*I* pretty much agree with everything you say,but like you,*I* am a man,and I live a rural life. I shoot 308's and 12 gauges off in my yard,and nobody lives close enough to even notice it.
The part I quoted above is proof you agree with me and we have just been "talking past" each other. What you described is the rural equivalent of being rich because in YOUR position it is proof to the typical woman OF YOUR CULTURE that you can protect her and the children,and you can provide for them.
Almost, but not quite. My point up until now was to disabuse you of the idea that money is what women were after. You began in that notion. Now it turns out that, since 'protection and provision' are subjective, subject to vagaries which include culture and conditions, it can be no more than a modifier.
I admit fully that protection and provision
are factors in a general sense of how a woman judges a man instinctively. It's what men DO. There is no doubt that a woman would prefer a bigger, badder dog on her porch that all the other dogs around. But that ain't *all*, any more than the physical attributes that attract a man to a woman are the point of the matter.
That beauty is fleeting. She'll get older. She'll probably hang a few pounds. That thick, rich hair will grow thinner, and turn gray. Will you love her still? If you're half a man, you'll say yes.
I can flat-out guarantee it won't impress a single model or beauty queen in NYC or Miami,though. One might even feel sorry enough for you to mention it,though.
Well, that ain't quite true - I had a beauty queen for quite some time... But I will accept the premise as a general rule. But just the same, I wouldn't be looking for such a woman, if we're speaking in general terms.
For city girls,nothing beats cash in the bank for proof a man can provide a stable and safe home life for her and any children she may have. Actually,many city girls in this day of AA hiring and quotas have enough money coming in to provide them for themselves and take care of a husband also if they want,but even if they won't admit it,most women will start want a man that brings in more than they do.
I think that's part of the difference here - City vs. Country - What a man provides a woman, and a woman provides a man is corrupted n the city sense of things. Out here in the sticks its more plain, and because of it, more evident. Out here, a woman relies on a man to fix and do, and if he is capable in that regard, bestows honor upon him. And in the same way (only differently), a man relies upon a woman to fix and do, and if she is capable in that regard, bestows honor upon her.
An old woman, in off the ranch to do her shopping will receive honor from me as a matter of course, because here, such a woman has already proven herself and she wears her honor in her face. That she is ugly or old or fat has naught to do with it at all. I will tip my hat, I will open the door, and I will tote for her, as a matter of course, because societal norms here still demand it of me. And rightly so.
In the city, or at least in the jet set that those in the city try to emulate, honor is not a palpable thing, and perhaps not even existent, and the matter in which it is bestowed, if there at all, is fungible and subject to all sorts of petty exceptions.
But when you die, the only thing you'll bring with you is your honor, such as it is or isn't. And that, intrinsically tied to how you have honored others, is the whole shootin match.
Out here, we honor what we love, and there are sure fire ways of expressing that inbuilt into polite society.
It's just an ingrained part of nature . If men and women hadn't developed these traits that compliment each other to where two halves make a whole,mankind would have gone extinct long ago.
You are getting close here - but it is the interface that matters, not the fact of the matter. The contract between the two halves is based in love and honor, not in the explicit or implicit complimentary services that the two halves might provide.
