Feminism

In Defense of the Gold Digger

If there’s anything worse than sexism, it’s pranks. April Fool’s Day is the worst day in the history of holidays because it convinces people that anyone can be hilarious by lying about something, or making someone eat something they usually wouldn’t want to eat, or scaring someone who would prefer to not be scared. And if there’s anything worse than sexism and pranks, it’s sexist pranks.

Exhibit A: YouTube pranksters Vitaly Zdorovetskiy, Roman Atwood, and Dennis Roady, merrily pranking a woman who enjoyed the prank so much she had her identity blurred.

A man hangs out at the beach wearing a terrible shiny tropical button-down and long pants. A woman approaches. He says to her, “What’s up cutie.” Everyone watching the video vomits. He says, “I was looking at you? And I thought you were really pretty? And I wanted to get your number?”

She politely declines. He pesters her as she walks away. She keeps walking.

He moves over to his Lamborghini and asks again if she’ll go out with him. She asks if that’s his car. He says it is. She says that now she’d go out with him to a bar down the street. He says, putting on his awesome sunglasses, “Too bad. I don’t like gold diggers.”

BLAMMO! Take that, woman! You didn’t want to go out with this guy when he was just a creep in a shiny shirt hanging out on the beach, but once you learned something else about him you changed your mind! Bitch!

The comments on the video are exactly what you think they are:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA GET? OWNEDDD BITCHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Fuckin slut open her legs only for? fancy cars !

yeah, moddafukka VITALY, you show dem bitches? some class

To recap, a man expresses interest in a woman based entirely upon her body. A woman expresses interest in a man based entirely upon his car. One of these things is not okay. Why? Because women are bitches, obviously.

I first spotted this video on Gawker, where the comments aren’t much smarter than YouTube:

If it’s all right for the “pick-up artist” to objectify his targets, why is it not all right for the target to then turn around and do the same to him?

Because one is based on biology, and the other is based on economics? Sure, he was a little cheesy, but at the end of the day, he politely told her he thought she was pretty and asked her out, and she got burned.

The commenter doesn’t seem at all upset or disappointed that his comment makes no sense at all. First, there’s the problem of elevating biology over economics for no apparent reason; second, there’s the problem of a person’s attractiveness being based more on economics and other factors than on biology.

Third, there’s the problem of labeling his behavior as “polite” while implying that her behavior was not, when in fact the opposite is clearly true. He approached her and continued bothering her after she made her disinterest clear. She declined as politely as she could while continuing to walk away. Why did she deserve to get “burned”?

Because women are bitches. It’s the only possible explanation. Men are forgiven for experiencing an attraction to another person based on a single characteristic, and women are not.

You may be tempted to argue that this isn’t about hating women so much as it is about hating attraction to wealth compared to attraction to physicality, but I’d disagree. If that video instead showed the woman turning down the man and then changing her mind after he unbuttoned his cheesy shirt to show glistening muscles, the moral would still be, “Women are shallow bitches.” Ditto if the man whipped out a copy of Pride and Prejudice and started reading, or gave mouth-to-mouth to a dying kitten, or helped an elderly person cross the street.

The woman is accused of being a shallow bitch not because the car changed her mind, but because she changed her mind at all. The venom leaking out of the video and the comments is coming from men who believe that women who reject their advances should be punished and humiliated.

My favorite of the Gawker comments is this one, from RunningOutOfBurnJokes:

I always forget the word people use for rich men who only go after beautiful women, whatever their salary. What is it again? It’s so common, there must be one…

Leave your suggestions in the comments!

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca leads a team of skeptical female activists at Skepchick.org. She travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism. There is currently an asteroid orbiting the sun with her name on it. You can follow her every fascinating move on Twitter or on Google+.

Related Articles

50 Comments

  1. Wow, I haven’t been reminded of my privilege or how the culture I was brought up in still affects me like this in a while. I read your intro, then watched the video before reading the rest. As I watched, I had a bit of a mental chuckle and thought something along the lines of her kinda deserving getting burned on that one. Of course reading the rest of your pice, I’ve headdesked myself. The dichotomy you point out is so obvious, but I really don’t think I ever equated the two before. Thanks for the impetus to correction.

