I Ain’t Saying She’s A Gold Digger…

I don’t mean to scoop up the entire post from Deansdale, but it is short and perfect.
“If the only difference in sex rank in favor of the prospective husband is his money, he’s pretty much destined for a divorce. “His money” will soon translate into “our money” in the head of his wife and thus his advantage disappears almost immediately. On the other hand the first time the thought of divorce crosses her mind she will see him without half his assets or worse – lowering his sex rank considerably. If she starts contemplating divorce seriously this image will be fixed in her mind. Being on the opposite ends of alimony and possibly child support payments her sex rank will be definitely higher than his.
So fellows, if you’re married or planning to marry a woman who’s considerably less rich than you are, you should have something more going on for you in that marriage or else it can destabilize pretty fast at the first sign of trouble.”
Overall you are better off having a better income than not, I think that is so self-evident that I’ve hardly touched on it on the blog, but Deansdale is right. If that’s all you got going for you, you’re in potential trouble.
I’ve seen a number of guys do the two jobs routine to make ends meet killing themselves for their family. 60-80 hour weeks can start to add up and wifey gets bored and lonely. Then of course if you’ve been supporting a Stay At Home Mother by working two jobs, the court will probably/possibly want you to keep up that same level of two jobs support should you divorce.
Money is nice, but the days of thinking providing income gets you to the head of the class is over.


  1. Meg at Demanding Joy says:

    I don't disagree with your point. The right balance of financial standing is important in a marriage. However, I do disagree with the stereotype that gold diggers have to be women. Plenty of women make plenty of money.

    I worked 60+ hours a week to put my husband through school. I have been the primary breadwinner through much of our marriage. And if we ever get divorced, I would more than likely have to pay him support.

  2. Athol Kay says:

    That's a good point Meg.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Oh, for cryin' out loud, Meg, knock it off. Athol highlights a really important point – that a man better make sure he has something going for him besides money or he will regret it – and you have to sidetrack the converstaion with some "but men are just as bad" nonsense.

    Athol's response was far too kind (NB Athol: dial's set too far towards Beta. Recalibrate…).

    Plenty of women may make plenty of money, but very few men are "golddiggers" in the traditional sense of the stereotype. Men and women are not the same.

    I took a look at your blog. Sounds like a fun trip to Italy, and some beautiful photos. You blog a lot about your son – I had to laugh about the excessive whining, we've been going through that too. Be firm and, most importantly, consistent, and you'll win. And it is adorable when the kids start calling you on the carpet for the same things you scold them for. It also means they're listening and starting to get the message.

    I noticed your husband doesn't make many appearances in your blog. You spent several weeks in romantic Italy alone with him, and your sister made as many appearances in your blog as your husband during that time. His cameos are flattering and complementary, which is good, but he seems like a background presence in your life. Then there was this in your post on how motherhood changes things:

    "Sex – Babies have some sort of radar that makes them cry at just the right moment to break up the festivities. That’s OK, you’re both too tired anyway. "

    Guess what? It's not OK. He's probably not too tired. He might be too beta to tell you though.

    But back to this blog and this post (er, or is it Deansdale's blog and post?). Extremely few Men are golddiggers. Some may be philanderers or thugs, but golddiggers they ain't. That's a distinctly female tendency. Also a distinctly female tendency is reflexively blurting out some "men are too" baloney whenever someone says something unflattering but accurate about female tendencies.

  4. Athol Kay says:

    Oh relax a little anon. Meg has been extremely complimentary in her comments over the months. Every little thing isn't a shit test.

    You're turning a minor adjustment over something we agree about into a failure of my manhood and saying her marriage is less than stellar due to her character flaw of being female.

    It's not possible to sustain a relationship with a woman with that level of microanalysis of interaction between you. No relationship is perfect, but that kind of approach will tear apart even a good, loving, functional relationship.

    Deandale has a great new blog, I'm very much hoping he gets a traffic spike.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Athol, I Wasn't questioning your manhood at all – I know the dial can go "more alpha" if you want and I know it's important to fiddle with the setting to keep it in the right spot – highlighting that balance is the great thing about your blog.

    But you definitely let Meg get away with, not necessarily a shittest, but an annoying and seemingly reflexive reaction many women have to someone pointing out bad female behavior.

    Now, Meg might be great – probably is. Nobody's perfect. I'm certainly not. Meg might not even be aware of this relatively common tick she displayed. Letting her know about it might help her better understand herself. If you were too much Good Cop, maybe I was too much Bad Cop. I probably didn't need to mention the observation about her marriage either, or at least maybe not in the way I did. I can adjust my dial a bit too.

    So Meg, if you're reading, let me reframe and please ask you in all sincerely why you felt it important to make the claim that "men can be golddiggers too" in response to the Deansdale post? Was there a particular problem the golddigger meme reminded you of that you felt needed airing, or were you just engaged in a little tit-for-tat defense of your gender? Or something else entirely?

    Regarding your blog, I really do hope you had a great time in Italy and that it was a romantic trip. I'm jealous, especially of the picture in Assisi. The flowerpots lining the stairs and balconies really brought life to that courtyard. If you're in the mood, consider my jibe to be a little caution light that flashed: Random guy, married with kids himself, read your blog and thought 'oh-oh, husband relegated to second class status when kids arrived. Danger Will Robinson.'

    If it's not really a problem, then no problem. If it is, fix it! I know – kids are exhausting (and how!). But a great relationship with your spouse is more envigorating than a case of Red Bull. Fewer carbs too.

  6. Deansdale says:

    "I do disagree with the stereotype that gold diggers have to be women. Plenty of women make plenty of money."
    There is no logical connection between these two statements :) Yeah, plenty of women make money but that doesn't mean men are golddigers. We all know that women are hypergamous and care a lot more about money than men.

    "Deandale has a great new blog, I'm very much hoping he gets a traffic spike."
    Thanx :)

  7. Athol Kay says:

    Actually I think once women start paying alimony more frequently the faster alimony will be balanced out in the various States. So it's not unimportant.

  8. The latest statistic I've seen is that women now make more than their husbands in 23% of marriages. That's still a pretty small percentage, and most of the time when she makes more it's only a little more. Men often earn a hell of a lot more than their wives.

    I completely agree that these days a man needs to bring more than being a good provider to the table. If he wants a hot or even just cute wife to remain happy with him he's got to bring at least some alpha, more being better.

    However men can avoid losing all their money power by insisting that women sign a prenup that mimics living together in terms of property settlement in the event of a divorce. I.e. one that nixes alimony and also any 50 50 split of wealth. Money goes to who brought into the marriage and who earned it, pro rata. The prenup wouldn't, and by US law couldn't, have any effect on child custody or child support=also stealth alimony. That alone is plenty rich enough for divorcing women.

    As for stay at home wives getting screwed by this scheme, I don't think they should be completely stay at home after the kids are in school. She should be working at least part time in her career by then, if not earlier with help at home. If not she's lazy.

    I'd never consider marrying without this. In fact I prefer to live together with a woman and retain more power with less security for her. Keeps her on her toes more.

  9. Athol Kay says:

    All good points Doug1. Personally I think the whole stay at home thing is a huge fitness test women can throw at men. I keep seeing women with house keeping skills on the none-minimum range expounding on the value of their care.

    If she can actually play the support role well then okay, but for the most part the family is just better off with two incomes anyway.

Speak Your Mind