… Or something. Such is what I gather from reading Megan McArdle’s post on the NYT income-anxiety piece, which Jill posted about here. Shockingly enough, I actually agree with The Artist Formerly Known As Jane Galt about one thing:
It’s hard to overstate the fundamental silliness of this story. This is not a “trend”, except insofar as this whole “women in the workplace” idea you’ve been reading so much about is really starting to take off.
This much is true. But the piece does speak to a certain ingrained anxiety that a lot of men have about dating women who make more money than they do, and a certain ingrained anxiety that a lot of women have about outearning the men they date. By the time we hit the age when we’re dealing with the work world and the dating world at the same time, we’ve got decades of cultural conditioning under our belts telling us that this is what we’re supposed to expect, that this is what’s right, what’s The Order of Things.
Of course, Megan dismisses all this as the simple whining of entitled white women rather than as the product of a culture that still treats women as accessories:
Yes, if you make a decent salary, some of the men you meet will make less than you. But many more will not. And any lingering problems in this department can be readily overcome by letting go of the fairy princess fantasy where Prince Daddy provides everything worth having; or, alternatively, by not dating men who make less money than you do. If this is still not enough–if you want to date sensitive artistic types who still play the role of Big Earner–well, then, it should be a relatively simple matter to find a lower paying job.
Er, wait — is it really such a good idea to date men who make less than you do, Megan?
Speaking as the Emissary From Your Thirties, you know that amazing guy who just got back from Africa and tells hilarious stories and dates, like, everyone you know? The one your best friend quit her job to go to Tuvalu with? The one who’s been working on a really titanic novel for four years that he never quite finishes, and can’t seem to hold down a long-term job? His dating prospects start heading rapidly downhill by his thirtieth birthday. By his late thirties, his studio apartment is getting very lonely at night. If he does get married to a woman more successful than he is, it’s likely that their relationship will be controlling, resentful, and involve enduring quite a lot of contempt from her friends and family.
Shorter Megan: Suck it up and marry down, ladies! A controlling, resentful and contempt-filled marriage with a loser is better than being single!
But here’s where we come to the really fun part of Megan’s original post: her prescription for What’s Wrong With Poor People:
There is a growing male/female education and income disparity. But it is occurring several rungs down the SES ladder from the precious princesses in the story, clipping off price tags and hiding shopping bags lest He realize that she shops at Prada. This problem is afflicting mostly poor women, particularly black and latino women, who have seen their earnings prospects improve dramatically relative to those of the men in their communities. For a paper as liberal as the New York Times to take their plight–which is real, and troubling–and turn it into an exposition on how hard it is to be a female corporate lawyer, is really pretty embarassing.
Well, yes, something’s embarrassing.
Could it be Megan’s blithe and breezy assessment that income disparity among poor women and men is somehow tragic? Could it be her assumption that if poor women gain, poor men lose? Could it be the idea that, after having mocked the concern over women making more money than men in her own socioeconomic and racial strata and dismissed women who worry about such things as Prada-hiding princesses, that she can wail and moan and castigate the New York Times for not calling attention to the dire, desperate problem of low-income women whose incomes are marginally higher than those of the men in their communities? Could it be that she apparently buys into the idea that marriage is a cure for poverty, and that all those poor women might not be poor anymore if they could just find someone to marry them, but how can they do that when they earn more money than their men?
Could be. I love what Roy had to say about this paragraph in the context of the two linked McArdle posts:
In this demimonde, women suffer from the “problem” of improved earning power, while in the surface world we have companionless loser males with their Soup for One dinners and unfinished novels, clinging forlornly to precious memories of Tuvalu. It seems win-win, or lose-lose, depending on your perspective.
For all its confusion, this analysis clearly posits marriage as the ultimate prize. I wonder if the many citizens who fall in and out of marriages, and in and out of economic stability, see it that way. No doubt many of them do — which is why they keep trying — but some may have determined that life’s a bit messier than that. If the prospect of penury and an unattended deathbed disturbs them, so too might the prospect of a job they despise and a “controlling, resentful” relationship. One of the glories of a free society is that we may pick and choose our regrets. In econometric circles, where marriage, income per capita, and procreation are exalted data-points, this does not signify. But if you have found some happiness in this world despite your lack of resemblance to the ideal, you may know what I’m talking about.
McArdle, BTW, is an Objectivist and an economics nerd. Which explains a lot about why nearly every one of her posts involves some kind of CBA and a lot of huffing about people who aren’t fitting neatly into her model.
H/T: Lauren.