// you’re reading...

philosophical

feminism is actually quite important to me

WSA adsense code -->

I’m a feminist. And, what’s worse I can be a little bit judgemental about it.

and the kind of feminist I am?…

I feel a little bit sad inside every time a woman mentions their name change after marriage. I don’t understand the obsession with comingled finances and shared bank accounts - an option, maybe but the be all and end all?

Whilst stay at home parenting suits many people, why is the assumption that it’s the mother not challenged enough? Why do some women still aspire to nothing more than a nice home and kids, when men would be laughed out of the room for the same thing?

I don’t want kids. I don’t particularly like kids. So I really hate the way that’s touted as every woman’s manifest destiny, when a significant minority of women never have children.

Yes, before anyone asks, I’m single, and yes I’d rather remain single than put up with a bloke that wanted me to change my reasonable opinions on any of these things.

here’s something I really hated when I heard it

My latest, favourite example? Believe it or not, a friend of mine is a non-conformist minister. When he was interviewed for his first job in 2003 whilst still in seminary, he mentioned that he had just got engaged and would be married by the time he took up the post. Which is, probably reasonable. Less so is that one of the subsequent questions was about whether his wife to be would continue working after they were married. I mean, is there some kind of timewarp where mid 2003 turned into 1953? How is this ok?

and all this has what to do with money?

There’s going to be a personal finance point in here somewhere. Aah, yes, here it is. If you’re a woman, you should cultivate feminist tendencies where money is concerned. Nearly all *less feminist* choices that you can make, mean that you lose out on money.

Women can’t afford to lose out on money. Having a longer lifespan is a good thing, but it does mean that you need more for retirement. No marriage ever ends happily, neither divorce nor death are good things. But one or t’other is inevitable. Which is why you might want your own credit score, your own bank account, your name on the mortgage and the deeds, or the lease. If you have children you need insurance - on both partners.

Sensible personal finance women, be a feminist. It’ll save you money in the long run.

Men should also follow the same sort of advice.

Similar Posts:

If you like what you're reading, why not leave a comment below, subscribe to my feed, or check out some of my best posts.

Discussion

48 comments for “feminism is actually quite important to me”

  1. Good for you, and I agree of course. The weird thing about the money blogosphere is that it’s so so conservative (for the most part) - there’s the blatant stuff like the usual suspects sneering at anything but pull-yer-socks-up politics or all the bible thumping, but it’s the other things you refer to here too. It’s a little depressing at times, annoying at others, and basically just bizarre compared to my “real world”. Which is a long way of saying I hope you’re not getting frustrated by it.

    Posted by guinness416 | September 9, 2008, 12:39 pm
  2. I, too, am a feminist. But in my opinion, co-mingling of finances and shared bank accounts between a married couple is crucial. It has nothing to do with a woman’s independence, but is a strong indicator of the level of commitment each person has to the union of two people and the family they create. Whether or not a couple chooses to have children, they must first be committed to the family they are from the very beginning. Just my opinion, but I’ve been married for a very long time and I’ve seen too many people end up divorced because they never truly committed to being absolute partners. Having seperate identities is crucial to personal happiness and I applaud and practice that. But putting your money where your mouth is says loud and clear that the individual members have become one - each a unique component in something bigger and more important than they are as individuals - a family.

    Posted by Dee | September 9, 2008, 1:51 pm
  3. @guinness416:
    I’m so glad I’m not the only one that thinks it’s oddly conservative. I tend to put it down to a pervasive American-ness, since Americans are on average more conservative than (decadent ;) ?) Europeans.

    @Dee:
    I disagree that shared bank accounts are important. A certain amount of shared financial life? Yes. And certainly, sufficient understanding to ensure that all bills are paid appropriately. But actual shared bank accounts? Simply one solution of many.

    As for commitment, IMHO it goes without saying. But commitment can be demonstrated in all sorts of ways by all sorts of people.

    Posted by plonkee | September 9, 2008, 2:17 pm
  4. As someone who is getting married in 6 months, these are all things I have been thinking about a lot. We’ll definitely keep our own bank accounts and continue paying money into our joint account for bills and living costs, the same way we do now. I can’t imagine much will change in the short term money-wise, but if we decide to have children later on, probably a lot would change. Since my fiance is a much higher earner than me it would be my career that would be affected - even if I didn’t become a full-time stay-at-home-mum, I would probably want to take at least 6 months to a year off, which would probably impact my career later on. I think the priorities for me, money-wise, would be to ensure that I had a retirement plan being paid into that was independent of my husband’s (even if I wasn’t working for a certain time while having kids), and that we both had good life insurance policies. I don’t think it’s got much to do with feminism, as opposed to being sensible.

    Posted by FruGal | September 9, 2008, 2:33 pm
  5. My DH is going back to school and we’re trying to adjust our finances so that he can be the stay at home parent while he finishes up his degree.

    We did combine our main finances into one joint account, mainly because I handle all the bill-paying and money stuff but we each have our own mad money accounts for which we aren’t accountable to each other.

