When Women Earn More: Can This Destroy Your Marriage?
Something I wrote over at PlantingMoneySeeds today. As a woman, could your earning power put your marriage at risk?
My marriage seems fine. But then, my husband is "man enough" to be happy with my earning power...
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
SCOTUS, DOMA, and My Decision to Change My Facebook Profile Picture
This morning I finally made the decision to change my Facebook profile picture to this:
I am aware that I am rather late to the party. But, and I'm going to be honest here, I was a little concerned about what others would think. I don't often worry about that. But this is a Big Deal here in Utah, and changing my Facebook profile picture declared something.
And it declared something more unequivocal than the sad little word-vomits that a very few people have been privy to when it comes to my feelings on the Church and gender issues.
So I am a little nervous. There are already implications that poor Josh needs to get his wife under control, and, well, here's more proof.
I've long believed that the connection between the religious aspects of marriage and the legal/tax aspects of marriage is a problem. On the one hand, you have the religious idea of marriage. But not everyone has the same religious beliefs -- or any religious beliefs. And, on the other hand, our society confers a number of legal, tax, and employment benefits on those who fit the definition of "marriage."
I think those aspects of marriage should be permanently divorced from each other. If you want the legal, tax, and employment benefits we associated with marriage, I think you should go down to the Justice of the Peace, or register at the courthouse, or do whatever legal paper-signing is required to get that protection in a non-religious setting, without religious officiation. Then, if a religious ceremony is important to you, go ahead and do that, too. It neatly solves the problems we see when we continue to allow one specific set of religious beliefs to dominate the definition of what constitutes a legal partnership.
There are financial and legal benefits attached to marriage, and we either need to relegate marriage to the strictly religious realm and require everyone to get civil unions to have their partnerships recognized by the government, or we need to expand our society's definition of marriage.
DOMA legalizes discrimination against those who are part of same-sex partnerships.
Even if states pass laws about civil unions or marriage or whatever, same-sex couples just don't get the same tax treatment at the federal level because of DOMA. That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And, to be honest, I think the Church needs to address this difference. The Church affirms support for employment and legal rights for same-sex couples:
As you can see, it doesn't address the issue of DOMA, or the fact that many same-sex couples are not receiving those protections because of legislation like Prop 8 and DOMA.
Marriage-as-religion needs to be separated from marriage-as-legal-partnership. When that is done, religions can choose whom to perform marriages for (just as they do now; not everyone can have a temple sealing, even if they are members of the Church), and same-sex couples can receive the legal, tax, and employment benefits they should be entitled to without all of this trouble.
I am aware that I am rather late to the party. But, and I'm going to be honest here, I was a little concerned about what others would think. I don't often worry about that. But this is a Big Deal here in Utah, and changing my Facebook profile picture declared something.
And it declared something more unequivocal than the sad little word-vomits that a very few people have been privy to when it comes to my feelings on the Church and gender issues.
So I am a little nervous. There are already implications that poor Josh needs to get his wife under control, and, well, here's more proof.
My Problems with DOMA (and Prop 8)
I've long believed that the connection between the religious aspects of marriage and the legal/tax aspects of marriage is a problem. On the one hand, you have the religious idea of marriage. But not everyone has the same religious beliefs -- or any religious beliefs. And, on the other hand, our society confers a number of legal, tax, and employment benefits on those who fit the definition of "marriage."
I think those aspects of marriage should be permanently divorced from each other. If you want the legal, tax, and employment benefits we associated with marriage, I think you should go down to the Justice of the Peace, or register at the courthouse, or do whatever legal paper-signing is required to get that protection in a non-religious setting, without religious officiation. Then, if a religious ceremony is important to you, go ahead and do that, too. It neatly solves the problems we see when we continue to allow one specific set of religious beliefs to dominate the definition of what constitutes a legal partnership.
There are financial and legal benefits attached to marriage, and we either need to relegate marriage to the strictly religious realm and require everyone to get civil unions to have their partnerships recognized by the government, or we need to expand our society's definition of marriage.
DOMA legalizes discrimination against those who are part of same-sex partnerships.
