Who pays?

I go out with couple friends all the time since my best friends in San Diego are all couples (and by that I mean I am equally good friends with both people). Usually, it's just me and the couple and when the check comes, I pay my share and the guy pays the share for the couple (most of the time, we just figure out what 1/3 of the total is and I pay that). I'm not making any editorial comment about the fact that the guy usually pays, I'm just stating what happens - when people are married, I sort of assume the money is basically coming from the same pot so it doesn't really matter who pays but my impression is that most couples follow the social convention of the man paying. Sometimes someone will pick up the tab for all of us (either me paying for the couple, or them paying for me), especially if it's just drinks. I've never really thought much about the dynamics of paying for stuff in these situations, since when I'm with any of these couples, I feel like we're just three friends hanging out together and the fact that they are a couple is sort of irrelevant.

But a few months ago, I went out to dinner with two couples. I'm friends with both the women and friendly enough with the husbands that it made sense for them to be there (but unlike my San Diego couple friends, I am definitely friends with the women and the guys are 'just' their husbands). These two couples live in the same town and hang out often as a foursome; I was visiting from out of town. When the check came after dinner, the two guys pulled out their wallets and were discussing the check, and I pulled out my wallet and asked what I owed. What struck me was how aware I suddenly was that I was the odd person out. I'm not sure if it was because there were now two women sitting there, each letting her guy take care of the check for her, or because splitting a check five ways is more confusing than splitting it three ways so one of the guys was actually looking at the specific items to figure out what I owed, or simply because I'm not really friends with the two guys I was having the money discussion with. But whatever the reason, it felt odd. And it felt even odder when we then went to a nearby bar and while my two female friends grabbed a table, I went to the bar with the two husbands to get drinks - that is, I got a drink for myself and each of the guys got a drink for himself and his wife. This time, I knew exactly what was odd - with my friends at home, one person would have just bought drinks for everyone.

I'm thinking about this now because this weekend my significant other* and I went on a double date with a friend of his and that friend's wife. Before dinner, my guy bought a round of drinks for everyone; when the dinner check came, my guy and his friend dealt with it; then we went to a club and his friend bought a round for everyone. When it came time to buy another round, I was going to pay but the friend beat me to it. It wasn't a big deal - it was loud in the club, he was closer to the server who brought the drinks and I think he didn't realize I was trying to pay until he had already given money to the server. But the whole evening got me thinking about how the dynamics of paying for stuff is different when you're part of a couple versus when you're single. When it's just me and my guy, he pays a lot of the time; I also pick up the check quite often but when we went out this weekend, I felt like it would have seemed weird if I had tried to pay for my own dinner. But what if we had been out with a single friend, instead of a married couple? In that case, I'm pretty sure I would feel just as weird if I didn't pay for myself.

I'm not sure I really have a point about all this, it's just something I've been thinking about. I've had many conversations with people about paying on a first date (and Zandria has a recent Blogher post that pretty much sums up how I feel about that issue) but I haven't talked with too many people about the dynamics of paying for things once you're in a steady relationship, or when you are out with other people. So I'm curious, for any single readers: when you go out with couples, does paying the bill ever seem awkward? For coupled readers: who pays, and does it matter if you're out with other couples or singles?

* We've been dating for almost four months but I'm still having issues with using the word 'boyfriend' so I don't really know what to call him...

End-of-semester blogging

The list of stuff I've been wanting to write about is getting really long but end-of-semester craziness will prevent me from writing much for another couple weeks so I figured I'd at least do a quick round-up of cool stuff y'all should check out:

- [via Feministe] Interesting article over on Slate about some of the women on the short list for the Supreme Court, pointing out that they are all unmarried and this is apparently an 'issue' for some people (in the comments on the Feministe post, someone points out that one of the women highlighted in the article, Kathleen Sullivan, is a lesbian who wears a wedding ring but is apparently considered 'single' because she can't legally get married - ugh).

- Blogher post about Steve Harvey's book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. Not sure if I'll actually pick it up but there was one part that definitely resonated with me:

A man always wants something. Always. And when it comes to women, that plan is always to find out two things: (1) if you're willing to sleep with him, and (2) if you are, how much it will cost to get you to sleep with him... Now by cost, Mr. Harvey means not only financially (dates and such), he means your requirements and standards. If you need certain things before getting physically involved like time, commitment, an emotional bond, some guys will consider that too high of a price to pay and move along but others, the ones that are serious about having a relationship, will have no problem with your price.

