Chinese women are gold diggers?

[Silent]

 

@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.

 

I understand what he means, I just tell that both have to bring something to the table and both have to get something out of it to make it work. If both have no need for the other there won't be a relation. If one provides money and the other does the housekeeping as in a traditional setting both get something out of it. If, like in a modern setting, both have to be financial independent, both have to share the household chores there is little need for each other and the added value has to come from personality, romance, feel good factor or whatever you want to call it. This may work, but is a comparatively small basis. Where things go wrong is where there is an imbalance in what the partners contribute. So if OP wants money she has to bring something else of comparative value to the table to make it work. Obviously different people have different opinions on the value of things, in the core it's just barter.

[Silent]

 

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.

Isn't this contrary to your claim "It's either you like him or you don't like him."? Why could someone sitting at home and mainly watching soap opera's not be a nice person? Why would you not be able to like such a person?

[CH09]

There's a Chinese idiom that says: (The ugly wife in the house is a treasure). Is it true that Chinese men are (ugly girlfriends) diggers ? 

[Shelley]

@Silent I understand what you mean now, makes sense and yes I can agree with that in principle.

[Lu]

If, like in a modern setting, both have to be financial independent, both have to share the household chores there is little need for each other and the added value has to come from personality, romance, feel good factor or whatever you want to call it. This may work, but is a comparatively small basis.

That seems the wrong way around to me. If I need a man to bring me income, I can't leave him if he has a shitty personality, sleeps around and hits me, because then I would starve. But the relationship would be very bad and I (and possibly he as well) would be unhappy. If, on the other hand, I can make my own money and open my own cans, I can search for a man with whom I can build a good person-to-person relationship and both of us will be much happier, because we're in the relationship by choice and not because we have to. And if at some point he doesn't make me happy anymore, I can leave him and be happier again. I think the added value, above the X cleans for Y/Y makes money for X stuff, is exactly where the real value of a relationship lies, and why people in countries like Sweden still get married.

 

(Not to say that I help you, you help me relationships are always bad, or can't work, or aren't real. Many people are in such relationships and for many people they work. I for one am happy I don't have to be in a relationship for my day-to-day life and can hold out for someone I actually want in my life for his personality.)

 

If both have no need for the other there won't be a relation.

And how about friendship? Usually friends don't pay for each other, and they will help each other but usually not so often that it makes it worthwhile to maintain friendships just for that reason. Most people have friends because they enjoy the company of these specific people. I think romantic relationships are similar.

[Angelina]

Isn't this contrary to your claim "It's either you like him or you don't like him."? Why could someone sitting at home and mainly watching soap opera's not be a nice person? Why would you not be able to like such a person?

 

We were talking about my hypothetical daughter   I highly doubt I will ever raise a person who won't be bored to death if she decides she will share her life with a man who does nothing but watching soap operas. Nice or not nice, he will probably be too boring for her to like him (like as in want to start a relationship, not the general feeling of respecting others).

 

 

Where things go wrong is where there is an imbalance in what the partners contribute. So if OP wants money she has to bring something else of comparative value to the table to make it work.

 

I personally don't subscribe this way of thinking, it's too calculating. How does this bring things to the table idea work? How much does a cup size cost? 

 

The imbalance can be caused by one person being attracted to the other, but not vice versa. The thing about gold diggers is that they are pretending they like the guy. They don't like the guy, they see him as a way to earn money, or entire some high society, or get a passport, and so on. Thus, with gold diggers, one person in the relationship is attracted to the other person, while the gold digger is not attracted to him (they only use the relationship to get something else- money, power). This is where the real imbalance lies. 

[Silent]

 

And if at some point he doesn't make me happy anymore, I can leave him and be happier again.

I'm not so sure, extreme cases left alone, how true this is. According to science people tend to have a build in level of happyness and good or bad situations only temporary influence that level. But yes, I agree that the more modern way is better. The result of that smaller basis for a relationship, large numbers of divorces and relation hopping are by many people however considered as bad too.

 

 

And how about friendship?

Pretty much the same story, also in many friendships you see the same principles. It's give and take, many friendships are maintained in part on the feel good principle but are also used for more material gains specially in a business setting. It's little effort to point people to opportunities while the gains may be big. In exchange we expect other to point out opportunities for us. Only very few people like to maintain a friendship with a 'charity case', too much investment and too little gains. But there are other considerations as people may feel good about themselves for helping people or expect benefits from a certain image. Many of these considerations are at least in part subconscious. Bettering yourself and your own kind is a driving force in evolution.

[Shelley]

27 posts later and no sign of the OP.

