On GOLDDIGGERS and Monogamy

There has been a sixty second clip making its way around where a woman says that monogamy was made to be beneficial for men without uh..means....you know.. Money, Chedda, Green! Now before anyone gets on a high horse, the conversation seemed to be very heteronormative, but that doesn't mean it didn’t have value. Anyway, the conversation was on Golddiggers and I think  it’s time to talk more about THAT!

For the people who have not seen it, I am including the full conversation link right here. Beware! It is NOT short!  It should be qued to right before she says what she said

Now that you’ve watched it (and probably got interested in the whole conversation), for me what she said resonated. Exchanging money for beauty and vice versa is not a new concept! The fact is what the sister said about men not liking the idea of a golddigger because of their lack of financial means and because of their discomfort, is all too well and true. 

Men have been taught that it is okay and perfectly normal for them to choose their mates based on the attributes that they find desirable. They are allowed to feast from the plate and try out various forms of cuisine before attempting to make a purchase of any kind. When they are done sampling, they get to choose what they want based on their tastes. Please note we are NOT talking about how society helps to determine those tastes (though we could).

Pretend for a moment that there are 100 diverse women in a room. As if picking people from a menu, a man can say he only wants a woman with “good hair.” From that statement, assume that 50% of the women are now out of the running. If the chooser should also say that they don’t want anyone darker than a brown paper bag, then maybe 40 women are left in the room. Of the 40 women left, we  know they are all lighter than a brown paper bag, with hair that is a texture they find to be acceptable. From there he can say no one with kids or disabilities of any kind. Let’s say from there there are only 8 women left. From there this man will continue to scrutinize the options before him to find the woman that best meets his desires. Add in him wanting someone younger than him, shorter, etc. Now left with 2 options, he chooses the one who he thinks is prettier with the bigger ass, smarter brains, and (excuse my language) juicier pussy. She wins! And so does he! YAY!!

Having a preference is not necessarily a bad thing--though if you know me, you may see that I gave him preferences that are generally aligned with White supremacist standards of beauty--but that’s for another conversation. So where does the problem pop up? Money brings options and broke men are mad at their lack of Hallie Berry options with their thousandaire wallets. To have someone judge a person based on financial success, means that there are many folks not in the running, and usually not for the type of woman they covet. Monogamy is for the broke man who wants the best woman he can get and afford. Polyandry is for the woman who wants to deal with many man and be comfortable. Polygamy is for the rich man who can afford many beautiful and talented wives. Don’t be suckers, what shawty said in the video is true. Get out your feelings!

Now when a woman does this same thing to a man, to go on a shopping spree where men are for her consumption to pick and choose and discard accordingly, men have a hard time dealing with that. Why? Because this society is patriarchal and favors men being able to choose and scrutinize. Many men don’t understand what it is to be under that microscope and have someone discard them for the attributes that they don’t have. They have been told and believe that women only choose men based on love, not on looks, money or any other tangible attribute. But women are much like men with their 100 lined up in a room scrutinizing to get what they want. In this society, men do the choosing and women get chosen. Because it is seen as the "natural order," to have a woman choosing and discarding men, especially based on monetary means, makes many men uncomfortable. The idea, again, is to have a woman who is enamored with a dude so much that she is simply feeling lucky to have been “chosen” as marriage material. They want to be the consumer, not the consumed. To be the consumed is to know that if you aren’t chosen you lack something in the eye of the person you wish would look at you as a contender. To win is to know that you had some attribute, maybe financial, that they chose. This, in a way, can be diminishing because you may have been chosen for what you have, not who you are.

Many men do NOT have the emotional capacity to be under the microscope in that way. Women are used to it because their worth, in this American society, is based very much on how they look which usually precludes those who don’t adhere to the beauty standards as outlined by the Eurocentric Cis-Het male gaze. We can talk about how that gaze has informed how many men of various cultures see their women, but that’s besides the point. Men can’t handle the scrutiny because they don’t have a frame of reference for it. It is an uncomfortable place to be, especially when cognitive dissonance kicks in and they realize that they have been doing the same thing to others and their feelings are hurt.

As long as both people know what they are getting into, all should be fine. Be upfront, be honest (with yourself and your potential partner). Do you have a financial requirement prior to dating? 

My recommendation: Grow up! Everyone you look at is also looking at you to see if you are even on their level and if they might be able to upgrade on that ass. It’s not always personal, sometimes it’s financial.