Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    Thank you very much for typing that in.
    
    In light of the discussion over Mothers' Day and how much mothers/
    homemakers are valued if they don't draw a salary, the sentence from the
    Globe article, "Years at home count as zero earnings when benefits are
    computed" added a new dimension to that argument.
    
    It would seem that, if women are devalued in this society, *old* women
    are devalued even more.
    
    At least the article suggests some awareness of the problem. 
    
    Do we need another topic on crones?
    
    Dorian

>	From the Fact File:
    
    whose fact file?  where'd they get the info?  more statistic magic?

>* 86% of all personal wealth in the U.S. is controlled by women.
    
    doubtful.  Perhaps they mean "disposable personal wealth" - rather than
    that which must go for investment, bills, any non-monetary (i.e.
    houses, cars, stocks, bonds, investments, etc.) assets...
    
>* 62% of all shareholders are women.
    
    But are 62% of all shares held by women?  Different entirely.  More
    women can hold stock, but more stock can still be held by men.
    
>* 61% of all family bills are paid by women.
    
    This I believe.  But this doesn't mean they earned the money to pay the
    bills.  I have controlled the finances in all my serious relationships,
    simply because I had a better head for money - but I didn't always earn
    all the money that went to them.

    feeling cynical today
    
    -Jody
    

    An explanation I have heard for the statistic showing that women
    "control" more assets than men is that significant numbers of wealthy
    men "shelter" their assets in their wives and children's names. 
    
    Just because an asset is registered in a woman's name doesn't mean she
    necessarily controls it.
    
    Karen

    
    	These are the type of statistics that may look impressive 
    	upon first glance, but don't mean much. I'd like to know
    	how they were arrived at.
    
    	My wife has controlled our personal wealth (more like debt) and 
    	paid all the bills for the last 10 years because I'm too busy 
    	(night school and second job). I'd bet that many families are 
    	the same. And, as was mentioned, those women stockholders could 
    	have *one* share of stock each.
    
    	Guy
     

.7>	Does someone other than the owner control the property?

    Sure, that's the entire idea behind blind trusts.  The property
    is in the owner's name, but they need not be the ones managing
    the asset directly.  In the case of a blind trust (used, for
    example, to eliminate conflicts of interest for politicians), 
    the owner may not even know what the asset *is*.

    I really wonder about that statistic, by the way.  How did they
    count stuff jointly owned by a man and a woman?

	Sharon

re.7

quite frequently the owner of an asset does not control it.  In the case of
assets that generate un-earned income, frequently ownership is transferred
via a blind trust to a person with a more favourable tax status [also as
a means of avoiding inheritance taxes, but I digress].  Under this arrangement
the owner of the asset has _absolutely_ no say over how the asset is managed;
control is in the hands of the trustee.

I am in no way asserting that this is the case [or that it is not the case]
as regards the statistics you quoted and others have challenged.  I have
not had the time to research blind trust agreements against the statistics
you quoted -- although I had to spend the better part of a semester studying
the ramifications of blind trust arrangements ...

I am merely responding to your question:
	> How can that be?


  Ann

    Many, many moons ago, I read (I think in Brownmiller's _Against_
    _Our_Will_, but I don't promise) that The Author had done some
    checking into the claim that `Women owned most of the wealth in
    the country'.  (We now cut from "wealth" to "stock"; Ann's memory
    is blushing furiously.)  She found that *corporations* owned most
    of the stock in the country.  Of the *personally* held stock,
    not *quite* half was held by women.  So, the reality and the rumor
    were at distinct odds.  That most corporations were controlled by
    men (whoever "owned" them) simply made the reality even less like
    the rumor.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  SET MODE/PHONY_HISTRIONICS
    "Parade"?  You think of "Parade" magazine as part of the "Boston
    Globe"?  Argh!  Ah!  Hee-hee-hee!

    Anecdotal evidence to a woman "owning," but not "controlling" property 
    (though I don't expect it to stand up to Mike Z's eagle eye):
    
    In a married couple I count among my friends, the husband is a city
    police officer.  The nature of his work makes him vulnerable to
    lawsuits -- justified or not.  Therefore, all the family property (home, 
    vehicles, bank accounts, etc.) is held solely in his wife's name.  He 
    legally owns nothing of importance.  Because they are a unified and 
    loving couple, it would be unfair to say that she controls the property 
    she owns (just as it would be unfair to say that he controls the property 
    she owns).  They control it jointly.  But she owns it.
    
    It doesn't take much of an imagination to figure that in similar
    sheltered property arrangements, where the couple is less loving or the
    man is less sensitive, that the woman could own the property, but the
    man would actually make all the decisions about it.
    
