Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You are missing tbe point. It is not that gold-diggers do not exist, it is that so many pass judgment by applying the label to an entire swath of women who are beautiful and have married professional athletes. As if there is no possible way a beautiful woman might actually marry for non-materialistic reasons. And even suggesting that most/many/some do so is problematic, because it is a superficial judgment based on nothing more than a woman's appearance and social standing.
The problem is illustrated in this thread—it was suggested that Mrs Kane could conceivably be a "gold digger" on the basis of a handful of social media posts and the fact that she is embroiled in messy divorce proceedings with her wealthy, professional-athlete husband. And the suggestion is also decidedly offered as an apologetic for E. Kane. The problem is not that she may or may not have had materialistic motives to marry the guy—we don't know one way or the other. The problem is looking at the situation superficially as we have and then drawing this conclusion from very small fragments of public information. The problem is leaping from "messy divorce, attractive hockey-wife" to "gold-digger!" without knowing the first thing about these people.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
Totally agree with that, it is definitely unfair to paint all with the same brush because I would say in most cases relationships are genuine. But none of this is mysoginistic..... thats just ridiculous.
Just goes to show how important it is to realize the impact that statements posted on social media can be. A pretty good rule of thumb is, if you don't want people to think you are a sheep, quit dressing up like a sheep......