The inquiry is examining whether Douglas should lose her job because she failed to disclose the matter of the photos and solicitation of sex partners when she was appointed a judge in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment, July 27, 2012).
That is not the entire purpose of the inquest, but this will be the focus here. Lori Douglas is the name of the lawyer who eventually became a judge in 2005, after at least one attempt previously. Jack King is her husband, whose actions, apparently without her knowing of them, got her into a great deal of trouble. Alex Chapman is the name of the man - the black man – who King attempted to enlist to have sex with his wife, and to whom he showed photos of his naked wife. These are the main players in this scenario, with additional characters consisting of their lawyers and other members of the Judiciary and the legal system – as well as the media, without which we wouldn’t have a story at all. For a brief outline and interesting comments on the case see ‘Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos’ (July 16, 2012).
At the end of July, 2012, in the final session before taking a break for several months, until December, 2012, it was revealed that Lori Douglas had previously applied to become a judge, in 2003, before applying and being accepted in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012). The first time, someone at the Judicial Affairs Commission, which was responsible for making the decision about Ms Douglas, discovered that nude pictures had been taken of Douglas and made public.
According to this CBC news article, “Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin opposed Douglas's appointment because of the potential risk of embarrassment and blackmail” though who informed him and whether Ms Douglas knew herself about the photos at this time isn’t clearly stated in the article.
Two years later, when Ms Douglas once again went through the process to become a judge, she was required to disclose on the form if there was anything in her past that might embarrass the Judiciary. This same article (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge, July 27, 2012), doesn’t actually state whether she did or did not disclose this on the form, as required. She did, however, apparently have a confidential conversation about it with Margaret Rose Jamieson, executive director of appointments with the the Federal Judicial Affairs Commission (JAC) from 2003 to 2009. Margaret Jamieson, now retired, said she recalls Douglas told her at the time about photos “that may have been provided to someone or posted on the internet.”
Although Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin had opposed Douglas's appointment due to the possible risk of embarrassment and blackmail, he withdrew his opposition in 2005 under the assumption that the photos “had been destroyed and the matter wouldn't resurface.”
Martin Freedman, Manitoba Appeal Court Judge and head of the Judicial Advisory Committee (JAC) in 2005, said that he had heard a few years earlier that photos of the naked Lori Douglas had been posted online, and heard about the sex solicitation, but apparently the original concerns of embarassment and blackmail had ceased to be, and Douglas was made a judge in 2005.
The claim that there was nothing of concern regarding Lori Douglas having anything she should disclose before her selection in 2005 to be a judge seems to be illogical. Supposedly acting on the belief that nothing would be raised that could embarrass the Judiciary, it was decided it was appropriate to make her a judge. And yet the selection process itself was conducted in a secretive manner, with no official form completed by Lori Douglas on which she declares potentially embarrassing events from her past, such as the photos online and the sex solicitation. It was only on the belief of certain officials of the JAC, rather than on the existence of potentially damaging material and events, that the final decision was made.
