Is there a difference between begin a gold digger and?
simply refusing to go with men you find no capable of supporting you in the lifestyle you expect ?
(Inspired by a previous answer to a gold digger question)
I personally think there is, as it's not particularly wrong to insist a man be capable and responsible in employment (as that sheds light on other characteristics) before allowing yourself to fall in love with him, while purposely going after ONLY men of extraordinary wealth with little regard for anything else seems to me more like 'gold digging'
but am I wrong? If you refuse to consider a man without some financial security does that make you a gold digger?
2008-06-26T09:49:32Z
you know I'm sorry, I never meant to imply that the woman would be seeking a man who could afford her the ability to stay home. I just meant refusing certain men based on their income alone. Say she continues to work anyway, but doesn't find him to be a high enough 'earner'
Rio Madeira2008-06-26T08:01:16Z
Favorite Answer
I think it's OK to refuse to go out with someone who can't (or won't) support themselves. That's something everyone should do, or at least know how to do. But what does it matter if they can support YOU? Personally, I cringe at the idea of being financially supported by my partner; it goes against everything I stand for.
Yes there's a difference and that's what I was trying to get at (providing the question is based on my answer) :)
Just because a woman insists a man be capable and responsible in employment doesn't mean she wants to marry him and take all his money after a divorce. Just because I want my future husband to be a provider doesn't mean I won't contribute and be a provider. I don't want to end up in a situation where I can't afford basic needs for my (future) child, husband and myself.
Who does? While at the same time, I would say that you can't help who you fall in love with, I would openly say that if I felt a man was a financial mess, the relationship would always be on shaky grounds.
Edit: Why should I have to work a full time job supporting a man who is more than capable of finding a job. With the way the labour force is right now, there's no excuse for anyone to be unemployed in Canada. There's jobs out there. Just because you think you're good to work them doesn't give you a good excuse to remain unemployed. I stand by what I said.
I could never picture myself marrying someone that didn't have a similar educational background as myself. This being said, I'm not going to find myself attracted to someone who doesn't make a decent living.
However, I work too and wouldn't want them to support me, but I don't want to support them either.
Another reason I need job security in a partner is the fact that I want to stay at home with my (future) children until they are old enough for school. I can't do this if my husband isn't financially stable.
That may sound harsh to some people but in the real world "love will keep us alive" just isn't enough. I need someone who can be a partner financially, and take care of a family.
Luckily enough, I found an AMAZING man who shares all of my views.
Broadly speaking, no. What's the difference: both are founded on the man's capacity to support the woman. If the man doesn't earn enough to provide the woman the lifestyle she seeks (gold digger), and hence has rejected him, how is that any different than rejecting a guy who is incapable of supporting the woman that lifestyle?
When I was young I never thought about how much money a man had, it never even crossed my mind. However, nowadays i am glad that I married a man with a good income who is able to support me and the children so that I don't have to try and 'juggle' a job and a family, which has always appeared to me a nightmare scenario.
But it was something I never thought about at all when I was young. I can understand that money can make a man more appealling, and I am rather impressed by the foresight of women who consider this before marriage. It never even crossed my mind when i was young.