« It's Not Okay To Execute Children | Main | Upkick In The Hit Parade »

March 01, 2005

What Will He Suggest Next? Take Away Women's Right To Vote?

NTodd from Doyihi Mir alerted me to this bone-headed article by David Brooks, who thinks that married couples with separate banking accounts are teetering on the edge of disaster. Mustang Bobby from Bark, Bark, Woof, Woof also wrote about the same article.

Brooks wrote:

It also illustrates how the family is a countervailing force in society. Public life is individualistic. It's oriented around goals like self-development, self-advancement and personal happiness. (This is, of course, even more true in America today than in the Russia of the 19th century.) The goal of family life, on the other hand, does not revolve around individual choices but around the unconditional union of souls. When we get married, and then when we have kids, we learn, sometimes traumatically, to say farewell to the world of me, me, me.

He's not talking about "family life" or "couples." He's talking about the "danger" of married women having bank accounts separate from their husbands. He wrote, "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."

It's the old slur - women are selfish! They're too concerned about their own selfish indulgences "individual choices" and that kind of concern leads to his unspoken conclusion - divorce. It's a well-known fact that women file for the most divorces, and that makes Bobo unhappy. So, to keep women from leaving bad marriages, he proposes that she lose control of her finances - keep them in the hands of husbands who can keep these wayward women in line, just like the good ole days when women "knew their place."

Of course, he doesn't quite phrase it that way. His true feelings would be too harsh to put in print. Instead, he channels Leo Tolstoy. He quotes Tolstoy's novella "Family Happiness," in particular a mushy part where a married woman expresses chagrin at the dying down of the courtship period. She waxes eloquently, saying, "That day ended the romance of our marriage; the old feeling became a precious irrecoverable remembrance; but a new feeling of love for my children and the father of my children laid the foundation of a new life and a quite different happiness; and that life and happiness have lasted to the present time."

Bobo chastizes independent women, saying that "the difference between romantic happiness, which is filled with exhilaration and self-fulfillment, and family happiness, built on self-abnegation and sacrifice."

The thing is, it's the woman, not the man, whom he expects to build her marriage based on self-abnegation and sacrifice. That means doing away with her financial independence by closing those separate bank accounts.

He wants to set women back to The Time That Never Was.

Gimme a break. I'm sorry that financially independent women scare him. I wonder if he's married, and if he is, does his wife have a separate bank account? Especially one of which he is not aware? That'll show those uppity women - take away their control of money so they can't leave his controlling ass if they've had enough of him.

Posted on March 1, 2005 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

Comments

I'm a firm believer in separate accounts as well. However, depending on your area, having your own separate money won't help necessarily help you if your marriage is on the rocks and your spouse is basically a crook.

When now-ex and I were getting increasingly hostile, he saw fit to steal my ATM card and clean out my personal (not joint) checking account, leaving me in overdraft and stacks of unpaid bills. I thought somebody had hacked my account or that the bank had screwed up royally. Now-ex denied everything when I asked him about it. So the bank and I were totally perplexed. We finally figured out that it had something to do with the bank's ATM at a particular location, so they ran the camera tapes. And guess who it was....

The police were happy enough to press charges, but the DA basically dropped the ball. It's all marital property, as far as they were concerned (which seems to be code for it belongs to the husband). So I never did get the money back.

Ex's notion of money was: What is mine is mine. What is ours in mine. What is yours is ours (i.e. mine). Our DA (who is now being forced out of office ("retiring") due to other political blowback) seemed to agree.

Oh, by the way, this is the same DA who got the City of Jamestown City Council President off on probation, even after he CONFESSED to numerous accounts of molesting his former girlfriend's child.

Whatta county...

Posted by: silverside at Mar 1, 2005 1:37:54 PM

Goshdurnit, I just wrote about this, too. Great post, and it made me realize I need to tighten up mine and elaborate a little on how Victorian Brooks really is.