One very emphatic comment on this subject, of the potential for embarassment of the photos online, comes from ‘G P’, on July 28, 2012, following the article ‘Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears’ (July 27, 2012):
“In assuming these photos ceased to exist because Chapman agreed to destroy the ELECTRONIC COPIES sent to him by King, those responsible for vetting Douglas demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of how the Internet operates. The Internet consists of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of computers around the world, all interconnected. Setting aside the mail servers used, when someone anywhere in the world, views a webpage, a copy, complete with pictures, is saved (cached) on multiple, intermediate servers, to reduce network latency and congestion. Those intermediate servers (and the path can change from one request to the next) are all backed up daily, as a matter of standard operating procedure. Deleting the photos from the original site has absolutely no effect on these cached and backup copies, reducing King’s hush money agreement with Chapman to absurdity. No custodian of an Internet server outside Canada cares about any pronouncement from a Manitoba judge. When the judge’s husband posted them on the Internet he, albeit unwittingly, put them in the public domain. Further, every viewer of a photo King posted had a copy cached on their local machine, automatically by their web browser, plus anyone who liked what they saw had only to ‘right-click, save’ to overtly preserve it for future enjoyment anytime they like, for as long as they choose. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say King’s distribution of the photos by unencrypted email compounds the number of machines with copies. Why is this an issue and why does it matter? It has been established that the existence of the photos was well known in the legal community, thus it was possible for any client to learn of their existence. If such a client was facing a huge distribution of assets and/or contentious child custody issues in a divorce before Judge Douglas, the fact the photos were thought to be secret for seven years left the judge vulnerable to blackmail from EVERY litigant in her court. To find the photos, one need only visit a few Internet chat rooms and discussion boards, anonymously through a proxy server, placing an ad offering $XXXX to anyone who could retrieve them. Even now, I bet I could get copies of the photos within a week, if the reward I offered was sufficient to arouse interest. Making the payment anonymously, the motivated litigant could send the photos to Judge Douglas by mail, maintaining end-to-end, plausible deniability, in case the blackmail effort should backfire” (GP).
I’m sure most people would agree. Once something is posted to the internet it can never be guaranteed that it will disappear completely. And it is this that makes the decision to allow Lori Douglas to become a judge at all seem naïve, or uncaring of the implications of such secrets having to be kept.
It’s easy to say that a person’s personal sex life is nobody’s business, and that what the judge does has no effect on how well she does her job, but we do live in a society that is governed by people’s conformity to norms. While these have changed greatly over the years, the fact is, they exist.
People might heap praise upon the judge, for example, Vivian Hilder, law prof at the University of Manitoba, who wrote in an email that “Lori's professional reputation in my opinion is that she was a top notch family lawyer, is a good negotiator, was a good choice as a Family Division judge when she was appointed and has been a good judge in the Division to date” (Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry, July 27, 2012). But is it her ability that is in question, or her credibility?
Even if she is found innocent of any attempt to deceive the JAC, after having such photos of herself displayed and her sexual activities made public, is it possible that she would be treated with respect, by the defendants and witnesses in cases she oversees in the future?
This case is about more than just her sex life being an open book. It’s about women’s sex lives being treated like men’s, even though they’re not the same, and even though photos of naked women are much more profitable and desirable and subject to humiliation and/or reward than photos of naked men.
There’s more of a double standard in this area than any other I can think of, and yet . . . . are we ready for this? In one article, the traumatized Alex Chapman tells how difficult the entire process has been, reminiscent of times when women had trouble having their cases of sexual assault and harassment heard (Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup,' July 17, 2012.)
Something I have noticed among the general population, is that those who are most sexually active often have a heightened sense of themselves as superior to those who aren’t, and often have little understanding of or appreciation for people who are not sexually active. I am reminded of the abortion movement, which for some time was called the Pro-abortion movement, then changed to ‘pro-choice’ which is what it should be about, with neither side - the pro-choice or pro-life - being ‘better’ than the other.
In a similar way, being sexually liberated shouldn’t automatically mean being sexually active or even actively promoting sex for others. Rather, it should mean being aware of what’s right for you at any given time of your life, and being respectful of others’ choices, limitations, and needs and desires. Unfortunately, life’s not like that.
In the case of the judge Lori Douglas, the Judiciary didn’t disapprove of her sex life. They disapproved of it being made public. So is this an example of a woman gaining favour through her sexual activities, or someone who is being punished because of them? Is a rap on the knuckles enough?
What would a solution look like that was neither of these two – neither a favour nor a punishment? Or could it be both?
Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment
CBC News
Jul 27, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/07/27/mb-judge-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba.html
Lori Douglas sex scandal inquiry: Manitoba judge and husband Jack King known as standout Winnipeg lawyers
By Josh Tapper , Staff Reporter
The Star
July 27, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1233159--lori-douglas-sex-scandal-inquiry-manitoba-judge-and-husband-jack-king-known-as-standout-winnipeg-lawyers
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
CTV News
July 27, 2012, updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
Additional sources
Canada’s Bondage Judge Faces Judicial Inquiry This Month
By Georgialee Lang
O.Canada.com
May 2, 2012
http://o.canada.com/2012/05/02/canadas-bondage-judge-faces-judicial-inquiry-this-month-2/
Jack King falls on his sword over nude photos of judge wife - plus comments
By Christie Blatchford
National Post Full Comment
July 24, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/24/christie-blatchford-jack-king-falls-on-his-sword-over-nude-photos-of-judge-wife/
Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed
Nov 16, 2010
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/16/mb-lawsuit-judge-sex-photos-winnipeg.html
Manitoba judge upfront about nude photos when screened for bench, judge testifies
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 27, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/manitoba-judge-upfront-about-nude-photos-when-screened-for-bench-judge-testifies/article4444288/
Man. judge disclosed nude photos, inquiry hears
The Canadian Press
July 27, 2012, last updated July 28, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-judge-disclosed-nude-photos-inquiry-hears-1.895203
Man says he never talked sex with Manitoba judge in naked photos case
Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press
The Star
July 17, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1227675--complainant-says-he-never-talked-sex-with-manitoba-judge-in-naked-photos-case
Manitoba judge sex inquiry called 'bloody coverup'
yahoo.com - CBC News
July 17, 2012
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/manitoba-judge-sex-inquiry-gets-tense-171434157.html
Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says
By Steve Lambert
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
July 25, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nude-photo-controversy-was-well-known-in-manitobas-legal-community-husband-says/article4440460/
Photos of Manitoba judge beyond sadness
By Heather Mallick, Columnist
The Star
July 24, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1231212--mallick-photos-of-manitoba-judge-beyond-sadness
Testimony expected today from man who complained about Manitoba judge in sexually explicit photos plus comments
The Canadian Press
National Post
July 16, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16/testimony-expected-today-from-man-who-complained-about-manitoba-judge-in-sexually-explicit-photos
Showing posts with label coupledom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coupledom. Show all posts
4 August 2012
2 April 2012
Contraception and working women
What is Stephanie Pappas trying to say, in this bit about new research on an old topic - women and work? Too much left unspoken, not enough information on the study itself or on her own views, to make this anything but political manipulation on behalf of women's quest to have the pill paid for.
The longitudinal study undertaken by Martha Bailey and associates started in 1968 and continued throughout the 1990s, its participants having being born within a few years of the year I was (1946). Prior to the 60s, when no such pill was available, they suggest, women had to choose between either a career or marriage. Without the pill, they are suggesting, the risk of pregnancy was too great for women with partners to risk having a career.
But as time went on, the researchers claim, "With oral contraceptives, women no longer had to choose between investing in their careers and investing in a mate." As the pill became available in their area, more women would choose college and career as well as marriage.
I'm not sure about the logic behind these ideas, or how they relate to the experience of that cohort of women and this one today. When I read it, it seems to me that women researchers of today are interpreting the experience of twenty-year-olds in the 1960s according to their own model, instead of looking at it through the lens of society at the time. I'm not sure that many women back then looked at the world in terms of *choice,* a favourite word and key theme among liberal feminists and women in general today, but surely, not back then. Furthermore, the whole idea of the battle for 'the pill,' was one of women's right to use it, not as it has now become, the fight for the right to have someone else pay for it. "The pill’s availability likely altered norms and expectations about marriage and childbearing," Bailey has said. And work. And sex. There is a great deal that has been left unsaid, in the brief write-up here, and likely in the research itself, related to women's newfound personal freedom related to sexuality, both within and outside of marriage.
