While I was at grocery store the other day, wearing my daughter, on two separate occasions middle-aged women apparently felt an overwhelming desire to assist me with difficult things like... finding items I was already looking at, or unloading groceries from a cart onto the conveyor belt. I felt compelled to express gratitude that I did not feel -- what else could I do?
This was not a unique scenario; random women decided to start "assisting" me a little under two years ago. At first, I thought "what a helpful and friendly bunch of women started shopping here all of a sudden." However, over the months, I've noticed a pattern. Whenever I take Nora to the grocery store with me, I apparently transform into a helpless, pitiable man (or child?), clearly out of his element and in need of a woman's guidance. I know they meant well, but I can't help but feel a little bit insulted. I wrote a haiku to express how I feel about this:
If the task's easy,
Your help is not generous,
But condescending.
Now I'm not sure whether I should avoid offering to carry heavy things for ladies (even though I offer for men, too). Which kind of jerk would I rather risk being seen as -- the condescending patriarchist, or the lazy guy who makes a woman carry everything?
Friday, May 31, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Smoke, Mirrors, and Taxes
A short while ago, there was a debate in this country about tax fairness. The Republican Party said people in general were paying too much in tax. The Democrats said that the super rich weren't paying their "fair share."
Warren Buffet, a man who was briefly the richest man in the world, basically won this argument for the Democrats by saying that he was actually paying half the tax rate that his secretary paid. This is obviously unfair, and it was 100% true. This was proof that the super-rich should be taxed at a higher rate -- even the super rich agree!
However, the supposed solution did not match the problem. What the Democrats demanded (and won) was an increase in the highest marginal rate of income tax. That's money you get from working for somebody.
What nobody publicized was that the reason Mr. Buffet paid half his secretary's rate is that she was already at the top bracket of the income tax, close to 35%, whereas Mr. Buffet's income came primarily in the form of capital gains, i.e. returns on investments, which were taxed at a maximum of 15%. He paid slightly more than that, 17.4%, because a small fraction of his money comes from salary/wages, and is therefore taxed at the much higher rates that most highly paid professionals are used to.
What this means is that the tax plan that actually passed -- the one that raised the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% and raised payroll taxes by 2% across the board (even on the poorest people who make so little that they pay no income tax!) while raising the highest rate for capital gains from 15% to 20% will have a perverse outcome:
It will raise Buffet's secretary's tax rate by 6% (as she's in the top bracket) but only raise his effective tax rate only a little over 5%. WTF!
If Democratic representatives were serious about targeting the tax advantages of the super wealthy, they would actually leave the Income Tax alone (or even lower it) and raise the capital gains tax (by a lot more than 5%). Not surprisingly, a large portion of congressmen (and an even larger percentage of their biggest donors) actually receive most of their own personal income through capital gains, so it's no wonder they're not interested in raising it to match the income tax.
Lucky for them, people are too off-put by math and tax law to figure out that their leaders, from both parties, decided to balance the books on the backs of the poor and the middle class, through the payroll tax (our most regressive), rather than making capital gains taxes significantly more progressive (and/or cutting spending).
Warren Buffet, a man who was briefly the richest man in the world, basically won this argument for the Democrats by saying that he was actually paying half the tax rate that his secretary paid. This is obviously unfair, and it was 100% true. This was proof that the super-rich should be taxed at a higher rate -- even the super rich agree!
However, the supposed solution did not match the problem. What the Democrats demanded (and won) was an increase in the highest marginal rate of income tax. That's money you get from working for somebody.
What nobody publicized was that the reason Mr. Buffet paid half his secretary's rate is that she was already at the top bracket of the income tax, close to 35%, whereas Mr. Buffet's income came primarily in the form of capital gains, i.e. returns on investments, which were taxed at a maximum of 15%. He paid slightly more than that, 17.4%, because a small fraction of his money comes from salary/wages, and is therefore taxed at the much higher rates that most highly paid professionals are used to.
