[quote=bearishgurl]Good post by CAR in response to scaredy’s idea.
One thing, though, which I think would happen when the childbearer (woman) “frontloads” her prices for the tasks they won’t be able to do later in life (mainly childbearing) is that the women would end up seeking out only partner-parents (dads) who could pay them enough (however much “enough” is) for them to bear children for them.
This would encourage “gold-digging” among women, especially those who can bear children but don’t have the skills or experience to support themselves.
BUT …. “gold-digging” (in the context of the business deal that scaredy described) is a two-way street. Both parties go into it with their eyes wide open (barring any problems with pregnancy which could be written into the contract between them) and the prospective dad realizes that if they want their own children, they must pay a certain price to compel a willing woman (with good genes?) to bear them for him.
The men who didn’t make much (or were unemployed) wouldn’t be having any children by women they personally chose to bear them. They would be the ones sued for child support for “accidents” when those moms went on public aid to support their children because they never had any contract for payment for carrying their child(ren) and raising them.
Like Russ said, water seeks its own level.[/quote]
Agreed, but let’s get rid of the extremely sexist “gold digger” moniker. Is a man who seeks to be paid for his services denigrated as a “gold digger”? Women intrinsically understand that they are providing a list of services. That they want to be paid for providing these services should not compel us to look down our noses at them. Men would do it no differently if the roles were reversed.
The men who seek out “gold diggers” know exactly what they’re getting, and why.
