Every girl I’ve ever dated is rich. I’m not sure why this is but figure I’ll try ‘n sort it out inside of the of this essay. In writing this essay, I assume you -the reader- has read – [and/-or seen the movie for] -‘The Great Gatsby’. If not -then, -go watch it.
Inherited Wealth and Feminism inside of the 21st century,
by Kyle Scott
“The only respectable thing about you, old sport, is your money. Your money, that’s it…”
First, it was the banker’s daughter. Second, the eldest daughter of a mechanical engineer. Third, the daughter to a wealthy business executive. And fourth, -and most recent, -the daughter of a lofty, construction entrepreneur.
Because they wanna’ piss off daddy by dating a communist?
Because they give great head?
Who the hell knows? I say.
So, I’ll ask -again: why -, you the reader ask, -am I found -myself, -guilty as- being one-a repeat-offender [in -regard -to -daughters of inherited wealth]?
Thus, I could not say.
F. Scott Fitzgerald said this though, “The rich are different”; — a statement to which, longtime friend and colleague [of his], Earnest Hemingway, responded, “You’re right: They have more money,” triggering hysterical laughter within a small group of aspiring artists’, inside of 30’s Paris. The statement itself attained -and held onto -a much greater resonance, when placed in the rephrased- context of a luxe, Ritz Hotel room, wherein Tom Buchanan, heir to oil -wealth, spoke thus to Gatsby,
“She is. We’re all different from you. You see, we were born different. It’s in our blood. And nothing that you do or say or steal… or dream up can ever change that [:]. A girl like Daisy…”
So, are they –or are they not, in-fact –different? Well, let’s consider it-now, -in sociological terms.
If you -the reader, -are one who believes that they are in-fact different -then, -you -yourself, -would be one-of the functionalist’s perspective. You believe in the success of a meritocracy; that America is meritocracy, and-so, that those most fitted for ‘high-stress’positions such as ‘wealthy oil-tycoon’ must naturally have come to acquiring such positions, only because they worked hard enough to reap the benefits, being one of the few -of all the entire-species- who are -themselves, -truly capable to manage the entailing stress of the hard work required to reap said benefits. ‘It’s in our blood,’ -Tom says. Tom is a functionalist. He believes that only his father could’ve succeeded in becoming a wealthy oil tycoon, and that he carries the blood of success; and further, since Gatsby was born poor, that Gatsby carries the blood of poverty. And maybe he’s right. Maybe his father was the only one capable. Statistics -more than average, -have shown that psychopaths tend to succeed inside the position of CEO. So, only if the man is a psychopath was he truly capable. Because he surely wasn’t an inventor, like the Austrian gun-maker Gaston Glock, god rest his soul. In the case of Gaston Glock, his children might have sufficient grounds to make such a claim; –that is, under the Functionalist’s perspective -, within a system of meritocracy. But -, despite what you Functionalists out there may believe, -statistics would also show that very few of the one-percent are in-fact inventors. They’re not inventors but investors, –rather -of accumulated, inherited wealth. So, it goes without saying. The same line of thinking goes for all children of the one-percent, the assumption of racial supremacy, applying solely to the one-percent: The Functionalist’s perspective.
Conflict Theorist’s line of thinking would be the polar-opposite. Karl Marx was not a conflict theorist but the conflict theorist. So-now, I wave goodbye to all the herd-animals who made it thus far into reading. Goodbye -now, you won’t be missed.
A conflict theorist -, on the other hand, -would propose that Tom Buchanan was in-short, inherited wealth- elitist -member of the upper-class bourgeoisie. In the same hotel room, Tom called out Gatsby for not having gone to Oxford. Karl Marx would say that Gatsby was unable to go to college, because Gatsby didn’t inherit his money. Gatsby had to work for it. Unfortunately, Karl Marx would also say, that -from Gatsby’s initial start in life; — if Gatsby had ever truly wanted to successfully attain -for himself, -a place in East Egg [or, was it West? I don’t care!], That Gatsby would have had to -himself, – become a ‘drug and/or alcohol dealer’. Thus, is where psychopathology comes in. Only the psychopath -, coming up from the bottom, -can succeed to attain their riches. You have-to be ruthless, coming up from the bottom; and in getting to the top, you have-to learn to smile again. Thus, is the hardest part. Gatsby couldn’t shake everything he did, everything he had to do, everything he was to begin with. Especially since, -in the very-first place, -his roots were not enough to have gotten a girl like Daisy for anything more than the initial and/-or occasional affair. Daisy wanted security; the security of generations.
Gatsby hadn’t known why Daisy would opt, rather, to stay with Tom Buchanan. Gatsby had started off poor, -true enough; -but had acquired -for himself, -a large sum of wealth. Perhaps, even more than Tom Buchanan. Thus, didn’t matter. Gatsby’s wealth came from the manufacture of alcohol in prohibition era, which meant that his illegal dealings still were, nonetheless, a lesser promised security. On the other hand, Tom had inherited his money, from his father, himself having sprung up from roots of wealth and decadence, just like Daisy had. Daisy knew well which of the two men could promise her the greater security and power. Therefore, Daisy held the line, clinging to Gatsby for a short while; a fine distraction for her, away from the confines of married life. You know the story.
