A mother has been accused of teaching her daughters to be gold diggers, after admitting she will tell them to take a partner’s financial situation into account, and not to marry just for love.
The anonymous British woman, 43, said she thinks people with more money have fewer problems and that their relationships are less strained than those who don’t earn as much.
Taking to Mumsnet, she explained that her own mother told her that money doesn’t matter when you’re in love, but that she disagrees because couples who struggle financially can’t hire someone to deal with unpleasant chores and have less freedom.
Adding that the people in her friendship group who opted for partner with money have ‘the much better deal’ now they’re in their 40s, she said that she’ll be advising her daughters to take wealth or earning potential into consideration.
While some commenters agreed with the mother that ‘love is not enough’, others said it was sexist and ‘no better than a man choosing a woman who is good at housework’.
An anonymous British woman split opinions online when she revealed she wanted to teach her daughters to make sure the partners they choose earn lots of money (stock picture)
The woman explained that while her mother believed you should marry for love, she was lucky enough to fall for a man who was a surgeon when she was a young nurse.
But she said she herself has witnessed how things have worked out for friends who have prioritised love over money.
‘I’m 43 now and the life choices friends have made are all coming out in the wash.
‘The reality appears that those of us who opted to spend our lives with men and women with money have by far the better deal,’ she said.
The woman said wealthier couples got a ‘better deal’ than people without money and that young women should try to bag bachelors and bachelorettes with cash
‘There’s more freedom around healthcare, education, location, travel and work ( give up, part time, full time),’ she added.
She went on to say that wealthy couples can hire someone to look after unpleasant and time-consuming household chores, which in turn means that the partnerships ‘just seem easier’.
‘There seems less stress in the partnerships because there are no money worries,’ she added.
And she pointed out that if the marriage doesn’t work out, choosing a partner who is financially secure means a better divorce settlement.
Some people agreed with her, including some who had married for love and had been left high and dry.
‘I agree. I married for love, then had children with someone I was madly in love with. Got royally f***** both times and now I’m struggling to make ends meet,’ one said.
‘Love isn’t enough. It really isn’t. I’ll tell my daughter to think long and hard before choosing a partner. My earning potential doesn’t mean squat when I’m caring for two small children without a single family member or friend nearby,’ they added.
‘I’ve been with partners before that I’ve loved with no money and partners I’ve loved with money – I know which I prefer and makes life easier so you are not being unreasonable,’ another wrote.
‘Of course it’s worth considering, and anyone who doesn’t consider it is quite short-sighted. Saying that is not the same as saying “you should deliberately marry a rich partner”,’ one argued.
Many women agreed that earnings and money was an important deciding factor when picking a partner
‘But ambitions, career goals, lifestyle goals, are all important things to take into account when deciding whether to spend your life with someone, and different people will place different weight on different things,’ they added.
‘I will teach my daughter to think about her own earning potential as I was taught (I’m the main breadwinner in my relationship), but nothing wrong with her having expectations with respect to the earning potential of a partner,’ one woman said.
‘I will encourage my daughter to consider her own earning potential and to ensure that she chooses a career that will mean she can maintain the standard of living she’s used to,’ one explained.
‘And yes, there are careers I’d advise her to consider very carefully because of the earning potential. I’d advise her to ensure that whatever she does she can always put a roof over her head and food on the table,’ they added.
Other people said the woman was encouraging her daughters to become ‘gold diggers’ and some took it as far as comparing it to ‘sex work’
‘Equally I would also advise her to choose someone who wants to enjoy the same standard of living as she does (eat out, nice house, travel, nice car, home help if needed) and who can afford to do that. I wouldn’t want her to look for a rich partner particularly but I think that a financial equal at least is a priority,’ they went on.
However, some people didn’t agree with this vision of the world and said the woman would b turning her daughter into ‘gold diggers.’
‘Gold-digger is the phrase you’re looking for,’ one told her.
‘You should teach your daughters to think carefully about their own earning potential and what they will do to give them the life they want, and then how to protect that potential and security from being exploited by men,’ one said.
‘Don’t raise them with the expectation that their life chances will be controlled by someone else,’ they added.
‘Sounds like a recipe for staying in abusive marriages for the money’s sake,’ one said.
‘This is no better than a man choosing a woman who is good at housework. It sucks,’ one argued
One person who marred out of love totally disagreed: ‘I’ve married someone who I love more than anything. He has a minimum wage job, will probably never work anything other than on a production line,’ they said.
‘It does not bother me one bit. We manage, just about, and while we will never own a house, go on fancy holidays etc we have a fantastic marriage built on love and respect for one another,’ they added.
‘No more than advising young men to consider the earning potential of potential partners. The bottom line is to optimise your own potential – don’t depend on someone else,’ one said.
‘Well, I am the high earner in my marriage. My husband is completely passionate about his work which means he’s happy and fulfilled and interesting and interested in life. He probably finds my stress level a bit frustrating but likes the cleaner, house, holidays etc,’ one said.
‘I think we would still be happy if I earned less though. He’s not materialistic at all. I am but that’s why I earn – I’d hate to be the lesser earner as I’d feel a loss of power,’ they admitted.