    Posted by FW | September 9, 2008, 3:26 pm
  6. @FruGal:
    I think that’s what I mean. That it’s really about being sensible, and not assuming that your life will end up like some happily ever after fairy tale.

    @FW:
    Solutions that work are good. :)

    Posted by plonkee | September 9, 2008, 3:40 pm
  7. This post really stirred things up for me, mainly because I am probably in an opposite situation: still in school, supported by husband, and when I’m done, we will keep all our money in a shared account. Given our choices for what to do as a profession, he will always earn more money than I will. We’re both fine with that. Frankly, I don’t see my present state of financial dependence as a limit on my freedom. Perhaps that’s just an effect of the type of relationship i’m in.

    But I consider myself a feminist too. I think what makes me a feminist is the belief that women should earn equal pay for equal work , and that women should have the same opportunities as men. As an academic I see these principles violated each and every day.

    A very thought-provoking viewpoint indeed.

    Oh, and for the record, I am totally banking on the fairy tale. :)

    Posted by neimanmarxist | September 9, 2008, 3:56 pm
  8. I kind of consider myself to not be a feminist, if we went on Neimanmarxist’s definition I would be but I think a lot of feminists see it as more than that.
    I really don’t care if a woman changes her name, or stays at home- I have two good friends who dream of being stay at home wives and mothers, they both have PhDs, do I think they would be less of a person if that’s what they did? No, I think they would be much happier and I would applaud them for following their ambition, whatever it was.
    Maybe part of the problem is that the feminists I know are quite “militant” and they have turned me off from the movement.
    I do, however, completely agree that everyone should look out for themselves financially, and see no reason to combine finances in a relationship where both are working.

    Posted by Looby | September 9, 2008, 4:30 pm
  9. Feminism has always been about choice. If a woman chooses to be a SAHM (and therefore not earning a salary), good for her. But she must *choose* that role and not be just expected to fill it. And for that matter, the decision to have children is one that is 50/50 in marriages, IMHO.

    But then, biology comes into play. If a couple chooses to have children, they must also accept that mothers and fathers play different roles. If you (women) follow a traditional career path, accept that it will suffer when you have kids.
    Where we fail as a society, I think, is that women’s careers continue to suffer after that point. Even if she becomes the breadwinner and he becomes the SAHD, she will tend not to earn as much as could have. That is where feminism has fallen down.

    And all that being said - I consider myself a feminist like neimanmarxist - I expect to earn equal pay for what I do. I don’t follow a traditional career path, however.
    But part of my feminist outlook also demands that my partner is equal to or better than I am. I don’t think I’d be happy with a less ambitious, less educated, or lower-paid man. For me, feminism is also about not settling, in any aspect of my life.

    Posted by deepali | September 9, 2008, 5:00 pm
  10. oh, and not to double post, but i don’t see why mingling of finances is necessarily a sign of commitment. i mean, we also assume monogamy is a sign of commitment, but i have plenty of friends in long-term committed relationships that are also open, and they are perfectly happy. for that matter, we also assume marriage = commitment, and look how that turns out for a lot of people. i think commitment should be defined on a case-by-case basis, between the couple and involving no one else (except perhaps a counselor if necessary).

    Posted by deepali | September 9, 2008, 5:03 pm
  11. I guess the problem with making less feminist choices, is not so much with the choices themselves, but any inadvertent effect that limits other women’s choices.

    For example, I don’t get, but don’t mind, stay at home parents. The problem is when it’s assumed that women stay at home, and the ones that do are better parents.

    I will be ok with name changes when it’s as common for men to change their name as women. I still won’t change my name, but that’s because I like it.

    In short, equal opportunities need to be fought for, but also to be taken advantage of.

    Posted by plonkee | September 9, 2008, 5:05 pm
  12. Whilst stay at home parenting suits many people, why is the assumption that it’s the mother not challenged enough?

    Probably because the mother biologically must be the primary caregiver while the child is nursing. As it happens, when my wife and I decided to have children, we had a long discussion about who would stay home (both of us wished to do so). I am, quite frankly, better suited for it than she is (and she acknowledges as much), but we decided it would be her since the economic reality was that my skills are more valuable in the market than hers are.

    Why do some women still aspire to nothing more than a nice home and kids, when men would be laughed out of the room for the same thing?

    All I aspire to is a nice home and a happy family. This is also the case for many of my male coworkers. Even though we are all ambitious professionals, nobody laughs at us. The home, wife, and kids is the reason why we are ambitious and most people I work with understand that. We do not work for the sake of work; we work for the sake of our families. This is why male income increases upon marriage and declines after divorce. My father-in-law stopped working at all once he didn’t have to pay child support any more (he has a small trust fund which pays him about $25,000 a year, inherited from his parents). He would have chosen to do this much earlier were it not for his children.

    The weird thing about the money blogosphere is that it’s so so conservative (for the most part) - there’s the blatant stuff like the usual suspects sneering at anything but pull-yer-socks-up politics or all the bible thumping, but it’s the other things you refer to here too. It’s a little depressing at times, annoying at others, and basically just bizarre compared to my “real world”. Which is a long way of saying I hope you’re not getting frustrated by it.