Posted by: Amanda at Mar 1, 2005 1:46:18 PM

Not quite on topic, but wanted to let you know blogroll is now More than Three Wise Women. You got a mention at the birth. I have never given birth before, and speaking as a guy, that bit about the butt and the bowling ball does apply. Hope you are feeling better.
H

Posted by: The Heretik at Mar 1, 2005 1:51:59 PM

What? You want to vote, too?! Geesh, give you women an inch and you go all Loreena Bobbitt on us...

Posted by: NTodd at Mar 1, 2005 2:02:42 PM

"It's the old slur - women are selfish! They're too concerned about their own selfish indulgences..."

I never heard people say women were selfish...

They said we were vain, but even that was a behavior that was forced upon us in order to attract men...that WAS our only career chioce at one time, getting a man to marry and provide for us...

BUT now that women are expected to be financially independent, we have to go the whole nine yards and that obviously means our own jobs, bank accounts, property, insurance policies, everything...

As more time passes and more women do this, men will have less to complain about (presumably)... since most of men's complaints are not about divorce per se but that MEN are expected to keep up women's standard of living AFTER divorce...now more women will have their own assets to do this...

Anyway, I find men who do not want women to have their own money have a lot of control issues...men used to be able to control women through the dependency conditions that ensue automatically due to pregnancy and childbirth. NOW that more women are using birth control and men don't have that club to use anymore, they are coming up with financial issues...like now we shouldn't have our own bank accounts...

Please...

I had my own bank account when we were married and my husband had his...PLUS we had a joint account that was used for mutual bills and expenses...this is very common today...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 2:09:19 PM

I just saw the update on your blog, Heretik. That's so cool.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 2:14:38 PM

NTodd, if I were to go all Loreena Bobbitt, I'd use my teeth. ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 2:15:29 PM

Trish - you ever see the movie "War of the Roses"?

Posted by: NTodd at Mar 1, 2005 2:25:50 PM

I am enough of a control freak so that I do all the finances for the family, and I also have to hold the TV remote or I go insane. A separate secret account! What a great idea! I will start one immediately!

Posted by: Jo at Mar 1, 2005 2:31:02 PM

I saw it a long time ago, NTodd, but I don't remember much of it. Was there biting? ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 2:32:18 PM

"NTodd, if I were to go all Loreena Bobbitt, I'd use my teeth. ;)"

Yikes...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 2:41:28 PM

"I am enough of a control freak so that I do all the finances for the family, and I also have to hold the TV remote or I go insane. A separate secret account! What a great idea! I will start one immediately!"

Yes, I've been noting a lot of men lately having to always push the baby carriage or hold the baby...leaving the child's mother straggling along behind...

Do you think this is equivalent to the way men always want to hold the remote or drive, more control issues...

AND why should the account be secret? Most of the couples I know have a joint account to pay all of couple's bills and their own separate account...

It's very common...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 2:46:29 PM

At the risk of breakingup the string of female commentators, I'd like to say that my parents have always had a joint account and never had any problems (well not yet anyhow!). So it surprised me when my significant said she wanted to keep seperate accounts after we get married. According to her, she says that with her spending habits, it's the best way to avoid any problems of money between us. However, from what I've seen of her spending habits over the years she seems pretty responsible about money and definitely more than most people (our age) we know.

I have no objections to seperate accounts and even after reading the article I can't really see how it would break down any kind of unity or union between two people that didn't already have other problems. Bobo gets a big ol' "WTF mate?" on this one.

Posted by: MNPundit at Mar 1, 2005 2:53:16 PM

MNPundit, I have no problem with people who choose to either keep separate accounts or choose to have a joint account. I agree with your last point. What irked me was Brooks's contention that women should not have separate accounts because such independence and (irk) selfishness would hurt the marriage. Too much independence and selfishness from women for that fellow's taste. That was the message I got from that ridiculous article.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 3:06:53 PM

One thing that Brooks hasn't considered is that the law in some states does not agree with him. I'm talking about marital property laws in divorce. In some states, belongings you bring into a marriage, barring exceptions, remain yours after the divorce. "What's yours is ours" depends on what state you live in, even if you have a joint bank account.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 3:15:44 PM

true on the ways joint property laws vary from place to place, but then, those laws cut both ways. simply having separate bank accounts is not usually a shield against the jointness of marital property, either. (in fact, i believe that in most places nothing short of a pre-nup would be, but IANAL and all that. NYMOM's example of the thieving husband might be prosecutable on a couple other points of law, maybe, but not necessarily as theft or conversion, depending on jurisdiction.)

personally, my wife and i have a joint account, but that's largely because there's so damn little in it that there wouldn't be any point splitting it up. i like to think this doesn't really constrain her - she's got control over the household finances, anyway, simply because she's a great deal better at it than i am.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Mar 1, 2005 4:38:35 PM

oh, and i just want to state this for the record at least _somewhere_: David Brooks is a raving bloody loon. on behalf of my gender, i apologize for his mouth being open. thank you.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Mar 1, 2005 4:42:21 PM

In light of the biting, my manliness has, uh...shrunk. I declare defeat and withdraw. :-)

Posted by: NTodd at Mar 1, 2005 5:07:30 PM

"NYMOM's example of the thieving husband might be prosecutable on a couple other points of law, maybe, but not necessarily as theft or conversion, depending on jurisdiction.)"

It wasn't my example of the thieving husband, it was silverside...

I always had my own separate account and then got a joint one after marriage to pay our joint bills with...just about everybody I know does that anyway...

AND you're right about the separate accounts, if you put in even one dollar AFTER the marriage, they become joint property...but even if you do NOT, I've heard of Judges making you split it anyway making some excuse up about it...

Bottom line is that you just have to KNOW who you are marrying and make provisions to be fair anyway or you're going to have problems...it's that simple...

If you both make similar incomes but she hasn't worked for 5 to 7 years because you're had a couple of kids and she stayed home with them, or you used her savings for the downpayment on the house but now you want to split the equity equally even though she's been out of work for 7 years, stuff like that IS going to cause trouble and you never know how a Judge will rule...

It's that simple...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 7:21:51 PM

I guess men are just conflicted about this situation, I think most want women to have joint accounts and their own assets in the event of divorce, so they won't have to share too much with them.

It's like Joint Custody, it's a good way to NOT pay any child support. It's probably cheaper to either get a babysitter or talk your mother into watching the kids on your time as opposed to paying almost 40% of your income to their mother in child support...

YET at the same time you don't want your behavior to push a new or weak marriage over the edge if it could be saved...

Like everything in life, it's a risk...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 7:40:22 PM

whoops - sorry for the confusion about whose example that was. my apologies, i'll have to proofread better. :-/

and yeah, i definitely agree that if you're not willing to make an even 50-50 split in case of divorce or separation, then you *need* to get in with a pre-nup or something ahead of time. it's not necessarily rude, it can be just plain common sense, especially if there's a big difference in earning potential. sometimes fifty-fifty just wouldn't be fair, but it's up to the prospective partners to make something fairer in those cases. (having a separate joint account for joint expenses seems common sense to me, too. but then so does having individual, single-owner accounts, to separate some cash out for private use. i can't imagine why even Brooks would object to that - must be because he's a raving loon, i guess.)

and yeah, you should know what sort of person you're marrying. if you don't, you might be as dumb as me (who got married after four months of cohabitation and no engagement), and you likely don't want to be that dumb. ;^) then again, it's six years for me and my spouse and still going decently, so...

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Mar 1, 2005 7:48:46 PM

But even with the concept of joint property, it doesn't seem to be enforceable that assets will be split "equitably" or alternatively, what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. I have heard of other cases similar to mine (sometimes it's the wife, sometime it's the husband) where accounts are emptied out (might be joint, might be in the emptier's name, might even be in the name of the emptied out), but the courts just shrug. There are disreputable attorney who will tell people this: You think s/he is going to leave you? Go to the bank right now and take out EVERYTHING.

All I'm saying is that with some states, some lazy DA's, having a PERSONAL account as opposed to a JOINT account will not necessarily afford you any legal protection if your spouse cleans it out. Maybe you could get some traction if it was a bf/gf thing, but that's not always the case with a spouse. Sometimes women talk as if having a private account affords them some financial security, and i'm just saying it ain't necessarily so.

Posted by: silverside at Mar 1, 2005 8:45:06 PM

i agree completely, silverside - that's pretty much what i was trying to say, though you put it clearer than i perhaps did. in fact, as far as i understand the law (and once again, IANAL, nor do i want to be) that's how the statutes are written; barring a pre-nuptial (and perhaps sometimes even with one, for all i know - ask a real lawyer if in doubt!), property acquired after the wedding is joint no matter *whose* name is on it. in fact, i've been told it could be handed over to third-party creditors for debts your spouse incurred without your knowledge, so how much less chance would you have to keep it out of your spouse's control?

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Mar 1, 2005 8:58:39 PM

Nomen: "true on the ways joint property laws vary from place to place, but then, those laws cut both ways. simply having separate bank accounts is not usually a shield against the jointness of marital property, either."

True. My point was that Brooks, the loon (Thanks, heh. I know he doesn't represent most men.) made it sound as if eliminating all ways for wives to be independent of their husbands would lead to a downfall in divorce. Keep those wayward wives from leaving their husbands. That in and of itself would be true - that's the reason "marriage reform" is so popular for those who want to shackle women, but Brooks's view doesn't take states with marital property laws into consideration. The problem is that some marital assets in some states would remain with the parties, including wives, should they divorce. I myself was responsible for a portion of marital debt that my ex-husband had incurred, but thanks to a judge and a good ruling, I did not have to take on half of the debt he had incurred of his own volition that had nothign to do with me. That was a good thing, in my opinion.

My husband and I have a joint account, but like you and your wife, there's damned little in it. It covers the bills, just barely. I have my own separate account and we have no problem with that. That's our business, and Brooks can take his opinion of that and shove it. I think Brooks needs to have a little more faith in women that they don't leave their marriages when there is not a good reason. Most women don't take divorce lightly.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 9:02:43 PM

Oh oh. NTodd has shrunk. Someone blow him up before he fades away!!! ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 9:03:37 PM

Oh, I just thought of an entirely different issue that Brooks doesn't even address. I have also heard that in the case of your spouse's death, there may be probate considerations that effectively put a lock on your jointly held property and accounts. In that case, if you and the kids want to eat, you better have a separate savings/checking account in your name. My mother was pretty much a stay-at-home mom/housewife for all her life with just a joint checking account she shared with my father, and their accountant told them it was good idea for her to start a personal account, just to avoid this possibility.

So that idiot could be causing a lot of unnecessary grief and hardship for a lot of widows and widowers with this silly pontificating.

Posted by: silverside at Mar 1, 2005 9:42:13 PM

Oh oh. NTodd has shrunk. Someone blow him up before he fades away!!! ;)

If only it had been this easy when I was in highschool or college!

Posted by: NTodd at Mar 1, 2005 10:11:20 PM

There's a story in my family about my grandparents who were married around 1910. One day they went to see a short play by JM Barrie called "The Twelve Pound Look." It was about a man who hires a typist who turns out to be his ex-wife. She thanks him for the divorce because it forced her to learn a trade and become independent. Rocks the gentleman back on his heels.

My grandfather came back from the play and told my grandmother that from then on she would take care of the family finances.

David "Bobo" Brooks is a glib idiot.

Posted by: gmoke at Mar 1, 2005 11:34:05 PM

"..especially if there's a big difference in earning potential. sometimes fifty-fifty just wouldn't be fair..."

Yes it's interesting how men can always understand that concept, when it favors them, ie., in financial matter. Yet just don't seem to 'get' the same concept when applied to a woman's children...

I mean if you are going to 'prorate' a women's return in a marriage by how much she actually contributes financially, shouldn't the same thing be done to men?

In other words should male rights to children be prorated by their contribution? Which I don't think most people could argue the fact that it is next to nothing...

Yet everytime I bring this up men act like they don't understand the concept...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 12:09:41 AM

"Sometimes women talk as if having a private account affords them some financial security, and i'm just saying it ain't necessarily so."

Yes, I've seen that too. Even the myth of the house before marriage and how that will keep it out of the community property division...but you know what, that's not always the case...and I've known a couple of people, men as well as women, who had to buy their house back (or condo/coop) from a spouse to get it back...Generally it's usually the lower-income spouse who does this and since they usually can't pay the maintenance anyway, you can get your home back for a decent amount...

It all depends upon your state, the Judge, his interpretation of the law and sometimes on who gets custody of any children...since I find that Judges appear to siphon ALL the resources of a marriage to whoever get assigned custody of the children...

For instance if you do NOT get custody of the children, even if your mother got you that house before marriage and it's never even been in your NAME...I have heard of the other spouse getting it, at least to live in until the children are 18 or 21...

So it's almost LIKE they got the house...as by the time you get it back for sale could be more then a decade later, maybe two...depending upon age of the children...

Which is the OTHER reason people fight so much over custody since most of the resources of the family will be siphoned into the pocket of the parent who got custody, from the house to tax credits and exemptions, plus a goodly portion of the NCP parents' income/assets for the next 18 odd years...

I too find women will argue this point the most, determined to believe that this separate accounts, buying house pre-marriage, etc., will address these issues...I guess most women want to marry so bad, that they refuse to accept the fact that it might not help...

It is still a risk...and probably always will be...so again what can we do except marry basically decent people...I mean I can't think of anything else that would help...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 12:30:16 AM

After saying all that, I'm thinking it almost doesn't pay to buy a house in a society with a 50% divorce rate...as if you just saved the money in an account the WORSE that could happen is a Judge would give your spouse one-half...

Which is better then just losing the money for a deposit on a house where your spouse will get to live for 10 to 15 years in your investment (house) and then getting half of it anyway...

Just live in a nice apartment...there are some beautiful ones in Manhattan...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 12:35:36 AM

"I myself was responsible for a portion of marital debt that my ex-husband had incurred, but thanks to a judge and a good ruling, I did not have to take on half of the debt he had incurred of his own volition that had nothign to do with me. That was a good thing, in my opinion."

But you were lucky; that didn't have to happen...it doesn't with plenty of people...I don't know about others but now that I know as much as I do, I would never have married my ex...he had TONS of debt including back taxes...and even the joint account winded up being a mistake and I cannot ever have an account in that bank again because of him..


Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 12:41:29 AM

Trish, I am not saying anything except for what works for me.
But I want to share my bank account with my wife. I want
her to know what I am spending money on, and I want to
know what she is spending on. The girl I am going to marry
(hopefully!) is clearly going to earn as much or more than
I am. Of course we could have split accounts-- but why would
we? Maybe I am just a stupid romantic, but I want an equal
with whom I share everything...

Posted by: Walker Wells at Mar 2, 2005 12:52:44 AM

I agree with you, Walker. I share a bank account with my husband as well. We trust each other, and there aren't any fights over money. We have an equal relationship. I do have my own separate bank account, but that doesn't mean I'm planning on leaving or anything. Far from it. My problem was with Brooks's contention that wives with separate bank accounts are too independent for the good of the marriage. That's just pig-headed.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 8:26:48 AM

I would suspect too, that if yours is an unmarried partnership, that joint account thing could really get sticky in the case of your partner's death. Yes, things might get resolved in the longrun assuming there is a watertight will. But until that is resolved, you may not have access to that money. But I'm sure that Mr. Brooks' concerns do not expand to non-married couples and families.

Posted by: silverside at Mar 2, 2005 9:52:40 AM