haven't had a dream in a long time

November 28, 2008 12:57 PM

'You loser!" screamed Katie, aiming a vase at her husband. "You've destroyed my life,'' she continued, hurling it. "Just look at my hair, look at my nails! You loser, you jerk, you nobody."

Katie's husband, Jack, whose property portfolio disintegrated in the financial crash, had just told his wife that she would have to cut back on her thrice-weekly visits to Nicky Clarke, the nail salon in Harvey Nichols, and the oxygen facials, chemical peels and seaweed wraps at Space NK.
posted by plexi (91 comments total)

Good ol' Wall Street schadenfreude.
posted by kdar at 1:06 PM on November 28, 2008

I'm having trouble mustering sympathy for anyone involved. Well, except the child who was witness to the melee.
posted by Dr-Baa at 1:08 PM on November 28, 2008 [9 favorites]

I can actually feel my heart turning to stone as I read this.
posted by hermitosis at 1:10 PM on November 28, 2008

From the first (UKTelegraph) link:

An extreme and isolated example of the global economic meltdown hitting the £1 million home? Sadly no. When the super-rich feel the pinch, inevitably, the Toxic Wife heads off.
The Toxic Wife, first identified in these pages almost two years ago, is a particular and terrifying species.

So the "proof" this isn't just a deliciously ghastly example of something not at all that common is the "fact" the same paper ran a near-identical article two years previously?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 1:12 PM on November 28, 2008 [5 favorites]

These people deserve each other.
posted by grounded at 1:16 PM on November 28, 2008

These people deserve each other.
posted by grounded at 1:16 PM on November 28 [+] [!]

How do you figure?
posted by ben242 at 1:19 PM on November 28, 2008

This post as a SLYT.
posted by CKmtl at 1:20 PM on November 28, 2008

Wow - I'd like to think that I would be able to recognize a shameless gold digger before getting to the point of marrying one, but I still feel sympathetic for the husbands involved. Were I a wealthy man, I would happily provide my wife with all the baubles and luxuries she desired and I think I would feel a sense of marital accomplishment in doing so. But were I suddenly to come up against the truth that she only loved me for my money, I think I would feel crushed and terribly alone & disenfranchised. There would be a lot of worry, suspicion and self-doubt leeching into my future relationships, I think.

Fortunately, my lovely wife married my ass when it was broke, and she generally doesn't define happiness through spending money, so maybe I'm safe.
posted by chudmonkey at 1:23 PM on November 28, 2008 [7 favorites]

Good ol' Wall Street schadenfreude.

Well, this is in the UK so I'm assuming the guy worked in The City.
posted by delmoi at 1:25 PM on November 28, 2008

It's a good thing that men never marry for something shallow, like looks, and then leave their older wives for younger women later, right guys?

Sorry, these articles left a rather misogynist taste in my mouth.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:29 PM on November 28, 2008 [70 favorites]

Nice post. I loved the smiths reference.
posted by elmono at 1:30 PM on November 28, 2008

Sorry, these articles left a rather misogynist taste in my mouth.

Agreed. Not that I don't believe the report, but the tone makes me uncomfortable. Pity the poor hard working wall streeters being devastated by the double whammy of a job loss and a divorce; their misery is all because of these scheming harpies! Women only care about money, don't we all know it?
posted by PercussivePaul at 1:36 PM on November 28, 2008 [8 favorites]

WinnepegDragon - I didn't attribute a misogynistic tone to the stories, but I did consider that they only told the "woman leaving man" version of the story. Maybe the authors felt they didn't have to make explicit that fact that one's sex doesn't really make one more likely to be a jerk.
posted by chudmonkey at 1:37 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

Po'boyzone?
posted by Paid In Full at 1:38 PM on November 28, 2008

Weird, chauvinist article.
posted by eustatic at 1:40 PM on November 28, 2008 [7 favorites]

How do you figure?

If -- as in the case of many a high-flying City guy -- money is what you have on offer (and, in many cases, all you have on offer and you're quite conspicuous about it), don't be surprised that it's a gold-digger who takes the bait. These guys wanted a Trophy Wife, not just an ordinary wife; the values are skewed from the start.

These guys are paid millions of pounds to assess risks and analyze financial transactions so really, I think they understand their circumstances more than they're willing to admit.