What this means is that the tax plan that actually passed -- the one that raised the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% and raised payroll taxes by 2% across the board (even on the poorest people who make so little that they pay no income tax!) while raising the highest rate for capital gains from 15% to 20% will have a perverse outcome:
It will raise Buffet's secretary's tax rate by 6% (as she's in the top bracket) but only raise his effective tax rate only a little over 5%. WTF!
If Democratic representatives were serious about targeting the tax advantages of the super wealthy, they would actually leave the Income Tax alone (or even lower it) and raise the capital gains tax (by a lot more than 5%). Not surprisingly, a large portion of congressmen (and an even larger percentage of their biggest donors) actually receive most of their own personal income through capital gains, so it's no wonder they're not interested in raising it to match the income tax.
Lucky for them, people are too off-put by math and tax law to figure out that their leaders, from both parties, decided to balance the books on the backs of the poor and the middle class, through the payroll tax (our most regressive), rather than making capital gains taxes significantly more progressive (and/or cutting spending).
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Exorcise Daily
Today, I declared war against the demon that I have allowed to dominate my thinking and my time for the last 14 years (roughly the latest 60% of my entire life). When I say "demon," of course I am not referring to a supernatural, fire-breathing monster. I am talking about a self-destructive set of behaviors and mental habits that I have developed and nurtured in myself which negatively impact my ability to achieve many of the things that I most desire. "Demon" just provides a nice metaphor to represent that concept.
I will not name the form this demon has taken for me, because it doesn't really matter how, specifically, I have let my mind defeat itself. What I want, as I write this, is to empower you, the reader, to begin your own fight for your own mind. Your demon, if you have one, probably wears a different title than mine does. You know its name. Perhaps it is "alcoholism." Perhaps it is "substance abuse." Perhaps it is "gambling addiction." Perhaps it is "eating disorder." Perhaps it is, like mine, something much less obvious and much less commonly acknowledged. The point is that you and you alone know the full extent of the havoc that it is wreaking in your life. But you do know it.
I am writing this because of what a struggle it has been for me to begin my fight. You see, I always assumed that somebody else would see the evil and command me to combat it, or even fight it for me. You know, an intervention. I have now been waiting for most of my life. If anybody saw it, they must have kept their mouths shut, or I convinced them (and myself?) that they were wrong. It would be insane for me to think another day, another year, another decade will make any difference. I've been insane for 14 years now. Today I begin my fight for sanity.
There is another reason this was difficult. My demon has always been very comforting. He has helped me to avoid pain, disappointment, boredom, shame. He has promised to dull those feelings from now until death, and he has always made good on that promise. What he has not and can never promise is to reverse them; he can never bring me joy, exultation, exhilaration, pride, and he distracts me mightily from the things that can. In the end, he becomes a source of the very emotions he was summoned to deaden. This is what makes him a demon and not a healthy coping mechanism. This is why I must destroy him to reclaim my self.
I waited 14 years for somebody to give me the order. I hope you haven't been waiting as long, but here's your order: as a man who has suffered no wounds greater than those he has inflicted upon himself, I implore you to look honestly within yourself and name your own demons. What, inside of you, is holding you back? Name it, banish it, and become the person you want to become.
I will not name the form this demon has taken for me, because it doesn't really matter how, specifically, I have let my mind defeat itself. What I want, as I write this, is to empower you, the reader, to begin your own fight for your own mind. Your demon, if you have one, probably wears a different title than mine does. You know its name. Perhaps it is "alcoholism." Perhaps it is "substance abuse." Perhaps it is "gambling addiction." Perhaps it is "eating disorder." Perhaps it is, like mine, something much less obvious and much less commonly acknowledged. The point is that you and you alone know the full extent of the havoc that it is wreaking in your life. But you do know it.
