The Richer Sex

Rich Mom, Poor Dad: Women Become Breadwinners

by Jennifer Ludden

March 20, 2012

NPR

How The New Majority Of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family
by Liza Mundy

As a mother of young boys, I can tell you that chatty, detail-oriented girls rule the world among the younger set. I've always wondered when the big switch would happen, propelling males to their traditional dominance of the adult working world, but Liza Mundy is here to tell us that it won't. It turns out that in my lifetime, women will be the second sex no more.

Mundy's The Richer Sex is like a fantastical trip through the looking glass into a future few of us dared imagine, but which Mundy forcefully illustrates is already well underway. Forget gender parity. Mundy culls a broad range of research to lay out how women are fast overtaking men in today's economy, a shift that is happening worldwide.

Nearly 40% of U.S. working wives now out-earn their husbands, and Mundy says they'll soon make up a majority. Women hold most managerial and professional jobs, they earn most college degrees and longterm economic shifts favor fields dominated by women.

As with her 2007 book on reproductive technology, Everything Conceivable, Mundy deftly draws out people's conflicted emotions on the most intimate of subjects. Here, she explores the profound ways the new economic order is transforming the dating scene, the marriage market and the balance of power within relationships.

I've often thought the world would be a different place if children called out for "daddy" half as often as they do "mommy." How compelling, then, to read about Jessica Gasca, a paralegal in south Texas whose husband quit his job as a car salesmen to care for their children.

"They see me as the father," Jessica tells Mundy. Whatever the children need — from a glass of water to help at school — they call on her husband, Juan.

But before a female reader can get giddy at this notion, Mundy probes how Juan is coping. He does what he can to bring in extra money during school hours, even taking a job — I kid you not — selling Avon. Yet his in-laws are openly disrespectful of his choices, branding him a loser and a slacker. And Juan says the burden of these entrenched gender stereotypes has been hard on his marriage.

"Sometimes I fantasize about, like, leaving her," Juan confesses, "because I want to feel more masculine again."

And it's not just men with misgivings. We meet Kris Betts of Michigan, a stay-at-home mom who became the primary earner when her husband's employer went under. Betts tears up, and tells Mundy how devastated she was to sort through a year's worth of her sons' school art projects.

"It was all the two boys and dad. I'm like, 'Where am I?'"

Clearly, not all female breadwinners have taken on the role by choice. And Mundy touches only briefly on the clear losers in this economic shift, the growing numbers of working class women who — faced with men's diminished prospects — are not marrying at all.

But will this societal role reversal be easier for a younger generation? Mundy finds women who lie about their salary and profession in online dating sites, lest they intimidate potential mates. Others use subtle, face-saving ways to share costs with dates. Explains one female marketing entrepreneur, "I usually say, like, you got dinner last time, or oh, I'll just get the drinks, even though drinks cost more than dinner."

Still, Mundy meets a number of well-adjusted couples who are happily pioneering this gender revolution. Stay-at-home dad Danny Hawkins is married to a corporate executive and says, "My job is to make her life easier. And I like doing it."

Just as cooking became cool when men took over kitchens with their six-burner stoves, Mundy posits that a "new masculinity" will evolve as men play a bigger role on the domestic front. The question is whether the new class of high-powered women will learn to appreciate a man who can drive a mean carpool.

Read an excerpt of The Richer Sex

What's Fair is Fair

This week, I read an article on NPR's website about several Democratic lawmakers across the coun try proposing legislation to restrict men's access to reproductive health care. Situations include prohibiting men from getting vasectomies, to requiring cardiac stress tests for obtaining Viagra to ensure that they are healthy enough for sexual activity.

Of course this sounds ridiculous at first glance, and frankly, it is. That's the point. As Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University says, "The ultimate goal in proposing bills related to male reproductive health is not to get them passed. By drawing attention to these bills, Democrats are looking to motivate independent and undecided voters, especially women, to show up at the polls in November for the general election."

I don't support the laws on their literal content, but I fully support the message these lawmakers are sending: If you're going to propose ridiculous laws that unfairly affect women, why not propose ridiculous laws that unfairly affect men around the exact same issue?

I recommend you read the article, because it makes a lot of really good points and it's really well-written.

Article linked here.

Women Figure Anew in Senate’s Latest Battle

Women Figure Anew in Senate’s Latest Battle
by Jonathan Weisman, NY Times

Published March 14, 2012

WASHINGTON — With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.

The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.

Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.

“I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.”

Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.

Some conservatives are feeling trapped.

“I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.

“Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.”

The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.

As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.

