"Don't Ask Amy"

Agreed that Mrs. Dickinson by and large seems oblivious to men's problems vis-a-vis women and feminism. She is "old school" when it comes to gender roles, it seems, and like so many people, falls on the side of the woman's interests when it is a matter between a man and a woman. In short, she is running about average. Doesn't make it right, just typical.

That said, if I were in the letter-writer's shoes I also would have a tough spot to be in. It falls between two principles: 1) keeping nose out of other people's business (esp. if it has no direct effect on you) and 2) with knowledge you reasonably believe is correct and current, you know you can keep someone else's life from being turned inside out.

OK, as to (1), the writer has no claim, period. She has no justification there.

Now as to (2), she can probably safely assume the woman she refers to is still a gold-digger, as once someone has that in them, it rarely if ever changes. As others have said, one can marry more in 5 minutes than one can make in a lifetime. And yes, both men and women (particular ones, that is) will seek out mates based on their financial status-- it's just that women are more likely to do so, or so I conjecture, because it's 1) more "acceptable" and 2) more in line with gender roles (man=husband/provider, woman=consumer/child-bearer/etc.). Hard to say for sure but really, common experience tells us that that is more likely to be the case. I mean, when was the last time you saw a man who made $20k/yr marry a woman making $100k/yr? But the opposite happens all the time. The proof is in the pudding. Any given woman would not even consider dating (maybe one-night-standing, but not dating) much less marrying a man so beneath her in income/social status unless he really had some sort of very special appeal to her. If it does happen, it's only rarely.

There, now next thing to consider if you are in the letter-writer's shoes is the likelihood she will have any positive effect on the outcome of the couple's plans. Based on her characterization of the now-distant rel'p between her and her friend and the fact she doesn't know the man at all, then what is her trying to contact this guy out of the blue and tell her to look out for that evil woman he's engaged to going to do? My guess is nothing. If anything, he will get very miffed and think the letter-writer is some nutcase or has an ax to grind with his fiancee. His fiancee for her part will now despise her former friend and who knows what will come of that, esp. after she gets married to a rich guy and now has the money and status necessary to wreck her (let's assume).

Rich people should have the sense to make sure that they protect their assets when they get married, and that is all there is to it. If they do not, it's their fault, really, like driving a car without insurance. If you get caught or get into an accident and are now in legal and financial trouble, whose fault is that? Anyone wealthy (at the least, wealthy people) who marries anyone else, male or female, needs a pre-nup. If you don't get one, you're nuts. Indeed anyone with significant assets at all to look out for should consider it as well, just that most people don't fall into that category.

So my net conclusion here is that the letter-writer should stay out of the matter. At the same time, I affirm that Mrs. Dickinson has once again made it clear that her concept of men having interests worthy of protection in the face of particular women's malfeasant motivations seems totally absent. She mentioned nothing about the condemnability of the fiancee's motivations and how badly that speaks of her.

Why would one woman rat on another woman being a gold digger to a rich man? Come on... it's not like this rich and successful man has never come across gold-diggers. And the thought of such a scheme by the present fiancee, a scheme to deprive him of some of his wealth, has no doubt crossed his mind in the past. So none of this information is probably new to him. The letter writer has no significant evidence besides something the fiancee said a long time ago. Really that's nothing tangible, nothing believable, nothing provable.

I think the real reason for even asking the question of Amy is that the letter writer harbors a desire to steal the rich and successful man away from the present fiancee. She wonders if this might work. Of course, the letter writer tells herself that she would never do such a terrible thing (marry and then shortly afterwards divorce, just for the money -- she wants to hang around and enjoy the money). We all know that not all women are like that.