    The personal finance blogosphere is indeed largely conservative, at least on economics. This is self-selecting. Economic conservatives are far more likely to be interested in personal finance for reasons that ought to be obvious. The conservative social philosophy is merely along for the ride. I’m an atheist but right-of-center economically (in the U.K., I’d be very far to the right on economics).

    If you’re a woman, you should cultivate feminist tendencies where money is concerned. Nearly all *less feminist* choices that you can make, mean that you lose out on money.

    This depends on your circumstances, of course. My wife is now far, far wealthier than she would have been had she made more feminist choices. I cannot begin to tell you how often my wife thanks me for looking after the finances, insisting she adhere to the budget, taking care of tax issues, etc. She often forgets the big picture and she needs frequent gentle reminders, but there’s no question that the financial security is, to her, well worth the small constraints on her freedom that she accepts.

    You actually remind me here a great deal of the men I frequently run into in the comments section of the PF blogosphere who insist that all women are really grasping harpies out to marry you for the alimony they can get when they divorce you and that no sensible man should ever get married.

    Partly, you may be confusing concepts here. My wife would indeed be earning more money had she stayed single than she is now. In that sense, her choices have certainly “cost her money.” Nevertheless, she is enormously better off financially and materially from having married me. I’m not saying this experience is typical, just that it exists.

    For example, I don’t get, but don’t mind, stay at home parents. The problem is when it’s assumed that women stay at home, and the ones that do are better parents.

    The ones that do are better parents (though not necessarily better people). Really, this is obvious. On average, who is the better professional? The guy who puts in 50 hours a week or the guy who puts in 10 hours a week? Why should it be any different for parenting? My mother was a single working mother and she did as good a job as she possibly could, and it was the only option available to her so I certainly don’t begrudge her choice, but I don’t think there’s any question she would have done a much better job had she actually been home and perhaps I wouldn’t have had the juvenile delinquency issues I did have.

    That it’s really about being sensible, and not assuming that your life will end up like some happily ever after fairy tale.

    Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. (I am a fan of both life insurance and pre-nuptial contracts.) But there are people who live the fairy tale. A couple I know just celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary and are still reasonably happy. (Their unhappiness doesn’t stem from their marriage, but the inevitable health issues that comes with being 95 and 96.)

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 9, 2008, 5:58 pm
  13. My wife and I seriously considered whether I should be the one to change my name, or have some brand new last name that mixed our own names. But in the end, we went with the traditional method of her taking my name for because:
    1) We didn’t feel like dealing with the fuss people would eventually make and have to explain ourselves
    2) Sharing a name, regardless of hers or mine, shows that we accepted the ideal of unity in our marriage. That’s the main point (I think) of sharing the last name.

    As for earning potential, I would love if my wife earned as much as me. We’d be loaded! In her profession (nutrition), all dietitians get paid squat unless you go into practice for yourself. Now is it because the profession isn’t as respected or because most dietitians are women and women aren’t respected? I think it’s both.

    Lastly, as you know I share your idea that we don’t all have to have kids, but I will say I do like kids, just not many of them. If we had kids, my wife would stay at home at first only because I made over twice her salary and we couldn’t pay the bills without mine. And neither of us want a third person (nanny, au pair, even one of our parents) taking care of our newborn.

    Honestly, I wish my wife didn’t work because I see how happy she is on her days off, or when she didn’t have a job for a few months. Me? Well I’m stuck being the main wage earner unless she changes careers to one with higher earning potential. But right now her salary is going to pay off our debt so we can get closer to financial independence (while maintaining a united marriage).

    Posted by Clever Dude | September 9, 2008, 6:05 pm
  14. @Andrew:
    I’ve discussed this before somewhere (not here I don’t think), but not all parents are better at it if they stay at home. In any case, I don’t think you are a bad parent if you go to work, else I would think that most men of my acquaintance are bad parents, and they’re not.
    *Happily ever after* never lasts - sure, you can end up happily, but, as I’m sure you know, it doesn’t come about just because you say it. You have to work at it. That includes *happily ever after* being single.

    @Cleverdude:
    I understand the principal behind sharing a name, and don’t think that it’s the only way to do so. I don’t think it’s wrong per se, although it would be wrong for me. I feel sad when I hear about women changing their names, but I know that many women make an active considered choice to do so, and I don’t feel angry about it at all.

    As for kids and staying at home, for any given couple I can often see why they make the choices that they do. What annoys me most are the structural reasons - women being paid less etc.

    I wonder whether Stacie thinks you’re happier when you’re not at work.

    Posted by plonkee | September 9, 2008, 6:45 pm
  15. OK plonkee - I”l bite. Exactly what is a “feminist?” I’ve never heard one defined with any degree of precision. From all of the various descriptions I’ve heard, the common theme is that a feminist is a person who elevates female genderhood over substance. When it comes to money, is it equally upsetting to you when a man commingles his money with his wife? Does that subvert his gender status?

