It is very easy to mock Jones; her column is often tone-deaf and condescending, and she seems to take pride in ripping down the "little people" who just don't seem to understand her way of life. As is the case with many recession based pieces, Jones took this opportunity to play poverty for a week or so, noting that her experiences without the comfort of her credit cards taught her that "Money puts you in a thoughtless cocoon. It was as if I'd been wearing really dark (designer, obviously) shades and someone had rudely whipped them off."

Jones is shocked by the costs of beauty treatments, food, and transportation, noting that she's laughed at when she doesn't have the proper fare on a bus and humiliated that she has to shave her own legs for the first time in decades. It is your standard "how DO poor people get by?" article, though there are moments were I actually felt quite sorry for Jones, notably in a de Maupassant moment wherein she attempts to pawn a set of pearls her father gave her when she was 18 and discovers that the pearls are fake and ultimately worthless. "He pushed them back under the thick security glass. I started to cry," she writes, "Not because my dad had bought me plastic pearls, passing them off as real ones. But because my parents had been unable to buy nice things."

This is Jones' basic problem: she equates things with success. She cries because her parents didn't have the money to buy her the real thing, not because she's realized that the "real thing" isn't what made those pearls so important to her. Jones' life is measured in brands and belongings, and she's willing to overlook the fact that even though her "experiment" eventually ends, she's still thousands of dollars in debt and ultimately should be living frugally in order to pay her damn bills. But as much as she protests otherwise, I have a feeling Liz Jones will keep buying bat sanctuaries, and Liz Jones will keep acting stunned that some people take the bus, and Liz Jones will keep writing pieces about how brave it is to try to walk away from an extravagant life in order to face reality. Every so often she picks up a stone and attempts to smash the facade she's carried for so long. Unfortunately, she lives in a plexiglas house, and the stones she throws don't even make a dent.

Liz Jones: What Happened When I Tried To Live On £65 A Week [DailyMail]

It's serious, people. Here's how the Telegraph puts it: "A study has shown that the wearing of inappropriate outfits is a serious problem for playgroups because the wrong dress can seriously disrupt a whole class." No, we're not talking baby minis and fishnets, but rather insufficiently warm wraps or fancy duds that are most definitely not play-clothes. Sadly, some kids are apparently worried about "ruining" nice outfits by playing in them. And, as the study's authors don't need to point out, playing is a really good thing for all kinds of physical and social reasons. Dr Kristen Copeland, who oversaw the study, said "stricter guidelines were needed "so that children's active play opportunities aren't curtailed". What would the guidelines be? "No Little Marc Jacobs or any other garment made for a swiftly-growing child that costs more than said child's tuition?"

The sad thing, according to EurekAlert, is that "the study shows that parents may need education about the importance and benefits of active play for children's development" - and this isn't benign neglect we're talking about, as much as specific instructions not to ruin fancy clothes. Maybe the fact that the price of fancy kid gear has stayed static even as other clothing has gone down has made it more of a prestige item than ever. But take heart: the luxury kids' market is actually on the wane. And if that's good for our children's physical and mental development, well, score one for the Recession. (We're guessing though that, if this is indicative of the parents' priorities, dressing the kids in Osh-Kosh isn't going to solve all problems.) Suri, however, will probably maintain her impeccable aesthetic, and now the tabs can bolster their faux sanctimony with a few "experts" while they're at it.

Designer Baby Clothes Could Stop Children Playing [Daily Telegraph]
All Dressed-Up And Nowhere To Go [EurekAlert]
Buying Recession Proof Kids Clothing [NordicDesign]
High-End Kids Clothes Languish [Wall Street Journal]

"Lipstick entrepreneurs," the FT tells us, are on the rise. A new report - by, it should be said, by the "Future Laboratory for Avon" which arguably has an interest in fostering female entrepreneurs, as well as and the Federation of Small Businesses - predicts that the number of female enterprises" could double over the next 10 years, taking the number of self-employed women running businesses - from single-person ventures to more substantial ones - to more than 2m." I know, that doesn't sound like many - although it's a substantial gain since 2000.

