Do you think gold-digging is justifiable?
I remember the scene during my college time where a girl said that she will only date a guy with the thickest wallet, some male students then proceed to call her gold-digger. Unbeknownst to her, the professor who was there overheard this and said “No, no, you’ll all wrong. Women are known to be gold diggers. It’s a common knowledge, there’s nothing wrong about it, and you certainly shouldn’t be ashamed of it”. At the first glance, I think this is a sexist remark coming from him but upon contemplation and discussion with my girls we agree that he might be right after all. What women wouldn’t want a men with money? It’s one of the attractive feature of a man. It doens’t mean they hate men with less money, it’s just that they prefer men with more money. It’s a simple matter of preference and for survival as well as convenience reason. It’s no brainer that no girl will want to make her life (and future children) tough by marrying a man with less money.
I find that this is also justifiable in nature. Many female species of bird will only choose males that build the best nest, give the best offering, or having the most resources. This is done to ensure that she and her descendants have the most convenient life as well as higher survival chance. There are other animals as well. If we compare this with human we can see that the behavior that we brand as “gold-digging” is actually a natural behavior from human being that is derived from their desire to have better life.
Using this kind of thinking I can clarify my family life have a part in it. If there’s one thing smart about my mother it’s that she married my father thus me and my siblings can now and have always been having ample supply of financial resources. To call her (as well as other similar woman) as “gold-digger” would be rude and underappreciative. Men can also equally eligible for the same thing, of course. It just came to me that I’ve just realized there’s no such thing as gold-digging. What do you think, folks?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
47 Answers
I think that you are wrong. That is like saying that there is nothing wrong with men using their superior physical strength and their higher sex drive to sexually assault women. Just because something is a “natural behavior” does not excuse it.
I also think that you are wrong to look around at couples who have good incomes and assume that is why the women chose the men as their spouses. Relationships are complicated.
If a woman is only interested in money, and is therefore a gold digger, I don’t think that is very admirable behavior.
Your premises are all simplistic and flawed. Thus, your conclusion is flawed.
@marinelife “If a woman is only interested in money, and is therefore a gold digger,”
She’s doing it for what? To have better life. That should be enough reason to justify her action.
I wouldn’t assume that rich couples are created from a woman who is only looking for money but I wouldn’t blame her if it’s part of her criteria, I can even go as far as calling that as smart move.
There are exception to every rules, of course, but one thing is for sure is that people want to have a happy life and they can achieve it in whatever legal way available to them.
I don’t see anything wrong with a person being selective about a partner based on their ability to provide. Getting into a relationship with someone with money troubles is going to be difficult down the line, and it can be worth it to try and find someone with a more stable job and income. That said, “gold-digging” isn’t just being pragmatic about whom you date or enter into a relationship with, it refers to a person who is only interested in money, and is thus using the other person for their money. It implies a lack of love or feeling for the person, and a manipulation of them. It implies heartlessness, not just a natural self-preservation.
@DominicY I agree with you. I think the word “financially selective” should be used to replace the “gold-digging” term to make it more publicly approachable and to erase the stigma about setting a criteria for someone based on their financial proficiency.
Very similar to the concept of “trophy wife” – which is really nothing more than a glorified full-time prostitute.
It’s merely an acknowledgment of the truth. Despite all protestations to the contrary, financial security fends off all challenges to its dominance of bottom line priorities. I fully understand the preference to weather the taunts of “goldigger” in luxurious comfort as opposed to whatever dignity might supposedly be derived as “struggling breadwinner.”
@chyna – not sure there is a term for that.
I remember and old interview with Melania Trump when she married the Donald.
I might be off but it went something like:
The interviewer asked her: “if Donald weren’t rich, would you have married him?”
And she said: “If I wasn’t beautiful, would he have married me?”
Hopefully someone can find the reference.
Financial security is a valid mate-selection criterium, just like physical fitness, beauty, personality, habits, etc.
No relationship is pro bono. Nobody enters into, or stays in, a relationship unless they are receiving something from it – be it financial gain/security, personal gratification, emotional validation or whatnot.
Context is everything. The term “gold digger” has such a negative connotation that the question can’t really be asked without bias.
It’s as natural for women to seek out resources as it is for men to seek out fertility, I don’t care how you try to spin it. It is what it is. People often buck that trend but it’s usually when resources are ubundant, secured or not a factor. Men who are not sucessful or cannot provide are not attractive to women who need them to be. Call it gold digging if you want. The question has come up here why men aggressively pursue high paying careers moreso than women leading to the so called “gender pay gap.” This little quirk probably accounts for about 90% of it.
@marinelife, this is one time I must disagree with you. Gold diggers are making a selection without forcing anything on anyone. The question is not about scam artists, preying on wealthy men. These men have all their options available to them.
It is more like comparing to men who will only go out with women who have large boobs evenly matched.
I used to think it was wrong behavior, but not anymore. I agree that it is like the breeding preferences in the wild.
I’m glad I’m not like (oops, blanking in the name) those sea creatures which light up, change their appearance, and during the mating season, males which have no chance in a fight, disguise themselves as females so they can get in close enough to an actual female to mate.
