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.