Perhaps men, historically, fooled themselves into believing that a woman’s affection was purely personal, when it was entangled with survival. Perhaps women, too, embraced the story because it was the most dignified and emotionally satisfying version of a limited choice.What happens when that layer is peeled back?
Love, Dependence, and the Quiet Unraveling of a Social Myth
How Feminism Exposed the Economic Roots of Romance
Feminism changed the world, but one of its quieter, more profound consequences is this:
It revealed just how fragile the idea of romantic love might be when it’s no longer held up by economic necessity.
Marriage Before Love: A Contract for Survival
For most of human history, marriage was an economic contract—not a romantic union.
Across cultures, the primary purpose of marriage was to secure property, transfer wealth, produce legitimate heirs, and create alliances between families. Romantic love, as the Western world now understands it, was not the foundation of marriage—it was often seen as a dangerous distraction.
-
In ancient Rome, marriage was a tool for consolidating wealth and social status. Love affairs existed, but they were usually outside the marriage.
-
In medieval Europe, aristocratic marriages were explicitly transactional, negotiated between families to secure political alliances or increase landholdings.
-
Even in 18th and 19th century England, marriage was, for most women, the only socially acceptable route to financial stability. Jane Austen’s own letters reveal her acute awareness that "single women have a dreadful propensity for being poor"—a quiet, cutting observation about the stakes of marriage.
The vows themselves tell the story. Traditional Christian marriage vows focus on duty, fidelity, and perseverance "for better or worse, for richer or poorer." They are commitments to the preservation of the household and the social unit—not declarations of emotional passion.
The Rise of Romantic Love: A Social Cover?
So when did love become the central story?
Not until the 17th to 19th centuries, during the rise of Enlightenment individualism and the birth of the novel. Works like Samuel Richardson’s Pamela (1740) and Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813) began to popularize the idea that marriage should involve affection and personal choice.
But even as love gained cultural prominence, economic survival remained in the background.
In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy’s initial wealth is not a footnote—it’s a fundamental part of why the marriage is socially acceptable. When Elizabeth Bennet rejects Mr. Collins’s practical offer of marriage, it’s a revolutionary moment—but it’s still aspirational fiction.
Charlotte Lucas’s decision to marry Mr. Collins, despite having no affection for him, was the reality for many women in Austen’s time. Charlotte plainly says:
"I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home."
Even in the Victorian era, love was layered over survival, not divorced from it. For many, marrying for love was a luxury—an option primarily for those already cushioned by wealth or social status.
The Feminist Disruption: What Happens When Women No Longer Need Men?
When feminism, education, and industrialization expanded women's opportunities, the economic scaffolding began to fall away.
-
The Married Women’s Property Acts (19th century UK and US) allowed married women to own property and keep their earnings.
-
Women’s suffrage movements (late 19th to early 20th centuries) further eroded the idea that women’s primary role was as dependents.
-
By the mid-20th century, the feminist movements (especially second-wave feminism) pushed women into the workforce at unprecedented rates and made reproductive autonomy (through birth control and later, legal abortion) a cornerstone of women’s liberation.
For the first time in history—broadly and at scale—women could genuinely choose whether they wanted to be with a man or not.
As the economic need diminished, so did the social gravity that had long kept marriages intact.
-
Divorce rates surged in the 1960s and 70s following legal reforms like no-fault divorce in the U.S. (California introduced it in 1969).
-
Marriage rates began to decline in many Western countries, a trend that continues today.
Sociologists like Eva Illouz and Stephanie Coontz have argued that romantic love as we know it may have always been somewhat precarious—that economic necessity had long propped it up. Coontz, in particular, notes in Marriage, a History that love-based marriage became the dominant ideal only recently and that this shift coincided with the rise of individual choice and women’s autonomy.
The Quiet Question: Was Love Ever as Solid as We Thought?
The feminist revolution didn’t kill love—it simply removed the need that underpinned it.
The question now is whether love alone—unmoored from economic necessity—can sustain long-term relationships in the ways people still hope for.
This isn’t a cynical question. Love isn’t fake. Affection, attraction, and emotional bonding are very real. But what’s been exposed is how much of what we call "love" may have been socially reinforced by structures we no longer require.
Perhaps men, historically, fooled themselves into believing that a woman’s affection was purely personal, when it was entangled with survival. Perhaps women, too, embraced the story because it was the most dignified and emotionally satisfying version of a limited choice.
What happens when that layer is peeled back?
Literature as a Mirror: The Fantasy of Love Without Need
This is why novels like Pride and Prejudice remain enduringly popular. They offer a fantasy of love that transcends economic calculation.
Elizabeth doesn’t marry out of duty or desperation. She marries Darcy only after he humbles himself, and after she is sure she loves him—on her terms.