  2. This has always bothered me. I have known a lot of men who look down on “gold-diggers”, but have very strict expectations about how a woman should look before they will go out with her. I think it would be great for a woman in a fat suit to go up to a guy, have him reject her, and then have her come back looking conventionally “hot” and then criticize how he changes his mind. Although the menz would probably just criticize the woman for tricking the man.

  3. Or maybe she wasn’t interested in some sleazy dude creeping on her until she saw that he wasn’t driving a van with blacked-out windows. I’ve seen those videos and they tend to end much differently.

    I think the word you are looking for here is privileged.

    1. Plus many people have the association that wealth=respectability in both men and women. This isn’t necessarily accurate, but she might have been thinking “Oh, he isn’t a total creeper with no life?”

      I think something something a lot of men watching this are missing is that she is very outwardly friendly, but also very guarded. Then when she sees the car she offers to go with him to a bar down the street, not to “jump in his car” david hasselhoff style. She’s saying: “Okay, I wouldn’t mind giving you a chance to let me know more about you now that I’ve seen something I actually like.” His sleazy behavior certainly didn’t qualify, so she wasn’t interested when that was all she knew about him.

  4. The other problem with this whole situation is that… well it’s a prank, it was planned to go a certain way. If a guy asked a girl out, and she said no, only to change her mind when she saw the car… I could understand being unsure about wanting to continue, sure. If it happened naturally. Not enough to start namecalling someone to their face, sure, but I could understand being uncertain about going on a date with someone if the deciding factor seemed to be wealth. It’s not a terrible thing that apparent wealth was the deciding factor, for all the reasons indicated in the post, but if someone was personally uncomfortable with it… okay, sure. (Again, not that it excuses the name calling in the video, but rather a polite decline would be reasonable, in my view.)

    But this… this was planned. What would the guy have done if she said yes the first time he asked? He doesn’t want a date, he’s already decided that this total stranger is awful, and he’s going to “hilariously” expose it. Not only is the idea that this is bad behavior on her part awful, but the apparent presumption in deciding she must be awful because she’s a woman.

  5. I think I’ve mentioned this guy I used to work with who was reading PUA manuals on other threads, but I remember him once complaining about how “9s and 10s” were so shallow they would never look at a guy like him. Meanwhile he would complain that the women he could find to date him were only “5s and 6s”. So, I had to ask him if he didn’t see the irony in complaining about women being shallow for only wanting to date their desired matches based on superficial characteristics while he was number ranking them based on a physical attractiveness scale.

    1. Most of the PUA stuff and most of the evo psych stuff is complete rubbish. But that does not mean everything they say is rubbish.

      There is ample evidence that females are attracted to males that demonstrate they are successful. But this is not an evo-psych discovery, it is a basic observation of evolutionary theory that does not require any hand wavey just so story from the hunter gatherer period.

      The PUA manuals call it ‘peacocking’ for a reason, male peacocks do exactly this. Displaying a Ferrari is just like showing a shiny foil cap.

      But even so, the video seems fake. Once the girl has said no, the decision is made it is really not at all credible that she would change her mind because of the car. In fact the way he shows the car makes him seem even creepier.

      But a You Tube video that pulls in a million hits is worth serious money these days. $0.01 per impression is $10K for a million hits. So there is a lot of incentive there to fake.

  6. One thing I don’t like about people tossing around comments like “gold-digging whore” is the assumption that every relationship has to be or even should be of the “Oh my god! I loooove you sooooo much!” variety. There’s a lot to be gained from relationships and a lot of people not capable of love in the traditional sense. In that case, I don’t see anything wrong with both (or more) participants finding a comfortable, mutually beneficial arrangement. As long as all involved parties know what they’re getting themselves into. Hell, my parents have been together for almost forty years and my mom has specifically said that it works because “all things considered, it’s just easier this way.”

  7. I wish we could magically cause every ‘evo/psych’ neurolinguistic horseshit rationalization to be echoed by the words ‘it’s god’s will.’

    This selective drawing of Texas Bullseyes around every snippet of inexcusable behavior is SO obscene, SO transparent. I find it hard to believe that a good jolt of satire wouldn’t break the spell.

    Everyone knows that 5 million years of biological evolution made women seek Lamborghinis because they transport superior genes… Or was that the 11th commandment: ‘thou shalt honor the bearer of thy headlights higher than the bearer of ‘those’ headlights.’

    I saw recently that the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed at least one PUA writers web page as a Hate Site. Not a moment too soon.