 

There are some topics like this one where a controversial topic has been started and it seems like the Original Poster stands back and watches the feathers fly.

 

Cat among the pigeon topics

[carlo]

The way I see it now (almost 40) is that money in the bank is largely irrelevant, however having a similar financial outlook really helps in making a relationship last. For example, I like saving and investing -- no, I'm fanatical about it. So this means that I like living below my means, and get perverse pleasure in knowing that I have assets somewhere that are growing in value. If I were together with someone who gets high on conspicuous consumption (or, as more common in Chinese culture, likes other people to think her husband is well-off because it gives face to the family -- nothing wrong with that), I would be fundamentally unhappy.

[studychinese]

It might have something to do with the tactless way in which many Chinese women will ask very forward questions about income, property holdings, and so on on a first meeting (not even a date!) as if to rule you in or rule you out as a marriage partner. 

[Lu]

I'm not so sure, extreme cases left alone, how true this is. According to science people tend to have a build in level of happiness and good or bad situations only temporary influence that level.

That's about things like lottery winnings and sudden health changes that are permanent. People most certainly have changing happiness levels, in case of for example job loss, moving to a different place that suits them better/worse, cutting someone toxic out of your life, etc. People can get depressed, or suddenly start to bloom, because of something that changes in their life.

If I were with a man and after a while I noticed he was getting me down, or at first he liked going places and doing stuff and later on he just wants to stay in and doesn't me to do stuff either, or some other thing that makes me realise the relationship is no longer contributing to my overall wellbeing but instead reducing it, I can leave and chances are I would be happier.

 

Pretty much the same story, also in many friendships you see the same principles. It's give and take, many friendships are maintained in part on the feel good principle but are also used for more material gains specially in a business setting. It's little effort to point people to opportunities while the gains may be big. In exchange we expect other to point out opportunities for us. Only very few people like to maintain a friendship with a 'charity case', too much investment and too little gains. But there are other considerations as people may feel good about themselves for helping people or expect benefits from a certain image. Many of these considerations are at least in part subconscious. Bettering yourself and your own kind is a driving force in evolution.

Agreed on business friendships, but that's only a very small subset. Many, if not most, friendships are about enjoying each other's company. Perhaps that's mercenary as well (I let you enjoy my company if you let me enjoy yours), but not in a practical way. I would feel highly uncomfortable about a friendship that went 'I pay for the wine and in return you listen to my relationship woes' or something.

[Silent]

 

People most certainly have changing happiness levels, in case of for example job loss, moving to a different place that suits them better/worse, cutting someone toxic out of your life, etc. People can get depressed, or suddenly start to bloom, because of something that changes in their life.

Yes, but these changes tend to be temporary. After a while the new situation becomes 'ordinary' and people tend to return to their 'default' level of happy.  Just look around, a lot of people are 'always' operating in a certain range. Some people are always happy, some are always grumpy. Without doubt there are people where things fundamentally change, specially in case of clinical depression, but it's far from the rule.

[Lu]

Just look around, a lot of people are 'always' operating in a certain range.

But don't you know that people can become really unhappy? And also happier? I only have to look at myself for one example. And even theoretically: if someone is beaten and put down by their partner, don't you think they will be happier without that partner?

[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.

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.

 

What I was trying to get at is that it's no more or less reasonable for a woman to expect a man to be able to "feed and clothe" himself than for a man to expect a woman to be able to do the same thing. The way the OP phrases this is as if she thinks it's rather pathetic for a man not to be able to manage this. I would only agree with this view to the same extent that it's pathetic for a woman to have to rely on her partner to provide for her. Actually, I wouldn't say "pathetic", but I would say "dangerous" (if you lose your partner, you suddenly lose your "life support").

 

Then again, we all rely on those around us to a greater or lesser extent, and to pretend otherwise is 自欺欺人. No man is an island... and no woman is an island either!

 

Agreed on business friendships, but that's only a very small subset. Many, if not most, friendships are about enjoying each other's company. Perhaps that's mercenary as well (I let you enjoy my company if you let me enjoy yours), but not in a practical way. I would feel highly uncomfortable about a friendship that went 'I pay for the wine and in return you listen to my relationship woes' or something.

 

I think the "charity case" friendships, as Silent calls them, would be those in which perhaps you don't even enjoy the other person's company all that much, or the extent to which you enjoy their company is cancelled out by the fact you put a lot more into the relationship than them.

[Silent]

 

And even theoretically: if someone is beaten and put down by their partner, don't you think they will be happier without that partner?