“There are lots of other issues right now that could be dealt with other than this one,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who is responsible for Republican messaging. “I suspect there’s a reason for bringing it up now.”

But if Republican lawmakers are not eager to oppose a domestic violence bill, conservative activists are itching for a fight. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the conservative Concerned Women for America, said her group had been pressing senators hard to oppose reauthorization of legislation she called “a boondoggle” that vastly expands government and “creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims.”

Last month on the conservative Web site Townhall.com, the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund “used to fill feminist coffers” and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes “divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.”

The third reauthorization effort of the legislation started off in November the way the previous efforts had, with a bipartisan bill and little controversy. The measure, authored by Senators Crapo and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, attracted 58 co-sponsors, including Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Ms. Murkowski, Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois and Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts.

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, found multiple reasons to oppose the bill when it came up for a formal consideration last month.

The legislation “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims, period,” Mr. Grassley said when the committee took up the measure. After his alternative version was voted down on party lines, the original passed without a Republican vote.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, one of two women on the judiciary panel, said the partisan opposition came as a “real surprise,” but she put it into a broader picture.

“This is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on rights and services to women,” she said. “We’ve seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services for women. This seems to be one more thing.”

Republicans say they see that line of attack coming and will try through amendments to make the final version more palatable. But if Democrats dig in, Republicans will stand their ground, Mr. Blunt said, pointing to a new New York Times/CBS News poll that showed Americans supporting an exemption to the contraception mandate for religiously affiliated employers 57 percent to 36 percent. By 51 percent to 40 percent, Americans appeared to back Senate efforts to grant employers an exemption on religious or moral exemption grounds.

“Our friends on the other side are in serious danger of overplaying their hand on this one,” Mr. Blunt said.

Connecticut Hearts Women

http://courantblogs.com/susan-campbell/2012/03/14/connecticut-hearts-women/

Some good news for CT women, except regarding childcare and congressional leaders.

Hartford Courant
By Susan Campbell On March 14, 2012

The website iVillage has ranked Connecticut the No. 1 one place to be for women, based on data from organizations such as the National Women’s Law Center, National Partnership for Women & Families, the 2010 U.S. Census and the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

We scored well in part, said iVillage, because nearly 90 percent of Nutmeg women have health insurance, and we’re home to some of the top female wage-earners in the country.

We also scored well because of a history that includes Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ella Grasso, Helen Keller, and others.

Check out our measurements from iVillage (the interesting ones, not the body-ones):

The Lowdown: A select group of states earned high marks for being a place where women thrive but it was Connecticut that rose to the top of our list! Women here earn more, know more and take better care of themselves than their sisters in any other state.

The Good News: There’s so much! Ninety percent of women have health insurance, which is probably why Connecticut women are more likely to have regular Pap smears and mammograms. (Yay healthy girl parts!) They’re also fit and trim – nearly half have a healthy weight, likely due to their love of exercise, fruits and vegetables and quality time at Ocean Beach in the summer.

Financially, they’re among the nation’s top female earners. The median salary is $46,000. This is easy to accomplish when there are so many smarty pants in the state’s ranks. More than a third (35 percent) of women have a four-year college degree, well above national average of 28 percent.

The Bad News: Working moms shell out a huge chunk of their paychecks for childcare. Connecticut ranks among the most expensive states, averaging $12,650 a year for infant care. And in the state’s seven-member congressional delegation, only one representative goes by Ms. Thank you, Rosa L. DeLauro D-CT.

Hear Us Roar: Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, called Connecticut home, as did advocate for the disabled Helen Keller. Lillian Vernon, the first woman to take a company public on the New York Stock Exchange, can be found here too. Ursula Burns, CEO of Norwalk-based Xerox, is one of only 10 women leading a Fortune 500 company. And politically, in 1975 Ella T. Grasso became the first woman in the U.S. to be elected governor in her own right.

The rest of the top five states? Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and California. Ella would be so proud.

"What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?"

If I wasn't afraid of anything what would I do? My first thought, go on a Ferris Wheel. I am scared of heights, like break out into sweats want to cry afraid of heights so I avoid Ferris Wheels like the devil and the few times I have been on them were an ugly sight. As I sit, eye's closed doing breathing exercises to stay clam, those around me always marvel at the amazing views, or jaw dropping foliage. So if I wasn't afraid of heights I would jump on a Ferris Wheel and take in the sights. What would you do if you weren't afraid?

Perhaps going to an amusement park is not your first thought, would you change career paths, open your own business, tell your boss how you really feel?

