AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON LOVE:
I hate to “commodify” people but for the purposes of my argument, I beg your pardon. Let us assume that jamaas and mamaz are playaz in the market place. By playaz, I mean they are demanders and suppliers of a “good” or “goods”. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to ascribe the term “good” by the way … Now, the market place is EVERYDAY LIFE, that is classrooms, streets, farms, workplaces, hanyez, churches (especially churches). Finally, the commodity/good being traded is LOVE. Crucially, it is possible to “price discriminate” in the market place. That means that my goods are not priced the same as your goods. This invariably introduces another variable; price. Within a set of demanders and suppliers, the equilibrium price is attained when two “traders” meet each other at the right place at the right time; their feelings for each other are indistinguishable – they feel the SAME way about each other, at the SAME time. These two individuals are then said to be “IN-LOVE” … sorta like IN-THE-MONEY” but not quite.
So why can’t a sista buy herself some LOVE? A mama who poses this question to herself is UNABLE to conduct business in the market place: In any market for “goods” , there are BUT two explanations for this inability:
- They exercise their choice not to buy the good (in spite of having value for exchange)
- The good is too costly.
An important provision is apt at this time: Ceteris paribus, that is, holding all else constant, this scenario applies for GENUINE merchants of LOVE only. Every market has its own inefficiencies and wastages. The list below (and note it is not exhaustive) represents the wastages and inefficiencies in this crazy market for love a.k.a the LOVE KUBAFFS. These will be nonchalantly ignored:
“Hit and Run”
“Sex Bila Jokes”
“One-night-standers”
“Nipe-Nikupe”
Hardcore feminists!! - GRRRRRHHH ...
Etc …
The first reason (choice) is claimed by many a mamaz, but is only genuinely applicable to a few. That’s because it’s the sexier/less potent of the two poisons. True enough, there are mamaz who have scoured the market and genuinely decided that they want no part of this good called LOVE. This is part of the exchange process and there can be no gripes about them …
The vast majority however, need LOVE but can’t seem to get any favours from the market. This is where the concept of “kutolewa rangi” comes in. We now live in a society where the haves frown heavily on the have-nots. Even the have-little despise the have-nothings. With this associated stigma, who is going to ADMIT that they cannot bargain for LOVE in the market? Only a precious few! The rest proudly proclaim, “Why the hell do I need a man?” Note here that BARGAINING CURRENCY is obtained from the numerous social interactions, teachings from parents, church, etc. A corollary of this definition is that when we say that the good “love” is too expensive, it is synonymous to saying that there is INADEQUATE BARGAINING CURRENCY!
But how would such a situation arise?
Let’s take a journey back, back into time. Often, it is instructive to literally step “outside” of time and observe linkages between events. Unfortunately, we are often biased towards present events . Understanding these past-present linkages should occasion us invaluable insight in trying to establish a focused, effective and goal-oriented framework for facilitating the EXCHANGE for LOVE. Forthwith, I will argue that the quagmire accruing to Kenyan mamaz from the afore-posed questions is a direct result of the invisible tensions between the traditional, the modern and the religious!!
Should a woman marry a younger man?
What is the right age for a woman to get married?
Why do women panic when they reach 30 on the BT?
Way before the Union Jack was shamelessly hoisted on our hallowed soil, way before young Kenyan boys started wearing netted vundas, these questions, these dilemmas were for all intents and purposes, NON-EXISTENT. Society had AUTOMATIC STABILIZERS in the form of defined roles that were a double-edged sword. In the largely GERONTOCRATIC SOCIETY, place dictated form. Women were almost exclusively subservient to the whims of men. It was assumed that the commodity LOVE was superior to INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. Simply put, everybody had to get some. This was achieved by ensuring that women had little or no say when it came to choosing the SUPPLIER of love. If a man looked, and liked, and had the BARGAINING CURRENCY, that was pretty much sealed. Interestingly, our traditional society can hardly be said to have been dysfunctional in this regard. In essence, LOVE was deemed a PUBLIC GOOD which society was generally better placed to apportion Please note that in return for this acquiescence, men had to provide for the security of the family. This security was all encompassing; basic sustenance, protection (literally) and the household representative in the community. But that was before the advent of CHOICE or simply put the coming of the WHITE MAN to our soils…
To put the traditional-modern tension into perspective, allow me a wee digression – a tribal one. I have heard contentions that the influence of traditions has waned considerably and that with more and more kids forgetting their mother-tongues, that soon this influence will be phased out. What a fallacy! This is a very naïve and superficial position. After all, I do not live in Utopia and like to temper my reasoning with a touch of realism. I do not accept the notion that the ties between the members of a community/tribe are so superficial as to be confined, defined and dictated solely by commonality of language. Conversely, I would propose that language in itself is only but the outward, “visible” manifestation of primordial kinship ties and bonds that run deep and thick as blood. Long before Kenya was a nation, tribal units were the default “states.” Within each tribe, and over the course of generations, members of a tribe had to learn to stick together to survive. Societies developed customs and traditions (some are still practiced today) that were unique to themselves and that helped fortify and foster identity, or a sense of togetherness. As such, to expect or demand a sudden suppression of identity elements that are arguably inherent is to display a gross ignorance of the nature and power of traditions in African societies.
