I’ve been watching Downton Abbey along with much of the rest of the country, obsessed with the World War 1 era story of class, heartbreak, and romance. The servants, of course, are a lot more interesting than the aristocrats. But in the end it’s all about whether or not Mary, the eldest daughter, will pick a suitably wealthy man. For a while she was matched off with a newspaper baron who was plenty wealthy, but in a new and flashy kind of way. Her destiny is with Matthew, who is a twist caused by the sinking of the Titanic, is the heir to her father’s fortune.
Yeah, its about the romance. But it’s also about the money. Her parents are trying to push, plod, and cover-up (a little indiscretion with a Turk that both took Mary’s virginity and the handsome young man’s life all in one bedtime romp) in order to get their daughter matched off properly. And save the family.
Watching all courtship for money I had to reflect on 2012 and how many couples I know where a woman clearly married a much older man at least in part because of significant wealth. I can remember a time when that kind of thing was frowned upon but honestly I can’t remember anyone so much as mentioning it even in situations where it’s painfully obvious.
Am I totally out of my mind?
♦◊♦
“1848 during the California gold rush era, the term Gold Digger is historical as well. Men during this era would go out digging for gold, and once they struck it big, they would go into the nearby bars and celebrate by spreading the wealth around. When they got to these bars, beautiful women all dolled up to perfection, dressed in skimpy little outfits, would line up around the bar area, looking ever so available and waiting for the men who stuck it big to roll in. The men dug for the gold, and the women lived off the men and helped them spend it, giving birth to the most popular term gold digger.”
Obviously it should be added that prior to the concept of the gold digger there was the concept of a “dowry” in which a wife came with money to compensate a husband for taking on the burden of supporting his bride (an equally insane and sexists practice IMO).
♦◊♦
It seems to me that at one time women’s liberation meant that there was a certain amount of equality of expectation in terms of economic support being provided by both spouses. And in that context, marrying for money was frowned upon as selling out. Better to go to graduate school, get a real job, and come to family responsibilities equally equipped make a buck, write a book, or change a diaper.
Obviously many, many women work their asses off. In fact more women than men are in the work force according to Hanna Rosin of End of Men fame. And more women are in college too. Which makes the gold digger phenomenon even stranger to me.
It seems that if you are young and beautiful and smart as a woman, it is totally acceptable–in fact almost expected–that you marry a guy a generation older than you with a boat load of cash. In a weird way it’s become a sign of liberation to use your sexuality to command the highest bidder.
Of course in each one of these equations there is a flip side. The much older, rich guy looking to settle down with a woman the age of his daughter, if he has any.
I’m not passing judgement on either side, only noticing that when it comes to mating practices at the upper end of the socio-economic spectrum we really haven’t progressed much beyond Downton Abbey, as much as we’d like to pretend that we have.
Based on my understanding of feminism, gold digging is incompatible with it. It’s a form of objectification. A person isn’t seen as human, simply a means to satisfy someone else’s desire. There is also the question of whether the promise to love is one of the marriage vows. Most feminists I’ve encountered seem to allow a lot of leeway for people to define their own relationships and their basis, however, I’ve found none who support a basis built on a lie. Does every feminist need to be a “good” feminist all the time? I don’t think so, but to stay… Read more »
I’m assuming you mean 1/3 as much as him and not 3x as much as him. As for the label “gold digger”… when a woman discovers a man’s future/current career and how that affects her decision to either go out with him or be his girlfriend/wife is part of the definition.
If we are assuming the gold-digger thing is the stereotypical young pretty woman with old rich man, then I don’t see how it is inherently anti-feminist. As long as both people are okay with the situation, what is wrong with it? Some women’s ideals are to be housewives or stay-at-home moms. That is not anti-feminist. Feminism is about applying women the choices and opportunities to make decisions for their own lives. This women are choosing this way of life for themselves. It is not one I would choose for myself and not one I would generally recommend, but it’s their… Read more »
“As long as both people are okay with the situation, what is wrong with it?”
Ok, fair enough. If a woman came to me and said “I’ll marry you for 150,000 a year and a nice car” and I signed up to that then fair enough. The trouble comes in when people are duplicitous about their motivations: “I’ll marry you because I love you” turning into “I was only in it for the money. Alimony please!” isn’t a very respectable course of action to take. Apart from the damage to my pocket, what about my feelings?
