The men in America can finally let out a sigh of relief: they are no longer sought after. The dreaded words “marriage” and “commitment” are to become as obsolete in the United States as “love”. The official word is that the number of single women in their late twenties – early thirties who plan to stay that way has tripled since 1965. At a first glance, it would seem that the feminist ideal to achieve total, physical as well as emotional, independence from men has finally incarnated itself into reality. Or, it would seem, that the US women have become so adamant, so passionate about finding the “real” love that they would not settle for anything less. Even though the latter is desirable, it is untrue. It is not Cupid’s absence that has provoked the members of this country’s female population to spend their lives in self-imposed solitude.

If anything it is the presence of another god, one that is less impulsive and more powerful, that gave women this privilege: money. In fact, these days, America’s professional women are unwilling to share their “private space” with the corresponding species of the opposite sex. And when asked – why not ?—they give a flippant reply: Because we don’t have to. Indeed, they don’t. Women in America have become, and are increasingly becoming, financially independent to such a degree that they can now afford to be as pragmatic as their beloved statistics, which show that the principal cause of divorce is marriage. Raised to value common sense, the American women are choosing to to remain single. It is not uncommon here to see women in their late forties who, some years ago would have been expected to sport a grandchild or two in their arms, sporting a T-shirt that proudly proclaims: Girl, don’t get excited about nothing and marry him!

Surprisingly, though, the hard-core feminists are not hailing this trend as a victorious one. They remain silent on the subject and with much cause, I might add. That fact of the matter is, that today’s “superwomen” have absolutely nothing in common with the old feminist ideals. They are a mirror image of the males which they fought so hard to change – pragmatic, ambitious, self-centered. Instead of acquiring their own identity and retaining their ideals, they have proved so vulnerable as to forget them under the pressure of financial security. If you ask today’s women to pick a candidate that is against the women’s right to choose but is for lower taxes, they would gladly do so.

Unfortunately, one has to come to the conclusion that money, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, not only talks but swears. Unlike women or men, it is not gender specific; it manages to change minds and hearts with its mere androgynous presence. How else can one explain the fact that 70% of women in New York’s Westchester County, one of the richest in the country, are going to vote against their new neighbor, Hillary Clinton as their senator. These women, most of them highly paid professionals, are more worried about the proposed tax plans than about educational or health issues: the two issues that were traditionally of most concern to America’s women. Ironically, if Hillary Clinton, the trademark of traditional feminism, is to win this senatorial election, she has to rely on men and low-income women who are indifferent, if not ignorant of the feminist movement. Naturally, the high-powered women of New York are not citing money as the chief cause of their dislike of Hillary. They claim that their principled and idealistic souls cannot vote for a woman who forgave her husband’s sexual misbehavior. They insist that she should have divorced Bill Clinton, despite the fact that he is the president of the United States and, arguably, one the most charismatic men in this country. And they point to themselves as an example: indeed, most of them are divorced. However, they are forgetting one important fact: besides infidelity, it was probably just the first name that their husbands had in common with Hillary’s. As the American writer, Flannery O’Connor artlessly put it: “A good man is hard to find”. Hillary Clinton, being more intelligent than most men or women, is aware of this.

Whether Hillary Clinton becomes the next New York senator or not, the fact remains that women have failed in their most coveted tasks: sensitivity and idealism. For years, they have tried to instill into the minds of the American men to forget about their selfish ambitions and to cultivate a “ more general awareness of reality”. It proved to be a mere “kitchen talk” on their parts, for as soon as they left their kitchens for offices, the only reality that began to matter is the one that fattens one’s pockets.

Economy, not moral or political issues, is what matters to the “successful” women of America. Their philosophy is similar to that of the cave: grab the biggest piece possible and damn the rest of the tribe. The fact that they are beginning to favor solitary existence should make men feel at ease. After all, who wants to spend time with someone who mostly “ values personal space” (as opposed to public?) and who believes that everything, including love, can be bought, provided the sales tax is low? Indeed, men can exhale. They are no longer needed. Marriage is taking on, and, perhaps deservedly so, its true colors – mostly of greenish hue. Apparently, women have proved to be just as greedy as men about the green dollar – they simply refuse to share it.