By J. DeVoy
…by pairing needy women with rich men. The catalyst? A state-sponsored makeover to enhance their appearance.
The local social service departments are paying for the women to have a make-over in the hope they can hook up with a rich husband to support them, the paper says. If 70 women find a new husband, the council can save €400,000 on welfare payments.
The councils are putting €1,400 into each woman to have her hair done and get help with her image. They will also get their wardrobe updated and tips on social skills and presentation.
Once the transformation process has been completed, the women will be registered at a local marriage bureau Mens en Relatie in Oentsjerk, the paper says.
No mention of personal trainers, though maybe that would be unnecessary: The Netherlands ranks in the top 10 countries for beautiful women.
You feel like you should be mad… but, then I think, there are far worse approaches to getting people off welfare, and it sure as hell beats getting a job at EU-McDonald’s.
Why would I be mad about increasing beauty?
I meant “you” in the sense of “a person” – not you specifically.
Objectively, the scheme is not without objectionable qualities. One could argue that beauty is subjective, and that state sponsored beautification of persons is akin to establishing a governmental standard for beauty.
Also, one could argue that offering this only for women, but not for men, is discriminatory. Obviously, the counter is that there aren’t enough wealthy single women out there to make a governmental program for men on welfare feasible. But, then, that itself points to other inequities.
One could also be offended, if one chose to do so, at the idea that investing public funds into dressing women up to be married off to men — as opposed to, say, investing in job training and education — because it is an inherently patriarchal approach that suggests that women are better put to use as wives than as otherwise productive members of society.
But again, all that said, marrying a rich man (assuming he’s not a total douchebag) is nonetheless likely to lead to a better life than working at a fast food restaurant or as a word processor, etc.
Fair enough; there are underlying issues of sexism and paternalism, but they take longer and more money to address than someone paying the state for a marriage license. If you’re looking to cut a line item, making structural improvements to society and the citizenry is less helpful than making them someone else’s responsibility.
That said, I would not object to marrying someone who wanted to take care of me. I doubt whether anyone with money is that self-hating.
Agreed. In the absence of other better options, this one is far less objectionable than others that have been tried (or suggested on this blog; read: forced sterilization).
[Re you and the prospects of being a kept man… I have no idea if your sugar mama is out there, though, I think that Vegas will be a great place to start looking]
*Looks the other way and whistles*
I think that this is a fucking great idea!
Maybe they should legalize polygyny. It would probably accelerate the process.
Might work short-term, but be wary of shutting guys out of access to sex. See, e.g., Sodini.