I completely agree. If it is assumed she is marrying you because of who you are, and you are marrying her because of who she is as a person, and it turns out to not be the case, then yes, I would agree that’s wrong because it is duplicitous. But there are some men who would just like to have a trophy wife to spend money on and some women who would just like to have rich husbands, and those two groups of people should stick to marrying each other. I highly doubt it would be explicitly stated, but I… Read more »
We seem to conjure “gold digger” as a woman who can’t wait to get out and start shopping. Perhaps its more about finally feeling financially secure? Safe?
I agree with you Mark. Obviously some women would be gold diggers anyway, but “in this economic climate” I think it is apt to happen more often. It is difficult to be financially solvent when starting out in life in the best of national circumstances, and is even more challenging now than in prosperous times.
“Perhaps its more about finally feeling financially secure? Safe?”
This is totally possible. However, I will say that this feeling of security is relative. There is nothing scarier to me than be solely dependent on a significant other for money for food/housing/whatever else. If the relationship goes sour, or it is with a manipulative person, that is a very easy bargaining tool. You would have to do whatever that person says or else you are out of the house.
Agreed, Artemis. It’s a really scary thought to not be able to escape if something goes wrong or be constantly subjected to that type of manipulation.
Answer: No.
I don’t consider them feminists, regardless of how much money Mavis Leno waves at feminist causes.
The big problem for feminism is that you can’t really endorse gold digging if you’re going to complain about the lack of equal pay. If women are going to judge men based on how our salary compares to their own, then it’s simply in our best interest to see that they make less money than we do all across the board. If you can’t be blamed for following your instincts, then we can’t be blamed for playing the game by the rules you’ve set up. Men (and all people, really) are only as fair, decent and just as we can… Read more »
This goes back to the ‘feminism is not a monolith’ thing. I’ve made it clear that I think gold-digging is akin to prostitution. But I’m ok with prostitution and anything that is a consensual, adult activity, so who am I to tell women that they can’t choose to be gold-diggers? I would say that you should call it for what it is and be honest about what you want. With yourself, society, and your man. And about the ‘following instincts,’ you should look at some of my posts above. As someone who doesn’t have that instinct, I don’t want to… Read more »
The globe and it’s 6 billion people aren’t monolithic either, but no feminist bats an eye when the whole planet is characterized as patriarchal. I didn’t chose to be a human, nor a man and yet feminism can generalize about that, but somehow their smaller group, which they chose to be in, is all of sudden beyond generalization.
Yea right!
“no feminist bats an eye when the whole planet is characterized as patriarchal.”
Really? This feminist batted an eye at that comment. You know, seeing how it’s not true.
Im sorry, I don’t see how this addresses my point. I’m not saying that we’re right to do this – I don’t really think this is a situation where normative judgments are helpful. We probably shouldn’t do this, but ‘should’ doesn’t really matter much in human behavior. Men just aren’t going to say ‘sure, let’s raise women’s wages by 20% even though it will make me 10-15% less likely to ever find a mate’. I’m sorry if the good ones get hurt along with the bad, but that’s just the way the world is. What should be will always take… Read more »
It’s not ‘let’s raise wages for women now!’ Just pay them the same for the same work. I actually don’t see how a woman making more will hurt a man. More money coming into the household, less having to pay for dinners and drinks, gifts going both ways instead of it having to be a one way street. I don’t know too many men who aren’t happy when a woman pays and gives them gifts. Most of the men I know love that–less burden on them. My friends tend to brag or appreciate when bills are split or their woman… Read more »
Look where this logic takes you. If women making more shouldn’t hurt a man, why should a man making more hurt women? No need to pay women the same for the same work right? No harm there. Money is a zero sum game. Have you never heard of a salary cap in sports? If the quarterback makes more money there is less left over for others to have. Real simple. Fixing pay gaps will hurt whichever sex is getting paid more (It varies by industry), but it’s the right thing to do because it is fair. Not because it’s win… Read more »
I’m arguing that when it comes to anything involving mate selection or the survival of offspring, the ‘right thing to do’ simply isn’t going to matter. That is, in fact, the very reason gold diggers exist in the first place. Do you think these people don’t know, on some moral level, that what they’re doing is wrong? Of course they do. But the do it anyway, and then they come up with all manner of elaborate rationalizations to make it alright (in their own heads, even if not in anyone else’s). That’s the same reason men will not only deny… Read more »
No, No, No. Human behavior can indeed be best summed up as acting on behalf of one’s perceived self interest. However that in NO way means that we can not examine human behaviors through the lens of morality or logic or fairness. I am fully aware that most people watch out for themselves first and foremost without a second thought, however that in no way makes certain behaviors less wrong. According to you it is “wrong” for women to select men by superior salary, while also complaining about a wage gap. Well here’s the thing. It is in the best… Read more »
