updated Sept 9, 2012
While feminism has changed the lives for many women in a positive way, it has left many other women, as well as men, in not such happy or positive circumstances. One legacy of feminism is the dual career, dual income family, a way of life that benefits only a certain segment of society. This also raises the feminist notion of 'having it all,' a phrase that refers to women having the 'choice' (a favourite word among those who have benefited from feminism and take it for granted), of having both a career and family if they wish, with the money and security to ensure they can live 'the good life'.
The way relationships come together has changed, enough to say here about modern values smply that professional men and women are more likely to join forces, than the earlier ideals of coupledom. In previous eras, a professional man might team up with a non-working woman, possibly educated, perhaps not, but providing him with a good woman to care for the family and look after his home, while also being able to entertain him and his business associates with her grace and wit. Most of us have seen ‘Mad Men’ on tv. In today’s world, however, that scenario is usually very different.
Having it all
‘Having it all’ could not possibly be the bliss implied by the term (see Have it All? Yeah, right!, 2012). Women enter the public sphere alongside men in the hopes of being as free as men seemed to be, to have the power, status and prestige, and the money to keep them safe and secure in this world. But most have to make hard choices about motherhood and work, and struggle to maintain the power they have achieved, at work and in the political arena.
One thing that does come fairly easily for many, however, is how they choose a mate. It looks as though many choose the best they can find, among their associates, friends, and family connections, and perhaps the internet. That may seem obvious, except that today’s world is different than it used to be, prefeminism. Instead of finding a mate and settling down to work part-time or not at all, in the traditional fashion, a woman may well be seeking the best she can while keeping in mind her career goals. That’s to be expected. But if the practice becomes a cultural norm, whereby women who do this become successful, then insist on women they mentor becoming like them, the result could be the closing of ranks on anyone who is different.
Gold diggers
That brings us to the meaning of the term ‘gold digger,’ another phrase that used to have a certain meaning, directed towards non-working women. Among the defintions of gold digger, see these that give no indication that the working status of the woman counts: ‘a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain’ (Reference Dictionary), and ‘a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich’ (Macmillan Dictionary). These definitions suggest that it is not women who marry wealthy men for their money only who are gold diggers. The resources the relationship offers is also important. See also Keli Goff’s piece on Justin Bieber, gold diggers, and feminism, and the blog that I wrote in response.
All in all, it’s a matter of perspective, attitudes, and definitions. Traditionally, women married men who became the breadwinners, while they raised a family. We wouldn't call them gold diggers. But society has changed. Due to feminism, or even though we have feminism, more than ever, women will still seek out the best male they can, and not to be supported and spend their money. It’s the career they’re after, and security in a world filled with insecurity.
Under what circumstances is it fair to apply the term ‘gold digger’ to women who seek wealthy men to marry. The money is what is important to gold diggers, although raising children and keeping a home, or having a career oneself seems to make the term nonapplicable. Perhaps the term is a bit harsh for women who only want what’s best for their family and themselves – or a career. But taking the label out of context or applying it to some situations but not others, and not including the effect it has on the rest of society, may be unconscionable.
Today's world is different. Instead of growing up with specific rules of behaviour, it seems that anything goes. If women act as though they have no fear - of limitations or doing the wrong thing - it's because they have been told for so long they are exceptional people (and that anything that comes out of their mouths is right). Just as it did for men, 50 years ago, the world revolves around them – some of them, depending on social and family background for starters.
When my Dr puts on my referral for a pulmonary test that I "fear cancer', she is not only making a value judgement about me but is placing me squarely within a generation that feared the big C, that couldn't cope with life or death, and that preferred to block out negativity rather than deal with it. And now I have to try to get a specialist to treat me seriously, not as a non-contributing citizen with no reason to make helping me worthwhile.
Social Inequality
Feminism has enabled some women to join the ranks of the well-employed and fulfilled, but left out far too many. Similarities in education between men and women aren't the main marrying point, it seems. Wealth is, or other indicators, as mentioned. Too many educated people are unemployed or underemployed, lacking the relationships or whatever it takes to get on the path to success or fulfilment and wellbeing.
