Chinese women are gold diggers?

[AngelinaLu]

I am a Chinese woman living in the US, and I realize that there are people who condemn Chinese women for wanting a financially stable man as a boyfriend/husband. Care to enlighten me on what is wrong with looking for a man who is responsible and does not have to be fed and clothed by a woman?

[rezaf]

I don't think there is anything wrong with anything as long as people don't hurt each other and are honest about what they want.

[Shelley]

Surely there is more to a relationship than money. I know couples who don't have much money and have spent a very happy lifetime together and others who have all the money they need and more and have not lasted very long at all.

 

Of course it's difficult to comment on all relationships, each one is unique and what works for one couple will not work for another.

 

I think the reason it is slightly distasteful to look for a man with money, is if this is the only thing you are interested in. If you find the love of your life and he is penniless can you really see yourself not spending your life with him? if this is the case I think this is what people find difficult to understand. Conversely are you prepared to be miserable but rich with a man you don't love but has money?

 

It all seems a bit heartless.

 

I think happiness is the most important thing and if money makes you happier than love well that's fine for you but as rezaf says be honest.

[querido]

Nothing wrong with you, AngelinaLu.

 

Edit:

I was born in the U.S. a long time ago. Its culture has changed a lot. I hope you stick to your own cultural and moral judgment.

[Silent]

 

 

Care to enlighten me on what is wrong with looking for a man who is responsible and does not have to be fed and clothed by a woman?

What's wrong with that depends on your valuesystem. Fact is that to my best knowledge scientific reseach has shown that most women prefer a men with money and/or power. So it's pretty much the natural course of events. But as so often, mostly due to social factors, many prefer to deny the facts. So I guess there's nothing wrong with it as long as you're not too obvious about it and don't put up the red light because then you will be condemned by the morally superior.

[Angelina]

It's complicated. Even if someone can come up with the statistics to prove how gold digging is more popular in China than in other parts of the world (or among American citizens of Chinese origin), it would still be WRONG to assume how all women who are Chinese must be gold diggers. Simple logic. 

 

I have personally seen a lot of materialism in China, how gift-giving is important when interacting with Chinese people and so on. I am still not used to it, but I don't want to judge other people because we all have feelings after all, we just express them in different ways.

 

If I ever date a Chinese man, I would have to be aware of the fact that I would need to improve my gift-giving skills in order to be better accepted by his family and friends. Chinese people appreciate that. They don't hug that much, they give you expensive stuff. Nothing wrong with it, the original intention is expressing love and friendship. Same goes for non-Chinese men thinking about dating Chinese women. I guess same also goes for Chinese women thinking about dating non-Chinese men. If you want to marry into a different culture, you have to respect the way they do things. Maybe they think you put too much emphasis on money, if you want to be accepted into their circle, you have to adapt. 

[roddy]

"I realize that there are people who condemn Chinese women for wanting a financially stable man as a boyfriend/husband."

Well, first of all, tell us who these people are and what they actually said. 

 

Anyway, you're conflating two issues. A golddigger, to quote the dictionary, "forms relationships with men purely to obtain money or gifts from them." You're asking what's wrong with wanting a man who can provide himself with the essentials of life. Entirely different things. 

[querido]

To AngelinaLu:

Your use of the word "golddigger" caused an unfortunate distraction. But as you probably already know, you're likely to be condemned even for this lesser demand, that "a man ... can provide himself with the essentials of life", so my previous reply still applies. Good luck.

[Lu]

What roddy says. You talk about a man who can provide for himself. A golddigger wants a man who can provide for her (and himself), and doesn't care about love or other considerations, as long as he gives her money or goods.

 

As to what's wrong with wanting a man primarily for his money: in many societies this is considered heartless and unloving. In Western societies, romantic relationships are about two people and their emotional connection, and are supposed to last even if one of the partners gets ill or loses their money or whatever. (This doesn't always work out as planned of course, but that is the ideal.)

 

To my knowledge there is nothing wrong with wanting a man who can provide for himself and doesn't need a woman to provide for him. There is also nothing wrong with women who can provide for themselves and don't need a man to provide for them.

[Angelina]

There is nothing wrong with the U.S. and their culture either @querido 

 

It's either you adapt, or you don't adapt and people condemn you. It's not like Chinese people never condemn any behavior. 

[anonymoose]

How is the title related to the topic? Seems like two different issues to me.

[querido]

Wow, that's what Roddy said!

[Demonic_Duck]

Care to enlighten me on what is wrong with looking for a man who is responsible and does not have to be fed and clothed by a woman?

Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you apply the same logic in the other direction.