I don’t personally care what you endorse – this isn’t punitive. It isn’t about punishing you for bad behavior. It simply isn’t feasible to pay you the same for the same amount of work if you’re going to turn around and see your supposed ‘equals’ as undateable. It isn’t about who is good or who is bad, it’s about us not being stupid enough to price ourselves out of mate selection. Women chose to use income as a sorting mechanism. That men adapted to counter that shouldn’t be surprising. Your choices are to stop using income as a sorting mechanism… Read more »
Ok…I started writing this before you posted that last part, so bear with me for a second. I don’t think that men should be judged on their salaries. As I said, I do not endorse gold-digging. I just can’t, in good conscience, be against it–because it’s a consensual choice. Do you really believe that every woman who makes money will not want a man in her life? Women have to deal with dating and marrying men who make less than they do. That’s on women. My best female friends makes 4 times that of her fiancee, and she gushes over… Read more »
Just a question–Do you actually want to be a father or just pass on your genes? Do you want to love and be a part of your child’s life or are you just happy knowing that you have kids out there. Are you willing to spend time with him/her and give him/her the best life you can despite what you make, even if you have to make some sacrifices, time or money-wise? You don’t have to be wealthy to be a good father and you can be very wealthy and not be a good father–Apparently, not enough women realize this… Read more »
I can’t view this as an honestly asked question. The entire purpose of your comment seems to be to assert that, as a man, I can’t really want to be a parent. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’m not using language like that because I’m an alien. I’m using language like that to try and maintain as dispassionate an attitude toward this as I can.
I’m sorry it came off way. Plenty of men on this site have proven just how wonderful fathers they are. It’s just that you said ‘passing on genes to the next generation’ instead of ‘becoming a father.’ It’s like a woman saying ‘ooh…I want babies’ instead of considering the commitment and consequences (positive and negative).
I’m trying not to look at this is a man, or as a father. I will, quite obviously, fail, but if you shoot for perfect, maybe you’ll reach good enough. If you shoot for ‘good enough’, you’ll never even come close.
I have a response to your other comment, but it’s awaiting moderation. I don’t want you to think I only decided to respond to this one because I thought it was easier to respond to.
I don’t know if comments here ever leave moderation, or what caused my comment to go into moderation. I will try to restate. No, I believe they’ll want a man in their life who makes more money than they do. They won’t go without sex or children – nothing I wrote can be construed to claim that. They will simply move further up the food chain, and when enough men they consider ‘viable’ aren’t available, they’ll simply share the men (as mistresses, they will still get plenty of resources). Because historically and an in contemporary times, that’s what they do.… Read more »
ack “Some combination of instincts” and “where Socialization (blah blah) modifies it.”
Sorry. Long comments always mess me up.
Most feminists either don’t understand hypergamy/and or won’t admit that women act like that.
IDBY–some women do, and some don’t. As long as it’s her choice and she’s doing what makes her happy while respecting her man. Yes, some women want to marry a rich man. Some just want a loving relationship with good sex. And there are many women somewhere in between.
No, I believe they’ll want a man in their life who makes more money than they do. They won’t go without sex or children – nothing I wrote can be construed to claim that. They will simply move further up the food chain, and when enough men they consider ‘viable’ aren’t available, they’ll simply share the men (as mistresses, they will still get plenty of resources). Because historically and an in contemporary times, that’s what they do. You don’t have to look any further than urban black communities to see what happens when you take a large number of viable… Read more »
Soullite,
1. Most feminists don’t buy your description of how women as a whole act with regards to mate selection, so you will not convince them of their part in the wage gap war.
2. Denial is not just a river. Averages and facts are no match for exceptions and romantic anecdotes.
Good luck though!
Averages and facts might not match anecdotes, but why marginalize the people and circles who don’t fit into this? Most people aren’t homosexual–does that mean we should marginalize the ones who are and not care about their points of view and stories?
Not caring would be rude. But when you’re looking at statistics, you marginalize the outliers.
I don’t get the homosexual (Every time I type that word, I feel like Jerry Falwell) thing. I wouldn’t suggest marginalizing the homosexual experience when talking about the human experience, but I would suggest marginalizing the homosexual experience when it comes to male/female romantic relationships. I’m sure that they do have some, but those experience come from such a different place that it’s probably best to look at them on their own terms.
