That’s not “basic sociology”. It’s gender stereotyping. Beauty and wealth aren’t fixed “currencies” by gender; social values are shaped by cultures, context and individual agency, not outdated gender roles.
Reducing women to beauty and men to finances, ignores how education, personality, influence and mutual support also shape perceived worth.
It’s a biased social script pretending to be science.
I totally get what you mean Mia, and they can huff and puff under your post all they want.
Here's basic sociology...
Beauty is currency to women, just like financial stability is to men. When a man has a beautiful woman on his arm, it raises his social value among his peers. It is automatically assumed that said man is successfull, even without proof. Men get a reputation boost just by association. A rich woman will not necessarily give them this boost. Infact, when men marry richer women, it often attracts disrespect as all financial moves are attributed to the rich partner. That's why you see many rich men marry very beautiful women who are not rich at all... they don't care... they know the social boost it brings. A social boost having money alone can never bring to them.
Same thing with financial stability in men. A woman with a rich man is automatically respected. She gains value and a prestige boost by association with that rich man, without being rich herself. She won't get this from a handsome man. Being handsome is good to look at, but just like above, when a woman is married to a more good-looking man, it often attracts condemnation and her actions always under scrutiny.
Both have value to each gender. Both can be regarded as 'gold'. But it is only one gender that gets called out for wanting what will bring true value ti them. Women.
This is basic sociology like I said. Before anyone comes for me, do your research first.