So what at first sounds plainly derogatory, or maybe lesbian-specific, is in fact literal: a "lipstick entrepreneur" sells makeup, or similar. The rise in this kind of self-employment is an obvious result of the economy, since many families are in need of more income. And, the FT argues, due as well to an increasing number of female role models in the marketplace. To this we'd add the E-word: Etsy. While some might disagree, it's made part-time and flexible creative income seem compatible with a busy lifestyle and an enriching addition to other jobs. Or maybe it's just this female exec's rationale: women are "good at nurturing talent within our organisations, and perhaps we are not as threatened by talent as men can be. We are really good salespeople and we can be good at communicating."

Recession Spurs Rise Of 'Lipstick Entrepreneurs' [Financial Times]

[Ware, Massachusetts; October 28. Image via Getty]

WARE, MA - OCTOBER 28: An employee at the American Disposables Inc. factory works on the assembly line October 28, 2009 in Ware, Massachusetts. The factory, which has been producing diaper and paper products for over 30 years, recently had to let go of most of its employees following a decline in sales of nearly 85 percent in May and June. Ware, an old New England factory town, is struggling to find its place in an economy moving away from manufacturing. The unemployment rate in Ware is currently at 9.7 percent with negative job growth and over 11percent of the population living below the federal poverty level. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Early in the piece, called "The Mismeasure of Woman," Lipman (that's her in the white, lofting her National Magazine Award) writes,

The truth is, women haven't come nearly as far as we would have predicted 25 years ago. Somewhere along the line, especially in recent years, progress for women has stalled. And attitudes have taken a giant leap backward.

Kinda vague, but a worthwhile topic nonetheless. And Lipman does provide some sobering stats, like the fact that, "according to the American Bar Association, women in 2008 made up almost half of all associates, but only 18.3 percent of partners." After that, her essay pretty quickly goes off the rails. Both the NYTPicker and Gawker's Foster Kamer handily detail the ways Lipman's piece makes no sense. Kamer's right that the connection she draws between 9/11, the purported "end of irony" and boobs on the Internet is just bizarre, and the NYTPicker deserves props for pointing out that at least one of her allegations of sexism actually never happened — nobody called her career "leggy." But I'm not particularly interested in picking apart her arguments that sexism still exists — it does, there's better proof of it than appears in Lipman's piece, and there's no need to go into that here. What does bear some critiquing is her prescription for "chang(ing) the conversation," a vague phrase that appears to mean ending not just discrimination in the workplace but also misogyny in media and pop culture. Let's take Lipman's advice point by point (all bold is mine):

1.

First, we can begin by telling girls to have confidence in themselves, to not always feel the need to be the passive "good girl." In my time as an editor, many, many men have come through my door asking for a raise or demanding a promotion. Guess how many women have ever asked me for a promotion?

I'll tell you. Exactly ... zero.

Yes, women could use workplace assertiveness training. And yes, teachers and parents should be raising girls to be active rather than passive, and not to expect "unrealistic perfection in every sphere, from beauty to housekeeping." But why does the conversation about women and career advancement always have to be framed in terms of women asking for raises and promotions? I get that in today's world this is a necessary career skill, but a common critique of America's educational system is that it values obedience and docility, qualities that supposedly come easier to girls than to boys. Parents and other advocates use this as evidence that the school system needs to be changed to be more male-friendly — but women are still expected to change to be more workplace-friendly. I don't believe that boys are naturally less obedient, or women naturally less assertive. But we are still socialized differently, and the culture of many American workplaces is dominated by values developed and perpetuated by men — including self-promotion and aggressiveness. Again, plenty of women have these qualities in spades. But for those who don't, why can't workplace culture change to, say, reward hard work instead of repeated demands? Why do women always have to be the ones to budge?

2.

[H]ave a sense of humor. Believe me, it's needed.

Case in point: My favorite Christmas card ever came from Martha Stewart - while she was in prison in West Virginia. It was beautiful, on heavy paper stock, and showed a gorgeous wreath. And on the inside, homey as could be, it was engraved with holiday wishes from "Martha Stewart, Alderson, West Virginia."