(Leave it to the Torygraph to show love for these guys but contempt for the wives.)
posted by grounded at 1:40 PM on November 28, 2008 [9 favorites]

"First identified" = "First invented by this writer, with an eye on a book deal and doing the rounds of the panel shows as a sort of worthless socio-cultural pundit".

Obnoxious.
posted by WPW at 1:42 PM on November 28, 2008 [6 favorites]

I like a bit of schadenfreude as much as anyone, but the first link is clearly fiction, unless the terrified eight year old cowering in the corner who called the police also had a day job as a hack on the Torygraph under the name of Tara Winter Wilson.

Since this is the Telegraoh, this fantasy is probably meant to distract attention from the astronomical bonuses still being paid to many City types in return for utter failure.
posted by Phanx at 1:43 PM on November 28, 2008 [3 favorites]

Ok, so times really are tough. The girls on the side are suffering too. The Wall Street Journal reports the Rich Cut Back on Payments to Mistresses.
posted by grounded at 1:46 PM on November 28, 2008

Actually, I could do this much better. I'd like to invent identify the phenomenon of "sub-prime marriages", wherein the spouse believes that they are attracted to, indeed in love with, their partner, but in fact are simply attracted to the lifestyle they are able to provide with their money. When the money disappears, it becomes obvious that the partner has few positive characteristic, and many of the atributes of a grasping slug. The marriage was mis-sold and has been overvalued for years; now the payments can't be made.

Sure, I just made this up, it's wholly spurious, it draws absurd generalisations, and it demonstrates a very low opinion of one's fellow humans, but now I'd like £1000 from the Telegraph please.
posted by WPW at 1:50 PM on November 28, 2008 [15 favorites]

Or the Mail on Sunday. Whichever gets me The Moral Maze quickest.
posted by WPW at 1:52 PM on November 28, 2008

Duh. "... me on The Moral Maze quickest."
posted by WPW at 1:52 PM on November 28, 2008

According to a new survey by Prince & Assoc., more than 80% of multimillionaires who had extra-marital lovers planned to cut back on their gifts and allowances. Still, only 12% of the multimillionaire cheaters said they plan to give up on their lovers altogether for financial reasons.

My mind boggles at the logistics of polling this.
posted by Tehanu at 1:54 PM on November 28, 2008 [8 favorites]

Well, cry me a fucking river.
posted by dbiedny at 1:55 PM on November 28, 2008 [3 favorites]

Aww, the spoiled brat losing her luxuries gives me warm fuzzy feelings.

I strongly suspect these guys don't do nice things for a living and took a trophy wife, which is grounded & WinnipegDragon's point. Otoh, I suspect these guys were achieving something, even if something evil, which is infinitely more respectable than being a trophy. So I'd say the articles tone s appropriate.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:03 PM on November 28, 2008

Sounds like breach of contract to me:
I, Husband, agree to make giganormous cashwads so you, Wife, can spend limitlessly on indulgences and beauty maintenance;
I, Wife, agree to look preternaturally glorious so you, Husband, remain the envy of tycoons everywhere.
Now He has no Cash (breach), and She's lost her Flash (damages).
posted by terranova at 2:04 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

Sorry, these articles left a rather misogynist taste in my mouth.

That's silly. It's not misogynistic to write articles about distasteful behaviors primarily engaged in by women, particularly not when prevailing conditions make the behavior particularly topical.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:05 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

So I guess an "article" where nobody has last names and all the quotes sound too good to be true is aiming at capital-T Truth rather than just-the-facts truth? Or is it just a bullshit piece of fiction written by a reporter too lazy to do any actual reporting?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 2:10 PM on November 28, 2008 [2 favorites]

my lovely wife married my ass

Pretty sure God has something to say about that somewhere in Leviticus, and it's not favorable.
posted by flarbuse at 2:13 PM on November 28, 2008 [21 favorites]

I've been thinking about this a good bit lately, at least since the "sexy librarian" thread a few days ago. I've always been attracted to soft-spoken, no-nonsense women who wear loose-fitting jeans, sensible shoes, and have trimmed fingernails. I've never found the bombshell high-maintenance variety of woman attractive in the least, no matter how shapely her legs, hips or breasts might be. High heels, tons of jewelry and manicured long nails leave me cold -- worse than cold -- they shriek "Stay away!"

