A thought-provoking image I came across inspired me to reflect on this question:

1- Many shady ultra-rich individuals deliberately dress modestly to avoid further irritating those they exploit. It’s a strategy meant to make people forget what their amassed wealth is used for, among other things. This tactic is often employed by those who know and feel guilty about their actions. Other wealthy people—dare I say the majority—fully embrace their material wealth and luxurious tastes, flaunting them shamelessly, whether guilty or not, simply because they feel no remorse.

Personally, I believe it’s how you treat others that determines whether wealth is legitimate or not. Wealth itself isn’t shameful; it’s even desirable, whether inherited (and I’m not talking here about the absurd privileges of royalty, which I find utterly unjustifiable) or earned through individual effort, teamwork, or luck (like winning the lottery, a contest, or receiving donations or gifts).

2. It’s also true that some well-off individuals choose not to intimidate or discomfort those less fortunate than themselves. They temporarily adjust their appearance depending on the setting and the people they’re with. This way, they avoid being constantly bombarded with requests for help wherever they go.

3. On the flip side, some people feel compelled to fake prosperity to avoid being ridiculed at events filled with “snobs”—those self-proclaimed great educators of the mind. But it doesn’t fool anyone. In these tight-knit circles of privilege and self-appointed elites, everyone scrutinizes each other under a magnifying glass.

You can’t fake wealth or heritage: in these circles, intelligence matters little compared to image. What counts is who you know and how you present yourself at every opportunity. That said, they might tolerate you “on the fringes” if you serve as an intellectual slave, promoting them while they exploit you as a group. They barely accept you, snickering to your face to put you down and discourage any self-love, then bursting into laughter behind your back as you leave, wounded, after yet another round of unpaid work that’s supposed to—one day, perhaps—justify your presence in their exclusive domains.

4. In many cultures (I’m thinking of Egypt and India, for example, which I’ve studied in the past on this specific topic—without any intent to stigmatize or generalize, just drawing from prior unscientifically proven reflections), appearance takes on crucial importance when you come from a working-class or deeply impoverished background. It’s seen as a social springboard to break the cycle of material modesty passed down through generations and rewrite your story by aligning with the image of success. Yet this creates immense distress, as the sacrifices are enormous, and most of the time, this financial juggling doesn’t actually lead to economic progress.

Moreover, in many cultures, structural limits lock social classes into historically rigid boundaries. Crossing those barriers to infiltrate the elite is nearly impossible; it’s a political issue as well. Corruption often mirrors a social ideology rooted in tradition and origin: a hierarchy must be maintained. No matter how polished appearances are, they’re not enough to guarantee success when the material foundation—needed to sustain the effort—remains too shaky.

5. An appearance that betrays a lack of inherited social status can also, to some extent, hinder the ability to procreate and continue a lineage. For instance, an intellectual woman ostracized by the envious, racists, or sociopaths will struggle to form relationships with men—whether to guide them or even make those connections real. The disconnect between an image that doesn’t reflect her true potential and her actual abilities triggers dismissive attitudes from many men. They interpret her lack of social ascent as a weakness to scorn or an opportunity to exploit, whether intimately or professionally.

It’s easier to belittle and take advantage than to make the effort to think and, perhaps, end up admiring genuine skills—despite the harshness of appearances and prejudices used to dominate. So, some men prefer to label a woman a “gold digger” to mistreat—deemed unworthy of respect for her supposed lazy, opportunistic mindset—or a failure who “missed the train and the plane,” doomed to serve the elite like a silent slave. 

In other words, when an intellectual woman is denied the social and institutional recognition she rightfully deserves—elites preventing anyone from living comfortably to gain power and reproduce—she’s undermined on multiple levels: materially, romantically, and familially. Can men face a similar situation?

It’s mostly women who, under the weight of patriarchy, are reduced to sexual objects. Meanwhile, in wealthier, well-established circles, they’re only selected and propelled into high professional spheres through family or romantic ties—still largely thanks to patriarchy, since the masculine continues to dominate the world.

– For competitive university programs that can unlock wealth and a social status to pass down to children or ease the way for loved ones, selection isn’t based solely on skills and past achievements; it’s political too. A cap on spots serves as a barrier to prevent the unwanted expansion of professional circles. Invisible criteria come into play: your name, family, observed power, and wealth. This filters and perpetuates a system favoring the privileged, who pass the torch within tight, closed circles. Not everyone can become a psychiatrist, for example, even with proven ability, because it’s a profession of power and money that helps maintain a social order they don’t want disrupted.

– In France, many foreign-born doctors work with passion and dedication but don’t hold the same title as colleagues performing the same roles, and their pay is lower—a disparity that always works against them.

Women are bought, mistreated, and discarded after use when they aren’t the ones offered everything or much, with love and admiration, in a vastly different scenario made possible by lineage or fortunate chance. Unjudgmental love and selflessness do exist, yes, but they’re rare in a materialistic world ruled by appearances and social climbing. The danger is thus greater for free, thinking women who intimidate men with fragile masculinity through their strength and unapologetic independence in the face of hardship. These warriors, lacking a network of influential family or allies in professional, intellectual, institutional, or private circles, are left without support.

Hella Ahmed © All rights reserved – Find my books on Amazon