Go Over Here Now

I'd like to point y'all toward two very interesting comment-based discussions going on elsewhere on the internet: Feministe guest blogger Habladora takes on the work/family pressure cooker. At the same site Allison Martell takes on the pay gap. Dang, Feministe has some good guest bloggers this summer. Jill should take the bar exam more often!

Top Chef's Tom Colicchio On Women, Cuisine, and Social Justice

I sometimes think about cancelling cable to save money and brain cells. Unfortunately there are a few shows on cable that make this a really hard plan for me to implement, Battlestar Galactica, The Colbert Report, Project Runway, and Top Chef chief among them. As you may have heard by now (spoiler alert) Stephanie won Top Chef on Wednesday night, making her the first woman in four seasons to do so. Throughout the season, the female contestants never let us forget about the boys club that exists not just within the show's history but in restaurant culture generally. "It would be so great to have a woman win this season," they would say. "It would be so cool to have three women in the finals."

Tom Colicchio, one of the show's judges, blogs about the dearth of women in professional kitchens and why Stephanie's win is significant (skip to page four for the quoted bits):

It used to be for lack of opportunity, but I don’t think that still applies today. None of the great American chefs (or at least not the ones I respect) have a glass ceiling in their restaurants. Quite the opposite: We like to hire women because they work hard without any of the competitive, macho bulls**t you often see among their male counterparts. The women I’ve hired help each other, don’t jockey for position, and work until they drop. So if the opportunities for advancement that make up the early part of a top chef’s career are there, why aren’t women availing themselves of them?

Because the perception of opportunity, on the part of women themselves, hasn’t kept pace. Women are reluctant to enter the culinary world because they believe (and this is not unjustified) that a cooking career is incompatible with raising children, which leaves those of us who want to hire, promote, and mentor women with a slimmer field to choose from than we’d like. And to an extent, they're right: The bottom line is our society does not yet provide women in the workplace with the type of social supports, like high-quality subsidized child care or extended parental leave, that allows them to fully go for it, and the impact this has on the scope and depth of a career is profound. Right or wrong, men plunge into their careers without much thought about how they’ll navigate the work/family balance. They assume someone -- spouse, parent, paid caregiver -- will materialize to take care of it (and usually someone does.) This one assumption opens up an entire world of possibility to a young person in a way that can’t be overstated. Ask yourself how many female Ferran Adrias, Thomas Kellers, or Joel Robuchons have chosen a different path -- say, catering or opening a bakeshop -- because it seems more family friendly? These may be great career choices, but they aren’t the breeding grounds of culinary legend.

So yeah, some of this seems oversimplified to me. Surely it isn't the case that all women want babies and therefore they don't become chefs. And the whole "women play nicer than men" bit is naive. But the lack of social supports for parents, gendered expectations about who ought to be doing the nitty gritty of parenting, and the effect those factors have on career self-selection and career success sound pretty well grounded to me.

I haven't found that level of macroawareness on network yet. So the cable stays for now.

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.

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.

Your ________ Won't Have To Live Off Your Investments

The latest from M.P. Dunleavy at the NYT:

The No. 1 financial complaint I hear from women, delivered in tones that range from exhausted to ashamed to defiant, is this: “I hate dealing with money, so my __ (fill in the blank) takes care of everything.”

That role is often filled by a spouse or partner, although fathers and accountants are also candidates when a woman hands over the reins to her money.

Is this division of labor so wrong?

...

Many couples try to strike a balance when dividing household chores, financial and otherwise. But when women pass the buck, it leaves them far too vulnerable.

...

In a study, “Gender Differences in Investment Behavior,” Professor Hira and her co-author Cäzilia Loibl, assistant professor of consumer sciences at Ohio State University, studied more than 900 randomly selected households with incomes of $75,000 or higher. The study forms a chapter in “The Handbook of Consumer Finance Research” (2007, Springer).

The authors found that while “men were more engaged in their personal finances, generally speaking, women tend to do more of the day-to-day tasks,” Professor Hira said. They tended to abdicate their financial roles when it came to planning for the future, saving and investing. “The majority of women found investing to be stressful, difficult and time-consuming,” she said.

