Forget Mad Men, It's Time for Mad Women

American society is systematically encouraging women to give up financial control.

Now that we have your attention, let us share the evidence...

Exhibit A: The Princess Problem - you are what you get

USA Today Contributor Laura Vanderkam recently wrote a must-read Op-Ed entitled "The Princess Problem." The crux of Laura's argument is that there is a big disconnect between the reality of many women's financial lives (being the breadwinner) and what they are brought up to expect (getting the glass slipper). Here are our favorite excerpts:

• Some moms worry that princesses make girls obsessed with beauty. But I think the problem is that the popular princesses lack what psychologists call an 'internal locus of control.' This is the belief that you are responsible for making your way in the world.
• In one study of negotiations, 85% of men had an internal locus of control. They determined their worth and said it was their responsibility to ensure their companies paid up. Only 17% of women felt that way. More than 80% of women felt that their worth was determined by what their companies chose to pay them, just as Cinderella is chosen by her prince.

Exhibit B: 50% of Americans think women should be forced to take their husbands' last names:

Per Feminsting.com, a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association indicated that roughly 70% of Americans think a woman should take her husband's last name upon marriage and a whopping 50% think women should be legally mandated to do so. If your blood is boiling... wait, there's more. Feministing.com goes on to report that when pressed for a reason why women should change their last names respondents said, "Women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family." Against this kind of backdrop is it any wonder that Secretary of State Clinton was more than a little miffed at being asked for her husband's view on foreign policy matters?

Exhibit C: Paula Abdul says "bye-bye" to being paid significantly less (over 50% less!!) than American Idol co-hosts Ryan Seacrest and Simon Cowell... and not many eyebrows are raised

Leaving aside the larger issue of how much anyone should be paid for hosting a reality TV show, we were blown away to learn how much less Paula Abdul was reportedly making relative to her male co-stars. Apparently, Paula was pulling in roughly $3.5 million a year as compared to Ryan's $10 million, and Simon's $30 million plus. These are unconfirmed numbers, but even if they are off by half, the pay disparity is still staggering.

So what's the point of these three seemingly disparate examples? The future of our society.

As Judith Warner said recently in the NYT,

"Women's issues are being framed by this administration in terms of realpolitik: U.S. security depends on women's empowerment. Global economic growth depends on women's participation."

Judith's wonderful piece is a call-to-action to stop the trivialization of all things Hillary Clinton. We'd argue that the rallying cry should be extended to all women. Whether by design or by default - our society continues to encourage women to give up financial control and condone pay inequality. As Season Three of the hit series Mad Men takes to the airwaves, perhaps it's time for some Mad Women to take to the streets.

Manisha Thakor and Sharon Kedar are the co-authors of two books: ON MY OWN TWO FEET: a modern girl's guide to personal finance and the upcoming GET FINANCIALLY NAKED: how to talk money with your honey.

Follow Manisha Thakor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ManishaThakor

Comments

[RTIII]

Apparently our author is either misinformed or a willful manipulator. Consider the quote from above:

"Against this kind of backdrop is it any wonder that Secretary of State Clinton was more than a little miffed at being asked for her husband's view on foreign policy matters?"

The truth is that the translator made an error. The question was on what the view of "the president" was, meaning her boss, Barack Obama, which makes perfect sense and is a VERY reasonable question. It was the translator who flubbed and rephraised it into her husband instead of her boss. And, the asker, upon hearing the answer, _immediately_ recognized the error and followed up. So, it was known at the time that this was not the question asked because it was corrected "on the spot."

Our authors are either embarrassingly misinformed or willfully disingenuous to pretend that she was asked about her husband's opinion. Such misinformation or disingenuity are harmful to the author's causes.
.

[CydMiller]

Great Post. We need more of it. I grew up in the '60s and '70s and feminism was everywhere and in most conversations. The backlash over the last 30 years has made misogyny an art form in politics, media, movies, and society.

Its time for a powerful, second wave of feminism to counteract the last 30 years.

[guard]

It is amazing just how effective these psychological traps can be. Beat someone down enough and they will accept the minuscule wage, thinking they are blessed to be considered worthy of it. Just look the at the plethora of articles on this site about how to get that job. For example, suggestions as bizarre as sending a "thank you" note to the corporate person who interviewed you. Perhaps dozens of people each spend two or three hours of their time interviewing for a job, and then they are supposed to thank the interviewer for the wasted time.

[RenePA]

Second thought: spell-checker is your friend. Sorry for all the misspellings. Miss-spellings. Bah. Figure it out.

[RenePA]

Am wondering about the validity of Exhibit B.

Yes, my eyebrows are also raised at the information given in Exhibit C. Am very surprised that Paula would have signed such a contract with such financial discrepency toward her - but doesn't really surprise me. Maybe she needs to fire her agent. Maybe she needs to sue? Who knows.

Exhibit A -- this is the one that caught my attention because with this you are on to something very big that deserves its own article: The Princess Syndrome.

I work for a major USA retailer, let's call it X-Mart. X-Mart stocks an inordinate amount of cute litlle (mostly) pink, glitterized and frilled tee-shirts for girls that advertise they are definately, without question Princesses.

Indeed, I would say no less than one-third to one-half of all the girls appareal is designed to expound the belief that the little girl wearing said appareal is entitled to special treatment, can put down others based upon her cuteness, can behave in anyway she deems, and most importantly - can get what she wants - NOW - because she is... yes, a Princess.

It's very alarming. Especially when juxtapositioned next to little boys tee-shirts that depict things like how funny it is to shove girls out of windows and have their broken bodies on the street as an answer to what to do with a girl who is annoying you. Just one example.

[wagadog]

Victim blaming again.

Women make less than men in the same jobs so it is...our fault. Perhaps for entertaining princess fantasies.

Let's try this one on:

A company paying women less than men for the same job is BREAKING THE LAW. How is that law enforced? Piss-poorly if you consider the fact that it's basically your war chest vs. theirs when all you can get is the best justice money can buy in this country. Oh, and you can't wait to sue until you're stabilized in a new job or new profession, years down the road. No, you've got to file in 180 days. If you've been let go due to pregnancy discrimination, 180 days puts your requirement to file...just before your due date. Like, when you need cash the most, especially if it's a costly "difficult" birth.

So guess what. Instead of complying with the law, it's a lot cheaper for our corporate taskmasters to shove this "Princess" sh i t down our throats, and our daughters and nieces. You know the Princess Fantasy that we're supposed to all have -- that's part of the culture -- that gets companies off the hook when they engage in gender discrimination.

Women who have abortions rather than lose their jobs should name their aborted children after their bosses, send them photographs of the remains.

[dadw5boys]

Not enough guys are willing to stand up and tell the company " What I have worked for in the past has nothing to do with what I am worth working fofr your company ",

It bothers many when I will not provide income info it is my business not theirs.

[MikeDu]

"In one study of negotiations, 85% of men had an internal locus of control."

It sounds like us guys are less 'empowered' and more 'delusional'. Especially in today's workplace. Try arguing your self-worth with Walmart.

Surveys of opinions seem to be a lagging indicator of what's happening on the ground in society. Men are dlipping behind in everything from business startups to body image. If women believe they do not have control over their own lives that may be because they are more perceptive than men.

[Rita at Goldivas]

That may be true, except the results - better pay for men - show that it's good to be "delusional"!