Even if states pass laws about civil unions or marriage or whatever, same-sex couples just don't get the same tax treatment at the federal level because of DOMA. That's discrimination, pure and simple.
And, to be honest, I think the Church needs to address this difference. The Church affirms support for employment and legal rights for same-sex couples:
Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.
As you can see, it doesn't address the issue of DOMA, or the fact that many same-sex couples are not receiving those protections because of legislation like Prop 8 and DOMA.
Marriage-as-religion needs to be separated from marriage-as-legal-partnership. When that is done, religions can choose whom to perform marriages for (just as they do now; not everyone can have a temple sealing, even if they are members of the Church), and same-sex couples can receive the legal, tax, and employment benefits they should be entitled to without all of this trouble.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Tithing, Taxes and Sacrifice
Now that it's tax time, we hear a lot about what the government is doing with our money, as well as who "should" be paying what.
One of the popular ideas floating around is the flat tax, which is the idea that everyone should pay a flat percentage of their income. There are variations on the flat tax, and some even include limited deductions for charity, as well as some allowance for those who might be especially poor.
However, the version that many of the local Mormons prefer is a straight percentage, tithing-style.
Recently, someone asked me if I thought what I was paying in taxes was "fair" considering we moved up a tax bracket for 2012.
"Wouldn't you rather go to a flat tax? Wouldn't it be fairer if you didn't pay any more of your income than someone in a lower tax bracket?"
While I think "fair" is an extremely subjective term, and it's not really something that you can quantify, I ignored my issues with the terminology and said, "I don't think that would be fairer at all. Someone who makes less than I do would have a harder time paying that same percentage."
And then, because we're both Mormon, he pulled out what he figured was his trump:
"But what about tithing? Isn't that fair?"
"No, not really," I replied.
Widened eyes. Stunned silence.
"Look at my income," I said motioning to the computer screen. "And then consider someone who makes $30,000 a year."
After I pay my 10% -- and even after I pay my fast offerings, and into the ward missionary fund -- I still have plenty of money left over to pay the bills and do the things I want. However, someone who makes $30,000 misses that $3,000 paid in tithing more than I miss the money I pay. That tithing comes out of discretionary spending. Even where I live, with a low cost of living, someone making $20,000 or $30,000 would be hard-pressed to enjoy a good quality of life, able to meet obligations. Paying tithing at that income level is a true sacrifice in a way that paying 10% (or more for other offerings) isn't for me.
"So you really think that they sacrifice more than you to pay tithing?"
"Yes," I said. Unequivocally.
Take a moment and consider the parable of the widow's mites.
Besides, even tithing isn't the "perfect" law. From the Mormon perspective, tithing is a preparatory thing. Something else is coming, and it's going to be all about giving more if you have more.
One of the popular ideas floating around is the flat tax, which is the idea that everyone should pay a flat percentage of their income. There are variations on the flat tax, and some even include limited deductions for charity, as well as some allowance for those who might be especially poor.
However, the version that many of the local Mormons prefer is a straight percentage, tithing-style.
 |
| Via Path To God |
Tithing and Sacrifice
Recently, someone asked me if I thought what I was paying in taxes was "fair" considering we moved up a tax bracket for 2012.
"Wouldn't you rather go to a flat tax? Wouldn't it be fairer if you didn't pay any more of your income than someone in a lower tax bracket?"
While I think "fair" is an extremely subjective term, and it's not really something that you can quantify, I ignored my issues with the terminology and said, "I don't think that would be fairer at all. Someone who makes less than I do would have a harder time paying that same percentage."
And then, because we're both Mormon, he pulled out what he figured was his trump:
"But what about tithing? Isn't that fair?"
"No, not really," I replied.
Widened eyes. Stunned silence.
"Look at my income," I said motioning to the computer screen. "And then consider someone who makes $30,000 a year."