  8. This is an incredibly poorly thought out argument, because it presumes that patriarchal bias is responsible for the condemnation of this woman’s fickle shallowness, while similar scenarios with the genders reversed are just as prevalent. Men who hustle women for their money are invariably viewed as scum in society and this should be the same for anyone who uses the pretense of a relationship to take someone else’s property. The “I wanna fuck her” mentality is by no means a moral pinnacle to be admired, but its implicit honesty is at least more defensible than the thought “I can take his money if I fuck him”. I think it would be fair to say that the former is clear to both parties in a romantic context (i.e. a dinner date, as the man in the video asked for), while the latter is full of manipulative and subversive intent. In other words, it’s sensible for a woman to expect that a man wants sex when he approaches her, but for a man to assume that a woman would only respond to his advances because she wants his money would make him crushingly cynical, almost certainly lonely and ironically misogynistic.

      1. I’m sorry for inadvertently provoking you into demeaning me by respectfully stating my opinion. Although I’m not sure exactly what you found in my comment that you find so objectionable that you have to resort to name-calling, I’m sure that you’re completely justified in doing so. Feel free to keep this one just between us, or, if you like, put it up in another effort to have people belittle me by your side. Fantastic site, by the way. Cheers.

        1. Excuse me? Did you even read the whole comment, or were you so eager to agree with the young lady that runs this site that you didn’t bother? The entire crux of my argument was that men commonly commit the actions displayed by the woman in this video as well and are properly reviled for it. I’m sorry if the non-gender-neutrality of the hypothetical situation I provided to flesh out my point confused you, but that doesn’t excuse the ignorance that you’ve displayed by ignoring me explicitly saying that men commonly display this manipulative and subversive behaviour as well. Perhaps Ms. Watson made a similar mistake and that’s why she responded to my comment with such vitriol.

          1. Oh, I read just fine.
            Here you’re saying that typical masculine displays of vapid shallowness is an honest biologic imperative, while the typical feminine display is manipulative, calculated, and less moral:
            “The “I wanna fuck her” mentality is by no means a moral pinnacle to be admired, but its implicit honesty is at least more defensible than the thought “I can take his money if I fuck him”. I think it would be fair to say that the former is clear to both parties in a romantic context (i.e. a dinner date, as the man in the video asked for), while the latter is full of manipulative and subversive intent.”

            Did you read your own comment?

          2. Your ‘crux’ is based entirely on a false equivalency.

            The behavior you claim men get reviled for in your original post is of a long-term nature–it’s a deliberate attempt to transfer wealth from the targeted woman to the man, on a false basis. Not just letting her pick up a tab, but rather, to acquire the money that she has earned/inherited/whatever for his own personal use.

            This video, on the other hand, shows no long-term scheming on the woman’s part. Instead, it shows her deciding that, on the basis of his car, he might actually be able to afford an evening that would be more enjoyable than she had originally suspected he was capable (based on his rather smarmy and creepy come-ons) of providing. She wasn’t saying, “Hey, you’ve got a Lamb, let’s get married so I can get it in the divorce proceedings.” The worst-possible interpretation is, “Well, with a car like that, we’d probably be able to get into a good club and he can afford a nice restaurant. Maybe it’ll be fun after all.”

            This is only unreasonable on her part if we assume that her time has no value whatsoever–which is the obvious starting-point of our PUA videographer.

            ****

            BTW, the above assumes the entire thing isn’t a complete stage job, which I have serious doubts about.

          3. This is directed at freemage. I’m replying to myself on this one… I feel kind of dumb, haha. I hope that he somehow receives a notification for this message, as he is the only person who’s responded to me in a kind and civil manner, and I’ve learned very quickly that that can be all too rare on this site. I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you, freemage, or you point of false equivalency. It’s common for men to have women buy them dinner and drinks, even as a one time deal; it’s a typical case of the male manipulating a woman with any ‘apparent’ insecurity she may have and using it as leverage for short term gain. In a similar vein, it’s not uncommon for women to entertain the prospect of a date simply out of the immediate gain of free food and entertainment, without any intention of romantic reciprocation; this time the male’s desire is leverage. Both instances show either gender acting callously in self-interest, at the monetary AND emotional expense of the other (no one likes being used).

            ********

            On that point, I wholeheartedly agree. This video is obviously a complete hack-job, in some asinine attempt to inflate the male ego with the supposed iniquities of the fairer sex. I simply disagreed with Ms. Watson’s that the implications of the woman’s behaviour were morally justifiable, due to the man’s intentions being less than benign.