As for myself, the one of the ex-girlfriends I want most to focus on was the girl who took my virginity. She was originally from England, and-so, accordingly, held tight grip onto the common, aristocratic spirit. Her father wasn’t rich, not from a one-percenter’s perspective. Her father was an engineer but she didn’t speak to her father. Her mother and father had divorced from each other, only shortly after their coming to America. The man who she, -her mother and family -lived with, was her stepfather. He was an engineer as well. Her father and stepfather had worked together, as engineers. Clearly, this girl – [who shall remain nameless] – ‘s mother retained the Daisy spirit.
What the aristocratic tend, usually, to do is play it smart, simply. They are social climbers- [or, Petit Bourgeois] –and-so, don’t gamble a whole lot. Whether it be in -regard to growth or shrinking, each -and every of their very actions is systemic [Pathological]. They are not more intelligent than the common man, -yet they aren’t stupid. Intelligence is a matter of subjective measure. Since, America is not in-fact a Meritocracy, thus matters. What’s best for a social climber is being subservient in nature. In -reality, -though, all matters of intelligence and/-or subservience are products of neurological development. So, the functionalists are right- to a certain degree. The more intelligent a person is, the more psychopathic traits they’ll hold; and-so, the less subservient they -themselves, in the end- will be. But we are not all our parents. They are not intelligent, the Petit Bourgeois. Thus, is the reason why they hesitate to gamble. Only the proletariat and/-or the Bourgeois are capably intelligent. And the children of inherited wealth have a lot more to lose. And trust, that they are terrified of losing it. Their schools make sure of that. Say, one is raised wealthy, with a certain type of brain, and with certain inherited traits; and -then, -one is born poor, with a certain type of brain, with certain inherited traits. What does one do after that? They observe and experience. Sociological factors relating to individual experience, though, are too numerous for me to properly communicate inside anything less than a doctoral thesis; so, in short, I’ll state, simply, that each two children shall have very different sets of life-experience. The child of inherited wealth will be provided with the very best education, inside of the very best schools; education with a greater discipline, that steers the child toward a more personalized set of individual life goals.
As for the poor child, they are taught for cooperation; not so much for action. The real goal in teaching boys is making them believe they’re stupid. Mostly, because they -themselves, – are capable of threatening revolution. Most come to the final belief that they -themselves, -are in-fact stupid, and-so go on to procreate. All the poor child ever has is the gamble. The one’s who don’t come to believe they’re stupid can perform one of a very small set of lifepaths. One, they go to prison. Two, they procreate. Three, they die early. Or four, they become a success. And-so, all that they have is the gamble. They are taught accounting, not business economics. They are taught home economics [rephrased nutrition], not women’s studies. They are taught blind cooperation for the community, not organizational behavior. They are taught the three branches of government, not political economy and government. They are taught Martin Luther King, not Malcolm X. They are taught the Civil War, not the new left. They are taught the constitution, not the new deal. They are taught Stalinism, not socialism. They are taught words, not rhetoric. They are given images, not personalized context. They are taught Shakespeare, not London. And mechanic’s shop, this year, was left out of the public school’s budget; having -now, -been given over to trade schools, which cost money for tuition, and are owned by someone else richer, to be made richer. Our economic system is kept a secret, ransomed by elites and the federal reserve. And nobody knows how it works. And it isn’t their fault. They were never taught to. They never learned Adam Smith, or Karl Marx. The true Karl Marx.
Here I am -now, -twenty-two years old, with nothing. I went through three years of college [all on scholarships and grant money], maintaining a 4.0 G.P.A. all the way. Anyway, the money ran out, so now I can’t finish. People say to me -now, -that I’ve got to get a job. Well, I’ve had a job. Within the past year, I’ve had several. But I ask, why? Why do I have to get a job? To earn the rich man capital on top of capital, because society will disown me otherwise? Well, O.K. I’ll get a job -then. If I get on like Gatsby though, they’ll put me in jail. So, I seem to be lacking in general volition. The rich girls don’t want me anymore because I’m no longer pre-law. I’m not sure whether -or not I’m glad of it. Mostly, they just pissed me off. The sex was good, but sex with the same woman, -over and over-again, is only good for so long. They are different, I’ll say that from experience; that they are a bunch of sniveling, afraid of the dark elitists with -not only mine, but everyone else’s fate, -in their hands. I don’t know. It’s depressing. I definitely-would’ve given Daisy a ride; and-so, the best advice I can give to you men is, simply, not to catch feelings. “Fuck a bitch. Don’t let a bitch fuck you.” -majestic, the drug-lord kingpin. But, if you also wanna go on living as nothing but an insect, just “don’t try,” at anything. Read books, jack off, eat food, take speed, and work as little-as is humanly-possible to sustain yourself, your pride and vices. Whatever. Fuck the rich. Yeah, I’m jealous of your money motherfuckers. So, what? If being honest makes me contemptible -then, I say, – cool. I’ll be the public enemy. I’ve fucked your women and they’re unimpressive. So, the Functionalists must’ve gotten that one wrong.