Rich men vs. hot women

gargleblaster

Why are women who want to date wealthy men viewed so harshly? I get that it's shallow, but as I see it, it's no different than a man wanting to date a hot woman. So why the difference? Or are men who focus on looks viewed harshly and I simply haven't noticed?

I'm really puzzled about this. I hope it's not something obvious that I'm missing. And I do realize that this is a generalization and that there are also women who are only interested in buff men with cut physiques as well as young men who seek out wealthy older women. However regarding the more common stereotype, I don't understand why they're viewed so differently when they seem to me to be more or less mirror images of each other.

ilikepears

gargleblaster wrote: »

Why are women who want to date wealthy men viewed so harshly? I get that it's shallow, but as I see it, it's no different than a man wanting to date a hot woman. So why the difference? Or are men who focus on looks viewed harshly and I simply haven't noticed?

I'm really puzzled about this. I hope it's not something obvious that I'm missing. And I do realize that this is a generalization and that there are also women who are only interested in buff men with cut physiques as well as young men who seek out wealthy older women. However regarding the more common stereotype, I don't understand why they're viewed so differently when they seem to me to be more or less mirror images of each other.

I think any women who dates a man solely because he has a big wallet is a gold digger and probably not a very nice person. Its shallow to think that as a man a woman is only dating you for the about of money in your bank account. Its the same as a man dating a hot woman only for her looks. It reduces that person to only one aspect of them.
However if a woman admits that she takes into consideration how much a potential partner earns then that's quite different. As a woman I wouldn't date a person who I feel wouldn't be able to provide me with the kind of lifestyle that I desire. By that I mean I don't want a man who earns so little that money problems would follow us throughout our life together. That's not the type of lifestyle I want for either me or any future children.
However I do realise that the most important thing in any relationship is love and how ye treat each other. So maybe if everything else was perfect then money wouldn't matter.

Ickle Magoo

Hmmm. Good question.

Perhaps it's just because a man wanting a hot woman pre-dates women being able to choose whether they want a man based on whatever criterion?

So, one is viewed as just basic common sense which we don't even have a particular title for despite being equally shallow and the other is awarded the status of common and garden gold-digger/harlot/woman getting above her station-esque type vilification that you find a lot around more modern descriptives of women as they started levelling the playing field.

Eve_Dublin

Very good question indeed and I'm just having a little think about it now...

I do see a lot of condemnation in the media and on the internet of women choosing men based on how much they earn but very little because a man chooses a woman because of her looks. I dunno. Could it be that it's easier to doll yourself up as woman and to make yourself what is considered hot in society today? Most women (I think..) can take steps to hot themselves up with make up, diet and clothes. Many women who are labelled as hot are often only that way because they've spent a lot of time, money and creativity achieving that look whereas it's a hell of a lot more difficult to get to the position where you're earning big bucks and not many men get there thus creating resentment among those who don't, which is most men. It's a standard that's more difficult to attain perhaps? Speaking from a personal point of view, I could do myself up right now and look good but I'm never going to be rich no matter how hard I try.

F.Y.I: I've never gone out with a rich man myself...they've all been as broke as myself. I suppose I'd be more impressed by personal achievements than how much they earn. A broke, talented artist would definitely attract me more than a rich banker.

Tayla

There was a scene in a film once (can't remember the film though).......

anyway this guy turns around to this other guy and says about his hot young girlfriend "do you think she'd be with you if you weren't rich?"

and the rich guy just looked at him and said "do you think i'd be with her if she wasn't beautiful?"

Fair trade off if you ask me, personally i'd never be with a guy just because he was rich though, I don't really care about money and would be very uncomfortable with things being bought for me etc.

parker kent

I think men who focus solely on looks are treated harshly tbh. Anybody that bases decisions on something extremely shallow are treated harshly.

saywhatyousee

"A Womens test in life is material,A mans test in life is a women"-Dave chappelle

saywhatyousee

parker kent wrote: »

I think men who focus solely on looks are treated harshly tbh. Anybody that bases decisions on something extremely shallow are treated harshly.