After I pay my 10% -- and even after I pay my fast offerings, and into the ward missionary fund -- I still have plenty of money left over to pay the bills and do the things I want. However, someone who makes $30,000 misses that $3,000 paid in tithing more than I miss the money I pay. That tithing comes out of discretionary spending. Even where I live, with a low cost of living, someone making $20,000 or $30,000 would be hard-pressed to enjoy a good quality of life, able to meet obligations. Paying tithing at that income level is a true sacrifice in a way that paying 10% (or more for other offerings) isn't for me.
"So you really think that they sacrifice more than you to pay tithing?"
"Yes," I said. Unequivocally.
Take a moment and consider the parable of the widow's mites.
Besides, even tithing isn't the "perfect" law. From the Mormon perspective, tithing is a preparatory thing. Something else is coming, and it's going to be all about giving more if you have more.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Yes, Paul Ryan. Let's Try THIS Again.
One thing I get tired of hearing about is how Obama somehow managed to ring up the more than $16 trillion budget deficit all on his lonesome in only four years.
"We can't afford four more years!"
No, what we couldn't afford were the eight years previous to the Obama Administration.
While I agree that something should be done about the alarming growth of the deficit, the Paul Ryan budget doesn't exactly fit my priorities. Because making up for years of disastrous deficits, brought to us largely by wars and tax breaks for those at the top, by penalizing those who most need our help, is not my idea of the way to do things.
Yes, hard decisions need to be made. But gutting the entire social safety net is not the way to go about it. I find our national priorities disturbing. And I'm still annoyed that we somehow think that those at the top of the income scale are somehow too holy to touch.
Besides, it's not like this budget, no matter how "impressive" some may find it, will actually balance the budget as claimed.
Hooray for fuzzy math.
"We can't afford four more years!"
No, what we couldn't afford were the eight years previous to the Obama Administration.
While I agree that something should be done about the alarming growth of the deficit, the Paul Ryan budget doesn't exactly fit my priorities. Because making up for years of disastrous deficits, brought to us largely by wars and tax breaks for those at the top, by penalizing those who most need our help, is not my idea of the way to do things.
Yes, hard decisions need to be made. But gutting the entire social safety net is not the way to go about it. I find our national priorities disturbing. And I'm still annoyed that we somehow think that those at the top of the income scale are somehow too holy to touch.
 |
| Via The Blue State Journal |
Besides, it's not like this budget, no matter how "impressive" some may find it, will actually balance the budget as claimed.
Hooray for fuzzy math.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
So Much for Art Appreciation
"I don't enjoy children this age."
My son's teacher looked at me in disbelief. She had just asked if I would be willing to accompany the class on a field trip. I told her that I was available, and able, but preferred it if she could take other parents first. I indicated she could call me as a last resort. Then I made my statement.
Such a statement must have seemed incredible from from a Mormon woman living in Utah. I don't know how common the sentiment is, but I do know that expressing it is rare.
The truth is that I have small patience with children between the ages of 9 and 19. I enjoy babies and young children, with their curiosity and eagerness to learn -- although actually raising another one holds no appeal for me. I like playing with babies, and working with little children, but I also don't mind giving them back to their parents.
My difficulties with children in my son's current age group re-asserted themselves yesterday when I taught art appreciation to his class. The task was enjoyable when he was in first, second, and third grades. Now it's just a task. I'm not sure I can do it next year.
Do I love my son? Of course. He's my son.
We have a lot of fun together. We play board games. We watch Star Trek. We bake brownies from scratch. We take road trips. He says funny things, and offers sometimes-surprising insights. But he's an only child, and he's different at home, with me, than he is when he's around other children. He can be rambunctious, and even obnoxious. I'm fairly certain that, as a 10-year-old, I was equally high-strung and obnoxious when surrounded by my friends.
It's not something we talk about a lot -- the fact that sometimes children annoy us. I don't regret having my son, and raising him is a great source of joy for me. But dealing with children is something I am not particularly patient about.
So, I'm not sure that I can handle another year working in the classroom. I've been told that I should be active in my son's school life; after all, I work from home and I "should" be volunteering at the school more than once a month as it is. But I think this will be my last year helping out in my son's classroom.
Spending time at the school isn't going to boost my relationship with my son. I can supplement his education at home, and we can spend quality time together. There's no real reason for me to go into the school -- unless they need more parent volunteers to help out.
I'm always ok to help out, but I just don't think that I can make the commitment. I don't find it fulfilling; I find it stressful, and not in a good way that promotes my growth as well as theirs. Everyone's probably better off with me not coming in.
My son's teacher looked at me in disbelief. She had just asked if I would be willing to accompany the class on a field trip. I told her that I was available, and able, but preferred it if she could take other parents first. I indicated she could call me as a last resort. Then I made my statement.
Such a statement must have seemed incredible from from a Mormon woman living in Utah. I don't know how common the sentiment is, but I do know that expressing it is rare.
The truth is that I have small patience with children between the ages of 9 and 19. I enjoy babies and young children, with their curiosity and eagerness to learn -- although actually raising another one holds no appeal for me. I like playing with babies, and working with little children, but I also don't mind giving them back to their parents.
My difficulties with children in my son's current age group re-asserted themselves yesterday when I taught art appreciation to his class. The task was enjoyable when he was in first, second, and third grades. Now it's just a task. I'm not sure I can do it next year.
Do I love my son? Of course. He's my son.
We have a lot of fun together. We play board games. We watch Star Trek. We bake brownies from scratch. We take road trips. He says funny things, and offers sometimes-surprising insights. But he's an only child, and he's different at home, with me, than he is when he's around other children. He can be rambunctious, and even obnoxious. I'm fairly certain that, as a 10-year-old, I was equally high-strung and obnoxious when surrounded by my friends.
It's not something we talk about a lot -- the fact that sometimes children annoy us. I don't regret having my son, and raising him is a great source of joy for me. But dealing with children is something I am not particularly patient about.
So, I'm not sure that I can handle another year working in the classroom. I've been told that I should be active in my son's school life; after all, I work from home and I "should" be volunteering at the school more than once a month as it is. But I think this will be my last year helping out in my son's classroom.
Spending time at the school isn't going to boost my relationship with my son. I can supplement his education at home, and we can spend quality time together. There's no real reason for me to go into the school -- unless they need more parent volunteers to help out.
I'm always ok to help out, but I just don't think that I can make the commitment. I don't find it fulfilling; I find it stressful, and not in a good way that promotes my growth as well as theirs. Everyone's probably better off with me not coming in.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Nerdiest Christmas Ever, a Shiny New Year, and The Culmination of Almost 20 Years of Wheel of Time
One of the things I love about blogging is that I can just put stuff out there. Hardly anyone reads it, but it's kind of fun to write it anyway. Especially when I really should be doing something else. Like writing for money.
I've also been geeking out more than usual. Part of the blame for that rests with the awesome Christmas presents I received. During what was, without a doubt, the nerdiest Christmas I've ever experienced, I received a lovely glass and (real!) gold dragon, Star Trek Catan, a variety of items reflecting my love of Batman, and a pleather Darth Vader.
I was sick on Christmas Day (hooray for the flu), so all the nerdiness provided a pick-me-up. Nothing boosts my mood like a little serious nerdiness -- just ask anyone unfortunate enough to ask me about The Hobbit.
But, even with the improved mood, the New Year hasn't done much to excite me. Instead of thinking of a number of resolutions, I'm wondering what the hell I'm going to do with myself this year. Will we move? I don't know. What will I do about my "career"? I don't know. I know I'm unmotivated and I'm having a hard time getting moving. That could be just the time of year; there's a letdown of sorts after the holiday fun fades away and winter closes in.
All I know is that this is a shiny New Year, and it already feels dull to me. Perhaps I need an attitude adjustment. Whatever.
The New Year has brought about an ending, though. I've had to say goodbye to some fictional friends that have been my companions for almost 20 years. In 1990, Robert Jordan kicked off his Wheel of Time series, and I started reading in high school. I was there through the author's death (having Brandon Sanderson work on the final books of the series let me in on his awesome work).
The series finally ended, and that has me thinking more about life, and the things we make important, than any work of fiction should. "It's like saying goodbye to good friends," someone told me after church today, when we discussed the books. I agree with him. Especially since (spoiler alert if you read the books and know me at all) my favorite character dies. She goes down in a spectacular blaze of glory, but she dies nonetheless.
I've quoted pithy sayings from the books, thought about the events, and even, Light help me, felt that the fictional characters were more real than some of the actual people I know. This sort of thing happens when you invest so much into something. And I've invested a lot of time and energy into the 14 Wheel of Time books.
At any rate, the big takeaway from the books is choice. We have to be able to choose what comes next in order to make life meaningful. Our choices end up defining us. Even though we sometimes choose wrong, we can still be redeemed. So I guess that means I do need to adjust my attitude.
And decide who I want to be in 2013.
I've also been geeking out more than usual. Part of the blame for that rests with the awesome Christmas presents I received. During what was, without a doubt, the nerdiest Christmas I've ever experienced, I received a lovely glass and (real!) gold dragon, Star Trek Catan, a variety of items reflecting my love of Batman, and a pleather Darth Vader.
I was sick on Christmas Day (hooray for the flu), so all the nerdiness provided a pick-me-up. Nothing boosts my mood like a little serious nerdiness -- just ask anyone unfortunate enough to ask me about The Hobbit.
But, even with the improved mood, the New Year hasn't done much to excite me. Instead of thinking of a number of resolutions, I'm wondering what the hell I'm going to do with myself this year. Will we move? I don't know. What will I do about my "career"? I don't know. I know I'm unmotivated and I'm having a hard time getting moving. That could be just the time of year; there's a letdown of sorts after the holiday fun fades away and winter closes in.
All I know is that this is a shiny New Year, and it already feels dull to me. Perhaps I need an attitude adjustment. Whatever.
A Memory of Light: Saying Goodbye to Fictional Friends
The New Year has brought about an ending, though. I've had to say goodbye to some fictional friends that have been my companions for almost 20 years. In 1990, Robert Jordan kicked off his Wheel of Time series, and I started reading in high school. I was there through the author's death (having Brandon Sanderson work on the final books of the series let me in on his awesome work).
The series finally ended, and that has me thinking more about life, and the things we make important, than any work of fiction should. "It's like saying goodbye to good friends," someone told me after church today, when we discussed the books. I agree with him. Especially since (spoiler alert if you read the books and know me at all) my favorite character dies. She goes down in a spectacular blaze of glory, but she dies nonetheless.
I've quoted pithy sayings from the books, thought about the events, and even, Light help me, felt that the fictional characters were more real than some of the actual people I know. This sort of thing happens when you invest so much into something. And I've invested a lot of time and energy into the 14 Wheel of Time books.
At any rate, the big takeaway from the books is choice. We have to be able to choose what comes next in order to make life meaningful. Our choices end up defining us. Even though we sometimes choose wrong, we can still be redeemed. So I guess that means I do need to adjust my attitude.
And decide who I want to be in 2013.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Obama vs. Romney: For Me, It's About Priorities
As someone at the liberal end of the spectrum in a conservative state, and participating in a religion that many associate with conservatism and capitalism, I get asked a lot about why I vote the way I do.
Particularly why I plan to vote for a socialist Muslim who hates America and is actively plotting its downfall.
The simplest answer, of course, is that Obama really isn't any of those things. (I do want to make it clear that I have no problem with voting for a Muslim; my husband, though ok with a Muslim, was horrified when I, without hesitation, said I'd have no problem voting for an Atheist.)
To me, it's about priorities. Instead of focusing on the hate-filled lies, I look at which candidate most closely matches my own priorities. While I think the economy is important, the truth is that you don't fix something that was decades in the making, and the result of several different factors, in only four years.
Plus, I don't think that any president can do much to fix the economy anyway, between the stuff that has to be put into law by Congress and the influence of the Fed on monetary policy.
Instead, my priorities are more about the following:
In short, many of the policies that Romney seems to embrace, even though he would need a compliant Congress and/or Supreme Court for them to become reality, erase decades of economic and social progress. As a progressive, that bugs me. So, even though I'm not into party affiliation (or the two-party system for that matter), Obama comes the closest of major candidates that aligns with my priorities.
I don't care if you're fabulous businessperson. Fabulous businesspeople and their cash hoarding have been one of the reasons for a delayed economic recovery (and, some of these fabulous businesspeople, helped contribute to the most recent crash). I don't think the country does well when run like a business, and I certainly don't want it run in a cutthroat way, like Romney's darling Bain Capital.
Perhaps, if we ran the country in a way that looked to domestic priorities, and concentrated on creating a society that valued education, healthy citizens, technological/energy advancement, with a tax policy similar to what we saw during the watershed economic era known as the 1950s, we could still defend ourselves, and begin working our way out of the current hole. And eventually be better able to help others around the world.
To tell the truth, that's the sort of Mormonism I still believe in, and those are the kind of political policies I can get behind. I'm not into this wealth = virtue thing that seems to permeate much of Utah Mormon culture, and even society at large. Romney seems to embody wealthy entitlement (I EARNED it; it's MINE) in a way that Obama doesn't.
It's a tall order, I know. Particularly with the current realities of a political system beholden to profit-obsessed companies, steeped in socialized capitalism, who are considered "people." And superPACs. Can't forget the damn superPACs.
But a girl can dream. Obama, of the major party candidates, is the closest to my priorities. That's why I plan to vote for him.
Particularly why I plan to vote for a socialist Muslim who hates America and is actively plotting its downfall.
The simplest answer, of course, is that Obama really isn't any of those things. (I do want to make it clear that I have no problem with voting for a Muslim; my husband, though ok with a Muslim, was horrified when I, without hesitation, said I'd have no problem voting for an Atheist.)
To me, it's about priorities. Instead of focusing on the hate-filled lies, I look at which candidate most closely matches my own priorities. While I think the economy is important, the truth is that you don't fix something that was decades in the making, and the result of several different factors, in only four years.
Plus, I don't think that any president can do much to fix the economy anyway, between the stuff that has to be put into law by Congress and the influence of the Fed on monetary policy.
Instead, my priorities are more about the following:
- Better education for more people (although I think that we need to focus less on college prep and more on skills)
- Affordable health care for everyone (the latest health care reform isn't my favorite thing ever, but it's something)
- Improved infrastructure
- Reversing the growing wealth gap in this country
I'm also rather passionate about women's reproductive rights, as well as other issues traditional seen as "women's." And I'm reasonably interested in energy/environmental concerns, particularly those that touch on the public health issue of pollution and on progressing beyond our blind faith in fossil fuels.
In short, many of the policies that Romney seems to embrace, even though he would need a compliant Congress and/or Supreme Court for them to become reality, erase decades of economic and social progress. As a progressive, that bugs me. So, even though I'm not into party affiliation (or the two-party system for that matter), Obama comes the closest of major candidates that aligns with my priorities.
I don't care if you're fabulous businessperson. Fabulous businesspeople and their cash hoarding have been one of the reasons for a delayed economic recovery (and, some of these fabulous businesspeople, helped contribute to the most recent crash). I don't think the country does well when run like a business, and I certainly don't want it run in a cutthroat way, like Romney's darling Bain Capital.
Perhaps, if we ran the country in a way that looked to domestic priorities, and concentrated on creating a society that valued education, healthy citizens, technological/energy advancement, with a tax policy similar to what we saw during the watershed economic era known as the 1950s, we could still defend ourselves, and begin working our way out of the current hole. And eventually be better able to help others around the world.
To tell the truth, that's the sort of Mormonism I still believe in, and those are the kind of political policies I can get behind. I'm not into this wealth = virtue thing that seems to permeate much of Utah Mormon culture, and even society at large. Romney seems to embody wealthy entitlement (I EARNED it; it's MINE) in a way that Obama doesn't.
It's a tall order, I know. Particularly with the current realities of a political system beholden to profit-obsessed companies, steeped in socialized capitalism, who are considered "people." And superPACs. Can't forget the damn superPACs.
But a girl can dream. Obama, of the major party candidates, is the closest to my priorities. That's why I plan to vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)