    How often does this situation happen?  In a lawsuit happy society? 
    Or in a society where conflict of interest laws and tax laws and other
    forces make it desirable for some members of the society to hide their
    assets in another's name?
    
    More than once, I'd guess.
    
    Karen

    By law, Mike, Surely she could.  His name no appear.. simple as
    dat.....

    Ah, but you see, LAW isn't the only governing factor, now is it?
    
    Karen

    Mike Z
    
    and how much personal freedom psychologically do you think many
    of the women of my mother's generation (60+), whose husband put
    such things in their control, really have? Psychological coercion
    is a real thing...
    
    Bonnie

    yes, that they own it in name but it would take some major act
    of dissafection or rebelion, like if their husband decided to
    replace them with a 'trophy wife' for them to actually act to
    control what they control in name.
    
    Bonnie

    I wouldn't personally limit the constraints to LEGALITY or PSYCHOLOGY
    or even both.  I firmly believe there can be, and frequently are, other
    factors as well.  (Which is not to say that legality and psychology are
    NOT factors.)
    
    Other, very compelling factors are:
         Love
         Family
         Security
         Devotion to something more important than self
    
    I'm sure there are others, dependent on circumstances.
    
    I find it curious, and perhaps significant (?), that the male
    participant in this discussion can apparently only see the LEGAL
    issues!
    
    Karen                                         

    The following lengthy reply is an exchange of correspondence between 
    me and Mark Levesque that resulted from my previous reply (.21).  It
    sheds a different light on the control issue than that being explored
    in the phychologically stronger/weaker topic.  
    
    
>>   I find it curious, and perhaps significant(?), that the male 
     participants in this discussion can apparently only see the LEGAL 
     issues!

>    I suspect (not to talk for Mike, but...) that the reason that 
     this is so is because all of the other issues you raised are put 
     upon onesself, as opposed to the legal ones which are put upon us 
     by someone else.  If someone has legal control but chooses not to 
     exercise that control, it doesn't mean they don't control the 
     assets in question....

     Do you see where I am coming from?

Yes, Mark, I see where you're coming from.  Although I disagree with 
your premise of external versus internal imposition of the issues, you 
(and Mike) are absolutely right that, _under the law_, the woman in 
this scenario controls the marital assets.  It's just that my 
perception of "control" extends so far beyond legal parameters that 
I'm having difficulty understanding that others don't see it the same 
way I do.  (Maybe they do, and in typical Notes fashion they're 
leading me on for the sake of argument -- what do you think? 8-))

How do I see the control issue?  Basically I identify three levels of 
control that act upon an individual's actions, and that the 
individual, in turn, applies to situations under her control.  These 
levels are legal, social, and personal.

We're probably in fairly close agreement about what the legal controls 
are -- those codified bodies of law that are
  1. Written by legislative bodies (which may be elected government 
     officials, but could also be duly appointed or designated groups 
     or individuals who have the authority in a given situation to 
     establish rules govering others' conduct -- school administrators 
     or Digital's Policies and Procedures group, for example);
  2. Enforced by the police (which may be actual sworn-in police 
     officers as they exist in our society, but could also be any 
     duly appointed guardian of what is right and just -- a teacher in 
     a classroom or Digital's management structure, for example);
  3. Interpreted by judicial systems (which may be an elected or 
     appointed, but are certainly -- in theory -- knowledgeable about 
     the law and its history and precedents.  In keeping with the 
     previous examples, these systems may be governmental, but don't 
     have to be as long as they're recognized by the structure within 
     which they operate as the "official" judges of compliance or 
     noncompliance with the rules of that structure.); 
  4. And carry prescribed penalties for the offender when the laws are 
     broken.

It's blatantly sexist of me, but in my mind codified laws are masculine 
things.  Men write rules down; men enforce written rules; men judge 
others on their performance according to those rules; and men carry out 
the penalties when written rules are broken.  The great law-givers of 
history have all been men.  When women get involved in the law game, 
whether as lawyers or judges or enforcement officers, they are playing 
by men's rules.  Maybe someday there will be a woman who changes that 
perception for me, but to date there's not.

In addition, I see codified law as being strict, inflexible, and 
unforgiving.  It's either black or white, yes or no, right or wrong.  
There are no gray areas.  And if in the actual application there _are_ 
gray areas, they are shoe-horned into one or the other opposing sides, 
made to fit whether they actually do or not.

Social controls are considerably less quantifiable or formal than 
legal controls, _but_just_as_strong_.  These are the controls exerted 
by custom, manners, and mores.  Each society has them, though 
specifics differ from one society to another and from one segment of 
society to another.  
  1. Social controls may or may not be written; it doesn't really 
     matter since members of the society are taught them from infancy, 
     and they become the "conscience" of the individual as he matures. 
  2. They are enforced by the other members of the society through 
     daily interactions, the giving or withholding of approval, and 
     acceptance or rejection of the individual trying to interact with 
     those around him.  
  3. Because interpretation of social rules is the responsiblity of 
     everyone in the affected society, the rules are unevenly applied 
     and allow for extenuating circumstances to a greater degree than 
     legal controls do.  Nevertheless, these controls _do_ exist and 
     _are_ externally enforced.  
  4. Penalties for infringement range from a disapproving frown 
     through ostracism from the society; in extreme instances the 
     death penalty may even be involved.  

In many segments of society these social controls carry considerably 
more force than legal controls.  (Take La Cosa Nostra as one extreme 
example, a social grouping that enforces strict codes of conduct among 
its members, yet flaunts the laws of the countries it calls home.)  

I see the use of social controls as gender neutral, held and enforced 
as frequently by men as by women.  There are, however, very different 
social controls applied to men than to women in every society I'm 
aware of.  Nevertheless, each gender has its own privileges and 
responsibilities according to the social controls of the particular 
society.

Social controls _can_ be more flexible than legal controls, partly 
because of the wide diversity of individuals applying them.  At other 
times, they can be just as strict, inflexible, and unforgiving as 
codified law.  The relative threat to the social fabric seems to be 
the gateing factor for how strenuously social controls are applied.  
Gray areas in specific cases of disobedience are more likely to be 
considered here, too.

Finally, personal controls are those self-imposed disciplines each of 
us apply to our actions.  These controls are probably a mish-mash of 
legal and social controls, all heavily seasoned with our personal 
values, ethics, independence, intellect, personality, etc. etc.  
Personal controls are 
  1. Created by the individual for the individual.  
  2. Enforced by the individual for the individual.
  3. Interpreted by the individual for the individual.
  4. Carry penalties imposed by the individual for the individual
     plus, when applicable, penalties from the legal or social groups
     when the action infringes on legal or social controls as well.

If we want to be honest with ourselves, personal controls are the most 
forceful of the three levels.  These are the controls that actually 
determine whether or not we conform to the legal and social controls 
described above.  

In theory, since a single individual is involved, these should be the 
most flexible of the three levels of control.  They're certainly the 
most responsive to extenuating circumstances (witness the frequency 
with which all of us can justify our own actions, even when those 
actions go against our consciences).  My observations of humankind 
lead me to believe that this theory isn't justified in fact, and that 
we punish ourselves severely for infractions of our personal controls, 
our punishments often resulting in mental and physical illness.

                               -=-=-=-=-

So, there's my theory of how individual actions are controlled.  
You'll note that both of the non-legal levels I've defined are more 
forceful in controlling the actions of the individual in daily 
interactions than legal controls are.  Thus my disagreement when we 
limit our discussion to legal controls.

In the case of the wife who holds all of the marital property in her 
name, social controls definitely prohibit her from selling it for _her 
own benefit_.  There is a significant likelihood that her personal 
controls would also prohibit such action except in extreme cases such
as have been mentioned in some of the previous notes.  Otherwise I 
can't believe her husband would "allow" her to hold it in the first
place.  

>    If a woman has all marital assets in her name, she indeed has 
     control of them, even if she wouldn't do anything with them for 
     whatever reason.  She has the ablity to choose what to do; if she 
     doesn't exercise it, it doesn't mean she doesn't have it.  

Men who put "their" property in their wives names know the woman 
involved well enough to be assured she isn't going to sell the 
property out from under them.  I really don't see this as a passing of 
the control of the property from the man to the woman.  Otherwise the 
man wouldn't do it.  Unless he's really dumb!

Yes, she has the ability to choose what to do with the property.  Yes, 
she has the ability to choose what to do with her actions.  BUT, and 
it's a big BUT, her ability to choose and her ability to act are 
severely constrained by social and personal controls.

>    Having control has less to do with what you actually do than it 
     does with what you _might_ do.

OK, I agree as far as you go.  But I'd have to add, "... given the 
legal, social, and personal controls that act on you as an individual." 

The options available for "might do" are only those options available 
to the individual operating within her legal, social, and personal 
controls.

Karen         

    Dearest Michael Z., thanks so much for reminding me of my noting 
    responsibilities from a legal, social, AND personal perspective.  Your 
    concern for upholding both the letter of the law and the personal 
    relationships involved deserves to be applauded.
    
    Please rest assured that I have the permission of all people necessary
    and would never dream of entering a note from private mail without
    obtaining the permission of the author(s).
    
    So kind of you to ask.  
    Karen