That is codswollap Tbh.I will admit i am very shallow i have never been treated "harshly" for it.Quite the opposite

D1stant

gargleblaster wrote: »

Why are women who want to date wealthy men viewed so harshly? I get that it's shallow, but as I see it, it's no different than a man wanting to date a hot woman. So why the difference? Or are men who focus on looks viewed harshly and I simply haven't noticed?

I'm really puzzled about this. I hope it's not something obvious that I'm missing. And I do realize that this is a generalization and that there are also women who are only interested in buff men with cut physiques as well as young men who seek out wealthy older women. However regarding the more common stereotype, I don't understand why they're viewed so differently when they seem to me to be more or less mirror images of each other.

I think if you replace harshly with jealously (on both sides) you have your answer. The average person is jealous that you are using what they see as an unfair advantage to get what they cannot get

parker kent

saywhatyousee wrote: »

That is codswollap Tbh.I will admit i am very shallow i have never been treated "harshly" for it.Quite the opposite

I didn't say that every single individual is treated harshly. The idea of a "gold digger" or an older guy dating a woman purely for looks is treated harshly in media depictions and in received wisdom. Given the thread is about generalisations and stereotypes, I presumed that to be obvious.

Also, your interpretation of being treated harshly seems incorrect in the context of the thread.

Alopex

people misunderstand why women like rich men. they thinks its a "they want his money so they whore themselves out" scheme

in reality the money actually makes the man more attractive to the girls. They see him in a different light. Just as hotness makes a girl more attractive to a guy - he's not just thinking about how symmetric her facial features are or how clear her skin is

This is just my opinion but I see it a lot. See female friends who are genuinely mad into a rich guy just as they normally would be into handsome/funny/intelligent guys

also there was a study before showing women statistically had more orgasms with richer men. as if their gene controlled body was tricking them into thinking rich men were better lovers!

gargleblaster

parker kent wrote: »

I didn't say that every single individual is treated harshly. The idea of a "gold digger" or an older guy dating a woman purely for looks is treated harshly in media depictions and in received wisdom. Given the thread is about generalisations and stereotypes, I presumed that to be obvious.

Why are you narrowing it to older men who are dating women purely for looks? I don't see how age comes into it really. Shallow is shallow, regardless of age. It's more understandable with young people, but I don't think young 'gold diggers' are cut any slack.

Alopex wrote: »

people misunderstand why women like rich men. they thinks its a "they want his money so they whore themselves out" scheme

in reality the money actually makes the man more attractive to the girls. They see him in a different light. Just as hotness makes a girl more attractive to a guy - he's not just thinking about how symmetric her facial features are or how clear her skin is

This is just my opinion but I see it a lot. See female friends who are genuinely mad into a rich guy just as they normally would be into handsome/funny/intelligent guys

also there was a study before showing women statistically had more orgasms with richer men. as if their gene controlled body was tricking them into thinking rich men were better lovers!

This is it exactly IMO. I have dated my share of wealthy men and I never wanted to marry any of them, and those that brought up marriage turned me off immediately. After they brought it up, suddenly they were not so attractive, and I wanted nothing to do with them.

I know that for me personally, it wasn't about wanting to glom onto them as a meal ticket, it just made them seem more attractive and interesting to me. Didn't take me very long to grow out of that phase.

If society views men who place a priority on a woman's hotness harshly, I sure haven't seen evidence of it. I'm certainly not aware of any pejorative terms for it, such as 'gold digger' is for women.

D1stant

Alopex wrote: »

also there was a study before showing women statistically had more orgasms with richer men. as if their gene controlled body was tricking them into thinking rich men were better lovers!

Wow. Sponsored by Hugh Heffner no doubt. Got a link to that?

WindSock

Yep, seems to be a major taboo now for a woman to say she is attracted to men with wealth / success / power / class. She gets labelled a gold digger. Even if it is just success or ambition which themselves are desireable traits in both sexes.

But there is also a good bit of brush tarring going on that all women are attracted to rich men...(and are therefore whores, and also seem to be a good few around who ask what a person earns?...)

Dunno about that, but if that were the case then men with average incomes would never get the ride / married.