Let me lay out what is wrong with this picture: Your investments? They are your investments. They are what you will rely on to keep a roof over your head and the dialysis machines humming along when you're older. Your dad, your accountant, or your partner, no matter how much they might have your best interests at heart, will not have to rely on your investments the same way you will. And I guarantee you that they will not have the same risk tolerance you do--no two people do. When it comes to your investments, no one can do as good a job as you can. That means you, ladies.

But my partner and I are going to grow old together? you say. Good point. You two do need to plan together. But the key word there is "together." Don't be like my family member, who used his wife's spousal IRA as play money for his investments (it didn't really count, you see, since it was "his money" anyway). He loaded it up with precious metals, which tanked, and then liquidated the account before its value rebounded and later soared. Don't be like my other family member, who took several months to figure out where the money was after her husband died--she never looked at the accounts and had no idea where his savings, investment, and pension information was. Don't be like my other other family member, who steadfastly insists that investing is too complicated and too boring for her, and rebuffs her husband's every attempt to involve her and ask her opinions in managing their accounts. Everybody knows couples like this, even if you think you don't. If you're partnered, be a partner.

And if you're not partnered, hey, think of it this way: you don't have to compromise with anyone.

The article suggests that the way to address this trend of women abdicating their long-term financial planning to the nearest available man is to overhaul the way that financial planning can be done, making it more collaborative, social, and interactive. In other words, more "feminine." It is unclear whether tea parties and sleepovers would be involved.

If tea parties and sleepovers would help some women take a more hands on approach to savings and investments, I'm all for it. But why not focus some of the attention on the root of the problem rather than on the branches?

PROFESSOR HIRA believes a lack of confidence causes some women not to take a more commanding role. Traditionally men are expected to be competent financially, whether it’s their bent or not. “For women,” she said, “the expectation is often that somebody wonderful will be there to do it.”

That seems like an expectation that's worth retooling.

This post was featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #145.

The Dratted Engagement Ring

Living Almost Large theorizes today that her friends don't mean it when they say they would accept an inexpensive engagement ring. I don't know her friends to know whether she's right or not, but her post does remind me that man, I really hate the emphasis Americans put on their engagement rings. Haaaate it. Hate the obsession with "needing" to have them at all, having them large enough, sparkly enough, expensive enough. Diamond-y enough.

But the way I feel about the institution of the engagement ring--and we'll get to my problems with them in a minute--is nothing compared to the pissed off feeling I get when some tangential acquaintance looks at me with pity when they ask about my engagement and then notice my diamond-less finger. So consider this the monologue I am too polite (or too pressed for time as we ride in the elevator between floors 22 and 26) to give in those moments.

I don't have an engagement ring. At least, I don't wear anything that "reads" socially as an engagement ring but, yes, I nevertheless am sure that he does still want to marry me. No, thank you, I do not need your hugs or a sympathetic ear. I am quite happy to not have a golf ball strapped awkwardly to my ring finger or to have "insurance" in case he backs out. And by the way, eeeew to that last part. You must be very embarassed to have said that out loud.

Not having an engagement ring has saved us at least a thousand dollars that we can invest in our life together rather than in a geologically freakish piece of carbon set in a glassy chemical configuration that has never, since I was the smallest girl, given me any amount of aesthetic joy.

Not having an engagement ring has kept me from having to spend mental and karmic real estate fretting over whether some kid in Sierra Leone is short one leg, or whether some watershed in Central America is running with diluted cyanide, so that I could have a sparkly and immediately depreciating asset on my finger.

Not having an engagement ring allows me to opt out of sexist notions of man as provider and woman as passive ornament, and the sexist custom that publicly marks a woman as having been purchased and thus "off the market" while requiring no such public statement of relational or sexual non-availability by her male partner.

Not having an engagement ring prevents Shiner from having to display his masculinity and creditworthiness for scrutiny and comment by whoever happens to sit next to me on the train.

And not having an engagement ring leaves room on my finger, as well as Shiner's, for my dead grandparents' wedding bands, which each of us are wearing during our engagement because frankly, the hope that we can sustain the kind of relationship that wore this slim band skinny over 43 years of dedicated wear is more compelling than the most well-funded DeBeers ad campaign.

So you've really got to stop feeling sorry for me. Your superficial is showing.

Books And Their Covers

There are a lot of very smart people out there who have no idea what to do when it comes to their finances, and you can't tell who they are by looking at them. Subject Number 1, who we will call Katie, is a life-of-the-party woman in her mid-twenties. She has been out of school just a couple of years, is in the very early stages of her high-paying career, and is living it up: fantastic vacations, cute outfits, fancy (rented) apartment, generously treats her boyfriend and friends to fun nights out. Subject Number 2, who we will call George, is Katie's supervisor, and makes at least twice what she does. He is in his mid-fifties, well established in his career and recognized by colleagues and strangers alike as an expert in his field. He and his college sweetheart wife waited to have children, and are now parents to two very accomplished teenage daughters. George is the primary breadwinner for them all. I work with Katie and George and like and respect them both very much.

Between the two of them, who do you think is more financially healthy? You might think: Well, not the party girl, right? But you'd be wrong.

I don't know all the moving parts for either of them. I know more about Katie's financial life, since we're friends and she has asked my money-nerd advice a few times. But recently at a work event, in a conversation that started out about Katie's househunting process and moved farther afield to other financial matters, I learned a few interesting and surprising details about George's financial house.

Here's a blueprint of the conversation: Katie, who is househunting, was rhapsodizing about some of the dream houses she's seen listed online with asking prices of $500,000 or even much more--way out of her price range. George commented that the hardest part of buying your first place is that you can't afford the house you really want. Now, my house actually was the house I really wanted, at least when I bought it going on three years ago as a single woman with no kids, but I take his point. He said when he and his wife bought their starter home, they took out a fifteen year mortgage and paid it down aggressively so they had a lot of equity built up when they went shopping a few years later for the house they planned to live in until they are old and gray. Smart, right? George explained that he was no good at saving money, so they considered it a forced savings plan that would allow them to buy the house they really wanted. I can appreciate that.

But as an example of how bad they are at saving money, and why they'd needed that forced savings plan, George said they'd financed a big European vacation by taking out a new credit card. "We're pre-apprived? Great! Honey, someone just sent us free money!" Everyone laughed, like tell me about it! I've been there! I laughed, too, because how else are you supposed to respond when your boss tells you he's done something pretty dumb? I can't judge him too harshly. Everyone makes dumb choices sometimes, but at least they realize they're dumb choices. Except that sometimes they don't. Maybe because no one else is willing to tell them they are making bad choices.

Katie said knowingly that she'd done the exact same thing, opened a new credit card to pay for a trip she took after she sat for the bar exam and before she started her job with us. She said it was worth it, but that it had kind of freaked her out to see a balance carried over month to month. Now, I happen to know that that this was a 0% APR card that she knew she'd be able to pay off in full during the introductory period once she started working. Katie fronted the money for a month-long vacation on credit because that would probably be her last chance to take such a long vacation until she retires, and she paid it off before she owed any interest payments on the card. Some credit-haters might think her choice was unwise on principle, but I know she did it thoughtfully, and I think it was quite smart of her to play a game she knew she would win and get a month long vacation out of it in the process. I was willing to give George the benefit of the doubt (remember, I like and respect him!) and believe that he had done something similar.

Sadly, no. He laughed and told Katie that once she got used to it she'd find carrying a balance very freeing. Even so, he said, it could be rough getting to the end of the pay period and seeing yourself scrape the bottom of your checking account. Katie nodded sympathetically, but said even though things felt tight, it was nice to know they weren't really, since every month she was saving toward a down payment and retirement. George looked at her like he didn't know what she was talking about. Retirement? he said. That's so far away!

Hrm. Not perhaps what the casual observer might have been expecting.