    Anyway, great post to provoke commentary.

    Posted by Mr. ToughMoneyLove | September 9, 2008, 7:06 pm
  16. Saying that people are better parents if they stay at home (which is true) is very different from saying that people who don’t stay at home are bad parents (which is obviously not true). Nor is it true, for example, that all parents who stay home are better than all parents who don’t. All that is true is that any particular person is a better parent if he/she is actually at home doing it all the time than if he/she isn’t. This seems so obvious as to be not worth arguing about. You could probably come up with counter-examples (a man who beats his children is probably a better parent the more he isn’t there, for example), but they aren’t going to be the norm.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 9, 2008, 8:12 pm
  17. @Mr. ToughMoneyLove:
    I am a feminist because I believe that women are equal to men, and I act accordingly. Others may use a different definition.

    I think that both parties in a relationship should be interdependent, but not dependant. The last line of the post says that all the ideas apply to men too.

    @Andrew:
    My mother was a better parent when she went back to work than she when she stayed at home. Plenty of people can’t do 24/7 parenting that well.

    Posted by plonkee | September 9, 2008, 8:43 pm
  18. My username must really get you, then! ;) But it was under the influence of twitterpation. And honeymoons. It’s ironic, because Micah suggested that at the wedding we be “presented” not as “Mr. & Mrs. Micah X” but as “X & Micah X.” He didn’t like the idea of my identity being confined to a “Mrs. Micah.”

    Anyway, IRL I function almost entirely under First Maiden Last. No hypen and my Maiden is legally my middle now (I retain my old middle, but only privately). But if people drop it, I feel very uncomfortable. Or if they call me Mrs. Last. In fact, Mrs. anything is weird. Except Mrs. Micah…. ;)

    Fortunately, I think I’ve given the impression that it’s hyphenated and stuff so people tend to use both last names.

    It’s weird, I haven’t been able to put my finger on why this makes me feel uncomfortable, it’s just that my maiden name has been a huge part of me all these years. I didn’t even like it much. I do like that I took Micah’s name because of the connection. He’s talked at times about taking my maiden as his 2nd middle name…but I think he just wants 2 middle initials.

    As for kids, not even going there. I think that for some people it makes sense to be a SAHP. And as Andrew said, it makes biological sense for a breastfeeding mom to be the choice at first anyway, though it’s not necessary. I think if you’re going to have kids, it makes sense to participate strongly in how they’re raised, however that works out. But I don’t think I’m cut out for parenting of any sort. If I ever start to feel differently, I’ll reconsider. But better NOT to have kids until I actually feel like I want to be parent. Not because it’s expected.

    Posted by Mrs. Micah | September 9, 2008, 10:19 pm
  19. I too consider myself a feminist and get a kick out of discovering the ways I do and don’t fit whatever template folks carry in their brains for that term. I’m with you plonkee — I think men and women are equal. Period. The idea that all women are inherently inferior to all men is just as scary as the idea that all (insert minority here) are inherently inferior to the majority. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that in the not-to-distant past, women were denied college educations because higher learning would be unhealthy, literally. The theory was that the blood meant for the womb would be transferred to the the brain, and that would permanently thwart our lady-ness.

    Knowing our past and how horribly ridiculous creeds, pseudo-science, and ideology can affect individual lives is a good reminder as to why we struggle with the remnants of that today.

    Like Mrs. Micah, I went for the maiden name as middle name, no hyphens. I still use my maiden name professionally because that’s the name that earned the PhD. :) We also signed a pre-nup and have our finances entirely separate right now. We plan to open a joint savings account and mutual funds soon, and will put the house in our name. However, I want my own checking account, 401(k), and emergency fund. There are too many horror stories out there. Our wedding vows reflected that we remain individuals but share the best of ourselves and support one another. I think our finances reflect the same thing.

    Posted by Mydailydollars | September 9, 2008, 10:35 pm
  20. @Mrs. Micah:

    Clearly, Micah stole your username in a bizarre time-travelling incident. Clearly.

    Using your maiden name as a middle name isn’t common in the UK. It’s quite normal to have two middle names, but middle names and middle initials are pretty much never used.

    Posted by plonkee | September 10, 2008, 9:11 am
  21. I think that all women have the choice to choose their own direction when it comes to relationships and marriage. One point that I disagree on is the need to separate your funds. Dating is one thing, but when you are married I believe that you should trust your husband whole heartedly, and with that trust him with even your personal income. Call me an anti-feminist, but I believe that trust is a major issue even when it comes to finances.

    Posted by Jane | September 10, 2008, 1:39 pm
  22. Maintaining your own account is not a trust issue. Or rather, you could just as easily ask why you don’t trust your partner enough to let them have money that you can’t see.

    Not all marriages have the same issues, problems, financial set-up or solutions. Because people are not quite the same. It’s always much better to do what works for you than hang onto a failing system for ideological reasons.