As discussed in the Comments section of this brief piece of news, there was something else going on at more or less the same time that the pill was being introduced into society (possibly through the efforts of radical feminists). Women in general were being encouraged to take their place alongside men in the workplace, in the quest for 'equality, as expounded by liberal feminists'. The influence of this latter ideology and women's movement was not mentioned in the article about women's wages and the pill, but it was a widespread effort by women, begun in the years after women in droves were sent back to the kitchen, so to speak, by men after they returned from the war in the early 40s. During the war, women had discovered how well they could do the work men did, in factories, farm fields, and many other areas that had traditionally been 'men's work,' and how much they enjoyed it, and enjoyed the independence and money. But after the war ended, they were no longer needed.
A second major factor of this subject of contraception and work is its connection to the debate about insurance coverage of contraception, for working women and college students, mainly (as I have seen in the news) and lastly, among women living in poverty. Many comments ensued from this awareness, on Comments online. I found it odd that some readers would suggest that if the insurance wouldn't pay for the pill for contraceptive purposes, that the working woman would stubbornly continue to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy rather than pay for it out of her wages. This issue is not only a mattter of concern to women who are employed, and should be addressed as a concern for all women. Otherwise, some women will lose out, through inability to pay, and will be at risk.
The third major item in this piece is the news that, of the one-third increase in wages among women, two-thirds came from greater workplace experience, and more importantly for what I am to say next, one-third of the increase was a result of "women gaining more education and from choosing more lucrative, traditionally male, fields." In response to that, I can say that there is so much left out, so much more to discuss than how well women are doing at work. If women are taking the places that had traditionally been reserved for men, then what do you suppose all the men are doing, who are perfectly capable of doing the job?
If you haven't heard of the Occupy movement, then I suggest you open up your mind to what's going on in society. And if you are ready to seek solutions to the inquality brought about by feminism, then read my blog (see relevant entries below). Not only do we need to turn towards a society where there is more acceptance of one another's abilities, but within relationships also. Rather than the middle class, educated female joining forces with the middle class male she considers as being in her class (based on money and access to resources), forming what we now have a glut of - the dual-career, dual-income family - we need a variety of approaches to making up the workforce and the families within society. The problem is, it's the influential dual career couples who hold the power to make change, and who can at times seem to be the most reluctant to change.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
The Economic Impact of the Pill
By Annie Lowrey
NY Times
March 6, 2012
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
5 February, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/02/feminisms-legacy-contributing-towards.html
Men at work: what does the future hold?
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
March 18, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/men-at-work-what-does-future-hold.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Nov 19, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
The longitudinal study undertaken by Martha Bailey and associates started in 1968 and continued throughout the 1990s, its participants having being born within a few years of the year I was (1946). Prior to the 60s, when no such pill was available, they suggest, women had to choose between either a career or marriage. Without the pill, they are suggesting, the risk of pregnancy was too great for women with partners to risk having a career.
But as time went on, the researchers claim, "With oral contraceptives, women no longer had to choose between investing in their careers and investing in a mate." As the pill became available in their area, more women would choose college and career as well as marriage.
I'm not sure about the logic behind these ideas, or how they relate to the experience of that cohort of women and this one today. When I read it, it seems to me that women researchers of today are interpreting the experience of twenty-year-olds in the 1960s according to their own model, instead of looking at it through the lens of society at the time. I'm not sure that many women back then looked at the world in terms of *choice,* a favourite word and key theme among liberal feminists and women in general today, but surely, not back then. Furthermore, the whole idea of the battle for 'the pill,' was one of women's right to use it, not as it has now become, the fight for the right to have someone else pay for it. "The pill’s availability likely altered norms and expectations about marriage and childbearing," Bailey has said. And work. And sex. There is a great deal that has been left unsaid, in the brief write-up here, and likely in the research itself, related to women's newfound personal freedom related to sexuality, both within and outside of marriage.