This one is kind of mystifying. I'm not really sure what the Martha Stewart anecdote is supposed to teach us, especially since it's not even that funny. And anyway, can we stop talking about how women need to get a sense of humor? Umpteen discussions of humorless feminazis have led me to believe that the female sense of humor is like the clit — other people may not know how to find it, but we know where the fuck ours is.

And 3.

One final suggestion: don't be afraid to be a girl.

Women do have a different culture from men. And that can give us some tremendous advantages. Women are built to withstand hardship and pain. (Anyone who has given birth knows what I'm talking about.) That's a big benefit at a time like this, with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent and rising.

Where to even start with this? How about with the fact that Lipman just got finished telling women that they had to learn to operate like men in male workplace culture — but wait, don't forget hold on to a culture of your own! The idea that women need to work "like men" but think/look/act/dress/talk/fuck "like a girl" continues to be a huge obstacle to women's equality, and is part of the demand for "unrealistic perfection" that Lipman decries earlier in the essay. Even leaving this aside, if women's culture means "withstanding hardship and pain," I'm not sure I want it. I don't buy that women are any better at this than men, and this particular type of exceptionalism crosses over pretty quickly into obligation — when women are perceived as "better" at something (i.e. childrearing), it becomes their exclusive duty to take care of it. And I'd rather men share some of the pain of the recession, thanks very much.

Point 3 segues into the assertion that women are better at weathering economic downturn because they define themselves less by their jobs. This may be true in the aggregate — things are changing, but men are still told to identify with their jobs more closely than women are. Of course, women are told that their worth depends on the love of a man, and it's hard to say which cultural message is more damaging. As the recession has shown, jobs can be as fickle as love, and failure at either doesn't make you a bad person. It's worth remembering that strong relationships with friends and family — and also, I'd argue, a connection to a cause outside yourself — can help you weather crises both in love and at work. But framing this as feminine wisdom just keeps the genders firmly in their little work/life boxes, which is exactly the opposite of what the recession should teach us, if it teaches us anything.

I feel a little dirty taking Lipman to task for all this, given that she is genuinely trying to address the problems women face. But we're not going to solve those problems by falling back on the same old stereotypes that created them in the first place. Lipman deserves credit for drawing attention to a pressing issue in a national forum. Maybe now other people will come up with better ways to address it.

The Mismeasure Of Woman [NYT]
Fallen Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman's Self-Serving Feminism Screed: 9/11, Sissies, Etc. [Gawker]
Whoops! Leggy Former Portfolio Editor Joanne Lipman Makes Mulitple Mistakes In Today's Op-Ed Whine About Women. [The NYTPicker]

Aja is a 28-year-old mother who worked in a real estate for a Fortune 500 company. She was making a decent living, but spent her earnings on designer handbags, clothes, and a pricey rental in Brentwood. Having not put any money away, she now is living in a one-bedroom apartment with her three kids, and looking for work. Her situation is everything Suze Orman has been warning us about.


Aja has had to pull her kids out of private school and receives aid from WIC, which oddly, has restrictions on certain cheeses.


Caitlin is 25 and worked in the subprime mortgage division of Lehman Brothers. She used to go out to dinner six nights a week, traveled extensively, and shopped frequently. Now she's working three jobs just to stay afloat.


Lastly, there's Adam, 26, who once worked at a PR firm. In the course of this episode, he lost his apartment, was dumped by his girlfriend, and switched from fancy beer to 40s of malt liquor.

The change started gradually. After all, the last decade has been all about prosperity-related excess. The remaining dreariness of the recession-tinged early 90s was drowned out by the sparkly pop saturated landscape where the women were doing it for themselves. At first, women were still adjusting to our increased financial power. We had little money, but it was still easier if we had someone else footing the bill - or at least paying back what they owed.

Then came the early 00s, with women expecting to be high earners. "The Opt-Out Revolution" was published in 2003, chronicling the lives of women who had so much money, they had started to turn away from the workforce. While most of us weren't in that position, times were still good enough to start declaring financial independence from that guy (or special lady, for the lezebels in the house) we asked to pay the bills in the first place.