    Posted by plonkee | September 10, 2008, 3:10 pm
  23. “men and women are equal” sounds wonderful. But what does it mean? That I think is the bigger issue.

    And as far as whether or not parents who stay at home make better parents. Well, I think you have to first define what you mean by “better parents”. And what it means to be an inferior parent.
    I was a latchkey kid. My mom worked 50-60 hours a week, I spent time at school and the Y. I never ate breakfast and made my own lunch (ie, Coke and candy bar). I never learned about personal finance. I had no sense of fashion. And yet I survived and have excelled. Because while my parents were never really around, they still instilled important values.

    Frankly, I think we put too much emphasis on “time spent with the kids”, just as we overemphasize “time spent at work”.

    Posted by deepali | September 10, 2008, 4:00 pm
  24. I think i am happy the way i am, i dont live in fantasy world. But anyways this is a great post.

    Posted by Lou | September 10, 2008, 5:41 pm
  25. Deepali, you’re making a slightly different argument here. I don’t think you’re arguing that your mother was a better mother while working 50-60 hours per week than she would have been had she stayed home (which Plonkee seemed to be arguing about her own mother). You’re just arguing about the importance of parenting on a child’s outcome. And on that I 100% agree. Parenting is highly overrated with regards to outcomes. I’m sure it matters some, but children are amazingly resilient. There are children who have every advantage and great parents and still end up dead of a drug overdose. And there are children who have no advantages at all who thrive and prosper against all odds. Parenting is probably less important than, for example, peer group (though, of course, parents can have an influence on that as well).

    But parenting is like anything else; the more you do it, the better you are at it. Are there people with so much natural ability at parenting that they can be better with no experience than a parent who has stayed home and raised seven kids? Probably, but I wouldn’t bet on some random inexperienced person being a better parent than the one with all the experience.

    As for Plonkee’s mother, I’d have to hear more specifics for me to believe that she is representative of a significant number of people.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 10, 2008, 6:47 pm
  26. Excellent post. I think many people give lip service to the discussion of who stays home and last name changes. Invariably the woman stays home and changes her last name.

    Posted by jw | September 10, 2008, 9:42 pm
  27. I also consider myself a feminist, even though some of my beliefs are not shared by most feminists (e.g. abortion).

    I did not change my name when I got married. In the province I live in, nobody does that. I think you would have to do a legal name change, just like if you wanted to change for a completely different name. Even if I lived elsewhere, I wouldn’t change. My last name is the one I’ve had all my life and it reflects my cultural background. My husband is from a completely different culture and linguistic background and it would not be “me” if I had that name. Yes, I know that my last name is from my father not my mother, and I think we as a society should do something about that (I kind of like what they do in Latin American culture), but for now in my life I’ll just stick with the name I was given at birth. Both partners changing names is also a good option, I think.

    What I especially, especially hate is hearing women referred to as something like “Mrs. John Smith”. What, she doesn’t even get her own FIRST name? All she is is an accessory to John Smith? And if she dies/divorces and he remarries, the next wife will also be “Mrs. John Smith”, so it’s not even a title that is necessarily unique to her as an individual, just a role that she happens to be filling at the moment.

    Sorry, Mrs. Micah — I do not mean to criticize you personally. I like your blog and I think most of your ideas are great. But I don’t like to see women submerging their identities in their husband, or in their children for that matter — you get these women online who choose usernames like brandonsmommy or something. You never see men doing this kind of thing, although theoretically they ought to be changed by marriage and parenthood just as much as women.

    We do not plan to have children, so the issue of staying home with them does not arise. I do think it is beneficial for children, especially young children, to have a parent at home. If I did have kids I would not like the idea of farming them out to daycare. However, my husband earns less than me and so it would probably make sense for him to be the one to stay home. I do not know any families who do this, but when I was a child my father stayed home with us for one year to allow my mother to finish her degree.

    I have noticed that although where I live both mothers and fathers can take lengthy parental leave upon the birth of a child, in all cases I know of the father only takes a few weeks and the mother is off for a year.

    My husband and I have combined finances, and this is symbolically important to me. I have read older novels and diaries, for example from the mid twentieth century, where the wife is given an “allowance”. The money is the man’s, but he gives some of it to the wife to spend on housekeeping and clothes. She is kept in ignorance about the overall financial situation. This is not what I see as ideal. I believe marriage ought to be a partnership between two equals. If one is to stay at home and not work for money, that is a decision that they must make together. It does not mean that the money belongs to the one who has the job. The decisions are made by the couple and the money belongs to the couple, regardless of who earned what. At some points in our marriage my husband was the sole breadwinner while I was a full-time student, at other points it was the reverse, and now we are both working but I earn more. It doesn’t make any difference, it’s all “our money”. We are in this journey of life together, till death do us part.

    We do have separate credit cards for the purpose of building our own credit history — necessary in case one of us should meet an untimely death.