Marlo Thomas’s article below outlines just how women’ s fears can be a true roadblock to their success. What would it be like if we taught women to want power and not be afraid of it?

Huffington Post
Marlo Thomas

Women's History Month: Closing the Ambition Gap

March is Women's History Month, and I'm being asked the same question -- a lot:

"Whatever happened to the women's movement? Where are the feminist freedom fighters today?"

I guess if people don't see women marching, they don't think they're moving. But they need to remember that the marching, the protesting, of the Sixties and Seventies opened the door for a generation that we hoped would come after us. And it has.

It's exciting to see three women on the Supreme Court. It's exciting to see three women Secretaries of State and even women leading other nations. It's exciting to see women anchor the nightly news, and it's exciting to know that the chief operating officer of Facebook -- the one who helps you connect with your hundreds of 'friends' -- is, in fact, a woman.

But what's most exciting is that this woman of power -- and a billionaire to boot -- is not satisfied with how far women have come.

"The world is still run by men," Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg said in a recent speech. "We're not teaching our girls and women to have professional ambition. We're not encouraging women to lean into their careers and aim for powerful jobs. With only 3% of Fortune 500 companies run by women, we have a real problem."

Hearing Sandberg's words, I couldn't help but flash back to when I was 23 years old, producing my own television show, and people would say, "You're so ambitious!" And I would cringe, feeling the sting of their contempt. What they were saying was that I was "aggressive" and "assertive" and needed to be "in control." It would take me years to feel these words as a compliment, not as the pejoratives they were meant to be.

"We don't teach our girls to have power," Sandberg told me a few months ago. "We teach them to 'get along.' And if they get too loud or forceful, we call them 'bossy.'"

That made me laugh. What spirited young girl hasn't heard that word? Even Tina Fey titled her memoir "Bossypants."

Sandberg puts it simply. "I want my daughter to have the choice not to just succeed," she says, "but to be liked for her accomplishments." Nobody said that to me in the Seventies. That's why I created Free to Be...You and Me. I wanted to tell girls and boys what I hadn't been told. I didn't want them to take half their lives to figure out that, whatever they wanted, they should go for it all the way -- and not worry about doing what everyone else does, just so they would be liked.

That's why I love the posters on the wall at the Facebook offices that read, "What would you do if you weren't afraid?" I'd like to hang those posters in the hallways of every school in the country, to remind kids -- and their teachers, too -- that the barriers we face are mostly internal, not external.

Women's History Month is not just a time to celebrate where we've come from, or how far we've opened the door. It's also a time for us to express our dissatisfaction that the doors aren't opened wide enough. As always, it's the agitation that creates the pearl.

So where is the women's movement today? It is in the powerful hands of leaders like Sandberg, who, having risen to the top of their careers, feel the responsibility to reach out and inspire those women who follow them -- the college graduates, the women who are struggling at the first rung of their careers, the women who are stalled and frightened.

"Fortunes favors the bold," Sandberg told Barnard's graduating class. "Think big. Dream big. We will never close the achievement gap until we close the ambition gap."

With leaders like Sandberg, we will.

What Does A Feminist Look Like? Not Necessarily What You Think.

Who is a feminist? Who can be a feminist? What does a feminist look like?

I bet most people would answer these questions thinking of something like the following clip from the hit TV show “Portlandia” (note: some blunt dialogue, but no cursing).

I think “Portlandia” is an excellent show, and does a great job of pointing out the potential for absurdity amongst many different kinds of people. With that, I find it very important to note that “Portlandia” is entertainment, and not necessarily a clear reflection of real life.

Feminists come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and yes, genders. Women always have been, and always will be, the driving force behind the feminist movement. But in my opinion, the feminist movement needs men to become involved; not just by virtue of being men, but because as I have often said, we need to think of “women’s issues” as “everybody’s issues.” Once we think of these issues as “everybody’s issues,” men immediately become part of the conversation, and subsequently, part of the solution to numerous issues affecting women.

It’s important to note that being a feminist by no means makes a man less of a man. Consider that some major college football stars consider themselves feminists, including former Syracuse quarterback Donald McPherson, as well as recent Florida State cornerback (and Rhodes Scholar) Myron Rolle. Also considering themselves feminists are SNL all-star Andy Samberg and beloved M*A*S*H actor Alan Alda (once dubbed "the quintessential Honorary Woman: A Feminist Icon" by the Boston Globe).

This article from The Frisky contains a slideshow of 12 famous male feminists. As you will see, the group of people shown in the slideshow is comprised of some of the smartest, most talented, most respected, and manliest men around.

