...look at it this way, you could be rich, have looks or be related to a movie star..
Read on my young friend...
Forget about finding the man of your dreams, being whisked off your feet and marrying in a whirlwind of love. Martina Devlin looks at the research of two American women, who are all for using your looks to bag a wealthy husband
I'll sum Smart Girls Marry Money up in nine words: shake your moneymaker and score a rich husband, girlfriend.
The authors do not shirk from admitting that such women are gold diggers, but they claim gold diggers are unfairly vilified. Furthermore, they maintain romantic love is no basis for marriage.
It's the kind of advice your mother never gave you, but authors Elizabeth Ford and Dr Daniela Drake wish theirs had. They contend that a woman's key commodities are her face and her figure, but these are depreciating assets. Use them quickly as bait. And if the marriage does not have a happy ending, at least the husband can be filleted in the divorce courts.
It sounds so clinical when reduced to such terms. That's because it is clinical. But their argument is that it makes sense to be practical, because women live longer and earn less than men. (Three times less, on average, in a lifetime because of time out from the workforce for childrearing, plus that old chestnut about equality of opportunity and pay never quite materialising.)
They say statistics show women suffer economically when marriages fail, and that it is easier for men to press the re-boot button and start all over. So they deduce that instead of looking for love, women should prioritise security -- the kind that comes in cash.
But it's not known as cold, hard cash for nothing. And their solution is not for everyone. It's one thing reminding us that people don't always stay in love; divorce statistics bear this out. But I can't help suspecting it's a leap too far to suggest we bypass romance altogether and make a beeline for wallet economics.
This objectifies men for their earning potential as callously as a Bunny Girl is objectified for her pin-up appeal. It amounts to sexism in reverse.
You might even call it another version of prostitution. But the authors say women frittering away their lives on men who don't "step up to the plate" is worse again.
"In today's culture, finances often aren't even discussed between couples before they head up the aisle, because it's considered 'crass'," according to Ford, who is divorced from Harrison Ford's son, a restaurateur.
"Our society and the media -- especially romantic movies -- end a happy story with the image of a bride and groom celebrating 'the big day' and don't look past it. That has created an unrealistic goal of love for many young women, leading to the big wedding. Then, because other concerns are put on the back burner, many of these beautiful weddings lead to marriages that ultimately end in costly (financial and emotional) divorce.
"We need to look beyond the altar to the economic partnership that your marriage ultimately becomes," chips in Drake. "Many people believe there is nothing better in life than the feeling of romantic love and the idea of a soulmate. We propose that economic security is a better indicator of success in a marriage." She says that most people decided to marry "in a state of madness", otherwise known as romantic love.
The authors, who both describe themselves as feminists, accept that their hypothesis might be considered outrageous. But they want to spark discussion and remind women how marriage amounts to more than just a rosy dream. "It's real life, and real life requires economic means. We wanted to draw career women and stay-at-home women into a discussion," says Ford.
I'm suddenly distracted by the realisation she took her husband's name in marriage, (and kept it in divorce). I'm not convinced you can be a feminist and do that -- even if it brackets you with a film star. Surely there's something about it in the 'goods and chattels' section of the sisterhood handbook?
Becoming commodities
The authors do make a number of valid points. Even the most dewy-eyed young couple recognises that 'till death us do part' is not necessarily the case any more. But the kind of insurance policy against unhappy marriages they are promoting smacks of something deeply unpleasant. It is turning men, especially high-earners, into commodities. And wasn't feminism partly about trying to stop the equivalent commodification for women?
Sex is currency, however we might wish this was not the case. The book points to a study by anthropologist David Buss, which interviewed 10,000 individuals from 37 cultures and found that men consistently placed a high value on looks and youth in women.
Another worthwhile point the authors raise is that women have discovered getting it all costs more than having it all. It means juggling and compromising. It means expressing milk for your new baby before rushing out to work. It means feeling guilty, conflicted and, most of all, permanently tired.
But it is odd to hear the authors celebrate half-naked celebrity tarts as modern-day feminists (I'm thinking of you, Jordan.) The fact that these women are complicit in the cartoon stereotyping doesn't empower them -- it makes them willing sex toys.
Turn yourself into an object: put a price on your assets and make sure it's a high price, is the crux of what the authors recommend.
And I agree, women should set a high price on themselves. They ought to be selective about their partners; they should only accept one who'll treat them with respect and kindness. That carries more weight than expensive presents.
Granted, there have always been women who set out to bag a wealthy fellow, and I guess that will always be the case. Though I'd hate it to be the norm. In promoting such an agenda, the authors misrepresent greed as feminism -- as exercising choices, as being pro-active, as being a "smart girl" -- as anything, in fact, but what it is. "It's not about greed, it's about not being pulled under by the myth that 'love conquers all'," Ford argues.
I can't help thinking that the gold-digger solution pushes us into gender-specific roles when we're meant to be liberated from them. But Drake insists: "If work was fair and women could actually rise like men, then this discussion would not be necessary. Since it will take an eternity for the workplace to change, then we see this as a fine temporary solution."
Hard luck on the poor guy who's turned into a cash cow, though.
Yet the book does fulfil a function in making us consider whether our obsession with finding a lifelong soulmate is realistic. It is, after all, a relatively modern concept. Women spend a disproportionate amount of time reading self-help books and articles entitled 'How To Meet Mr Right', or 'How To Turn Mr Nearly Into Mr Right'. We all want the perfect relationship. We feel entitled to it.
And perfection for some means luxury. I knew a girl who married a multi-millionaire for his money, had a honeymoon baby to seal the deal and lives in a gilded cage. The presents were fabulous and the envy of her friends. (The authors say never trust a man who tells you he loves you but doesn't buy gifts.) But as the years pass, this girl is growing less contented and it shows on her face. Even with regular house calls from Dr Botox.
You could argue, of course, that she might be just as unhappy in a relationship where money was in short supply. And if a divorce happens, at least she won't be forced to take a minimum rate job. If that's your take, then the authors have a convert.
But I say making purely selfish decisions in life has a corrosive effect on a person.
Personally I like to earn my own money. As feminist Gloria Steinem puts it: "Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry."
Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped into the Romantic Dream -- And How They're Paying For It by Elizabeth Ford and Daniela Drake, MD is published by The Perseus Books Group
- Martina Devlin