Then came Recession 2.0, launching an all out assault on our jobs and lines of credit. Unemployment began to hit record highs, with many states hovering close to the 10% unemployment mark. In the midst of this chaos, some interesting statistics began to emerge, around wages and compensation:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the wages of the median woman — at the statistical middle — rose 3.2 percent when adjusted for inflation, while the wages of the median man rose only 2 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

The Journal noted that the typical full-time female worker earned $657 a week in the third quarter, while the typical man earned $812 a week. However, men are still more likely to be unemployed — the BLS data showed that male jobless rate is 11 percent while for women it was 8.4 percent.

"This is a situation where everyone's losing but men are losing more, and that's not really a victory for women," Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute told the newspaper.

However, the "everyone's losing" idea is a bit misleading. One, since women's salaries are historically lower than men's salaries, our small net gains aren't much to celebrate. Two, income disparities follow both racial and gender lines, and having those breakdowns paint a more dramatic picture of what is being lost and gained:

Asian men fared worse than other men, but the median weekly wage for Asian men and women was $877 in the third quarter — higher than any other ethnic group. Whites were next at $753, then blacks at $607 and Hispanics at $527. The median pay of Asian men declined 4.1% between the third quarter of 2007, just before the recession began, and the third quarter of 2009. The typical black man saw his wages fall 2.8%.

The recession began in December 2007 and most economists believe it ended this past summer. Women's wages have long lagged behind men's, but minority women did much better than their male counterparts during the recession.

Over the past two years, the wages of the typical black male full-time worker fell, but wages rose 7.3% for black women. Among Hispanics, the median male wage rose 0.4% over the past two years, but the median female wage rose 5.5%.

Wages of white and Asian women didn't rise as much as those of other women; the median increased 2.4% and 1.8%, respectively, over the past two years. White males were slightly better off: Their wages rose 2.8%. It was the only ethnic group in which men's wages rose more during the recession than women's; white women's wages rose 2.4%.

And, once again, an increase is beneficial, but starts to feel futile when one looks at the starting points.

Still, the revelation that many women have assumed the role of breadwinner, or are out-earning their male counterparts, has resulted in a lot of speculation about the impacts of economic realities on gender roles. Much of the focus has resulted in looking at how women and men are coping to major lifestyle changes:

Beth Klingensmith, who lives in Colorado Springs, Colo., said it was hard enough to have to alter their financial plans after her husband lost her job. Now she worries about losing her own job because of the nation's economic woes. Already, she's been asked to take some furlough days as the state copes with budget constraints.

"We're doing OK, but there's absolutely no safety net,'" she said. "If something happens to my job, I cannot imagine."

Her husband, Jim, 49, is hopeful that his custom-made golf club business will take off soon, allowing him to contribute more toward the couple's bills. He said that in many ways he likes his new career more than the physically taxing work of running a printing press, but he admits he's struggled somewhat with the changed circumstances.

"We're Christians, so for me to not be the breadwinner … it's not the easiest thing," he said.

With all the upheaval with the recession and with housing, is it any wonder that people are spending their days applying for jobs, managing budgets, and nursing wounded egos?

The Opt-Out Revolution [NY Times]
State Unemployment Keeps Rising; Three Hit Record Highs [CNBC]
Women's wages rising faster than men's [UPI]
Women's Wages Outpaced Men's During Recession [WSJ]
The Wage Gap, by Gender and Race [Infoplease]
Rising number of women earn more than mates [MSNBC]

You remember Shabby Chic: enormous sofas swimming in white linen; faded tea roses; lots of distressed whites; the occasional hint of vintage. You know, shabby chic: very California -by-way-of-English-countryside, very girly, very 90s.

Well, they - Rachel Ashwell's empire of stores and products - are reinventing, sort of. A new partnership has led to a new, (slightly) cheaper line, in addition to the original, high-end stuff. Says a business partner,

"We think Rachel has developed a signature style that is totally relevant in today's economy...It allows you to take what you already have and combine it with Shabby Chic products to really capture the Shabby Chic life. And that is a massively relevant thing in today's market, the idea that to get Shabby Chic in your home you don't have to buy a lot of things.

