On "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do'"

On Saturday, the New York Times posted a piece entitled "Two Classes, Divided By 'I Do". Based on the title, I prepared my righteous indignation (my favorite emotion, natch) and braced myself to be offended by the sexism and slut-shaming that was sure to come. Yes, some of those things were in there, but mostly I walked away with the following 2 feelings: 1. Sheer disappointment with our cultural and political system,  and 2. Utter terror.

The article tells the story of 2 women who work in management at a daycare center in Ann Arbor Michigan. The two women are almost identical in every way, except for that one is the boss who finished college and got married (Mrs. F) and the other is her underling who dropped out of college to raise to her children (Ms. S). The article is intended to make us feel that the poor, tired, long suffering Ms. S could have the Mrs. F's idyllic suburban lifestyle if only she were married and had a two-income household. It even (not-so-subtly) hints at the fact that the poor Ms. S's 3 children will underperform in school, fall in with the "wrong crowd" and never finish college themselves, unlike the married Mrs. F's healthy, well-adjusted wunderkind. Upon finishing the article, here were my thoughts:

Reaction 1: Sheer Disappointment

Is it true that children that come from two-parent households perform better academically and socially? Sure, the article provides plenty of data to back that up. But how much of this has to do with the advantages of having 2 incomes and twice as many people who may be able to shoulder the burden of shuttling children to and from extracurriculars and helping them with their homework? Does it have to be this way?

The short answer is that it doesn't. It does indeed take a village to raise a child, but if we lived in a society where everyone took on the responsibility of caring for the next generation, single mothers like Ms. S would have a lot more help. Her children would have access to free or very affordable tutoring and extracurricular activities. Neighbors and friends could help her look after her children, so she didn't have to bring them to work with her every morning. If she had a living wage and good benefits from her employer, she wouldn't have to scrape by with food stamps and worry about what to feed her children. The truth is that some of the disadvantages that her children have are the fault of all of us. We don't demand a living wage. We let our politicians dismantle our social safety net. We do nothing about massive education cuts and ignore the massive achievement gap that all but ensures that Ms. S's children will not attend a school good enough to prepare them for college. Finally, we've watched college get so expensive that even if her children did make it there, they could likely never afford it. If we really cared about her children, we'd demand better for them, and for all of us. We'd also stop looking the other way when we see struggling kids in our own communities, and start volunteering to babysit, tutor, or do whatever it takes to help families who could use a little more support.

Reaction 2: Utter Terror

As a black twenty-something young woman who is constantly bombarded with the message that there are no available men interested in marriage in the world, this shit is profoundly scary. Almost weekly I read something about how educated black women never get married, black men only want to date white women, and non-black guys aren't interested in us. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of this so-called "marriage crisis" is manufactured and blown out of proportion. Not everyone wants to get married (and not everyone can yet (we're working on it, LGBT community!) and lots of children turn out just fine with just a single-mother (I did!). However, the data don't lie and the more that one tries to date in NYC, the harder it is to believe that people out there are still forming committed relationships. Trust me, it's crazy out here. I, like many people, would like to have a long-term partner (whether legally binding or not) and someone to help me raise kids, but it looks like sometimes you just gotta do it yourself. The true feminist in me hates the idea of waiting around for some mythical Mr. Right, but the realist knows that since I want a serious career, it would be a heck of a lot easier to share household and child-raising responsibilities with someone else.

The bottom line is basically this: the Times article places a lot of blame in the wrong places, and ignores some of the cultural problems that make Ms. S's life more challenging than Mrs. F's. That said, is it easier to move a couch with 2 people than with one? Yep. The same principle seems to hold for raising children. However, instead of pointing fingers and placing blame, let's work on the inequalities that make it so damn hard for people like Ms. S. In the meantime, I'll be on the picket line and near the voting booth chipping away at the those who make the policies that make it harder on women like Ms. S. Who knows, maybe I'll even meet that seemingly elusive creature who doesn't hate black women and may be interested in splitting childcare responsibilities someday?