From the author: The whole world is a theater and admission to it requires tickets. Free for women and children? Money excites emotions. They themselves or those around them are not the essence. The main thing is that their quantity can clearly affect the quality of our mood. Therefore, the topic of emotional dependence, which is so popular today, can – and should, I believe – be considered through the prism of economic interest. It is curious, but just as much as previously in the post-Soviet space it was customary to explain certain patterns of interpersonal communication by global class contradictions, now any conflict is viewed as a private situation caused by purely intimate circumstances. This is understandable, everyone has the right to become a capitalist, and whoever does not become is to blame. Entrepreneurship and initiative and you are, of course, not an exploiter, but an owner of private capital. Everything is of good will and with mutual consent: someone commands, and someone obeys. Everything is fair and everyone is happy. It would seem that. But! You look around and understand that soon we will begin to justify higher salaries for men with nothing other than: “Well, he has to feed both his wife and his mistresses!” A working woman is about to become – a priori – a failed woman: option 1) no one needed, no one wanted to get married; option 2) “mommy” with an infantile husband. And suddenly it turns out that equality in poverty is much easier to maintain than equality in wealth. (And equality in surplus is simply absurd: that’s why it’s surplus, so that there’s less left somewhere). And as soon as we all began to notice differences, it became very difficult to get around the fact of our sexual (physiological) dissimilarity. And since this dissimilarity is primary, basic, it is very easy to explain with it all subsequent discrepancies on the path of life. For example, the habitual economic insolvency of women, due to which they so naturally and necessarily become dependent on men. Meanwhile, marriage strategies have always been an element of economic relations. And before this they didn’t make much of a secret. Each member of the family or clan was assigned a portion of the property. A rich family - you get a lot of property, a poor family - practically nothing, sometimes only your own body - the source of possible profit. But since women and children did not have legal rights (and were considered, in principle, incapable of making informed decisions), they were only an addition, a “transitional charter” providing access to their share of the property. That is, marriage was a way to take possession of the property of the future wife. At the same time, he assumed her complete unconditional submission to her husband. So what do we have now? Formal equality of rights and opportunities is not so obvious in reality. It is easy and relaxed to combine the daily work of creating a family nest (and especially motherhood) with earning money - a difficult task. If you do not already have established capital, the interest from which could be considered as a contribution to the family pot, then several alternatives arise: 1) constantly prove that your housework brings economic profit to the family; 2) combine hired work and domestic work itself; 3) do not start a family. The third option is a problem for society, the second is for the family, the first is for the woman. Psychologically, option number one is the least burdensome for others. He transfers a social problem to the plane of private relations. And if a man can still feel his worth through socially significant economic indicators, then a woman’s value is correlated only with the success of her marital behavior. Thus, she becomes completely dependent on her family. It is there that she will have to satisfy all her needs: primary and secondary - in love, recognition, spiritual development. Pseudo-psychological (religious-mystical) teachings about the “natural” destiny of a woman come in very handy here. Thanks to them, you can relieve yourself of at least part of the blame for missed.