To think that ‘gold diggers is just another sexist trope to make women accept shit from men?

[Merryoldgoat]

I read so many thread where a woman is scared of being called a gold digger so she accepts unbelievably asymmetric spending and ‘goes halves’ with everything even though her bf or partner significantly out-earns her and it leaves her short.

And I actually do mean early on in a relationship too.

When my DH and I first started dating in spite of similar salaries he had greater disposable as he was living at home.

He paid for most meals out (I paid for some and I did offer to go halves when I could). If I couldn’t afford something I said so and generally he just paid or we’d not do it.

When we moved in it went to 50/50 obviously, as outgoings were the same.

When I had children and went part time we pooled money and split the surplus equally.

There is nothing wrong with expecting your partner to help you out if they can and paying for things if they have more money and there’s nothing wrong with being pissed off if they don’t.

I accept I may be BU but I’ve read a few threads recently with obviously right wealthy men getting away with shit because the woman is desperate not to be seen as a gold digger.

I agree OP. There was a thread on here a few weeks ago from a poster who very proudly said that she works 3 days a week in a fairly low paid job and her DH works full time in a fairly high paid job, she does all the cleaning and housework and cooking and childcare because she works fewer hours, but they still split expenses 50/50. Housework and childcare might be unpaid but it still has a value - think how much childcare costs.

So her DH gets to work full time with someone at home who cooks and cleans and looks after his children AND pays 50% of all household expenses. So at the end of the month he’s left with plenty of money for himself - for saving, for investing in his pension, for spending on himself. And she’s left with hardly anything.

How is that possibly fair? That seems like a worse position to be in than a 50s housewife to me - at least back then men had to pay all the household expenses. Give me her DH’s deal any day though - imagine having a cook, cleaner and nanny who pays you.

So yeah, I think it’s easy to get all Beyoncé ‘I’m an independent woman’ without realising you’re being screwed over.

a gold digger is a woman (or a man) who is only in a relationship with someone for their money. There definitely are some women like that. Its not the same as being the lower earning partner in a relationship though.

The idea of women success being marrying a man with money is what is sexist.

So yeah, I think it’s easy to get all Beyoncé ‘I’m an independent woman’ without realising you’re being screwed over.

I think you're misunderstanding the independent woman Beyoncé is singing about. She's not singing about a low paid woman with 3 kids who works pt. She's singing about a woman with a career

@Gorygloria

So yeah, I think it’s easy to get all Beyoncé ‘I’m an independent woman’ without realising you’re being screwed over.

I think you're misunderstanding the independent woman Beyoncé is singing about. She's not singing about a low paid woman with 3 kids who works pt. She's singing about a woman with a career

Well, quite..

But the low paid women hear Beyoncé and think they should be aspiring to that.

@Monkeynuts18

I agree OP. There was a thread on here a few weeks ago from a poster who very proudly said that she works 3 days a week in a fairly low paid job and her DH works full time in a fairly high paid job, she does all the cleaning and housework and cooking and childcare because she works fewer hours, but they still split expenses 50/50. Housework and childcare might be unpaid but it still has a value - think how much childcare costs.

So her DH gets to work full time with someone at home who cooks and cleans and looks after his children AND pays 50% of all household expenses. So at the end of the month he’s left with plenty of money for himself - for saving, for investing in his pension, for spending on himself. And she’s left with hardly anything.

How is that possibly fair? That seems like a worse position to be in than a 50s housewife to me - at least back then men had to pay all the household expenses. Give me her DH’s deal any day though - imagine having a cook, cleaner and nanny who pays you.

So yeah, I think it’s easy to get all Beyoncé ‘I’m an independent woman’ without realising you’re being screwed over.

Totally - at least in the old days husband paid for everything and you were protected in the event of a split. Seems to me many women are a lot worse off nowadays. Men want it both ways - woman contributing financially but carrying mental load and domestic load too.

But the low paid women hear Beyoncé and think they should be aspiring to that

And they should have. But it's probably too late

@fascinated - they should. we should be aspiring to buy our own stuff and be financial successes in our own right. Not to marry a rich man.

Seems to me many women are a lot worse off nowadays. Men want it both ways - woman contributing financially but carrying mental load and domestic load too.

