Women and money

April O Neill

The Corinthian wrote: »

In addition, they'll almost always have bad debts - bills they pay late or don't pay at all (leaving an apartment without paying the last few months rent is an example of this).

This would be rare and unisex, to be honest. Anyone who does this is pretty awful and irresponsible. :eek:

clairefontaine

April O Neill wrote: »

This would be rare and unisex, to be honest. Anyone who does this is pretty awful and irresponsible. :eek:

There are numerous examples of this across the board. Needless to say, the banking scandals, Enron, the sub prime mortgage crisis, as well as the mess Ireland is in, has for the most part been led by men.

But this thread is not about those guys, this thread [I think] is about the cliched women who spend their rent money on Manolos.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

Honest answer: It was the specific topic and I thought in this case a male perspective might illuminate because it's something men do encounter probably more directly for obvious reasons, and you do get an insight into how they think as a result.

It was more a description, than tips, TBH. If it read as the latter, then that was genuinely accidental.

If a guy were to ask a similar question about 'mammy's boys', I suspect women might be better equipped (or at least have a different insight) to describe them for the same reason.

That would be me, lived with an ex who thought it was perfectly fine (when we had no savings and they were unemployed) to splash out €140 of €200 to live on for ten days for all expenses on a gift for me.

When I expressed outrage rather than gratitude, they were disgusted, while I was thinking of meals (and no, due to their being unemployed for several years, we'd no savings)

Same person asked for a loan after we split specifically, so they could "join an online dating site"

I think going back to the original premise of this thread, that what the OP meant is that people who have been brought up in, or who have learned to consider a certain standard of life acceptable, cannot cope when their income is unable to achieve that.

I've not had a single holiday abroad since 1999, I eat well, holiday here for the most part when I do, enjoy fashion but in outlets, have no problem shopping in Lidl/Aldi, save a little every month, and am comfortable enough that I've three months rent/food/bills money to keep me going if needs be.

I enjoy when I can shopping in Outlets for good clothes that will last and about once in every three years eat out in a superb restaurant, but enjoy regular nights out with my OH (we're not big drinkers) and am very happy with my standard of living.

A lot of people would be aghast at it, I don't go on Sun holidays (can't abide them), don't go out that much, don't feel the need to be in the latest clothes etc, but I know plenty who do, and sacrifice to do so, or build up debt.

Me, I'd now at this stage of my life prefer to secure my future with more savings, a seperate account that will possibly pay a 50% deposit on a house, and a cheapy dinner out once a week

I happened to be in a situation today where both myself and my OH were working from home, he needed advice I could give and then we went grocery shopping, and both enjoyed it.

Not many who expect holidays etc could live that lifestyle

April O Neill

clairefontaine wrote: »

There are numerous examples of this across the board.

I was being quite specific to skipping on rent.

Stheno

April O Neill wrote: »

I was being quite specific to skipping on rent.

How in a gender based example?
Prostitutes?

clairefontaine

April O Neill wrote: »

I was being quite specific to skipping on rent.

I can't see how that is gender related. There are all sorts of people who can't pay their mortgage and rent these days. It's nearly epidemic.

April O Neill

clairefontaine wrote: »

I can't see how that is gender related.

Exactly, that was my point!

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I don't understand the bit in bold. Would you mind explaining it?

When I was in my early twenties, I was convinced that many, if not most, women had deep-rooted psychological and sexual hangups. Then one day, I ended up sitting with a group of female friends who proceeded to have a pretty explicit discussion about the men in their lives. By the end of the discussion I came to the conclusion that I had been woefully wrong; it wasn't just women who will have deep-rooted psychological and sexual hangups, but both genders (in reality, even that is wrong and things are more complex than that, but that took me a few more years to work out).

I hadn't realized this because I don't have intimate relationships with men, and it's only when you do this, you get a different picture that allows you to see things that would otherwise be hidden. The same goes for even just how the genders behave when in the company of the other gender - it's never ceased to amaze me how completely different some men act when there's a woman in the room; often turning into perfect gentlemen, while they would be unbelievably sexist and crude in the company of 'the guys' (I've come to the conclusion that there's a relationship between the two).

I think we know what a sponging involves as all your "descriptions" above have already been covered in the thread.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that many of the traits I described are something only found in women, or that they're not something that anyone, regardless of gender, can already identify.