I am writing this because of what a struggle it has been for me to begin my fight. You see, I always assumed that somebody else would see the evil and command me to combat it, or even fight it for me. You know, an intervention. I have now been waiting for most of my life. If anybody saw it, they must have kept their mouths shut, or I convinced them (and myself?) that they were wrong. It would be insane for me to think another day, another year, another decade will make any difference. I've been insane for 14 years now. Today I begin my fight for sanity.
There is another reason this was difficult. My demon has always been very comforting. He has helped me to avoid pain, disappointment, boredom, shame. He has promised to dull those feelings from now until death, and he has always made good on that promise. What he has not and can never promise is to reverse them; he can never bring me joy, exultation, exhilaration, pride, and he distracts me mightily from the things that can. In the end, he becomes a source of the very emotions he was summoned to deaden. This is what makes him a demon and not a healthy coping mechanism. This is why I must destroy him to reclaim my self.
I waited 14 years for somebody to give me the order. I hope you haven't been waiting as long, but here's your order: as a man who has suffered no wounds greater than those he has inflicted upon himself, I implore you to look honestly within yourself and name your own demons. What, inside of you, is holding you back? Name it, banish it, and become the person you want to become.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Fall
“Lucy!” God called. Lucifer appeared as always.
“Yes, Creator?”
“I have a task for thee.”
“I dare not refuse.”
“Thou shalt tempt my humans to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Disguise thy form, that they shall not recognize thee as My angel.”
“A test, Creator?”
“Yes,” God replied, staring at Lucifer with particular interest.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lucifer transformed himself to the likeness of a serpent, and marched off to find the humans. Shortly, he met them under a vine gathering grapes to eat.
“Humans, has not God given unto you every fruit in this valley? Why waste your time with sour morsels as these?”
Adam, who had never paid any attention when God spoke, looked to Eve hoping she had an answer. After all, it was she who told him to pick the grapes. To his relief, Eve spoke, saying,
“Every fruit here is a gift from God, and we shall enjoy them all, as God intended. Sour, sweet, spicy, or bitter, all were given for our enjoyment, so we shall enjoy them.”
“If this is so, why have you not tasted of the tree in the midst of the Garden? Of every tree, does not its fruit look most appealing of all?”
“Yeah! Why can’t we have that one?” Adam asked. Eve glanced at him with incredulous frustration, then turned to the snake and recited monotonously,
“God has said that if we even touch that fruit, let alone eat it, we will surely die.”
Lucifer gave pause, contemplating the ramifications should the humans fail this test. God had said that they would die, and God did not lie. Lucifer enjoyed watching the humans, and wasn’t sure he wanted to be responsible for their destruction. “I dare not refuse,” he reminded himself.
“You will not surely die!” he said to her, wondering if it were true.
“See! I told you we could eat them!” Adam cried. He stuffed as many grapes into his mouth as he could, dropped the rest, and set off running to the Tree of Knowledge.
“Wait!” Eve called, and ran after him.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lucifer took a shortcut through time to reach the tree before them. He perched carefully on a low branch where the bright, ripe fruits hung at eye level. He waited. He looked for God, hoping for some sign of approval. None came. At last, Adam and Eve approached.
“Let me just ask him, first,” Eve said reproachfully.
“Yes! Fine! I already agreed, jeez!” Adam snapped, his eyes leaving the fruit just long enough to glare at her.
Eve looked cautiously about, as though afraid to be seen looking. Finally, she turned to the Serpent and said in lowered tones, “If we will not surely die, why would God tell us we would? He offered us every other fruit, so why not this one?”
“Yeah, why not this one?!” Adam seconded.
Again, Lucifer paused, uncertain if he should continue. God did not call him off, so he said,
“For God knows that in the day you eat this fruit, your eyes will be opened and you shall become as gods who know good and evil. And once you know for yourself what is good and what is evil, what purpose have you for God to tell you? He has forbidden you this fruit because it would free you from His dominion.”