Alopex

D1stant wrote: »

Wow. Sponsored by Hugh Heffner no doubt. Got a link to that?

this an article about the study.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5537017.ece

gargleblaster

WindSock wrote: »

But there is also a good bit of brush tarring going on that all women are attracted to rich men...(and are therefore whores, and also seem to be a good few around who ask what a person earns?...)

I really cannot imagine a woman asking about income. That's just shocking. I guess they'd be very openly looking to be a kept woman or something.

I always figured the attraction to wealthy men was just a holdover from the primitive drive to secure a good provider as a mate. Same as men are attracted to sexually healthy looking bodies - whether or not they're interested in actually impregnating the woman - just primitive drives that haven't completely died off. That's my take anyway.

Abi

Theres a thread running TGC about women apparently asking men out straight what they earn. Now it's not something I've ever heard myself, and you'd want to have some gall to do it. But I suppose I mentioned it because it ties loosely with the topic.


I think money grabbing 'hot' women, and wealthy men who sniff after them - well they deserve each other. Both are equally as shallow as the other.



You can't put a price on a happy, respectful, loyal relationship, and the ability to pick the other up on their down days, and have laughter in their lives. Those relationships last.

Miss Olenska

Marry for money, you'll earn every penny.
Marry for looks, trade her in. (But only if you're rich and/or powerful)

I'm not sure what point I'm making.

Da Shins Kelly

Certainly an interesting question. To be honest, I think it's got an awful lot to do with people simply being intimidated by a woman who knows what she wants (money-wise) and goes and gets it. The idea of a man actively pursuing and succeeding in seducing a beautiful woman simply because of her beauty is a much older concept, and something that is more accepted by the rest of society as a result. I think, personally, they're both equally shallow and someone who judges someone based purely on looks is as deserving of as much vilification as a gold-digger. I just think that shallowness is tolerated more if it's coming from a man, because it has history and, in fact, a lot of men were probably judged on the cut of the woman they had on their arm back in the day. It's an idea that far pre-dates an real idea of shallow, go-getting women.

That's just my initial thought. It's definitely something I'd think more about though.

parker kent

gargleblaster wrote: »

Why are you narrowing it to older men who are dating women purely for looks? I don't see how age comes into it really. Shallow is shallow, regardless of age. It's more understandable with young people, but I don't think young 'gold diggers' are cut any slack.

I was giving one example from the many 1000s of shallow things people can do. I could be here all day typing out every instance of how a man or a woman could be shallow. I instead picked 1 that compares with women being attracted to rich men in terms of the wider public's reaction.

parker kent

Alopex wrote: »

people misunderstand why women like rich men. they thinks its a "they want his money so they whore themselves out" scheme

in reality the money actually makes the man more attractive to the girls. They see him in a different light. Just as hotness makes a girl more attractive to a guy - he's not just thinking about how symmetric her facial features are or how clear her skin is

This is just my opinion but I see it a lot. See female friends who are genuinely mad into a rich guy just as they normally would be into handsome/funny/intelligent guys

What exactly is "seeing him in a different light"? How is that different to being attracted to the wealth? I don't see how an example of a man (who would otherwise be ignored by a particular type of woman) becoming attractive purely because he has money is explaining what you say is a misunderstanding. To me it says: he becomes attractive when he has money. Therefore, the money is what made him attractive.

The equivalent example you give is a bit off in my estimation too. I would imagine that on a deeper level that a person that sees an attractive person thinks that because on an instinctive level they recognise universally attractive features such as a symmetrical face, glossy hair, bright eyes, nice figure etc. Now they are not saying in their head "wow look at the symmetry on her". But that is effectively what is happening at an instinctive level.

BTW I don't think there is anything wrong with being attracted to money or looks. So long as that is not the only criteria used to judge a person. I mean if I met a really nice, attractive, funny and intelligent girl and I found out she was extremely wealthy, I'd hardly be upset. It is just that wealth would never enter my head when making a decision on a partner. I do genuinely believe that looks are more important than wealth. I don't think that is me being shallow, I think it is basic human behaviour to seek out a partner that you are physically attracted to.

