Finally.
The New York Times Magazine had an article yesterday, “The Real Marriage Penalty� on how straight married couples are increasingly on the same level, educationally and economically.
The author basically refutes the “marriage penalty� idea which implies that highly educated straight women can’t find a partner because, you know, men want someone to take care of, not talk to. But according to the study cited in the article, that’s just not the case. For example, among women born after 1960, a college graduate is more likely to get married than less-educated women.
According to the author, this is partly due to "assortive mating" (mating with a partner similar to you), and "modern society," which makes assortive mating more possible for both women and men. But despite this, the fact that people are now selecting mates with the same educational and economic background may also contribute to the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
It's an article definitely worth reading. The last section is my favorite:
Of course, men and women don’t choose each other on the basis of education and income alone. Putting love aside, as men’s and women’s roles continue to shift, other standards for selecting a partner may come to the fore. Indeed, the sociologist Julie Press recently offered what she called ‘a gynocentric theory of assortative mating,’ moving the focus from what men now desire in a marriage partner to the evolving preferences of women. What would-be wives may be seeking now, she proposed in The Journal of Marriage and Family, is ‘cute butts and housework’ — that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes. Could this be a feminist slogan for our time?
It has a nice ring to it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Out of the penalty box..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4345
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Interestingly, although this new pattern of dating is more segregated by class, interracial relationship are becoming increasingly common in the US.
At least it doesn't make the poor poorer, rather just the well off richer....
At last an article that really illustrates a trend I've noticed in my own aquantances.
At least it doesn't make the poor poorer, rather just the well off richer....
At last an article that really illustrates a trend I've noticed in my own acquaintances.
I [heart] the NYTimes Magazine. I can't even hold a grudge for their opt-out article; they more than made up for it with the war on contraception cover story.
Wait, why doesn't this article point out how many more women have college degrees nowadays? The fact that the education gap is decreasing between men and women doesn't mean the class gap is decreasing.
It was my understanding that men have always tended to marry women whose families were from the same class. Yes, it used to be more likely for a lawyer to marry a secretary, a doctor a nurse, or a pilot a stewardess -- but that's because women weren't lawyers or doctors or pilots no matter how much money their parents had. The stewardess', nurse's, or secretary's dad was probably the economic equal of her husband. Nowadays a woman from a well-off family is much more likely to be a high earner herself. This doesn't mean her class has changed, just her education level and her daily activities.
But that does change her class status, Spungen. Prior to women being able to enter the high-status and high-paying occupations themselves, their class membership was entirely an artifact of their husband's/father's earnings, which meant that in the event of divorce or being widowed, women's standard of living and class membership could drop precipitously. Now, this not so much the case.
I had taken a class on Racism and Sexism is college and one day the subject of educated women and dating came up. Some of the men in the class admitted that they're not likely to date a women who's smarter than them. So apparently we're good enough to sit in a lecture hall with them, but not good enough to date.
Also while couples may have the same educational background, I think their courses of study have to come into play in an article such as this.
In Silicon Valley and many other areas it is not unsual to find couples where both earn over $100,000/year; a combined income of $250 - $350,000 isn't rare. They have an entirely different lifestyle (of course) than the "typical" American family. Their children, if they have any (and most still do), have an uniquely different set of opportunities than "ordinary" children. One can only hope they have a desire to improve the lot of the others in addition to owning expensive cars, mamoth houses, second homes, exotic travel, etc.
I don't agree with the idea presented in the article that women who married men with higher education levels and income or men of a high class, somehow elevated them from lower class status and that, that somehow bridged the gap between rich and poor. Yes, sure the gap between the rich and poor is widening in current times, but that has more to do with tax breaks, our job market and education costs then trends in marriage.
I do think its harder for women these days to get married if they are uneducated. To start with, if your a poor couple, the cost of marriage alone prevents those couples from getting married. Among the middle class there is also an expectation that members have a certain level of education. My bf parents are upper-middle class, his dad is a doctor. While both my parents had a college education, due to my parents divorce and other issues I was raised in a lower middle class, boarder line poverty background. His parents simply don't understand my background at all...his sister has gone as far as to call me "trailer trash". It's really frustrating to be in a relationship where the other person has been given everything, while you have and still struggle just to get a college education, car and basic needs. I think this puts a large divide between couples of different classes that just wasn't there before. In the past, both men and women could be successful without college or even high school educations. Now, women are expected to go to college regardless of income level and they are expected to have a career, not just to go to college to find a husband.
I didn't "choose" my mates.
When I saw my husband - he was 20 at the time and I was 19 I felt an instant attraction to him. We have been together seventeen years.
When I met the second man in my life, I felt an instant attraction to him as well. We have been together for four years.
I did not choose either of these men based on their education levels, ability to do chores, or potential income levels. I fell in love with them and they loved me back.
We all share lives together under one roof.
Maybe it sounds a bit like romantic nonsense to some people, but when you are in love and you both are willing to accept each others flaws and differences it can work out.
It also works because you just can't imagine yourself without that person.
I think that sometimes women seek out trophy men just as much as men seek out trophy wives. They want something to show off and brag about or to make other women jealous. When your love and affection and desire to be a family with somebody is more important than the firm he works at or the car he drives, then you have something real.
Of course I don't mean we should compromise what we need to fulfill ourselves, but we should certainly consider looking at a person's heart and soul more closely than those other things. That's all I'm saying.
cute butts and housework
Well it certainly presents a work ethic for men to aspire towards.
omg that just described my brother who's married to a corporate exec (he does work more than full time at a business at home).
I don't think it is this choice that people are marrying those who are thier equals education/income wise... is it just who they are exposed to. If you are only around those of your same education/socioeconomic level, how the heck are you going to marry someone who is different?
But onto the fun part... "cute butts and housework’ — that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes." Describes my husband to a tee. I cook (I think his family has this genetic disposition to being unable to cook, anything I've ever had from his family other than his grandmother is almost unedible) and he cleans up the dishes... and vaccuums... and clean the bathroom... Lol. I don't know many women who don't want a husband like that!
Am I wrong, but wouldn't pretty much everybody in here be pissed if men were said to be looking for "cute butts and house work?"
I just think it's as demeaning to them as it is to us. In my humble opinion.