http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/02/19/smart-women-marry-for-money-and-heres-why/
I was interested in finding a good article on "Gold Diggers" but found this article about why women marry for money.
Having a marriage is like having a business.
"It's like running a corporation. A business venture. You have to go into it knowing that it could fail or it could succeed beyond your wildest dreams and make you rich... If the employees don't share the vision, believe in the vision and work together, the endeavor will fail. Some businesses will get rich. Some will barely make ends meet. Some will never make a dime. The money does not measure success. The sense of accomplishment will come from the daily struggle... the love of what you do, working together day in and day out."
A lot of marriages end in divorThe reality is that personal finance issues are the leading cause of divorce and in order to live happily ever after, you must be on the same page as far as your finances are concerned.
The article goes on to talk about why smart women do marry for the money which includes
-A man with a plan
-Aligned Financial Values
-.Motivated by Money to Create the Life They Want
I chose this article to show how a women has psychological needs to have a fulfilling/ the life they want. These type of women have a high need for autonomy because they want what is best for them. Reeve (2009) states that autonomy is the psychological need to experience self-direction and personal endorsement in the initiation and regulation of one's behavior (p.146).
Do you think these facts would make you change your perception about marrying for love or money? Or what are your morals before and after reading this article?
I'm definitely a woman who believes in love, and that love can conquer all. However, I do realize that love can't pay any bills, feed me, put clothes on my body, or even a roof over my head, but it's nice to have. Honestly I feel as though I find myself more attracted to males who have strong goals in their lives, know what they want to do instead of just worrying about the party this upcoming weekend.
I've never thought of a relationship/marriage as a corporation, so I really like this analogy that this article used. It puts things into perspective I feel like. I also enjoyed in the article when it said "Move over and make way for women who are in control of their financial destinies and not afraid to say it. They are armed with a positive net worth and not afraid to flaunt it." I feel as though this statement alone provides a lot of autonomy for any woman who may read it. I definitely feel empowered by it. Having control, and having power over your life is also something I would consider this article to talk about. I feel as though this article also points out by doing these things, women can become more confident in their relationship, because they know that financial problems will not necessarily result in divorce for them.
My only worries about this point of view is the lack of affiliation and intimacy in a relationship that is based off of financial resources. I would be curious to see what these writers would have to say about the combination of affiliation, intimacy, autonomy and competence as far as making a marriage work goes.
Thanks for the article! It was really interesting to read!
This is an interesting article, as cynical as it may seem it may also be right. The book "The Evolution of Desire" had a similar argument. It argued that women want men who have resources and men want women who are able to reproduce (young and healthy). In this way it is a business exchange - the men get to reproduce and the women get to have resources. While most of us do not go into a relationship with this mindset, it probably influences our choices in a mate. I also enjoyed that it talked about how women with resources have more power in relationships because they are armed with there own resources.
The book also discusses how cheating breaks the unspoken agreement between men and women because it can affect it requires the man's resources and the woman's ability to bear the man's children. Emotions such as love and respect for the other person come into play when keeping people from cheating. This article did not address the issues that may be associated with marrying for money - such as cheating. The lack of interest in fulfilling needs for intimacy and relatedness is interesting in itself. While there is probably an evolutionary pull to choose a mate based on criteria that were set when most humans were a part of hunting and gathering societies, there are now more options and they also need to be taken into account.
Obviously there is more to life than avoiding fights about finances, but it would be nice if one never had to worry about that. I think the smart thing that this article pointed out was that you should choose a partner that has the same goals as far as finances that you have and who will strive to achieve those goals. If you don't need fancy prestige possessions and neither does he, you should be a good match. However, if you need the prestige possessions while he does not, you will most likely have more fights.
I don't think that marriage should be looked at as a business deal like what was said in the article. But I do believe in being financially stable and being responsible with things like money when you are planning on getting married, because in the world we live in money does make the world go round.
I think that women tend to be more attracted to men who do have money because usually that means that they are goal-oriented, sucessful, and know how to work. That is usually attractive to women, and the fact that money is usually the number one thing couples argue about, it relieves a lot of that stress. When you don't have that stress put on you, the couple can be more satisfied in their relationship.
The article said that "When smart women meet a partner, they aren’t wooed by good looks and the smooth talk, after all those come a dime a dozen. These women are looking at how their potential partners spend money." Which I thought madea good point in addressing that women look for so many other things in a male, but if she is looking at his spending and finances then she does get labeled a "gold digger" but after reading I think it makes some sense to look into things such as their spending habits. I don't think money should be a deciding factor with love but i believe that it is in the equation.
According to Reeve (2009), p 103 – it is discussed how some of the motivation behind sexual encounters are out of an evolutionary basis. I have heard this theory before, but women want a man who can provide for their children—and men essentially want to ‘spread their seed’ (as disgusting as that sounds).
For women, it is looked upon highly if the man can provide and has a means of getting food/money etc. For men, it’s all about how ‘fertile’ they look. This is just a fun topic to talk about.. especially with guys because it kind of just fits with what we essentially do.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article9996.ece
in this article—it takes quite a conservative view on relationships. More than I would like—but that’s beside the point. The author makes a statement that no “woman's financial and educational gains should "never be bigger than the relationship with the man."
Also, just to make every girl a little angry, he also writes—“men expect three things in return for their three Ps: support, loyalty and the "cookie." "The way we men connect is by having sex. Period,"
Also.. “You say that if a woman withholds sex for one month, she risks losing a partner. Here's the deal: If you're pregnant with our child, we understand, we're not barbaric - we got that there's a waiting period. Now, if you're just holding out, what are you saying to this guy? A guy has to have certain things and the woman knows it”
All in all, this article makes me angry and puts a huge conservative spin on men and women’s relationships (which is essentially the biological view of men and women and their initial sexual motivation as mentioned earlier)