However, if you're a man who's found himself in a relationship or simply dating such a woman, then you're bound to get far more 'up close and personal', after all we get to see first hand how we're supposed to replace 'daddy' or whomever as their primary patron.

Indeed, they're also very impatient as a rule and will start talking about "the rest of our lives" and marriage within as little as two or three weeks of meeting, always trying to push things along (my any means, if necessary) in that direction, far more than normal. I doubt many women would see this side of them.

You can argue the same about perspectives on 'classic' male types, like 'mammy's boys' - we've all come across them, but I'd imagine you'll get a far better idea of what makes them tick if you're in an intimate relationship with them.

Anyhow, I'm not sure if my description was of any help or interest to the discussion, but that was what I was aiming for on the basis of the lesson I learned in my early twenties. If it wasn't, then apologies.

Caveat: All of the above presumes heterosexual relationships and gay men or lesbians will have their own, perhaps unique (or not), perspectives too.

Legs.Eleven

I'm thinking back on my relationships throughout my 20s and I've always been the one to have my shit sorted financially. In fact, almost every single one of them was depended on someone for most of the time I knew them (they were nice guys so it wasn't an issue for me then). Now I'm in my 30s and thinking about having kids, I'd be wary of being in that situation again. My boyfriend is unemployed right now but has savings (because he lived with his auntie rent free for 3 years...he's Spanish), so he can support himself and he's also studying for a masters to better himself and improve his career prospects (which is the important bit for me). I can see a stable future with him.

The thing is Corinthian, you've outlined the kind of girl lads tend to avoid in their 30s and I agree they should be avoided but I've seen threads started elsewhere berating girls wouldn't date a guy on the dole long-term, for example. They pop up every now and then and then the auld "gold-digger" accusations are pulled out of the bag.

For some reason, when it's the woman who's a bit more picky about choosing a man who's financially stable, she's labelled a "gold digger" even if she's financially independent herself (some people believing she'll drop her career the minute she meets a guy with a good job). That label is rarely applied to men but the reality is, "spongers" are not applicable to just one gender. I'd say it's pretty much even, actually or at least in my experience but for some reason, these kinds of threads are never started about men and that gets on my wick a bit, tbh.

mariaalice

The vast majority of people are reasonably responsible with their money, however some are not it applies to both sexes BUT how they expresses their irresponsible behaviour is different and that the point of having threads from a woman perspective it applies to lots of issues not just money.

I had a really interesting discussion about this recently and it showed my how there is a lot of cultural pressure to spend money in a certain way and how it is very hard to escape from this.

clairefontaine

I think it would be very interesting if someone could find an Irish statistic on women and the minimum wage. In the US the majority of minimum wage workers are women, but I can't find anything about the Irish statistics. This is far more interesting than talking about women who spend their rent money on Manolos.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

The thing is Corinthian, you've outlined the kind of girl lads tend to avoid in their 30s and I agree they should be avoided but I've seen threads started elsewhere berating girls wouldn't date a guy on the dole long-term, for example. They pop up every now and then and then the auld "gold-digger" accusations are pulled out of the bag.

First of all, not all guys avoid them, and I pointed out why too.

Secondly, you'll get threads berating types of women and men all the time. It doesn't mean that I share the same views - indeed, to a great extent I believe that, for better or worse, each type has it's corresponding type that 'fits'.

Where it comes to what you describe as 'gold-digger' threads, I don't agree with such definitions. For me a 'gold-digger' is definitely not someone who wants to avoid getting hitched to someone they'll end up having to carry for the rest of their lives, but some guys - especially younger ones - often don't see the larger picture because they're not yet at a point where they think of a relationship in terms of 'the rest of their lives'.

So-called 'gold-diggers' are essentially the types that this thread is about. Their primary aim is to find a man who will secure them and their lifestyle financially, not that they don't want to end up doing the opposite. This is a big difference that a lot of guys don't see, because they don't bother trying to see it from a female perspective - and women often do the same, in reverse.

Anyhow, I don't know if my perspective has added anything positive to this thread. I hope so and apologise for derailing it if not.

eviltwin

The descriptions of women on this thread are very depressing to read.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

The descriptions of women on this thread are very depressing to read.

Some women. A minority. Not all women and no one has ever suggested that. It should be no more depressing than a discussion on how some people are sociopaths.

clairefontaine

eviltwin wrote: »

The descriptions of women on this thread are very depressing to read.