LittleBook

Alopex wrote: »

also there was a study before showing women statistically had more orgasms with richer men. as if their gene controlled body was tricking them into thinking rich men were better lovers!

Interesting article but I get the impression that the crux of the study is the "perceived quality" of the partners, not specifically their wealth.

In this day and age money and looks are the most highly valued assets, which could explain this entire discussion.

The difference between people who focus on certain things in a partner and why, could simply be based on different sets of values.

Wibbs

LittleBook wrote: »

In this day and age money and looks are the most highly valued assets, which could explain this entire discussion

Well to be fair looks and money, well social power were always highly valued assets. Looks moreso in women as it's a fairly good indicator of reproductive health. I;ve read studies which show that people all things considered very strongly tend to end up with others at the same "level" in looks. couples are judged separately and not knowing who is with whom by random observers and marked on looks. When the looks are matched the couples tend to be. So crudely put a 4 man will tend to end up with a 4 woman and an 8 with an 8 etc. What can skew this pattern is wealth or other social value in the men. In that case a "5" man could end up with an 8 woman. It seems to hold true across cultures too. The best hunter/chief in the tribe will have more women and better looking women than guys further down the totem pole. It'll be interesting to see how this will change with more and more women earning more.

LeixlipRed

Wibbs wrote: »

Well to be fair looks and money, well social power were always highly valued assets. Looks moreso in women as it's a fairly good indicator of reproductive health. I;ve read studies which show that people all things considered very strongly tend to end up with others at the same "level" in looks. couples are judged separately and not knowing who is with whom by random observers and marked on looks. When the looks are matched the couples tend to be. So crudely put a 4 man will tend to end up with a 4 woman and an 8 with an 8 etc. What can skew this pattern is wealth or other social value in the men. In that case a "5" man could end up with an 8 woman. It seems to hold true across cultures too. The best hunter/chief in the tribe will have more women and better looking women than guys further down the totem pole. It'll be interesting to see how this will change with more and more women earning more.

But then anecdotally my experience would tell me that most people choose partners based upon the actual content of their personality, the values they hold. Experience also tells me that rich, shallow types generally don't have an overabundance of those values. I think people are more free to choose a suitable partner than at any other point of history. Not free enough but us socialists are working on that

scholar007

They say its as easy to love a rich man as it is a poor man..... But the rich guys do tend to get the totty.

Emme

Alopex wrote: »

this an article about the study.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5537017.ece

A very erudite and scholarly source. :rolleyes:

Logical Fallacy

Emme wrote: »

A very erudite and scholarly source. :rolleyes:

Indeed, a study done in China...where honesty and truth are obviously valued above all else.

To me it is pretty simple...there is a general assumption that a rich man will have worked for his money. There will have been graft and effort and risk.

A good looking woman is simply the beneficiary of a genetic lotto. As such, in an attempt to woo someone who's main attraction is as a result of their hard work and other "finer" qualities they will simply be seen to be trying to insinuate themselves into a lifestyle they don't deserve based purely on luck.

It's not really something i hold to myself, but i reckon it plays a factor in peoples interpretation of the roles, consciously or subconsciously.

LittleBook

Wibbs wrote: »

Well to be fair looks and money, well social power were always highly valued assets.

Wibbs wrote: »

The best hunter/chief in the tribe will have more women and better looking women than guys further down the totem pole.

But that's kinda my point. Today it's looks and money, before it was strength and hunting skills, tomorrow it could be ...

Wibbs wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how this will change with more and more women earning more.

This is the future for some but many of us are already there.

I can't think of one woman I know who would put a prospective partner's wealth at the top of the list of qualities. Physical attraction, sexual attraction, personality, intelligence, humour, parenting skills, creativity, self-confidence, good manners, good DIY skills and dozens of other things would appear on the list ... and yes, of course, financial stability ... but "wealth"? No.

People have used evolutionary psychology to explain why women have orgasms, like the colour pink, enjoy shopping and why men cheat and (now) why poor men are bad lovers. I just don't buy it ... but I'll keep my mind open.

Wibbs

True, looks are a genetic lottery, but lifestyle has a large part to play in it too. Few good looking women(or men) at 20 are going to look too hot at 25 if they're chugging the ciggies, drinking like fish and eating for two. Beauty takes upkeep.

