Melania Trump

[Mrsglitterpants]

I might be alone in this, I hope not, but is anyone else disappointed by the slut shaming and vitriol aimed towards her?

Her husband is a disgusting reptile, that's a given. But in the last day or two I have seen her called a tramp, gold digger, whore, slag, dirty, and trash.

Today a 'feminist' page on FB - this one if you're interested www.facebook.com/feministnews.us/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE
published a meme about her basically laughing at how thick she supposedly is. What was particularly horrible were the comments underneath from women, all who you would assume to be feminists as they follow the page. Vile comments including 'I hope they wiped down the chair she sat on in the white house' and 'when do they install the stripper pole'.

I understand that feminism doesn't mean that all women are above reproach but really? We have a man in the White House who hates women, direct your hatred at him!

And tbh as she's married to DT I suspect her life isn't a picnic, he is a nasty bully.

[RufusTheSpartacusReindeer]

If you say anything else grow and i dont reply

I am not ignoring you...ive just gone to bed

[IYonicAllAndIYonicNow]

Men do not strut about in tight trousers to attract JE, because patriarchy,

Class analysis:
Women are the sex class; value is attributed to women, especially young women, in part on their attractiveness. Hence charming Twitter troll phrases like "too ugly to rape"

Stereotype:
Before Beckham became the ambassador of metrosexuality, there was a stereotype that a man grooming himself to be attractive was more likely to be gay than straight: male gaze rules in societal sexuality.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

It's teh patriarchy!

Women's "market value" is placed (traditionally) in their physical attractiveness. Men's is in their ability to be a "good provider". You can play round the edges of that with a wealthy older woman having a gigolo to carry her chips in the casino for her, but that's seen as sort of pitiable. Because it's against the "natural order" of things (not natural at all, but that's a separate thread).

That's why it functions the way that it does. I hope things are changing now that it's vastly more common for women to have independent means, but the cultural conditioning is only wearing away slowly.

[BoffeeToffin]

WAGs tends ti refer specifically to the partners of sports stars, too, and sport stars are overwhelmingly male. See the sport supplement of any newspaper, if women in sport get a page in eight any time outside of Wimbledon or the Olympics, they are doing well. And because of football, rugby and cricket, many more men are in a famous team than women

[RufusTheSpartacusReindeer]

I suppose the logical extension of any mans fear of 'gold diggers'

Is that men with any money should stay single...no romantic relationships whatsoever unless the woman is bringing in the same amount of money

[growapear]

Selkie

I agree basically with what you are saying about what each partner is perceived to bring to a relationship. I'm wondering how this could ever truly be "equal" given how men and women tend to view relationships, different sexuality etc.

I sadly cannot describe myself as a young man anymore so things might be different, and maybe my experience is not typical. Anyway, maybe you'll allow me this ramble as I hope it explains....

When I was younger, definitely the first time I was properly "in love", my youthful illusions were shattered when i made some comment in the context that my GF was about to lose her job. I said something along the lines that I didn't matter to me what sort of job she had, she could be filling shelves in a supermarket, I would still love her etc.

She basically said that the opposite was not true and that for her part of the attraction was that I seemed like a "good catch" or some such, her point to be fair was slightly more nuanced than that and she went on to describe how she regarded choices of career as an indicator of intelligence, which was something she found attractive in addition to all the other stuff.

Anyway - I never really shook this off and to this day am unsure whether my flabbergasted response was unfair to her. Probably somewhere in the middle, but it made me think that all i was looking for really was someone who I found attractive, who was kind and funny and I had a good time with, also of course that I wanted to have sex with and who wanted to have sex with me.

For her, it seemed like there was more to it than that - perhaps I glimpsed some of the responsibility women feel about being mothers at some stage and how this influences their choice of partners etc.

I still feel that I would have been a "good catch" even if I was a supermarket worker, so it was her loss :)

[RufusTheSpartacusReindeer]

grow

I think you may be right regarding responsibility

I met dh at 17 and was so much in love/lust that i wouldnt care what he did

However...we were educated to the same level and had the same level of aspiration (very low at the time but he got more ambitious with age)

A friend once told me that in any relationship there is someone who loves more, and the trick was to never be that person. I think you may have loved more

On another note i am watching a crime show (while putting my coat on) and it said that they reckon about 17,000 men have been conned into paying money so they could become escorts for rich women

Which i thought was quite interesting

[BoffeeToffin]

If you listen to Xenia, or whatever name she's using today, wives of rich husbands equate to prostitutes, exchanging sex for material comfort.

[BoffeeToffin]

But "good catch" surely means someone you find attractive (physically and emotionally) and feel lucky to be with, and that might be because they are ambitious, witty, good looking, clever, sarcastic, sporty, share your passion for the Lithuanian nose flute or whatever.

We all have people we fancy but wouldn't marry, perhaps because they have a faith and we don't, or they are a smoker and that's a no go for us.

[growapear]

I suppose "good catch" might many any of those things yes, it was really the bit about our different criteria as to what a good catch constituted that was the killer.

Rufus

That sounds a sad thing for your friend to have said, my first reaction on hearing it is to think she's been burned before and has settled for a husband she doesn't really love ...... reminds me of a W H Auden poem "The More Loving One"

[BoffeeToffin]

Mmm

But my point was your "all I was really looking for" phrase. Was that all you would've needed to get married and/or procreate, or was that more like great for now (no judgement on the latter, I dated men in my twenties I wouldn't have married!)?

[growapear]

Well, another thing she said was that she saw no point in going out with someone she didn't see a future with now I think of it....as in she wouldn't enter into a relationship that she knew wouldn't last. For me - i dunno, I definitely have never considered earnings or earning potential in a parter.