I would call them myopic.

But it would be equally depressing to read descriptions of young men who seek out divorced women who "got the house."

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I would call them myopic.

In fairness the thread is myopic because it specifically discusses one type of woman.

But it would be equally depressing to read descriptions of young men who seek out divorced women who "got the house."

Really? I didn't know that. Genuinely. Learn something new every day.

fits

I'm actually struggling to think of a couple amongst the people I know where the man earns more.

rainbow kirby

fits wrote: »

I'm actually struggling to think of a couple amongst the people I know where the man earns more.

That's actually touching on another issue - due to the collapse of the (very male-dominated) construction industry, men have been hit disproportionately hard in this recession...

Legs.Eleven

Secondly, you'll get threads berating types of women and men all the time. It doesn't mean that I share the same views - indeed, to a great extent I believe that, for better or worse, each type has it's corresponding type that 'fits'.

Yeah but I wasn't talking about just you.

Where it comes to what you describe as 'gold-digger' threads, I don't agree with such definitions. For me a 'gold-digger' is definitely not someone who wants to avoid getting hitched to someone they'll end up having to carry for the rest of their lives, but some guys - especially younger ones - often don't see the larger picture because they're not yet at a point where they think of a relationship in terms of 'the rest of their lives'.

Fair enough.

So-called 'gold-diggers' are essentially the types that this thread is about. Their primary aim is to find a man who will secure them and their lifestyle financially, not that they don't want to end up doing the opposite. This is a big difference that a lot of guys don't see, because they don't bother trying to see it from a female perspective - and women often do the same, in reverse.

The thread is about about women who, for whatever reason, can't handle their finances and perhaps sometimes/frequently have to borrow from friend and family to get them out of a pickle (but not always). Women who are **** with money aren't necessarily on the look out for someone external to finance their lifestyle, they're just in need of a reality check and a bit of cop on and some guideness on how to manage their own hard-earned cash. It bugs me how the same presumption wouldn't be made about men who can't handle their finances. Interesting how you got that theme from this thread - I don't think any woman in here, the OP included, would agree that this was the overall theme. "Gold digger" has exclusively female connotations, which to me don't apply to Ireland in 2013, which I presume is what we're talking about here.

clairefontaine

I'm no financial expert but one thing I am very glad of is that I never bought a house.

I could never see the point of buying a house and always saw renting as far more practical, as your needs change and your life changes, and why bust your ass to save for a deposit and then pay for it only to have to sell it eventually when you either have more people in your family or you are going to move or the market floor drops from under your feet.

So I know this thread is about women and money, but all these finance guys are like hypnotists. For the life of me I can't follow all these bailouts. So they bailed out Anglo Irish with the Irish tax payers money, and it failed anyway. So all this universal social charges are going to the banks to pay for the mortgages that are in negative equity. But then the home owners who have the mortgages on houses in negative equity are also paying. So are the banks getting double payments? Why should all these people with the insane mortgages have to pay the inflated prices of 2006 mortgages if the banks are getting paid anyway by the universal social charges?

Is my confusion because I am a woman and I read too many Bronte novels instead of reading the Economist? I get how the stock market works. I know how to buy and sell, and how to follow the market, even though I never do actually buy or sell stock. I had some mutual funds go caput on me, but I'd be damned if I have any idea why or how it happened or how to avoid it happening again.

I get how when a currency fails to nothing it can often lead to wartime conditions. Do I get gold standard vs silver? Not at all....utterly clueless.

So I guess I wish I understood money more than I do with all these at large con games going on I am definitely lost.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Yeah but I wasn't talking about just you.

My point is you shouldn't have made such assumptions about me either. After all, the description I gave actually cannot be used to describe someone who is simply bad with money or does not want to get into a relationship with a potential financial sinkhole - some of the criteria I pointed out, like a sense of entitlement, are not there, for example.

The thread is about about women who, for whatever reason, can't handle their finances and perhaps sometimes/frequently have to borrow from friend and family to get them out of a pickle (but not always).