LittleBook

Wibbs wrote: »

True, looks are a genetic lottery, but lifestyle has a large part to play in it too. Few good looking women(or men) at 20 are going to look too hot at 25 if they're chugging the ciggies, drinking like fish and eating for two. Beauty takes upkeep.

You don't believe in natural beauty? There simply are some women (and men) who are naturally more beautiful than others and some women (and men) who however well they behave will never, EVER meet society's current most basic criteria for beauty.

Of course it's all in the eyes of the beholder, yadda, yadda, but you get what I mean.

In any case, I think the kind of "upkeep" that beauty takes is generally frowned upon so being seen to spend too much time, money, energy on looking beautiful is not necessarily a good thing.

Whereas being seen to work hard and (over?) ambition is generally widely appreciated.

I think LF's nailed it there.

Edit: Sorry Wibbs, read your post wrong, shouldn't post when all I can think of is lunch!

LittleBook

LittleBook wrote: »

You don't believe in natural beauty? .

The very first line of his quote says "True, looks are a genetic lottery,"

whydoibother?

Just on the wealthy partner side, I think that often people who date a string of wealthy or financially successful people are attracted to the characteristics that makes someone wealthy rather than chasing the money itself. Being wealthy is a symptom rather than a cause.

If you are attracted to people who are very goal-driven and quite intelligent, there is a high chance they will successful. Of course, I'm not saying for a second that those who aren't wealthy will necessarily be without these characteristics. Someone may be incredibly dedicated to a low-paying career because they view it's social value as important, but I think that often those that do well financially share common characteristics.

There are also characteristics that might be uncommon in high earners. For example if the type of person who says "I just take life as it comes, one day at a time. I don't care about money as long as I have enough money to get by. I don't believe in stress. I believe in chilling and taking life easy. I hate competitive people" drives you nuts, because you believe in people taking control of their lives and their futures, that will affect your partner choices without ever thinking directly about income.

A person will also meet a lot of people in their own field naturally enough, so for example if you are a doctor, you'll know a lot of other doctors. Your chances of dating a doctor is higher than it would be if you weren't a doctor.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps it's just because a man wanting a hot woman pre-dates women being able to choose whether they want a man based on whatever criterion?

It does not however pre-date a woman's father being able to choose whether they want a son-in-law based on whatever criterion (usually money/status). That's older than time itself.

Ickle Magoo

Brooke Ashy Insignia wrote: »

It does not however pre-date a woman's father being able to choose whether they want a son-in-law based on whatever criterion (usually money/status). That's older than time itself.

Not sure what that has to do with this thread...

I don't think men buying power and influence by selling their daughters along with an attractive dowry to bring two families together has much to do with men wanting to date hot women, or women wanting to date rich men....men using women to get rich and powerful, perhaps...

i71jskz5xu42pb

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not sure what that has to do with this thread...

Just idle musing, women's partners have nearly always been chosen on the basis of their wealth only difference is now the women get to make the choice.

lace

I don't think this phenomenon is a new thing. Back when we were all naked and hairy, running around on the plains, it was still the same - men were attracted to women who looked to be good breeding stock. While this was also a consideration for women, they also needed to be sure that a potential mate could provide for her offspring - offer security and occasionally bring home the bacon (or gazelle meat or whatever).

When we moved on and developed a bit, it became moreso about a man's posessions - house, land, wealth. In the days of lords and ladies and great manors it was perfectly normal for women to marry for money and status. Marrying for love has only become more widespread in our very recent history.

I'm not sure at exactly what point it started to be seen as wrong for a woman to find wealth a massive factor in her attraction to a partner. Of course, I don't think it should be the only criteria for a partner. I can't ever imagine finding a mean, boring, unfriendly man attractive no matter how much money he had. Maybe it factors more highly for some women than for others? Perhaps some women crave the lifestyle such wealth can offer so much that they can put wealth higher up on the list of what attracts them to a man?

Ickle Magoo

Brooke Ashy Insignia wrote: »

Just idle musing, women's partners have nearly always been chosen on the basis of their wealth only difference is now the women get to make the choice.