        2. I’m sorry, there didn’t seem to be a reply button adjacent to your last comment, so I’ll simply reply to this one in it’s stead. If anyone can tell me how to work around this in future I’d deeply appreciate it.
          In any case, it’s clear to me that you are falsely inferring necessary gender associations with either of the actions I described, based on my use of a hypothetical, while it was my intention was to describe how both behaviours are equally prevalent across both sexes (please, try to view the gender-specific pronouns as interchangeable in my imaginary context; that was the intent). I was attacking the view that it is acceptable to monetarily exploit people with romantic pretense, as is defended by Ms. Watson in this article; I was attacking what I view as an amoral standard, not a gender. Now, I personally don’t believe that men are unlikely to use women for their money, the same way that I don’t believe that women are unlikely to have sex with someone simply because they find him physically attractive. You, however, resentful of the male gender, when you describe “typical masculine displays of vapid shallowness”. What makes this display inherently masculine? How is this not simple prejudice?

          1. Congrats on missing the entire point of Rebecca’s article.

            As she pointed out both parties here used superficial judgement, he her appearance and she his car, but the comments (which is the crux of what this article is actually about) lay no judgement on him for his shallowness (because it is expected and even applauded) and heap score on her because she doesn’t act in the way she expected to (you know, like giving it up to the sleazeball on request). There is no justification in the article about the woman’s behavior beyond stating that it is the same as the man’s, at least not outside of what you inferred.

            As to what others have inferred from your own comments, that does tend to happen when you imply those very same things, one follows the other.

          2. Mrmisconception, Ms. Watson does indeed defend the woman’s actions, when she says: “The woman is accused of being a shallow bitch not because the car changed her mind, but because she changed her mind at all. The venom leaking out of the video and the comments is coming from men who believe that women who reject their advances should be punished and humiliated”. This very clearly states that the derision levied against this woman and her actions is morally illegitimate and simply a patriarchal domination of women who assert their autonomy. How am I supposed to take this, except as an attempt to shift blame from the female to the male, with the sweeping context of the patriarchy?

          3. BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T ACT IN THE WAY SHE WAS EXPECTED TO, it is right there in my comment.

            Let me guess, you don’t think the patriarchy is a real thing right?
            The reason he received no scorn was coincidence maybe?
            Yes, I’m sure it was something like that, couldn’t be misogyny because it doesn’t exist, right?

            What you are arguing here is repugnant and the fact that you saw calling yours a “dumbass comment” as an attack of name-calling and vitriol (really, are you new to the internet?) and the fact that you refuse to use Rebecca’s name (Ms. Watson, the young lady (condescend much?) that runs this site) gives a hint as to where that might be coming from even if you don’t realize it yourself.

            It’s called tipping your hand, and it’s usually a bad thing. See, we can be condescending too.

          4. my problem isn’t with the condemnation of the man, it’s with the assertion of the blamelessness of the woman

            Once again, she did state that the woman was blameless just that she was no more to blame than the man except you wouldn’t know it from the comments. THE EXACT POINT OF THE POST!

          5. Let me start by saying that you initially claimed that Ms. Watson never defended this woman and in the very next post you tried to justify why she defended her, before resorting to various accusations. Now that that’s been established…
            Mrmisconception, the longer this discourse continues, the more emotional your responses seem to become; as a result you miss a lot of what has been said. I have outright stated the insidious nature of this video in relation to the male ego in other comments, however, a woman’s assertion of her own autonomy doesn’t necessarily make any of her decisions thereof morally legitimate. What’s in question isn’t a woman’s right to choose, it’s this particular woman’s reasons for choosing. It makes for a much more nuanced conversation about morality than your and Ms. Watson’s bland assertion of the patriarchy to wrap up all moral quandaries with a neat, self-righteous bow of social justice.

            I’m not quite sure how to address your presumptuous strawman where you state that I don’t believe in the existence of patriarchy or misogyny, other than to ask you to please try to pay more attention in future. Also, I’m not new to the internet, I simply believe that the fact that we’re talking over the internet isn’t an excuse to be petulant. And by all means, I would adore it if you chose to address me with the same courtesy that I’ve extended to everyone on this board, by either calling me young man ( I am, as Ms. Watson is, quite young), Mr Brace (there’s nothing wrong with the quaint use of honorifics), or even by my regular handle of Red Brace. It’s a sad, paranoid world you live in, Mrmisconception, where politeness is a proper pretext to rebuke someone.

