@Ty, i never said she was going to stay happy, did i? All i said was that the feeling is present at some point however momentarily



Tywin wasn't as smart as Tyrion

Mynd_44:
a quote won't hurt will it?

Scrolling up to read won't hurt, will it?

Caracta:

Scrolling up to read won't hurt, will it?

I don't wanna be accused of not understanding or mis-reading it.

Good thing I didn't catch this thread on time, I had to read all comments from the beginning till this point in guest mode just to understand the exact mindset of the OP.
I see that MYND dude isn't kissing azz today or making 'politically correct' statements, good development for you man...

First off, the topic and accompanying post is dead in the water, dead on arrival, and stalled in air, but in a particularly nice touch of irony, it really was wrought with good and intelligent intention.
This was until the OP started making bland remarks like, "women are money-concious, so as to find happiness".

Well I think the rest of the males here have handled their counter points quite clearly and intelligently enough, I'd rather not have to work my brain right now in digging up my arguments from where I store them deep in my cerebrum (not in the mood).

But I will say this, if women really think that being money-concious and/or gold-digging is driven by a need to be happy, then it just means that men are the sole provider of a woman's happiness.
Now I said that on purpose because I'm very sure y'all would rather hit your heads on a brick wall than agree that it is only a man with a means to money and wealth that can make a woman happy. That would paint most women as sad untill they get a maga or get married...figures huh?

Blanket statements like the topic doesn't do well for the image of women who work hard for their own money, unless of course the OP already exempted these women from the generalization. And if this is the case, then by all means I agree that a gold-digger or money-concious woman is only seeking happiness (or what the OP should have used instead is 'comfort' or 'the good life)...
And by addition also, such a woman would be a lazy, no ambition, no sense of purpose, no intelligence, and a no work ethic kind of woman. This is not meant to instigate any form of animosity, but if a gold-digger is gold-digging for happiness and/comfort, it just means that they will remain very unhappy without a hole to dig.

My advice? - maybe the money-concious or 'gold-digging-happiness-seeking women should start digging their own holes, salting it, tilling it, and going into the restricted mines underneath to bring out their own gold...that way they can stay happy without the help of a man.

Caveat -
The poster uj_sizzle is a fine young woman whom I just begun admiring. This post is in no way a reflection on you or any of the other up-standing ladies on NL whom I feel in my gut are not 'gold-diggers'.

But why you even start this kain topic sef?
Whose war did you wish to fight? #rhetoricquestions

jay bee:
Why can't all of that be achieved singly without having the need to rely on someone else with a promise of love to achieve them?

I mean all these are common goals each and every human being make at any point in their respective lives. The key difference is the self worth and so called happiness derived from achieving these goals is of importance only to the person setting the goals.

What gives?

Some people are either too lazy to bother, or have never in their lives been instilled with the discipline to work....who know?

Lol I bet a woman who hustles to secure a 'big' man will pat herself on the back when she succeeds

Caracta: @TY Lannister, I supported the OP as regards the bolded in the sense that people are different and perhaps some people find happiness in money. I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself.

Nice points you have up there.

Sometimes sef money can be a curse!

I actually agree with the OP's argument. The essence of it is that Nigerian women may have skewed conceptions of happiness but indulging such conceptions is not going to make them change and it makes no sense to indulge them and later blame the women for entertaining them.

My position is simply that I am not responsible to teach a grown woman what happiness is and how it can be had contnuously. So I will term you a golddigger if you hang with me for money or you leave me for more money. But if I think you're worth it I could go the extra mile to show you what happiness really is and how you can have it continuously.

Basically, that means that I hold that a woman is a gold-digger if it is money that determines her relationships. But I also hold that men are responsible if they chase women with money. If they chase women with money, at least, they should cut that off when they've got them and teach them something better if they'll learn it. But that might be hard because emotional involvement could make it difficult to risk losing a woman whom you can keep by giving her some money (which you have anyway). If you tried to teach her and she doesn't wanna learn, she could up and leave chasing after new money. And that can hurt like a bitchh.

Ty Lannister:
My position is simply that I am not responsible to teach a grown woman what happiness is and how it can be had contnuously. So I will term you a golddigger if you hang with me for money or you leave me for more money. But if I think you're worth it I could go the extra mile to show you what happiness really is and how you can have it continuously.