The Times agrees, saying, "2009 may be the prime moment for products that derive their energy from comfort, sensuality and the idea of hunkering down. For in many ways, 2009 is shaping up to look a lot like 1989."

Okay, but is that the same thing as the "Shabby Chic life?" The "shabby chic life," after all, wasn't just about the trappings of hominess. However practical its antecedents, however nice the photography or pleasing the notion of flea-marketing, it quickly became a status symbol. It might be called inconspicuous conspicuous consumption -"effortless", sure, but also decadent in its dimensions and obviously pricey. Let's face it, all that white, however washable, wasn't exactly calibrated for the average slob, nor the dimensions for average footage. It was of its time, as is obvious by its success. But these times? If anything, hasn't the aesthetic evolved somewhat? Shabby Chic was aspirational - but the aspiration was to be a woman who had it all, maybe a studio exec's wife or a high-powered agent or an actress with a professionally-decorated, sun-drenched pad - and now that the reality of balancing has entered our lives so aggressively, I wonder if the faux-trappings will have the same appeal (or whether people just prefer to get white couches at Ikea?) Maybe, like Melrose-era crop tops, it'll be big. But basically, is "shabby" still chic when it's not a choice?

Making Shabby Chic, Again [NY Times]

• The so-called "Hecession" continues in the UK: According to a new report, one of out every ten men will be unemployed next year. Young men and black men have it the worst, with one in five currently out of work. •  Teenage boys in Sweden are kind of jerks, says study. Researchers found that many of them are unwilling to take precautions to prevent the spread of chlamydia, and that "a very high proportion of the boys state that they will not be following the advice given during [sex ed] classes and that almost as many think that sex education has no impact whatsoever on their sexual behaviour." • A study out of Rice University found that girls who have a better sense of smell are also more attuned to emotional cues. This suggests an overlap between the emotional section of the brain and the olfactory. •  Many women with uterine fibroid tumors are advised to get hysterectomies, but according to the New York Times there are several other treatment options for those suffering from the tumors, some of them less invasive. •  Members of the Yale community gathered yesterday to pay their last respects to slain medical student Annie Le. She was remembered by University President Richard Levin as bright, caring, loving, and spontaneous. • In most countries, animals are stunned before they are slaughtered, which decreases their pain. However, religious killings often do not stun the animal first, but new research on pain may increase the pressure to adapt Jewish and Muslim religious law. • Scientists have determined that in rare cases cancer can be passed from a mother to her unborn child after a 28-year-old Japanese mother passed leukemia cells to her baby through the placenta. The mother died of leukemia shortly after giving birth and at 11 months old the daughter was diagnosed with lymphoma. She is now in remission. • 12-year-old Abby Miller plays her guitar and sings on the street to raise money for her 4-year-old friend, Taylor Love, who has neuroblastoma, a cancer of the nervous system. The money goes to Love's family and Miller also asks people to write "Love Notes" to Taylor. "Her mom reads them to her before she goes to bed at night," Abby said. "Taylor gets excited for them and she loves getting them read to her because she likes knowing that people are supporting her and people are actually thinking of her." • According to a new study, people who get most of their daily liquids from plain water rather than other beverages tend have healthier diets in general and eat more fiber, less sugar, and fewer calorie-dense foods. • Authorities in Austria haven't been able to sell the home where Josef Fritzl imprisoned and raped his daughter for 24 years. Three of his other properties have been sold and the profits have gone to Fritzl's creditors and his daughter Elisabeth. The police have rejected some offers to turn the dungeons below the home into a museum. • A 17-year-old Utah girl who paid a 21-year-old man $150 to beat her in an attempt to kill her late-term fetus was released from jail today when a judge ruled it was a legal attempt at abortion, not murder. She gave birth in August and is seeking custody of her baby girl, who is currently in state custody. • Police have arrested Dennis Earl Bradford, a 40-year-old welder, for allegedly abducting, raping, and slitting the throat of 8-year-old Jennifer Schuett in 1990 and leaving her for dead in a field. Advances in DNA technology let authorities make the match. Schuett, who survived the attack and is now 27, said, "This event in my life was a tragic one... But today, 19 years later, I stand here and want you all to know that I am OK. I am not a victim, but instead, victorious." •