In my blog (see ‘Occupy Movement,’ Dec 10, 2011), I have written about how the Occupiers have been encouraged to blame the top 1% for the world’s economic problems, while those in the top 30% or so must surely be enjoying economic security, well-established in their career, married also to professionals in many cases, living a life of entitlement while denying the real circumstances of those farther down the ladder. As I said there, “Many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.” Bernie Hammond (‘Don’t shrug off,’ 2011), may be right after all. In order to understand the lives of the poor we do need to study the structure of society, especially how the wealthy got where they did. I hope this piece I am writing will contribute towards that.
A commenter on a piece in the Huffington Post recently made me aware of a term I was unfamiliar with - hypergamy, meaning ‘marrying up’ – while explaining that “hypergamy as a theory has been all but debunked and is not taken seriously.” Yet I found an article about this in Time magazine (The truth about women, 2009), though not naming it hypergamy, stating that this subject – of women, money, and relationships, is taboo.
Traditional femininity
There's something going on behind this view that 'women can have it all.' And I think it might be this that distorts the significance of the phrase and leads to inequality and discord in society. Even though women are told they can have the career, the husband and the kids, there are still aspects of traditional femininity they don't manage to lose. And I'm not talking about being sexy or feminine. That’s just part of how many women are. What many of them might be unable to do, or don't want to, is marry a man with less then themselves and in this way, not only help him to achieve fulfilment and thus success, in this way, but on a larger scale contribute towards lessening social inequality and achieving a more balanced society.
If men and women with money and great careers wouldn’t be so reluctant to form intimate partnerships with those with less money but similar interests and personalities, then the result could be a more blanced society. Otherwise, what we have is the rich marrying the rich and the rest left to struggle.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that feminism had changed the world, and not always for the best. In my own life, not knowing anything about feminism until I was approaching midlife, I only knew earlier on that one married someone one felt close to, for whatever reason, and that money or potential had little or nothing to do with it. It was just something women did. In the 17 interviews with women that I did, several told me that they never gave marriage much thought before jumping into it. The interviews were intended to be for a PhD (see ‘Intimacy and Sexuality, 2009), but the university couldn’t/didn’t fund me and I was pushed out. That must have been at about the same time that my ex-husband was pushing for divorce, and I was pressured into signing off on any further claims, despite my situation being so insecure. I guess he wanted to secure his situation and find a new wife, his sister having fortunately been a good-size lottery winner a few years earlier. I was still naive enough to believe in a just world, and my financial situation was so complex, being part of both the UK and Canada, it seemed the best decision (uninformed) at the time. Naïve, yes, in a different world. But no worse, in its own way, than the world today.
Instead of women being suppressed and oppressed, now it’s both men and women who are being pushed down the economic ladder, due to their luck running out, or talents going unnoticed, or not having the money to get an education, or not having the talent or knowledge, or enough ability. Not all the oppressed are the same, just as not all of the well-off are.
Social inequality refers, to a large extent, to people without money being treated as lesser human beings, in so many ways – health care, housing, education, job-seeking, and practically any way you can think of, including not being given credit for contributions they make to their community or society in general. Feminism hasn’t helped in changing that. In fact, feminism has probably made it worse, as women seek power and security in their lives.
Added Sept 9, 2012
Another aspect of feminism and its legacy is the hiring of spouses within the same university While it may be seen as beneficial to the university (see Universities see benefits, Feb 16, 2010) I can’t see that using the excuse of ‘diversity’ to uphold the policy of hiring of academic couples makes any sense at all. Rather, hiring couples simply promotes the idea of coupledom, already an established mainstream norm. According to Professors Anabel Quan-Haase and J. Bruce Morton, the reason for such hiring is "an improved understanding of the needs of women and families." But dual-income academic families aren’t helping society adapt to a poor economy, and the problem of some men and women excluded and unable to find work, or left without meaningful work. Two salaries two health plans, two sets of pension benefits when the time comes – while others struggles. This is the legacy of feminism.
Before I realized that feminism was the fundamental cause of this social inequality I had already written a piece about the hiring of spouses at universities (see The two-career family, Feb 18, 2010). If universities continue to close ranks against unattached individuals with no powerful social network, and if feminists – or women academics – use their relationships with men to secure their own future with no consideration for others, how is this helping the ordinary person, including the unattached ones and the educated ones who wish to pursue a career within academia?