As discussed in the Comments section of this brief piece of news, there was something else going on at more or less the same time that the pill was being introduced into society (possibly through the efforts of radical feminists). Women in general were being encouraged to take their place alongside men in the workplace, in the quest for 'equality, as expounded by liberal feminists'. The influence of this latter ideology and women's movement was not mentioned in the article about women's wages and the pill, but it was a widespread effort by women, begun in the years after women in droves were sent back to the kitchen, so to speak, by men after they returned from the war in the early 40s. During the war, women had discovered how well they could do the work men did, in factories, farm fields, and many other areas that had traditionally been 'men's work,' and how much they enjoyed it, and enjoyed the independence and money. But after the war ended, they were no longer needed.
A second major factor of this subject of contraception and work is its connection to the debate about insurance coverage of contraception, for working women and college students, mainly (as I have seen in the news) and lastly, among women living in poverty. Many comments ensued from this awareness, on Comments online. I found it odd that some readers would suggest that if the insurance wouldn't pay for the pill for contraceptive purposes, that the working woman would stubbornly continue to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy rather than pay for it out of her wages. This issue is not only a mattter of concern to women who are employed, and should be addressed as a concern for all women. Otherwise, some women will lose out, through inability to pay, and will be at risk.
The third major item in this piece is the news that, of the one-third increase in wages among women, two-thirds came from greater workplace experience, and more importantly for what I am to say next, one-third of the increase was a result of "women gaining more education and from choosing more lucrative, traditionally male, fields." In response to that, I can say that there is so much left out, so much more to discuss than how well women are doing at work. If women are taking the places that had traditionally been reserved for men, then what do you suppose all the men are doing, who are perfectly capable of doing the job?
If you haven't heard of the Occupy movement, then I suggest you open up your mind to what's going on in society. And if you are ready to seek solutions to the inquality brought about by feminism, then read my blog (see relevant entries below). Not only do we need to turn towards a society where there is more acceptance of one another's abilities, but within relationships also. Rather than the middle class, educated female joining forces with the middle class male she considers as being in her class (based on money and access to resources), forming what we now have a glut of - the dual-career, dual-income family - we need a variety of approaches to making up the workforce and the families within society. The problem is, it's the influential dual career couples who hold the power to make change, and who can at times seem to be the most reluctant to change.
Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
The Economic Impact of the Pill
By Annie Lowrey
NY Times
March 6, 2012
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
5 February, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2012/02/feminisms-legacy-contributing-towards.html
Men at work: what does the future hold?
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
March 18, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/men-at-work-what-does-future-hold.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Nov 19, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
5 February 2012
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
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
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
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
2 November 2011
Gender, sex and aging: What do we owe our spouses?
A trio of stories on the Huffington Post drew my interest recently, all related matters, to do with gender, sex, and aging. Sex was the drawing card in D A Wolf's 'Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?', and is an inviting resource for anyone wanting to know what other readers think about sex between two people in a relationship. The comments section attracted an enthusiastic crowd, each one either telling their own personal story, or making one up, or simply letting everyone know what they thought about the subject of Wolf's piece.
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
13 August 2010
Cory McMullan: Belleville police chief victim of a violent incident
Belleville, Ontario, police Chief Cory McMullan suffered a broken arm in an incident one week ago. She says she was the victim of domestic violence, but it is likely that it was simply an 'incident,' using police terms, and not the kind of violence against women that so many women in society have to endure, due to powerlessness in their home circumstances. One has to wonder what her retired 53-year old husband has experienced himself, in this new kind of society where men are more likely to leave work early, while the wife continues the family career.
Mrs McMullan apparently stated that, "given her position in the community, 'it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim' " (Belleville police chief victim, CBC, Aug 11, 2010). But it may well have been that there were two victims in this case. It is hard to believe that the husband, retired police officer Dave McMullen, would use violence intentionally to try to control his police chief wife. If this was a situation of domestic violence, it wasn't the traditional kind that many wives experienced before they gained financial independence in their lives.
In my comment submitted to the CBC online article, at 8:53 am ET Aug 13, I wrote the following:
Eliza Doolittle writes, "I suggest we wait until the other side of the story is told before jumping to any conclusions."