I getcha...

And as soon as it's women choosing for themselves, it's not standard investment or potential dower, it's gold-digging nasties. It's funny just how much attitudes can change to essentially the same thing.

jaffacakesyum

Good question OP...I've never really thought of it that way!!

I guess there's a difference between a guy being with a hot girl PURELY for her looks and a guy who's attracted to a hot girl, but is with her for many other reasons also (personality etc.)

Similarly, there's a difference between goldiggers who are only with a man for his money, and women who find wealth attractive in a guy.

analucija

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not sure what that has to do with this thread...

I don't think men buying power and influence by selling their daughters along with an attractive dowry to bring two families together has much to do with men wanting to date hot women, or women wanting to date rich men....men using women to get rich and powerful, perhaps...

I was just thinking how a symbolically a wedding still tells you exactly that. a woman needs to be taken care of so at the wedding she is passed from her fathers hands into her future husbands hands to be taken care of. Girls dating men just or mainly for their money (just or mainly are very important here) settle for a very passive role in society. They are happy as long as they are taken care of. And for that reason I do think that "gold diggers" do more harm than good for female equality. Rich men dating pretty girls? It just boosts their power. They are attractive because of their achievement, which is a hell of lot better than being judged on something that is rapidly disappearing with time.

newport2

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I getcha...

And as soon as it's women choosing for themselves, it's not standard investment or potential dower, it's gold-digging nasties. It's funny just how much attitudes can change to essentially the same thing.

Agreed, but I don't think society today would look any kinder on a man who marries a woman for her money either. What I mean is that what has really changed things is not who is making the choice, but how society judges choices like this. It hasn't suddenly become a bad thing because women have the choice, it's become perceived by society as a bad thing irregardless.

To be honest, I think quite a false picture is painted of this whole scenario by today's celebrity culture, magazines, etc. We're innundated with pictures of young beautiful women dating men old enough to be their father, whereas this doesn't happen as much in the real world.

Most women I know are attracted to men who are ambitious and driven, whether rich or not.

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

True, looks are a genetic lottery, but lifestyle has a large part to play in it too. Few good looking women(or men) at 20 are going to look too hot at 25 if they're chugging the ciggies, drinking like fish and eating for two. Beauty takes upkeep.

Ah yes, but the dismissal of the idea of work being involved in how someone looks is probably something everyone here has experienced.

I'm talking about what people do and say...not the truth about things.

Ickle Magoo

newport2 wrote: »

Agreed, but I don't think society today would look any kinder on a man who marries a woman for her money either.

But why don't we have a specific name for such men?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because it's not nearly as common as the reverse.

not everything has to be a battle in the great war on women you're all apparently victims of.

Miss Olenska

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because it's not nearly as common as the reverse.

not everything has to be a battle in the great war on women you're all apparently victims of.

Wut? I would imagine men going for looks is every bit as common as women going for money, if not moreso.

gargleblaster

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because it's not nearly as common as the reverse.

not everything has to be a battle in the great war on women you're all apparently victims of.

That's a little over the top, don't you think?

I agree with your reasoning, because a man who will only date wealthy women is more the exception than the rule. However, observing these differences in the ways that men and women are viewed/treated/labeled isn't always due to such reasons (e.g. with the slut vs. stud double standard), and observing the reasons for such differences (whatever they may be) is not anything to do with battles, wars, or victims. It's simple observation and analysis.



As for the question:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But why don't we have a specific name for such men?

I think it's a very good one, if we don't limit ourselves to thinking only of the 'gold digger' side of the equation.

Is there a pejorative name for a man who values women primarily for their looks or would only be interested in dating hot women? How about a man who will only marry hot women, and also 'trades up' every few years? I'm not aware of any.

Logical Fallacy

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But why don't we have a specific name for such men?

In fairness, i have heard such blokes being referred to as gold diggers.

I was called a gold digger once, because the girl i was dating had very rich parents.

It's reasonable to assume that a term like "gold digger" is pretty non sexual in and of itself, there is nothing in there to denote a specific sex. Sure, in the past it has no doubt been used more in relation to woman but that doesn't mean a new word is required to talk about men in similar positions.