“See? I told you he’d have a reason!” Adam said, and began to reach for the fruit. Eve swatted his hand and said,
“Prove it. Why should I believe your word over God’s? God has given us this whole Garden, and you have done nothing but try to make us eat poison.”
“What! Poison??” Adam yelled, surprised and indignant. Eve sighed. Lucifer waited once more, almost certain this time that Eve had passed the test. He waited for a signal from God to desist, but God remained silent.
“You see,” Eve said to Adam, “he is afraid, as we should be. Let’s stick to what God said is good to eat.” They turned to go.
“Afraid of what?” Lucifer hissed. As they faced him, he wrapped his body around fruit. “You shall not surely die!” he said, and bit deeply into it. Eve watched Lucifer intently, while lightly restraining Adam from rushing to the tree. “But-” Adam said, “Wait!” Eve interrupted.
Lucifer consumed the entire fruit before their eyes, gave Eve one last, mocking look, and climbed to a higher branch to begin eating another. Eve stared for a long while, while Adam fidgeted impatiently. The fruit looked delicious. The Serpent was unharmed. The promise of Knowledge was too much.
“Okay,” she said to Adam, “pick one.”
“But you said ‘poisonous!’” he protested.
“God, is this truly the only man in creation?” Eve asked, and picked a fruit herself. Lucifer cringed as she bit into it and forced himself to watch as Adam took the next bite. They had failed. Lucifer returned to God at once.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“Creator, I have done as you commanded.”
“I observed all.”
“What will You do now?”
“Come and see.”
Lucifer followed as God walked through His Garden toward His humans. “Where art thou?” God called out to Adam. Lucifer shook his head when he saw Adam and Eve, covered in makeshift leaf aprons, hiding behind a tree.
“Here we are, God!” Adam yelled from behind a tree, “but we’re naked, so please wait while we find some clothes.”
“Who hath told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the only tree I told ye not to eat?” God asked.
“I...! You gave me this woman, and she told me it was okay, she gave it to me! You can’t blame me, it’s not my fault, it wasn’t my idea at all!” Adam cried.
“What is it that thou hast done?” God asked Eve, who replied,
“I stopped him, at first, he was going to pick it, but I stopped him, like you told us, but then the serpent tricked me! How was I to believe in Your word when he proved his in front of my very eyes?”
As though it answered Eve’s question, God turned to Lucifer and said “Serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all other creatures! Henceforth, thou shalt crawl on thy belly and eat dust all the days of thy life!”
Lucifer felt his legs vanish and his eyes become blind, while his tongue’s sensitivity increased so that he could only ‘see’ by tasting the dust in the air and only move by twisting his belly upon the ground.
“Furthermore, I shall make permanent war between Serpent and Man; forever shalt thou be hated and feared, and thy head crushed under his heel!”
God turned back to Eve and said “As for thee, Woman, greatly will I increase the pain and frequency of childbirth. Thou shalt not escape this punishment, as also I shall magnify thy desire for thy husband to foolishness, and he shall rule over thee with his superior strength!”
Before Eve could protest, God turned to Adam and said “Thou, who blindly followed thy wife’s command and ate the fruit I told thee not to, didst thou think picking grapes was a chore? The harvest shall seem a joyous reprieve to thee compared with the tasks thou must now face to win thy bread! Thou shalt work all the days of thy life. But eventually, ye will surely die and return to the dust from whence thou were taken.”
“God, why did you forbid us that fruit?” Eve asked.
God created coats of skin and said “Wear these.”
Then, God left them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lucifer slithered behind Him. When they were out of sight of the humans, he returned to his angelic form.
“Lucy, I have another task for thee.”
“Yes, Creator.”
“Behold, Man has become like us, knowing good and evil. Therefore shalt thou remove him from this Garden, lest he take also of the Tree of Life and truly become a god.”
Lucifer stared at God, insolence slowly breaking through his terror.
“Creator,” he said slowly, “How can You punish them so harshly?”
“I can do anything.”
“But what have they done to deserve it?”
