DISPATCHES

Reader Feedback on "Am I a Gold-Digger?"

The real question that would answer whether you are a gold digger or not is this: If Jeffery lost his job,couldn't get money from his parents, and couldn't find another job, what would you do?
--MB
10/16

This article was scattered, ponderous, and I too kept waiting for you to come to a point that would make all your sloppy "field research" gel together. I wanted to hear more about Brad. You did not even get into the vagaries. Your reach exceeded your grasp. I don't think you're a gold-digger but if I were someone in your life I'd be somewhat aggravated by this clumsiliy self-indulgent soul-searching in a public forum. And embarassed that you had to make such a big deal out of being supported by your spouse. You aren't a gold-digger unless you dig, period. You never went digging, you never set out to find a wealthy man (I'm assuming--the article inexplicably skips right over this). You just let youself be supported and then try to turn that into some journalistic scoop.
--thea
10/14

Hm, were you trying to find the current cultural content of the term ‘gold-digger,’ or were you trying to get feedback on your current situation? Or both? ‘Gold-digger’s an almost antique term; I picture Mae West fucking the top-hat-and-moustache guy from a Monopoly set in order to score a mink coat. ‘Gold-digging,’ at least to my mind, involves trying to score big, not just free room and board. Ask people if Anna Nicole was a gold digger, I bet the answer is universally ‘yes,’ mainly because of the scope of her predations. But she got millions, you’re not paying for laundry detergent. Asking people if you fit this particular term was a good deal more leading than asking, say, if you fit the terms most of us use when describing post-college acquaintances who get by off others’ labor, ie ‘mooch,’ ‘sponge,’ ‘leech.’ And yes, if (as is apparently the case), if you don’t have some medium- or longterm plan you’re working towards that prevents you from contributing to the household you live in, any of those last three terms might apply to you.
--SLC
09/30

Great article, in so far as the culturally hot but rarely deeply examined subject matter, and the intended honesty of its self-examination. Key words in all that: intended honesty. The author is preconsciously aware she is treating the people in her life as objects that exist to serve her needs in an exploitive relationship to her and not as true partners or friends as the case may be. In clinical treatment, it is considered a truism that the person who seeks out medical attention because they fear they may have a drinking problem almost always does. To wit, people who do not have a drinking problem as a rule do not seek medical examination in order to receive an answer to that query from their doctor. But people with a problem in this area of their lives do. I would speculate that the issue here is a rather frank form of self-rationalizing narcissism, chronic in so far that it's been part of the author's character since she was a young woman. I'm not a shrink, but yes, author, you use people when you should be moving toward autonomy - economic and psychological. If you can write, there are jobs available for writers that pay more than the book store where you can be earning your keep and feeling better about yourself. Look around. The author is neither from a past generation nor at home raising a child. She is not involved in apartment renovations that require long days and weeks replacing sheet rock or installing new wainscoting. She is advantaging herself of a man who is willing to support her while she pursues a career as a writer. This is neither an unusual circumstance, nor a felony, and plenty an artist or writer has availed themselves of such a set-up: Hemingway lived off of wife Hadley for many years when he was first starting out. She had a modest amount of family money. And let's remember that during this period they were even raising a child given her limited funds, and still, Ernest did not hold a full-time job while he was finding his form, scribbling in charming cafes and tooling around Paris. By the author's definition Papa was a gold digger. And so is the author; no need to question what is self-evident. And at the risk of cynicism from this romantic, I can't help but be reminded that once Hem started to socialize in better-heeled circles and his debut literary success was on the horizon, he left his wife and baby and the modest Paris rooms for a women with more dough who could accommodate his newly acquired tastes. If perhaps the author has it in her to become the next Carson McCullers, maybe this is part of the cosmic bargain. And maybe rationalization is the healthy defense mechanism necessary to continue the mercenary treatment of people she purports to love under the guise of anachronistic gender roles, or plain and simple but selfish laziness.
--HTD
09/29

i find this very interesting ... it seems to me that this is one of the things that people routinely lie about, and we should all be a little more honest about the dynamics of male /female relationships. There has always been a fertility-for-resources exchange between men and women, though fortunately in recent years it's become more complicated as women make more money and sometimes support their husbands (as was the case in one of these interviews). In the gym yesterday I heard two young women talking and one said to the other, "as you start to think about your future you have to think about what kind of job your boyfriend has." It's a kindof repugnant comment at first glance, because it belies the pure romance we all profess to believe in, but the reality is that everyone thinks at least a little bit about what babies with this person are going to look like, and what a life with this person is going to look like. Every marriage involves some kind of barter whether the participants want to admit it or not. I personally would not want to be married to woman who was completely financially dependent on me -- I don't like the way it affects the dynamics of a relationship -- but many women and men seem to like these terms, and some like the reverse terms. Good to see this stuff talked about.
--ted
09/25

