11 Apr 2009, Comments (12)

If you thought we were over the idea of women as tradeable commodities in the “developed” countries

Author: Helen

You might like to read the first paragraphs and second page of this Bloomberg article.

(Although I have zero sympathy for any of the protagonists in this story, to most of us, “£1.17 million” =/= “broke”.)

Comments (12)

  • Ann oDyne says:

    Poor guy, to only have £1.17 million left.

    While the piece had the tip of a tongue in it’s cheek, this para leapt at me –

    “Still, you would need a heart of stone not to feel some sympathy.
    You spend your life building a fortune, and at the end you lose most of it, while your ex is living a life of luxury.”

    Clever enough to be CEO, but not clever enough to be faithful.
    A woman would only leave a rich guy if he was adulterous … and the poor things do tend to be adulterous.

    My Ex is presently the Fifth Husband of a woman who must be thinking deeply about now …I am so looking forward to The Inevitable.

    re ‘woman as commodity’: recent first-hand encounter with Sudanese ‘refugees’ in this state, has me perplexed than male could return to sudan and bring back here, a FIFTEEN-year-old bride. perplexed.

  • Pavlov's Cat says:

    I’m bemused by the way they expect any woman who’d marry into a ‘trophy wife’ type deal in the first place to suddenly come over all ethical after the marriage has ended. And also by the fact that they can’t see that this kind of aftermath is part of the whole ‘woman as commodity’ deal. As Barry McKenzie might say, live by the pork sword, die by the pork sword.

  • Amanda says:

    Heart of stone. I haz it.

  • Helen says:

    Anne O’, yes, I specified “developed countries” in the title specifically to indicate that this is a western world example, and trivial compared to examples of other commodified women – the sex slaves brought right here into our own city from Indochina or to UK from the former USSR, for instance, also child brides of any country.

    Amanda and Pav, 😀

  • jape says:

    AoD:
    “A woman would only leave a rich guy if he was adulterous…”

    Um. Are you serious?

  • Link says:

    If the end result of the credit crunch is that the bankers wind up broke while their wives swan off to Monaco to skip taxes and work on their tans, it will not strike anyone as just.

    ‘Cept me perhaps. I think it beautifully just. The perfect end to the perfect arrangement.

  • Ann oDyne says:

    Hello Jape above.
    There are some shocking public examples of women who should have walked long ago and have not.
    I can only assume their comfort is taking precedence over their self-respect. A rich guy has to really be a real pig to be dumped.
    Generally that involves blatant adultery.
    (google Jeanne Pratt + Shari Lea Hitchcock)

    Woman Thinks: “he is a pig I should leave, hang on, I will only have half the lifestyle I have now. hmmm.” Woman goes shopping.

  • M-H says:

    Geez, Ann. Not all women married to rich men depend on the men for their future. Sure, some women in all financial stratas of society hitch their stars to men who doesn’t respect them, and they stay for their own reasons. But it’s not a universal truth about rich men.

  • Bernice says:

    Checked the date on the copy a couple of times whilst reading the Bloomberg piece just in case it was 1st of April. But no. I’m sure we can all assume that if Mr Successful were post divorce to become Mr Ultra Successful, he would not be contacting his ex-partner(s), offering to increase her share of the booty. Ergo, if he becomes Mr UnSuccessful, he nor his apologists should cry foul if ex-partners manage not to lose their stake. Rather like dissolving any business partnership really.

    Though I did do a wee Witchee Discworld jig at the thought of those Masters of the Universe being less on the scale of wealth than their ex-partners. Sometimes karma is a very Terry Pratchett thing.

  • Link says:

    I like the story about the charmer who wanted his kidney back. That’s class.

  • David Irving (no relation) says:

    Seeing as I’m feeling all bitter and twisted at having had around half my superannuation spent on hookers and blow, I can only feel smug satisfaction about these blokes suddenly being “poor”.

    Frankly I’d prefer it if we could hang them from lamp posts and use them for target practice, but this’ll do.

  • mark says:

    I think if you read it to the end, it becomes quite clear that the article … how does it go … oh, yes: uses the truth as a starting point to build a surprisingly realistic fictional world and encourage discussion about what it truly means to live in the modern Western world in a time of recession …

    Even as he talks of “hearts of stone” and “basic unfairness”, he has his tongue so far up his cheek it’s getting somewhat distracting (I mean to say, hot, amiright?). And when he goes on to argue for life-time income-sharing contracts (if your ex marries someone even richer, you benefit) and trading derivatives on the open market, it’s like he’s given up even attempting a straight face.

    Let’s face it, financial reporting must wear down on a fellow. Sooner or later he’ll feel the need to cut loose, and when he does (the banking industry being what it is), the results will be slightly humorous, somewhat sexist, and nerdy as all get-out.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.