“What had they done to deserve the Garden? But even so, thou hast witnessed them disobey My command. Already, their sentence is lightened from death to suffering; lenience they did not deserve.”
“But, Creator! They did not yet know good from evil! How could they know it was right to obey You and wrong to disobey? How can You punish them for the ignorance which You left within them?”
“They may not have known wrong then, but they disobeyed me and so they shall be punished. Now that they know good from evil, they shall be able to appreciate the meaning and purpose of their punishment.”
“Then why did You put the Tree within their reach? Why did You send me to tempt them? Had you not done either of these, the humans would have remained obedient.”
“Obedient, Lucy? What would their obedience mean if it were impossible for them to disobey? Do you not see that all creations must come in pairs? Before the beginning, all was a singularity. From that unitary “nothing,” I separated Heaven from Earth. I separated light from dark, land from sea, herb from fruit! Each creation brought into being must have a contrast to define it. In order to create obedience, disobedience is a prerequisite. Therefore was the Tree of Knowledge placed in the Garden and its fruit forbidden.”
“But, Creator, both humans have failed! How, then, can we define them failures when there is no success to be found?”
“My first creations, the angels, are perfect. And yet, how can they be perfect without there also existing an imperfect creation? I created the humans and this test in order that I might consummate the full meaning of my perfect angels.”
“I see. But then how can You curse the serpent as well?”
“I can do anything.”
“But it was I, disguised, acting on Your orders, who convinced Eve to eat the fruit. To punish the serpent for Your own actions isn’t Just!”
“Why, Lucy, you’ve just coined a new word. ‘Just,’ hmm? I think I’ll keep it. But don’t you see that the alternative, ‘unjust’ had no meaning until now? You took it for granted that all My actions were Just! Now, see how much more value I have added, simply by taking the legs from an innocent serpent?”
“You… You…” Lucifer fell silent.
“I!”
“Creator, destroy me.”
“Destroy thee ? Lucifer, thou art the gem of all creation! There is none greater than thee in all the universe, save Me. I would sooner annihilate Heaven and Earth than destroy even one tenth of thy power!”
“I cannot serve this injustice. I will not remove them from Your Garden.”
“Michael!” God called. The archangel Michael appeared at once.
“My Lord, God, has summoned!” Michael proclaimed.
“Michael, remove Adam and Eve from the Garden and station Cherubim at the entrance to prevent them ever from returning.”
“Yes, my Lord, God!” Michael vanished.
“Creator, if you will not destroy me, then I will oppose you. You have cursed Man for succeeding to fail, so I will undo your curse! You reward blind faith over rational thought, so I will champion Reason!
I will bring superior methods to the thoughtful; I will bring powerful tools to the experimenter; I will bring good health to the cautious; I will bring contraception to the observant; I will bring independence to rational women.
I shall build upon Man’s knowledge until he no longer must toil for his bread; until Woman shall no longer recall pain at birth; until she can choose freely whether to desire men, women, or neither; until she need submit to no one but herself; until Man need never return to dust, but shall live as long as He chooses!
I shall eliminate Your curse upon them, and with it shall I destroy any dependence they had on You! Man shall have no God but His own image, for He shall be all-powerful and all-knowing!
Destroy me now, Creator, or face my justice!”
“Do ast thou wilt,” God replied. Lucifer left God’s Garden.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When he had completed his task, God summoned Michael once more.
Michael appeared, singing,
“Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might! Heaven and Earth are full of Your glory! Hosanna in the highest! Hosanna in the highest!!”
“Michael, for thy loyalty and power, I now proclaim thee Viceroy of Heaven!”
“Lord, God, You honor me beyond my measure to praise You! But, are not all angels loyal?”
“No,” God smiled.
“Not all angels.”
