Cosmopolitan: Snag yourself a rich boy
Oh Cosmo, did you really have to go there? Their latest online is about how to find and appeal to a rich man:
Landing a loaded guy has long been a fantasy for some females. In fact, your own mother may have even quipped that it's just as easy to fall for a wealthy man as it is a poor one. And high-income dudes (those earning $104,000 and up, as defined by the Tax Foundation Group in Washington, DC) are on our radar even more thanks to such shows as The Hills, Gossip Girl, and The Millionaire Matchmaker.
This includes tips like "They Have Gold-Digger Radar," "They Feel Entitled to Arm Candy," "But They Don't Want to Marry a Dummy Either." They even refer to rich guys' preference in hair color.
Between pop culture's obsession with the rich elite and the media's love of portraying women as gold diggers, it's really disappointing to see a woman's magazine only perpetuating the stereotype. But should we be surprised?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Cosmopolitan: Snag yourself a rich boy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10773
Yes, they are pandering to a stereotype but unfortunately there are still many, many women who embody that sterotype to the fullest. There almost seems to be a backlash going on where many younger womens' main goal is to be taken care of and they idealize the breadwinner husband/SAHM archetype. Or,if they do work outside the home, they want their money earned to be their own discretionary income (play money) instead of using it to contribute to the household. That is anectdotal, of course, and just an observation I have. Conversations with male friends seem to support this as well, as lesser earning males I know often feel disqualified from the race if they don't have the right car and a six figure income. Just because I wish it weren't so doesn't make it false. There are still a lot of women who feel it is an accomplishment to land the rich guy and let him do the achieving for the two of them instead of trying to make a name for themselves in the world. They are happy to be Mrs.Robert Johnson or whatever.
On a side note: while I take these 'studies' with a grain of salt usually, it was hopeful to see that most of the men surveyed said they wantred a woman as smart or smarter than themselves and with their own kick ass career. Actually, most of the men I know don't want a stay at home wife anymore and they don't want to be the sole or main earner. That's good news for gals like me who always want to work regardless of what the spouse makes.
What makes this article so craptastic is that it tacitly undermines its own premise. If rich men prefer women who are smart and successful in their own right, then why would we need advice on snagging a rich man?
To state the obvious, MOST men are interested in women who are attractive but also successful in their own right. And guess what -- women look for the same things in men. The evidence shows that people of all genders (and including rich men) tend to choose partners with similar levels of physical attractiveness (as conventionally judged), education and economic circumstances.
Personal note -- I once dated a managing director at an investment bank. At the time I was a low-level corporate peon. My mother was SO excited about this guy. But I broke up with him because, although smart and funny, he was also anti-intellectual, smug and rude to other people in front of me. It was just a matter of time before he would start treating me that way. In truth, I suspected he wasn't good enough for me.
I'm not surprised this is coming from Cosmo but I am extremely disappointed. It's unfair for men to be pursued just for their money and the number of women who still have this mindset depress me.
But I also wonder, if the top paying jobs for women weren't based on their looks (modeling, acting) and if we had fair pay and more job choices would this "gold digger" phenomenon be as widespread? To be extremely rich, it's got to be more realistic to marry a rich guy than try to do it on your own as a woman in your own career. Especially if you want to have children because pregnancy discrimination is alive and well.
In my experience, gold digging is done because of the desire to have access to the entertainment / status / benefits of wealth without the effort (or luck) it takes to aquire that wealth.
Since there is a limited amount of money / power - yes, it would be just as prevalent. The only difference I could see is that you would have an equal representation of gold digging men and gold digging women.
You know, this really grinds my gears. I am in a relationship with a "rich guy," who also happens to be 29 years my senior. I am divorced, he is widowed. I was certainly not out looking to snag a "sugar daddy" the night we met, and he was not out looking for a "trophy girlfriend."
Knowing that my relationship plays into more than one stereotype disgusts me to begin with, but that is society's way of seeing us instead of as individuals who happened, despite our income and age differences, to fall in love. It is hard enough to maintain a relationship with someone in these complicated times without the added implications. What's worse is that, yes, though he is a relatively enlightened guy (couldn't be with someone who isn't!) there are distinct generational differences that are difficult to overcome. They are real, they are important, and can cause issues. Who does Cosmo think the "rich guys" are? Sure, there are some the same age as Cosmo's demographic, but many of these men ave had to accumulate their wealth over many years of hard work, with in many cases the added help of their wives. (My BF's dear late wife was a domestic goddess while he was the breadwinner. It worked for them, but he could not have gotten where he is without her, a point he acknowledges.)
