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.

Cock lodgers are more common?

Not in my experience.

Loads of women don't ever return to full time work and live very comfortable lives on hard work of their husbands. There was a called something like 'you're lucky if you don't have to work', and it was full of posters saying how lucky they were to have a high earning husband who enabled them to live their dream, focus on hobbies, meet friends, etc.

'there was a thread called' that should've read.

Men aren't stigmatised for wanting to date attractive women. But women are stigmatised for wanting to date wealthy men.

But these two things are nothing alike.

Dating an attractive person isn't manipulative in the same way as targeting somebody for their money is. Besides, the stereotypical ideal of beauty (good symmetry) is in some degree innate as symmetrical features denote desirable genetic make up - e.g. less likely to be predisposed to genetic illnesses/conditions etc.

@Shmurf why do you consider one to be targeted and manipulated, and the other one to be natural selection? In an evolutionary sense, women are the nurturers and require their male partners to provide for them whilst they raise the children. I'm talking historically, not modern day. Men look for desirable physical features to try to weed out genetic weaknesses. Women look for strong ability to provide to make sure the children don't die from malnutrition. Over the years, benefits etc. have meant that starvation is much less likely. But genetic problems are still prevalent, so that makes it okay to select a woman purely for her looks?

In short, of course it's the same. Fundamentally women and men have different roles in the raising of a family and it's frankly pathetic to keep hearing people complain that men are 'targeted' for their money whilst women are just selected for natural innocent reasons.

I'm pretty sure that if they could, a lot of supermodel-looking women would hide their looks in the early stages of a relationship in order to make sure that the man likes them for who they are. But that is virtually impossible.

It's exactly the same! Someone might be attractive but have literally nothing in common with you, likely if they are 30 years younger than you. And you could also say being successful could also be an inate sign of desirable genetic make up.

I don't see why being attracted to someone's lifestyle, while not caring so much about them personally, is awful but being attracted to someone's arse, while not caring about them personally, is fine.

Also, in a lot of these scenarios, both parties have all the personality and wit of a wooden plank. But the women are criticised for being vapid and only caring about their looks instead of their education, while the men are praised for being hard working, 'focused' people who lack personality due to the focus on their success over the years. At every turn, women are painted as being shit whilst men are praised for everything they do. I've had enough, quite honestly. I'm not interested in playing along with those things any more. I'm happy be be successful, average looking, witty and vibrant. I'm happy for my partner to be equally successful, average looking, witty and vibrant. But if I see an air headed Rihanna lookalike dating Steve Buscemi, I'm not going to judge either of them. They both know which side their bread is buttered.

I just can't get worried at all about men being targeted by gold diggers. They could easily say no, and would do so if she wasn't very attractive. If they choose to be with her because she is really attractive, despite not having much money, that's on them. They could always get with an ugly women who has plenty of money. As an ugly women with plenty of women, I can attest that few men are keen for that!

Yes, exactly. Ask any 'incel' (shudder) if they're pissed off that they can't sleep with women that look like Shrek? I would put money on them being upset that a supermodel wouldn't sleep with them, but not giving two shits about someone they consider to be unattractive. They want attractive women to want them, nothing else. Then they get shitty because the type of women they want, go for successful men. It's pathetic to watch.

Sexual attraction isn't a calculated choice like seeking out a rich man though surely?

What if success is attractive to you?

why don’t we expect more men to be nurses and careers

Men who don’t have money aren’t attractive partners. Women can still get away with being broke (although it’s getting less acceptable imo).

I’m not sure exactly the stats, but I think people are nowadays most likely to marry within their own socioeconomic class. However, it used to be perfectly normal for a rich man to marry ‘down’ (but it was always, always looked down upon for a rich woman to marry ‘down’)

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.

Me too. I'm not suggesting men aren't happy to become fathers but the pursuit of pregnancy is generally driven by the desires of the woman.

I'd be incredibly disappointed if my partner asked me to save fore my maternity leave and didn't contribute at all. I'd never heard of it until I joined MN to be fair. DH and I do not share finances, joint decision, and I'm happier not to be questioned about things I buy (the same applies to him), we have very similar spending habits and are frugal.

Gold differs definitely exist, and I have met some male ones in my life, who only dated women with good wealth, successful careers and great social connections. There are both men and women who target individuals with good bank accounts to have a comfortable life. IMO we talk about individuals who earn at least 6 figures, I don't think anyone would target someone who earns 40000 (great salary, but can be outearned).

A SAHM, who does all childcare and housework, shouldn't pay half of bills and mortgage and is certainly not a gold digger.

Of course, if we are talking about the Melania conundrum, then we can all agree that our she knew exactly what she was doing and it's pointless to feel sympathy for her.

God I’m a hopeless gold digger - dh was horrified to find out I had turned down a work colleague to date dh - this guy was the son of one of England’s oldest grandest families and sold flats on the phone in his lunch hour. Didn’t fancy him sadly 😁

@porkerface

Sexual attraction isn't a calculated choice like seeking out a rich man though surely?

It is. It absolutely is. It's just not stigmatised in the same way. Men have all sorts of ways of communicating with each other about how 'hot' they want their female partners to be. They will deliberately seek out the 'hottest' woman at the party to hit on in front of their friends, its often made into a competition. If a woman identified the richest man in the room and made a game with her friends of hitting on him, it would be instantly branded as gold digging. There's an entire concept called the crazy/hot matrix which allows women to be certain levels of 'crazy' if their looks are up to par. There are countless examples of men pushing for their partners to get treatments or surgeries to become more attractive to them, which is frowned upon thankfully by most. I consider that to be no different to women who control their male partners by pushing them to bring home more money. The system absolutely works two ways, and I hate both sides of it.

Or to put it another way: selecting (targeting) a person for a relationship because they have something you want is either unacceptable, or it's not. It doesn't matter if that something you want is good looks or money or intelligence. One can't be okay to hone in on while the other makes you evil, but that is what most people would have you believe.

There's an entire concept called the crazy/hot matrix which allows women to be certain levels of 'crazy' if their looks are up to par.

I have just googled it and it's appalling and offensive.

@bambinaballerina exactly. And that was created by men, not by women to justify their own poor behaviour. Can you imagine a rich/abusive matrix? How much abuse a woman would be willing to take from a man depending on how much money he has? I laugh when people say that physical attraction is not targeted in the same way as wealth, it's such a naive opinion. As a pp mentioned, a rich man being targeted for a relationship by an unattractive woman wouldn't consider there to be any issue, because he wouldn't be interested in her. They only get upset when they realise that a '10' might only want him for his money... how unfaaaaair 😩

The crazy hot matrix is an expansion of a joke from how I met your mother - I mean it’s awful, but it’s not a serious thing...

@tabulahrasa that's not quite accurate, although I think you're right that they approached the topic in HIMYM. But it was originally created some lawyer who made a video on YouTube explaining it.

[quote WhatCFeryIsThis]@tabulahrasa that's not quite accurate, although I think you're right that they approached the topic in HIMYM. But it was originally created some lawyer who made a video on YouTube explaining it. [/quote]
Other way round, the lawyer was after

www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mvkx38/we-talked-to-the-gun-toting-lawyer-who-made-the-hotcrazy-women-matrix-444

Also, the lawyer was trying to be funny, not serious

@tabulahrasa I just finished reading that article before I came back to the thread. You're right! It looks like it was designed to be a joke from the offset. But a lot of men really do take it seriously, I personally only learned about it whilst working in retail a few years ago and listening to 'the guys' going on about it when eyeing up sexy customers. Eugh.

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'.
Isn't that the definition of Trophy Wife?