Blogoversary

Surely I am not the first person to notice that (gasp!) sexism exists on the interweb. Even just in this little corner of pf blogdom, it seems like not a day passes that I don't see a post or a comment from someone with depressingly dated ideas about sex, gender, and money matters: paying for day care is child abuse, women should leave their careers to stay home with their kids; hypogamy is biologically innate, women are predisposed to marry for (financial) status; married couples must give up any vestige of their independent financial identities and pool all money in one joint account or they're doomed; the wage gap is a myth perpetuated by that bastion of socialist feminism, the U.S. Department of Labor.

Or perhaps most memorably, that getting blow jobs is more frugal for a man than having sex (well of course it is, because once you publicly out yourself as an ingrate who is utterly uninterested with your partner's enjoyment, in the long run you will save money by staying home, alone, and watching the same three pornos over and over again because no one in her right mind will date you).

I haven't posted links to the egregious stuff. I don't especially want to bounce anyone's traffic that way. And besides, it's much more fun to link to things that are worth reading. When I come across a post that gets my choler up, I usually swear a little, and maybe I comment on the post itself, but usually I don't. Frequently it just does not feel worth the time.

But you know what does feel worth the time? Blogging. Being a hale and hearty--and insouciant and possibly even hip--nuh-uh right back. Writing for people who don't think women are stupid (and who don't think men are, either).

It's my three-month blogoversary today. Thanks to everyone who reads, subscribes, comments, links, or e-mails. You are the awesomest. We really must have drinks sometime.

Quick Hits Tuesday 1 April 2008

No April Fools Day posts, I swear!

Escape Brooklyn has a write up of a recent Bust magazine piece of the importance of an FU Fund for women. God bless the FU Fund. Money can't buy sanity but it can get awfully damn close. I didn't have a term for it at the time, but I cashed in an FU fund when breaking up with a slackass boyfriend years ago. After we broke up, he owed me about $300 (a whole lot, considering that I was in school and that was one-third of my monthly income from my two jobs). Phone bills, his share of counseling sessions, stupidly large library fines on my card... He kept promising to pay but never did; instead when I would call him to ask him when the check was coming our conversations would turn into head games. He obviously wasn't good for the money, and I decided to eat his share so I didn't have to talk to him or deal with his fuckedupness anymore. He was $300 richer (except not really, since he was unemployed and flat broke), but got to cut him out of my life for good, which was truly priceless.

The Consumerist reports that H&R Block doesn't "support" Connecticut same sex civil unions. Apparently civilly unioned tax filers are just too gay? Verdict: Bite me, H&R Block. Like doing your taxes doesn't suck enough.

Good hair comes to those who pay. So how much does it take a woman to keep her coiffure prettily coiffed?

MSN Money revisits the trope of the woman who is just too smart for her own good. And the NYT, in an article not about finances but about marriage counseling, contains an anecdote about one couple whose financial arguments were exacerbated when the woman received a promotion that made her the primary earner, leaving her husband resentful. Six years of counseling later (please tell me there were more issues), he is proud of her success.

On a personal note, I mailed my taxes yesterday. I'll get a lot of money back, but less than last year, which was the goal. Damn, those withholding calculators are uncooperative. On the upside, my tax refund will cover my recent furniture purchase (to be delivered tomorow! Huzzah!) and leave about $1,200 left over for savings.

When "Help" = "Money"

The first normal conversation I had with my parents after telling them I was getting married (because telling one's parents that one is getting married is presumably not a normal conversation) started with my dad asking how they could help. "By listening to me bitch about gouging caterers and guest list drama" was my first suggestion. But as it turns out, he meant "let's talk about how much money you want from us."

Ditto Shiner's mom. His first trip up to see her after the big announcement happened when I was at work late, but by his report she was happy and excited when she more or less asked him what size check to write.

Don't get me wrong, that's really sweet and very generous. But before we even told our families we talked about what kind of wedding we wanted, and we decided in advance that we would pay for it ourselves. I've posted about this before. That way we can afford it, and we can control it. We can sidestep all the kvetching about whose ex is not paying his fair share, or who sparked a nuclear arms race by throwing down more money than another family could afford. We can do things that are meaningful to us rather than running everything by a committee. Wacky us, we also thought it would be a nice change of pace for our parents to be our guests rather than our benefactors. I always find that it's easier to enjoy a party when you don't know what it costs, and this is a party I want them to enjoy.

So we each explained (gently, I hope, though there's no graceful way to tell one's parent to put her wallet back in her purse) that we appreciated the offer, but that this was something we wanted to do on our own.

I don't know what I was expecting. Not a medal or anything. Relief, maybe? Benign befuddlement? That's not how it has turned out.

My parents, so far as I know, are fine with it. Maybe they found it offputting, but bless their Teutonic little hearts, they're too stoic to tell me. Shiner's mom, I have come to find out, is not so fine with it. Not that she's offended or anything, just that she really wants to help with the wedding, and for many years she expected the way she'd "help" was by helping to foot the bill. We have inadvertently foreclosed upon the very involvement she's been envisioning for herself, and understandably, she seems to be feeling disappointed and maybe a little shut out.

We've tried to find other ways for her to be involved. She came to take one last look at our venue with us, before we signed the contract and were trying to reach a decision. We'll bring a couple of bottles of champagne up to her house for a taste taste to select what we'll serve our guests. We've tried to involve my parents, too, though it's a lttle harder for them because they live several hours away. We're scheduling a cake tasting to coincide with my mom's visit in April.

Opportunities like this to involve our parents are somewhat limited. Because the ceremony is the most important part of this, we want the guest list to be meaningful, if small--only people who know and love both of us. So we can't give our parents tasks like drawing up their personal guest lists. We're having a mingling reception, so no seating charts to help with. We're not give out favors, so there are no bows to wrap around mini bottles of bubbles. We're not doing florals (maybe corsages for the parents, but only if they seem to want them) so there are no centerpieces to arrange or bouquets to design. Get the picture? I have been relishing the fact that there seems to be so little fluff to deal with, but that's turning out to have its drawbacks, too.

Shiner's mom wants badly to help, to be involved, to do something more than show up and enjoy. As in, she got teary talking to me about it today. She's a sweet lady--absolutely dotes on her kids--and I want her to feel important in how we celebrate. But I absolutely don't want to take her money, and I don't want to change our plans or increase our budget to give her busy work that makes her feel important. Plus, she's too smart for that anyway.

Here are things she's suggested: throwing us an engagement party; paying for a rehearsal dinner; paying for the bar tab; paying for flowers; paying for our honeymoon. It's thoughtful and it's generous, but it's not something I'm comfortable with. Shiner could more easily be convinced to let her do it but thankfully he's got my back when I tell him it's important to me that we do this ourselves.

What do you do when people say they want to help you, but what they really mean is that they want to fund you? How do you turn down money you feel strongly about not accepting without being the ingrate who deprives someone you care about of the chance to feel useful?

I think we're going to cave, sort of. Today we started kicking around this idea: we'll ask her if she wants to host a post-reception reception for us. A couple months after the wedding, she can invite all of her friends and extended family (who, remember, Shiner and I will not be inviting to the wedding itself) to a get together of whatever size she wants, and she can have the "fun" she wants of selecting a menu and wording invitations and all that. Yes, it will involve her spending money. But it would be her event, not ours, so it wouldn't feel so uncomfortable to me.

I'm not completely sold on the idea. For one, I don't want it to look like a gift grab (dude, I don't even want a shower!) And for two, I don't want my parents to feel like they've got to do the same (they're not the type who enjoy hosting things), nor do I want them to feel like Shiner's mom gets a special role they don't. And for three, the question, "Do you want to throw a superfluous party in our honor?" seems like it could maybe be taken the wrong way, and that's the last thing I want.

But I'm pretty well at a loss for other ideas. Why can't people just be happy that we don't consider them walking ATMs?