          6. First let me say that of course Mr. Brace (because I am sure that is your actual name) politeness is of paramount importance, much more important than actually reading what I wrote. Saying that the two should be judged equally does not condone her behavior, they are not mutually exclusive. My emotion must be clouding your comprehension, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that you believe that emotions and reason are at odds? I know there are plenty of robotic “skeptics” who believe that sort of thing, a good amount of those same “skeptics” feel that it is women who are too emotional and they therefore believe that women can’t be good “skeptics”, but I’m sure you couldn’t believe that.

            Second, using only nice words is not necessarily a sign of politeness, your comment for example is virtually dripping in condescension and is far from wholly polite, but whatever Miss Manners says.

            Thirdly, I did not state that you didn’t believed in the patriarchy or misogyny, I’m going to be charitable and assume you are not fully familiar with language and don’t know how question marks actually work. Petulant really, I reread my comments and I saw sarcasm, perhaps you are confused. Maybe you were conferring some of the emotion from my contact with tj902310 on the other threads, I was quite angry at his bald assertions without proof. But why petulant? What is it about having emotions that you see as childlike, are we to become Vulcans when we reach puberty. I can’t do that because *they are fictional*.

            I will warn you ahead of time that this next segment of words is a question. What exactly is the point of your comment beyond dressing me down for being “emotional”, and what exactly is your issue with emotions? Is it that too much emotion makes me too womanlike to be rational? I hope that’s not true because it would be proof of the patriarchy and misogyny which would upset you, wouldn’t want you become all emotional or anything.

            Now, young man I have addressed you as you wish in this comment and I have not been petulant and rude. Did that feel polite? I hope not it wasn’t meant to be, I really don’t like feeding tone trolls. You see it wasn’t your politeness that caused me to refute (you used the word attack, I’ll assume you don’t know what that word means because otherwise it’s stupid) your statements but rather your actual arguments which were bad.

            Next time Red Brace try to actually have something to say besides “don’t get so emotional”, it makes you look petulant. To use that word correctly. Now if you don’t mind I will go back to writing how I want to.

    1. A man with a wealthier woman isn’t automatically assumed to be a “gold-digger”. This exact situation with genders reversed does not have the same outcome. Half the audience would be cheering the “cougar” while the other half would be cheering the “boy-toy”. Few would be down on the man for agreeing to go to a bar with a wealthy woman just because she’s wealthy.

      You’re also forgetting that nobody buys a car like that and then forgets that people are going to be attracted to it – because that’s generally specifically why they bought it. Additionally, there’s little ambiguity in this video as to whether the car did the attracting. She knows it, he knows it. Sure, she didn’t say it outright (and can you blame her, given the response?) but the joke wouldn’t have worked if it weren’t obvious to everyone involved.

      1. Its more than just knowing people are going to be attracted to it, you want people to like it.

        Nobody buys that sort of car as a means of transport. In fact they are pretty useless at transport. There are fewer than a dozen pieces of road in the entire world where they can be driven at top speed.

        The point is that it is like wheeling around a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt round with you for people to enjoy. People who like that sort of thing will be happy to see it. It is a minority pursuit though and not everyone likes them.

      2. A woman with a wealthier man isn’t automatically assumed to be a ‘gold digger’ either. That is essentially the status quo under patriarchy; to be aspired to. In fact, a man who dates a woman who earns more will generally be derided; by her friends for not being good enough, and by his because she ‘wears the pants’. If he is unemployed or a stay at home father (considered the same thing by society, generally), he’ll almost certainly be considered a deadbeat.

        The woman is shallow (assuming this video is ‘real’*). She is a victim of the patriarchy and a contributor to it. Attitudes like hers need changed as much as male shallowness if we’re going to dismantle the patriarchy.

    2. red brace: The “I wanna fuck her” mentality is by no means a moral pinnacle to be admired, but its implicit honesty is at least more defensible than the thought “I can take his money if I fuck him”.

      YIKES all the way around. I don’t think I would want to defend well anything you have brought up here.

      1. Fair enough, Greenstone. I’m not necessarily willing to defend either of these motives in human manipulation, at least not at the moment. Though, I would like to believe that one is clearly preferable from a moral standpoint.