List of sources, by title
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Gold digger: Informal definition
- a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain
Reference dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Gold digger: definition
- a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich
Macmillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/gold-digger -
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Have it all? Yeah, right!
By Barbara and Shannon Kelley
Jan 27, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/have-it-all_b_1225945.html
‘Intimacy and Sexuality: single-again older women’
Summary of proposed PhD thesis topic
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/IntimacySexualityOlderWomen.doc
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue (Fulham) McPherson
Western News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships
By Andrea Sachs
Time magazine
Jan. 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870066,00.html
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower (added Sept, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Feb 18, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/02/two-career-family-profs-in-ivory-tower.html
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs (added Sept, 2012)
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
Feb 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
Nov 19, 2011
Sue’s Views on the News
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
5 February 2012
23 January 2012
Prostitutes take their desires to the Supreme Court
(revised Jan 25, 2012)
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
Prostitution has been decriminalized, although laws surrounding it involve illegal activity. That's what some prostitutes want to have changed. They want to challenge the laws that ban keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution and procurement. If they accomplish their aim of making these legal, then what's to stop poor people (young women) from being further exploited in society. Sure, some women may be in this career by choice, or as a temporary measure to pay off debts, but we have to think about how it will affect those with fewer choices in life who have virtually no alternative if they want to survive. Don't make this easy for those who see the prostitution as a legitimate, objective exchange of money for what should be seen as an intimate act. For the sake of our next generation, there needs to be a distinction between legitimate forms of employment and this.
Above is the letter I submitted to the editor of the London Free Press today, in response to 'Sex workers turn to Supreme Court' (see reference list). Letter posted to the LFP website Jan 23, published in The London Free Press on Jan. 25, 2012.
Community reaction to sex-trade workers' Supreme Court appearance
By Community Team
CBC News
January 20, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/community-reaction-to-sex-trade-workers-arguments-to-the-supreme-court.html
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
By Susan A McPherson
LFP letters
London Free Press
Jan 23, 2012 (Jan 25 in the LFP hard copy).
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=48457&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
London Free Press
January 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/19/19268456.html
Sex-trade workers take case to Canada's top court
By CTV News.ca Staff
CTV News
Jan. 19 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120119/sex-trade-workers-court-20119/
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
Toronto Sun
January 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/sex-workers-turn-to-supreme-court#disqus_thread
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
Prostitution has been decriminalized, although laws surrounding it involve illegal activity. That's what some prostitutes want to have changed. They want to challenge the laws that ban keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution and procurement. If they accomplish their aim of making these legal, then what's to stop poor people (young women) from being further exploited in society. Sure, some women may be in this career by choice, or as a temporary measure to pay off debts, but we have to think about how it will affect those with fewer choices in life who have virtually no alternative if they want to survive. Don't make this easy for those who see the prostitution as a legitimate, objective exchange of money for what should be seen as an intimate act. For the sake of our next generation, there needs to be a distinction between legitimate forms of employment and this.
Above is the letter I submitted to the editor of the London Free Press today, in response to 'Sex workers turn to Supreme Court' (see reference list). Letter posted to the LFP website Jan 23, published in The London Free Press on Jan. 25, 2012.
The news story came out in different forms at more or less the same time. My comments to the CBC report, submitted hours apart, were not published. No comments were published on the page following the article itself which contained selected comments, though the story itself was changed after a day or so to what you see there now, explaining that "roughly 76 per cent of 1770 respondents said 'Yes, activities like keeping a bawdy house and communicating for prostitution should be legal'." (CBC, Community Reaction).
While the CTV news site did not publish my comment (CTV, Sex-trade workers), 45 others were, before Comments were closed.
While the CTV news site did not publish my comment (CTV, Sex-trade workers), 45 others were, before Comments were closed.
The Toronto Sun was more liberal, publishing mine in with 37 other comments (See Toronto Sun, Sex Workers, comments section).
This is a serious matter, and if the issues do not get the attention they deserve, then society will suffer - or should we say the poor in society will suffer.
Community reaction to sex-trade workers' Supreme Court appearance
By Community Team
CBC News
January 20, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/community-reaction-to-sex-trade-workers-arguments-to-the-supreme-court.html
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
By Susan A McPherson
LFP letters
London Free Press
Jan 23, 2012 (Jan 25 in the LFP hard copy).