Basically, that means that I hold that a woman is a gold-digger if it is money that determines her relationships. But I also hold that men are responsible if they chase women with money. If they chase women with money, at least, they should cut that off when they've got them and teach them something better if they'll learn it. But that might be hard because emotional involvement could make it difficult to risk losing a woman whom you can keep by giving her some money (which you have anyway). If you tried to teach her and she doesn't wanna learn, she could up and leave chasing after new money. And that can hurt like a bitchh.

Word!!! I totally agree with the bolded.


However, i think it's wrong to attract a woman with money. Personally, i think it's rude, childish, dumb and unnecessary.

Men chase women with money too o

@Crackhaus I'm not fighting any battles lol. I try to understand people's motivations is all. Didn't expect half the population to agree with me really
I'm even surprised some people agreed sef

uj_sizzle: @Ty, i never said she was going to stay happy, did i? All i said was that the feeling is present at some point however momentarily



Tywin wasn't as smart as Tyrion

Nope, he wasn't. Nor was he quite so short too

Yes, you never said that. It's a tough op you made. I already said that.

You are right. Money can buy happiness in that sense...just as it can buy misery too. However, I was particularly focused on the meaning of the pursuit of happiness. You pursue something you hope to catch and keep. You won't keep the happiness of finally owning the newest BB when there's a new Rolls on the market or when the BB starts to demand attention. That was what I hoped to expand from your op.

I have a cousin who married a wealthy man. Dude was already making big bucks by the time he married her. She is annoyingly vain and perhaps irresponsible (that bit I don't quite know, haven't been close with her for a long time now). She owns more latest-release phones than she knows what to do with. Pesters her husband for new houses and new cars just because, well, the money's there. Imagine what would happen if he gave in, can you?

That feeling is so fleeting that it would seem that even the moment never was there in the first place. But a responsible woman? Man, you need to see that glow!

Caracta:

Word!!! I totally agree with the bolded.


However, i think it's wrong to attract a woman with money. Personally, i think it's rude, childish, dumb and unnecessary.

Men chase women with money too o

Lol. Maybe they do. Who cares?

However repugnant you find it, hun, it works. And sometimes, a man hits the jackpot and catches a 'happiness-seeking' woman who's actually willing to relearn life and do it right. It does happen. Not sure the odds are good enough though for me to bet my life goals on

uj_sizzle: @Crackhaus I'm not fighting any battles lol. I try to understand people's motivations is all. Didn't expect half the population to agree with me really
I'm even surprised some people agreed sef

Yea well, there were some valid statements hidden in there though, so I guess some people chose to argue using validation as the 'fulcrum' and then work up from there.
I did the opposite as did some of the other posters.

Oh and by the way, this one got me laughing... "men should chase money so women can chase us...and we stop complaining" , or something like that you wrote.

Hmm I now understand why most single ladies date married men cos they are virtually the link to their source of happiness....I pity any lady with this skewed mentality...Respect #Ngozi Okonjo Iweala,Ms Evelyn Oputu,Ms Funke(Main One Cable),Ms Aruma Oteh,Chidima Uwajimogu,Senator Chris Anyanwu,Sen. Nkechi Nworgu,Amb Kema Chikwe,Sen.Joy Emordi,Sen Grace Bent,Sen.Esuene Helen,Hon Uche Ekwunife among others who vowed to own the Gold rather than being the Gold Digger...Not Forgeting Mrs.Folarunsho Alakija and Prof. Dora Akunyili#...I detest young ladies with a high dependency mindset

crackhaus:
Yea well, there were some valid statements hidden in there though, so I guess some people chose to argue using validation as the 'fulcrum' and then work up from there.
I did the opposite as did some of the other posters.

Oh and by the way, this one got me laughing... "men should chase money so women can chase us...and we stop complaining" , or something like that you wrote.

