Home

NYTimes: Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’

Matt - Sun, 2012-07-15 17:54

Anyone's guess which side of their editorial mouth they will speak from on any given Sunday. One week is "single moms are all the rage, you go girl!" and the next it's "if only I had a man!". Please, NYT, make up your mind! Article here. Excerpt:

'But a friendship that evokes parity by day becomes a study of inequality at night and a testament to the way family structure deepens class divides. Ms. Faulkner is married and living on two paychecks, while Ms. Schairer is raising her children by herself. That gives the Faulkner family a profound advantage in income and nurturing time, and makes their children statistically more likely to finish college, find good jobs and form stable marriages.

Ms. Faulkner goes home to a trim subdivision and weekends crowded with children’s events. Ms. Schairer’s rent consumes more than half her income, and she scrapes by on food stamps.
...
“The people with more education tend to have stable family structures with committed, involved fathers,” Ms. McLanahan said. “The people with less education are more likely to have complex, unstable situations involving men who come and go.”
...

But marriage also shapes the story in complex ways. Economic woes speed marital decline, as women see fewer “marriageable men.” The opposite also holds true: marital decline compounds economic woes, since it leaves the needy to struggle alone.
...
That is the essence of the story of Ms. Faulkner and Ms. Schairer. What most separates them is not the impact of globalization on their wages but a 6-foot-8-inch man named Kevin.'

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gynocentric

dungone - Mon, 2012-07-16 13:30

That's an incredibly incomplete and gynocentric article even if they are looking at a very real phenomenon. It looks at the problem solely from the perspective of women who have children out of wedlock and dismisses the men in their lives as being "unmarriageable." The behavior of the women themselves is never questioned as a possible source of the problem, even if the women they interview flat out say that they accept responsibility for their choices. Going down that route would have us starting to question Feminism and what it has brought into our culture. Instead, it becomes a story full of very selective anecdotes about women who the authors feel are entitled to a second paycheck, but aren't getting one.

I think the fundamental problem is that women have divorced the concept of children from the concept of fathers. Women feel entitled to have children whether or not they have done the work ahead of time to ensure that they are in a stable relationship. They view men as an extra paycheck and if the money isn't coming in, they aren't interested. Rich women and poor women are actually strikingly similar in the way they hold these views. These views are a result of 40 years of the rich white women's agenda. Poor women get hurt when they try to act like rich women. Men get hurt all around, but no one even asks them how they feel about it.

»

Slitches

el cid - Mon, 2012-07-16 22:20

The thought that a woman having five kids by five different men might NOT be marriage material doesn't occur to these women or the reporter. The problem is always the men.

Of course, I can count on one hand the number of women I've known who've ever considered they might be the problem in the relationship. Our culture tells them men are the problem. Women seek liberation and empowerment--and become what I call "slitches." You know, sluts and female dogs combined. But who wants to marry a slitch? Or even date one?

I suspect it will take a bit before the OED includes that word--but it fits. It also sounds like a word Dr. Seuss would make up--but inappropriate for kids.

»