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=48457&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
London Free Press
January 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/19/19268456.html
Sex-trade workers take case to Canada's top court
By CTV News.ca Staff
CTV News
Jan. 19 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120119/sex-trade-workers-court-20119/
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
Toronto Sun
January 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/sex-workers-turn-to-supreme-court#disqus_thread
10 December 2011
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
[revised Jan 12, 2012]
In November, 2011, Heinz Klatt, retired professor, wrote a piece for Western News (UWO, London, Ont), with the title 'Occupy movement may be most vapid of all,' Nov 24, in which he complained about the Occupiers, ending with a suggestion that they might, after all, be on the same side, against the 1%.
Klatt was critical of the Occupiers not being able to articulate their concerns well or comprehend their aims sufficiently. But we all speak from our own knowledge base - from ‘education,’ the media, our own experience, and elsewhere. If the Occupiers are pursuing a particular path (placing blame on the 1%) and still sorting out where their movement is heading, then we should consider that normal, under the circumstances. Which revolutionary movement ever strated out being well organized and knowing exactly what their aims were and how they could be accomplished. Take the women's liberation movement as an example of a movement that has been chaotic at times, with no clear direction or organization in its early years. Chaining themselves to gates and throwing themselves in front of horses may not appear to us to be well thought-out strategies for success, but look at them now. As the Occupiers continue to discuss, listen to others, reflect on what they want for themselves and society, and to organize, no doubt their movement will progress in achieving their aims and their ability to express them.
The media’s emphasis, Klatt’s, and Bernie Hammond's, whose Nov 17 piece was the instigator of this discussion, all claim that the 1% is the problem, not that there could be many reasons why social inequality is worse now than in recent decades. As the division between the classes widens, there is bound to be increasing disatisfaction among those lower down, while those at the top (eg top 30-50%) reap the benefits of the 'good life.' Yet this fact of life, that the struggle for scarce resources exists at every level of society, has yet to be recognized as a contributing factor to the problem of social inequality in general.
Feminism is one contributing factor - beginning with the women's liberation movement that formed in opposition to men's dominance in society, and which now is in many ways dominant itself, if not over men of their own class, then over men and women lower down in terms of economic standing. Unfortunately, the real numbers of good careers and jobs in society has not increased, even though many more women are now working alongside men, and marrying them, resulting in increased numbers of the well-off dual-career, dual-income family and their assumptions of entitlement.
Feminism has achieved much for women's independence, but not for all women. And while men used to be dominant, in general, that dominance is now shared with women. We no longer live in a world where the man is breadwinner with a wife at home. In fact, most young people do not understand the way things were. Nor do many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
Income inequality: deep, complex and growing
By Jeffrey Simpson
Globe and Mail
Dec 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/income-inequality-deep-complex-and-growing/article2264938/
The poor are doing better than you think [comments section]
By Margaret Wente [and concerned readers]
Globe and Mail
Dec 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/comments/
In November, 2011, Heinz Klatt, retired professor, wrote a piece for Western News (UWO, London, Ont), with the title 'Occupy movement may be most vapid of all,' Nov 24, in which he complained about the Occupiers, ending with a suggestion that they might, after all, be on the same side, against the 1%.
Klatt was critical of the Occupiers not being able to articulate their concerns well or comprehend their aims sufficiently. But we all speak from our own knowledge base - from ‘education,’ the media, our own experience, and elsewhere. If the Occupiers are pursuing a particular path (placing blame on the 1%) and still sorting out where their movement is heading, then we should consider that normal, under the circumstances. Which revolutionary movement ever strated out being well organized and knowing exactly what their aims were and how they could be accomplished. Take the women's liberation movement as an example of a movement that has been chaotic at times, with no clear direction or organization in its early years. Chaining themselves to gates and throwing themselves in front of horses may not appear to us to be well thought-out strategies for success, but look at them now. As the Occupiers continue to discuss, listen to others, reflect on what they want for themselves and society, and to organize, no doubt their movement will progress in achieving their aims and their ability to express them.