For a long time, I'd seen this as a sort of working class aesthetic that I'd been reared to appreciate, but it's just now occurring to me that, after a bankruptcy and grueling year re-joining the workforce as a laborer, having fallen from my "status" as a small-business-owner, that perhaps my choice of a wife who holds down a job, makes intelligent clothing-purchasing decisions and still loves me (and with some significant ardor, might I add) despite everything that's happened in an extremely rocky period for me might be a form of genetic superiority that these dudes who seek out trophy wives lack. Oh, well, it works for me (and more importantly our kids) anyway, and it sucks to be them.

Sorry if that sounds smug -- it's not meant to be. Setting aside the fact that the article is strictly anecdotal, I just wonder sometimes if there's a genetic cul-de-sac for some of the super-rich, as they forget over a number of generations how to survive in the real world.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:15 PM on November 28, 2008 [10 favorites]

Otoh, I suspect these guys were achieving something, even if something evil, which is infinitely more respectable than being a trophy. So I'd say the articles tone s appropriate.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:03 PM on November 28

Achieving something evil is better than achieving nothing? Weird.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:17 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

Ah yes, the old tale of the Husband who once found his mate attractive for "always dressing so nice and having exquisite tastes" now decides she's "a golddigger."

Sounds just like the old story of the Wife who once found her mate attractive for "his confidence and assertiveness" but now decides he's "a domineering asshole."

You knew this job was dangerous when you took it.
posted by chimaera at 2:29 PM on November 28, 2008 [7 favorites]

That's silly. It's not misogynistic to write articles about distasteful behaviors primarily engaged in by women, particularly not when prevailing conditions make the behavior particularly topical.

None of the spoiled, bratty Wall Street kids are throwing similar tantrums about not being able to go on their bi-monthly weekend jaunt to Europe? None of the sons are sulking over how Daddy is an asshole for having to sell their personal boat at the summer house in the Hamptons? None of the Little Princesses are screaming themselves hoarse over how their summer is going to be ruined by not being able to go to Horsie Camp?

None of the men themselves, when shooting the shit with their cohorts, complain about having the cut back on the super-ultra-premium scotch and secretly-obtained Cuban cigars?

That's the picture that the post, and the selection of articles, paints by focusing on the wives. That's what smells a bit misogynist.
posted by CKmtl at 2:34 PM on November 28, 2008 [17 favorites]

Satan must be ice skating today because I agree with Dr. Steve. Overly generalized socio-biology psychobabble says that men like big tits and long legs and women like financial security. So this just plays out according to the laws of the jungle.

And ditto on the schadenfreude. I do love me some watching of the self-entitled get told that they're entitled no longer, no matter how briefly.
posted by illiad at 2:40 PM on November 28, 2008

Not to be confused with the stay-at-home mother who selflessly devotes herself to the upbringing of her children, with all the housework and domestic chores that entails, the Toxic Wife is the woman who gives up work as soon as she marries, ostensibly to create a stable home environment for any offspring that might come along, but who then employs large numbers of staff to do all the domestic work she promised to undertake, leaving her with little to do all day except shop, lunch and luxuriate.

The author clearly has never been exposed to life in an affluent suburb of NYC, where that line is so blurred that it no longer exists.
posted by Zambrano at 2:42 PM on November 28, 2008

She takes my money
When I'm in need
Oh, she's a triflin'
Friend indeed
Oh, she's a gold digger
Way over town
That digs on me
posted by Spatch at 2:43 PM on November 28, 2008

The article is obvious horseshit.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:44 PM on November 28, 2008

Susie Ambrose, a marital psychotherapist and CEO of Seventy-Thirty, an upmarket introduction company [...] has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.

In plain sight we find small rich nuggets of woman-bashing, but just under the surface we find a long thick vein of male stupidity.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:50 PM on November 28, 2008 [15 favorites]

What a poorly written, piece of crap article.
posted by peacheater at 2:53 PM on November 28, 2008

For those who can't enough of spectacularly shit Telegraph trend journalism, here are the two articles in which Tara Winter Wilson initially plucked this concept out of her brain:

From trophy wife to toxic wife
Don't fall for this deadly honey trap

That's silly. It's not misogynistic to write articles about distasteful behaviors primarily engaged in by women, particularly not when prevailing conditions make the behavior particularly topical.

Of course this stuff is misogynist. The fact that there might be a real trend in which women engage in some distasteful behavior doesn't make it non-misogynist for an obnoxiously rightwing newspaper to make one up and provide no evidence except nameless "friends" of the author.

