The views expressed herein are those of the writer and do not represent the opinions or editorial position of I-Witness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to news.iwitness@gmail.com.

By Vanrick D. Williams

As the Jamaican reggae artiste Courtney Melody musically stated in 1989, “I want a modern girl with an old type of loving/ to put me at bed at nights and wake me up at mornings”, best signifies what most contemporary males desire. However, that desire that males exhibit was created by the capitalists and forms part of society’s false consciousness. In understanding modern-day women, the sociological imagination, as posited by C. Wright Mills, is of essence. People must see that there is a link between women and love, and open up their eyes to the bigger picture: “love is a business”.

Given that women are so often associated with romantic love rather than a business, it is very useful to have an understanding of women as a multi-billion industry. In substance, love is a business and women are the chief executive officers. The opportunities and rewards available to women for claiming to be in love can be substantial. A wealthy male, for example, will spend millions of dollars on that “special female” because he thinks she genuinely loves him. Likewise, a poor male will spend his last dime on her, too. This amounts to the multi-billion industry.

Women’s behaviour has evolved over time. They now employ different strategies to maximize their chances of controlling males and events. Hence, they think, act and reason differently than males. Impartially stated, “women are different creatures than men”. According to Engels (an associate of Marx), women once dominated societies. However, through the ownership of livestock, men overthrew the dominance of women in the household. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) summarize this as follows:

In Engels’s words, “the man seized the reins in the house also, the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children’. In order to ensure that they could identify their own children, men increasingly put restrictions on women’s choice of sexual partners. (p. 598-599)

To combat the control men had gained, modern-day women have fashioned love into a business. Males are obligated to financially support his partner because she loves him and he loves her. Some women have even taken the business to the next plateau and directly offer sexual favours for monetary compensation. In contemporary capitalist societies, the males who own the means of production, and working class males who own more resources are preferred by modern-day women compared to those males with little or no assets.

David Barash opines that, men are likely to be more promiscuous because they produce millions of sperm during their lifetime, and therefore has an interest in depositing sperms in different places and making as many women as possible pregnant. On the other hand, women produce one egg at a time, and about 400 in all during their lifetime, hence females go for quality in her mates. Realistically, this quality that females go for is embedded in the economic base of society. Modern-day women go for those with economic power, so that each offspring has the best chance of ultimate survival. For example, a female will quicker have a child for a wealthy male rather than a poor man.

Sociobiologists believe that women can tolerate infidelity by their partners more readily than men. On the contrary, this is so because they are afraid of losing the economic opportunities and rewards gained by being in an intimate relationship. In pursuit of the best males to father their children, women marry males of a higher social status than themselves. Evidently, social status in contemporary capitalist societies is determined by wealth, and to some extent occupation. Hence, women go for wealth but will settle for the “next best thing”. According to Haralambos and Holborn (1995), sociobiologists believe that the origins of war and territoriality are grounded in the pugnacious male’s attempts to secure and keep access to his own females by preventing their access to other males. In essence, women are the cause of many personal conflicts between and among males.

In conclusion, the key to understanding modern-day women involves an analysis of the economic situation. Women use sexual favours as a tool to control males and events, and have fabricated romantic love into a multi-billion industry where they are the bosses. Women must be seen as different creatures than men, who constantly go for wealth but will settle for the ‘next best thing’. However, all females are not obliged to think, act or reason in the ways discussed above. But if they don’t, it goes against their nature and innate tendency.

vanrick.williams@hotmail.com

The views expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions or editorial position of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to news.iwitness@gmail.com.

9 replies on “Understanding modern-day women — The business of love”

  1. Pat Robinson Commissiong says:

    What a lot of hogwash! I notice that all Mr Williams’s references are men, who presume to know what women want and think! Does it occur to him that the men he cites may be viewing things from a male perspective? I am not aware that neither Marx, nor Engels, nor C. Wright Mills ever asked a single woman about what she wanted in a relationship; and of course, if any woman had said “I want companionship” they would probably have responded that this was just another “false consciousness” Mr Williams needs to realize that the Marxist contention that economics is the determinant of all social relations has been discredited some time ago (and I don’t know that Marx himself ever posited such complete economic determinism. Indeed he was once reported as declaring “I am not a Marxist” when he saw how his ideas were being used).
    As far as the choice of partners is concerned, does Mr Williams not realize that for thousands of years, and even today in may societies, women do not choose their partners? Their partners were, and even today in some places still are, chosen by their parents/guardians. And marriage was more a matter of a union of two “suitable” families rather than a free association between two individuals – hence the killing of young people who dare to “fall in love” with someone from the wrong social group that is still common in parts of India. Pakistan and the Middle East, for example. (I was even reading of a recent case in the UK where the Pakistani migrant parents of a daughter, born in the UK, were convicted for the killing their daughter for that very reason). If a young woman presumes to choose a man, however wealthy, or of however high a status, or of the wrong caste or religion, the whole community will condemn the couple. The notion of entering into a relationship for “love” is a relatively recent innovation, and an essentially European one. Most societies, including non-capitalist societies, regard pro-creative unions as too important to be left to what they perceive as ephemeral emotions. After all, the future of the group depends on the choices made today. After you are married then you may learn to love your partner – but that was not an essential requirement for a union. And I don’t know that the current western mode of coupling has anything to do with capitalism as such. Even in non-capitalist societies, men of a higher status or of greater wealth have more choices and can monopolize more women, not just as casual partners, but as recognized “wives” or “concubines” that they own. Do you realize that In polygamous societies, ALL men are not polygamous, since nature ensures that the ratio between the sexes is roughly equal. It’s the older and wealthier men who have several wives, some of whom will be much younger that they are. Younger and lower status men would have to fight for mates, or kidnap them from other groups. (In war victorious fighters would often kill the defeated males and carry off the women for their own use – hence the English word “rape” which you will find comes from a Latin verb which meant “to snatch away”. Women ‘”snatched away” after a battle would indeed have been raped in the current English usage, since they were not, presumably, consenting to their fate.).
    Rather than depending on out-dated and highly dubious theories about the nature of women’s wants, Mr Williams would do better to study what is happening in the current world where women are increasingly acquiring qualifications which enable them to support themselves and any children they may have. When such women have sexual relationships but either refuse to marry, or marry a “toy boy” for the sake of having “legitimate” children and subsequently divorce such partners, we complain about “moral decay”. It might be better to ask whether sexual partnerships, as historically defined by men, actually meet the desires or needs of women.