But you see, these responses, plus the responses of the interviewees, *are* the point of the article. So far, people have said yes, I'm a gold-digger, no, I'm not a gold-digger but I am a bum, no, I'm not a gold-digger but I am a whore. It's a very emotionally charged term with no clear definition--hence the "I know it when I see it" response. The point of the article was to use my own murky and dubious situation, which I'm openly ambivalent about, as a Rorschach to reveal the widely varying--but always intense--cultural currency of the term "gold-digger." These responses are the point. -The author
--ECD
09/24

Oh my god! To the author of this article, just get over yourself already. Accepting gifts from friends and lovers who have more means than you doesn't make you a gold-digger. In this day and age, it makes you a bum. If your criteria for a love relationship centers around finding support to live beyond your own independent means on an ongoing basis, without you making a legitimate contribution of some kind, then you're a gold-digger. If the people who are your friends and lovers choose to help you out along the way, then you're just taking advantage of their generosity. That in itself won't make you a gold-digger, but it won't do any wonders for your self-esteem either. You haven't said anything about what you did or didn't contribute to any of your relationships, because you're too fixated on the issue that you can't seem to live within your means.
--MAD
09/24

I think this says it all: I've lived with my boyfriend, Jeffrey, for over a year and have yet to pay a cent in rent or bills. I could get a higher-paying job, but I haven't been inclined to. That strikes me as: a) totally unfair b) totally insane c) totally weird
--HC
09/24

Maybe defining gold-digging is like defining obscenity. I may not be able to precisely define it, but I know it when I see it!
--JCF
09/24

Did I miss a concluding, tying it all together, part?
--
09/23

i thought the point was that women even having economic power, much less possible equality, is pretty recent, so there is culturally some confusion over what division of responsibility and resources is appropriate. just because women can be equal partners to men, economically, does that mean they have to and if they don't they're gold-diggers?
--jb
09/23

Wait-- so all stay-at-home wives are gold-diggers? I thought it was an interesting article. I mean, is accepting someone's wealth always exploiting them? Does accepting someone's wealth always mean you're giving up power? Can you be exploiting someone and giving up all your power at the same time? Can you be a gold-digger if you really love someone and you're committed to them? Is it gold-digging if everyone's being honest, or does gold-digging require some kind of deceit? I thought it raised a lot of questions but it didn't answer very many.
--CRD
09/23

The fact that the last line of this article isn't, "Yes." is a bit riduculous. When you admit that you always have boyfriends who make a lot more than you, and this keeps you living in the manner to which you have become accustomed, despite your chosen "bohemian" lifestyle (bohemian only in that you yourself can't afford the $75 dinner tab 5 nights a week), how can you look yourself in the face and ask the question in the first place? Have you no capacity for self-reflection (usually a necessary quality for a decent writer...)? Actually, "now that I think about it" (try this yourself from time to time), there is another possibility -- and please keep in mind, I'm no religious apologist, like "Jeffrey's" parents. But since you have not married any of these well-to-do men (or at least better-to-do-than-you), perhaps you are not in fact a gold digger. They are, after all, just renting your services for a time, before you move on to the next guy. Perhaps you are instead just a common, everyday whore? :)
--PO
09/23

What a wimpy, biased article! Do you really not know anyone with the balls to straight-out call you a gold-digger? Seriously, if you're going to write an article examining this issue, interview at least one couple who _don't_ believe severe economic inequality in a relationship (as in, letting a man pay your bills and take power over you) is OK.
--ksb
09/23

Still waiting to find the relevant point of all this.
--CSC
09/23

send feedback on "Am I a Gold-Digger?"

back to "Am I a Gold-Digger?"