About money and relationships

I prefer to keep my finances separate. I get that sometimes it comes up like if one of you make a lot more than the other, well partner B might not be able to afford everything partner A wants thus compromise and a direct conversation about it. This comes up with partners and friends, and somehow we all navigate this just fine. Of course, when it is an intimate partner relationship, things get unnecessarily complicated. But my father taught me never to give or loan people more than you’re willing to lose so if you need something ask for it and let’s move on. There is a lot we could say about relationships and money. As a woman I’ve dealt with partners obsessing over how much I make in comparison to them (one fight ending when I lied just to put an end to it—might have contributed to the disaster that was that relationship) or how some people feel they can purchase your time and attention through implicit contract when they send you drinks you didn’t ask for (I have all the feelings on this). However, I want to talk about a blog post, “If you don’t make money, I won’t date you,” I read earlier in the week when I was laid up sick. It was written by Elle for YourTango.com, but I read it on blogher.com. And I guess all of this was in response to someone else’s post about not wanting to date men who make under s certain amount.

Immediately I went through the oh hell no emotions, then I figured I knew where this is going, and I was right because of course I was this is my blog. All that said, the blog is about how this woman writing is very successful, and that success has put strain on any relationship she has with men outside her economic social class. She is looking for her financial equivalent. I don’t know about her data, but anecdotally, her view is that she has had more successful relationships with men in the same economic zone; meaning “Similar socioeconomic class=better match.” She argues that less affluent men are intimidated by her because she is successful. She continues to argue that when the man she is with has similar means then he has to show her who he is without his possessions and status interfering. She makes some large assumptions about men in her economic status—and by extension herself, which we’ll come back to. She concludes by arguing that she isn’t shallow.

So here is my dilemma (and insecurity), I come from a working poor family in a low-income neighborhood. There is nothing super shocking there. That said, I have academically surpassed most (if not all) the kids I grew up with, and without taking into account cost of living (much cheaper in Ohio) I probably out earn all of them too. On one hand that doesn’t matter at all right? Except, I can’t have conversations with a lot of them anymore. Our conversations circle gossip and the superficial because we don’t care about the same things. The flip side of this is that sometimes I date men who have no idea what they say with their PhDs and “important jobs” like the chemist who thinks poor people bring poverty on themselves. Sometimes I find myself sitting there thinking “this is not my life” “what am I doing here? This dude is making such unintentionally aggressive and boarding bigoted statements.” Any woman reading this knows what I am talking about because you’ve probably been out with a man (friend, partner, whatever) and he has said something really sexist. You can just tell he has no idea what he has said, and now do you start an argument over it or not. I also imagine most people of color have had this experience with white friends or strangers or all white people. These are called microaggressions, the often unintentionally verbal and nonverbal slights that lead to negative feelings, perceptions, etc. to persons of a specific marginalized group. A good example for women, a man saying, “You’re not like other girls.” Is there something wrong with being like women? For a person of color, “Wow, you’re articulate!” Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Presidential campaign? Because obviously black men aren’t articulate so you must be the exception. In these examples these statements are intended as compliments, which to me always makes them worse.

I know everyone can’t be aware all the time. I was talking with a friend of mine about microaggressions against black people at work. She sees them when I sometimes don’t because I’m white and my privilege can blind me to things. Once she mentioned them, I knew she was totally right, and I couldn’t believe I didn’t see it. Then others were way more obvious. All that said, microaggressions are often reflections of institutional and systematic oppression.

All of this brings me back to some of the assumptions about class the author of this post holds:

Wealthier people are more invested in the future

Wealthier people are stable

Similar education is related to similar intellectual capacity

Hard work and economic yield are related. For example, if I work hard I make more so if my partner works hard he will make more.