I think the problem lies in the disparity over desire for kids. Besides Benedict Cumberbatch, I've never heard a man openly expressing a desire for parenthood. It's usually female driven. I'd feel a bit the same. You want a hamster, you feed it. You what a BMW, you clean it.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@fascinated - they should. we should be aspiring to buy our own stuff and be financial successes in our own right. Not to marry a rich man.[/quote]
Yeah but as pp says, it’s too late for those women. So they shouldn’t be struggling when their partners could well afford to support the family properly if they weren’t so selfish. Decency is a virtue in a man, the type of man who freeloads off his wife or partner is a cad.

@Gorygloria

Seems to me many women are a lot worse off nowadays. Men want it both ways - woman contributing financially but carrying mental load and domestic load too.

I think the problem lies in the disparity over desire for kids. Besides Benedict Cumberbatch, I've never heard a man openly expressing a desire for parenthood. It's usually female driven. I'd feel a bit the same. You want a hamster, you feed it. You what a BMW, you clean it.

Really? I’ve heard plenty say they want kids, I wasn’t keen initially but lots of boyfriends were open about it. Strange!

Don't be silly of course men want children.

If they didn't they'd take steps not to.

My DH was way more broody than me and he's 5 years younger.

If men don't want children why do men all over the world including patriarchal religions put such a massive focus on it? Child brides, quiverfull, girls kidnapped by boko haram all being pregnant when found etc etc

And what’s the issue with marrying a rich man, if you’re both happy? Kids benefit from engaged parents and the mother’s educational level is a major indicator for educational attainment so if a “good woman” can spend time with your kids, as a man, that will benefit your offspring.

Any woman with any sense wouldn’t want kids unless the conditions were optimal, given that it’s a lot more work for us than for men! Pregnancy and birth and child rearing is no picnic and it severely limits your life and choices.

We are fortunate in the west (most of us) to be able to choose carefully when and with whom we procreate.

I'm not being silly, I'm reporting my experience. In most parent couples I know, the woman was the driving force behind wanting kids. I find men are ambivalent about it hence they don't take steps to prevent it. But their ambivalence turns to lack of commitment when the time arrives. It's as old as the hills. I'm surprised that women are still surprised by this

I think couples are happier if they earn similar amounts tbh. If I dated someone who earned much more I'd want to ensure we cut our cloth to what I earned because I would hate to live with someone knowing I couldn't afford it in the event of a split. I also hate the idea of being dependent on anyone.

I very very rarely see the term gold digger on here to be honest. Cock lodger however is much more common

I think the problem lies in the disparity over desire for kids. Besides Benedict Cumberbatch, I've never heard a man openly expressing a desire for parenthood. It's usually female drive Really? When I was young my dad would say how he felt he was put on this Earth to have children. My partner has always wanted children and does just as much as I do for them (apart from breastfeeding obviously). My male friends have expressed they want children. Exs have too. I think possibly the men in your life are not the norm. I also think many men want the children but can't be bothered to raise them.

It's ludicrous to say men don't want children.

Male desire to have children that they know are theirs is the root cause of female oppression globally through as far back through history as we know and still harming women around the world.

Patriarchal religions, laws and social norms all reflect this.

If men didn't want children they wouldn't have them.

Pregnancy and childbirth are a risky business for women. In many ways.

When women are given access to reproductive healthcare- contraception, abortion. Birth rates reduce.

I find the comment that it's women who want babies crass. Girls die through being impregnated when they are too young to carry a pregnancy. The girls who were kidnapped by boko haram came back pregnant.

Men and what they want control the law to a greater or lesser extent everywhere. If men don't want children why are eg male lawmakers in USA and the RC church so against abortion?

Men can wear condoms (easier to come by no pun intended) or have sex that didn't y result in pregnancy if they don't want kids. Strangely, there are still lots of babies around.

In the UK I know loads of men who are loving attentive patient fathers who dote on their kids.

The idea that men don't want children (ignoring the fact they do) benefits who? Men. Obv. The ones who are decent get stacks of praise, the ones who aren't, the woman should have chosen better.

Same old.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I see it around me constantly in the most outwardly “stable” relationships. Men who could easily afford to support the family themselves “making” their wives return to work within 6 months of having a baby, waiting until their wives save up enough to take another mat leave. Decades ago men supported their families with a sense of pride, now their woman is seen as a scrounger. Yet bizarrely we haven’t become more equal with running the home or children’s schedules etc.

