Economics, Coherence, & Gold Diggin’ Whores

gold digger

The comedian, Bill Burr, has a funny bit called an Epidemic of Gold Diggin’ Whores. It’s an instant classic of comedy. It also echoes the sentiments of men who have dealt with these sorts of women. To men in the manosphere, gold digging is simply another phrase to describe female hypergamy–the tendency of women to “marry-up” and/or use men as objects-of-utility and to dehumanize men as nothing but tools to be used by women to accumulate various sorts of wealth.

Readers of my blog should know by now what I think; it is morally retarded to treat men as objects-of-utility and that it is also wrong to treat women as objects-of-sexuality. I don’t think there should be anything too controversial about treating people with respect and kindness, compassion and empathy. There shouldn’t be anything too controversial about a morality that precludes folks from treating each other as means to an end. (See the Golden Rule and Kantian morality-lite.)

This is where I’m prepared to take some flack. One thing noticed within the “manosphere” is a lot of noise and complaining about hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore. The complaints are justified as people should speak out against their being treated as objects-of-utility. However, more often than not, the men complaining about it are Randian Objectivists, American libertarians, and other sorts of free-market fundamentalists. I don’t want to get into a critique of various economic systems. That is a discussion for another blog, another paper, and another time…and, frankly, such discussions usually degrade into a boring circle-jerk of mildly autistic utilitarians arguing about the best way in which to quantify qualitative things.

Boring Circle-Jerk

What I do want to point out is that the men who often make so much noise about hypergamy are also the men who make a lot of noise in favor of economic systems that are inherently hierarchical. As Chomsky rightly points out, these economic systems permit “a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society.” The assumption is rubbish.

The simple reality is the direct correlation between money and freedom. The more money one has, the more freedom one has. There is nothing too profound about that, but it is a simple reality that gets overlooked by Randians, American libertarians, and other sorts of free-market fundamentalists.

These economic systems of wealth distribution typically have tremendous economic disparities. As such, they are systems of tremendous concentrations of power—systems of economic domination and authority. They are economic systems based on an impoverished understanding of human freedom. They are systems of wealth distribution that are inherently hierarchical.

If you want to defend such systems, go ahead. Do it. However, you have absolutely zero moral ground on which to stand for complaining about hypergamy or gold-digging-whores. Female hypergamy is simply the flipside of male hierarchies of dominance. If you’re going to defend such economic systems of dominance, you have no room to complain about hypergamy.

Consider these little questions. Does wealth curb hypergamy? If all humanity had a middle-class standard of living and a good education, would hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore wither away? I say yes. Hypergamy exploits these economic stratifications of male dominance and submission. Without such socio-economic strata, men wouldn’t be exploited via hypergamy…and neither would hypergamy exist in its current forms. As such, if you’re going to argue against hypergamy and the gold-digging-whore, and if you’re going to be coherent, you must also argue against socio-economic disparities and stratifications that are the flipside of female hypergamy. If there’s no gold to dig, where will the gold-digging-whores go? Just sayin’…if you complain about hypergamy, and at the same time, argue in favor of economic systems of wealth distribution that are inherently hierarchical, you’re full of incoherent gibberish. It’s time for you to rethink your life and economics. You guys can rant all you like about the vile nature of female hypergamy and how it makes men into objects-of-utility, but nothing will change so long as there are drastic socio-economic disparities.

Before any of you start calling me a commie pinko, realize that capitalism and socialism are two different mechanisms of wealth distribution. Neither of those systems “create” wealth; they simply distribute wealth in different ways.

Technology has always been the key. From the Stone Age to the industrial revolution, machinations and manifestations of tech drives the changes in efficiencies that “create” the quantitative surpluses of capital and other forms of wealth that often translate into qualitative improvements in life.

If you take the perspective that capitalism and socialism are simply different mechanisms of wealth distribution, you can perhaps see that these mechanisms are forms of technology (a sort of social technology, think marriage as tech). Perhaps both are obsolete pieces of technology.