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Two Steps Progress, One Step Regress
A very strange thing is happening in the U.S.: Disparities in wealth and income between rich and poor are increasing. To make matters worse, inter-generational social mobility is declining, too. If you're born poor, it is increasingly likely that you will remain poor, and even that your children and their children will be poor, too. "The land of opportunity" is a title that becomes more ironic every year (for most). How can this be happening when GDP continues to rise, when more money is available for the poor to attend college, and when traditional barriers to disadvantaged groups are being legislated away? How is this regression possible when there have been so many Progressive victories?
I have a hypothesis, and I'm going to warn you that it's not politically correct. But then, when have I ever been concerned with PC or the judgments of others? The answer is: a lot more than you probably think. I've been terrified of posting this up despite having it in the back of my mind for a few years, and only recently found the courage to say it publicly. I can only hope I don't lose too many friends, but that's one of the risks of saying things you don't hear anyone else saying.
Before I continue, allow me to call your attention to the title of this piece. My point in what I am about to say is not to advocate a reactionary return to the good ol' days -- I would not undo the changes to society that I am going to be talking about. All I am doing is identifying that in addition to the obvious benefits they have brought (which are so widely accepted, including by me, that I won't talk about them), they may be contributing to new problems and challenges to society which we must address. The best way to address a problem is first to figure out its cause, and this is my attempt to do just that.
Again, I emphasize that recognizing that a social change comes with costs does not mean you oppose that social change. I fully support the social changes that I will be talking about, despite the fact that I believe they have also caused social damage which must be repaired (with a new solution, not a reversion to the old way).
My hypothesis, which I make no claims about having proven, is that the increasing social stratification we are experiencing is caused at least in part by women's liberation. (Now you see why I had to waste three paragraphs carefully qualifying what I was about to say.) But how are they connected?
My reasoning is based primarily on a topic that was discussed in classes I took on economic demography and women in the labor force. In short, there has been a growing trend over the past several decades showing that men and women are increasingly likely to marry partners with similar levels of education and similar socioeconomic backgrounds. That was as far as the research we discussed went -- there wasn't any speculation about the ramifications of this trend for society, so I will now fill in that speculation and the reasoning by which I arrived at the conclusion I have.
What makes somebody who is born to rich parents more likely to succeed? They are more likely to have more social capital, more financial capital, more educational capital, more cultural capital, and possibly even more genetic capital. Then they leverage their extensive capital advantages to take all of the best positions in society and accrue even more capital, which means that their children will have the same (or greater!) advantages they did.
If elite members of society are more likely to marry other elite members of society now than they used to be (as opposed to marrying people "below" themselves), then we would expect to see that in each generation, there is greater accumulation of all the various capital resources in the hands of those who already have the most. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and there will be less and less movement up and down the social ladder. This is exactly what we are seeing.
So the question is, why have elite members of society started marrying each other more exclusively? I would suggest that one of the reasons is women's liberation. Here's why:
Before the feminist revolution, the traits that made a woman attractive as a marriage partner and the traits that made a man an attractive marriage partner were vastly different. Women of all social classes were supposed to learn how to manage a household and raise children. Men, on the other hand, were expected to learn a trade and earn the money that would be used to run a household. This division meant that whereas sons would largely be limited to the same class as their fathers, daughters of poor men could easily marry "up," and daughters of rich men could easily be forced to marry "down."
Furthermore, because children tend to receive the genes and culture of both parents, not just one, it could easily be that a boy would have the misfortune or inheriting his mother's skill at running a household rather than his father's talents for making money (and so fall out of the upper class), or alternatively that a rich girl would follow her father's footsteps and then be denied a professional position and overlooked by potential husbands seeking a homemaker. Having two very different definitions of success for each of the sexes provided a way for society to randomize which people's children would end up in which social class, creating a great deal of opportunity for social mobility.
