The blogosphere and the mainstream media have (when they aren’t rightly focused on the continued heartbreak of Haiti and the implications of the Scott Brown victory) had much to say about the Pew study released Tuesday that shows that more than ever before, men are likely to marry women with more education and earning potential than they themselves have. From the Times story:
“Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women,” said Paul Fucito, spokesman for the Pew Center. “In recent decades, with the rise of well-paid working wives, the economic gains of marriage have been a greater benefit for men.”
The analysis examines Americans 30 to 44 years old, the first generation in which more women than men have college degrees. Women’s earnings have been increasing faster than men’s since the 1970s.
“We’ve known for some time that men need marriage more than women from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being,” said Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, a research and advocacy group. “Now it is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well.”
Some of this is attributable to the much-discussed “mancession” (the startling reality that 75% of all jobs lost since the start of the current downturn have been held by men). But this is more than a short-term trend; as the study notes, more women than men receive college degrees. Not only are women more likely to hold jobs in sectors less impacted by the recession, women’s superior educational attainment makes them more attractive hires, particularly for better paying jobs.
Of course, the Times piece — like many of those that commented on the Pew study — chose to take the opportunity to emphasize the exact opposite of what the study actually said. The Sam Roberts article begins and ends with anecdotes from a successful 28 year-old, Beagy Zielinski, who recently broke up with her less-well-educated beau because, as she put it, he was “extremely insecure about my career and how successful I am”. The tone of the piece suggests that despite the evidence that a great many men are willing to marry women who earn more than they do, “being too successful” is still a threat to a woman’s chances of finding love.
Here’s one key tidbit from the article:
While marriage rates have declined over all, women with college degrees are still more likely to marry today than less educated women.
There’s the fact. So why does Roberts conclude the piece with this bit from Zielinski?
Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”
I’m not just picking on the reporter who wrote the piece, though ol’ Sam is deserving of some serious criticism. She (or he) is only reflecting what we’ve seen over and over again in the media for decades; the tone of the article is just a repackaged version of the old warning “Don’t show the boys you’re smart, or none of them will want you.” As women continue to enjoy greater and greater access to economic and political power (it should be noted that the gains for white women have outstripped those of women from other groups), there is mounting evidence that younger men in particular are comfortable with dating and marrying women whose educations and incomes are equal to or greater than their own. But the old discourse that “real men” (Zielinski’s ex was a blue-collar shipyard worker, a profession redolent with masculine caché) won’t accept an independent woman as a mate continues to exert influence, even in the face of the facts.
Marriage rates are dropping. A growing number of people see the institution as archaic and unnecessary; others continue to delay marriage far later than earlier generations, sometimes because of unrealistic expectations about what is needed in order to enter into wedlock. But the happy evidence is that as fewer and fewer marry, those who do marry are increasingly likely to reject (in practice if not in their hearts) the traditional ideal of man as “breadwinner” and woman as “homemaker.” Despite what grandma or the New York Times may say, the evidence is clear and unmistakable that for women who still do want to marry a man, having a college education and a career increase their chances of finding a husband.
Interesting post. And speaking of Scott Brown (I’m from Massachusetts, he’s on my brain today)… did you get a chance to see him pimping out his “available” daughters during his acceptance speech? Us Democrats of MA are NOT amused.
Another Bay Stater here, and I found it equally creepy.
My father once said to me, “When I found out your mother had $10,000 in savings, I knew she was the one!”
I find it kinda sad that men really do have a “checklist” about what they want in a mate, but it seems we never talk about it.
Additionally, I had a friend recently whose boyfriend proclaimed he couldn’t marry her because she spends too much money.
Maybe this is just a Midwestern thing.
Anyway, it seems men think a lot about money when they decide to marry….maybe the positive is that with successful women, they don’t have to worry about their wife going to spend willy nilly on their hard earned cash—because she earned it herself!
I was married and was taken for $270,000 over 10 years in support and legal fees (until my ex got remarried). I will not even consider marriage to a woman who does not make at least 30% more money than I and has no intention of having any children within our relationship.
Why do I comment on the children, because that is what changed the balance of power in my prior marriage. She did make more money than I did. Then we had a child (the money I refer to above is specific to the keeping of my ex in the manner in which she has grown accustomed — not child support ), and she stopped working. As a joint decision she did not return to work. Under the laws of Canada, at 3 years one day of a joint decision for a spouse not working (not that they just can’t find a job) the breading winning spouse becomes legally bound to maintain their standard of living to which they have become accustomed… until they die or remarry.
