David Brooks: To Have and to Hold, for Richer for Poorer

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/opinion/01brooks.html?

snip

Spouses having separate checking accounts seems counter to the whole idea, and function, of marriage.

snip
I'm not saying that people with separate accounts have marriages that are less healthy than anybody else's. I'm saying we should pause before this becomes the social norm. Private property is the basis for our market democracy. But private property in the home is an altogether trickier proposition.

and my own observation: if a "non-working" women who has contributed to her marriage and family by managing the home and raising the kids finds herself divorced, she had damn well better have something to establish credit. I speak from my mother's experience - left for a younger "trophy wife" after 20 years.

On a side note, if you do find yourself in my mom's position, consult a financial planner BEFORE you sit down with a lawer. Smartest thing she did, and, as a result, didn't get completely screwed in the settlement.

and one of his stories about familial joy glory. Meanwhile, in real life Mrs. Tolstoy was a writer in her own right when they wed, but lost her spark over the years while serving Mr. T and the family. She was crushed to serve his ego.

Brooks is such an asshat. This op-ed piece is clearly over the top. My sister is currently getting screwed by the husband who now wants to reunite with his high school sweetheart. All joint accounts. She stayed home and cared for the home and family. I notice Brooks didn't mention anyone in her position.

Seriously - tell your sister to talk to a financial planner to help her structure any settlement. A divorce lawer can help her get what she needs, financial planner can tell her WHAT she needs. For my mom, it was the difference between getting handed all the crap assets and being able to take charge of her own financial future.

Plus, most financial planners will do the consulting for free if they think she is going to use them to implement whatever plan they come up with. And unless your brother-in-law (who sounds charming) is in the business himself, it's an area where she can have the upper hand in the negotiations - which can be very empowering to someone who's in her situation. That and the love and support of her family and friends will be invaluable.

Regarding Brooks - I was wondering if this is the opening shot at financial independence of married women. How long before some genius senator tries to make separate accounts illegal in the name of "defending marriage".

so thinks he knows everything. So far my favorite financial disclosure under subpoena is that he filled 18 "boner pill" prescriptions in the last 12 months. :wtf: This despite his assertion under oath that he's NOT boinking his teen queen because he "can't do it". :wtf:

After all - 18 boner pill prescriptions can't be cheap.

so per her lawyer, he owes her half of the boner pill investment.

yes, I think there is a concerted effort that has been going on for some time now, to try and prevent women from working outside the home, and to ensure that their finances are not kept separately. It started in earnest round about, oh, back when some buzzcut thugs staged a fake riot in Florida.

All these job cuts are designed to try and keep the woman from working outside the home. The fascist-religious types think this is the ideal way to make sure that as few women as possible get a job.

...and with the market as it is, any available jobs (except nurses or administrative staff) go to men.

I'm in IT. When there was a 'boom', women could get jobs in the field. Not anymore. The few jobs out there, NEVER, EVER go to a woman - they'll hire a male every time. Or, so this is what I've seen, anyway.

And, a male with no 4-year degree, as long as he's white and in his 20s or 30s can more easily get a job. A woman or person of color with no 4-year degree - or anyone 40 or older, forget it. Even if said male has little or no appreciable experience. He has a penis and that seems to be enough, sometimes.

A white guy in his 20s or 30s with a degree'll get the job every time. That doesn't mean lots of white guys with degrees in their 20s or 30s are *not* still unemployed because things suck right now - but it's easier for them, at least, if they have a penis and a degree.

Anyway, women are squeezed out by 'attrition' in this manner. Screwed. Single, married, divorced, widowed - no matter. We're screwed. The 'message' from bu$hit and the people out there in the market who adhere to his anti-woman belief system seem to be systematically trying to eliminate women from the workforce - at least in IT.

they never get the work in the core part of the business.

Let me guess, the workplace teams that you have worked on look like this:

Project Manager (M sometimes F)
Tech Lead (always M)
Sr Programmer(s) (M)
Jr./Mid Level Programmers (M/F but the M's get the assignments that let them become Sr. Programmers)
Gui Programmer (F)
SQL Programmer (F)
Tester (F most of the time 'cause no one pays attention to it; M when people are serious about it)
QA (ditto)
DBA (M if it's a really big project; M/F if it's not)
Business Analyst (F unless it is really important than M)
Graphic Designer (F)

By age 40, no one hires 40 year old Females to do Gui/SQL/Business Analyst/Graphic Designer). There are a lot of younger, cuter, cheaper Females to take their place.