After the feminist revolution, however, that duality has been disappearing. What makes a woman attractive is more and more similar to what makes a man attractive, and to a lesser extent, what makes a man attractive is including more of what previously made a woman attractive. Because people generally end up marrying someone from the other sex who is at a similar level of attractiveness, this means that highly educated, wealthy professionals will seek each other out in a way that they did not previously. Consequently, where poor, uneducated women were able to marry up in society, they cannot any longer. As such, the children of poor girls are just as likely to be poor as the children of poor boys. Hence, the decline in inter-generational social mobility and the accumulation of wealth at the highest levels of society.
There's more. As woman have gained financial independence, the average age at which women choose to marry has gone up. Where previously women were hoping to be married in their 20s, now that number is more like 30s. Additionally, the more independent a woman is (that is, the higher her socioeconomic status is) the longer she can spend sorting through potential mates to find the most attractive one. This means that high status women have much more freedom to wait until they meet high status men, while low status women will be more likely to marry low status men. Again, this will lead to an accumulation of all of society's various capital resources at the highest socioeconomic level.
The age of marriage also matters because it has a big impact on who people associate with before selecting their mates. It goes without saying that Americans only marry people they've met and associated with. If people typically married in their 20s, that would almost necessarily mean they are marrying people they met in school or at one of their first jobs (or at church). Rich and poor alike generally attend the same schools, the same local churches, and work or eat at the same places where they get their first job. As people age, social stratification becomes more pronounced -- how wealthy you are largely determines where you will be and whom you will meet after you get out of high school, and your professional path is much more apparent at 30 than it was at 20.
As one's age rises, the people with which one interacts are increasingly likely to be from the same socioeconomic level, so it follows that if the average age of marriage rises, people are more likely to marry others from their own socioeconomic level. This is especially true now, as wealthy, educated people are less likely to attend church services where they would have mingled with the poor (and where the poor were explicitly praised as being closer to heaven).
Again, I must point out that I have not collected any data to support my hypothesis, so I could very easily be entirely wrong. Also, I will remind you that I am certainly not suggesting that society would be better off by returning to the way things were before the feminist revolution. All I am saying is that I suspect that much of the social stratification that we are observing can be explained by changes in marriage patterns that were brought about by female financial independence. If we want to regain the social mobility that our male-dominated society allowed, we need to think about how it was achieved and how we can achieve it again (but this time, without all the oppression).
I have a hypothesis, and I'm going to warn you that it's not politically correct. But then, when have I ever been concerned with PC or the judgments of others? The answer is: a lot more than you probably think. I've been terrified of posting this up despite having it in the back of my mind for a few years, and only recently found the courage to say it publicly. I can only hope I don't lose too many friends, but that's one of the risks of saying things you don't hear anyone else saying.
Before I continue, allow me to call your attention to the title of this piece. My point in what I am about to say is not to advocate a reactionary return to the good ol' days -- I would not undo the changes to society that I am going to be talking about. All I am doing is identifying that in addition to the obvious benefits they have brought (which are so widely accepted, including by me, that I won't talk about them), they may be contributing to new problems and challenges to society which we must address. The best way to address a problem is first to figure out its cause, and this is my attempt to do just that.
Again, I emphasize that recognizing that a social change comes with costs does not mean you oppose that social change. I fully support the social changes that I will be talking about, despite the fact that I believe they have also caused social damage which must be repaired (with a new solution, not a reversion to the old way).
My hypothesis, which I make no claims about having proven, is that the increasing social stratification we are experiencing is caused at least in part by women's liberation. (Now you see why I had to waste three paragraphs carefully qualifying what I was about to say.) But how are they connected?
My reasoning is based primarily on a topic that was discussed in classes I took on economic demography and women in the labor force. In short, there has been a growing trend over the past several decades showing that men and women are increasingly likely to marry partners with similar levels of education and similar socioeconomic backgrounds. That was as far as the research we discussed went -- there wasn't any speculation about the ramifications of this trend for society, so I will now fill in that speculation and the reasoning by which I arrived at the conclusion I have.