(Also, it's a question of what news stories a paper chooses to emphasize. See also: the article that appears every other day in the Daily Mail about how some "high-flying" career woman gave it all up to look after her kids and thinks it's the best decision she ever made. Even if these stories are true, it's just selection bias. Note also the complexity of the moralizing British right wing's approach to these matters: if you're a woman earning big bucks in the City you should give it up to be a housewife, but if you're a housewife whose husband is earning big bucks in the City, you're a golddigger.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 3:08 PM on November 28, 2008 [17 favorites]

That's the picture that the post, and the selection of articles, paints by focusing on the wives. That's what smells a bit misogynist.

No, that's not the picture the post paints. Frankly, it's totally crazy to conclude that an article focusing on the marital problems caused by current economic problems somehow suggests that marital problems are the only kind of problems caused by the crisis.

Seriously, that's completely absurd. You should be ashamed of the thought processes that got you to that conclusion.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:11 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

It's also not misogynist to hate women.

Oh, wait.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:12 PM on November 28, 2008 [8 favorites]

Of course this stuff is misogynist.

Fine, whatever. I don't want to quibble about labels. Either this post isn't misogynistic or there are some kinds of misogyny that only silly people object to. I don't care which.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:13 PM on November 28, 2008

No, that's not the picture the post paints. Frankly, it's totally crazy to conclude that an article focusing on the marital problems caused by current economic problems somehow suggests that marital problems are the only kind of problems caused by the crisis. Seriously, that's completely absurd. You should be ashamed of the thought processes that got you to that conclusion.

I'm going to charitably assume you're unfamiliar with the Telegraph. It has an agenda and its selection of articles promotes that agenda.

You know why swathes of the British population think asylum seekers are mainly rapists and thieves? The problem isn't that the individual asylum seekers featured in those stories aren't rapists and thieves; usually, the individuals featured in the stories really are guilty as charged. The prejudice is fuelled by the paper's choice of what to focus on. An asylum seeker who doesn't do something bad won't get written about, and a rape that's committed by a non-asylum-seeker is, all other things being equal, less likely to be reported on.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 3:17 PM on November 28, 2008

"Not to be confused with the stay-at-home mother who selflessly devotes herself to the upbringing of her children, with all the housework and domestic chores that entails, the Toxic Wife.."

The line is drawn long before a hatred of all women.
posted by debbie_ann at 3:20 PM on November 28, 2008 [3 favorites]

It used such contorted writing that I'm going to refer to this article as "misogymnastic".
posted by quin at 3:27 PM on November 28, 2008 [12 favorites]

She'll come 'round once she realizes that the combination of chemical peels and oxygen facials occasionally leads to horrendous explosions. One day you light up a cigarette and boom, there goes your face. Really, he's doing her a good turn -- spontaneous human combustion is one thing, but this is just asking for it.
Or is the seaweed some kind of fire retardant?
posted by Killick at 3:33 PM on November 28, 2008 [2 favorites]

It just figures -- I post nothing but snark for 3 months, then one day it occurs to me how snarky I've been, so I decide to post something thoughtful & sincere -- and do it in the middle of a runaway snarkfest. Am I ham-fisted, or what? (just sayin' 'cause I got nuthin' else)
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:37 PM on November 28, 2008

Oh, boo hoo hoo.
posted by moonbiter at 3:39 PM on November 28, 2008

Otoh, I suspect these guys were achieving something, even if something evil, which is infinitely more respectable than being a trophy.

Yes, being an integral contributor to a system that is, right now as we speak, costing us all trillions of tax dollars and possibly a great deal of future misery is much better than marrying a man so he can buy you a Benz.

She only screwed one guy. He helped screw whole economies so he could be rich enough for her to screw him. So whatever. May they all go down in a flaming ball of fail.
posted by emjaybee at 3:40 PM on November 28, 2008 [13 favorites]

You all know the first woman mentioned is a gross hypothetical? Good. Let's move on.

I am sick of these articles. The London Evening Standard - as in, what is supposed to be the evening paper for London, but seems to cater only to those living in Hampstead and Notting Hill Gate - keeps printing articles about how WOW there are free things to do in London and GOSH YOU DON'T SAY the High Street actually sells 'wearable' clothes and THIS IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION you can save money by not buying lunch at Pret and not having facials!