I guess there are different ways to look at it


@Bolded, you do know i was referring to those men who believe their wealth is all they have to offer, and the women who believe the wealth is all they need They'll balance each other out until one sect decide to have more sense

uj_sizzle:
I guess there are different ways to look at it


@Bolded, you do know i was referring to those men who believe their wealth is all they have to offer, and the women who believe the wealth is all they need They'll balance each other out until one sect decide to have more sense

Unbalance equation ma'am when choice gets thrown into it


The wealthy guy will almost certainly get more offers from would be gold diggers whereas the gold digger only has the wealthy dude as the only option.

Your equation will bring about jealousy and in turn depression

uj_sizzle:
I guess there are different ways to look at it
@Bolded, you do know i was referring to those men who believe their wealth is all they have to offer, and the women who believe the wealth is all they need They'll balance each other out until one sect decide to have more sense

Hmmm

jay bee:

Unbalance equation ma'am when choice gets thrown into it


The wealthy guy will almost certainly get more offers from would be gold diggers whereas the gold digger only has the wealthy dude as the only option.

Your equation will bring about jealousy and in turn depression

I did make mention of the possibility of the benefits each derieve from the other being skewed

But really, the whole point of this was to tell guys not to encourage what they consider bad and then complain afterwards. If you don't like something, you either change it or ignore it. Don't embrace and cry

Lol you guys need to ignore the title of the thread, it was supposed to get your attention. Do you people even buy newspapers at all

uj_sizzle:
I did make mention of the possibility of the benefits each derieve from the other being skewed

But really, the whole point of this was to tell guys not to encourage what they consider bad and then complain afterwards. If you don't like something, you either change it or ignore it. Don't embrace and cry

Lol you guys need to ignore the title of the thread, it was supposed to get your attention. Do you people even buy newspapers at all

Newspapers with good reputations don't write discombubulated articles with wrong titles and expect the readers to call the editor to explain what he/she meant.

What you wrote up is in total support of Gold diggers.

uj_sizzle:
I did make mention of the possibility of the benefits each derieve from the other being skewed

But really, the whole point of this was to tell guys not to encourage what they consider bad and then complain afterwards. If you don't like something, you either change it or ignore it. Don't embrace and cry

Lol you guys need to ignore the title of the thread, it was supposed to get your attention. Do you people even buy newspapers at all

Some call it trade by barter but forgeting the drawbacks involved in such business . When inflation arises, that is when they complain . This will lead to abnormal demand curve due to too much money chasing few(not worth it) goods

Mynd_44:
Newspapers with good reputations don't write discombubulated articles with wrong titles and expect the readers to call the editor to explain what he/she meant.

What you wrote up is in total support of Gold diggers.

Bros, it really wasn't. There's a reason that you could see an element of "discombobulation" in the article. That happens when a writer is playing devil's advocate with intent to actually denounce or hamper the viewpoint that they appear to be defending (edit). The writer both appears to be defending and condemning the view that they are writing about. The confusion results in readers polarizing the article and insisting on only one approach for whatever reason they fancy, in this case, the title.

The OP presented the insides of the reasonings of a gold-digger and went on to show that improper appreciation of those reasonings will only lead to a perpetuation of the vice. It's like the OP is saying, "if men understood that gold-digging women thought like this, they would not try to impress them with money and thus worsen the situation."

The style is not so well-developed fully developed (edit: that's more correct. Same as later in this paragraph) in this writer but it is not poor either. It's good enough for an unbiased analyst to recognize. If it were well-developed fully developed, it'd take a dunce to fail to recognize it. An emotionally-blinded reader would be drawn into it and defused within the first few paragraphs unless they did not read it at all then. But as it is now, it isn't bad, but it is recognizable.

Ty Lannister:
Bros, it really wasn't. There's a reason that you could see an element of "discombobulation" in the article. That happens when a writer is playing devil's advocate with intent to actually denounce or hamper the viewpoint that they appear to be defending (edit). The writer both appears to be defending and condemning the view that they are writing about. The confusion results in readers polarizing the article and insisting on only one approach for whatever reason they fancy, in this case, the title.

The OP presented the insides of the reasonings of a gold-digger and went on to show that improper appreciation of those reasonings will only lead to a perpetuation of the vice. It's like the OP is saying, "if men understood that gold-digging women thought like this, they would not try to impress them with money and thus worsen the situation."