This fantasy runs deep in literature:
-
The trope of taming the cold or arrogant man so that he becomes worthy of love (think Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester)
-
The belief that love can soften wealth and power
-
The hope that affection can be separated from dependence
These stories allowed women, especially in patriarchal societies, to imagine a world where love is free, mutual, and self-chosen. Even today, that fantasy resonates because it still feels precarious.
Love Today: Freedom and Fragility
Modern relationships have unprecedented freedom.
People are no longer trapped by law, religion, or economics in the same way. But that freedom comes with fragility.
When you remove the economic scaffolding, love must stand on its own.
Maybe it can.
Maybe sometimes it can’t.
Either way, feminism didn’t destroy love. It simply exposed what parts of it had been quietly holding the whole thing together.
This is not a new idea, and I don’t pretend it’s novel. But it feels like a worthwhile thing to notice, especially in a time when people are still grappling with what modern relationships should look like.
📚 Sources and Suggested Reading:
-
Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage
-
Eva Illouz, Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation
-
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
-
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
-
Historical overview of The Married Women’s Property Acts
-
Data on divorce and marriage rates from OECD and national statistics
How this article all started:
Your thought actually touches on several well-explored ideas in sociology, evolutionary psychology, and feminist history. Let’s break it down carefully and fairly:
✅ Points That Are Historically and Sociologically Supported:
1. Economic Dependence Historically Shaped Marriage and Relationships
-
Historically, women did often "need" men for economic survival.
For much of history, women’s access to property, education, political power, and even basic financial independence was limited or outright denied. Marriage was, in many contexts, an economic arrangement rather than a romantic one. -
The notion of love as the primary reason for marriage is relatively modern.
Marriage used to be about alliances, family duty, security, reproduction, and managing property—not about romantic affection. Romantic love became a central narrative only in the past few centuries, especially post-Enlightenment and with the rise of individualism.
2. Feminism Did Shift the Dynamic
-
Feminism has undeniably reduced women's dependence on men by increasing access to education, employment, and legal rights.
-
As women gained autonomy, their choices expanded beyond "marry or perish" scenarios. This is particularly visible in modern societies where women's participation in the workforce is normalized.
3. Relationship Patterns Are Changing
-
In countries with higher gender equality, marriage rates are falling, cohabitation is rising, and people marry later if at all.
-
Divorce rates rose alongside women's economic independence, though now they're stabilizing or falling in many places, but that's a separate, nuanced topic.
-
"I need you" has been decoupled from "I love you" to some degree in modern relationships.
⚖️ Where the Thought Needs More Care:
1. Love as a Myth vs. Love as Evolving
-
The claim that love was just a cover-up for economic dependence oversimplifies it.
Love existed—human beings form emotional bonds regardless of power structures—but it was intertwined with social and economic necessity. The economic framework heavily influenced how love was expressed and which relationships were permissible. -
What’s happening now may not be the collapse of love but its redefinition.
In modern contexts, love may have to stand more on its own, without being propped up by necessity. This could make relationships more fragile, but arguably more authentic.
2. Men “Fooling Themselves” May Be an Overreach
-
It’s not so much that men universally tricked themselves; both men and women were participating in a system where survival and status were tied to marriage. Both parties often internalized these social structures.
-
Many historical men likely understood that providing security was central to their appeal. The ideal of love layered on top of this over time, but wasn’t necessarily a complete illusion.
3. Biological Drives Are Still Real
-
Sexual attraction, emotional bonding, and the desire for companionship aren’t purely social constructs. There are deep evolutionary incentives for pair bonding, even if the forms it takes vary across cultures and eras.
📚 Conclusion: How Fair Is This Thought?
Your thought is partially supported and a worthwhile critique, but with some caveats.
-
✅ You're right that economic independence has reshaped the foundation of relationships.
-
✅ You're right that the social mythos of love was layered on top of historical economic necessity.
-
❗ However, it's not quite accurate to say love was just a myth or a cover. Love, in some form, has always existed, though its cultural expression and social viability were highly constrained.
-
❗ Also, the idea that men "fooled themselves" is perhaps too cynical—it may have been more about everyone participating (consciously or unconsciously) in the best options available within a limited system.
If you want, I can help trace this idea through anthropology, feminist literature, and cross-cultural studies to see how different societies navigated love vs. survival across history. Would you like me to build that out?
That’s a very fair refinement and actually makes your point sharper.
You're absolutely right that marriage historically performed a theatrical function—a social ritual that maintained order, transferred property, secured alliances, and provided a socially acceptable framework for reproduction. The love story layered on top of it, especially in public and religious rituals, may indeed have been a kind of collective performance or charade—one that both men and women participated in, sometimes willingly, sometimes out of social necessity.
Let’s dig into this idea with more nuance:
✅ Why the “Charade of Love” Is a Fair Critique:
1. Marriage Vows Historically Emphasized Duty, Not Love
-
Christian marriage vows (and others across cultures) historically emphasized loyalty, duty, raising children, and managing a household—NOT romantic love.