She was able to parry my catastrophic arguments (e.g. but you have no idea what would happen in the future, cannot depend on me having this career forever) with she could only make decisions about what she knew now etc...I was horrified that someone I thought the world of could be such an apparently and cynical cold hearted bitch, but as I've got older I think maybe i wasn't fair to her, because maybe men and women are just different in this way.

[BoffeeToffin]

"apparently and cynical cold hearted bitch"

It sure doesn't sound like you were fair to her, no.

Every woman I know who wants kids has it in the back of her mind at some point in her twenties... "If this isn't the forever relationship, how long can it last without compromising my ability to meet someone and have kids?" Plenty have broken up over the "not ready for kids" issue too.

It's not cynical, it's practical. If you only had ten years (say) between 28 and 38 in which you could possibly get a visa for Australia and you always wanted to go there and you needed months or years in a certain job before you could go, you'd plan your life to let it be possible, maybe not from age 16 but certainly from some time in your 20s, wouldn't you?

[BoffeeToffin]

And I doubt anyone would find you cold or cynical if you finished a relationship because it looked like it might stop you getting to Australia and that's what you'd always wanted.

I also think you might be over generalising from one example! How old were you both at te time?

[Prawnofthepatriarchy]

I don't think being a feminist means you always have to approve of the way some women behave.

When I was younger I mixed a lot with wealthy people and I saw how a small minority of young women would behave around rich single men. It was degrading.

Then I myself went out for a few months with a bloke who was nice enough but not for me. He was very keen, started hinting of an engagement, talking about me choosing furniture for his huge London flat. I told a girlfriend, now ex, that I was thinking of finishing it, to which she replied the (to me) immortal words: But you can't do that. His parents own half of Borsetshire! She thought I was mad to finish it. Couldn't understand it.

Fortune hunting is a fact of life. Most people don't do it, but it happens and more women, ime, do it because it's more acceptable. Swapping stunning looks for a wealthy future happens all the time.

Cover model marries billionaire. What a surprise!

Let's not forget that it's only a few generations since who a woman married was the strongest indicator of her subsequent standard of living.

As for who loves the most, in a good relationship it changes all the time. Sometimes one, sometimes the other.

[growapear]

You've missed my point....I'm not saying she was cynical because she wanted to find a suitable partner in a certain timeframe, I'm saying it was that the some of criteria for selecting that partner that were cynical - i.e. that he should have a decent job basically.

[growapear]

Was that all you would've needed to get married and/or procreate, or was that more like great for now (no judgement on the latter, I dated men in my twenties I wouldn't have married!)?

I suppose I never really thought about it like that.

[Hillingdon]

I cannot believe what some are saying about her. What about the women who make poor choices time and time again. There seems to be lots of sympathy for them and some call them 'vunerable'.

No one talks about them as thick and stupid.

[Prawnofthepatriarchy]

I don't think anyone who marries a billionaire is likely to be stupid. Or particularly vulnerable either. You would need to be fairly tough.

[BoffeeToffin]

Am I also cynical if I look at maternity pay when I take a job, to see if it will support me through ML?

It's relatively recent that marriage has been for love; it's a contract for life (hopefully) after all.

[growapear]

Well - people do a job for money, that is the point. Do they select a life partner based on how much they love that person, or do they weigh up how much they love them with future earning potential ? Is the latter cynical or materialistic ? In my youthful romantic bubble I saw it as the latter, now I'm older i realise that "love does not conquer all" after all and there are of course other considerations. However I never met a guy who considered future earning potential as a reason to either start or end a relationship with a woman.

[Prawnofthepatriarchy]

When I met DH neither of us had any money. What mattered to me, the only thing that mattered to me, was the quality of our relationship. Material considerations didn't enter into it. I hoped to do well at work, not through marriage.

[BoffeeToffin]

What does "how much you love a person" mean, though? You either love someone or you don't.

Staying with someone for life is never solely based on love. What if I fall in love with an American but never want to live there? If he wanted to move back one day, then staying together requires one of us to be unhappy.

I would say most people have been in love more than once: They know ending a relationship doesn't mean no love ever again.

And whilst your friends might not have decided against a relationship on earning potential, I'm sure they have on other factors like sexiness, intelligence (which has some but not perfect correlation with earning potential), get up and go (a pre requisite to ambition)

I.imagine your ex was a bit franker about it than the more usual "I think we want different things..."

[growapear]

"how much you love a person" mean, though? You either love someone or you don't.

Not sure that this is a true statement.

They know ending a relationship doesn't mean no love ever again.

Also not sure about this either - lots of people enter an existential angst when a relationship with someone they love ends....part of this is because they know they may never find someone they love so much again IMO.

I.imagine your ex was a bit franker about it than the more usual "I think we want different things..."

Actually she saw nothing wrong with the statement and it was not intended as that, I was shocked when she said it and grew to doubt the whole thing - like I said it was a "bubble pricking" moment, but as I've got older I wonder if maybe I was just naive.

[Prawnofthepatriarchy]

I would quantify how much you love someone by how much you are committed to their happiness. In love is different from love. In love doesn't necessarily assess what the loved one is actually like. The sort of love on which my marriage was based saw the other realistically and still wanted to build a life together.

As for one and only, because of my children's needs it was very difficult for me to date after my DH died but I also felt it was very unlikely that I'd ever have a relationship as good again. I'd had more than my share of partners before I met him but never wanted to marry anyone else. One of my DS says I'm like a swan. A pretty idea, but a lonely reality.