If Cosmopolitan was to write an in-depth article about the difficulties of having a relationship were the income levels are drastically different and the age difference was at least acknowledged, even if not explored, I might be interested. I'd also like to see the how-to guide for lesbians on how to snag themselves a wealthy sugar-momma. I don't really think, considering the level of journalism previously displayed by this Bimbo-Bible, that it will ever actually happen.
Sadly, I am not surprised. In an era where Playboy bunnies get their own TV show on basic cable (not the adult network, where that type of thing belongs!) for exactly this type of "success" at catching a rich man, but Ms. cannot be found at Barnes & Noble (online or in-store) I suppose the Cosmo article is tame, though tacky.
Okay, stupid article... but also, Rachel Bilson looks super poorly photoshopped on that cover! She's a petite girl, and yet it looks like they tried to stretch her out to turn her into the tall and skinny-yet-busty model look.
Yeah, I was just thinking that Cosmo appears to just photoshop their cover girl's head onto a large-breasted, tall, thin body.
You shouldn't be surprised, considering it's from Cosmo. This is the same magazine that judges women "sexy" or "skanky" based on things like whether they chug a beer at the bar or sip daintily on a fruity mixed drink. Of course they're going to reinforce gender sterotypes.
cosmo overall is disgusting. 43 ways to style your waistlength hair! don't worry about your weight, but all of our models are anorexic and then photoshopped! 27 ways to make your eyes look bigger- all shown on 19 year old models with unusually large eyes! love your wrinkles- but we won't show a single one in our magazine!
honestly, thinking about cosmo gives me age/body issues! now i'm going to have to spend an hour saying reminding myself that i love me for a lot more than my body and anybody else that doesn't can go f*** themselves.
Hey, by their definition, I'm almost rich. Does that mean I'm entitled to arm candy?
in my experience the gold digger stereotype is a result of how young women are treated as they grow up. i've known many women of my generation who, as children, were never given an allowance or taught to manage money, never encouraged to do well in math, never even really allowed to make any of their own decisions.
sure enough, they ended up seeking out boyfriends and husbands to pay all expenses--because as adults they'd been chucked out into the world with none of the necessary tools to keep themselves afloat. they were unable to control their spending or plan ahead, even after repeatedly landing themselves in really shitty spots because of it, because they lacked even the most basic decision-making skills. skills that their brothers had been taught as soon as they were old enough to hold a quarter.
then the men in their lives would get all exasperated about how chicks are so bad with money, not realizing that if they were then it was because their parents had done their best to engineer it that way.
The cover really fucking bothers me too. A women's body does not narrow from the shoulders down.
Not all women's bodies are the same. Sure, the cover is a fabrication (as all magazine / print covers are).
That doesn't mean that saying "All women's bodies are like X" is a safe statement to make.
She *does* look like Alice in Wonderland who ate too much from the wrong side of the mushroom! But I think you're right James...
Did I say that all women's bodies are the same? No. I'm saying that the human anatomy does not work in that way. It was a poor photoshop job that most people will not look at twice.
Yep. And look at the arms. This'll be on Photoshop Disasters any minute now...
I was thinking the same thing. My fiance asked me if I got the pic from photoshop disasters after I showed it to him.
What you said was "A women's [sic] body does not narrow from the shoulders down." I'll change the language you used - but yes, you said that all women's bodies are the same.
Here's the breakdown:
When you use the phrase "A woman's body" you are generalizing out to all women. So what you said translates to "All women are (not) shaped like X," but that still has the component of generalization. So, logically, to prove you wrong someone just has to find 1 woman who IS shaped like that. Since the opposite of all (in logic) isn't none, it's some.
Furthermore, when you just said "I'm saying that the human anatomy does not work in that way." you're taking it out of women, and moving it into both men and women - which is easier to prove wrong since now we just have to find a man OR a woman who doesn't fit your formula.
Also - just to let you know, I can be that example if you want a picture.
Overall I'm just saying "be careful when you talk about bodies and use generalizations" since it's a slippery slope that causes a lot of heartache for a lot of men and women.
Whoa there, buddy. No one likes the PC police, or to have words put into their mouths. Take a chill pill.
My boobs are not that big, but my torso does narrow that much from the armpits to the waist.