    1. Vanrick Williams says:

      Thank you for your comments Ms/Mrs. Commissiong… I appreciate the fact that your writing mirrors that of a modern-day woman and a very intelligent one too. However, in contemporary capitalist societies ‘love’ is a business and women are the bosses. I have sources to back-up my literature but I haven’t seen any source to support your suppositions… I hope you continue to read my pieces and I am going to dedicate my next article to you and women of your caliber… KEEP READING MY ARTICLES AND I-WITNESS NEWS….

      1. Pat Robinson Commissionf says:

        References – just a few; there’s an enormous amount of reading available since C Wright Mills wrote in the nineteen forties and fifties; and even more since Marx and Engels were commenting on capitalism at the height of the industrial revolution in the 19th century:
        Germaine Greer – The Female Eunuch – (first published 1970) Re published 2008 Harper Perennial Modern Classics
        Olwen Hufton – The Prospect before her – A History of Women in Western Europe Volume One 1500-1800. Harper Collins 1995 or Vintage Paperback 1998
        Lawrence Stone – Road to Divorce; England 1530-1937. Oxford University Press 1990 (hardback) 1995 (paperback)
        Luise Eichenbaum & Susie Orbach – (first published 1983) What do Women Want? Revised edition 2014 CreatSpace Independent PUblishing Platform
        and a novel – by a woman – Marilyn French – The Women’s Room (first published 1978, republished Penguin Books 2009
        You can get them all on Amazon

      2. Pat Robinson Commissiong says:

        And I haven’t given you material on women in non-Western societies – that’s an even larger library. But as you were speaking of women in capitalist societies. I’ve reserved the reading list to Western Europe. But as I said, in most pre-capitalist societies women had and still have limited say in who will be their partners.Try Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia today if you think women can decide what they want. In Saudi Arabia a woman still has to have a “guardian” wither her father or her husband or some other MALE relative. But I suppose you’ll say they are no capitalist, despite their interactions with the capitalist world. And in India, despite it’s very modern & technologically advanced sectors, in villages and even in Mumbai, that financial and economic center, young people can still be killed for falling in love with someone from the wrong caste or clan – just read international newspapers/journals or read the BBC’s news web site. (bbc.com/news) You don’t need references from me; you’ll see the reports of such incidents for yourself.

  2. ms Commissiong to say this is hog wash is actually a defensive attack at the article -cuz we both know there are more to women -buh the traditional ones-If you dont believe look at our society -Its a perfect reflection of this article in every possible way….Women are now subjected to means…they would quicker gravitate to a richer considering every little girl was thought life is a fairy tale…Big house ,kids,green lawn and a man with money -its all nonsense,life isnt setup that way…as a result modern day relationships suffer the blunt trauma frm ever changing distractions….relationships are no more-respect,love and LOTALTY is no more …so mayb ur diff ms Commissiong and i salute u -buh as a man that has bin with a few well-there is a current trend …and this is coming from a successful man —who gre frm nuttin and saw how women moved and then i got more successful -its like …..you no longer have to court a woman when you have money -FoodForThought#

  3. Andy Woodley says:

    I love opinions, and it’s good to see you weren’t fazed by Pat’s conclusion that your contribution was hogwash, Vanrick. I think we should hold a little more respect for our compatriots who express opinions, whether we support or oppose their perspective.

    Quite a provocative piece. Pat might be surprised to see a significant percentage of women in agreement with Vanrick. Those especially from Western societies. Can the business of love be applied to the Black multi-millionaire basketball players in the U.S. Should be some interesting conclusions here.

    Vanrick, continue writing on a variety of issues. Pat, looking forward for something from you too. And where is Lance? Lance opened the year with some good thoughts. Lance, were you fazed by a little opposition to your presentation earlier in the year?

    A year is approaching since I first logged on to IWNSVG, and I have enjoyed every moment.

  4. Vanrick from the first time I read this piece I loved it. The fact that it has spurn such responses is credit to a well written piece. It has caused much “TALK”. I must say it was an audacious move to have a piece like this out in the public. Whether you have spoken to women or not to come to your conclusion I imagine experience would have been your teacher.

    1. Vanrick Willams says:

      Love that you love this piece…. At least you’re honest enough to concur that this is the real world we’re living in… no fairy tale world! Thanks Nisha, look for my next piece on iwnsvg.com

  5. Vanrick Willams says:

    Much thanks to I-witness news and everyone who commented on this piece, whether positively or negatively… Andy Woodley and Shady, your encouragement is greatly appreciated and you can look forward to seeing many more pieces from me…. Special thanks to Mr. Philemon Williams who gave me my first opportunity to express my views on women and love openly, and for encouraging me to publish my writings…. Much blessings everyone…

Comments are closed.