Secondary Comments on "Defending Gold Diggers"

Secondary Comments on "Defending Gold Diggers"

With reference to:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312323873_In_Defence_of_the_%27Gold-Digger%27

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

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/08/defending-gold-diggers.html


Gold diggers are a consequence of non-negotiated default marital entitlements that reward some women for no reason other than that they "married well."  Provided they "married well," what are they actually required to do for their "entitlement?"  Men don't generally label women as gold diggers unless the women appear to have unfairly profited from the marriage while giving little in return. I have never heard a woman referred to as a "gold digger" when there has been a negotiated prenuptial agreement. If every marriage had an agreed upon written contract, the term "gold digger" would largely disappear. There would be no need to "defend gold diggers," as there would be no gold diggers.

Although negotiated contracts are standard outside of marriage and widely recognized as the only fair way to produce a contract, many family lawyers object to negotiated marriage contracts. It is clear that the reason they object is that their clients don't do as well in a negotiated contract as in a government imposed contract.

 In negotiated contracts the parties have some contractual  benefits and some contractual obligations.  But, provided a woman "marries well" under default law, she gets many marital entitlements, with essentially no enforceable obligations.  This is a level playing field? Apparently according to "Feminist Relational Contract Theory," marriage contracts are questionable when there are issues of "bounded rationality."
( Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice, by Sharon Thompson page 167) 

"Bounded rationality affects the parties' ability to think clearly about protecting themselves financially on divorce in the early stages of a relationship, which stages are often marked by altruism and commitment."

Reading this quote one might assume that there should be issues of "bounded rationality" for a moneyed man signing a default marriage contract? He indeed is very likely not to be thinking clearly enough about protecting himself financially in a divorce if he agrees to such an incredibly one-sided contract. She is surely getting financial entitlements from him, but what is he getting? Can he later invoke "Feminist Relational Contract Theory" to get himself out of a one-sided contract that, in practice, foists enforceable contractual obligations on him and no enforceable contractual obligations on her?

All of this could be easily solved with say a dozen standard marriage contracts to choose from ranging from contracts that women love and men hate, to contracts that men love and women hate, and everything in between. There are many conceptions of "fair" and a couple should sign a contract that both consider suitable enough. It is quite likely that the resulting marriage contract will be a compromise, giving neither party exactly what they desire. If the parties cannot agree on a suitable contract, then this is a very clear indication that their value systems are incompatible and they should not get married.

Perhaps things are better in England than America, but in America there is a subset of women who just cannot tolerate it when a man is able freely to negotiate for himself. There is almost always some highly questionable excuse to justify limiting men's freedom to negotiate. If a man is able to negotiate a better marriage contract than the default marriage contract then there is a "power imbalance" or the "playing field is not level." Or "bounded rationality," etc.