The patriarchy and capitalism came together and birthed the phrase “I’ll just marry rich.” Many young women say this phrase in response to a hardship they are experiencing, often in school: “Finals are killing me, I’m gonna drop out and just marry rich.” This is often said in a light-hearted manner, but every joke has a level of truth within it. Through the constant repetition of this phrase at the slightest inconvenience, we begin to train our brain to believe that “marrying rich” is a viable option, when more likely than not, it isn’t. These “jokes” have dangerous gendered implications and suggest that a woman’s fulfillment is dependent on what her husband provides, positioning women as helpless damsels in distress.
Long before it became a joke, marrying rich was one of the few paths for women to live stable and content lives. Throughout history and in some more contemporary cases, marriage has been viewed as a business deal. The parents of women had the sole objective to marry off their daughters to the wealthiest man in order to assure that both the woman and her family could live a life of financial security. For instance, within England common law established that:
“…a young woman was under the control and influence of her father until she married. Only after marriage did guardianship pass from father to groom. This guardianship afforded a father the ultimate say in who his daughter courted and even married.”
In other words, women were their fathers’ legal property and were treated as such. As “property,” daughters were regarded as being financially burdensome for a father, who were required to provide for her needs without any form of compensation. So fathers took the most economically optimal route; transferring ownership of property by marrying their daughters off.
While women have significantly more economic and social freedoms nowadays, the concept of relying on a wealthy man for fulfillment lingers within the media we consume. Beginning from a young age, we are constantly exposed to fairy tales where fragile damsels in distress are saved by a prince. For instance, Cinderella endured constant abuse from her family within the story, and it was not through her actions, but rather through the fateful, yet brief, encounter she had with the prince at a ball that allowed her to escape her abusive household. If it were not for the prince’s ample amount of free time to search every house for the woman who perfectly fits the shoe left at his ball, Cinderella would have been trapped with her abusive family. While the story is very entertaining, it is harmful to spread the idea to young girls that it is not their actions that control their future, but rather the choices of someone else. This trope is present in adult media as well.
One of my favorite movies is actually guilty of this. “Pretty Woman” centers on Vivian Ward, a prostitute played by Julia Roberts, who happens to solicit Edward Lewis, a wealthy, kind-hearted businessman played by the heartthrob Richard Gere. Over the course of the hour-and-59-minute movie, the two fall in love and he proceeds to “rescue” her from her job as a prostitute. It is established throughout the movie that Ward does not like her job. Rather than the movie depicting her as actively taking steps to try and exit this field, it is solely because of her relationship with Lewis that she finds an escape.
Both of these cult classics, “Cinderella” and “Pretty Woman,” echo the same idea that the route for a woman to achieve a happy life is through marrying a rich man. This idea is not isolated to movies but shapes modern-day “dating advice” on social media. Shera Seven, a popular influencer with 1.3 million followers on TikTok, created the “sprinkle sprinkle movement,” which, in essence, is Shera Seven telling women to solely date wealthy men who will pay their bills and buy them anything they want. Shera Seven spreads this message to her large audience, which has continuously been regurgitated throughout multiple platforms. The media we consume shapes our worldview, and as this theme continuously appears within our media, it reinforces the idea that a woman’s satisfaction is reliant on a man rather than herself.
The likelihood of Prince Charming knocking on your front door to save you from a life of work is slim to none, but on the off-chance that it does happen, the wealth you marry into is his, not yours. Solely marrying a person for their wealth, while you have no degree or work experience, will create a significant power imbalance. This financial dependence can leave a person vulnerable to manipulation and financial abuse. Financial abuse is a serious issue that is rarely recognized, according to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence: “78% of Americans don’t recognize financial abuse as domestic violence.” Additionally, it has been reported that one in seven women in the UK have experienced financial abuse by a romantic partner. It is important to note that anyone can experience financial abuse, but the risk is greater in relationships where one partner is earning all the income while the other partner has no independent source of money.
Women throughout history, and many women currently, would do nearly anything to be in our position right now: attending college, earning a degree, and shaping our own future rather than having to be dependent on a man. It is imperative that we do not diminish the opportunities that women before us have fought for by romanticizing complete reliance on a husband. I, too, have made the occasional joke about not wanting to write an essay and how I would rather “just marry rich.” Doing this does not automatically make you antifeminist or sexist, but we must stop normalizing such phrases because of the harm they may create. In reality, no one is coming to save you, so put down your phone and start studying for your finals so that you can create a life defined by your ambition and hard work, not a man’s bank account.