The problem here is that her arm got broken, and in our society, that kind of violence is usually the deciding factor in any cases of abuse. Psychological, emotional, sexual, or economic abuse is less likely to be recognized, particularly as is applies to men being victimized. Our society has changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, with women often working past the time when their husbands retire. We don't know the situation here, but we do know how difficult it can be for any man who retires at an early age. The woman, Cory McMullan, has apparently stated, "it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim." Like many women of today, and men of yesteryear, it may be difficult for her to see that there might be another side to the story.
END OF COMMENT
Belleville Police Chief speaks out as a domestic abuse victim
By Natalie Stechyson and Adrian Morrow, Toronto and Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-police-chief-speaks-out-as-a-domestic-abuse-victim/article1671473/
Belleville police chief victim of 'domestic incident'
The Canadian Press
CBC News
August 11, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/08/11/ot-belleville-chief.html
Belleville’s abuzz over police chief as victim of domestic violence
By Carola Vyhnak, Staff Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence
Domestic Violence’ narratives: the murders of Lois Mordue and Dave Lucio
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
June 9, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-narratives-murders-of.html
Ontario police chief says she was victim of domestic abuse
By QMI Agency
canoe.ca
Aug 11, 2010
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/11/14989296.html
Public life, public victim
By Joseph Brean
Financial Post
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Public+life+public+victim/3388045/story.html
no longer available through this link
Added Aug 24, 2010
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Carola Vyhnak, Urban Affairs Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851519--belleville-mayor-denies-affair-with-police-chief?bn=1
Belleville mayor denies having affair with police chief
By W. Brice McVicar, QMI Agency
Peterborough Examiner
Aug 24, 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2726196
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
By Adrian Morrow, Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-mayor-denies-rumours-of-affair-with-police-chief/article1682780/
available online through Globe&Mail
links updated April 11, 2012
Mrs McMullan apparently stated that, "given her position in the community, 'it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim' " (Belleville police chief victim, CBC, Aug 11, 2010). But it may well have been that there were two victims in this case. It is hard to believe that the husband, retired police officer Dave McMullen, would use violence intentionally to try to control his police chief wife. If this was a situation of domestic violence, it wasn't the traditional kind that many wives experienced before they gained financial independence in their lives.
In my comment submitted to the CBC online article, at 8:53 am ET Aug 13, I wrote the following:
Eliza Doolittle writes, "I suggest we wait until the other side of the story is told before jumping to any conclusions."
The problem here is that her arm got broken, and in our society, that kind of violence is usually the deciding factor in any cases of abuse. Psychological, emotional, sexual, or economic abuse is less likely to be recognized, particularly as is applies to men being victimized. Our society has changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, with women often working past the time when their husbands retire. We don't know the situation here, but we do know how difficult it can be for any man who retires at an early age. The woman, Cory McMullan, has apparently stated, "it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim." Like many women of today, and men of yesteryear, it may be difficult for her to see that there might be another side to the story.
