Where do I sign up? I feel no compassion for any of these women whatsoever, and I hope it gets much much worse.

Yeah, I read that article too. It quite seriously made me nauseous. Dating a Banker Anonymous should be immediately renamed what it actually is - Gold Diggers Anonymous. These women are shameless, and the kicker is, they use real names and pictures in the New York Times. Priceless!

And yes, I said "girls" as opposed to women. Seeing the aloof type-A guy as attractive sounds like the high-schol girls who all want to date Filthy Phil from the football team because - "Oooooooh, he's got a convertible!" And then when he acts like a real human being, well, he's not fun.

I'll echo the class-war sentiments expressed above. My reaction when reading about their so-called troubles was that they should all try grubbing out a half-acre vegetable patch to supplement the groceries, as many folks in this country still do.

These "finance guys", in better times, delighted in rolling their eyes when Sweetie purchased $5,000 worth of Jimmy Choos: "Uh-oh, here comes the AmEx Black bill!"

(Cue furious sushi-shoveling and blackberry-flashing antics; laugh track; aaaaand...end scene.)

Women like this deserve these 'aloof' finance guys, and vice versa. The current crisis has upended their lifestyles. As far as I'm concerned, the Wall Street mode is like a closed system, a different set of social rules. I liken any examination of cultural phenomena such as this to reading about ancient feudal systems or the invention of the aqueduct in Rome: interesting, but irrelevant and unrelatable to me.

Sometimes I wonder if the NYT exists in a parellel universe- because such things as this club (and the women in it) are so exotically unreal in my world. Still, it's fun to laugh up my sleeve at them, which I do with great regularity.

These women are doing exactly what their mommy told them to do. What eastcoast upper class expects of them.

Drop a few zeros from the numbers and it's really no different from the behavior of the rest of the world.

Not many women are going to stick with a man who's nothing but a drain on their resources. An unemployed man is worthless on the dating market.

This morning I grumbling while reading the NYT and my husband asked me what I was reading. I was reading this

Banker Anonymous article. What a bunch of whining, selfish, shallow women. Relationships are not just about the "good' times. Sometimes bad economic time makes people think about what is really important in life and relationships. Obviously these these women have not figured that out. Maybe some of the men did and decided to dump these shallow women. These women seem to be getting their self esteem from their men's careers, instead from their own careers.

When times are tough, sacrifices need to be made, and mutual respect helps.

As a guy, this type of stereotype of a woman who is in a relationship primarily for the physical luxuries provided her by her BF's money...Is reinforced so much in my day to day life. Not in large ways, but in little ways. (And trust me, I see enough of these "alpha males", too, who use their wallets to attract and "catch" the woman they want)...

And it is really sad.

The blame lies not directly with either side of the gender aisle...but with both sides who play this game. Both genders are sacrificing the real, long-term reasons to be in a relationship, for short-term and immediate gains.

So I feel no sympathy for them when suddenly the money faucet is turned off. If they were not in the relationship because they trusted, loved, and supported their partner, and were instead with them for financial comfort...I feel absolutely no pity or sadness when things are not as good as it used to be.

But one point...the men may turn from "alpha-males" into "needy, clingy" types when things start to get financially difficult...the article made no mention of the change of disposition and demanor of the women when there sugar source is dried up.

"These women seem to be getting their self esteem from their men's careers, instead from their own careers."

That would be assuming that they have carreers outside of being high-priced hookers. Of course, many people of their social echelon have similar "relationships". Regular sex and arm-candy for social occasions in exchange for financial luxury.

Remember Anna Nichole Smith and the ancient oil billionaire she married?

Wasn't there an article/excerpt from a book in Salon a few weeks ago about a woman who almost got a divorce because her husband did not make enough money? I don't get what lies behind the difference in editorial moral judgment. That woman doesn't deserve scorn because she got married to a laid-back surfer dude as opposed to these women who are dating Type A assholes?

Whores Anonymous

free from the scrutiny of feminists. Yet another group of women that feminist can make fun and be above.

This is a pity party for Sex and the City wannabes who need to get -- and pay for -- lives of their own.

I can't believe they actually went public. That's a nice, passive-aggressive thing to do to their former mealtickets.

Astonishing how The Jim seizes this as an opportunity to bash feminists. Wonder what he'd do if he had one of these ladies hanging around his neck cooing for diamonds by the yard.

This is not unique to the wall street gold diggers...I can assure you the women in the upscale Atlanta suburbs have the same attitudes and behaviors. I suspect this is true throughout the country in upscale suburbia. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

The main difference between these women and feminists is that feminists want the government to be their sugar daddy.

I have no doubt that people with thoughts like these exist, but have any of you been to the blog?

It seems much too over-the-top to be real to me.