        1. I don’t believe that life is an either or. I have trouble with both issues you brought up.

          Also, I disagree with Rebecca’s post, but I think on somewhat different grounds. I don’t believe the lady is hated for simply changing her mind. I would have given a pretty big internal eye roll if that lady had taken off with that guy’s opening line. Also had he turned it around and said “Whoa, what just happened there. I am sorry to bother you like that in a parking lot! My name is so and so. Hi.” If she changed her mind, well, I don’t think that I would be irritated. Just saying this clip is meant for our entertainment. We are set up to judge the interaction.

  9. The guy who thought this up has obviously never owned a classic or performance car. It really isn’t odd or unusual for someone to be more interested in the car than you. If he took a puppy along he would expect the girl to be more interested in the puppy, same thing with the car.

    In the case of a Lamborghini or a Ferrari, they are notoriously unreliable. Having Formula One technology in a car might sound like a good idea but most times a quarter of the field doesn’t manage to finish a race that is only a couple of hundred miles. The street cars are a little more reliable and driven a little less hard but they are still a hobby rather than a practical means of transport.

    The point is not that the cars are expensive, it is that they are rare and they are examples of supreme craftsmanship and engineering.

  10. One point that I think is obvious, but I haven’t seen pointed out before is that we only get the “hit” here. He obviously had a plan for how this interaction would go, and we have no idea how many women he conducted this “test” on before he got the desired, expected result. He could have had 10 women turn him down and do nothing when he posed with his car, and/or he could have had 10 women accept his creepy offer (although this seems less likely). While that might be okay if we were dealing with a normal prank and waiting for the best reaction, this is not that type of prank. It is intended to play up and feed stereotypes, so not knowing the actual result of the “test” is extremely misleading.

    However, I don’t think there is much support for your penultimate paragraph. Sure, many men (and women) like to project shallowness on women who reject them to lessen the blow to their ego, but this video doesn’t appear to be anything grander than a cheap attempt to get a laugh by promoting/enforcing this one particular sexist stereotype.

    1. Also, I realize that I have gone from skeptical to cynical with respect to many “hidden camera” videos that are now produced, but I still have a slight sense of fakery. The blotched face gives the air of authenticity, but asking if it is his car and then immediately making a comment about a bar down the street and then waiving her hand dismissively at the end all seem too perfect. Again, maybe I am too cynical, but if this guy is trying to promote himself as some internet prankster, he is certainly not above hiring an actress to make sure his “joke” works.

      1. That was my thought, it seemed awfully forced, a set up.
        It seemed about as natural as the “amateur” porn videos of someone approaching a woman (always a set up) on the street which I alluded to in my earlier comment, perhaps a bit too subtly.

  11. I think the general intent of the “prank” is misogynistic. The whole “if I was rich, girls would like the way I yell at them in the streets” trope seems to be a close cousin to the “if I was hot, girls would like the way I yell at them in the streets” school of bitter, cynical misogyny. Sadly, there’s a lot of real life examples in society and popular culture that fuels it, such as the existence of “trophy wives” a/k/a the wife you get now that you’re rich enough for the pretty ones. But, the equivalent wouldn’t be a “boy-toy/cougar” thing. The equivalent would be showing guys going out of their way to help out an attractive woman in need, while ignoring unattractive women in the same situation. Oh sure, he wants us to think he’s a nice guy, but look here in this clip where he ignores the heavy girl in the same situation. See, he’s just interested in having sex with her and doesn’t really care about her plight. The big difference is that society gives a wink and says “boys will be boys” to the men and gets genuinely angry at the woman. I will admit, as a straight cis-male, it’s nice (if insidious) having society place such low expectations on my behavior. Plus, there’s a whole army of people who will rush to my aid if anybody dares criticize any non-violent thing I do or say to get sex (But, I don’t need to tell anybody here about that). But, Rebecca’s the only one out there defending materialistic women. Personally, I don’t think defending people that are living down to societies’ expectations of them is a good idea, but I get her point.

    Is this real? Given that they were looking for a specific response and were probably going to keep at it until they got the one they wanted, I don’t think it really matters.