Actually two investigations: Jonathan Birchall of the LA Times reviews Why She Buys and Women Want More, two books on the 50% of the American population that apparently controls 72% of the spending. This statistic alone (from the second book) explains why Wal-Mart directs its ads at moms and not dads. But while Women Want More also posits that women's spending will help end the recession, neither book seems — at least from the review — to offer much concrete information about women's buying habits.

Why She Buys, by Bridget Brennan, is apparently "fun and anecdotal," and the author tells a little story about rejecting a sports car because the cup holders are too small. Brennan isn't swayed by the dealer's "dismissive response that Europeans don't drink coffee in the car" — but really, who would be? This tidbit doesn't really show that women like cupholders or creature comforts, as much as it shows that they don't like bad salesmanship.

Women Want More, by Michael J. Silverstein and Kate Sayre, seems to offer slightly more hard data. Using a study of a study of 12,000 women in 21 countries, the authors find, according to Birchall, that, "'Demands on time' are the top challenge for 47% of respondents; 72% say their mother is the dominant person in their lives; 42% are made extremely happy by pets but only 27% by sex." This is potentially interesting data, but except for the first statistic, it's not clear how these numbers affect shopping. The authors also break women down into six consumer "archetypes," including "fast tracker" and "making ends meet." Unfortunately, Birchall doesn't really explain these archetypes, or what and how they buy.

Part of the review's vagueness may stem from space concerns, but its unintentional message is that despite their research, none of the authors actually have that much to say about why women buy things. It's tempting to respond that women just buy for the same reasons men do, and that it's pointless to break down consumer research by gender. However, given that most companies still use the "make it pink" philosophy of appealing to women, it would be nice if they had a little more data on what women actually want. Corporations may feel that women's buying preferences, like their sexuality, are unknowable and shrouded in mystery. But while some women may buy for different reasons than some men, our reasons are no more difficult to understand.

Of course, for all shoppers, motivations differ according to the purchase at hand. Very different thoughts go through my head when I'm picking up toilet paper than when I'm, say, shopping for a new book. But all the same, I'd like to offer those hapless consumer researchers a little help in understanding the complex female brain. So taking a page from Latoya, I'll list a few general things that convince me to buy an item:

— I need it (toothpaste, soap, MetroCards, beans)
— I want it (books, dessert, an LP record with owls painted on it)
— it sucks less than what I currently have (electronics)
— it's pretty (dresses, art exhibition postcards I will promptly lose, NOT electronics)
— it's cheap (headbands with cherries printed on them and long weird tails that are maybe supposed to tie under my chin)

And here are some reasons I don't buy stuff:

— I have no money
— it has a big fat logo on it
— part of it breaks off in my hand
— it has Bible verses printed on it (especially true if product has nothing to do with religion)
— a salesperson is pushing me to buy it

Feel free to add your reasons.

Getting A Handle On What Drives Women To Buy [LA Times]

It's easy to see why layaway died: quality gave way to quantity, people wanted instant gratification and, perhaps most significantly, the notion that you shouldn't buy something when you couldn't afford it camed to seem as antiquated as a 78, only less fun. Indeed, it would be hard to find a neater corollary for the Collective Responsibility and ensuing collective chastening than the reintroduction of the unglamorous, plodding system.

Says the Post's DeNeen L. Brown, the system "taught us delayed gratification" along with important and basic lessons about fiscal responsibility. It had nothing to do with impulse-purchases and the luxury of buyer's remorse. The want you felt for such things was stable, wholesome, responsible, well-considered. And naturally these duller virtues don't have the glamor of the momentary high that's proven to arise from "shopping" - layaway is really the anti-shopping. There's also no sense of trespass. It's not cute. Carrie Bradshaw, that embodiment of excess, didn't mete out money monthly. And, funnily, putting something on layaway - admitting you want something beyond your means, that this object is very important to you, can feel more consciously materialistic - bourgeois, even! - than a frivolous round of purchases that can be consigned to the back of the drawer and forgotten. Because then, it doesn't really matter to you. Layaway was our parents' parents. Shopping was the modern way.

