We all remember the Kanye lyrics, “Aint saying she’s a gold digger, but she aint messing with no….” yeah we know how the song goes. The popular opinion is that there really isn’t any difference between a ‘gold digger’ and a ‘prostitute’ and this has become the cause of unending arguments between men and women, or even between women and other women. So lets check out the semantics, shall we? Urban Dictionary describes gold diggers as ‘basically a female who admires successful men as opposed to mediocre and unaccomplished men’, while wikipedia defines prostitution as ‘the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment’.

So, here’s the question, is going after what you want a bad thing, or a smart thing?

 

We encourage women to go out, make their own, but after these women become successful, and ready to settle down, are we asking them to date someone that earns less than they do? If men can put such requirements on the women they date (like they must be tall and skinny for instance) then why is it an issue if a woman would rather not date a broke-ass dude. A lot of people would probably contradict me here and say that the only problem they have is when a woman is actually ‘gold-digging’ in the sense that she goes after men specifically because of the size of their pockets. But once again, who makes these rules? And the fact remains that there are guys who actually thrive on lavishing their partners with gifts, monetary or otherwise. I have been a part of discussions about this topic, and I have found something really interesting. The older a woman gets, the more she knows what she wants and goes after it. A younger woman is most likely up for the ‘love him for who he is’ idea but as she gets older, she realizes she has needs that a guy with no house, no car or a man that can’t afford to buy her gifts can’t provide.

In agreement with the above, Jen 32, says “I’ve developed mixed feelings about it.  In my youth, I never cared about the kind of car a guy drove, or other trappings; that’s changed now.  I never encouraged my daughters to seek guys for their monetary wealth or material possessions, because I instilled in them that they should work for their own.  But, it’s foolish for a woman to love a man who has nothing to offer her.  I don’t mean while he’s in college, or struggling to build a career or business; instead, I mean the kind of men that some women have babies with, who don’t have jobs or even their own cars, can’t eat unless someone feeds him. Loving someone only for who they are, is just a bunch of bulls**t!

 

How true is that?

 

Anne, 24 believes that “I know money don’t make a person, but I need to know that my man is financially stable or at least working on something. I’m not going to be with a man with nothing in his pockets or who has nothing to offer. So when the bill needs to be paid I have to pay all of it, I don’t mean if something happens to my man like he lose his money tomorrow, am I going to leave him? No, because I do love him and that’s all about the heart. But I would not go out with him if he does not have a job, because I’m pretty sure as a man you couldn’t care how beautiful I was if was empty headed”

And a very good friend of mine, who finds the idea of women being called gold-diggers, was positively outraged when I asked her opinion “Here we go again, women are given names that are just downright degrading. We are called everything from gold diggers to cougars yet men escape being called anything when they do the exact same things. What is wrong with dating someone with money, people should be able to date who they want and not be called names for doing so. Women have the right to be with whoever makes them happy just like men do and if they happen to be rich, oh well that is their relationship all the rest of us can do is guess.”

Well, these ladies have made their opinions very clear, but sometimes, topics like these really depend on the person looking at it. It all depends on knowing what is smart, and what crosses the boundaries. But I say hey, ‘to each his own’, we can’t impose our judgments on others.

 

 

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

One Response

  1. QuiséDelaLúz

    Looking at this from a completely objective point of view, the logic of this thread is extremely flawed. The concerning point, “Men do it, so why can’t we?” is based purely upon a biased stereotypical view of men. And even the logic behind the stereotype, assuming that it is true, is completely idiotic. Not all men want women because of how they look, because just like women, we too evolve with age. Additionally a man who goes about his life feeding off women’s money would definitely not go unscathed by ridicule as the writer suggests. In fact, in America the man is traditionally expected to be the bread winner, however wrong that is. Also the actions of entire group should not be based on another group already deemed to be flawed in ethics. If you see a man doing what you know to be wrong, you doing it as well does not in turn make both of your actions equally right. Indeed you both would just be wrong. I suggest that if a woman wants a stable lifestyle and bank account, she should go out and find a career in which she can make her own money, then she may eventually find a partner of the same background. Money doesn’t grow on trees and what the gold digger term suggests is that the female does nothing as the male works hard and receives no true love.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.