The style is not so well-developed in this writer but it is not poor either. It's good enough for an unbiased analyst to recognize. If it were well-developed, it'd take a dunce to fail to recognize it. An emotionally-blinded reader would be drawn into it and defused within the first few paragraphs unless they did not read it at all then. But as it is now, it isn't bad, but it is recognizable.

Dude, if you wanna write from inside the eye of a person and try to reason from that angle you can try but you do not come across as defending it. The op in many instance clearly insinuated that "men should chase money and they chase men". That's what she closed with.

In what you speak about, it is usually to correct a social vice and at a point, you deviate to what is right or you feel is right, the OP did none of that but stuck to the point that what these women do is not "gold digging" but pursuing happiness.

If you wanna write in the form you mentioned, you write of the failures of this system, the OP did not. The OP completely neglected that and ended it in the tone she wanted which is in defence of this horrible and sub-human way of living.

Compare what the OP wrote with this article

https://www.nairaland.com/918742/opinion/21#20613781

Mynd_44:
Dude, if you wanna write from inside the eye of a person and try to reason from that angle you can try but you do not come across as defending it. The op in many instance clearly insinuated that "men should chase money and they chase men". That's what she closed with.

In what you speak about, it is usually to correct a social vice and at a point, you deviate to what is right or you feel is right, the OP did none of that but stuck to the point that what these women do is not "gold digging" but pursuing happiness.

If you wanna write in the form you mentioned, you write of the failures of this system, the OP did not. The OP completely neglected that and ended it in the tone she wanted which is in defence of this horrible and sub-human way of living.

There's a literary device very much akin to a devil's advocate's argument. It's called the satire. You will not see any straightforward condemnation of the vice or ill or evil in a system that is being satirized. But if you have any sense of humor you will notice that the whole effort is meant to mock the vice or evil. That is why comedians can get away with insulting principal persons in public.

As to this particular article, the author clearly pointed out that it is nonsense for men to chase money so that women chase them when they will only turn around later to complain that the women are gold-diggers. In that very last paragraph, the whole point of the writing was unveiled. Evidently, she meant that men help to worsen the vice by presenting their material wealth as their selling point to women they want. And by saying that, her point was made: gold-digging will not go away as long as men choose to use their money to chase women.

Visit this and have fun though
https://www.nairaland.com/1588732/women-fishlike-behaviours

Dated my girl 3+ years now while working in a Financial Institution it was all rosy but when I was relieved of my job last year, I had to relocate to another state for job hunting. Regardless of that, I still try my best for her one way or the other.

Fastforward, I started noticing some changes from her side since am not living up to her expectations...(Her Quote today -U lov me accordin 2 u,bt ur lov is n.t solving my problms,i ve resumed 2 skul is it lov dat i'l eat in skul,i ve rent 2 pay,is it lov i'l use in payin d hous rent,d last tin i want 2 hear is lov, pls let me be)...

@mynd and dyt. When situation is rosy and fine, love is present but when things are not working accordingly, na Gobe

Mynd_44: Compare what the OP wrote with this article

https://www.nairaland.com/918742/opinion/21#20613781

Ok, bros, I just read it. First off, it was engaging writing. Same as the OP's article. Now here's the crucial difference: the article in your link is simple and straightforward actually where the OP's is not at all simple or straightforward (remember the adjective you used to describe it: discombobulated).

The article in your link obviously says this: women are easy to get if you're willing to be a jerk. It's really that simple. The writer came across as amused and as though he knew that even telling women the tricks that trapped them in a jerk's clutches would not make a darn difference. But there was nothing complicated about it. It was simply someone passing on some information that amused him.

The OP's article picks up an argument and develops it. It appears (deliberately) to legitimize gold-digging using rather positive and affirmative expressions to suggest that the author is really defending gold-digging. But that is not all. By the time you get to the end of the article, you have a confusion in your mind. Now if you already have issues with gold-digging and are passionately against it, you will not see clearly what it is that brought on the confusion but you'll automatically hate it because whatever it is suggests that the article is not only affirming gold-digging thus forcing you to hesitate, a reaction that only confuses you more.

But if you are for gold-digging, you'll applaud the op until you've finished the entire article. Then you're not exactly sure that the writer is really on your side. So you also hesitate and start looking for anything to lay hold on to claim the arguments as favorable to your position.