And as in so many things, we're being pushed on fast forward, through the perpetual adolescence and genuine liberations and simultaneous heedlessness of our parents' generation back to the necessities of the Greatest. But as is also true in so many things, we're not suited to it, and if layaway is a handy metaphor, well, how will we handle it? It's funny: for a lot of people my age, this sort of patience is a quality we associate with childhood, when things are placed beyond your reach and budget. And you saved and you considered and if you really liked something, maybe you could wait the long months to Christmas or your birthday. And this felt right, but it was also understood that these were a child's restrictions. And so now, in that way and other ways, we're children and we're old folks and we're broke, and layaway means acknowledging all that. On the other hand - sometimes a couch is just a couch. Or so my grandparents would have said.

In Back Of The Store, A Return to Patience [Washington Post]

I'm starting to fly into a rage whenever I read some lifestyle piece based on the recession. (This is different from the rage I feel when I read an investigative or financial piece.) My latest bout of hatred was brought on by an Elle article written by Laura Hollinger called "My Year of Living Frugally."

Yes, I should have known better. But I read it anyway, wanting to holler in frustration. Some assorted sentences:

"Over the years, I've cultivated a look that says rich, even though I'm not – my six-figure salary allows me to live well in New York but hardly extravagantly [...]"

"Gaining entree to the social elite pays for itself with invitations to places and experiences way out of financial reach. Why not have as much four-star fun as possible?"

"A bad day at work would send me to Bergdorf's shoe department, or to Henri Bendel to drop $300 on makeup I'd never wear. Now I found new pleasure in resourcefulness. I took my favorite boots to the shoe repair guy, and had dresses and jackets tailored to this years' shapes. Financial responsibility was empowering, and, in its way, more addictive than shopping had ever been."

I read through the whole piece giggling at first - I thought it was a cute tongue-in-cheek piece about those are faring just fine in the recession suddenly doing silly things like hiding their purchases in brown paper bags. The part about scamming a Vail trip was pretty amusing:

"Through a vast network of friends-of-friends, we arranged dinners and party invitations for each night, meaning we'd only need to spring for one meal a day (and a couple of nights we made do on WheatThins).

"When the famous heiress next to me rolled her eyes and groaned about missing "wheels up," I nodded in a way that said, "I hear you, sister."

But the idea that this was a comedic piece didn't last. Hollinger returns to NYC, but loses her will to save when catching sight of store markdowns. She explains:

I vowed to hunt for value, investing in pieces that would last for years and seeking out those few wardrobe additions (the perfect date dress, the best fitting long sleeve T-shirts to layer with anything) that would carry me from season to season. I did fall off the wagon just once last spring at the sight of $800 Lanvin silk sandals at Jeffrey, but paid for my sin when it rained for the next three months and they stayed in the box. [...]

Today, I maintain my expensive highlights and haircuts but spend less on blow outs and hair products (drugstore brands really do measure up. ) I take the bus to work instead of a taxi, and then I don't blink at dinner out with friends. Then I put every single expense, from groceries to doctor appointment on my AmEx card to earn points, which so far I've used toward a vacation and a new stereo system. In one year, I've saved roughly $6,000 - almost enough to buy that new Cartier watch I have my eye on...or to feed my savings account.

Huh? Now, this is not a simple case of sour grapes on my part. After all, if Hollinger has the money to play, it's her life. But I am really confused at why so many women fueling these trend pieces are creaming themselves over pretend frugality?

Especially when they don't have to?

Being financially savvy as a woman is an important and powerful thing. Understanding money, making it work to your advantage, and not being afraid of its possibilities are common themes that most people struggle with through the course of their lives.

But, if you are one of the lucky ones who managed to get through this recession with only minor tweaks to your lifestyle, then why are you doing a part-time game of make believe about coming hard times?

