight a basic evolutionary nature as well?
There's several scientific studies that suggest that all women are inherently evolutionarily hardwired to look for providers.
Alpha males with lots of resources in which to provide for their young.
You have to ask yourself, why is that?
All studies usually do is prove what we already knew to be true.
So do you really need to google that women or men have shallow tendency's?
"Professor Robin Dunbar of Liverpool University"
Evolution tells us that resources are more important to women. Good fathers need to have means to feed offspring as well as willingness to stick around.
In our evolutionary past, before resources meant a Rolex watch and a sports car, a well-heeled man was one with high status in a hunting tribe."
High status males were often good hunters and likely to provide a steady supply of food."
Most Helpful Opinions
It's a natural reaction to a cultural problem that has persisted for a very, very long time. Speaking strictly from the Euro-American perspective (i.e. I know some European and American history, and in this case, it is most relevant) women did not have right to say in governmental affairs until 1920 (In Scandinavian countries, it earlier), and their wages and inheritances were property of their husbands. Even today, if the husband is the primary breadwinner and earns significantly more than she, a woman cannot open an IRA without his written permission.
For generations, women have been little more than property. Going back to medieval/Renaissance Europe, women didn't even pick who they married. Their fathers or brothers did it for them, and then they became their husband's property, with only a dowry as insurance that he wouldn't leave her high and dry. The arrangements were political, not for love. The extent they had control over their world was through sex. The more attractive they were (Either physically or financially; women were not the only ones to gold-dig! modern stats show more men marry 'up' than women!), the more suitors they collected, the more likely the suitors would be good to them. The fate of a family line rested on who these women had sex with as well. Take the Boleyns into account for this; Mary Boleyn was impregnated by Henry VIII, making their family come into power: Anne Boleyn married the king, was accused of incest with her own brother and they were both subsequently executed. Who a got picked for a girl basically meant life or death for her and her family. (no pressure, though) If you were property, wouldn't you want to live the cushiest life you could?
Now that we are looking for love for ourselves, we look for the guy that can provide, but what a lot of guys don’t realize is that provision is not limited to money or things. Because of generations of reliance on men for the quality of our lives, it’s become second nature to most women. Now, For the woman who requires a lot of money for upkeep (usually the very attractive ones) they are going to look for a wealthy man, whereas a girl who is very academically-oriented may look for a guy with the intellectual capacity to stimulate her. A girl who was raised dirt poor may look for a guy with money, but a rich girl that grew up in an abusive home may look for acceptance and a gentle soul (or she could look for a guy just like her dad because it is what she knows how to cope with). I think all girls proverbially ‘gold dig’ though their ‘gold’ is not always money. It’s a way of seeking stability, which women are hardwired to seek, be it for themselves or for any prospective kids they may have.
feel free to disagree... Just no name-calling please...
Fact: No woman wants a man who has zero ambition.
Fact: if that ambition does not equate to money, it is useless and unattractive.
Every girl wants a man who is at least "on her level" intellectually speaking. Which has nothing to do with money.- every one of these girls will still want a man who has "ambition"
The abused woman in your example will not stick around with a guy whose a bum that has no direction in his life. And even when they do women don't prefer a man without ambition.