The media’s emphasis, Klatt’s, and Bernie Hammond's, whose Nov 17 piece was the instigator of this discussion, all claim that the 1% is the problem, not that there could be many reasons why social inequality is worse now than in recent decades. As the division between the classes widens, there is bound to be increasing disatisfaction among those lower down, while those at the top (eg top 30-50%) reap the benefits of the 'good life.' Yet this fact of life, that the struggle for scarce resources exists at every level of society, has yet to be recognized as a contributing factor to the problem of social inequality in general.
Feminism is one contributing factor - beginning with the women's liberation movement that formed in opposition to men's dominance in society, and which now is in many ways dominant itself, if not over men of their own class, then over men and women lower down in terms of economic standing. Unfortunately, the real numbers of good careers and jobs in society has not increased, even though many more women are now working alongside men, and marrying them, resulting in increased numbers of the well-off dual-career, dual-income family and their assumptions of entitlement.
Feminism has achieved much for women's independence, but not for all women. And while men used to be dominant, in general, that dominance is now shared with women. We no longer live in a world where the man is breadwinner with a wife at home. In fact, most young people do not understand the way things were. Nor do many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
Income inequality: deep, complex and growing
By Jeffrey Simpson
Globe and Mail
Dec 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/income-inequality-deep-complex-and-growing/article2264938/
The poor are doing better than you think [comments section]
By Margaret Wente [and concerned readers]
Globe and Mail
Dec 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/comments/
19 November 2011
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
or
What Justin Bieber and feminism can tell us about gold diggers
In this Huffington Post piece by Keli Goff, the incident involving Justin Bieber and his alleged paternity has introduced issues concerning feminist views on 'gold diggers. But as I see it, the situation Bieber was involved in is not the main issue. The phenomenon of gold digging is. And I don't see feminists sitting outside of that one. I see them as being as deeply involved as anyone else.
Kanye West's video about gold digging, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY&feature=relmfu , came out a few years ago, before Justin Bieber made headlines over his 'women problems'. The term 'gold diggers' appears to have vague meanings, but rather than being strictly about situations such as Justin Bieber's, the term seem to be about life in general, about how some men and women conduct themselves in normal human relationships. As an aside, the girls in the video don't look as though their thoughts are on motherhood.
Gold diggers used to be seen as women who sought to marry a man for his money. Sometimes this seemed obvious, when the man was 80 or more and the woman in her 20s or 30s. I believe Hugh Hefner might fall into this category. of course, everything has changed now, since feminism has got women into the workforce in increasing numbers, many of them taking positions alongside men in a professional capacity. But to some extent, don't most women of today seek to marry men who can offer them the most, in terms of security and access to financial resources, even if the women themselves have a good career? Doesn't the thought of marrying well hold the possibility of an even more 'secure' lifestyle?
Years ago, say in the 50s and 60s, marrying a man for money might have been the only way a woman could be sure of achieving financial security, as so many women didn't work but relied on men as the 'breadwinners'. But today's world is different, thanks to feminism. In some ways, it seems as though the tables are turned. It used to be men who received encouragement and had more opportunities. But feminism has changed that. Their emphasis has been women, though of course, mainly on women from the middle classes.
I don't see 'gold digging' as mainly being about women who have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then getting the man to marry her, as has been claimed to be Mariah Yeater's aim. She now has a son, Tristyn, she claims to be Justin Bieber's. Any man should be suspicious of that kind of claim in today's world, now that contraceptives are generally available. That kind of claim might have worked years ago, in the 50's, before contraception became available, but no longer.
Nevertheless, good jobs and financially secure husbands may be hard to come by in todays's world, where unemployment is rife and feminism's impact has led to the dual-career, dual-income family doing well, on one side, and men and women struggling for subsistence on the other - the class divide.
Women in general, who have few other resources but whose sexual appeal is high (see video, Gold Digger by Kanye West), could well use that to get a man marry her, although basing a marriage on sexual attraction may not be the best way to go about it. But first has to acknowledge that men are often swayed by women's sexuality in order to accept this view. And then, the term 'gold digger' could be applied to that situation if the motivation for marriage was seen to be money, rather than compatibility, love, etc.
What I'm leading up to is this, that it is not just the overtly sexual woman with no college education who is seeking the best mate possible. In today's world, it's a fact of life that most women will seek to enhance their own assets, even if they have good prospects for a profitable career. Marrying a partner on his way up the corporate ladder may even help her own career. But is that seen as gold digging, or is that term kept (reserved) for the uneducated woman, who overtly displays her sexual assets, or who would have little opportunity to make her way in a tradtional career, or who chooses not to?
