Defending Gold Diggers?

I read the article:

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/89315/1/Sharon%20Thompson%20In%20Defence%20of%20the%20Gold%20Digger%20final%20July%202016.pdf

and left a comment on the following site:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharon_Thompson16

Specifically on the article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312323873_In_Defence_of_the_%27Gold-Digger%27?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=WrQ1k8im0OWVxbfo6sYa8UpyAfDKEARpW6kW&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfhpi&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItemCount%5D=3&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BuserSelectedItemCount%5D=0&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightCount%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightIndex%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BfeaturedItem1of1%5D=1&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A312323873&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle



The article makes a number of reasonable comments about the "gold-digger" stereotype, but the article's discussion of prenuptial contracts is simplistic and illogical. Perhaps the author will address the issues I raise in a subsequent article.

In my comments, I will assume, as the article does, that the woman is the less-moneyed spouse.


I agree with the article that gold-digging accusations are problematical.  The woman may have good reasons for negotiating terms that are beneficial to her.  The fact that a woman seeks beneficial terms in a negotiation for herself, by itself, is not wrong nor evidence of gold-digging. Neither is it wrong that a man seeks beneficial terms in a negotiation  for himself. The entire tone of this article is that somehow it is fair for a woman to negotiate beneficial terms but unfair for the man to do the same?  The author should explain why it is justifiable to impugn a man's character.


The article says

" ... a woman's reason for marriage, should not be questioned any more than a man's
and these reasons should not justify scepticism towards wives in receipt of the
financial share to which they are entitled on divorce."

The "financial share to which they are entitled on divorce" depends on the marriage contract that is signed. If both sign a standard marriage contract instead of a prenuptial contract, then they have both agreed to let the court decide the entitlement. If both sign a prenuptial contract, then they have both agreed to the terms in that contract. A man's reason for wanting a prenuptial agreement to ensure the financial share to which each of them is entitled on divorce should likewise" not justify scepticism" towards the man.

The article attempts to justify why it is alright for a woman, but not for a man, to seek beneficial terms by talking about "power" and "inequalities." This makes about as much sense as a home buyer in a seller's market complaining that the seller had more "power" because demand exceeded supply and thus produced an "inequality" whereby the seller was asking an "unfair" price for his house. Just as nobody is forcing the buyer to buy the house at a price the buyer considers "unfair," nobody is forcing a woman to sign a prenuptail contract that she considers "unfair."

Perhaps this UK article's mention of "power" is akin to some complaints I hear in the US about a woman being "forced" to sign a prenuptial contract.  When a man refuses to marry without a prenuptial contract, and the woman signs the contract, some people say that "he forced her to sign a prenuptial contract."  On the other hand, if a woman refuses to marry unless the man signs a standard contract, the same people don't say that "she forced him to sign a standard marriage contract."  Nobody has the power to force either person to sign a voluntary contract.


One more thing that I agree with is that it is usually a ridiculous notion to talk about both parties wanting the prenuptial agreement. Usually the man wants the prenuptial agreement while the woman would prefer the standard contract. On the other hand, it is probably true that both parties do not want the standard marriage contract. The language needs to be cleaned up and made consistent with the facts. For example, simply say that both parties have agreed to the prenuptial contract or both parties have agreed to the standard contract.

Much of the article's attack on prenuptial contracts in the UK is the same as the type of attacks as in the USA. For my thoughts on prenuptial contract attacks in the USA, see:
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/10/comments-on-ten-things-i-hate-about_29.html

To see the advice I give to young men about marriage and prenuptial agreements see:
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-people-especially-wealthy-people.html

For the record, I note that my technical expertise is in Monte Carlo methods and especially in fair game theory. See:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Booth4