END OF COMMENT
Belleville Police Chief speaks out as a domestic abuse victim
By Natalie Stechyson and Adrian Morrow, Toronto and Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-police-chief-speaks-out-as-a-domestic-abuse-victim/article1671473/
Belleville police chief victim of 'domestic incident'
The Canadian Press
CBC News
August 11, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/08/11/ot-belleville-chief.html
Belleville’s abuzz over police chief as victim of domestic violence
By Carola Vyhnak, Staff Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence
Domestic Violence’ narratives: the murders of Lois Mordue and Dave Lucio
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
June 9, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-narratives-murders-of.html
Ontario police chief says she was victim of domestic abuse
By QMI Agency
canoe.ca
Aug 11, 2010
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/11/14989296.html
Public life, public victim
By Joseph Brean
Financial Post
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Public+life+public+victim/3388045/story.html
no longer available through this link
Added Aug 24, 2010
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Carola Vyhnak, Urban Affairs Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851519--belleville-mayor-denies-affair-with-police-chief?bn=1
Belleville mayor denies having affair with police chief
By W. Brice McVicar, QMI Agency
Peterborough Examiner
Aug 24, 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2726196
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
By Adrian Morrow, Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-mayor-denies-rumours-of-affair-with-police-chief/article1682780/
available online through Globe&Mail
links updated April 11, 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
19 September 2009
Lust: one of the seven deadly sins of the academy
Revised, and links updated May, 2012
The seven deadly sins, which are the subject of this article (The seven deadly sins, 2009) about campuses in the UK, are sartorial inelegance, procrastination, snobbery, lust, arrogance, complacency, and pedantry. THE is the Higher Education supplement for the British newspaper, The Times. The article, especially the section on lust which was written by Terence Kealey, Vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, has attracted a great deal of attention in the UK, and even beyond its borders. See some articles listed below. Kealey also wrote a response to the criticism in the Times Higher (see Terence Kealey: a response, 2009).
Although the original article (The seven deadly sins, 2009) was meant to be humourous -satirical, actually – not everyone saw it as a laughing matter, myself included. The comments following the THE articles, are an indication of how sensitive and demanding the topic of lust is in universities.
It's debatable just how light-hearted the article really is - humourous satire, or serious matters for the academy to think about? From the attention it has received in the British Press, one has to wonder where this will lead.
Two other articles on closely related subject matter that have been published in the Times Higher are ‘Sex and the University’ (2008), and ‘Sex for grades in Africa's academy’ (2010) to which I responded in ‘Sex for grades in universities,’ 2010.
For Canadian input into this subject – of lust, not humour – see the Globe and Mail’s ‘On-campus sex ban: Hands off,’ 2010).
Some of the articles have numerous comments, and I don’t see that there’s anything I can add here without turning to personal experience, so I will just leave it at that.
Buckingham University vice-chancellor defends remarks over female students
By Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/23/university-female-students-perk
Curvey females safe for viewing, writes professor
By Husayn Marani
Western Gazette, formerly UWO Gazette
Sept 29, 2009
http://www.uwogazette.ca/2009/09/29/news-briefs-9/
http://issuu.com/uwogazette/docs/03.016_tuesday__september_29__2009
Curvy students 'perk of the job'
By Katherine Sellgren
BBC News education reporter
Sept 23, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8270475.stm
On-campus sex ban: Hands off the student body, Prof
+ 256 comments
By Dakshana Bascaramurty
Globe and Mail
Apr 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/on-campus-sex-ban-hands-off-the-student-body-prof/article1528269/
Senior academic calls female students 'a perk of the job'
By Alison Kershaw, Press Association
Independent
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/senior-academic-calls-female-students-a-perk-of-the-job-1791904.html
The seven deadly sins of the academy
By Matthew Reisz
THE (Times Higher Education)
Sept 17, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408135
Sex and the university
By Hannah Fearn
THE (Times Higher Education)
May 22, 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=401935&encCode=986570951BC54097875JTBS737226611
Sex for grades in Africa's academy
By John Morgan
THE (Times Higher Education)
Jan 21, 2010
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410068
Sex for grades in universities
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 22, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/01/sex-for-grades-in-universities.html
Terence Kealey: a response to criticism
By Terence Kealey
THE (Times Higher Education)
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408404
The seven deadly sins, which are the subject of this article (The seven deadly sins, 2009) about campuses in the UK, are sartorial inelegance, procrastination, snobbery, lust, arrogance, complacency, and pedantry. THE is the Higher Education supplement for the British newspaper, The Times. The article, especially the section on lust which was written by Terence Kealey, Vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, has attracted a great deal of attention in the UK, and even beyond its borders. See some articles listed below. Kealey also wrote a response to the criticism in the Times Higher (see Terence Kealey: a response, 2009).