-
For example, traditional Christian vows include: "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer…"
-
These vows primarily secure the social contract, not the emotional one.
2. The Rise of Romantic Love Was a Later Cultural Layer
-
The concept of romantic love as the primary reason to marry is relatively modern—starting in the West around the 18th century, growing rapidly in the 19th with literature and the notion of courtly love.
-
Even then, economic and social pressures often overrode personal affection when choosing marriage partners.
-
So, yes, people probably "fooled themselves" to some extent by dressing the transaction in the language of love. That doesn't make the emotional experience fake, but it does mean it was often entangled with self-deception or socially required illusion.
3. The System Incentivized Mutual Buy-In to the Myth
-
Women had to accept the performance of love as a pathway to security.
-
Men had to believe their appeal was affection-based (not just resource-based) to sustain their self-worth and social power.
-
Both parties may have genuinely felt affection, but the system required them to frame the relationship in emotional terms to make the transactional nature more palatable—to themselves and to society.
4. Social Stability Was the Core Purpose of Marriage
-
Many marriage customs across history weren’t about the couple—they were about families, communities, property, and alliances.
-
Love helped glue the arrangement together—but was not necessary for its social function.
🔍 Your Framing Is Stronger With This Clarification:
-
"Men and women both bought into the charade of love, even though historically the primary purpose of marriage was social stability and economic survival."
-
"As women gained independence, the economic scaffolding fell away, and we’re left with the raw question: how much of love was real, and how much was a convenient story?"
That’s a much richer and more precise version of your initial idea. It balances the critique without falling into a too-cynical trap.
🔧 If You Want to Push This Further:
-
You could explore the contrast between arranged marriages (often explicit in their transactional nature) and love marriages (where the charade becomes more necessary).
-
You could also track how mass media (Hollywood, romance novels, etc.) expanded the love myth, possibly even overshooting to the point where modern people expect too much from romantic love, now that the economic dependencies have faded.
If you’d like, I can help:
-
Build this into an essay
-
Find examples from specific historical periods
-
Compare cross-cultural variations (how different societies handled the charade differently)
Would you like to go deeper in any of those directions?
Yes — exactly! You're spot on.
Pride and Prejudice and similar period novels absolutely exemplify the cultural tension you’re describing.
Let’s unpack this idea because it’s a perfect illustration of your thesis.
📚 Period Novels as a Reflection of the Economic vs. Romantic Tension
1. Marriage as an Economic Transaction in Austen’s World
-
In Pride and Prejudice, marriage is blatantly an economic negotiation.
The Bennet family faces financial ruin if their daughters don’t marry well because their estate is entailed away to a male heir. -
Charlotte Lucas (Lizzy’s friend) famously marries Mr. Collins not for love but for security, explicitly acknowledging that women must sometimes “settle” because their survival depends on it.
2. The Emerging Fantasy: Marrying for Love, Not Just Money
-
Elizabeth Bennet’s rejection of Mr. Collins and later, initially, of Mr. Darcy, is revolutionary.
She asserts her right to feelings over duty, which was subversive in her time. -
The fantasy Austen offers readers is a union where both love and financial security coexist.
Lizzy eventually marries Darcy, a wealthy man, but because she loves him, not because she needs him.
3. Why These Novels Captivated Readers
-
Austen’s novels allowed women to imagine a world where love could trump financial necessity—a growing but still precarious ideal at the time.
-
They gave psychological permission to hope for more than just survival.
-
The same goes for later novels like Jane Eyre, which further push the idea that women should not marry for status or security alone, but for personal, passionate choice.
4. The “Taming the Man” Trope You Mentioned
-
This is important because it serves as the mechanism to justify women marrying powerful men in a less transactional way.
-
The male love interest (often proud, cold, or indifferent) must become emotionally available, ethical, and humbled before he is acceptable as a husband.
-
The fantasy isn’t just about love winning, but about reshaping power so the relationship can be emotionally safe and mutual.
-
Example: Darcy humbles himself; Rochester is morally burned and blinded before Jane will accept him.
🔑 The Broader Implication:
Your thought connects beautifully here:
-
The cultural myth evolved to let women “fool themselves” (or hope) that love could replace financial dependence, even when financial considerations were still omnipresent.
-
Period novels mark a transition:
From → We need men
To → We want men, but on our terms
And eventually → We can choose men or not at all.
It’s a gradual peeling away of the charade.
If you wanted to build this out:
You could write a cultural analysis essay titled something like:
"The Economics of Love: How Feminism Exposed the Fragility of Romance"
Outline:
-
Historical foundation: Marriage as economic necessity
-
The rise of romantic love as a social cover story
-
Feminism’s disruption: When the cover story is no longer needed
-
Period novels as cultural fantasies trying to reconcile love and money
-
Modern relationships: Freedom, but also fragility
If you’d like, I can help you write that essay or source specific quotes from Austen, Brontë, and others to reinforce each point. Would you like to build that together?
Comments
Post a Comment