It isn't just women of today who are seeking partners with the most to offer. Men who need power on their side, and who desire a mutually-enhancing relationship, might also seek out a female partner based on their place on the income scale. After all,it is human nature to seek the best partner one can, under the circumstances, isn't it. So,. should the term gold diggers still be used, as it relaly applies to women of earlier generations who had so few choices in life?
Rather than look at Justin Bieber's experience as typical of 'gold digger' circumstances, I think it is not typical at all.
This is what I am suggesting the term 'gold digger' applies to, in general: Gold digging behaviour is surely more an accepted part of life that applies to all sort of women, from the poor, sexy uneducated young woman to the professional woman seeking the best partner she can acquire. Kanye West made a video about it not because it is unusual, but because it is what women do. And men love it.
Income, or personal assets, is one of the main criteria for choosing a partner. What if internet dating sites did not include these criteria as part of their set of 'characteristics,' to assist in selecting or excluding certain potential candidates from selection. What if people chose mates without taking into consideration their earning potential or material wealth, as so many of us did in the 60s?
Men and women marry for all sorts of reasons. In today's postfeminist society, men marry for a regular source of sex, or to have a trophy woman on his arm when he goes out, for companionship, for financial security, etc. Women marry men, not for sex, probably, but for financial security, and as trophies, too, and to have the good life - part of the dual career, dual income class in our society. It's what men and women do. 'Gold digging', if you still want to call it that, is one aspect of finding a partner.
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
What Justin Bieber and feminism can tell us about gold diggers
In this Huffington Post piece by Keli Goff, the incident involving Justin Bieber and his alleged paternity has introduced issues concerning feminist views on 'gold diggers. But as I see it, the situation Bieber was involved in is not the main issue. The phenomenon of gold digging is. And I don't see feminists sitting outside of that one. I see them as being as deeply involved as anyone else.
Kanye West's video about gold digging, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY&feature=relmfu , came out a few years ago, before Justin Bieber made headlines over his 'women problems'. The term 'gold diggers' appears to have vague meanings, but rather than being strictly about situations such as Justin Bieber's, the term seem to be about life in general, about how some men and women conduct themselves in normal human relationships. As an aside, the girls in the video don't look as though their thoughts are on motherhood.
Gold diggers used to be seen as women who sought to marry a man for his money. Sometimes this seemed obvious, when the man was 80 or more and the woman in her 20s or 30s. I believe Hugh Hefner might fall into this category. of course, everything has changed now, since feminism has got women into the workforce in increasing numbers, many of them taking positions alongside men in a professional capacity. But to some extent, don't most women of today seek to marry men who can offer them the most, in terms of security and access to financial resources, even if the women themselves have a good career? Doesn't the thought of marrying well hold the possibility of an even more 'secure' lifestyle?
Years ago, say in the 50s and 60s, marrying a man for money might have been the only way a woman could be sure of achieving financial security, as so many women didn't work but relied on men as the 'breadwinners'. But today's world is different, thanks to feminism. In some ways, it seems as though the tables are turned. It used to be men who received encouragement and had more opportunities. But feminism has changed that. Their emphasis has been women, though of course, mainly on women from the middle classes.
I don't see 'gold digging' as mainly being about women who have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then getting the man to marry her, as has been claimed to be Mariah Yeater's aim. She now has a son, Tristyn, she claims to be Justin Bieber's. Any man should be suspicious of that kind of claim in today's world, now that contraceptives are generally available. That kind of claim might have worked years ago, in the 50's, before contraception became available, but no longer.
Nevertheless, good jobs and financially secure husbands may be hard to come by in todays's world, where unemployment is rife and feminism's impact has led to the dual-career, dual-income family doing well, on one side, and men and women struggling for subsistence on the other - the class divide.
Women in general, who have few other resources but whose sexual appeal is high (see video, Gold Digger by Kanye West), could well use that to get a man marry her, although basing a marriage on sexual attraction may not be the best way to go about it. But first has to acknowledge that men are often swayed by women's sexuality in order to accept this view. And then, the term 'gold digger' could be applied to that situation if the motivation for marriage was seen to be money, rather than compatibility, love, etc.