Although the original article (The seven deadly sins, 2009) was meant to be humourous -satirical, actually – not everyone saw it as a laughing matter, myself included. The comments following the THE articles, are an indication of how sensitive and demanding the topic of lust is in universities.
It's debatable just how light-hearted the article really is - humourous satire, or serious matters for the academy to think about? From the attention it has received in the British Press, one has to wonder where this will lead.
Two other articles on closely related subject matter that have been published in the Times Higher are ‘Sex and the University’ (2008), and ‘Sex for grades in Africa's academy’ (2010) to which I responded in ‘Sex for grades in universities,’ 2010.
For Canadian input into this subject – of lust, not humour – see the Globe and Mail’s ‘On-campus sex ban: Hands off,’ 2010).
Some of the articles have numerous comments, and I don’t see that there’s anything I can add here without turning to personal experience, so I will just leave it at that.
Buckingham University vice-chancellor defends remarks over female students
By Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/23/university-female-students-perk
Curvey females safe for viewing, writes professor
By Husayn Marani
Western Gazette, formerly UWO Gazette
Sept 29, 2009
http://www.uwogazette.ca/2009/09/29/news-briefs-9/
http://issuu.com/uwogazette/docs/03.016_tuesday__september_29__2009
Curvy students 'perk of the job'
By Katherine Sellgren
BBC News education reporter
Sept 23, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8270475.stm
On-campus sex ban: Hands off the student body, Prof
+ 256 comments
By Dakshana Bascaramurty
Globe and Mail
Apr 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/on-campus-sex-ban-hands-off-the-student-body-prof/article1528269/
Senior academic calls female students 'a perk of the job'
By Alison Kershaw, Press Association
Independent
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/senior-academic-calls-female-students-a-perk-of-the-job-1791904.html
The seven deadly sins of the academy
By Matthew Reisz
THE (Times Higher Education)
Sept 17, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408135
Sex and the university
By Hannah Fearn
THE (Times Higher Education)
May 22, 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=401935&encCode=986570951BC54097875JTBS737226611
Sex for grades in Africa's academy
By John Morgan
THE (Times Higher Education)
Jan 21, 2010
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410068
Sex for grades in universities
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 22, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/01/sex-for-grades-in-universities.html
Terence Kealey: a response to criticism
By Terence Kealey
THE (Times Higher Education)
Sept 23, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408404
12 November 2007
Clinton: femininity, masculinity, and marriage
Some truth here, finally. It's not a welcome idea that women are able to achieve success because of the men they marry, but in Gary Younge's article in the Guardian (UK), author Suzanne Goldenberg quotes a female lawyer as saying about Hilary Clinton, "This is a woman who is where she is because of who she married". A lot of women, feminists included, aren't willing to admit that that is how they've managed to get ahead, in their own spheres of life, even though they are lesser in status than Clinton's. Marriage has always been, and always will be, the best resource a woman can have (the same goes for men). Thus, the essential ingredients for success, for Hilary Clinton and many other women, are indeed a combination of femininity, masculinity, and marriage. Read also essay on Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development. Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson was a wife and mother, a missionary, artist, author and suffragist. Born in England, in 1908 she went to Hong Kong. . .
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
1 February 2007
Marriage and the Career Woman
There must be many reasons why women university graduates aren't marrying. That they can't find their intellectual equals isn't a very good reason, I should think. It's more about level of education, class membership, and potential for moving up in the world that matter. And there could well be many women who don't really want to marry at all, but would rather not state that publicly. How do women expect men to "rise to the challenge of feminism" when men feel threatened by them? Now that the truth is out, such women need to see that the answer is not that being 'like a man' is better than being 'like a woman,' but that there is a place in this world for different kinds of men and women, with different interests, and different capacities. This was a mistake to make being up there with the big guys the place to be, if women wanted to be seen as having worth. So now, as Boris Johnson says, instead of women at the bottom, it's some men and some women down there, while the rest live the 'good life.'
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)