Of course, why would you want any of the guys in that first group anyway?

- Zandria has two recent posts I really liked. One is about being lonely, and the assumptions that are often made about singles and loneliness:

Here's a secret: some single women are lonely. Please note, I said "some." Here's another secret: just because a person is married or in a relationship, that doesn't mean they'll never feel lonely.

Amen.

- Zandria's other post that I really liked was about not being a "for now" woman:

...I need the guy to like me just as much as I like him. That’s what clicked for me. If I could see myself being happy with dating only this person, and I knew I wanted to see him more often and get to know him better...but he was telling me that he wanted to keep his options open? He doesn't feel the same way I do. And rather than give it more time and risk being hurt, I decided to move on.

I wish it hadn't taken me ten extra years to get to the same place but better late than never...

Random thoughts about Palin

I've been completely caught up in my classes for the last couple weeks but like a good little feminist Democrat, I've been accumulating some links about Sarah Palin that I want to share so here are some worthwhile links and a few thoughts:

snopes.com: Alaskans' Opinions on Sarah Palin
This email, from a woman in Palin's hometown, has been making the rounds but when I first got it, I thought it must be fake. However, when I checked Snopes.com (which I encourage everyone to do before sending on any kind of chain-y emails!), it turns out that it's real. The letter is critical but not in a scathing way - the author originally sent it just to friends and family, a couple days after Palin was announced, simply to give them more information.

Mixed Race America: Post convention thoughts
This is one of my new favorite blogs (and not just because it's written by a 30-something professor named Jennifer). She just says a lot of stuff I wish I'd said, like: "I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States."
I agree 100%. But what bugs me is that the McCain campaign seems to want to use Palin to get the support of women but then anytime someone actually mentions she is a women (in a negative way), they jump all over that as sexist. Can't have it both ways...

The Daily Show: Sarah Palin Gender Card
That hypocrisy is really what bugs me most about the coverage of Palin, and I'll admit Democrats are engaging in it too - people on both sides are saying things about her that they would never say about someone in their own party. Not that this is anything new in politics but for some reason, it seems more obvious this time. And Jon Stewart makes that point brilliantly!

The Volokh Conspiracy - Should We Hold Belief in Creationism Against Candidates for Political Office?
Given my tendency to over-analyze everything, I feel like it's becoming increasing rare for someone else to make a reasonable point that truly makes me go, "hmmm..." but this post really did. The author wonders why we (i.e., the media and liberals) make a bigger deal about someone believing in creationism than believing other, equally unprovable religious ideas (like the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.). I will say that I think part of the difference lies with what people do with those beliefs - you just don't see people pushing to teach the virgin birth in sex ed classes or the resurrection in history or biology classes - but I think it's a good point.

Do conservatives think women are clueless?

Over on Have Children or Not, Beth asks whose 'fault' is it that women have delayed having children? She quotes an article that essentially blames feminism for giving women so many choices that they don't think about having kids until it is too late. My first thought was, "Who could possibly believe any woman could 'forget' to have kids?" Even as someone who is pretty darn sure that I don't want kids, I still sometimes worry that I might wake up one day and suddenly realize I really do want kids and what if that happens when it's 'too late'? The fact that I can't shake that possibility from my head is what keeps me from saying I'll never have kids. And I just can't believe there are very many single women who don't have similar thoughts - it's simply too deeply ingrained in our society that as women, we are supposed to want kids so it's virtually impossible to make the opposite decision without giving it some serious thought.

Or maybe what the author of that article was thinking was that women don't know that they don't have all the time in the world, that there are women who do want kids but don't know there is a biological limit on their ability to do so and therefore they just go about their single, career-driven lives (which feminism now allows us to do) and then when they do get around to the kids thing, they are shocked to finally be told that there's an expiration date on their eggs? I'm not going to say that's not possible (I am often surprised by the bizarre ignorance of many people about many things - maybe these clueless women see the stories about older women having babies and think that means it's easy?), but again, the idea that every woman has a biological clock that must be ticking down is so prevalent in the media and society that I have a really hard time believing that any woman could possibly get to her mid-30's without knowing her fertility days are numbered.

