Love ... or Con Part IV: Golddiggers are EOE

Love or con?

It's sort of like the question Eddie Izzard asks in his comedy routine, "Cake or death?" Of course you're going to choose cake! And of course you're going to choose love, not con. But in the current relationship climate ... which is which?

My mom and dad used to use, "Back in my day ..." as a preamble to a rant about everything they felt is dysfunctional about modern relationships. Back in their day, a man never asked a woman to go Dutch when they went on dates. He didn't ask to borrow money to fix his car. And it was unthinkable for a man to ask a woman for a large "loan" or to arbitrarily invest in his business. Not even if the couple were married. A man who tried to pull this shit was considered scum of the scum, and he quickly acquired a reputation in his community. Women warned each other to stay away from this gent. Polite society closed its doors in his face. You get the idea. Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver ruled.

The women's movement came along in the late 60's and early 70's. Equal rights in the workplace. Free love, birth control, a woman had control over whether she bore children or not. Sounds like a really good deal for the gals, doesn't it? I picked up a copy of "The Women's Room" just to see how it was back in the day. Women had their pursuit of higher education, career goals, and desire for financial independence validated by society. They no longer needed to wait around in the ivory castle of their parents' home for some man to "rescue" them. They worked like men and fucked like men. That seemed to be the objective -- to have all the advantages of men, but none of the liabilities.

When this happened, gender roles blurred and traditional relationship boundaries eroded. Today, men and women now ask questions such as, is it okay to go dutch on a first date? If a woman works, how much should she be expected to contribute financially? Is it okay for a man to be a stay-at-home husband? While everyone stood around scratching their heads over these questions, a brand new industry was forming for the male golddigger, aka, the "sweetheart swindler," aka, the Love Con: Women With Money & Stuff, Inc. Of course, all malingering men aren't sociopathic bastards. There's just a lot of women out there complaining that they have to support their men.

Which goes to show you. Even if you've made significant strides as a gender, there's always going to be something that comes back to bite you on the butt. But I digress ...

Men have been falling prey to golddiggers for decades, nay, centuries before women were permitted to own their own property. (Speaking of property rights, here's a factoid -- in some states, women had to petition the court to handle their own real property until the early 1970s.) I'll bet the little box of Italian chocolates beside me that there are more men reading this blog who can tell you stories about women who tried to use them to get ahead than could women. I wouldn't even be surprised if you guys have evolved with "golddigger compasses" hardwired into your psyches. Look at our literature, it's filled with women with one thing on their minds. My favorite sociopathic golddigger is the character of Mildred in Somerset Maughm's "Of Human Bondage." Kee-rist, what a piece of work; she shows up in the life of kind-hearted doctor-in-training Philip Carey whenever she needs money or services rendered, and she was about as obvious as they come. I found myself skipping ahead in the book just to see when she'd rear her nasty head.

When you think about it from a sociological perspective, it's no surprise that women are now juicy prey for male golddiggers. The characters in "The Women's Room" were highly critical of the women they used to be -- Stepford drones bound to their husbands only because they provided a livelihood. How sweetly ironic, then, that there's a new breed of men out there, con artists types, that bind themselves to women for that very same reason. Men might be more obvious about it. They might not share the same emotional engagement as would a woman, and they definitely plan on flying to coop. It's still the same M.O. Whenever you stay with someone because you can't make it on your own, it's usurious. Whenever you take advantage of someone's financial cushion without a serious commitment involved, that's usurious, too.

While today's post-movement woman expects herself to be economically sound and independent, why does she still lead with the heart rather than a honed intellect and enlightened consciousness?

If the modern woman really believes in totally equality, then the man who asks to be treated like an adult dependent at her expense, contributing little or nothing in return, should be the first one voted off the island. Doncha think? Love is love, and business is money. If women wish to "do business" with men, they need to execute it with professionalism -- with background and credit checks, solid contracts, business plans, anything that will cover their asses, and not trust blindly in the promise. The fact that many women are being taken by con-artists on fraudulent "partnerships" indicates to me that perhaps we really haven't learned all we need to learn ...

Equality between the sexes is good. It helps us get ahead, as individuals, as couples, as families. I'm sure a lot of you also know couples who started businesses together, each contributing what they could. They share equally in the profits and losses, and if they're wildly successful, it's a success for both. If they go bust, they share the same liabilities. You probably know of couples who've gone through hard times, financially. Particularly now. He's lost his job, and they have to make do with her paycheck. There are still a few single-income families out there, where one partner takes more responsibility for maintaining the home and care of children. When you see this kind of solidarity, it's a beautiful thing.

Sure, I could render all sorts of advice to women on how not to be taken in by male golddiggers -- get it in writing, get the pre-nup, make sure that you're married before you start making investments in your partner, yada, yada. But a con artist of either gender with find a way to break, get around, render voidable, and even make a marriage contract work in his or her favor. A true partnership is based on true intentions -- and a lot of conviction. To quote John Lennon:



There's nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy
All you need is love