Someone wrote in to complain about the higher tax band which will be introduced for those earning £40,000 and above. '£40,000 really is not a big salary anymore.' Exactly how removed do you need to be from the majority of the population to not think that £40k is enough to live off?

And don't get me started on how the Telegraph fulminates over benefit cheats when a much higher proportion of my taxes goes on funding the shortfall left by accountancy loopholes and white collar crime. When you've had to live off £60 per week, half of which has to cover the shortfall between housing benefit and your actual accommodation costs, without an expense lunch in sight, let's see how much bile you can dredge up then.
posted by mippy at 3:54 PM on November 28, 2008 [4 favorites]

I like this bit in particular:

She now has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.

$10-60K? I think i'm in the wrong business. Mind you, if I was making that kind of money, i'd be at risk of women only liking me for my money...
posted by Snowflake at 4:07 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

I feel so sorry for these poor people who have seen their incomes drop from 20 - 8 Million (Pounds, Dollars, Euros, whatever -- that's 40%!) And I think we should all do our part to help them. Maybe we could start up a PayPal fund to help them. I'll start us off, I've got a quarter -- oh, wait, I may need to make a phone call. Okay. I've got a dime. Here you go, plutocrat losers.
posted by CCBC at 4:33 PM on November 28, 2008

This is a stupid article.

But! my own first-hand questioning of someone inside Manhattan's Hottest, Most Exclusive Nightspot is this:

"So, how are they taking it?"

"Oh the place is half-full when it should be bursting and the quality of the gold digger squardren is low. Very low. Leathery tube-tube fake hair low. All the better girls have gone off to horde and plot."
posted by The Whelk at 4:34 PM on November 28, 2008 [2 favorites]

tube-top! tube-top!


ARGH!
posted by The Whelk at 4:39 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

Sorry, these articles left a rather misogynist taste in my mouth.

Funny. The dismissal of domestic violence - because that's what throwing furniture at your spouse in a rage is - as the victim's fault leaves a bad taste in mine.
posted by rodgerd at 5:00 PM on November 28, 2008 [4 favorites]

Funny. The dismissal of domestic violence - because that's what throwing furniture at your spouse in a rage is - as the victim's fault leaves a bad taste in mine.

Yes, but see above. Indeed, if the incident were true and not a hypothetical anecdote used to give sensational flavor to the peddling of a ersatz trend, it would be outrageous.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 5:26 PM on November 28, 2008

The Whelk: i like the typo. i'm trying to figure out what TUBE-TUBE would actually *be*, but it's an awesome bit of slang that should totally exist.
posted by rmd1023 at 5:47 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

As suggested by the SLYT ("women be shoppin') this smacks of lazy journalism built on sexist stereotypes. It's like the comedians who get too much mileage out of the whole women are from Venus, men from Mars schtick (am I right ladies? Fellas, come on now, you know what I'm talking about...)
posted by theefixedstars at 5:51 PM on November 28, 2008

i'm trying to figure out what TUBE-TUBE would actually *be*

Condom. Ethernet cable insulation. Hand-knit penis cozy.

Also, while all sorts of bad relationships can arise from surprise, I feel like it takes two to tango regarding gold diggers and sugar daddies.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:55 PM on November 28, 2008

Hand-knit penis cozy.
posted by ryanrs at 6:10 PM on November 28, 2008 [3 favorites]

This definitely smells misogynistic to me. "Toxic wife" sounds like what happens when you marry the "trickster girlfriend" of MetaTalk fame.

Which is to say, it's the grossest of all gross stereotypes. Sure, there's probably one person out there who really acts like that, and she's giving everyone else in her demographic a bad name and oversimplifying to represent ALL women to be like HER is totally wrong and unfair to the many women who AREN'T throwing their furniture.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:50 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

I know a good number of wives of wealthy men (I teach in an independent school) and most of them are not the "toxic wife" of this post. They're scrawny, anxious, well-surgeoned, fearful people who are sure if they ever relax they are going to be out on the street. And their kids are rude to them.
posted by Peach at 6:56 PM on November 28, 2008 [11 favorites]

ryanrs: i made something similar -- it was a crocheted gun cozy, but it ended up looking way WAY more phallic than i anticipated. the pink yarn didn't help matters, either.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:36 PM on November 28, 2008

Sure, there's probably one person out there who really acts like that, and she's giving everyone else in her demographic a bad name and oversimplifying to represent ALL women to be like HER is totally wrong and unfair to the many women who AREN'T throwing their furniture.