As an example lets looks at the word "whore". It's gender neutral, even within it's definitions

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

however for some reason i will hear people use the term "man whore" when that is not really necessary.

Or even the flip side of the current conversation, a rich older gentleman who has a young girlfriend being referred to as a "cradle snatcher", once again meant to be derogatory but with no specific sexualisation of the intended descriptee.

Ickle Magoo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In fairness, i have heard such blokes being referred to as gold diggers.

I was called a gold digger once, because the girl i was dating had very rich parents.

Yes - but that is still a bastardisation of the dictionary definition. As gargleblaster points out; there are a whole plethora of negative female stereotypes all with their own terms and terminology and we don't have nearly as many for men...I'm just curious why that is the way it is.

gargleblaster

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In fairness, i have heard such blokes being referred to as gold diggers.

I was called a gold digger once, because the girl i was dating had very rich parents.

It's reasonable to assume that a term like "gold digger" is pretty non sexual in and of itself, there is nothing in there to denote a specific sex. Sure, in the past it has no doubt been used more in relation to woman but that doesn't mean a new word is required to talk about men in similar positions.

As an example lets looks at the word "whore". It's gender neutral, even within it's definitions

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

however for some reason i will hear people use the term "man whore" when that is not really necessary.

Or even the flip side of the current conversation, a rich older gentleman who has a young girlfriend being referred to as a "cradle snatcher", once again meant to be derogatory but with no specific sexualisation of the intended descriptee.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. And yes, I've heard 'cradle robber' directed at both sexes (although cougars may be a new phenomenon, rich old widows having younger men around is definitely not!)

Anyway I have found this discussion very interesting so thanks for all the input. I love seeing different points of view.

I think the issue of having pejorative labels for one sex and not the other as more of a side topic - there are so many examples of it that it really seems like its own issue. What I find curious about this topic is the apparent difference in public peception of two very common types of shallow behavior.

Maple

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

not everything has to be a battle in the great war on women you're all apparently victims of.

Completely over the top statement to have made.

Rein in the hyperbole.

Maple

Logical Fallacy

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes - but that is still a bastardisation of the dictionary definition. As gargleblaster points out; there are a whole plethora of negative female stereotypes all with their own terms and terminology and we don't have nearly as many for men...I'm just curious why that is the way it is.

Probably because it's not necessary.

If we decide a stereotype is wrong, a word or term is unnecessary and insulting and is largely indicative of a past that was steeped in inequality I doubt the best way to combat it is to ensure that we have male and female version of ever plausible insult.

I generally dislike this kind of direction in a thread because i always feel like i am planting the flag for a losing side...but what does it matter if there are 1000's of negative female stereotypes and 100's for men.

Surely they are all wrong and need to be stamped out?

I would also be loath to just sit here and decide there are more negative stereotypes of women than men, unless we have spread sheets filled with them it's pretty hard to consider that a fact...so much as an opinion.

Strongbow10

WindSock wrote: »

Yep, seems to be a major taboo now for a woman to say she is attracted to men with wealth / success / power / class. She gets labelled a gold digger. Even if it is just success or ambition which themselves are desireable traits in both sexes.

But there is also a good bit of brush tarring going on that all women are attracted to rich men...(and are therefore whores, and also seem to be a good few around who ask what a person earns?...)

Dunno about that, but if that were the case then men with average incomes would never get the ride / married.

yes but how do you define success? Does earning lots of money constitute talent and success in every single instance?

You may have a world class doctor or athlete on big bucks, and on the other hand you may have a banker who rakes in the cash at others expense.

It depends on what you define "success". Those who define someone as successful based on what they earn are open to a little scrutiny also.

There may be a bloke who is earning bucket loads, but is estranged from his friends and family, is he attractive because he earns lots of dosh?

Whats the exact criteria, i'm just curious.

This isn't a dig at you, just an observation. I understand that talent, ambition and success are attractive traits, but is this not kind of an easy excuse to use for finding a bloke with lots of money attractive?

I mean does talent and ambition = higher earnings either?

Its very subjective