Why it is unfair to call Alyce Faye Eichelberger Cleese a gold-digger

[GSMITHBOOK] I love to check out what is going on over the pond from time to time to see  what interesting divorces are being discussed in the UK. This week it is all about Monty Python actor John Cleese and his divorce from his 64 year old pschotherapist wife, Alyce Faye. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment
And so I read that article last night but I was too tired to write the post and so I am writing it today, and I hope I remember what it was about, cause, once again, short of time, I can’t re-read the darn thing.
Anyways. I hate the word “gold-digger.” It is a pejorative back hand slap to women and it’s insulting, pretty much. But that is not to say that there aren’t individuals who marry just for money. I am not for that, obviously. I don’t believe in marrying just for money. At the same time, just like I think you ought to love your spouse, I think you should factor “money” into your calculus into whether or not to marry someone, especially considering that lack of money winds up being the reason that a lot of people divorce. Because we can bring all the handguns and semi-automatic weapons we want to the town house meeting on “should a woman consider a man’s wealth when making a decision to marry him or not” but the bottom line is, money talks and bs walks. And you can’t do anything without it. Sure, you can take a suitcase of love to the grocery store and tell them you want to pay for your groceries with your love, but I have a hunch you will be leaving there empty handed. Sure, you can put attraction in your wallet and try to get a metrocard, but something tells me your behind will be walking to Harlem from Brooklyn if you don’t have cash to get on the subway.
And obviously, those are silly examples. But the point I am making is that there isn’t anything more important than money. YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT IT. So it should be part of the calculus that everybody does when they make big decisions like tying their lives to another individual. It just is common sense.
Now. Specifically. Is the Monty Python star John Cleese (it was “John” right?) being taken to the cleaners by a “gold-digger” wife? She apparently got so many millions of his net worth, that he says if he dies today, her children (which are not his children) will inherit more than his own flesh and blood. If that is true, obviously, there is something a bit wrong with that since he is the one who worked and earned the money and she basically gets all of it simply by virtue of having done her home work and married a man with means.
But does that make her a gold-digger? Look, the woman had a career before she met Mr. Big Bucks. She wasn’t a nobody sitting on a park bench trying to borrow  a pen from passerbys. She was a psychotherapist in private practice. She continued her practice after the marriage. He knew she was a psychotherapist before he married her. He liked her enough to date her and marry her and spend 16 years of his life with her. Prior to this divorce (and by the way, she is his 3rd wife so you do have to consider the fact that he is the problem, not her) are you trying to tell me he saw no signs that all she wanted was his money? Come on. If that is all she wanted he would have seen that a long time ago, and he would have protected himself for the eventual divorce –cause gold-diggers would naturally go into the marriage with a short term view. They would not be looking to spend the rest of their lives with someone. It would all be about the money. They would not likely invest 16 years of their lives if money was all they are after. At least, I don’t think so.
It is idiotic to say that just because a woman marries a man of means that she is a gold digger. The people who say that are jealous women who marry paupers either because they don’t think they can get a rich guy or they do think they can get him but it just doesn’t happen ( I know of not one woman who would turn a guy down just because he is rich so she could marry a more economically correct man); or men who are envious that they don’t have the kind of wealth they wish they could laud over potential mates; or men who are about to divorce and know they will have to split their wealth with their less affluent spouse. It is totally contrived. None of this demographic is objective about this issue and their opinion that a woman is a gold-digger has absolutely no gravitas as far as I am concerned.
I think it is unfair to call Alyce Faye a gold digger just cause her husband is rich. She would not have been any more virtuous in my opinion for marrying a man without means. She just would be a fool.
Yes, I realize how totally sexist and double standarded this entire post is. I should delete it, but why? I really think what I expressed here and I’m not going to apologize. Cause it’s been that kind of day, darling. Tough. In my face. No apologies from nobody. And the only place I can vent is my blog. So here it is. In your face….thank god nobody knows who I am!