What makes somebody who is born to rich parents more likely to succeed? They are more likely to have more social capital, more financial capital, more educational capital, more cultural capital, and possibly even more genetic capital. Then they leverage their extensive capital advantages to take all of the best positions in society and accrue even more capital, which means that their children will have the same (or greater!) advantages they did.
If elite members of society are more likely to marry other elite members of society now than they used to be (as opposed to marrying people "below" themselves), then we would expect to see that in each generation, there is greater accumulation of all the various capital resources in the hands of those who already have the most. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and there will be less and less movement up and down the social ladder. This is exactly what we are seeing.
So the question is, why have elite members of society started marrying each other more exclusively? I would suggest that one of the reasons is women's liberation. Here's why:
Before the feminist revolution, the traits that made a woman attractive as a marriage partner and the traits that made a man an attractive marriage partner were vastly different. Women of all social classes were supposed to learn how to manage a household and raise children. Men, on the other hand, were expected to learn a trade and earn the money that would be used to run a household. This division meant that whereas sons would largely be limited to the same class as their fathers, daughters of poor men could easily marry "up," and daughters of rich men could easily be forced to marry "down."
Furthermore, because children tend to receive the genes and culture of both parents, not just one, it could easily be that a boy would have the misfortune or inheriting his mother's skill at running a household rather than his father's talents for making money (and so fall out of the upper class), or alternatively that a rich girl would follow her father's footsteps and then be denied a professional position and overlooked by potential husbands seeking a homemaker. Having two very different definitions of success for each of the sexes provided a way for society to randomize which people's children would end up in which social class, creating a great deal of opportunity for social mobility.
After the feminist revolution, however, that duality has been disappearing. What makes a woman attractive is more and more similar to what makes a man attractive, and to a lesser extent, what makes a man attractive is including more of what previously made a woman attractive. Because people generally end up marrying someone from the other sex who is at a similar level of attractiveness, this means that highly educated, wealthy professionals will seek each other out in a way that they did not previously. Consequently, where poor, uneducated women were able to marry up in society, they cannot any longer. As such, the children of poor girls are just as likely to be poor as the children of poor boys. Hence, the decline in inter-generational social mobility and the accumulation of wealth at the highest levels of society.
There's more. As woman have gained financial independence, the average age at which women choose to marry has gone up. Where previously women were hoping to be married in their 20s, now that number is more like 30s. Additionally, the more independent a woman is (that is, the higher her socioeconomic status is) the longer she can spend sorting through potential mates to find the most attractive one. This means that high status women have much more freedom to wait until they meet high status men, while low status women will be more likely to marry low status men. Again, this will lead to an accumulation of all of society's various capital resources at the highest socioeconomic level.
The age of marriage also matters because it has a big impact on who people associate with before selecting their mates. It goes without saying that Americans only marry people they've met and associated with. If people typically married in their 20s, that would almost necessarily mean they are marrying people they met in school or at one of their first jobs (or at church). Rich and poor alike generally attend the same schools, the same local churches, and work or eat at the same places where they get their first job. As people age, social stratification becomes more pronounced -- how wealthy you are largely determines where you will be and whom you will meet after you get out of high school, and your professional path is much more apparent at 30 than it was at 20.
As one's age rises, the people with which one interacts are increasingly likely to be from the same socioeconomic level, so it follows that if the average age of marriage rises, people are more likely to marry others from their own socioeconomic level. This is especially true now, as wealthy, educated people are less likely to attend church services where they would have mingled with the poor (and where the poor were explicitly praised as being closer to heaven).
Again, I must point out that I have not collected any data to support my hypothesis, so I could very easily be entirely wrong. Also, I will remind you that I am certainly not suggesting that society would be better off by returning to the way things were before the feminist revolution. All I am saying is that I suspect that much of the social stratification that we are observing can be explained by changes in marriage patterns that were brought about by female financial independence. If we want to regain the social mobility that our male-dominated society allowed, we need to think about how it was achieved and how we can achieve it again (but this time, without all the oppression).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)