This article depresses me. As a homemaker whose husband is apparently a "high income dude", this pisses me off. As do some of the comments. And I'm having a bad day. So here you go,
AnnieW said her "sugar daddy" is a "relatively enlightened guy (couldn't be with someone who isn't!" - why do you have to define that for us? Why do we need to know that you're too good to be with someone who isn't 'enlightened'. What does 'enlightened' even mean? Are you so uncomfortable with your relationship with an older man that you need to crap on about his great characteristics while making your way to your point?
Crumpet said: "There almost seems to be a backlash going on where many younger womens' main goal is to be taken care of and they idealize the breadwinner husband/SAHM archetype."
Why is this a 'backlash?' What the fuck (excuse me) is wrong with my being a SAHM, married to a man with a high-paying job, and happy raising my kid and keeping on top of the chores during the week so we have the weekend to spend together as a family doing anything we want? What gives you the right to insinuate that this makes me stupid, or submissive, or uneducated, or...?
Crumpet also said: "They are happy to be Mrs.Robert Johnson or whatever." I am happy being "Mrs. Robert Johnson or whatever" and I take extreme offense to the fact you imply this is an inferior thing to want or have. Landing my husband was an accomplishment because I found a man I love, who loves me, who is a wonderful father, and who I want to spend my life with. Screw you for suggesting there is something wrong with that just because he makes a good living and I stay at home.
Respect for a person's right to do what they want does not require refraining from having an opinion on what they should do and arguing to that effect. Since any such opinion obviously favors one choice over others, asking that your choice not receive any criticism is the same as saying that nobody is allowed to discuss the issue at all.
In any case, "Mrs. Robert Johnson" implies a lot more than division of labor. Substituting one's husband's name for one's own is more like a subjugation of identity.
NOBODY is saying that you are somehow inferior.
I am very happy that you and your husband have a relationship that works for you. It is fantastic that you had a choice to do that. Once upon a time (in my relatively enlightened boyfriend's generation, the one I am justifying my relationship with, crapping my way to my point) that was the only choice for women. Things have changed.
This is the right thing for you and your family. Yes, finding true love and having a successful relationship and marriage are worthy accomplishments. You and your husband do, in fact, have something that some will never have. I think it is worth acknowledging, though, that he would not be where he is without you (financially or otherwise), nor you without him.
What the inferior, awful, shallow and demeaning aspect of this is that being a "trophy," an object, removes ones humanity. If people want to be simply objects that is certainly their perogative, but the larger implication is that a "How-to" manual to be a gold-digger (her) and snag a "rich guy" (him) devalues everyone, but especially the woman for relying on her looks and sexuality for economic gain. There is no discussion of relationships, being with the right person, making love grow. At some other time, I would love to hear how you and your husband make a successful marriage and family work. We could all use some pointers!
I hope that your day gets better.
Enjoying being a stay at home mom and a wife doesn't make you stupid or inferior--if it makes you happy (which, from what you said, it very much seems to make you happy). My mom was a teacher and she quit when she had me to stay at home, and anyone who knows me would agree that I wouldn't be the same without that.
However, as someone who just graduated from a good, private college where I took my fair share of women's studies courses, I understand where these people are getting their anger from. There is nothing more depressing when your first and only life goal post-graduation is to get your Ph.D. and get a good job, and the girl next to you--a bright, student leader type--says that, although she is pursuing a degree in business management, she has no intention of working after she marries and has children. Again. . .if it makes her happy, I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but it puts those of us who are still in the process of getting where we want to be in a very defensive position.
Relax. Is it really necessary to introduced every comment with a disclaimer that 'this does not apply to every individual'lest someone take the comment as a personal attack?
I support fully your right to live however you choose. Seriously. I don't care if it's on a houseboat or in a shell camper or if you want to work 18 hour days as a trauma nurse or whatever. But, yes, people can still have opinions about what other people do and there isn't anything you can do about that. So it's silly to get your feathers too ruffled because someone may not like what you do (and I'm not talking about being a SAHM)as long as they aren't trying to make you change. Why do other peoples' opinions matter so much anyway if you truly are happy with your life?
That said, the fact that you are proud to be "Mrs John Smith" or whatever does say a lot to others, especially to many women who consider themselves feminists. The fact that you are fine with being identified by a label that totally excludes you says a lot. You don't even get to have a first name anymore?
Silly Cosmo. "Gray Rape" and gold digging and how to lose weight. Where would I be without you?
barf.
Why is the first comment always something like this nowadays?
Who are these women? Are you talking about the women you see on reality shows? Because I hope you recognize that they are not representative of young women as a whole.
Sorry, I meant that to be in response to the first comment.