What I'm leading up to is this, that it is not just the overtly sexual woman with no college education who is seeking the best mate possible. In today's world, it's a fact of life that most women will seek to enhance their own assets, even if they have good prospects for a profitable career. Marrying a partner on his way up the corporate ladder may even help her own career. But is that seen as gold digging, or is that term kept (reserved) for the uneducated woman, who overtly displays her sexual assets, or who would have little opportunity to make her way in a tradtional career, or who chooses not to?
It isn't just women of today who are seeking partners with the most to offer. Men who need power on their side, and who desire a mutually-enhancing relationship, might also seek out a female partner based on their place on the income scale. After all,it is human nature to seek the best partner one can, under the circumstances, isn't it. So,. should the term gold diggers still be used, as it relaly applies to women of earlier generations who had so few choices in life?
Rather than look at Justin Bieber's experience as typical of 'gold digger' circumstances, I think it is not typical at all.
This is what I am suggesting the term 'gold digger' applies to, in general: Gold digging behaviour is surely more an accepted part of life that applies to all sort of women, from the poor, sexy uneducated young woman to the professional woman seeking the best partner she can acquire. Kanye West made a video about it not because it is unusual, but because it is what women do. And men love it.
Income, or personal assets, is one of the main criteria for choosing a partner. What if internet dating sites did not include these criteria as part of their set of 'characteristics,' to assist in selecting or excluding certain potential candidates from selection. What if people chose mates without taking into consideration their earning potential or material wealth, as so many of us did in the 60s?
Men and women marry for all sorts of reasons. In today's postfeminist society, men marry for a regular source of sex, or to have a trophy woman on his arm when he goes out, for companionship, for financial security, etc. Women marry men, not for sex, probably, but for financial security, and as trophies, too, and to have the good life - part of the dual career, dual income class in our society. It's what men and women do. 'Gold digging', if you still want to call it that, is one aspect of finding a partner.
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
9 November 2011
Ageism, Class, and the Wealth Gap Between the Young and Old
The only place in Huffington Post that the generation gap, or aging, or ageism, is being discussed is in the business section. And even so, this piece (the US Wealth Gap) written by Hope Yen could actually be about so many things, and not just about the division of wealth between the old and the young. It is a false division, more than likely intended to create division between the generations instead of explain it.
We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-olds who have too much money to spend. Manipulating statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).
Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'?
And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generation Gap'? Why are the differences between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.
The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.
The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.
I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!
The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-olds who have too much money to spend. Manipulating statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).
Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'?
And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generation Gap'? Why are the differences between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.
The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.
The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.
I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!
The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
7 November 2011
Widest-ever wealth gap between young and old in the US
This very one-sided article has appeared in numerous newspapers' websites today. It places blame for economic disparity between the young and the old strictly on the shoulders of the old, regardless of income, home ownership, marital status, or work history.
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
18 February 2010
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower
A couple of things I see problematic about favouring couples are first of all, it perpetuates the norm of coupledon as being the more acceptable marital status. Candidates who are single are probably finding it more difficult to find jobs that lead to academic careers, although once they get a foot in the door they may find that finding a partner with similar goals is easier. All in all, what this emphasis on marriage is leading to is a wider economic division in society, as those already advantaged in the workplace (through marriage or social network) take up more of the scarce resources, leaving less for those struggling to achieve higher levels in their career. It's favouritism to have the needs of some couples looked after by the university, if places are not available for both within one institution, or within one city. Out in the real world, that's what it's like - two people, two careers, and compromises so that both get some of what they want out of life. Making it too easy for some, while ignoring the plight of those who get left behind - worse yet under the guise of merit - is unforgivable.
I did submit this comment this morning to the Montreal Gazette but was told, when I inquired, that it might be a tech problem, relating to my own computer. So I placed another comment to another article there, with no problem. This seems to me to be rather a controversial issue, about spouses being encouraged to take up professorships at the same university, and I was surprised to see only one response posted.
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
February 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
I did submit this comment this morning to the Montreal Gazette but was told, when I inquired, that it might be a tech problem, relating to my own computer. So I placed another comment to another article there, with no problem. This seems to me to be rather a controversial issue, about spouses being encouraged to take up professorships at the same university, and I was surprised to see only one response posted.
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
February 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)