In the end, there is a confusion. The article is not clear. Is the author rooting for gold-digging or is she anti-gold-digging? Nobody's sure but everybody wants to fight so the article is mentally reconstructed to suit each party and interest.

But a careful analysis shows that the author was deliberately turning a gold-digger's mind inside out, thinking a gold-digger's thoughts and constructing a gold-digger's arguments but for a strange reason. To actually defeat gold-digging as a mindset. Here's how I mean (I feeling too lazy and too hampered to go hunting quotes from the op, so please indulge.me and check what I'm going to describe against what she wrote):

The gold-digger thinks happiness is, well, a woman's right. And she has as much right as any other woman to "choose" what makes her happy. Some are happy in love, some in careers, and others in whatever they please. But the GD is happy in money. As long as she has money, everything is just dandy. For her, money can buy happiness. For her money is happiness. She will only ever be wherever the money is. And as far as she's concerned, there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everybody else can be where their happiness is, why not her? Besides, is it her fault that men always come at her with their money first? Even if they complain that she likes them for their money, is it not them that insist on her seeing that they have money?

Now, that is the chassis, the body of the argument. It is straightforward. The gold-digger is excusing her weakness but what about the inner parts of the argument. That's why it's confusing. We're not hearing only a gold-digger, there's someone else there too. That person agrees that the men have some blame for the perpetration of gold-digging and ibsists that men should try to offer something other than their wealth. That person does not bother to judge the GD (that's the source of the confusion). Everywhere you hear that person in the whole article, what you see is "there, that's another reason this crazy system is still here messing things up". The person appears only to be interested in saying, start from what you can fix. Some women think like this. Don't tempt them with money. If you do, don't complain later that it's your money they're after. Teach them instead that happiness is more than what money can buy or what money is.

It's a confusing article. You feel the confusion because it demands that you hesitate and think about what she has said. And hesitating is not ordinarily what you would do.

i give up on 9ja women.almost all of them are the same.all they want is money money money,they hardly add value to pples life.

emmadan: i give up on 9ja women.almost all of them are the same.all they want is money money money,they hardly add value to pples life.

They are just in pursuit of happiness na

#fact

uj_sizzle:
I guess there are different ways to look at it


@Bolded, you do know i was referring to those men who believe their wealth is all they have to offer, and the women who believe the wealth is all they need They'll balance each other out until one sect decide to have more sense

This right here @bolded would 'almost' end in a dead-lock as per the Nigerian situation.
It's kind of like the classic scenario of, "what came first? The chicken or the egg?"

Here's what I mean, if one sect is going to have more sense to let go of the 'money mentality' as regards male-female relations, what sect do you think should come first?
It's going to be a round argument that may or may not end in a dead-lock.

The obvious question becomes, was it the men using their money to attract women that started it first? OR was it the women placing money as a criteria before choosing a suitable mate that started first?
If you ask me, I think I'd go for the latter.
I mean, don't you think that maybe it was because many a man got turned down or looked down on by their girlfriends/wives/random girls, that they decided to go hussle more just to earn some gaddemm respect from the women folk?

Well like I said, round argument it is... But If any one sect is going to get the sense to not be so 'money-concious', it certainly should be the sect that derives the most pleasure out of a 'money-based-relationship or arrangement'...
Guess what sect that would be?

Op, I concur with most parts of your comments BUT I think Happiness comes from within. Unless and until u are happy with who u are, what u are, where u are, how u are,...that is u are satisfied with your present situation, u can't be truly happy. Don't seek happiness from people or in material things, yes, u may derive joy in them but this may only be temporary. Money can't buy love or happiness!
So seek inner peace and contentment, then you can say you are truly happy. That is happiness that endures. Once u achieve this, then u can be and do all things.
My humble submission

Mynd_44:
They are just in pursuit of happiness na

what kind of happiness?are u trying to take greed for happiness.They are in pursuit of greed and not happiness,pls and pls,dnt insult hapiness.

emmadan: what kind of happiness?are trying to take greed for happiness.They are in pursuit of greed and not happiness ,pls and pls,dnt insult hapiness.

@Bolded literaly got me cracking up in laughter