What’s the problem here? Of course, a lot of women like to marry up, the same way a lot of men like to marry down. What’s the problem here?
Did you read the title? Geez. There is no problem unless of course one’s sexual, dating, and relationship history indicates one has been lying about wanting an “equal” or “nice guy”.
When women marry down in droves, we will have equality and not before.
Oh, and when women routinely marry men shorter than they are, as men do.
Men like to marry down?
I think if women are seen as marrying up that would imply that men are marrying down?
Not necessarily, I think it implies that men’s choice of partner is less likely to be based on their wealth (or lack thereof). Unfortunately it seems to be more likely to be based on their looks.
“the same way a lot of men like to marry down.” I think Men see it more of a social necessity because of the whole women like to marry up and the many stigmas that still exist for men who make sell than their wives. That aside, I recently had a family members relationship fall apart because he made less money then his partner. They were already living together and their first child had just been born. Since he made less money it was decided he would go part-time at work and become more of the stay at home dad.… Read more »
If woman always marry up and men always marry down, then why do feminist keep whining about patriarchy. One who is up (man) would always have more power than the one who is down (woman).
The problem is that its a cultural value which encourages people to evaluate other people in terms of their money, rather than as a person.
“But in the end it’s all about whether or not Mary, the eldest daughter, will pick a suitably wealthy man.” Why is it that this line somehow reminds me of prostitution? One way or another, a man’s gotta pay for it. Rude, crass, but is it not, fundamentally true? It’s just the nature of the coinage one pays in that determines the social acceptability of the payment.
Yes, I know I am jaded and cynical. Get over it. But as I read the posts above mine, I see I’m in good company! Bravo!
Feminism is collective gold digging:
A gold digging woman individually objectifies one man for financial utility.
Feminism collectively objectifies all men for their financial utility.
By definition, gold digging and feminism are compatible.
No, I don’t see how this could be argued to be a feminist action. I can understand if someone is trapped by their cultural circumstances and the only way to get ahead is to play the game. But objectifying people is supposed to be what feminism is against, isn’t it?
No. Feminism is specifically about objectifying men.
I disagree, that may be a consequence of some feminist dialogues but its not the core motivation of the movement.
Gold digging has been a somewhat socially acceptable strategy for women to improve their social and financial status since centuries, and there is no reason for it becoming not OK in the present. On close examination, it becomes clear that the mindset behind feminism and gold digging is essentially the same, i.e. securing resources on the basis of gender.
“All feminists whine that men earn more than women, but women never complain that their husbands earn more than what they do.”
There’s a world of difference between an accomplished women wishing to date within her socioeconomic background and a gold digger but as long as a woman has a sense of self worth I find it hard to believe that she wouldn’t consider herself a feminist.
So the problems becomes can a feminist be a shiftless, vapid, unaccomplished, codependent, social climber or does she have to earn the tittle?
Personally I don’t think it’s fair that a self indulgent, self identified feminist would go unchallenged by her peers.
“but I think intelligence is key factor here. But with a wealthy man and older man, they most likely don’t care for intelligence or care for feminists” Not just wealthy and older men…younger men too. We don’t see what intelligence gets us. I don’t really value it that much in women but I do have a slight preference for more intelligent women. But I value attractiveness, a happy positive attitude, niceness a lot more. Also intelligence and “women who are a challenge” are completely different things. In my real life experience the most challenging women are often fairly unintelligent and… Read more »
“For instance, you might explain special relativity to them and they get turned on by the explanation but they don’t ask any questions or express any real interest in the subject. They don’t dwell on it. They just like the idea of intelligence in the same way as one might like a fashionable shoe or the latest Apple product. This annoys me.” Those are posers, they feign interest, and have very limited subjects with which they can actually converse on…so they pretend to be interested in what you’re saying, and hoping you’ll think their attentive listening is making you feel… Read more »
“so they pretend to be interested in what you’re saying, and hoping you’ll think their attentive listening is making you feel needed and good about yourself…You did say you value “niceness a lot more”? So stop complaining…she’s your type.”
