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
Showing posts with label gold diggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gold diggers. Show all posts
2 April 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)