    1. “But, Rebecca’s the only one out there defending materialistic women. Personally, I don’t think defending people that are living down to societies’ expectations of them is a good idea, but I get her point.”
      Other than the entry’s title, which is quite obviously not the central message of the post, where does Rebecca defend the woman’s materialism? She aptly describes the bias inherent in the prank and very clearly points out that she thinks the response wouldn’t have been different if it showed her reason for changing her mind was that “the man whipped out a copy of Pride and Prejudice and started reading, or gave mouth-to-mouth to a dying kitten, or helped an elderly person cross the street”. I’m optimistic enough that I think she exaggerates beyond the realm of truth here, but it does make it clear the message here isn’t a defence of “people that are living down to societies’ expectations”.

  12. “Ditto if the man whipped out a copy of Pride and Prejudice and started reading, or gave mouth-to-mouth to a dying kitten, or helped an elderly person cross the street.”

    Nonsense, you try to imply changing her mind would beget her just as much sexist scorn purely for changing her mind and nothing else but I disagree with that.

    As shallow as many men can be I highly doubt she would have been judged nearly as harshly if at all if she changed her mind solely on the basis that the man had more intellectual vigor or depth of character as opposed to something shallow in fact that would’ve portrayed her in good light foregoing looks for something more substantive.

    How many films and television programmes reinforce the idea that a less a desirable man can win over a lady through heroic deeds and good character it’s so common it’s cliché and I don’t see those actresses portrayed as shallow or fickle for a little bit of indecision. That is not to apologise for the mysogyny in the comment section it is good you have condemned it and it’s hypocrisy but is the the idea that “the moral” as you put it would be the same if she changed her mind at all for something not seen as shallow because all men are that sexist and hate women that much for turning them down or changing their minds under any circumstance that any video to that effect would warrant the same response, that I disagree with and is taking it a stretch too far.

    1. I actually disagree. I think you’re right that the trope you mentioned would likely have an effect, but I have personal doubts that it would actually act as a mitigating factor. I think two things would change in the face of a baby-rescue in lieu of a car. First, it might reduce the number of jackasses braying about the awfulness of women, but I would argue only slightly. I would wager the vast majority would remain. Secondly, it would change the words the braying jackasses use.

      I have three reasons, really, I think so. First, the people who made this video and enjoy it are the people who are looking to confirm their existing biases, so any justification for calling her a terrible name will do, be it perceived materialism or not.

      Second, the transition to hero could just as easily be cited as a reason she’s horrible. She only cares about guys who fit some bullshit Ryan Gosling Hollywood lie about what a man should be. Et cetera, et cetera.

      Third, and this plays into both strongly, US culture is so strongly disposed against someone changing their mind that “flip-flopper” was the go-to insult for an entire election year here. Changing your mind is not a good thing or a bad thing inherently, but it’s demonized as a weak thing to do in this country regardless of the circumstances of the change. The fact that a woman changed her mind at that (manufactured or no) is even worse.

      1. Yes, the narrative would almost certainly become something along the lines of “look what a great and heroic guy she passed up due to a shallow first appraisal” rather than any kind of approval through established romantic tropes.

  13. This is the idiot that terrorizes random strangers with a blunted chainsaw right? So now he’s graduated to humiliating random strangers as well.

    And his fans say he has “class”, the mind boggles!

  14. “I always forget the word people use for rich men who only go after beautiful women, whatever their salary. What is it again? It’s so common, there must be one…

    Leave your suggestions in the comments !”

    Bod Sniffer?

    Just a suggestion (albeit awkward).

  15. Various TV (in Australia) shows have done the prank in reverse, I seem to recall a lady dressed up in a ‘fat suit’ dropping a bag of groceries and seeing who would come to help, practically no one. The same lady same situation in a mini skirt and she nearly got killed in the rush! (ok slight exaggeration).

  16. Also, how many women did he have to hassle before he found ONE who gave a sh!t about the car? I’ve been street harassed in this way before, and I can say that no amount of wealth would persuade me to go near the creep – but women are individuals (almost like they are people, or something!) and individual result may vary.
    But, ONE woman acts in materialistic manner, so therefore all women are shallow and greedy. Makes sense, right? *
    *Not really.

    1. And how can we say she acted in a “materialistic manner”, anyway? I am not materialistic at all, and I’m not generally into cars, but there are some cars I really like and I may be inclined to speak to someone who has a nice car because I want to touch it and ask them about it. Even though I know nothing about cars. But they sure can be pretty. What’s so wrong with that? Nothing.

Leave a Reply

Close