I guess my point is that whenever one is trying to change the status quo, one naturally focuses on the changes, just as feminism has focused on telling women that they do have options, options that didn't used to be available to them. Feminism doesn't spend a lot of time educating women about the options that have always been available because it assumes we already know all about those and it is obvious that these new options are additions to the choice set. The fact that more women are choosing not to have kids doesn't mean they are clueless - for many, that choice is a very difficult one - but it simply means we are taking advantage of our new options. Maybe there will come a day when there truly is no 'norm', when it is so established that every option is equally valid that women will need just as much education about the kid option as the non-kid option, but even if you live in California, we've got a long way to go before that's a reality...

Single-sex marriage is still marriage

Two related posts have me thinking about the role of government in privileging certain relationships. On Feministing there is a lively conversation about the fact that gay marriage does not address “fundamental problems of inequality” since it still only bestows benefits like access to healthcare and medical decision-making on those who are married. Bella DePaulo makes the same point, though she specifically calls this out as singlism. The point of both posts is that marriage confers benefits that really should be available to everyone, not just those who are in a certain type of relationship. I have to admit that when I first read DePaulo’s post, I resisted the idea that these laws are ‘discriminatory’. After all, I'm not really disadvantaged since I don’t need to cover anyone else with my health insurance and I could make a living will if I were really worried about who will make medical decisions for me if I’m every incapacitated, etc. But after thinking more about it, I think I agree that there is something problematic about employers and the government privileging certain relationships (spouse) over other relationships (family, friends).

Now, before I get flamed by anyone thinking that I’m somehow saying that marriage is no different from friendship, let me quote a comment on Feministing from Bethany, who expresses my thinking well: “…I do think a formal relationship IS useful for things like hospital visitation and child adoption because it creates a way for both partners to agree about the nature and seriousness of the relationship and its long-term commitment. Maybe we need some other kind of formal relationship that's not tied up in sex, since you don't need a sexual relationship to care for each other or a child together.” I have no problem with society valuing committed relationships, and I believe that there is some justification for government policies that encourage people to enter into committed relationships, since such relationships have positive externalities like promoting stability and stronger community ties (though it's important to note I say can, not must). But if such externalities are the rationale for these policies, then they apply to many types of long-term relationships, including family and friendships, not just marriage (heterosexual or otherwise). So while I am hoping that California continues to make me proud and does not do anything to jeopardize gay marriage, I also hope that all those who are currently advocating for gay marriage will continue fighting to honor all types of committed relationships.

Academia, parenthood and hard choices

A recent study found that academics are less likely than doctors or lawyers (i.e. other professions requiring years of training) to have kids, and the gap is bigger for women. There are a lot of things that could explain this - professors tend to be more liberal and less religious; although doctors and lawyers require a lot of training, it’s still a longer road for academics since it’s not just grad school but the six years of working toward tenure that tend affect the ability to settle down and have kids; while academia offers great flexibility (which would presumably make it easier to juggle work and kids), that flexibility also makes professors highly independent and we quickly get used to being able to do what we want, when we want (the economist way to put it is that the opportunity cost, in terms of loss of independence, is greater for academics). And having a traditional family and house-in-the-burbs lifestyle is not necessarily the norm for academics so there’s far less pressure to follow that path (which, by the way, is one of the things I love about being an academic!). But of course, as one of the comments over on InsideHigherEd points out, the key question is whether being an academic is incompatible with parenthood, or whether the type of people who become academics are less likely to want kids?

The question of why academics, particularly women, have fewer kids is not trivial because it affects whether we see this as a problem (which implies it needs fixing), or simply an interesting empirical correlation. But even if there is something about academia that makes it harder for women who want kids to have them, does that alone suggest changes should be made? This is one of those areas that I really struggle with as a feminist and an economist. The feminist in me wants to say that women should be able to have it all; the economist in me knows that there are always trade-offs. The feminist in me wants to say that no women should be discouraged from doing what she wants professionally because she also wants kids; the economist in me believes that if having kids is more important to some people than others, then those women should choose jobs that allow them to have the life they want, rather than requiring the jobs (including bosses and co-workers) to accommodate the women. And of course, the idealist in me wants to live in a world where no matter what your decision, you are supported, not judged for it…