You don’t understand what I am talking about. But thanks for demonstrating my point.
i think a feminist is only willing to date and marry a man of the same intelligence or higher, and it helps if he’s got money…but I think intelligence is key factor here. But with a wealthy man and older man, they most likely don’t care for intelligence or care for feminists — as youth and beauty are higher priorities for them…smart women may seem to much of a challenge (work is challenging and stressful enough, a man needs a “tropical vacation” — rest and relaxation!). It seems a lot of celebrities and affluent men end up having affairs with… Read more »
“i think a feminist is only willing to date and marry a man of the same intelligence or higher, and it helps if he’s got money” So feminists are uniformly intellectually and morally superior to the rest of the human race? Tell me, if feminists are only willing to marry men who are smarter than them, doesn’t that leave men in a situation where only women lower on the IQ scale are interested. Either way your argument is based on stereotypes and doesn’t really have any merit, theres more to choosing a partner than how quickly they can calculate cube… Read more »
if I said “it helps if she has a nice pair of tits
Well, men do focus a lot on looks. I dont know if that will change
No more than (some shallow) women focus alot on money, I hope both will change.
Thanks for endorsing the classic relationship model, Michelle. Men will continue to focus on beauty and women will continue to focus on wealth and power, and we’ll just relabel it “feminism’s mission accomplished” by honoring both choices.
For once, I actually agree with you, Copyleft. That’s exactly what Michelle did. Also, did you read my post above in response to yours and Peter?
And Michelle–you can’t generalize what all feminists want like that. Intelligence is also relative. Are you sure you didn’t just mean that you want someone who can have a conversation with you? What kind of intelligence do you mean? Social, mathematical, ‘book-smart,’ self-aware, scrappy, etc…?
The intelligence to recognize feminism for what it is, and the ability to not fall for patriarchal ideals. Whether wealthy or not, I can’t see a man with a feminist, if he’s going to want her in the kitchen per say and wants to dominate her. Some men do want women who are submissive, and they don’t want them to have real intellect or ambitions — they need to feel superior and control; wealth is one part of that too. I’m just saying that a feminist will want to seek a man who sees her as an equal and supports… Read more »
So what’s your take on the article topic–golddiggers? Do they not exist, or should they be celebrated as the feminist ideal?
I think most feminists make enough money to support themselves that they don’t need to be gold-digging or need a man to support them. But the way men’s attitudes are right now, not as accepting of women who make more than them, leaves a lot of feminists to marry up…so not a lot of choice. In general, men like to make more money than women, even in marriage, so that their pride is in tact and perceived judgment from buddies/social circle of friends would be a positive one. Financial status is important amongst many men as much as sex —… Read more »
Please confirm that I read that correctly. Feminists marry up because men give them little other option?
So, Michelle, what’s your take on golddiggers? You talked around the question, but you didn’t answer it.
Are they feminist ideals to be supported? Or do they not exist at all?
To answer your title question, yes, it is possible to be a feminist and a gold-digger, the same way that it’s possible to be a happy housewife and a feminist or a sex worker and a feminist. The point is that it’s YOUR choice, and that you do it in a way that’s respectful to your man and to yourself. The problem comes with stereotypes–that all women are or SHOULD be gold-diggers. As a woman who likes sex for sex and intimacy’s sake, it’s easy to lash out at gold-diggers because of the assumptions about ‘all’ women surrounding it. It’s… Read more »
So exploiting gender roles to your advantage is feminist now? I can see how being a housewife (or any other kind of wife) could be argued to be feminist. But playing into the privileged side of being a sex object… I just don’t see how that works.
No, this is actually excellent news. It means that men can be focused solely on a woman’s looks and still be respected as an enlightened, egalitarian. He can even be manipulative or a “game” player and stil be accorded respect and exempt from criticism, because ALL men’s choices must be honored.
What a relief!
Once again, did you read the post? It’s not that it IS feminist, it’s that you can be a feminist and be one, because I thought that feminism gave women the choice to make what they want of their lives. If a woman chooses to live her life as a sex object, doesn’t hurt anyone, and doesn’t push that others need to do the same, who am I to get on her case? She can have her rich shallow guy. Just because it’s not for me, doesn’t mean it’s not for anyone else. I’ve turned down trips to Hawaii, extremely… Read more »
If feminism in practice was truly just about choices, then the concept of “real feminist” would not be so prevalent in the movement. There is a such a thing a feminist orthodoxy whether you want to admit it or not. In addition there is a core set of values espoused by feminists that would make trading sex for money a non feminist act. Of course a woman can label herself anything she wants, but actions define, and wearing “This is what a feminist looks like” T-shirt does not grant immunity.