30% of CS majors have been and are women; by age 40 only 1% of that age cohort are women. Last hired and first to be fired.

Attrited out. If they are still in the workplace, the 40+ women are marginalized. They are too much of a challenge to the power structure.


Also, the work place isnt family friendly. The men in the senior positions ALL have wives who dont work or work in the pink ghetto. They arent used to powerful females .

I know 40+ women in IT who don't even have families but they still don't get hired - even if they are willing to work the 70-hour+ / week for 30% less pay and have no life beyond it. They still want the guy in his 30s.

also, I am noticing a lot of 40+ women are getting bullied.

The guys and the younger girls gang up on them. Isolate them. Exclude them. Talk about them in a nasty personal way.

Way before all that kind of thing was online (1988 or so), MS Magazine summarized a study of battered wives. While a husband being a batterer did not correlate very well with income, the income level of the wives had a strong correlation. Women with no independent income (regardless of husband's earnings) were most likely to be victims. The study found no women earning more than 30K who were victims.

I remember it because the researchers had such a whacked out explanation for their results--they suggested that women with higher earnings were better educated and thus had better communication skills! Jeebus! You mean a walletload of credit cards which she could possibly use to rent a motel room if necessary had nothing to do with it? Or that men who aren't threatened by women with higher incomes are less likely to be the controlling, battering type?

I was in an abusive relationship and realized that the primary factor keeping me submissive was the fact that he controlled the money in the household and I worked as a secretary. (I moved out with no money, but it was extremely difficult - I couldn't have done it at all if I had had kids.)

Now I am working on a graduate degree to ensure that I always have a job that pays well enough that I don't have to be financially dependent on a man ever again. My husband and I have a joint account for household expenses, but I also have a checking account of my own. My paycheck every month goes there first and I transfer necessary funds into our joint account. Not that my husband is untrustworthy or hurts me, but it's just the principle of the thing at this point.

At least in my case, money had everything to do with the reason I had to stay in my abusive household. I imagine that is the case for many women.

just so you know, a college degree will no longer guarantee you anything - EVERYONE is caught up in this sick economy

The war on women is in full swing again.

Apparently it's REALLY politically incorrect to point out that sexism is still rampant.

I just told off a good friend of mine--white, male, no kids--who tried defending Lawrence Summers' comments as to why there are few women at the top of science. I told him you can go ahead and downplay the impact of Summers' statements, you're single, you don't have a husband who gets all pissy when dinner isn't on the table at 6:30, you're male, you're white, you can do whatever the hell you want.

and have always had separate accounts. We see no threat to our marriage here. Gee, I guess we will have to divorce, so as to make this winger's wild claims true. The most amazing part: he's writing this bullshit in the NT Times, when he should be covering the trials of Michael Jackson, Phil Spectre, and "Baretta" - the real news!

checkbooks and relationships. There are as many ways to structure finances as there are couples. It is none of his damn business.

...right now (although she's thinking about going back to her career next year) and she has her own checking account. I have my paycheck direct deposited into three accounts -- one joint for household expenses, one for me, and one for her. we both think its a good idea for each person to have a little stash of their own they don't to account for to the other person.

And, yes, we love each other and she's not some castrating bitch intent on destroying marriage as an institution. :-)

What about joint accounts and then he LEAVES and takes everything, and there you sit, 8 months pregnant?
Happened to me.
I had no credit history. And sooo much more.

I delivered a WONDERFUL baby boy. And then, about 4 years later, the hospital sued me -- the bill had never been paid. Come to find out, the scum bag got the insurance check in the mail and cashed it. Of course, the mother is the one they can always track down.

Then it was welfare and the whole show. I had left a full scholarship to a private college to marry him. I had to start life over, with a child and no support. When the judge ordered child support, the sperm donor (what my son used to call his "father") produced a bunch of fake bills and claimed he couldn't spare much money. So, his contribution to the son he has never met was $110 a month. Guess what? He never paid.

Yeah, joint accounts -- make the family stronger.

I learned my lesson. I have loved again, and I have married, and my son has a terrific father (who adopted him)

BUT, that was the LAST time I ever had a joint account.

to have their children early and then start their careers. Yeah, right, find a suitable high-income husband at age 22, have two children at ages 23 and 25, raise them to age 18, and start a career for the first time at age 43. Uh-HUH!

Now he wants to go back to the day when judges said, "When a couple marries, they become one person, and that person is the husband."