When you pull these out you see immediately why they are problematic and classist. There are also boarder implications for example, the standard being used here is the white privilege standard. We know the pay gap exists between races as well as genders, and obviously social economic access. I believe Hispanic women make the least compared to white men. When you put it in those terms if financial gain or expectation of that gain then isn’t the author dating down? I mean she would have to control for pay discrimination in her calculations on whether a partner would be a good match. Really this argument could be made for dating outside of any socially constructed group. I reject it. Let me be clear, I’m a dating disaster, and I have a type (tall, skinny, thinks he is the smartest person in the room—that’s the guy I’m into every time), but I don’t intentionally rule people out because of social constructs. There is of course room to discussion gender presentation v. sex here, but maybe another time.

Confidence, that’s all it is

Headdesk. Don’t get me wrong, confidence is an important aspect of identity development, but assuming the gender gap in success is all in our heads (read women’s heads) is pretty dismissive of, I don’t know, systemic oppression. Oh look, actually I do know, how about that? (Do I sound confident?) So who would publish such a piece? The Atlantic of course, it was written by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman.

Confidence may very well be a factor in success, but confidence isn’t innate, it is a socially conditioned response and those who are repeatedly told they aren’t good enough (i.e. less funding for their education, athletic opportunities, etc.) learn they are not good enough, resulting in less confidence.

The Kay and Shipman piece takes a difference approach. Before I go too far into their argument, maybe I should provide their framework, which is the biological binary. As those of you who have read this blog before know, I do not subscribe to this particular framework. First, there isn’t a gender binary and promoting it is dangerous and harmful. Secondly, gender isn’t biologically based, sex is. Want to talk about the sexes, that’s fine by me, but it also isn’t a binary.  Thirdly, they ignore structural oppression, which is kind of my jam.

Their piece really just reveals evidence that confidence isn’t really based on work. They go as far as to assert women (gender, as a monolith) work hard, maybe even hard than men, but are less confident than men. Men continue to get better pay and more promotions than women. They posit that confidence results in men asking for more money while women are reluctant to do so. So that gender pay gap is just because women aren’t confident enough. Pack it in fella, we’re done here. Give all girls self-esteem classes; problem solved. Of course, that isn’t true because as we know, women, people of color, and the poor are discriminated against in wages and employment opportunities, and as evidence I give you all of welfare.

But back to the biological, well the authors want to mention some of this is in fact women’s fault because motherhood, that undeniable innate instinct all women have is stronger than the need to succeed. False. I don’t want kids. I don’t have some overwhelming need to procreate. I do have an overwhelming need to fuck shit up for the patriarchy, though, so call it a win? The authors continue to point out that biological differences lead women to be in wait for potential threats, which could negatively affect their risk taking and rates of success that comes from risk (like the stock market, more risk more profits and higher losses). However, the authors don’t mention the way environment can shape biology. Maybe if we lived in a world where women weren’t disproportionately punished for deviating from the gendered path, women would be more risky? Then again maybe not. There is no way to know for sure.

Below are some key quotes from the piece:

“Compared with men, women don’t consider themselves as ready for promotion, they predict they’ll do worse on tests, and they generally underestimate their abilities.”

“In studies, men overestimate their abilities and performance, and women underestimate both. Their performances do not differ in quality.”

“Women feel confident only when they are perfect.”

“So where does all of this start? If women are competent and hardworking enough to outpace men in school, why is it so difficult to keep up later on?”

That last question can be answered: patriarchy. At no point in the piece do the authors ask a simple question, are men overconfident because they are told being men is superior to being women? They also don’t acknowledge any other form of privilege like race, do black men show overconfidence at the same rates white men do? Are white women as confident or more than black women? Being a man is valued in our society that doesn’t mean there is no value in being a man, but there isn’t an innate value either. It has value because as a society we decided it should. This is reinforced over and over throughout our educational and social development.

An example of when girls are valued more than boys is presented by our authors, but it is deeply flawed. Remember they are assuming everyone is treated the same (at least we have to assume that because they didn’t acknowledge people aren’t and their argument fails if they do). The assertion that girls’ behavior is more desirable in grade school settings because “behaving” is valued, and boys misbehave completely ignores the ways in which boys are told they are better than girls. It is the equivalent of a pat on the head of sitting on command but not for performance. This is condescending bullshit. This sort of praise does not yield the confidence you need to excel academically or professionally. It is like telling little girls they are pretty; there is nothing wrong with that unless the only thing these girls are confident about is that they are pretty.

Kay and Shipman also assert that sports could develop women’s confidence, but women quit too soon and too easily. This is another flawed example, because Title IX dictated that schools had to spend the same on men’s and women’s sports, not that these sports would be treated equally.  After college, the jobs available to female athletes are few and far between, and they don’t yield the employment outcomes. Women are told study up ladies because you’re going to have to do something else when this is all over.

Now, let’s talk perfectionism. The article kept coming back to it, as one of the quotes above points out. There is a concept called “policing” which I’ve talk about before in respect to Foucault. Gender policing is fairly common; fathers and peers stop boys from carrying My Little Pony backpacks and the like. Women keep other women from performing gender in the “wrong” way as well. For example, “good girls don’t” act aggressively, act slutty, act out, etc. I can’t speak for all women, but I know failure wasn’t an option. It wasn’t like I’d be disowned or anything, but after every sacrifice my family made I have to do well. Any indication of failure isn’t just an indication it might as well be failure. I know a lot of women who feel this way, particularly women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and women of color. Anything less than perfection might as well be failure. The standards are too high; so while we know we’ll never measure up to these standards we still try because there isn’t much by way of an alternative.

Kay and Shipman assert that confidence can be acquired so win! Except then they note that women and men are perceived in different ways and an assertive man is respected while an assertive woman might be seen as bitchy or bossy. At least they acknowledge the consequences for men and women in similar situations are different.

I want to close with one more problematic question, Kay and Shipman never address. They assert that confidence yields action for a lack of confidence yields inaction. I question whether or not women always have the agency to act? If not then confidence doesn’t matter at all.

For me the problem with lacking confidence regardless of gender is that the individual (and by extension the community) prevents his/her/zerself from doing something out of doubt. On an individual level that sucks, not applying to colleges because girls like you don’t go to college, or not playing basketball because girls aren’t supposed to play rough. But on a macro level, this lack of confidence manifests as a paralysis. Entire groups of people stuck by the status quo because they don’t believe they can change anything. Without confidence and solidarity no one is going to say “grab our pitchforks and let’s storm the castle” or Congress demanding equal education, voting, wage, freedom, etc. opportunities. So for me, every time someone who is structurally and systematically oppressed thinks, “I can’t do that” it means we’ll have to endure the same old people who think, “yeah, I got this.” Which sucks because white, cis, hetero, upper-middle-class, Christian dudes kind of suck at running things (see the US House of Representatives if you need an example in action).

Confidence is important, but we’re going to have to create a society that values all members before we can close the “gender confidence gap” let along the racial confidence gap, or the socioeconomic confidence gap, or the…I could go on for a while.

Ma’am we’re not friends: Mothers of sons have a very different perspective of sexualization

Below you’re going to read excerpts of a post written by a mother of teenage boys to teenage girls with smartphones. It is pretty unfortunate. On one hand she has every right to decide what is and is not appropriate for her children. On the other, she does not have say over what is appropriate for other people’s children. What Mrs. Hall ignores the discussion of sexism and rape culture that unwittingly permeates her piece. I’m not bashing her by the way. I just want to point out some of the areas where maybe she wants to engage these discussions and issues in a different way. Most importantly, I think Mrs. Hall should consider some of these things given she also has a daughter.

The post entitled “FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)” was posted by Given Breath (presumably by or on behalf of Mrs. Hall) on September 3, 2013. I saw posts about it for a few days before I actually decided to write about it. Maybe I chose to write about it because writing about rape and suicide takes a lot out of me. I don’t know. My first instincts when reading it were ok, I think you’re missing a little here for a complete conversation.

She begins by pointing out her concerns about the photos posted to social media sites that her sons can access by their female peers:

“We have teenage sons, and so naturally there are quite a few pictures of your lovely ladies to wade through. Wow—you sure took a bunch of selfies in your pajamas this summer! You bedrooms are so cute! Out eight-year-old daughter brought this to our attention, because with three older brothers who have rooms that smell like stinky cheese, she notices girly details like that.“I think the boys notice other things. For one, it appears that you are not wearing a bra.”

She goes on to say that a relationship with her sons is a relationship with her whole family, and to that end I agree. Parents should be involved in their children’s lives and know who their friends are. However, Mrs. Hall continues to explain that inappropriate online behavior results in someone being blocked from the whole family. I suppose we should have a brief note about inappropriate means. In this case it means young women who post pictures in towels, pjs, etc. but I have to ask if young men who post photos demeaning women get blocked as well? Facebook for example has a long history of not removing or blocking content that promotes the sexual exploitation of or violence against women. I’m going to give Mrs. Hall the benefit of the doubt and assume these individuals would be blocked as well. However, “inappropriate” has a pretty fluid definition.

Mrs. Hall asks some questions about how the young women are trying to reach with photos Mrs. Hall, and presumably her sons, find to be sexual (we’re coming back to what constitutes as sexual and what doesn’t).

“I know your family would not be thrilled at the thought of my teenage boys seeing you only in your towel. Did you know what once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it? You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in a sexual way, do you?”

Only? That seems like an all or nothing concept. I have man identifying friends I’ve gone swimming with in a damn cute bikini or played basketball with in a sports bra and shorts. I’ve changed in front of them, once even use my shirt to get a coolant cap off of my car…it was sticking and the t-shirt provided the leverage I needed. I’m pretty sure most of these guys see me as a whole person. Sure, I like to think my man identifying friends can think of me as a sexual being as part of me being a whole person. You see, compartmentalizing people into certain groups for certain things is problematic. For example, the Madonna/Whore complex could arise. Perhaps, the better solution would be to recognize teenage girls are sexual beings, but they are more than that. They are people, and sexuality is merely one part of being a person.

But Mrs. Hall continues: 

“We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.
“Every day I pray for the women my boys will love. I hope they will be drawn to real beauties, the kind of women who will leave them better people in the end. I also pray that my sons will be worthy of this kind of woman, that they will be patient—and act honorably—while they wait for her.”

I have to ask, why if these girls don’t remove these photos that offense your since of morality that your sons knowing you simply don’t look away? Why are the women in question responsible to protect your sons from their own sexual thoughts? Oh, I actually think I know the answer to this. Young women are traditionally held responsible for their male peers (often all men) as keeps of the gate so to speak. This is abstinence education. Girls are used suckers if they have sex, while boys aren’t held to the same standards.

Here, Mrs. Hall attempts to shame the young women in her conclusion. Because you know that sexy photo you took in high school is going to make the person you love leave you (her language is obviously heteronormative). 

“Will you trust me? There are boys out there waiting and hoping for women of character. Some young men are fighting the daily uphill battle to keep their minds pure, and their thoughts praiseworthy.
“You are growing into a real beauty, inside and out.

“Act like her, speak like her, post like her.

“I’m glad we’re friends.

“Mrs. Hall.”

I’m not sure you want to be these women’s friend Mrs. Hall. It sounds like you’re holding them to some non-sexual standard, and if they have the audacity to embrace their sexuality you want to scold and slut shame them for it. Though, I’m not sure they are. Mrs. Hall describes one photo of a young woman in a sexy pose, but to reference Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Xander Harris, seventeen year old boys are turned on my linoleum. Arguably, girls are too. I don’t know why the boys are fighting a battle and the girls aren’t. I’m not sure why women who embrace their sexuality aren’t worthy of her sons or by extension maybe love at all.

This sort of outlook on women’s sexuality adds to rape culture. The boys aren’t responsible for gawking at a photo of a young woman, it is her fault for posting the photo. By extension a woman who is raped it as fault for wear that, being there, etc., etc., we’ve heard it all before. It perpetuates the idea that some women are worthy and others are not. Traditionally, women who do not sexually conform, women of color, and low-income women are deemed not worthy. I reject those notions.

I expect more from my nephew, though not yet because he’s two. I want him to recognize women as complete beings. I want him to be able to tell the difference between a photo that is art, pornography, or a friend in a swimsuit. Because if we’re assuming any skin that is usually covered insights some kind of sexual response in men at all times, then are men incapable of differing between types of nudity? I’m attracted to men, not all men, mind you. I can be attracted to someone and never act on it. I can see a physical type I’m attracted to and not have a sexual response regardless of the state of undressed. And I can have a sexual response to someone fully clothed. So I’m still wondering why it is different for men, except society tells them it can be.

Penises top the list of things I never thought I’d write about on this blog

But here we are. Perhaps I should turn this into a Sex and the City like blog. I could answer everyone’s sex questions with mockery and contempt. Probably wouldn’t take off, then again there is an entire market for people who get off on humiliation. *no judgment*

Speaking of ladies and gentlemen, I give you Anthony Weiner, part duos. In case you guys were wondering, Jezebel handles when you should and should send photos of your penis. I won’t spoil it for you, but the answer is only when the person in question asks for one. You know who you are…

Full disclosure, I wrote this post days ago, but I had to come back because someone I respect very much said something I disagree with, and I found myself arguing with a misogynist. And the worst part, the misogynist was using a pseudo feminist argument (albeit the one where the West needs to rescue women), and my friend was dismissing harassment, inadvertently out of frustration with center liberals and the media. I do not believe were doing this intentionally.

That said: our vocabulary words for the day are consent and agency.

So let me break this whole thing down as I understand it and then unpack the issues here. Weiner is running for mayor of NYC. He’s been caught sexting again with a woman who engaged him in a sexual way. This has everyone freaking out because of the violation of trust Weiner had been rebuilding since the first scandal. However, during that first scandal there was at least one woman who didn’t want the photos, texts, and attention from Weiner. I can’t remember anyone but the feminists having this conversation about consent then. However, now people are shaming Weiner for sexual deviancy and shaming his wife for not leaving him. Apparently, not being able to keep it in his pants makes him inept as a mayor...though I think the argument can be made Weiner is inept. [Aside, I can’t get my mind around sexting…it seems like a bad idea, always, especially for politicians, famous people, etc, but that is only my opinion.]

Additionally, I can’t say what Weiner’s fetish is, but obviously there is one, and it doesn’t matter as long as everyone involved has given consent. That said, I’m guessing it has something to do with power-play and voyeurism. The lack of consent in the first scandal speaks to power-play along with the texts messages from the second scandal. Photos screams voyeurism. That said, sexual deviancy isn’t criminal or wrong (provided consent).

I really do think sex scandals are pretty stupid as a rule. I don’t care who anyone else is having sex with (as long as consent happens). However, this whole Weiner discussion isn’t talking about consent. We’re not talking about Weiner’s lack of consent for the photos to go up on the interwebs, cable news channels, etc. Yeah, that is a violation as well (although, might be something he’s into given the frequency this is happening now). To be clear, it is my understanding that this time, the exchange was consensual between Weiner and the woman, though the argument can be made about the power dynamic between them. Hell, she is even quoted as believing he loved her, because she is 23 and when a powerful (often mistaken for trust worthy) man tells you that you want to believe it (read this for a really good take on Weiner's abuse of power in preying on young women, which I agree with, but legally speaking it can't be applied). Consent was give so while it may matter to some people it doesn’t matter. However, last time not so much, and that was a conversation we didn’t have. So let’s have it because a lack of consent is criminal.

Generally, I view unwanted digital and photographic images in two categories. Harassment is the receipt (often repeated) of unwanted images, texts, etc., and assault is the violation of one’s self through the photographing, recording, filming, etc. of a person without his/her/zer knowledge and/or consent. Both are violations, and anyone who repeatedly does either of these I consider a predator. Thus, if Weiner actively sent women explicit photos of himself without their consent that is harassment, and he is a predator. Sexual assault and harassment are repeat behavior, a compulsion. I suspect Weiner has a compulsion when it comes to taking and sending sexually explicit images and texts.

Now, I’m not quite done here with Weiner. I’m not particularly impressed by the language used in this go round by Weiner, but consent was had so whatever gets you off. But the phrasing, “Your pussy asking for it,” is a bit concerning given Weiner’s lack of interest in consent the last time. The phrase “asking for it” turns me off like whoa, but also there are some ugly connotations with that phrase, specifically it sounds a bit rapey.

So I don’t care that he isn’t a bad guy, and that he does what all men do. Bullshit. One, I have a higher standard for the men I associate with, and two, once he refused to respect the woman’s boundaries then he graduated to committing sexual harassment. And in that case, something should be done. 

My friend was particularly concerned and pissed about Pelosi's response to this. I have to admit I didn't read about it until after I saw his tweets. However, after reading what she had to say, and the connection she made between Weiner and Filner, I have to say, I disagree with her and him. Pelosi says, "It is so disrespectful of women, and what's really stunning about it is they don't even realize, they don't have a clue. If they're clueless, get a clue. If they need therapy, do it in private."

What Filner is accused of is harassment and straight up assault in at least one case. Pelosi is wrong, these men aren't clueless, they know exactly what they are doing. They feign embarrassment (of sorts) and apology, but continue their behavior because at the end of the day, they don't think anything is wrong with their behavior, and they probably wonder why everyone is getting bent out of shape over some silly women's accusations, or some silly photos. They intend to disrespect women because they don't think women deserve their respect.

Onto our agency discussion. This time Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, is standing right next to him, “I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe him.”

I noticed some feminists (of all races) on Twitter mocking Abedin or offering to send a rescue team. Reminder, that is offensive, and her decisions are her decisions. I also know that some of these were said in jest, but still. There also, as always is a movement of protectionism from men on the right(?) and maybe the left (?) about how Abedin should leave him, and by staying with him she is "taking one for the team." I could be wrong, but I highly doubt H-Rod called Abedin and said, "Stay with him for the sake of the Democratic Party. It all hinges on you!" Perhaps, H-Rod told Abedin to stick it out and consider her, Abedin's own, political future. But Abedin is a grown ass woman and can do whatever she wants as long as she and her partner consent to it.

This is infantilizing and paternalistic. Women don’t have to do what you want or expect them to. The articled linked to above actually notes, some people claim Abedin is too attractive to stay with Weiner. WTF?

I won’t pretend to know what Abedin is thinking, and I also won’t claim to know what I’d do in her situation. A man named Hector (@gatesoftroy) was being awfully paternalistic about this whole thing, claiming feminists are letting Abedin take one for the team (what team? I’m not sure). However, I found his language very telling. 

@laurenarankin If you're alright with Democrats treating their women like this you're no #feminist #hillary #WarOnWomen #doormats
— Hector (@gatesoftroy1) July 25, 2013

Do you see that? "[T]heir women," that is some phrasing specifically it is phrasing that strips women of agency and casts them as property of men. I can’t help but thing that Abedin’s career, status, and race have as much to do with this discussion as her gender presentation and sex. I wonder if people would be so interested in telling Abedin what she should do if any of these factors were different? Were Abedin not an experiences politician/staff herself and perhaps a homemaker, would everyone be yelling about her betraying women by staying? Or would that be good sense? Would the expectation of her leaving Weiner be stronger if she were a black woman? Less if white? More if younger, etc. People are making a lot of assumptions about Abedin, and by doing so we’re stripping her of her agency.

 

However, I have also seen many feminists defending Weiner and others tearing him and those who defend him up. There is also a complete disinterest from mostly men in the discussion at all. And there is a discussion to be had, not because the US public only cares about politics when a penis is involved, but because this all comes down to consent and agency. If the women, receiving the photos are into that sort of thing and asked for the photos no big deal, but if Weiner is sending photos to women who refuse them then we have a problem. Abedin can make her own decisions regardless of the expectations others have for her. I do understand the frustration with sex scandals, I do. I just wish if we are going to discuss them, then we have to appropriate conversation.