Wealth without women?
Friday, February 23, 2007 at 1:16PM Napoleon Hill says, "man's greatest motivating force [to create wealth] is his desire to please women." Do you agree or disagree?
According to Hill, the only things that have changed from prehistoric times is man's methods for pleasing women. Men who accumulate material wealth might also attain fame and power, but is this always basically to seek approval of women?
Hill also states that "it is this inherent desire of men to please women that gives women the power to break a man." The women who then understand a man's nature are therefore in no fear of competition from other women. Men may be powerful and competitive with other men, but Hill believes they are easily managed by the women of their choice.
Some men admit they're being influenced by their women of choice--their wives, mothers, mistresses, sisters, friends, colleagues--but they refrain from rebelling againsts this influence. The man who fails to recognize that the influence of the right women has done more to help men achieve success than all other forces combined, is losing out on a very powerful force.
Moreover, Hill expresses the view that women understand men better than men understand women. He thinks men wish to be seen as stronger in public while women tend to run things like clockwork at home. The phrase, "who wears the pants in the family?" arises in jest.