I've met many girls who say they want to date a guy who is "superior" to them. This sentiment seems to have been prevalent throughout history; it is ascribed to girls wanting to feel protected. Understandable.
The question is then: how do we define superiority? Long long ago it was probably physical strength and fighting prowess, as in the man must be able to fight against saber toothed tigers or hunt antelopes better than his woman. As most men are much stronger than most women, this criteria doesn't pose much of a problem for men.
As society progresses, the criteria of superiority slowly switched from physical power and courage to intellect, and earning capacity. This wasn't hard to do seeing as higher education and the job market was mostly male-dominated.
However as we move into the modern age, it's getting harder and harder for men to claim superiority in intellect, as we can see in Malaysia more girls go to university than guys. Same for earning power as women draw closer in terms of equality.
So now society faces two choices in terms of finding a partner. One of the two choices must be made or else things will go haywire:
A. Girls (and guys too) accept that the man doesn't have to be "superior".
B. A new criteria of "superiority" has to be set.
If neither of these two choices are made and we continue on our present path of increasing equality, the necessary outcome is that fewer and fewer girls can find a guy who matches up to their expectations. So either the number of unhappy marriages increase, or the total number of marriages decrease.
Perhaps this is humanity's way of combating overpopulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment