If You're Getting Your Financial Advice From Cosmo, Just Stop.

The latest issue of Bitch (No. 40, the Genesis issue) carries a piece by Latoya Peterson on the difference in the financial advice doled out by mainstream men's magazines as compared with mainstream women's mags. The article isn't online yet, you'll have to check it out yourself at the bookstore or library.

Peterson observes that women's mags assume their readers just haaaate thinking about money. I mean, ew! right? Instead, they focus on things women can buy with their money. Maybe on bargains, maybe on designer splurges, but Marie Claire seems to think the purpose of money is to spend it clothing and accessories for yourself, and not for longterm stability or goal attainment. Maxim, juvenile as it may be in other respects, interviews financial authors, provides investment (rather than merely saving-and-spending) advice, and career development insights.

There are bright spots out there. Peterson mentions emerging publications aimed at female entrepreneurs like Pink and BeE, and established Black-targeted magazines like Essence, which do a better job addressing money matters by assuming that women have financial needs that go beyond mere retail. But we can put "does a crap job at financial education" on my list of issues with mainstream women's mags.

The Cost Of A Name Change

One item Shiner and I have not factored into our wedding budget is the cost of a name change. In every state I've ever heard of, it is free for a woman to legally change her last name when marrying her husband; it's free for her to add his name; it's free for either of them to hyphenate their names. At any rate, it's free for everyone to keep their own names. What trips up a lot of states, though, is a man who wants to take his wife's surname after marriage. Because, uh, only girls do that, right?

In many states, a man who wants to take his wife's surname would have to go through the regular name changing process. And it is a process. It varies by state, but it generally takes at least a couple hundred bucks, a court appearance or two, and oh yes, the paperwork. That is just sexist.

But California has now joined six other states (Hawaii, Iowa, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and North Dakota--now there's a red-blue coalition) in requiring equal treatment of men and women in this respect. Congratulations and thank you to Michael and Diana Bijon for that. Michael (née Buday) successfully sued the state when he was told he needed to have a lengthy and costly name change proceeding before he could take his wife's name. Had his wife become Ms. Buday, the cost would have been $0.

Name changes are still a pain. I work with a woman who got married several weeks ago and took her husband's name. She's still dealing with the DMV, Social Security, and whoever it is at the county who tracks car titles. And she hasn't even started with the credit cards, the bank accounts, the passport, the job paperwork... Yikes. But we are one small step closer to a country in which everyone has an inexpensive path to lots of post-nuptial bureaucratic hassle.

Kate Harding at Shakes has more on why this important, aside from the straight up cheapness factor.

Bloomberg Named In Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

As though pregnancy, with its morning sickness, wardrobe limbo, and constant need to pee, was not already enjoyable enough, 58 women who work (or used to work) at Bloomberg LP, the financial services corporation founded by current NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg are suing the company, alleging they were discriminated against for getting knocked up.

The lawsuit also claims the women were paid less when they returned from maternity leave and were demoted and replaced by "junior" male employees.
...
Stanford Law School Professor Deborah Rhode said, "It's not uncommon to find employers responding in this way to employees who become pregnant."

Asked how hard it would be to prove discrimination, she replied: "It's not rocket science ... There's usually documentary evidence that shows what was their job before and what was their job when they came back. And is there any other plausible explanation other than discrimination."

Looks like it's time for a quick pregnancy discrimination primer. Gather 'round, chickadees:

It is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a woman because she is pregnant.

It is illegal for an employer to fire a woman because she is pregnant.

It is illegal for an employer to demote a woman, reduce her hours, dock her pay, or backpedal her seniority because she is pregnant.

It is illegal for an employer to ask a woman about her baby-making plans.

It is illegal for an employer to tie a pregnant woman's eligibility for benfits, like health insurance or parental leave, to her marital status.

More from 'Lect law on what is and is not allowed, how much leave you're entitled to, and what to do if your employer decides to break the law.

More Job Discrimination From Uncle Sam

Normally, sex discrimination in the workplace is illegal. That general rule, however, does not apply to the U.S. military, which continues to discriminate against women by prohibiting them from working in combat operations.

Except that female soldiers do work in combat. And by all accounts they do it well. Monica Brown, an 18-year-old medic stationed in Afghanistan, recently received a Silver Star for running through gunfire to treat and shield wounded fellow soldiers when her convey was struck by Taliban fighters. She may now have the military's third-highest combat medal, but still critically lacks the ability to write her name in the snow from a stationary postion. So days after risking her life to treat her commrades, she was removed from her unit and restationed to a more lady-like position where she wouldn't have to worry her pretty little girl-head about fighting.

President Bush has forcefully backed the Army's restrictions, asserting in a January 2005 interview with the Washington Times that there should be "no women in combat." Since her heroic actions, however, Brown was promoted to specialist and has been congratulated by Cheney in Afghanistan, praised in a meeting with Bush at a NATO summit in Romania, and offered a job on the White House staff.

Military officers in the field and independent experts have said it is both infeasible and contrary to the Army's own warfighting doctrine to prevent women from serving in proximity to -- or together with -- all-male combat units in today's war zones. They contend that if the goal of the policy is to protect women from capture or bodily harm, it cannot be done in the scramble of conflicts such as those in the Middle East.

Across Afghanistan, female medics such as Brown are regularly sent to serve with combat units. "The real catch was to have a female medic out there because of the cultural sensitivities and the flexibility that gave commanders," said Maj. Paul Narowski, the executive officer of Brown's battalion. "It is absolutely not about gender in terms of how well they will do," he said, adding that he does not know why Brown was pulled out.

The only other female Silver Star recipient in the past 60 years was Sgt. Lee Ann Hester, a military policewoman in Iraq who the Army said had responded to a 2005 insurgent attack on a convoy by firing grenades.

"I didn't want to leave," Brown said, after being pulled from the platoon. Robbins said he and his men, who called Brown "Doc," also wanted to keep her as their medic.

"I've seen a lot of grown men who didn't have the courage and weren't able to handle themselves under fire like she did," said Staff Sgt. Aaron Best of Canton, N.C., Robbins's gunner that day. "She never missed a beat."

Army personnel largely agree that the military's ban on women in combat is crap, says a survey conducted last year by Rand Corporation. It certainly goes against common sense. And moreover, it's utterly sexist. Of course, the military has one of the worst track records of any large employer in the U.S. when it comes to fair treatment of women. But it doesn't really matter that I don't have the foggiest idea why a woman (or a man) would want to enlist in the military. They do, and they deserve to be treated fairly.

Republicans In Congress Could Not Care Less About Pay Discrimination

Earlier this week Republican Senators blocked a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Say it with me now: that's crap.

Equal Pay Day

It's Equal Pay Day, netizens! I am blogging for fair pay for women today in an event sponsored by the National Women's Law Center.

It's been nearly a year since Lilly Ledbetter lost her pay discrimination case before the Supreme Court. It's not that Ledbetter wasn't paid less than her male colleagues at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama; she was. It's not that this lesser pay wasn't a form of sex discrimination; a jury had already concluded it was. It's that she was discriminated against for so long that it basically stopped counting. Say wha?

In the lower court, Ledbetter won a verdict against Goodyear that was based on nineteen years of discriminatory compensation and performance reviews. Nineteen years. That's longer than I've been able to do long division. But Title VII's statute of limitations requires victims of workplace discrimination to file suit within 180 days of being discriminated against. And because Lilly Ledbetter didn't know she'd been discriminated against--didn't know that she was routinely receiving smaller raises than her male colleagues--until that small 180-day window had slammed shut, she was SOL. This decision overturned the established and eminently logical interpretation of Title VII's statute of limitations, which considered every paycheck diminished by discriminatory activity to be a separate act of discrimination.

Justice Ginsberg (who was, in her lawyer days, an amazing advocate for sex equity in the workplace, and who is now the only sitting female Justice) pointed out the impossible position this new statute of limitations put Lilly Ledbetter, and countless other women in: file at the first sign of any possible discrimination, go to court with an undeveloped factual record, and risk being thrown out of court as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, or wait until the facts are better developed, the discrimination is more clearly established, and get thrown out of court as to late to the pay-discrimination party. Either way, the employer wins. Deal or no deal?

Congress is considering legislation to prevent employees from having to make this impossible "choice." Please voice your support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. But until Congress steps up, what do we do to protect our most valuable financial assets, i.e., our earning power?

First, this cultural taboo against talking about money has got to go. In addition to being healthier, saner, and better for everybody to get over our collective money weirdness, open conversations about salaries, wages, and benefits appear to be the only way victims of pay discrimination have a prayer of finding out about the discrimination within the fantastically short statute of limitations period. Having more information also sets you up better to negotiate from a position of authority. Talk to friends in your company and in your industry outside your company. Talk about pay scales, bonus systems, bennies. Can you gather more data points on the internet or through professional organizations? You want to go into informational hunter-gatherer mode. This will help you get to...

Step number 2, which is the ask. It's never too early in your career to start. All the cool kids are doing it. And there's a good reason why: If you don't ask, you won't get it. And women ask all too infrequently compared with men. Go in equipped with your research. You don't need to dispense graphs and spreadsheets, just confidence and facts. Compare this:

"In this market, for my level of experience, the median salary is X. Based on my performance reviews and abc projects, I think we agree that my work here is well above average. Therefore I think a salary of X+Y(more money, more vacation, more educational benefits, whatever) is fair and appropriate.

with this:

"Would you like to give me more money? Please?"

Just imagine which one you'll feel more confident saying, and which one your employer is going to find more compelling. It can be especially hard for women to be direct, to think of their desires as valid, rather than just taking what they are given--those things are hard to reconcile with a social expectation that we will be relational, non-confrontational, and wholly other-oriented. But you know you deserve to be paid what you're worth. You know you deserve a good advocate, and you are her. If you're nervous about it, do a couple of role plays with a friend. Have a strong cup of coffee. And then ask.

But in case they say no, it's time for step three. OK, let's take a quick detour to step two and a half for those of you who are otherwise fond of your current job. If you don't get your ask, find out what it would take to get it in the future. Is it another year of experience? A change in job title that would change your pay scale? Some additional training you could do? If you like your job, and you want to stay there, find out where there are holes in your resume that would set you up for what you're asking for. And then do them. And then remind your boss that you did them and revist the "Can I haz muny plz now?" discussion.

If you aren't in love with your job, by all means go straight to step three. Look around. You don't owe any employer your continued allegiance. If they're not doing right by you, and you don't investigate your other options, you're not doing right by yourself. And then repeat steps one and two as your job search proceeds.

The solution to unequal pay is not going to be solved on an individual basis. It's going to take continued advocacy to end all forms of workplace discrimination. But in your spare time, when you're not pushing for broad social change, don't forget to look out for your own interests, as well.

This post was featured in the 149th Carnival of Personal Finance, hosted by The Happy Rock.

Rental Relief for Victims of Domestic Violence

A new law in Wisconsin will allow victims of domestic violence to break their leases to protect themselves from imminent danger. Similar laws already exist in Colorado, Delaware, North Carolina, Washington, Texas, Oregon, and Illinois.

The Wisconsin law requires anyone seeking to break a lease to show documentation of a threat, such as a criminal complaint or restraining order--I wonder whether a police report might also suffice.

Some Wisconsin landlords are less than excited about the law, and at least one doesn't seem especially concerned about sounding like a jerk about it:

“I don’t know if it really protects anyone else in the building if that victim moves out,” Kintopf said. “Where does it stop? Would the bank let me out of my mortgage? Landlords are in favor of helping people, but I’m not convinced this is the best way.”

Right. Way to make yourself into the real victim here. Really keeps it all in proportion.

It doesn't sound like anyone's arguing this law doesn't impact landlords. That would be stupid--it clearly does. But what a relief that the state legislature has recognized the role economics can play in keeping victims of abuse from being able to protect themselves, and is ready to use the force of the state to alleviate some of those obstacles.

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.

"Passing" as Young

Some people call it "passing;" others refer to it as "covering." It's the phenomenon of downplaying socially disfavored traits, whether they are race, religion, or sexuality, in an effort to blend in with the mainstream.

Kenji Yoshino, a professor at Yale Law School, and a gay Asian man who blends his own experiences of covering with legal analysis on the subject in his book Covering, writes:

We have not been able to see it as such because it has swaddled itself in the benign language of assimilation. But if we look closely, we will see that covering is the way many groups are being held back today. The reason racial minorities are pressured to "act white" is because of white supremacy. The reason women are told to downplay their child-care responsibilities in the workplace is because of patriarchy. And the reason gays are asked not to "flaunt" is because of homophobia. So long as such covering demands persist, American civil rights will not have completed its work.

So that's what I was thinking of today when I read Nice Resume. Have You Considered Botox? Hooray. There's another book out there telling women how not to look old. That's what it's called: How Not To Look Old. Written by a former beauty director for Glamour magazine, a jacket blurb advises, “Looking hip is not just about vanity anymore, it’s critical to every woman’s personal and financial survival.” So older women are encouraged to turn to cosmetic surgery, facial treatments, eyebrow dye, tooth bleach, hair color, clear lip gloss and more (ouch. and $$$$) to "pass" as young. Or better yet, as ageless. Everyone say thank you to that glorious intersection of sexism and ageism.

Isn't that a cute example of being damned if you do and damned if you don't? We all know we're not supposed to look too young or cute, or we will be perceived as being professionally inept and sexually inappropriate. But don't look too old or dowdy, or you'll come off as being outmoded and unsexy. Hew yourselves to that fine line of impossibility, ladies! Aerobecize your bum, but keep your sweater set buttoned.

The article notes:

Many people would shun a book if it were titled “How Not to Look Jewish” or “How Not to Look Gay” because to cater to discrimination is to capitulate to it. But the success of “How Not to Look Old” indicates that popular culture is willing to buy into ageism as an acceptable form of prejudice, even against oneself.

“Ageism is one of the last frontiers of discrimination where people think that a way around it is not to be seen to age, but we would never say that women should try to look or act more male in order to avoid sexism,” said Molly Andrews, a psychologist who is a director of the Center for Narrative Research at the University of East London.

Which is well and good but completely elides the fact that every example given in the article is not about the impact of visible maturity per se. It's about women who are seen as old. Men become distinguished. Women get old. It's just one more way in which we are very lucky.

And of course, a woman's appearance can have a real impact on how she is perceived professionally, and in that way can impact her bottom line. It's true for men as well, but the cosmetic standards are far less exacting, less pricey, and less stringently enforced. My male colleagues can wear the same brown or gray slacks and blue or white button down shirt every day and no one would notice. It's the default business casual uniform for professional men. If I were to pull that, it would be seen as sloppy and slack-ass, because the default business casual uniform for professional women does not exist. Our looks are always open for comment. And now we can't even visibly age. Great.

Blog For Choice 2008: Personal Finance and Pro-Choice Politics

A while back I had a discussion with an acquaintance of mine about what he thought was the single best poverty-alleviating measure in the history of the United States. He was a labor organizer, so I shouldn't have been surprised that he said without hesitation that unions were far and away the most important development in that respect. And probably because he was a he, and consequently he'd never had to make diligently remaining NotPregnant a big part of his adult life, he was pretty surprised when I said I suspected readily available family planning information and supplies had had an even bigger effect on the American family's ability to get ahead and stay afloat financially than the labor movement. After all, what good is making the pie bigger if it can't keep pace with the number of people eating it? The ability to decide whether and when to have children is not just a feminist issue, it is also a financial issue. In some families both here and around the world, access to information and contraceptives may be a question of financial survival. Even in my rather comfortable corner of the world, these resources have been key to planning for my future and taking control of my own economic independence.

For all of you who thought you'd never see the day when Roe v. Wade would be commemorated on a personal finance blog, think about it. Roe, and the cases that came before and after it involving contraception access, have ensured in this country a woman's right to control when they have children, or whether they have them at all. That decision is not just about childbearing, it's about a woman's ability to complete her education or to stay in the workforce, to earn a wage, to avoid economic dependence on or permanent and unwanted legal ties to any partner, to avoid substantial medical risks and the attendant healthcare costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood, to provide adequately for the family she already has or hopes to have someday. Think about that the next time you are standing in line at the pharmacy to pick up your birth control prescription.

On a day-to-day basis, I take my ability to control my fertility for granted. I assume that because I do not consider myself ready to have a child that *poof!* I will not have a child. I had accurate, comprehensive sex education years before I ever had sex. I have never had sex without using at least one form of safe and effective birth control, which I have always been able to obtain for a price I was readily able to pay. I have never had an unplanned pregnancy. Because of when and where I was born, if I had unexpectedly found myself pregnant I would have had options about what to do. Once I'm married, my husband and I will be able to wait to have children until we decide our relationship and our finances are strong enough to take on those new responsibilities. In each and every one of these respects I have been spectacularly fortunate, because those are resources not every woman has, and choices not every woman gets to make. And that's just not right. Women who can't control their reproductive life can't control their economic life.