Whither working men?

[garote]

(Paraphrased from Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.)

Six out of ten births to women without a high-school diploma occur out of wedlock. For women with a four-year college degree, that ratio is only one out of ten. And even if college educated women are not married by the time they have their first child, they are quite likely to be married by the time they have a second, usually to the man who is the father of both children.

Thus, marriage remains a central part of life to college-educated women, which seems like a contradiction: The women who are least likely to need a partner for economic support are the most likely to get married, and stay married.

To resolve this contradiction we acknowledge a shift in the purpose of marriage: Partners now see it as a joint venture for the purpose of parenting. A shared commitment to invest in kids, more than a commitment to financially support a spouse. "'Till death do us part" has transformed into something more like "'til the kids get into college."



Middle-class men, in white collar jobs, have seen their wages stay high, or even grow, in the last 40 years. Their access to more resources has also given them the security to evolve beyond the traditional male role, which makes them attractive prospects for affluent women.

Those women still weigh a man by his economic success, but also seek one who is "modern": Willing to share the practical duties of child-raising, more emotionally sophisticated, more respectful of women's choices.

Meanwhile, working-class men have seen their wages collectively drop. This has hollowed out their value and usefulness in the traditional male role: They struggle to be providers. To working-class women, these men are risky marriage prospects. Many women in fact choose to avoid the risk of marrying a "deadbeat", and elect to remain single parents. Not because they can thrive as single parents, but because they don't want things to get worse.

So, high earners are pooling resources in a marriage to raise kids; low earners are shying away from marriage because it threatens what little they have. And since affluent parents invest much more heavily in their kids, those kids tend to go on and become high earners, cycling this class division forward into the next generation.

So what do you do, as a working-class guy, when you barely make enough money to support yourself, and the women who will date you don't see you as marrying material? Your work life is unstable, your social life is unstable, your religious practice has atrophied, and you still somehow need to finance the core of a new nuclear family, with spouse and home and car and kids, and keep it stable. But how? Everything is telling you to be something you can't reach. Your idea of what it means to be a man, of what your own personal destiny is, starts to drift.

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

Wow, a great writeup. I'm currently observing these families, "till the kids get into college". At this moment they sell their family home, divorce, and start living their own separate lives. Oh, ok, me too, I was in that group too. More, my ex said in the beginning, regarding getting kids when she was 21: "the earlier you start, the earlier you are done with it".

[garote]

Years ago I would have scoffed at that because young parents have such a harder time balancing kid care with career and other things, and they're less wise about the world. But nowadays I think, yeah, why not have a child at the age of 21, ... IF you have parents and grandparents right around you to share in the burden and the fun?

So I'm at the point now where I think the "nuclear family", as opposed to the "extended family", is the real problem here. The whole "nuclear family" thing seems to be a phenomenon of a certain period of time - a certain economic situation - and outside that, it seems like a disaster for everyone who isn't rich.

[juan_gandhi]

Well, I really was absolutely against grandparents messing with our way of growing our kids (that is, keeping them independent, self-sufficient, and free). Yes, it did require efforts, and our resources were very limited. But, I guess, my goals were achieved (not 100%, but something like that). Now I know I was wrong, but for many years I believe all the bad parts in my kids were from their grandparents.

[garote]

Sometimes things skip a generation, then show up again! (Well, it's not really a pattern, but it seems like it sometimes...)

What did your parents want your kids to be like?

[juan_gandhi]

My mother did not interfere (after I told her once not to). My in-laws were basically spoiling my kids. What did they want? I've no clue. Probably they just wanted them not to complain. Not that they did, but my daughter was a serious manipulator (she still is, but now she has her own kids, so it's none of my business).

[garote]

It's strange sometimes, to think about family differences... Some of my distant cousins grew up in a rich household, to the point where their parents bought them entire houses/properties when they were in their 20's. My parents let me drive the family car, and live with them while I went to college and had my first real job. It will take me 15 more years to pay off my mortgage, but I can't complain: I have other cousins, on my father's side... Raised by their aunt/uncle because their parents died and they lost everything; had to work instead of going to school...

[juan_gandhi]

That's all so random. We are lucky to be in this country. Could have been much worse.