What makes a golddigger anyway?

[Anonymous]

We as a society seem to loathe women who are openly seeing advantageous matches. However, we encourage women to seek out men who are established professionally and financially. A woman with a graduate degree who marries a a wall mart cash register worker is considered to have made an imprudent match, but if a woman is too obvious about marrying for money, she is ridiculed.

So the only way to do it is to secretly marry for money where you pretend to just end up married to a rich man!

[Anonymous]

I think gold diggers can be men or women who marry someone solely because of their money and not out of love. And they don’t bring anything to the table whether it be a paycheck or other value. It is misogynistic, however, to assume only women can be gold diggers, or that she is necessarily a good digger because she married well.

[Anonymous]

I think the stigma around gold digging developed centuries ago as a way to keep wealth in the hands of men and within certain families. Men from wealthy families married women from wealthy families; if they married women who were poor, that wealth would be diluted. So poor women who went after wealthy men were seen as “gold diggers” (or whatever the equivalent was back then).

But of course it was fine for men to be “shallow” and want beautiful women, so they could have affairs and sleep around. And while men may have provided some financial help to those women, the women had no right to any of that wealth, even if that had children from the man.

Present day, women are still criticized for being gold diggers to prevent them from acquiring resources, and men get a pass for only dating/marrying attractive women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the stigma around gold digging developed centuries ago as a way to keep wealth in the hands of men and within certain families. Men from wealthy families married women from wealthy families; if they married women who were poor, that wealth would be diluted. So poor women who went after wealthy men were seen as “gold diggers” (or whatever the equivalent was back then).

But of course it was fine for men to be “shallow” and want beautiful women, so they could have affairs and sleep around. And while men may have provided some financial help to those women, the women had no right to any of that wealth, even if that had children from the man.

Present day, women are still criticized for being gold diggers to prevent them from acquiring resources, and men get a pass for only dating/marrying attractive women.

LOL, "men get a pass." Go back and read the recent thread about men and younger women. Men don't get a pass for ANYTHING on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Present day, women are still criticized for being gold diggers to prevent them from acquiring resources

Get a damn job.

[Anonymous]

I’d rather have a pretty woman like me for my money than not like me at all. Lots of rich guys aren’t very attractive physically so we can’t really complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We as a society seem to loathe women

This. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the stigma around gold digging developed centuries ago as a way to keep wealth in the hands of men and within certain families. Men from wealthy families married women from wealthy families; if they married women who were poor, that wealth would be diluted. So poor women who went after wealthy men were seen as “gold diggers” (or whatever the equivalent was back then).

But of course it was fine for men to be “shallow” and want beautiful women, so they could have affairs and sleep around. And while men may have provided some financial help to those women, the women had no right to any of that wealth, even if that had children from the man.

Present day, women are still criticized for being gold diggers to prevent them from acquiring resources, and men get a pass for only dating/marrying attractive women.

LOL, "men get a pass." Go back and read the recent thread about men and younger women. Men don't get a pass for ANYTHING on DCUM.

Because DCUM represents society at large? 🙄

[Anonymous]

Someone who never plans to work or have a career. Someone unable of supporting themselves. Their job is to look for a man to financially support them until they die. If the want a fancier lifestyle than the one current husband provides, they will have “exit affairs” to upgrade.

Men can also be gold diggers, but thus usually happens later in life when divorce or other issues sucked up their $$$ and now they want a similarity aged woman who can provide health care for them (be their nurse) and the $ they got from ex or dead husband.

My parents told me to always keep a foot in the door and be able to support ourselves. All of us have done that, even the ones who have partners that could financially support the entire family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We as a society seem to loathe women

This. Full stop.

No, but we loathe golddiggers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We as a society seem to loathe women

This. Full stop.

No, but we loathe golddiggers.

I wish this were true, but if that’s the case why do we also blame women when they marry poor men?

[Anonymous]

"Men can also be gold diggers, but thus usually happens later in life when divorce or other issues sucked up their $$$ and now they want a similarity aged woman who can provide health care for them (be their nurse) and the $ they got from ex or dead husband."

This is changing. With more women in the professions and making greater income, there are more male golddiggers cropping up.

I know a woman in a high-paying profession with her own home and plenty of assets.

She met a good-looking high-school drop out doofus who worked at a retail store. Within three weeks he was living with her and within a year they were married.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She was buying a good-looking man she could control completely with her purse strings. And she does.

[Anonymous]

Healthy societies dislike lazy people, and golddiggers are by definition lazy.

[Anonymous]

Rationally, it makes more sense for either sex to prioritize finances above looks, because looks are guaranteed to fade by finances are not. The trouble is that men are aware this is the rational behavior and it does not benefit most men— only high earners. So vilifying women for behaving rationally increases the number of women who might be influenced to act irrationally and choose a lower earning man.

In the past I think this was primarily about class— preserving the wealth in a few families as another poster said. Since women traditionally didn’t have or inherit huge fortunes, there just weren’t “male gold-diggers”.

Now I think it’s moved toward being about sexism, because as above, women are equally criticized if they marry a low earning man and wind up in financial difficulties because “you knew that when you married him.” As a society there also seems to be a reluctance to have expectations of men, rather we make excuses about boys being boys and “Dad bods”, while women are blamed for their own sexual assaults and asked if they’ve gained weight when their husband cheats. Expecting men to perform financially before being considered marriage material (which, historically, was the case) is now considered “gold digging” and adds to the list of passes we give men.

I would advise any woman to prioritize personality, chemistry, and finances/earning potential over looks and to be unapologetic about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Healthy societies dislike lazy people, and golddiggers are by definition lazy.

I don’t know if it’s lazy. I think many recognize that as a female, the deck is stacked against them, especially if they want kids. So is it better to fight tooth and nail for every promotion and every cent only to end up mommy tracked, or to latch yourself onto a man who will have a much easier time climbing the ladder?