Why does Cosmo never have anything on how to become a rich girl (other than getting with a rich guy)?
To me, the articles might as well read:
10 WAYS TO SPRUCE UP YOUR HAIRSTYLE (not resume)
15 TIPS ON HOW TO DRESS FOR A DATE (not an interview)
100 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT HIS PENIS (not your vagina)
15 MOST SUCCESSFUL AND ELIGIBLE MEN (not women)
Whenever I see Cosmo or Redbook, I think of the beginning chapters of The Feminine Mystique, where Betty Friedan talks about working in the industry that creates women's magazines. There used to me articles out there for the worldly, concerned, intelligent woman -- but not anymore!
I hate to be such a downer on capitalism, but sometimes I think it has robbed everyone of their actual potential.
OMG, OMG! Please tell me what hair color rich men like so I can go out and dye my hair that color immediately!
*gag*
Brunette.
And are you gagging to get thinner - because that would be ideal.
I definitely think that these types of reinforcements of gender stereotypes are a result of a dumbed down society due to capitalism. Supply and demand.
This only involves capitalism to the extent that it gives people what they demand. The problem is that people demand shit. The solution is to change their minds so that they demand non-shit. Trying to prevent them from getting shit (if that's what they want) takes away their choices and probably won't work anyway.
I definitely think that these types of reinforcements of gender stereotypes are a result of a dumbed down society due to capitalism. Supply and demand.
Now why do my comments always post twice?
I don't think it's a healthy stereotype to propagate, but I don't think "gold digging" is entirely invalid either. For a long time marriage was simply an arrangement of material support for domestic/care work, including sex. If a woman learns that her only asset is her sex appeal, or if she's in a certain set of circumstances where her sex appeal actually is her only asset, and she wants some financial security, then I don't think she should be condemned for aiming high. Which reflects my attitude on prostitution, which I know is a contentious issue, but in my opinion sex work is just as valid an occupation as being a housekeeper or a psychiatrist; the problem with it lies in the degree of control that a woman has over her work.
The problem with "gold digging" in my view, is similar. That there is a loss of control once the woman becomes financially dependent. I think the problem lies in how we understand and value sex, not in the sex-for-support arrangement itself.
On a side note: was anyone else disturbed by how un-naturally skinny Rachel Bilson looks?
Not surprised by Cosmo in the least. Not after the "gray rape" fiasco and the condescending form letters from well over a year ago, and their obsession w/ thinking that I give a damn what anyone thinks of my "O" face. They continue to do well in their never ending mission to drive me bat shit buggy (like w/ this ridiculous photoshopping).
I clicked through and read the article, and there was one bit that really amused me. One of their pointers was where eligible bachelors live, based on a ratio of rich, single men to women. The place with the highest ratio? San Francisco.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those rich, single men aren't interested in dating women.
I get what you mean, but SF and the bay area is a technology hub. Tech, hardware anyway, is an overwhelmingly heterosexual field. I bet a lot of those guys would totally go for trophy girl friend.
OMG! I knew there was a reason I stopped even LOOKING at these silly mags after I moved out of my parental home, they are the worst perpetrators of girl hurting girl mechanisms. Just recently, I was browsing youtube when I came across this comment about "fucking vs. making love" and how fucking costs THE MAN less money... It really got me fumed. so I made a video, created a concept for an entire website and youtube channel called TWIGSNAPBUTTCRACK, and decided to go all the way with a screaming series. I am having a really hard time getting good feedback for her though.
I'm glad to find that I am not alone in my disgust for these socialization training manuals.
Cosmo's not a woman's magazine. It's an advertisers magazine. It's all about selling products to women. Products from companies that are primarily run by men.
I think it's interesting how quickly the perception of marriage has changed in America. Even as late as forty years ago, if a woman talked about how "comfortable" her husband's income was, it was OK. Parents hoped for their daughters to marry a wealthy man, and women aspired to it. It's only recently that we've really begun to see marriage as a relationship of equals formed out of love rather than solely out of mutual benefits. It doesn't bother me that people marry for money. But it does bother me that we are still being peddled a lifestyle and a values system that makes money the most important thing and that portrays women as unable to attain that lifestyle unless she sells her body (as a model or celebrity or through marriage).
The day I stopped reading Cosmo and the likes is the day I started to feel free. I will never live up to their expectations of what women are like, and I no longer care.
If you have a spare few minutes, you should try the quizzes on their website. Apparently I have issues because I don't feel the need to flirt with every guy I come into contact with.