Not according to the OP - she was quite specific when she described them as:

mariaalice wrote: »

still have a come day go day attitude to money and have no plans for the future, do they not worried about the future, do they think a partner is going to come along and then they will sort it

That's not simply someone who's bad with their money, there's also a sense of entitlement to other people paying for them that makes all the difference and which I specifically cited and the tendency to seek a partner to maintain their lifestyles - those traits don't apply to just someone who's bad a budgeting alone. So I'm just following the OP's definition.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Interesting how you got that theme from this thread - I don't think any woman in here, the OP included, would agree that this was the overall theme. "Gold digger" has exclusively female connotations, which to me don't apply to Ireland in 2013, which I presume is what we're talking about here.

I got that theme from the thread, because that's specifically what the OP cited.

As for it having "exclusively female connotations", other than the OP citing women specifically, I can only speak of what I have experience of and I have experience of the female variety.

However, increasingly in recent decades, there's been a marked increase in the male variety too; they might use different justifications for their entitlement, such as 'illness' that stops them from working or inability to find a job (while not actually looking for one), but ultimately they're pretty much the same type - the only reason that I've not brought them up is because as a heterosexual man, my exposure to them is limited (heterosexual women are far more likely to have better experience and knowledge of them) and because the OP was very specific about the topic:

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course it is not only a women issue, but woman and men can put a different valuer on money and as this is the ladies lounge I made the thread about woman .

There's no shortage of threads and posts on Boards by women who have been with such men, but in fairness that doesn't cause me to suddenly think they're talking about all men, or about me.

Legs.Eleven

Okay this thread is about gold-digging women so. Perhaps it should be moved to TGC then? I can't think of even one case in Ireland but as you said, I'm seeing it from a female point of view making it impossible for me to know. I guess this thread can go no further as I doubt many women will admit to it.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Okay this thread is about gold-digging women so. Perhaps it should be moved to TGC then?

Should women not be allowed to discuss the topic? Actually, I think a thread on male gold-diggers in tGC might be interesting (and contentious, as some will argue that men have an equal right to be gold-diggers ).

I can't think of even one case in Ireland but as you said, I'm seeing it from a female point of view making it impossible for me to know.

One case of male or female 'gold diggers'? I suspect you'd not have to wait very long for stories of either to be offered.

I guess this thread can go no further as I doubt many women will admit to it.

I doubt any women will, because the vast majority have nothing to admit to and those who do will never do so. I really don't understand why you keep on seeing the criticism of a small subset as somehow implying the whole - doesn't defining that subset allow one to differentiate it from the whole?

Legs.Eleven

I genuinely cant understand women who are past the student days and still have a come day go day attitude to money and have no plans for the future, do they not worried about the future, do they think a partner is going to come along and then they will sort it, are they happy to live in shared accommodating for the rest of their lives, would you not worrie about getting sick and not being able to work.

I really can't see how women like this will inevitably marry a man for his money. The OP asked a question (which to me sounded like sarcasm) and you took it as a statement, Corinthian. She never stated it was inevitable, you're the one who did that and I disagree.

Living cheque to cheque (as many people do in this crisis), having no plans for the future and living in shared accommodation (can't see what's wrong with that if it suits you, particularly if you're salary is low....it's not living at home with your parents, for example).

I don't see any sense of entitlement from the women she described above (except the example of one women in her first paragraph which doesn't correspond with the rest of the post). It sounds as if the woman is supporting herself but perhaps not taking precautions. Most women and men who live like this (which is probably a large proportion of the country right now) aren't keeping their beady eye out for a rich man.

This thread started off as a discussion about women who bad with their finances and now "Gold-diggers" have been brought into the equation?

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I really can't see how women like this will inevitably marry a man for his money. The OP asked a question (which to me sounded like sarcasm) and you took it as a statement, Corinthian. She never stated it was inevitable, you're the one who did that and I disagree.

Fair enough, you disagree. However, as a man, I contend that I'm in a much better position to judge if they exist because I've had first hand experience of such women, just as women would be in a better position to speak of men who behave in the same way.

I don't see any sense of entitlement from the women she described above (except the example of one women in her first paragraph which doesn't correspond with the rest of the post). It sounds as if the woman is supporting herself but perhaps not taking precautions. Most women and men who live like this (which is probably a large proportion of the country right now) aren't keeping their beady eye out for a rich man.

Except from what you quoted above, you edited out the bit that asks "do they think a partner is going to come along and then they will sort it" which certainly does allude to a sense of entitlement and I can definitively confirm to you that such people do exist.

Not people who are bad with their money or simply living beyond their means, but genuinely feel entitled to do so and for someone else to pay for it and they do go out and seek a partner to facilitate it.