“If a woman chooses to live her life as a sex object, doesn’t hurt anyone, and doesn’t push that others need to do the same, who am I to get on her case? She can have her rich shallow guy. Just because it’s not for me, doesn’t mean it’s not for anyone else.” That’s a good point, but I’d still be inclined to say that it plays into (and reinforces) gender roles too much to be incompatible with feminism, or masculism. Its not that I’d deny women the choice to make a relationship a financial transaction, if it works for… Read more »
“I thought that feminism gave women the choice to make what they want of their lives.”
A misogynist can then be a feminist as feminism is solely about choices. Look at all the feminists in India and China who abort female fetuses. It may not be something you would do, but that’s the way they want to live their lives. Choice is a tenet of feminism, but does it negate the other tenets.
You just flipped the script on feminism. I think that means you’re catching on.
Wanna know why feminists perpetually ask a similar question about female sexual submissiveness? Because even they realize that ESPOUSED values must meet ACTIONS or one is a HYPOCRITE. Of course they rarely turn their analysis towards the phenomenon of gold digging as it greatly benefits women. So who cares if it is inconsistent right? The truth is that the MAJORITY of women are status/dominance conscious when choosing SO’s and even more so when just hooking up. Most often this will manifests itself financially, MichelleG unknowingly confesses that hers manifests itself “intellectually”, but I have a feeling she is subconsciously downplaying… Read more »
So every feminist I know should be married to someone wealthy, hot/alpha or intellectually superior? Good to know. I’d say most of the couples I know personally are pretty evenly matched, some with women making more money, some with a man with a higher degree, but I don’t believe I ever see (in my community) a “marrying up” mentality. Or are you saying that if a woman finds something in a man attractive (like MichelleG’s intelligence) it’s a sign they are gold digging for that quaility? Cause I’d say it more a sign they just find something attractive. Sure it’s… Read more »
1. Gold digging is not only limited to long term relationships, but is a part of short term relationships if not more so. 2. I don’t know how many feminists you surround yourself with, but the first indication that couples aren’t really evenly matched is age. Can you share the % where the wife is older? 3. MichelleG didn’t choose honesty/sense of humor as her turn on did she? She chose a characteristic that is a euphemism for money/status. Note also her indication the she wouldn’t be with a man she deemed less intelligent than herself. Did you miss that… Read more »
I should do a quick poll of my friends but I’d say that nearly all the couples I know are within a year of each other. Do you mean that gold digging is associated with younger women and older men? Off the top of my head I don’t think that I know any couples (in my liberal, progressive, and yes feminist circles) where there is a large age discrepancy. I chose for intelligence surely, and commonalities in terms of politics, interest in art/theater, creativity, and humor. Surely I was attracted to my fella from the start, but we had been… Read more »
1. Yes a poll. How many couples? Please, if you don’t know then write it down and get back to me. Don’t change the subject. Don’t speculate. 2. I didn’t say anything about “large” difference. I simply asked for % of older woman/younger man pairings. 3. This isn’t about me or you this is about averages. 4. I don’t think your social group is all that unique. I think you miss things that are right in front of you. I was born in a blue city and have lived in several blue cities so it’s not like liberal, progressive, feminist… Read more »
Before I run out to FB and ask my friends about their age differences, explaining in detail who seems to want them, I’d like to know what it would prove to you. If I came up with 10 couples with a man a year older and 10 couples with the same age, and 10 with the woman a year older…what would that mean to you? I said most of my peer group mated close in age (within a year or so). A larger difference in age (5-10 years) seems to be the thing that you are equating with typical marriages.… Read more »
1. Just poll please. We will interpret the results later. Don’t lead with an explanation. Just ask their ages. Ask as many feminists as you can please.
2. Duh. Of course Austin is blue, but it doesn’t compare to Berkley, SF or DC in it’s level of blueness. As for patterns, women who chose the feminist label were only slightly different in their dating behaviors as women who didn’t self identify as feminist.
Tom, You’re spot-on here. There should be no judgment regarding mate choice either way–towards men or women. What we see of as “gold-digging” is as old as the hills. It’s simply mate provisioning. Don’t expect feminists to be any different; they have the same hindbrain apparatus that all women have. If anything, judging by the feminist proclivity to be dominated in bed, I’d say that the naked aggressive pursuit of wealthy men is MORE prevalent in women identifying as feminist. Having their cake and eating it too, and all that. What’s the point of having a cake if it can’t… Read more »