Angela Philipps, Contributor

I received an email about four weeks ago from a male reader, who pointed out a fact that I had never really considered before. He wanted me to (and I quote directly from his letter), "explore the phenomenon of why men are not 'dating', 'taking out women' any longer." He went on to say that, "When you attend any major musical show or event (like Jazz and Blues) or plays - women are mostly with other women, everywhere you go! Couples are in the 'great minority'. Even the writers of reviews make the comment - 'the mostly female audience'."

Now, the interesting thing is that he went on to note that, "In another section of our society - the part that hungrily consumes the 'dancehall' or roots theatre product - every two persons sitting in any row of the Ward Theatre was a male/female couple. The middle- to upper-class segment seems not to demonstrate that type of pattern."

No need for hooking up?

So my question is this: does this ring true?

And if so, why is this occurring? Is it because there are simply fewer men in the upper echelon of society? Or are wealthier guys uninterested in these types of events?

Do those, who are in a better socio-economic situation, have less need for hooking up? Does financial stability give so much independence to women that they do not have to rely on a man? However, aren't humans pretty much equal in our physical and emotional desires? Why would money, or lack of it, dictate our propensity to date?

Looking back at the last few years has made me realise that the fellow who wrote to me is not inaccurate in his observations. Indeed, the empowerment of us ladies who can support ourselves has led to the freedom of movement. Meaning, if we want to do something, we go right on ahead!

When my parents were of a similar age to me, there was no way my mum would have 'glamoured' up on a girl's night out and headed off, without my dad, to hear Diana Ross (or the like) sing! In those days, it was not acceptable for any lady to go out without a man by her side. Today, it's different. We are encouraged to stand on our own two feet, to be survivors, and to be completely capable of walking through life alone.

Harsh but true

What about the rest of our population? What would be the reason for so much romance? Why are they more likely to be coupled up than the well off? Cynics might say that it's because they can't afford to be on their own. It makes more sense to pool one's resources with another's. But this is disrespectful to love. How can one imply that affection is effected by money? It seems strange, though, that those who do have 'nuff' dollars are, in fact, more likely to be single.

Another aspect to consider is that, according to statistics, for every seven women living in Jamaica, who have had tertiary education, there is one man. Could this explain the 'mostly female audience'? Educated women have a higher earning potential, and therefore can afford to attend these concerts, etcetera. It looks like we ought to be sending our boys to college and university.

Am I sounding a bit harsh here? Is it right that uneducated blokes don't get a look-in with the smart gals of our country? To be honest, yes. Why should I settle for someone with whom I can't converse intellectually? Jamaicans should be striving for the best. And for those who can't afford it, then encouragement, schemes and scholarships must be put in place to rectify this imbalance between the sexes. Perhaps once equilibrium has been reached, women won't be too rich to date!

angelaphilippsja@hotmail.com