A marriage of convenience is (*plural *marriages of convenience) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the reasons of relationship, family, or love. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose, such as political marriage. The phrase is a calque of French: mariage de convenance - a marriage of convention, or marriage of suitability. In the cases when it represents a fraud, it is called sham marriage. Now, if your parents actually choose your spouse, then the marriage of convenience would be an arranged marriage. How is the concept of a marriage of convenience or arranged marriage or sham marriage any different from a golddigger woman or man in the developed contemporary world? Perhaps, the golddigger woman/man is more independent and can think for himself/herself and VOLUNTARILY chooses this lifestyle whereas the person entering the marriage in the situation is governed by the people around him/her? Perhaps, the golddigger lifestyle runs counter to meritocracy and the American Dream, so such a lifestyle is frowned upon/deplored?
Imagine a hypothetical situation in which there is a young woman about 18 years old. Her family is very wealthy. The parents figure that if their little daughter marry off, then the bride’s family have to pay a dowry. The parents could marry internally but fear of interbreeding. So, they look for a suitable and rich husband for their daughter, and they found a man who is twice the girl’s age (let’s pretend the suitor is the father’s acquaintance). Would this practice be counted as an arranged marriage/marriage of convenience/sham marriage/golddigger marriage? The parents are VOLUNTARILY choosing the spouse for monetary gain. How would you view this practice if the parents allow the girl to choose among the potential suitors that the parents have already chosen for the girl (all of which are deemed acceptable as candidates due to personal wealth)?
As I’ve understood it, the term “golddigger” is typically used for women who are predatory, dishonest and manipulative; that’s different than a situation where everyone involved knows what the motives of everyone involved are, and certainly different than one where she’s a victim of her greedy parents. She’s not someone who is forced into a marriage by her parents, and not someone who is tempted/seduced by a rich guy flaunting his wealth at her; she’s the instigator. She’s the seducer, not the seduced.
Not really. In the 1930s, it meant any woman who wasn’t rich and who wanted to marry a rich man. The “Golddigger” series of movies in the 1930s always featured chorus girls who wanted to marry rich. There was not necessarily any deceit involved.
She is just a strategic thinker. All marriages, at least those that aren’t based on complete naivety,are transactional. Romantic love may or may not be a part of it. Even if romantic love is the core, there are still plenty of other factors involved such as the suitability of the person to have children and care for them, their ability to sustain a solvent household, and security when illness or old age strikes.
Many, perhaps most people are not ambivalent about the idea of getting married and suddenly decide to when they meet their ‘soul mate’. In reality, most people decide they are going to get married first and have an age range when that will happen in mind. They date for fun and practice before that and then try to find the best partner available when their time is right. Wealth or at least the potential for it is usually part of the criteria even if some people’s requirements are higher than others.
Almost all marriages are based on these types of criteria that different people place different importance on. There is nothing wrong with that as long as there is no deception involved and money is not the sole reason two people get married. As the old saying goes, don’t marry for money but date where the money is so that will be taken care of when you fall in love.
I think the difference between “then” and now is that now, the popular belief is that the ONLY acceptable reason to get married is love. In the past love was a secondary or non-existent consideration. People who wanted to marry for love were either peasants or naive.
It makes sense, when you consider the fact that Ebenezer Scrooge rejected the possibility of marriage in his younger days simply because his girlfriend was a “dowerless girl”. Ironically, his own nephew married for love, and Scrooge sneered at that, as if marrying for love was terribly naive and ridiculous.