Where in the article or in these comments is anyone claiming that she is supposed to represent ALL women? She is a picture painted to represent gold-digging asshole women, not ALL women. WTF?
posted by tristeza at 7:37 PM on November 28, 2008 [2 favorites]

Metefilter: leaves a rather misogynist taste in your mouth.
posted by Mick at 7:47 PM on November 28, 2008

Maybe I'm also guilty of the sin of over-generalizing... but still...

She is a picture painted to represent gold-digging asshole women, not ALL women. WTF

Right. Because "gold-digging asshole women" is a large enough demographic to be worthy of media coverage. WTF? And the "gold-digging" stereotype is so beneficial to all women! WTF?!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:52 PM on November 28, 2008

Man, I'd like to go to Horsie Camp. That'd be sweet.

...although I do answer the phone "Free Horsie Rides."
posted by Smedleyman at 7:57 PM on November 28, 2008

man i love me some misogyny coupled with oversimplified stereotypes! it really just cuts through all the bullshit and gets to the heart of the matter. the investor was an idiot who didn't take the time to find a real partner in life. but hey, when you gotta feed the machine 14 to 18 hours a day, can you really blame the guy for takin the low (low, low) road to love? now of course, the machine is eating him! lolz!!! and the (poor) woman he married is a little disenchanted with the whole experience - dollar dollar bill ya'll, take the money and run. maybe the experience (and the parable) will teach people that wealth does not equal happiness for anyone.
posted by Glibpaxman at 8:28 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

.
posted by wires at 9:05 PM on November 28, 2008

So.... Externally validated people get unpleasant when they stop being validated... externally.
posted by LordSludge at 11:10 PM on November 28, 2008 [1 favorite]

It's a good thing that men never marry for something shallow, like looks, and then leave their older wives for younger women later, right guys?

So, help me out here- how is marrying because you view them as attractive shallow (as oppose to any other intrinsic traits the person might have- such as intelligence, wit, or some other expression of their DNA)?

This is like the reversal of the "are you a potential rapist" post, where primarily women go on about the web of fear they experience, and any mention of a little fore sight and precaution is met with BLAMING THE VICTIM!, but if you are a guy who gets financially raped, you should have known better and chosen more wisely.*

And the requisite it paints men/women in an unfavorable light. Ooorah, Oooorah.

*Not meant to even remotely compare rape with financial ruin, before anyone goes there. Meant to point out what self-serving bastards we all are.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 2:47 AM on November 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

This entire thread only reinforces my idea that your quality of life is better when you stop thinking it's important to have gobs and gobs of money.
posted by cotterpin at 5:12 AM on November 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think that they 'marry for looks' criticism is often misinterpreted.

Of course one should find their spouse to be attractive. That's part of the fun.

When someone is criticized for 'marrying someone for her looks' he isn't being criticized because he thinks she's attractive, he's being criticized because he wants a wife that everyone else will think is attractive. e.g. Her looks are for his status.
posted by device55 at 6:02 AM on November 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

they == the
me == louzy tipist
posted by device55 at 6:02 AM on November 29, 2008

Waiting for her to Nancy Kissel the poor guy ...
posted by bwg at 6:35 AM on November 29, 2008

This is a moment in time of great cultural upheaval, therefore it is easy to be critical of women on either side of the great divide: femnazis (who acquire the trappings of power through their own careers) or golddiggers (who acquire the trappings of power the old fashioned way through marriage.) It isn't surprising that a woman who has achieved all her success in life due to her appearance should kick and scream when someone tries to take away her tools for maintaining that appearance. Wearing haute couture and expensive jewelry to shop means as much to these women as lording over the office suite in the midtown highrise does to their husbands. I hate the vapid lifestyles of the Paris Hiltons of the world; unfortunately as long as being shallow but exquisitely pampered pays off, there will always be women attracted to that lifestyle.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:22 AM on November 29, 2008

great divide: femnazis (...) golddiggers

Surely there's some normal women in the middle?
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:43 AM on November 29, 2008

...unfortunately as long as being shallow but exquisitely pampered pays off, there will always be women people attracted to that lifestyle.
posted by Thin Lizzy at 9:32 AM on November 29, 2008

has a waiting-list for her life-coaching sessions – a course costs between £10,000-£60,000 – on how to distinguish a gold-digger from a genuine woman.