Canada is a backward nation from a feminist perspective.
marilyn:
I’m not so sure. For example, in Quebec, most people don’t get married at all and if they do the woman keeps her name. If she wants to change it, she has to go through the same process as anyone else to do so.
Also, we have generous public unemployment insurance that provides income for parents after the birth of children for up to one year (for either parent), parents of twins get two years (depending on the results of a recent court decision to that effect) that they can split between them, there are generous child tax benefits, some provinces have cheap publically subsidized daycare, discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is prohibited constitutionally. I’m sure my fellow canuks could go on….
Also see: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/235
For a review by Cynthia Wright of Judy Rebeck’s book “10 Thousand Roses”
“…
LAST YEAR, ON International Women’s Day in Toronto, several hundred people — many veteran feminist activists — packed an auditorium in the city’s Ryerson University for the launch of Judy Rebick’s oral history of the women’s movement in Canada, Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution. The fact that the book had just been reviewed in the conservative Globe and Mail, Canada’s most influential newspaper, also widened the audience.
…For those who do not know the organizing history of the women’s movement in Canada, Ten Thousand Roses will be particularly important and a useful orientation. Veteran activists will laugh and cry recalling old struggles, some of which they themselves might even have forgotten. There are many rich stories and thoughtful reflections in the text, and many useful lessons for organizers including for feminists in a variety of organizational settings today.
Indeed, whatever the losses, retreats and defeats of the last decade and more, the women’s movement in Canada remains a presence — arguably far more so than in the United States. International Women’s Day continues to be marked across the country, and this year’s Toronto IWD march was the most vibrant in a while; it was much invigorated by an important Canada — U.S.-wide campaign to raise the living standards of hotel and service workers.
…”
Hmm… Seems to me that part of the effect would just naturally follow from an equalization in earning rates and earnings potential. Past a certain point it just doesn’t make sense that earnings would be approaching parity but people would still be scrambling to find men who earned more than women.
(You can actually sort of see that effect where, for whatever reason, men in relationshps tend to be, say, taller or older than their women partners even though in aggregate there’s obviously substantially more overlap in men’s and women’s heights and ages. Preference has a strong pull.)
I mean, yeah, I strongly suspect that’s still there — which is why the numbers don’t more closely resemble aggregate earnings ratios. But still, past a certain point a lot of marriage-inclined heterosexuals are going to have to, well, “settle” for relationships where close to 50% of the time the woman earns as much as or more than the man. Not that that’s the end of the world — 50% of men would by-definition also be earning the same as or more than the woman.
Or am I missing something here?
The best thing from my perspective would be that since women who have children still spend some time out of the workforce (in my experience three months for the rarely mentioned “fourth trimester” isn’t unreasonable) and therefore put some fraction of their earnings potential on hold (at least till we get solid progressive family leave policies) then it makes sense that women ought to at least start out with higher incomes. (It makes sense that their partners would also support that.)
The advantages are considerable: there’s be no particular intra-family earnings imbalance due to children, there’s be no strong incentive for the partner who stayed at home with the first child to stay at home with the next, etc. And if the family did decide to go the “traditional” avenue where the woman stays home with succeeding children she’d still have an easier path towards reaching income parity when she chooses to return to the workforce.
Yeah, it doesn’t have to be that way As we see in parts of Scandinavia for instance a really strong public/private/family network can be pretty powerful. But at least for now it is that way. And so a trend towards women earning more, at least initially, at least in theory, ought to support more egalitarian — and therefore stronger — long-term relationships.
Over time people are going to stop hauling out traditionalist “silver linings” the way the article you cite does, and instead start noticing that the end results are more egalitarian. I’m guessing it’ll take one more generation but I’m pretty sure we’ll see the first articles discovering the virtues before then.
figleaf
Paul,
So you’re saying the fair thing would have been that as a consequence of a joint decision that your wife sacrifice over three years of income and a three year retardation of the progression of her career she should have been the only one to suffer in the case of divorce. I’m not sure I understand your understanding of the words joint decision… to me they imply joint risk.
It is risky for a person that earns good money to stay home and be dependent on another person, financially risky. That risk should be shared equally among the two people making that decision and should be discussed and acknowledged before that decision is made.