Now, if I've misunderstood what the OP wanted to talk about, then fair enough, but it looks pretty clear to me, as things stand, that this sort of person (whatever you want to label them as) is what the OP was talking about.

Legs.Eleven

Should women not be allowed to discuss the topic? Actually, I think a thread on male gold-diggers in tGC might be interesting (and contentious, as some will argue that men have an equal right to be gold-diggers ).

Not that this is what the thread is about, but how would women have experiences of female gold-diggers? You already stated you have a different perspective being a man. This thread is entitled, "Women and money", not "People and money".

One case of male or female 'gold diggers'? I suspect you'd not have to wait very long for stories of either to be offered.

:rolleyes: Female Gold-diggers, which is what the discussion is supposedly about. I personally wouldn't like to see a thread here having a bitch about male gold-diggers.

I doubt any women will, because the vast majority have nothing to admit to and those who do will never do so. I really don't understand why you keep on seeing the criticism of a small subset as somehow implying the whole - doesn't defining that subset allow one to differentiate it from the whole?

I'm simply counter-arguing that women who don't have their finances in order aren't inevitably going to turn into gold-diggers, which you stated. I believe it was unfair to make that assumption.

I live in Spain where most women live at home till their mid-30s. They eventually get themselves sorted career-wise, not through marrying rich men (good luck with that in this country).

The Corinthian

Well the OP appears to have thanked your last post, so maybe I did get it wrong. If so, fair enough. Maybe she can confirm.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Not that this is what the thread is about, but how would women have experiences of female gold-diggers? You already stated you have a different perspective being a man. This thread is entitled, "Women and money", not "People and money".

I didn't see where male perspectives were unwelcome here, but if that's the case, then fair enough, maybe the mods can delete my posts and all those related to my posts then.

:rolleyes: Female Gold-diggers, which is what the discussion is supposedly about. I personally wouldn't like to see a thread here having a bitch about male gold-diggers.

I didn't suggest it should be here, actually I suggested that it should be on tGC as I do think many men need to wake up to the fact that it's not simply a 'female' type.

I'm simply counter-arguing that women who don't have their finances in order aren't inevitably going to turn into gold-diggers, which you stated. I believe it was unfair to make that assumption.

I never stated that. Ever. Look at my first post; there's a lot more to it as an inability to not being good with money. I've been very adamant on this throughout the discussion.

I live in Spain where most women live at home till their mid-30s. They eventually get themselves sorted career-wise, not through marrying rich men (good luck with that in this country).

You seem to have decided that I've pegged anyone who's bad with money as a 'gold-digger' - I haven't and have repeatedly said this. Why are you persisting in ascribing this definition?

Legs.Eleven

Fair enough, you disagree. However, as a man, I contend that I'm in a much better position to judge if they exist because I've had first hand experience of such women, just as women would be in a better position to speak of men who behave in the same way.

Exactly. Hence why I suggested moving it to TGC.

Except from what you quoted above, you edited out the bit that asks "do they think a partner is going to come along and then they will sort it" which certainly does allude to a sense of entitlement and I can definitively confirm to you that such people do exist..[/QUOTE]

If i edited it out, that was a mistake and I did refer to that question (not statement) in my previous post. Twas the reason I quoted it. The OP asked a question which I took as sarcasm or simply throwing it out there, not a statement and certainly not stating the theme of the thread. Even if it was, I'm simply disagreeing.

The OP thanked my post. I'm presuming she agrees with me.

Not all women, or even most women who aren't 100% sensible with their finances are gold-diggers and the assumption is unfair.

mariaalice

I think the idea of gold digger, princess, etc are minor side issues in this thread ( although they are a point )....Its is as I have said how SOME people ( in this thread women ) make decisions around money that seem to be irrisponsible...small examples I can think of is a woman who drives to works and pays for parking rather that get public transport, Its costing her at least 20 times more to go to work by car but she still does this and is always broke??? or another woman who gets taxis when she could use public transport and when I asked her about this she said getting the bus make her feel poor???.

I had this conversation with someone recently and it is sort of related to this thread.

Spending anything up to twenty thousand on a wedding which to me seems madness, it was pointed out to me that there is often cultural pressure to do this particularly in rural areas as any sort of " alternative wedding" is often perceived as cheap or mean.