    Posted by Canadian | September 11, 2008, 1:24 pm
  28. My last name is the one I’ve had all my life and it reflects my cultural background. My husband is from a completely different culture and linguistic background and it would not be “me” if I had that name. Yes, I know that my last name is from my father not my mother, and I think we as a society should do something about that (I kind of like what they do in Latin American culture), but for now in my life I’ll just stick with the name I was given at birth. Both partners changing names is also a good option, I think.

    But, but. . . it’s part of my culture that a woman takes a man’s last name and that occasionally a married couple is referred to as Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Stevens (my wife’s grandmother addresses all letters to us that way since that’s the way she was raised). Why are we expected to applaud members of minority cultures expressing pride in their own cultures, but the majority culture is expected to express nothing but contempt for their own? Surely there is an inconsistency there. Freely granting that Western Europeans are the root of all evil, surely it is understandable that some Western Europeans are just as proud of their own culture and wedded to their cultural traditions as non-Western Europeans are to theirs?

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 11, 2008, 5:32 pm
  29. @Andrew:
    I can’t speak for Canadian, but liking some aspect of, say Latin American culture (btw not an almost non-existent culture in the UK) doesn’t imply that everything about western Europeans is wrong. Personally, I’m all in favour of only adopting those traditions that make sense to you, and in an age where people move frequently, women have independent professional careers and all that jazz the tradition that women change their name when they get married doesn’t make sense to me.

    Posted by plonkee | September 11, 2008, 6:59 pm
  30. Hell, I’m a western european woman who kept her own name after getting married. Nobody’s expressed the slightest surprise at this in my personal and professional circles. I’m not asking the defensive Andrews of this world to “applaud” me, just wish to comment on the occasional exasperation I feel around what is a deeply conservative money-blogosphere, out of step with my world.

    And FWIW my 50 year old aunt and 80 year old grandmother, from what was then deeply conservative Ireland, kept their own names. We western europeans may be common as muck but like the toffs have many double-barrelled relatives!

    Posted by guinness416 | September 11, 2008, 7:09 pm
  31. I can’t speak for Canadian, but liking some aspect of, say Latin American culture (btw not an almost non-existent culture in the UK) doesn’t imply that everything about western Europeans is wrong. Personally, I’m all in favour of only adopting those traditions that make sense to you, and in an age where people move frequently, women have independent professional careers and all that jazz the tradition that women change their name when they get married doesn’t make sense to me.

    Sorry, it was not my intent to imply that Canadian believed “that Western Europeans are the root of all evil” or any statement even remotely like that. My comment in that regard was purely for rhetorical reasons. I’m just saying that there is a strong inconsistent current in our modern culture to relentlessly criticize every aspect of the dominant culture while celebrating any culture that is not part of the dominant culture. I actually believe this is not an unhealthy attitude, since the dominant culture can do more harm when it’s wrong than minority cultures can when they’re wrong. However, I am saying that if we can respect the fact that people of other cultures wish to keep their traditions, then surely it is understandable that many people in western Europe also wish to keep their traditions. Women who change their names upon marriage do so because of this tradition and not because they wish to happily give up all sense of identity in deference to their husbands.

    Now, logically and starting from scratch, I think a matronymic naming tradition makes much more sense than a patronymic one. There is never any doubt who the mother of a child is, but there is always some small doubt (even in these days of DNA) who the father is (to somebody who is not the mother at least). If we were just talking about logic, the ancient Egyptian matrilineal system makes more sense than the Roman system which prevailed.

    I certainly don’t think it matters very much whether wives take on their husbands’ names, though I do believe that both men and women nowadays frequently go into marriage with a hostile “damned if you’re going to steal my individuality” attitude, and I don’t think those marriages are, by and large, very successful. But the whole last name thing, while it might or might not be a symptom of that, isn’t the attitude itself. What name or names the children get is a more significant issue, which is why some cultures evolved matronymic or patronymic conventions, but no culture ever evolved a hyphenated convention (the names would get too long after only a couple of generations) or a “both people change names” convention (which would make a sense of family more difficult and genealogy impossible).

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 11, 2008, 10:36 pm
  32. By the way, Guiness, if you’re interested in personal finance blogs from the perspective of leftist women, I can recommend An English Major’s Money, Stacking Pennies, Escape Brooklyn, and Piggy Bank Blues, in addition to Mrs. Micah and Plonkee. I read all of those blogs at least semi-regularly and they’re all pretty good. All Americans, I’m afraid.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 12, 2008, 5:22 am
  33. @Andrew:
    Most women probably change their name on marriage because it is traditional to do so. However, the reason that they commonly give is because they want a *team name*. It’s not because it’s like losing your identity that I object to it. In part it is a very real loss/change of identity but also one that in tradition applies only to women. If it were equally common and acceptable for men to change their names it wouldn’t be an issue. However it’s not.

    Posted by plonkee | September 12, 2008, 8:22 am
  34. Also, I don’t think name changes are the be all and end all of feminism. Particularly since my marriage prospects are currently non-existent, I’m much more interested in women having an active interest in personal finance, and empowering themselves. I think that men should do the same of course, although there seems to be (slightly) less of a problem with the empowerment aspect.

