What is Love without the Gucci Bags?

I am one of those ahn ahn girls are soo materialistic, what happened to love and hustling etc...I am a hater of the 'Jenifa' style girl because I believe that it is a worthless and unfulfilled life...What is life without a PHD and the power of Margaret Thatcher???? I am not feminist...I am anti-feminist-they are incoherent!

Anyway back to the topic...I was talking to my cousin today and he pointed out that boys/men are under alot of pressure now to please women materially because as he said 'a girl will not be seen with a boy if he can't pop champagne ooooo or get a table at the clubs where 'everyone' is'.




I agree that girls are impressed by all these things, he wears hermes belts not primark leather and etro shirts not nice m&s cotton!



He drives a benz not a volvo( I have a friend who was put off a boy driving a ford!she was disappointed in herself,i must say!)...



Anyway all these things which draw attention to the boys and bring the babes coming he was saying are making life almost unbearable...Essentially, he cannot find the wife...'there are too many bad girls around'. For a while now, I have agreed with this view that women have thrown old values away and are not willing to 'hustle' with their men...Starting today, I disengage myself from such a view because guess what...life has not changed in the generations I will elaborate on!

1. Classics: *I am not a keen classic scholar and I have restricted knowledge so excuse my mistakes*
'What is love without the power of caesar or the greatness of Alexander'... 'What is love if you will not fight a lion and play with bulls to have me'


Women seemed much more respected when we think about goddesses etc. Biblical women of virtue are pasted all over the place. And so this is what most men think the epitome of womanhood should be, women are dainty mantlepieces that make the man's house(the man himself) look good. She is wise and will stand by her Napoleon anyday! She will be crucified with him if need be! In return however, women were protected, provided for and cared for. SO the definition of caring was not a pair of manolos or a nice vera wang or ungaro but fighting wars and bringing glory home is a really tough call...let's be honest men,would you rather be in Iraq or Sudan right now than working your asses off at that desk to afford the winter 09 collection of Chanel! I would say the latter for most...in the words of my people 'who wan die!'. My point of comparison is that, women left their husbands if the man failed to provide these things...all these historical/fictional films we see where the man is betrayed by the woman, its not a lack of love that caused it, its the lack of comfort and security...the man at that point he fell in love would have been unable to provide the woman with the necessary security- he would have been unable to go to that battle at carthage and would not be a man like Diana's husband was!

2. The Elizabethan/Victorian Woman:
'What is love without that mansion in Bath', 'What is love without property'


I know I should not compare because they were different but in the end they have the same achievements- they were female leaders in a male-dominated world. These eras moved women a little from the kitchen into the palace making decisions and telling men to stuff it generally. However, victorian girls were virtuous and pure and so were 'property of the man'.(the outrage of the feminist at this comment especially with a woman in power..shame on you vicky!). They certainly had better rights than the elizabethan girls who could not be educated(Cheltenham Ladies were useful at some point in victorian life!). Jane Austen's final years reflect this idea of women as 'property'. The Bennet girls had to find'advantageous' husbands in order to survive! However it did not stop them from marrying and although they fought for better human rights etc(some) ('A vindication on the rights of Woman' carried on!). Again in comparison to now, the woman was expected to bend over backwards but in return the man provided her with security and comfort...again these gucci bags come into play!!!!

3. Thatcher:
'What is love without Coco Chanel and the payment of electricity bills'



It is popular belief that Margaret was not an 'iron lady' at home infact she was a loving and attentive wife. However by this era, I must admit, women were moving from the kitchen majorly...they stepped up!!! However, this new found power did not take away the need for a woman to be useful in a domestic way or be wanted by a man. The man was still the provider and carer...this was his duty. Women were falling more and more in love with luxury goods because, cheap labour allowed for governesses(househelps in other words) and drivers. In other words, men had found a way to provide security and comfort in the much more advanced and technological world and so luxury goods become the definition of comfort...maybe not security! A man who could pay bills was ensuring security!

4. Bush, Osama, Blair, Obama, Obasanjo and Yardua:
'What is love without the Gucci bags'

We are now in a grey area where the men are looking for the victorian girls of virtue and morality and the biblical woman of strength, courage and purity! However is this fair to demand seeing as technology and feminism (Go the guerilla girls, the girls of the 50s and NOW we hail thee!)have advanced greatly! In a time of recession, we are not asking for your heads to be chopped in a show of glory, we want the war in Iraq to end...all we want is those gucci bags. We bend over backwards, we will supervise the cook, cleaner, organise the lunch rounds, get pregnant, have sex, and some women with a sense of thatcherite fulfillment will run for public office and be ceo's of companies! What is my point,it is that women have not changed and neither have their needs...We have always lived the theory of 'what is love without the gucci bags' it just had different slogans!!!