Eh? Isn't this simply because women are now considered equal?

Why would one person take it on himself, or indeed herself, to look after another person perfectly capable of looking after herself? It makes a mug of one person and demeans the other.

The whole point of men taking pride in looking after their wives is because women were considered unable to do this themselves.

As for inequality regarding running the home, if that does in fact still exist, it's not bizarre at all. I think it is proved that women as a group want children more than men do. That means women as a group are more likely to have stronger views than men on how children would be raised. And the effect of that is that men let women take greater responsiblity because that is what women want. I expect the reasons for this are in part biological and will never entirely disappear.

Not because men can't be arsed as has been repeatedly stated or assumed on this thread, although doubtlessly there are many individual examples of men who don't.

@ShinyFootball

It's ludicrous to say men don't want children.

Male desire to have children that they know are theirs is the root cause of female oppression globally through as far back through history as we know and still harming women around the world.

Patriarchal religions, laws and social norms all reflect this.

If men didn't want children they wouldn't have them.

Pregnancy and childbirth are a risky business for women. In many ways.

When women are given access to reproductive healthcare- contraception, abortion. Birth rates reduce.

I find the comment that it's women who want babies crass. Girls die through being impregnated when they are too young to carry a pregnancy. The girls who were kidnapped by boko haram came back pregnant.

Men and what they want control the law to a greater or lesser extent everywhere. If men don't want children why are eg male lawmakers in USA and the RC church so against abortion?

Men can wear condoms (easier to come by no pun intended) or have sex that didn't y result in pregnancy if they don't want kids. Strangely, there are still lots of babies around.

In the UK I know loads of men who are loving attentive patient fathers who dote on their kids.

The idea that men don't want children (ignoring the fact they do) benefits who? Men. Obv. The ones who are decent get stacks of praise, the ones who aren't, the woman should have chosen better.

Same old.

This is based on a lamentable misreading of history or, more likely, a jamming of history into your preferred theory of society.

Until very recent times, ie, far into the last century, because there was no reliable birth control, sex meant children, and that meant unless a man remained celibate, he would have children. Quite understandably, back then - as now - men wanted to be sure they were theirs.

You are projecting on the past the situation in modern times, where couples decide to have children, because they can take steps to make sure they don't. There is absolutely no need to overthink this and ascribe it to patriarchy or whatever ism is in fashion right now.

I don't know any man who has insisted his partner go back to work after 6 months.

Apart from anything else, woman at home with kids usually = less running around for childcare and a more organized homelife (at least ours was, but I was miserable so went back to work!).

I've never heard a man openly expressing a desire for parenthood
Really? I saw many smiling like a Cheshire cat when sharing their news of a pregnancy.
I'm not sure OP. I don't think what you describe is a gold digger at all though there are gold diggers men and women so I don't think it is sexist trope.

What's the difference between a gold digger and a cock lodger?

Cock lodgers are more common?

Add in the enormous number of men who swerve financial obligations when they separate...

Statistically, the women will be the higher earner in the majority of dating situations as the pay gap kicks in at 35-40 and is usually due to pregnancy (which is usually past the initial dating stage).

I don't think anybody with a higher wage is obliged to pay for others, but once they become a couple many share finances and I think it should be a team effort at this point (unlike the stories we hear on here where the husband doesn't want to share his wealth).

Dates should be mutually affordable and the lower earner shouldn't be struggling to keep up.

I personally refuse to engage in the gold digger arguments. It's a common phenomenon for women to seek out men that are high earners in order to be provided for. These women are called gold diggers.

It is equally common for men to seek out 'beautiful' women, with great bodies, perfect hair and amazing bone structure. What are these men called? 'Red-blooded', 'smart', 'men'.

Men aren't stigmatised for wanting to date attractive women. But women are stigmatised for wanting to date wealthy men. If a woman is dating a man who is 5'0" and looks like Shrek, but that man has money, they're told 'you're only with him for his money'. If a man is dating a woman that looks like a supermodel but has no money, nobody says 'you're only with her for her looks'. They say 'get in my son'.

It pisses me off royally and I have no time for it any more. To me there's an obvious evolutionary link between these preferences, but it's just another way that women are made out to be monsters and men the victims.