There’s a simple trap of reductive idiocy here which is apparently really easy for many people to fall into.
Avoiding men who have financial problems is one thing. Selecting men for their money alone is another thing. Collapsing the two is a mental short-circuit and/or a shaming tactic. They’re not at all the same thing.
My definition of gold-digging is “only interested in money, and refusing to work for money and manipulating your partner to get more money”. It means that you are not only greedy for money, you are also an ass with your partner about it.
I don’t really care if you are greedy for money. You may be too materialistic but at least you don’t intend to harm anyone. What gets on my nerve is that you want money, but refuse to work for it and become a vampire on someone just to satisfy your spending habit. This is a toxic behavior and, like most toxic behavior, not something you should expect from a person, let alone woman.
If your professor really had the same definition as me, then I would be offended. It’s one thing to choose someone who is financially stable, it’s another thing to seek for someone to satisfy your greed because you don’t want to spend your own money.
I once had a friend whose personality matched my definition of gold-digging. She would think of every reason possible not to pay for anything. And worse, she liked everything luxury, the more expensive the better, even though she herself was among those who needed financial support from the government. Turned out she was extremely insecure about her financial problem and just wanted everyone to think of her as a well-off person, but she was too lazy to earn her own money. Did she have a reason? Yes. Was her reason justifiable? No.
@LuckyGuy
FINAL TAKE—It’s not clear why she was there, but according to this month’s Glamour, Donald Trump’s wife, the model Melania Knauss, recently found herself addressing a New York University business school class.
Showing an attitude that would probably have been judged inappropriate on Mr. Trump’s television show, “The Apprentice,” one student asked the current Mrs. Trump—she is No.3 for those keeping score—if her husband weren’t rich, would she still be with him.
Her response? “If I weren’t beautiful, do you think he’d be with me?” PAUL B. BROWN AUG. 13, 2005
sauce
@Call_Me_Jay regarding the article, is this some kind of saturday morning joke? I find it silly that a wife can arrested just because she got money from her husband. Who cares if she give sex to the man? It’s her freedom. Her husband also got the freedom and authority to give money.
Regarding your second post. Goodness, are you trying to make me lose my appetite for dinner?
@Unofficial_Member That article from @Call_Me_Jay is a joke. It is from the satire site – The Onion.
Today’s Onion news features an article about how people in the US are waiting to hear all the facts about the Texas shooting case before doing nothing.
This is actually quite a question. If being rich is justifiable, then goldigging is not only justified, but recommended.
In societies in which it’s still agreed that “a woman’s place is in the home,” if she wants a comfortable life, what other options does she have besides marrying a man of means? Luckily the role of women is changing / has changed in many countries today. It seems strange to me to place the moral judgement on women rather than the societies that put them in the position of being so dependent on their husbands.
“It seems strange to me to place the moral judgement on women”
In regard to American/modern society why would that seem strange? Dependency is increasingly looked down on as well as the trophy wife/rich husband is viewed as a shallow relationship. Not exactly bad things.
@Unofficial_Member You are leaving out that a gold digger’s actions are hurtful to her spouse. She doesn’t care about him. Therefore, she is only going to be after her own best interests. Not my definition of marriage. It’s OK to better your life, but not by stepping on somebody else’s face.
I think it should be clear that my original answer wasn’t about modern American society. But keep in mind that we haven’t been past that mindset for long (1, maybe 2 generations) and it takes time for societal change to occur.
Did someone say cuttlefish?? I want cuttlefish. But not for dinner.
Let’s look at the other side. What makes a gold digger successful? Good looks, sexy, and good sex. He doesn’t necessarily care about her, either, @marinelife.
Which is the higher ground?
There is no high ground to be had in such relationships.
I agree. But why, then, is the focus on the woman’s crass behavior, and not on the men’s?
You assume the focus is on the women, not always or even usually the case.
Men who are wealthy who are so inclined, will dangle their wealth before women to impress them, so why shouldn’t the woman they reel in be one who seeks a man of ample means?
Right?
@ARE_you_kidding_me check the question. It isn’t asking about men. It’s asking about women.
You asked why women are singled out and not the men. There is no “why” because both parties are pretty well instantly called out, sometimes needlessly. It’s called out so much that seldom is it considered that a couple in that situation may genuinely like each other in ways that are not shallow or crass.
I know of a woman who has no problem trading sexual favors to get remodeling done around her house. I couldn’t do it, but you know what? Good for her! If that’s all it takes to get a new floor put in, go for it! Lot easier than coming up with a few hundred in cash.
^“How much was your deck?”
Two blow jobs.
Lol. If I want work done around the house I just start doing it myself, and let him catch me doing something “wrong”.
Bob’s your uncle.
^^lol, that’s what my wife does. Effective.
Hmmmm.
This afternoon my neighbor asked me about hanging a coat rack on the plaster wall (I manage the apartment building) and if her little Walmart electric screwdriver was a good tool. I talked about drywall anchors a little and then, “You know, never mind. I’ll just do it. Not a big deal.”
Now I think I got the Muad_Dib treatment.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