Fellow men: don’t be embarrassed to consider yourself a feminist. After all, what man worried about his masculinity wouldn’t want to be put in the same conversation as Brad Pitt, Barack Obama, or Eddie Vedder (or even yours truly)?

Working toward a Powerful Yes

This International Women's Day, I will embrace the idea that change is possible. That anything is possible. I will answer the call to sisterhood by making a promise to stand with those still fighting for their rights. We are able to make a difference as a team of one, a greater difference as a team of many. Let's work together, as a team, to say no to any rollbacks on women's reproductive rights. Let's work together, as a team, to say no to any rollbacks on women's equality. Let's work together, as a team, to say yes to progress, yes to equal pay, yes to choice. Let's work together to a powerful yes. Happy International Women's Day.

If you would like to get more inspired, join our International Women's Day happy hour at Barca (39 Bartholomew Avenue, Hartford), tonight 5 - 7 pm. I hear State Comptroller Kevin Lembo and Secretary of the State Denise Merrill may be joining us!!!


Why International Women's Day Matters
by Andrée Simon
President and COO, Women for Women International
Posted: March 7, 2012

This Thursday, March 8th, is International Women's Day and an opportunity to remember and honor all the ways women make a difference in our families, communities, and countries. This past year, we have seen countless examples of courageous women who defied the status quo and stood up to oppression. In the protests of the Arab Spring, women played a crucial role in revolutions that have deposed four dictators. Seeking freer, fairer governments, they risked their lives to lead protests, join the fighting on the frontlines, and care for the wounded without access to hospitals. For the first time last year, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to three women -- President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee of Liberia, and Tawakkol Karman of Yemen -- in honor of their inspiring work to end to violence in their countries.

For me, International Women's Day is a time to celebrate the important accomplishments and contributions of women such as these. This is a day to pause and remember how far we have come since the first International Women's Day 101 years ago, when women had the right to vote in only two countries and many faced restricted education and career opportunities. This is also a day to remember how far we still have to go.

In countries like Afghanistan, women have gained so much in a short time, but still face many struggles that lie ahead. Within the past decade, Afghan women have seen incredible improvements in education and health care. Women's life expectancy has increased by nearly two decades. Women can vote and now hold 27% of the parliamentary seats. These changes are due in no small part to the courageous work of women willing to put their safety at risk to speak out for women's rights. However, women still face serious daily challenges, and sadly, 87% still experience physical violence in their lifetime. Equality is still a long way off.

Since 2002, Women for Women International (WfWI) has worked with over 33,000 Afghan women and provided them the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to earn an income, claim their rights, and make lasting change in their lives. Many of the women we serve have struggled with poverty and abuse; they've grown up without being able to attend school, never believing they are equal to their brothers. Through our program, women learn they have rights and that they are equal to men, and when they do, they stop accepting the status quo. Nearly 60% of the women we serve have found the strength to take action to end violence against them. Signs of progress like this are encouraging, but I know it will take the courage of many more women and men for lasting change to be possible.

International Women's Day has a very real meaning. For women everywhere in the world who continue to face discrimination from those in power, who are the victims of violence, and who are taught by society from the day they are born that they are inferior to others, it is a reminder that they matter. That their voices are important. That they have the right to be heard, despite what their governments, society, or families tell them.

More than anything, International Women's Day is a call to sisterhood, to stand with those still fighting for their rights. Here in the United States, the long struggle for equality is not the work of one woman. It takes the support of many women, each contributing in her own way, to move our collective forward. This is true for women everywhere. Each of the women WfWI serves in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo relies on the support of a "sister" in another country, someone she has never met but who is there for her as she learns about her rights and develops the skills to be able to rely on herself. When women join together with a common goal, they are able to bring changes to their communities that would have been nearly impossible for one woman to do alone.

That's what sisterhood truly means, coming together to support each other through the hard times and working together to make life better for each other and for our children. At Women for Women International, we believe that one woman can change many things, but many women together can change everything. Women around the world continue to struggle for equality, in education, health care, economic opportunities, and political participation. It's going to take a sisterhood of women coming together, across borders and divides, to ensure those who are standing up for their rights and equality succeed. When they do, they will not only have made life better for women, but for everyone.

In the upcoming year, I hope that women will continue to make progress on the goals we have all been working towards for the past century. But most importantly, I hope women everywhere will join together in a sisterhood of support for the women who still have the longest fight ahead of them. When all women are free to pursue their dreams and not held back by discriminatory laws or societal norms, then International Women's Day will truly be something to celebrate.