I think this is derailing a bit. My remark was more of a side note, not intended to start a discussion about something I never really thought through. There is just no 1 to 1relation between circumstances and happiness. People tend to have something of a baseline level and there is a tendency to return to that level. Even if you can sum up several cases where things (seem to be) are different.

 

But to get back to your question, it depends on the person and the extent. Most will take the appropriate measures and after a bad period will return to their baseline level. Some don't and return to their abusive partners time and again because without that abusive partner they're also not happy. If there is no way out for whatever reason, people tend to make of it what they can and return to more or less the baseline. People are generally perfectly able to handle some abuse. In extreme cases people may develop psychological problems and these are of course the large exceptions where a big baseline shift is likely to occur. I can also imagine that in small communities things are different as stigmatised people may loose their social circles and may be unable to build a new one.

 

Maybe my statements have been too strong, some shift may take place, but I think it's very unlikely that from one moment to the other people turn from fundamentally happy to fundamentally unhappy or the other way around without a clinical reason. People tend to move around a baseline and that baseline, granted, may drift. 

[ablindwatchmaker]

I have no problem with the OP's perspective. I will say that I can guarantee that her definition of self-sufficient means income in the top 10%--I'd bet money on it.  I also don't think that looking for men of high status is necessarily bad, as long as it isn't the only thing that matters. Most of the women I know who have similar qualifications use this as an initial qualifier, and then they start filtering based on other criteria. If the OP wants a stud, more power to her!

 

I just hope the OP is prepared to have her physical attributes scrutinized just as closely, as most high status males with options will tend to select for physical attractiveness first and foremost.  I'm not ashamed to admit what I look for (Not that I'm high status ), and neither should anyone else. You can't help who you are attracted to.

[AngelinaLu]

@roddy Hi, I apologize for the confusion. I realize that my original post came out weird, so I want to clarify it. I just mean to say that since the number of gold diggers in China are growing (see this article: http://m.scmp.com/news/china/money-wealth/article/1786228/rise-chinas-sugar-daddies-and-broker-gold-diggers), even the decent women who just want a responsible man become labeled as gold diggers sometimes. Therefore, I am asking for your guys' opinion about this.

 

@ anonymoose: No, they are somewhat related.

 

@jiasen: Hi, what I want is a broader perspective on this topic. I am not saying that Chinese women who look for financially stable men are gold diggers. I am merely asking if Chinese women who look dor financially stable men are considered gold diggers already.

 

[roddy]

Wow, an article based entirely on a press release from a dating website. 

 

The short answer to your question is 'maybe, by idiots'. Longer answer is perhaps, by simpletons, and there are cultural differences here - a willingness to talk more explicitly about money when perhaps a 'lack of ambition' or 'not driven enough' might be used, parents who (understandably, given the roller-coaster of a life they'll have had) like to hear about a steady income and a secure career path - that might make a woman who in China would be considered to be sensibly looking out for her own interests seem, in the US, to be all about the money. 

[Silent]

 

Therefore, I am asking for your guys' opinion about this.

My advise, don't worry about what other people think and do what you think is good for you. No matter what you do, someone will find a reason to condemn you for it.

[Shelley]

I am merely asking if Chinese women who look dor financially stable men are considered gold diggers already.

 

I think you underestimate the strength of the term gold digger, a gold digger goes all out for money, nothing else matters, what he looks like, how old he is, is he a nice person and is prepared to give what the the man wants in return for his money, in other words a thinly veiled form of prostitution.

 

This is a far cry from a women who is looking for a financially stable man as well as being attractive and nice and someone she can love and spend the rest of her life with.

 

If all she is after is his money, then yes she is a gold digger, if she wants financial stability as well as love that is just sensible.

 

I understand that asking how much money someone makes is not considered taboo in china, therefore this question does not carry the same weight as if it was asked say in the UK where it is not considered polite to ask this.

 

One of my Chinese teachers actually warned me that I should not be offended by Chinese people asking me my nationality, my age and how much money do I earn, and usually in that order.

 

You need to take into account different cultural views about this sort of thing. It was normal for the parents of sons and daughters to "make a good match for them" in social position, age, money and suitability. This is not quite the same as arranged marriages, but similar. Each village would have its matchmaker, usually an older woman who spent time checking the stars and other portents to decide who would marry who and when. Matches were often made when the children were quite young.

 

Now there are no matchmakers women need to look out for for themselves and men, don't forget men need to find a good match too.

 

I am not sure why this seems to be a problem for you AngelinaLu, as Silent says don't worry about it. If this is what some women want to do and are prepared to live with being called gold digger, let them.