To demonstrate, let us examine the following:
WHY DO SOME WOMEN FEEL A COMPELLING NEED TO MARRY OLDER MEN?
I have heard time and again the bullshit argument that it is because WOMEN MATURE FASTER THAN MEN. Puleeeaase!! This is where I introduce the PRINCIPLE OF CONVERGENCE to debunk this myth once and for all. This principle dictates (and is borne out in real life) that the maturity curves for men and women are Sigmoid, or roughly “S” shaped. Women start out faster on this maturity curve than men (as evidenced during puberty years) but then the curve slows down to the extent where men catch up. The two curves then continue upwards before flattening out together at the zenith of the maturity level (we can’t mature infinitely).
The real reason, in my opinion, lies deep in our roots. There has been a subtle continuation of the substance, and not necessarily the form, of gender roles. What do I mean? Men are still expected to be the security providers, but subtly so. This is implicitly taught to young girls and by the time they are making the all important LOVE PURCHASE, it is no longer a rational decision. The subconscious has already been bandikwad with the “do’s” and “don’t’s “in the love market. This situation renders it extremely difficult (not impossible), for a chille to get MALOVINGS from a junior boy. I mean, if I am born @ the same time or before a certain chille, let’s call her X. Now we attend school @ the same time, maybe even deskis. If the “roles” card is flashing in mamaz mind after sijui campo, what is the probability that poor Mwangi can prove his mettle to this mama? I just have to put up and wait for the chillez who are clearing primo to mature and find me balling …
WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM AGE TO BUY LOVE?
Traditionally, as soon as a mama was of “child-bearing age” and had a line of suitors, that was manenos sealed. Today, one has to contend with school, career moves, etc. It is no stretch to imagine that the average marrying age for mamaz has shifted upwards by a good 10 – 15 years. But MENOPAUSE hasn’t cooperated! Imebaki pale pale. So it’s not without sense that the alarm bells start ringing when a chille kanyagas 25 years and has machinations of raising a ka-mini football field …
Might we be wrong then, to tie an issue like marriage to PROFESSIONAL and FINANCIAL accomplishments? Remember our precondition at the very beginning: the equilibrium price is attained when two “traders” meet each other at the right place at the right time; their feelings for each other are indistinguishable – they feel the SAME way about each other, at the SAME time.
Maybe LOVE should really be an independent event! Maybe in our zeal and zest for money and promotions, our EQUILIBRIUM POINT passes us by. Maybe that perfect person for us sails by. I mean, if you are waiting to be baked before you start your MARKET OPERATIONS FOR LOVE, doesn’t that mean that the glue that holds your LOVE together is money, and therefore that, in the absence of it, that LOVE disintegrates? Through thick and thin has increasingly become a mantra that everybody loves but no one practices. In my opinion, it is probably the ONLY TRUE foundation for true love …
WHERE ARE THE MEN WHEN THE WOMEN ARE 30?
Now this is another tricky one. Everything about our society cries out for conservatism; SEPARATE the boys from the girls to NEGATE the actualization of inevitable fantasies. Look at the proportion of boarding schools that are mixed to single-sex? What do they teach in Sunday school all the way up. Ati mahanjam ni mbaya mboff … ni za ibilisi!! This spatial separation could lead in the long-run to the question: JUST HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NEGO. THIS LOVE MARKET?
Luckily, this is largely trivial as it is negated by the raging hormones that endow traders with natural trading instincts … sort of like the way breast feeding came naturally.
The most serious problem with regard to the scarcity of men is a direct follow-up of the “OPTIMUM AGE FOR LOVE TRANSACTION.” When a mama pitishas that magic age, the corresponding supply of men have either all married, or if not, they are looking for an energetic kadogo dogo and could care less …
So what happens? If you HAVE TO buy a good @ the market and you arrive late, si the good ones will all have gone? Now if you ABSOLUTELY have to take home, you will have to settle for the rejects, the poor quality, the unripe fruits. You are pretty much at the mercy of probability with regard to getting quality. Thus it is also with LOVE! That’s how some mamaz end up settling with some kubaff jamaaaz, yet countless buyers had inquired waaaay before the market was close to closing only to be rebuffed!!
SPECIAL CASE: KENYANS ABROAD
Technically, there is supposed to be greater variety, but only IF AND ONLY IF, one is in the international market. If you are like me, that is, will only have your love wrapped KENYAN or bust, it can be a FUCKED up situation. If that be your circumstance, it is a market of SCARCITY. Settling and compromising, unless of course a stroke of luck befalls one, is the ORDER OF THE DAY. Obviously, if it doesn’t cost one much (minimal emotional investments), then RIDDANCE is like spitting a ball of saliva from the 15th floor of a building – chap chap. The probability of dysfunctional relationships abroad, is therefore, much higher a mon avis.
Do you guys agree? If so, what do we do? If not, what is your summary opinion? I’d love for us to share kidogo on this …
Ps: I promise I’ll neva eva put a longer post!!