[vellocet]

I always thought a "gold digger" was a woman who cynically married a man, all the while planning on divorcing him.  After the divorce she gets a ton of money and property as well as monthly alimony and child support payments. 

 

It seems the original poster is hypersensitive and has exaggerated using the phrase "gold digger" in the title.  It's not wrong for a woman to like a man with money, but it is wrong for a woman to plan to marry and then divorce that same man, with the heartless goal of financial gain for herself.   I offer the words of Kanye West as a definition of the term:

 

18 years, 18 years
She got one of your kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody paying child support for one of his kids
His baby mamma car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was supposed to buy your shorty TYCO with your money
She went to the doctor got lipo with your money
She walking around looking like Michael with your money
Should've got that insured got GEICO for your money, money, money
If you ain't no punk holla we want prenup
WE WANT PRENUP! Yeah
It's something that you need to have
'Cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his

[jiasen]

How is the title related to the topic? Seems like two different issues to me.

 

 

+1.

 

The OP is premised on a very outdated stereotype. It assumes that all Chinese women want to marry rich men. When in Beijing, I met some rich Chinese women who were interested in meeting run-of-the-mill foreigners precisely because they (i.e. the woman) had money. They thought it intimidated Chinese men. 

 

Seems the OP's question is: whether anyone who looks for a financially stable man as a boyfriend/husband is a gold digger. From that perspective, I would say no. I think being able to stand on your own two feet is a sign of good character. That is, unless there is a reasonable explanation otherwise (e.g. he is still a student or recently got laid off). I'm not even opposed to couples pursuing a relationship based on traditional gender roles, provided they are both happy with that arrangement. 

[Silent]

 

 

Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you apply the same logic in the other direction. 

Why would you apply it the other way too? Mostly the goal of whatever anyone does is to 'improve' oneself be it financially, personal development, having a good time or whatever.... So people want a partner that one way or another adds value. The only way that it's a two way street is that if you have nothing to offer in return you will be rejected. There has to be a balance in what is invested and what is 'earned' in a relation. And obviously there are always people that try to get a free ride. Don't want to invest, but do want to earn, these are the typical golddiggers and players, the freeriders.

[Shelley]

@Silent I think what Demonic_Duck means is that if the man should be responsible and does not have to be fed and clothed by a woman then the same should be true for the woman ie:the woman should be responsible and does not have to be fed and clothed by a man.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

[Angelina]

This is getting moderated soon I guess.

Anyway, why should we be 'earning' anything when choosing a partner? It's either you like him or you don't like him. We are people, we don't consist of a sum of our bank accounts and our waist measurement/weight. Why do we need a balance? Obviously both of them have to like each other, nothing else, enough when it comes to balance.

What is a good digger? So she/he sees a man and goes "Yuck, what an ugly/stupid/boring person." Then she discovers he has money or power. Then she pretends she likes him in order to get access to his resources. The man goes "Wow, I am starting to age and have been alone for a while, oh look, this girl is genuinely interested in me, wow, now she is laughing at my jokes, wow, I will do anything to make her happy.". This is a gold digger. She pretends to like him in order to use him. It's not fair and you are wasting your time, you can be with someone you like instead.

Don't know why should money be that important when choosing a partner. It can devaluate any time. Even real estate (especially in China) can lose value tomorrow. Maybe gold digging starts the moment these calculations start.

I wonder if anyone has openly called OP a gold digger.

[jiasen]

@Angelina I guess it comes down to whether financial stability is (a) one of many criteria, or (b) the main criterion for the OP.

 

You address the latter (and make some fair points). I think, however, its fair enough for people to consider whether their prospective partner is financially independent as one factor (of many). That's different to being rich - lots of people have high incomes but are trapped to their eyeballs in debt. Being financially stable is a sign that they are a responsible person and will be able to function in an interdependent (rather than dependant) relationship. Let me put it another way. If your son/daughter hooks up with an adult person who lives with their parents and has no ambition to get a job or go to university and doesn't pull their financial weight around the home (e.g. paying board), would that set off some alarm bells for you?

[Angelina]

But why are we supposed to have criteria? You need to trust the other person, and as you said, this should be an interdependent relationship where both people are partners. There is no need for a check list. You made a good point when you mentioned financial stability. The point is to get married and have a stable home. Why the pluses and minuses? When you say financial stability being one of the criteria (and it is definitely diffrent from it being the main criterion obviously), do you mean you have to analyze a person before dating?

In an answer to your question, what could my hypotetical daughter have in common with a person who does not do anything and can't even feed himself? They can't do anything for fun, she will be bored.