Over at my home blog, Racialicious, we were really feeling the recession. Four of us out of nine got a pink slip (or had the axe hanging over our heads) and most of us couldn't find work for months there after. Some of us have not found a steady paying gig yet.

Looking at my increasingly dire (as in, have to go round to the rental office to explain why rent will be ten days late this month dire) situation, I toyed with the idea of penning my own Recessionista-like tale to sell to the glossies:

"Upon realizing that my cheap ass fast fashion clothes wouldn't survive the withering gaze (let alone the needle) of a tailor, I tried to cobble together an interview outfit knowing damn well I was about to choose between repairing my one suit jacket and buying a day or so worth of groceries..."

"Making my way to the check cashing spot since my accounts were frozen from identity theft..."

"As I listened in disbelief, my editor explained she was pushing back my article for a third time, delaying yet again the $300 payment that I sorely needed before they cut off my cable again..."

"I smiled at the client, using $35 of the last $50 on my credit card to settle the tab, smiling harder as he apologized for forgetting his wallet back at the office..."

"I crossed my fingers and promised T-mobile another $100 on Friday, knowing damn well my next payment wouldn't drop for a couple of weeks..."

On second thought, I realize now why they publish these flights of financial fancy. Our lives are fucking grim. Hollinger is writing about her broke ass trip to Vail, I write about my broke ass trip to Safeway.

No matter what anyone is saying, broke is not the new sexy. Or the new rich. RICH is the new rich.

Can I sign up for Laura Hollinger's recession?

Official Site [Elle Magazine]

Earlier:

"Frugalistas" Must Cease And Desist
"Investing" In Your Closet Not Recommended By Actual Investment Experts

52% of the 947 women surveyed (PDF) report being worse off financially than they were a year ago, 75% are more concerned about money, and "Sixty-four percent of women agree with the statement, 'With the economy the way it is, I can't afford to have a baby right now.'"

But while 29% agreed with the statement ""With the economy the way it is, I am more careful than I used to be about using contraception every time I have sex," 8% sometimes skipped birth control altogether to save money, and 18% of women on the Pill reported using it inconsistently to cut costs. 23% are having a harder time affording birth control than in the past, and that "rises to one out of three among financially worse-off women."

Beyond the bullet points, the survey shows, as the report puts it, that "Family planning and childbearing decisions are not made in a vacuum, but have always been influenced by broader economic and other external forces." It's hard to believe we needed a survey to demonstrate that, but apparently, it still needs to be said. And while healthcare reform is the issue of the hour, let's not forget what Amie Newman notes over at RH Reality Check:

Pregnancy and cesarean sections can both be considered "pre-existing conditions" for which women are denied coverage. According to Think Progress, most individual health insurance markets don't cover maternity care services either. All of these kinds of policies leave women struggling to pay for the reproductive health decisions they make – in more ways than one.

I spent my entire adult life in Canada until 2005, and when I moved back to the U.S., I started looking at the cost of private health insurance, since coverage doesn't come with a freelance writing career. That was the first time I realized that a "maternity rider" costs a lot extra, and the expense was already so great I chose to gamble and skip health insurance entirely. (I went without it for three years until I got married last winter. Lucky me, being allowed to get married.) I had no desire to have a baby any time soon, but that was the first time it really hit me: I could neither afford to get pregnant by accident nor to be insured just in case. In Canada, I'd taken it for granted that if I got knocked up, my decision about whether to proceed with the pregnancy would be entirely based on my feelings about raising a child. Crossing the border meant I suddenly had to consider the cost of prenatal care and giving birth, let alone keeping the kid in food and shoes. And even for someone financially stable, those costs were great enough to potentially be a dealbreaker. It's ridiculous.

So it's nice to see a report like this highlighting the role economic considerations play in family planning. Now it would just be nice if we could get it together to address the problem with a more workable solution than "If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't spread your legs."

RECESSION HAS DRAMATICALLY RESHAPED WOMEN'S CHILDBEARING DESIRES [Guttmacher Institute]
To Have A Child or Not? Sometimes It's All About the Economy Finds Guttmacher Institute [RH Reality Check]