My head just exploded after I read an article in the New York Times entitled “51% of Women are Now Living Without Spouses.” I find this article to be terribly vexing. It is unbelievably heterosexist and sexist.
Apparently, the New York Times’ Sam Roberts believes that marriage is only between a woman and a man. I beg to differ.
The article also contains this gem of a quote from William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution:
“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage…”
How can it possibly be “worse” that women are “less dependent on men or the institution of marriage?” My feminist hackles are at their maximum.
Please read the article and then let’s discuss it in the comments.
Tags: feminism, heterosexism, LGBT, new york times, oppression, patriarchy, sexism, Social Justice
“How can it possibly be “worse” that women are “less dependent on men or the institution of marriage?” My feminist hackles are at their maximum.”
Have your feminist hackles considered the consequences of single mothers not having a father around to help raise, educate and provide for their child?
I guess the part of the article I didn’t like the most was this:
“Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.”
The word “probably” indicated to me that the professor has no idea if what he is saying is true or not, but that it sounds reasonable and it’s the first thing that came to his mind.
“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,”
I’m not sure about about the professor’s statement here either. What makes it inexorable? Who says it’s impossible to go back to a world where marraige is the main institution that organizes people’s lives? Culture and political trends often swing back and forth. I don’t think it’s likely that the institution of marriage in the US will be a dominant as it was before the 1960’s, but I think proclaiming the fact that 51% of women are currently living without a spouse represents a point of no return is pure speculation. Particularly when elderly widows are factored into the statistic, since most of them are not single by choice, but rather because of the death of their husband.
All in all, my hackles are raised too, but not my feminist ones, mine are the ones that bristle at sloppy journalism and shallow articles. You have to take the NY times with a grain of salt these days. It’s not the paper it once was.
Thanks for commenting G-Dub.
I’ll attempt to answer…
I feel that women can raise, educate and provide for their kids without having a man around. The concept that women need men is very patriarchal and heterosexist.
First, in response to:
“Have your feminist hackles considered the consequences of single mothers not having a father around to help raise, educate and provide for their child?”
As an actual, real-life single mother (thus, as someone qualified to have an opinion on this subject - I am assuming, G-Dub, that you are not a single mother. If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know so I can most humbly apologize), I have to go with Eric on this one. I am doing a damn good job raising my child, “despite” the fact that the sperm donor of her makes no effort to participate in the process. She is surrounded by highly educated, highly articulate adults who contribute to her development in various ways.
Based on my own experience, the experiences of friends, and not a little research, I can tell you that what would be of use to single individuals raising children is material support that is public and automatic, not private and dependent on the whims of fathers. The utility of this support, of course, would not be exclusive to mothers and would ultimately benefit - guess who? - children! True commitment to the well-being of children results in public policy that actually benefits them. Perhaps it is only in a society organized exclusively around the idealization of patriarchal nuclear families that the well-being of children of no consequence to society as a whole.
Second, in response to:
“The word “probably” indicated to me that the professor has no idea if what he is saying is true or not, but that it sounds reasonable and it’s the first thing that came to his mind.”
Professor Coontz - who, incidentally, is an authority on family history - is a woman. Keeping in mind that she was clearly identified by her very clearly female first name about four lines above the sentence you cite, your use of male pronouns to refer to her is a brilliant example of “sloppy journalism.” Maybe you would like to work for the NY Times?
(**cue irony** Also, I wouldn’t brag too much about your “feminist hackles,” if I were you. People for whom feminism means something might not quite appreciate the joke.)
Michele Marie,
You wrote:
“Professor Coontz - who, incidentally, is an authority on family history - is a woman. Keeping in mind that she was clearly identified by her very clearly female first name about four lines above the sentence you cite, your use of male pronouns to refer to her is a brilliant example of “sloppy journalism.” Maybe you would like to work for the NY Times?”
My apologies. I resolve to be more attentive and less presumptive in the future.
When you wrote this:
“As an actual, real-life single mother (thus, as someone qualified to have an opinion on this subject…”
Were you implying that I cannot have a valid opinion on the subject unless I am a single parent too?
I am glad that you are a good parent. And I am sorry that your sperm donor doesn’t seem to want to fulfil his obligation. I am fully in favor aggressive child support divisions of State Governments. Single parents deserve the support they are entitled to.
Eric,
I don’t fully understand you contention of heterosexism. When a heterosexual couple conceive a child and rear it together there is naturaly a good deal of mutual dependendence that will develop. I don’t think there is any ill will towards people of other sexual orientations because of it. Perhaps I’ve missed the point, It wouldn’t be the first time. If I have, please clarify it for me.
Btw, in case you’re wondering what I’m even doing here, I ran across you blog by searching for Columbus Junction. I grew up there too, and every once in awhile,I type it in just to see if anything new comes up. I find your blog presents an interesting perspective.
G-Dub,
Perhaps I should have said “hetero-centric.” The article is completely framed around a hetero-centric or heterosexist dynamic. I felt that your comment reinforced that dynamic by stating that a man was necessary for raising a child. Lesbian parents are completely marginalized / overtly omitted in the article.
Wow! Someone from CJ found my blog. I bet we know each other or at least know some of the same people…
What did you think about my Day of Indigenous Resistance (Columbus Day) post?
Hetero-centric is close enough for me. Although I don’t feel that that is necessarily bad in and of itself. We might read too much into each other’s comments. I don’t say that a man is necessary to raise a child. I do belive that haveing a father present to help raise a child is a positive thing. It could be a same sex spouse too, the article was just so damn hetero-centric it sucked me in.
I bet we do know lots of the same people, but I was probably long gone by the time you were in high school. I graduated in 1983. Who was teaching when you were in high school, and when did you graduate?
I read your Columbus day post. It was the one that showed up in my CJ search. When I was a kid, Columbus day was a day when there was a parade with shriners driving crazy in little go-carts, free ham sandwiches from the meatpacking plant (Rath when I was a kid), and candy thown from the floats. You could pretty much call the day whatever you wanted and as long as I still got candy, I wouldn’t have minded. I don’t remember the traditional story of Columbus even being told. It was something we all knew, because all kids back then knew it, but it was never empahasised on C-Day
I majored on history in college and the story of Columbus and the aftermath was covered pretty well. The idea that it’s something to celebrate is kind of ridiculous once the truth of the matter comes out. On the other hand, I am pro Western Civilization as a whole. I don’t defend the atrocities commited by it, but I do recognize that humanity is always a product of it’s time. I could go on extensively, and I will if you like, but for now I’ll just say that rather than celebrate Columbus day, I would be more comfortable if it were simply acknowledged, and used to educate people. So all in all, I could knock off Columbus day and not bat an eye, but I won’t wear sack cloth and rend my hair on it’s anniversery either.
It’s probably unfair to hide behind a screen name and then tell you we grew up in the same small town. I’m Andy Howell.
I was six in 1983
I graduate high school in 1995. Yep, I just totally outed myself.
Teachers: Mrs. Martin, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Purdy, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Kost, Mr. Clark…