Dunno about the genuine woman part, but give me £10,000-£60,000 per course and I'll quickly teach you to recognise a gold-digger.
posted by ersatz at 9:34 AM on November 29, 2008

I hate the vapid lifestyles of the Paris Hiltons of the world

Have you ever met Paris Hilton? Like most celebs, she is the exact opposite of the tabloid characterization.

Sorry to ruin your day like that.
posted by Zambrano at 9:36 AM on November 29, 2008

Surely there's some normal women in the middle?

That goes without saying. Of course most women fall somewhere in the middle. Most people have some combination of brains and looks with which they try to parley into a position of comfort. At this particular point in history we have more choices as a female, but I would say that more choices leads to the possibility of confusion and bad choices. How much time should you devote to your career? your husband? your children? your appearance? your brain? It is like trying to wind your way through a battlefield as you can come under fire from all directions, and god help you if you get it wrong.

Have you ever met Paris Hilton? Like most celebs, she is the exact opposite of the tabloid characterization.

Sorry to ruin your day like that.

Ruin my day? You must be joking. PH is only a handy stereotype, and I could give a shit as to how her "tabloid characterization" aligns with her true character. On TV the few times I have seen her, she chooses to come across as a dim-witted narcissist. If she is really a brilliant philanthropist then shame on her for not making brilliance and philanthropy sexy to the masses.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:07 AM on November 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

For those wondering, there now appears to be a (short) explanation of the methodology of that WSJ 'Rich Cut Back on Payments to Mistresses' post.

"UPDATE: Since so many readers asked about the survey’s methodology, I called Russ Prince to get the specifics. The mistress questions were added to the end of a much larger survey on wealth and wealth management polling a control group of 518 people. Of the 518 people surveyed as part of the broader study, 191 opted to answer the mistress question. The 518 respondents were all private jet owners — since this was done in conjunction with a private-jet-related business — and all the respondents were paid for their time."
posted by Tapioca at 11:03 AM on November 29, 2008

According to a new survey by Prince & Assoc., more than 80% of multimillionaires who had extra-marital lovers planned to cut back on their gifts and allowances. Still, only 12% of the multimillionaire cheaters said they plan to give up on their lovers altogether for financial reasons.

My mind boggles at the logistics of polling this.

I'm guessing it was done while smoking together in the dark.
posted by jonmc at 5:23 PM on November 29, 2008

Most people have some combination of brains and looks with which they try to parley into a position of comfort.

Really?

*panics*
posted by jonmc at 5:24 PM on November 29, 2008

A survey of private jet owners. That they were paid to take. With some extrapair copulation questions embedded in it. Which most of them answered.

Paging Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart, please pick up the courtesy phone.
posted by Tehanu at 7:17 PM on November 29, 2008

Have you ever met Paris Hilton? Like most celebs, she is the exact opposite of the tabloid characterization.

I haven't met her, but I have watched her having sex.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:24 AM on November 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I feel sorry for the man that married this women! Because I know that there had to be signs way before him losing his job that she was very very shallow!
posted by erase24 at 4:12 AM on November 30, 2008

We need another $700 billion to protect the sanctity of marriage.
posted by Xoebe at 9:26 AM on November 30, 2008

Torygraph fears women will suck out men's money, vital essences. World largely unsurprised.

Without names or any third-party confirmation, I would question whether any of these little vignettes are all that close to reality - as a comparison, Tara Winter Wilson shows a similar tin ear for realistic dialogue as that evinced by "organic food malarkey" in her somewhat credulity-stretching account of her child being an extra in X-Men 3: The Last Stand. Even still, though, is it really news that braying Henries whose sole attractive feature is their ability to provide financial security are likely to attract Henriettas whose priority in selecting a mate is the ability to provide financial security? Or that this would be turned by the Telegraph (a deeply conservative British newspaper aiming at an an older, wealthier and largely male readership) into a terrifying revelation that women are not to be trusted?
posted by tannhauser at 10:49 AM on November 30, 2008

I'm just fascinated that Zambrano defended Paris Hilton so vigorously! Exact opposite of what tabloids say? I had no idea she's been researching the cure to breast cancer since earning her doctorate.

Also, generally, I have to say, live and let live. Marriage was initially a property arrangement anyway and I really pity the woman who marries someone she isn't in love with or just generally does not sympathize with. I can't imagine a woman keeping up a loveless charade for that long.
posted by anniecat at 11:08 AM on November 30, 2008