    Posted by plonkee | September 12, 2008, 8:24 am
  35. I’d like to offer a slightly different perspective on the name change thing. I have never been married, but recently changed my name for personal and professional reasons. Since then, I have been both baffled and saddened by the sheer number of people who assume that I must have got married. Some don’t even ask, they start congratulating me on my marriage and look amazed when I say that I’ve not got married. It’s as if the expectation that women must change their name on marriage, and that any woman who changes her name must have got married, is deeply ingrained.

    Another thing that annoys me is when people assume I’m married anyway, and without bothering to enquire about my marital status (although it is irrelevant to almost all situations) address me as Mrs X. Or else ask me about my status, but say “is that Miss or Mrs?” and look bewildered when I say “Neither, it’s Ms”. We are still deeply conservative when it comes to women and their position in society, sadly.

    Posted by Maggie | September 12, 2008, 1:03 pm
  36. Most women probably change their name on marriage because it is traditional to do so. However, the reason that they commonly give is because they want a *team name*. It’s not because it’s like losing your identity that I object to it. In part it is a very real loss/change of identity but also one that in tradition applies only to women. If it were equally common and acceptable for men to change their names it wouldn’t be an issue. However it’s not.

    I asked my wife why she changed her name upon marriage. Her reasoning was pretty much the reasoning I’ve given on this thread. 1) Hyphens make no sense. 2) Changing both names to a new one severs family continuity. 3) She thought it was important that we both have the same name. 4) Given that either I should change my name to hers or hers to mine, why not go with tradition? 5) The fact that she has a brother who has children who are carrying on her father’s name factored into it; she would have had much more attachment to her name if she would have been the last of that name (her father was an only child). It is, probably, a significant point that women are defined by men either way - if they don’t take their husband’s name, they’ve still got their father’s name, not their mother’s.

    I just don’t see this as a particularly feminist issue. It is logical for a society to be consistent in its naming conventions and, for the reasons I’ve given, either a patronymic or matronymic naming convention are the only ones which seem to make any sense. I totally agree that, logically, if we were starting from scratch, I would argue for a matronymic naming convention, but which you choose is mostly arbitrary. We happen to have inherited the Roman tradition of patronymic naming conventions. Plus, future genealogists will thank you for sticking to a consistent convention.

    Personally, I’m all in favour of only adopting those traditions that make sense to you.

    This is, of course, precisely what puts you on the left. The right would argue that traditions are smarter than you are and that there are probably excellent reasons why they evolved that one person will not always be able to comprehend. Therefore, you should mess with them only with great care. As Edmund Burke said, “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would be better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations, and of ages.” I’m not arguing for this position, but you should be aware that this is what conservatives believe.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 12, 2008, 3:11 pm
  37. @Andrew:
    I’m quite proud of being slightly to the left, one of my new favourite quotes I read the other day on tvtropes:

    An interview with the famous liberal psychologist Karl Menninger on the News Hour ended with the question “Does it bother you when you’re called a bleeding heart”? He responded, “Not in the least. I’m flattered.”

    Also, you should look into Icelandic naming conventions. They’re… different?

    Posted by plonkee | September 12, 2008, 6:42 pm
  38. @Canadian, I’ve never gone by “Mrs. Micah X” IRL. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to change an established web identity. Lol, my mom always told me not to make big decisions right after big events (like marriage, death), but I had no idea that my blog would take off. None of my previous ones did, after all.

    Anyway, I also feel uncomfortable with people who don’t even go by their own first names. I’m very attached to my name and wouldn’t give it up for anything.

    Posted by Mrs. Micah | September 12, 2008, 8:52 pm
  39. Nothing wrong with being on the left. I was just pointing out that your statement of opinion on what traditions should be followed is an inherently leftist statement; nobody on the right would say that.

    Also, you should look into Icelandic naming conventions. They’re… different?

    I was familiar with Icelandic naming conventions. It used to be common throughout Scandinavia, but all other Scandinavians have adopted the Roman style naming conventions because their system is illogical in densely settled areas. It did work fine for them back in the days when none of Scandinavia was densely settled.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 12, 2008, 10:51 pm
  40. Thanks for the suggestions @ 5:22am (!) Andrew.

    Posted by guinness416 | September 13, 2008, 10:59 pm
  41. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I will always retain some of my money in a bank account that my significant can’t get to. I have heard too many stories about the spouse that drains the accounts and runs off with the hot, young lover. In fact, it happened to my neighbor.

    And as much as I look forward to someday joining my life with that of Mr. Right (where ever he is), I don’t understand how that works with our money. I am almost inclined to suggest that we keep our own and just trade off paying for things and split the rent/mortgage payments.

    Posted by Maggie | September 16, 2008, 3:22 pm
  42. @Maggie:
    I’ll probably suggest that we have a joint bank account just for bills and rent/mortgage that we each pay into and then keep our own money. The mortgage thing is important to consider though because there can be legal implications for whoever makes the payments i.e. if you are making mortgage payments you have claim to the house, and if you don’t then maybe not.

