[News] Evander Kane, $26.8 million in debt, files for bankruptcy

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by fleury

I’m not going to attempt to put words in their mouth but my interpretation is that he’s saying some athletes marry based on superficial traits. Can’t that be true? It can also be false? It’s up for debate. I don’t think it severe to call it a stereotype and get called out for. That much I know.

A lot/many was said, not some.

So, how many? Where’s the proof?

People can say whatever they want. Is it a bit of an odd choice to suggest a lot/many hockey wives are trophy wives married only for looks? Sure. Does it have weird incel vibes like “the only reason she is with him is because of MONEY! he doesn’t have personality like I do!” or whatever? Sure. Is it ok to call it out? Sure.

I would say a lot/many of the guys that believe a lot/many players marry trophy wives believe that because they are unattractive, lack a personality, and are so unaware of these two things that they’ve come to believe “money” is the defining factor between them and someone like McDavid, revealing themselves to be sad, delusions husks of a person.

But it’s up for debate

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A lot/many was said, not some.

So, how many? Where’s the proof?

People can say whatever they want. Is it a bit of an odd choice to suggest a lot/many hockey wives are trophy wives married only for looks? Sure. Does it have weird incel vibes like “the only reason she is with him is because of MONEY! he doesn’t have personality like I do!” or whatever? Sure. Is it ok to call it out? Sure.

I would say a lot/many of the guys that believe a lot/many players marry trophy wives believe that because they are unattractive, lack a personality, and are so unaware of these two things that they’ve come to believe “money” is the defining factor between them and someone like McDavid, revealing themselves to be sad, delusions husks of a person.

But it’s up for debate

I agree with most of what you said. It’s a discussion at the end of the day. I don’t think what he said was misogynistic. DjsFlames gave a good description of what I believe on the topic. Nobody will ever know factually one way or another. But there are people out there who want athletes babies. Factually there were websites out there that I know of years ago that tried to let women know where athletes were staying in town. These are not common person “problems” but such people exist. How much of that is attributed to wealth/ looks/ charisma/ status we’ll never know, but the mere mention of “gold digger” isn’t a misogynist word. These people exist in some form and some of them I’m sure can be lawyers and doctors for that matter.

[Jiri Hrdina]

When we make judgements based on stereotypes and prejudices it's not a discussion point. Who the hell are we to speculate on why people get married or not?
And yes gold digger is considered to be a mysognist word because it almost always applied to women. These are terms that need to be scrubbed from our language. Defending it as a discussion point is missing the point.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

When we make judgements based on stereotypes and prejudices it's not a discussion point. Who the hell are we to speculate on why people get married or not?
And yes gold digger is considered to be a mysognist word because it almost always applied to women. These are terms that need to be scrubbed from our language. Defending it as a discussion point is missing the point.

Well......other than the fact gold diggers exist...... should we rename it to "Opportunistic Monetary Companion"??? Come on man.... We have all seen them and all know someone who has been burned by it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Have we? I haven't.
How do you know that was their motivations?
And are there a "lot" of them as the original post stated.

Using perceived anecdotal examples and applying broadly to a larger group is stereotyping.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

When we make judgements based on stereotypes and prejudices it's not a discussion point. Who the hell are we to speculate on why people get married or not?
And yes gold digger is considered to be a mysognist word because it almost always applied to women. These are terms that need to be scrubbed from our language. Defending it as a discussion point is missing the point.

I don’t think there’s much speculation on any particular person getting married for whatever reason. Look, you plucked a random website to support your argument on the definition of a gold digger. Fair enough. But that’s one interpretation of the term and it admittedly painted it as something that not everyone shares the same definition of. You supported your argument and that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s the gospel on what a gold digger is. Just because you think it’s something derogatory does not make it such. These people exist right or wrong.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Goriders

How does a thread about an ass#### losing all his money turn into an indictment of racism?

This thread makes zero sense.

Did you even read any of the ancient #### you were quoting? The thing that was racist was someone comparing the photo of Kane holding a stack of money like a phone to the Banana phone. If you don't know the history of racism with black people and bananas, especially in hockey, then I can't help you. But I can tell you that was stupid and yes I believe racist.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Have we? I haven't.
How do you know that was their motivations?
And are there a "lot" of them as the original post stated.

Using perceived anecdotal examples and applying broadly to a larger group is stereotyping.

Leave your house more I guess.... don't really know what else to say.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

Well......other than the fact gold diggers exist...... should we rename it to "Opportunistic Monetary Companion"??? Come on man.... We have all seen them and all know someone who has been burned by it.

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

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by fleury

I don’t think there’s much speculation on any particular person getting married for whatever reason. Look, you plucked a random website to support your argument on the definition of a gold digger. Fair enough. But that’s one interpretation of the term and it admittedly painted it as something that not everyone shares the same definition of. You supported your argument and that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s the gospel on what a gold digger is. Just because you think it’s something derogatory does not make it such. These people exist right or wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a non-derogatory definition of the term "gold-digger"?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Sofa GM]

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......

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a non-derogatory definition of the term "gold-digger"?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Yeah. My simple definition is someone who’s primarily trying to get at someone else’s money. I don’t think that derogatory.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a non-derogatory definition of the term "gold-digger"?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Nyah]

A conversation about a man abandoning his pregnant wife and daughter while the house is repossessed by the bank turns into a conversation about opportunistic women and gold diggers. And people wonder why the word 'misogyny' comes up?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by fleury

Yeah. My simple definition is someone who’s primarily trying to get at someone else’s money. I don’t think that derogatory.

It's derogatory because it is almost universally used to describe women. Including in this thread.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's derogatory because it is almost universally used to describe women. Including in this thread.

It's being used because this is a much too common occurrence!!!!!! holy moly...

[Jiri Hrdina]

thanks for proving my point.

[PepsiFree]

The anecdotal existence of someone who marries exclusively for money does not, in any way whatsoever, prove or even suggest that there are a lot of them, or many of them.

Same goes for looks.

It seems a couple people don't understand the problem, which is not the concept that money and financial stability plays a role in the choice to get married, it's that it's idiotic and insulting to cast a wide net on the wives of NHL players and call it the only determining factor for "a lot" or "many" of them.

The idea that instead of thinking "hey, gold digger or trophy wife are actually kind of ####ty things to say, let's use smarter language" you'd think, "hey, I'm actually going to go ahead and redefine gold digger to mean 'someone who considers financial stability in their marriage decisions' and trophy wife to mean 'a woman who, amongst many other important and valuable qualities, is also attractive' so I can continue to use those words"... is peak stupidity. And if you're defending those two phrases on the basis of those definitions, instead of their actual definitions, you're being silly.

I'm sure there are wives who find their husbands interesting, and attractive, and funny, and caring, or whatever. I would bet the majority of these people actually love each other and that's the deciding factor. I believe their lives are probably more typical than people imagine, outside a few ridiculous cases like Kane's gambling problems or McDavid's stark psycho mansion.

Point is, it's not derogatory to use the phrase gold digger for someone who marries exclusively for money. It's derogatory to use the phrase on a wide group of people where you have no idea their motivations, just simply the wealth of their husband. It's stupid.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Nyah

A conversation about a man abandoning his pregnant wife and daughter while the house is repossessed by the bank turns into a conversation about opportunistic women and gold diggers. And people wonder why the word 'misogyny' comes up?

Embarrassing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"Prospector." The term is so derogatory that it was abandoned by the original gold-panners.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk