You Can Change the World

Ms. Fulton makes a timely and thoughtful monologue about the changing shape of philanthropy.

In my mind it offers hope and re-frames how I approach giving - personally and professionally. The damaged economy and severe unemployment numbers are unsettling to many of us. However, this time period also provides us a potential clean slate, great learning opportunities, and a chance to explore new ways of sharing and interacting-not just in our backyards but globally.

Each of us have resources, tools, and skills gained from our individual experiences. What amazing changes we could make by collaborating. I think we need to remember that philanthropy is not limited by one's giving capacity; rather from our personal barriers of doubting that our contributions could truly make an impact.

I want to seek out opportunities to connect, not just with my colleagues and contemporaries, also the next generation of philanthropy.

Let me know if you're interested too.

Posted by Lisa Miller, WRC Executive Director

Rachel Maddow to Appear on this Sunday's Meet the Press!

For those of you who may not be familiar with Rachel Maddow, one of the newer additions to MSNBC, she is, quite frankly in my opinion, the Bomb!  Her show is on at 9:00PM eastern time.  I try to catch it as often as I can.

Cable news for me is a sea of infotainment run amok, with so much pandering to individual segments of society that it's hard to know if one is really getting the news, or just some editorializing slant of it.

Enter Rachel, and for now at least, she seems to be trying to get at facts more than anyone else. While she leans progressive, I have seen her have some pretty right wing pundits and elected officials on and, not only does she treat them with respect, she asks some pretty pointed questions and gives her interviewees time to give in-depth answers.  Some, as in the case of Pat Buchanan, use that time to announce not only that they are racist but just how racist they are, but all get respect.  She also covers stories I see no one else covering.

I wonder if she will address Mr. Armey about his organization, Freedomworks and its alleged inciting of the raucus behavior at town hall meetings that Rachel has been covering.  I wonder if she will confront him and if he will just deny it, as he has up to this point.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for debate, however loud and passionate, and civil disagreement is very healthy.  But all I have seen so far in the video of these town hall meetings is tantrum throwing with no substantive questions or comments.  Screaming "liar!" at our representatives is not, in my opinion, healthy debate and certainly won't help anyone understand the complexity of the healthcare reform bills.  People are worried about how we will pay for health care reform, how it will affect all of us, will it work, what if it doesn't - these are among many reasonable and important questions to be answered.

Meet the Press airs on NBC at 9:00 AM eastern time every Sunday.  It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.  If you watch it, let us know what you think.

Posted by Kate Tinnan, WRC volunteer

The Wise Latina...

I have been working on a post regarding the confirmation hearing of Justice Sonya Sotomayor since watching the hearings and reading different viewpoints about the proceedings. Something about the hearings stuck in my craw but I have had trouble articulating just what it is as I have a penchant for backing up my opinions with fact or at least, complimentary opinion from an authoritative source.

Well, now I have it. Below is a short video that Lisa Miller, the WRC Executive Director, posted on Facebook regarding racism and the Sotomayor hearings.

This video does not directly address the sexism issue but the theories proposed here of the difference between systematic racism versus that of reverse racism could be applied to sexism.

As I listened to Mr. Keleher describe the difference I began to cultivate a theory of my own - see what you think of it.

Sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are worse when they are accompanined by a threat of harm, and by that threat coming from one group's disctinct advantage over another. Justice Sotomayor was not threatening anyone when she made her comments to the students at Berkeley University; indeed she was inspiring them to believe that their perspective and life experiences would enrich all of us if they apply themselves to their learning and excel. I have no doubt that senators Sessions from Alabama and Graham from South Carolina believe that their background, perspectives and beliefs help them bring unique talents to their jobs.

Why shouldn't Justice Sotomayor think the same about herself? Why shouldn't she hold herself and her heritage in high regard? Haven't white men demonstrated this trait, with the muscle to impose it, for centuries? Justice Sotomayor was not suggesting a coup d'etat, Latina women taking over the country to dictate our every move. I think she was suggesting that it's time for more voices and perspectives to come to the table when viewing complex questions of how the constitution is applied to cases before the court. There are some things that I may do better than my husband, and some of those things may be because I am a woman - doesn't make me sexist to think that, just makes me aware of my strengths and proud of them. He does some things better than I do, at least in part due to his gender. He is not sexist because he knows that. He brings those talents to our family to enrich it. It's only if either one of us tried to dominate or oppress the family with our abilities, to deny the abilities and contributions of the other gender by exerting a blanket superiority over the other gender, that we would be practicing sexism.

Senator Graham expressed the view that if he said that he would make a better judge than a Latina woman because he is a white male, he would be drummed out of the senate. Well, some of that depends on the opinions of his constituents. But he suggested that her assertion that maybe a wise Latina could make better decisions than a white man were just as bad as a white man asserting his superiority over a Latina woman. In my view the comparison just does not hold water and his indignation strikes me as disingenuous. Its not the same because white men HAVE and still to a certain extent in certain circumstances DO claim superior status over women. Look at pay parity, violence against women, college entrance rates of women, the list goes on. It's because we don't have real equality in our society between men and women, between white and people of color, that so-called discrimination against white men will never have the same sting as discrimination against women and men of color. I believe that white men hold more cards than women and men of color. Period. That's why Mr. Graham and any other senator should be booted out of their office if they assert that they are superior to a woman of color. Its simply worse when you do have more of the power.

The only sexism I saw at the hearings were white men trying make a Latina woman – an incredibly well-educated, smart, top of her class, summa cum laude judge – feel bad for being proud of her accomplishments and her heritage. Some things may never change.

This is just my opinion – what do you think? What was your impression of the tenor and substance of the hearings? We'd love to know.

Posted by Kate Tinnan, WRC Volunteer

Women and Financial Literacy

Monday morning, Mike Collins, the host of Charlotte Talks on WFAE tackled the issue of women and financial literacy.  

His guests were  Liz Davidson, CEO of Financial Finesse, Greg Ward, Certified Financial Planner and Dr. Kevin Toomb,  Clincal Professor of Marketing at UNC Charlotte who is also involved in the Charlotte Saves program to help teach financial literacy and savings skills.  

The premise of the show was that women are not as financially literate as men. This conclusion was ostensibly based on a "study" - I use that word loosely - comprised of information compiled by the firm Financial Finesse regarding financial literacy in general and comparing women and men when in comes to financial literacy. This "gender gap" was supposed to be based on survey questions of men and women using the services of Financial Finesse, questions asked by those seeking advice of their helpline, and from content usage on their website.

While I am sure that there are some women who are not as financially savvy or confident as others, just as there are men who are not as financially literate as others, what does gender have to do with it? Why is it important to generalize about this as a gender difference rather than an issue of a lack of financial education across the board, men and women alike? Why was it suggested, as in the promo for this show, that women's eyes glaze over when faced with a long list of numbers? The paternalism was palpable.

The study is an extrapolation of statistics from their clients' use of their services. For example, they conclude that women worry more about money and are more likely to ask for help with finances. This conclusion comes primarily out of statistics from their helpline - a phone center for employees of the companies that contract with Financial Finesse to call and ask financial questions. Not a cross section of the employees of these companies, nor a cross section of the general population, but people specifically calling to ask for financial help. So, if I am getting this right, because more women than men called this helpline to ask questions, women know less about finances than men. For what it is worth, Dr. Toomb of UNC Charlotte said he does not see a gender gap in his work with Charlotte Saves - he sees that there is a need for more financial literacy across the board, women and men.  

One pertinent question Mike posed (that I appreciated) was this -- since the "study" cites that 70% of the calls to the helpline were from women, did that really mean that women are not as financially literate as men or are they just more likely to ask for help? He also several times brought up the issue of pay parity between men and women in the context of the issue of savings, suggesting that maybe women dont save as much because they generally get paid less than men, and so they simply have less money to save. Yay Mike! While I wish he had been more forceful in these questions, at least he tried to suggest that the conclusions made regarding women and their financial literacy by Financial Finesse were just one perspective.

In spite of the dubious nature of the conclusions Financial Finesse promoted, a couple of good things came out of the discussion. In their survey questions you can see a difference in the way men and women view their competence with finances. This is important and is something that the WRC encounters often with women making life transitions. Women transitioning out of ended marriages into the workforce, women rejoining the workforce after years of raising kids, women starting businesses with kids at home or after kids have left home. I have no doubt that our confidence in our ability to handle finances impacts our competence, and that we could always use more of both. Their survey also suggested that women who are financially educated and confident in their abilities often do a better job than men at investing for the long term. They are more thorough in their research, at buying and holding investments and diversifying their porfolios for better performance than men of the same competence. This suggests that women are less interested in "playing the game" of investing and more interested in the long term goals of investing.

In response to this I would like to generalize about a gender phenomenon that is a well accepted fact: women get paid significantly less than men in the same job - $.78 to every dollar a man gets. Women have less money to work with than men and along with lower pay, their jobs also tend to come with little or no benefits. While I applaud working with women on becoming more financially educated and confident, how about working on the issue of equal pay and benefits so that they have some money to work with? You cannot save what you never receive.

It is an interesting coincidence that in this month's Skirt Magazine there is a wonderful one page essay by Cindy Reid of South Carolina about the lack of pay parity in our society and it's very negative and personal affect on her life and on the lives of many other women and their families. I think this is the real gender gap issue, one that needs to be addressed immediately.

I'd love to know what you think.

Posted by Kate Tinnan, WRC volunteer