    Posted by plonkee | September 16, 2008, 7:10 pm
  43. I can only speak for the U.S. here, but whether you’re on the mortgage isn’t the relevant consideration. What matters is whether you’re on the deed. For example, if you have one person with really good credit and another person with not so good credit (or if one spouse is self-employed or cannot provide a consistent income history), it can be a good idea to have only the spouse with the good credit on the mortgage provided that the spouse also has sufficient income on his/her own to pay the mortgage. It is vital to understand that if you leave a spouse off the mortgage, then they’re off. No credit for that person’s income (if any) will be given. However, you can put both spouses on the deed, which is all that matters legally. (In many states, even that doesn’t matter and both spouses have an equal interest no matter who’s on the mortgage or the deed. A major exception might be if the home was bought before the marriage by only one spouse.)

    Moreover, not being on the mortgage could be an important protection for you if your income is not being used to pay it. If the house forecloses, you do lose the house, but it doesn’t impact your credit rating and nobody will go after you for anything having to do with the loan. (However, some states consider all marital assets and liabilities to be joint, so that’s not 100%.)

    On the other other hand, to the extent that being on a mortgage and making timely payments is good for one’s credit rating, you don’t get that if you’re not on the mortgage.

    Posted by Andrew Stevens | September 16, 2008, 10:38 pm
  44. I think that the name change issue is personal, I don’t think it’s wrong either way. But as Andrew pointed out, keeping my father’s name is no more of a feminist action than taking my husband’s name. I decided to take on all four, and my middle and maiden are now both my middle. When I changed my name, I mentioned to my mom that the new name felt foreign coming out of my mouth, and she made the point that changing your name is indicative of the massive commitment that is being made when you get married. Granted, my husband didn’t have as much of an outwardly visible change, but his life has changed just as much as mine has.

    In seriously formal social situations, I don’t mind Mr. & Mrs. husband lastname, and it’s usually how I would RSVP to a wedding or something like that. It works for me, I even actually prefer it for some reason. We both came from traditional families, and I guess it feels more familiar and I don’t feel like I have a loss of identity because of it. My parents had a lot to do with this–my mom was a SAHM and I can clearly remember telling my dad as a little girl that since he worked and made the money, my mom shouldn’t be the one controlling the spending. He sat me down and had a pretty serious conversation for my age at the time that there was absolutely no way he would be able to go out and earn that kind of money without my mom taking care of the three kids and running the house and hosting social events and everything else. They were very clear with us that just because they had different talents and functions in the family, that didn’t make them any less of a team–he told me that “she earns that paycheck just as much as I do.” I think the difference is that they recognized and celebrated each other’s strengths, while still making provisions for each to survive without the other in terms of credit and money. They also made very sure that the raised an independent daughter.

    With all that said, I came into our marriage with significantly more assets than my husband, and will likely inherit more during the marriage. We have a prenup, and all my investments remain in my name only. Our deal is basically that what we came into the marriage with would remain with that person no matter what (including future inheritances), but that what we earned and acquired as a couple were joint resources. However, the down payment for our house came from my money entirely, and the deed and mortgage are in both our names, which could be considered anti-feminist. If we were to divorce, I would probably get that downpayment back, but I felt strongly that I wanted the house in both names. We can only afford this house as a team, so I didn’t feel right having the deed in my name only. We also have separate retirement (401K and Roth IRAs both), checking and savings account, but with the exception of investments, we have joint finances and accounts. Both of our paychecks go into the joint account. All of our spending comes out the of the joint account, and decisions are made jointly, although he tends to defer to me because I handle the finances. I feel like if I spent all my time saying this is mine and this is yours, and I’ll pay this bill and you pay that, it would be a lot less time we could spend making sure that we have a successful partnership and thus achieve more than we could have alone.

    Posted by T | September 17, 2008, 10:27 pm
  45. “Why do some women still aspire to nothing more than a nice home and kids, when men would be laughed out of the room for the same thing?”

    Well, parenting certainly changes your perspective. I was in the never wanted/never liked kids camp. Did have one (my husband is very persuasive). I have always been a strong feminist, working hard for equal pay. And then I realized…man it is really really hard to have two full-time working parents. Some people can swing it because they have family. Some people can swing it because they can afford nannies, cleaning ladies, and takeout.

    But when I made the step to reduce my work hours from full-time (40-45 hrs/wk) to part time (30-35), it made an amazing difference in our lives. My son is happier (he really does prefer his parents, though he loves his daycare provider). We are eating more healthfully, getting more sleep, and are more relaxed. I don’t think I ever could have seen, ahead of time, what difference it would have made. And yes, I am making a concession at work - not moving forward in my career, by working PT.

    As far as the comment someone else said that “SAHMs are automatically better”, well I would certainly disagree. I love my son but would be bored to tears and unhappy as a FT SAHM. And some SAHPs just suck.

    Posted by Marcia | September 21, 2008, 2:32 pm

Post a comment

NETWORK
Proud member of the