They are obsolete because we have the surplus wealth to ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death on this planet, but people do so every day. We have 19 million empty homes here in the US, yet we have millions of homeless men. Obviously wealth didn’t get distributed, even though there is plenty—a surplus of homes and other sorts of wealth. We have the surplus wealth to ensure a quality education and relatively high-quality living standards for everybody, yet millions of folks live in relative squalor and can barely even read, if they can read at all. Folks everyday live lives as dullards and have miserable existences with no real freedom because they were born into a cycle of poverty with shitty parents who had shitty parents and so on. If you want to defend capitalism or socialism, or some sort of hybrid of the two, you’re going to have a difficult time of it with me. We have the surplus, but neither system seems sufficient to ensure that the wealth gets distributed to those who need it the most. As such, perhaps both are broken pieces of tech. Perhaps we need entirely new economic systems of wealth distribution—an entirely new way in which to look at economics, a new sort of social tech. Whatever your perspective on the matter, there is no way to be a free-market fundamentalist, coherent, and a complainer about gold-digging-whores. Get a clue, fuckwits. If you support a system of socio-economic stratification with gobs of economic disparity, you also support gold-digging-whores.

[Note: As women climb up the economic strata, there will be a rise in the number male gold-digging-whores. So, stop with your accusations of misogyny. A gold-digging-whore is not necessarily a woman, but they usually are women.]


5 thoughts on “Economics, Coherence, & Gold Diggin’ Whores

  1. Well, you don’t know me, but I stumbled across this, found it interesting, and thought I’d take a brain-dump all over your page. Hope you don’t mind.

    “If you want to defend such systems, go ahead. Do it. However, you have absolutely zero moral ground on which to stand for complaining about hypergamy or gold-digging-whores.”

    Agreed. I do defend such systems, and I don’t complain about such women. I simply avoid them (especially now that I’m married, heh). I’ve never received quite as much hate from my comrades on the right as I have when I questioned the merits of the men’s-rights movement/manosphere. It’s not that I’m a feminist, of course – I am a reactionary extremist after all, and am excited by hierarchy in all of its forms – but I hate anything that smacks of whining, especially about entirely avoidable problems.

    Also, money does not = freedom. People become slaves to the pursuit of money, and enough is often never enough. Strange that you would say that Objectivists “overlook” money = freedom, though – seems to me they do think that, though I think anyone (like Rand) who makes the dollar sign her official emblem has gone off the rails.

    “Obviously wealth didn’t get distributed, even though there is plenty”

    15 trillion dollars have been redistributed in the United States in the last fifty years. In the last five years alone, the US spent 3.7 trillion on welfare. Money doesn’t fix everything. I think a lot of our problems are logistical. You mention a cycle of poverty and shitty parents, etc. These are problems that obviously cannot be solved by cutting a fat check. You may as well burn the money if you hand it over to people who have no sense of responsibility.

    You will likely disagree, but I think we need more hierarchy. We need secular social conservatism. Massive incentives for marriage (which is strongly correlated with social mobility), discipline and uniforms in school, educational tracking that leads to job training and apprenticeship instead of fantasies about 4 year degrees, a massive cultural emphasis on virtue and responsibility, a total shaming of shitty, slutty, disgusting behavior, and so on. And so on. Its easy to blame everything on racism, but that is only a part of the story. Look at how successful, wealthy people live their lives (by practicing what they do not preach for fear of sounding judgmental).

    You aren’t going to change crap if you, like so many on the anti-capitalist left, hold up dysfuction and degeneracy as some sort of legitimate expression of cultural diversity. I’m not saying you did that here.

    • Didn’t we spend like $10 trillion over the past decade building bombs to kill brown people in caves, acquiescing to authoritarian bootlickers like you who whine about “welfare,” but simultaneously promote the creation of the biggest welfare queens the world has ever known–the military industrial complex.

      You are clearly filled with incoherent gibberish. Please continue your idiocy in this comment thread. This is “American Idiocracy” and you fit nicely.

      • Ah, my mistake. I thought you might actually be interested in talking these issues out with someone of a different ideological persuasion.

        I’m opposed to America’s wars. If it were up to me, we wouldn’t spend another dime on occupations, drone strikes, cruise missiles, troops in Korea and Europe, etc.

        A preference for hierarchy in social affairs doesn’t translate into imperialist sycophancy. But hey, you’ve got it – and me – all figured out.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s