"Single Women Are Our Most Potent Political Force"
February 22, 2016 11:13 AM   Subscribe

Almost a quarter of the votes in the last US presidential election were cast by women without spouses, up three points from just four years earlier. They are almost 40% of the African-American population, close to 30% of the Latino population, and about a third of all young voters. The most powerful voter this year is The Single American Woman.
posted by zarq (53 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite
 
So I was going to make a dumb joke about how these numbers would mean a clueless GOP would try to do some sort of reach out using Beyonce's "Single Ladies" and then I got to the end of the article and read this and realized there's no dumb joke that covers today's GOP more than today's GOP:

Republicans have made wan attempts to appeal to unmarried women — remember the gubernatorial “Say Yes to the Candidate” ads that featured young voters engaging in electoral choices as if they were on a reality-show wedding-dress-shopping spree?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Even Teddy Roosevelt, as part of his campaign against “race suicide,” railed at single middle-class white women for failing to reproduce at high rates: “A race is worthless,” he proclaimed, “if women cease to breed freely.”

Incredible that this remains an explicit cornerstone of a major American political party's platform.
posted by saladin at 11:28 AM on February 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


I need a framed print of that middle-finger-with-impeccable-manicure picture. Make it two: one for home and one for work.
posted by sallybrown at 11:34 AM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


Speaking of tone deaf, Kasich just commented that the way he first won office was that women "left their kitchens" to campaign for him.

Though arguably the most "moderate" of this GOP field, Kasich is yet another candidate with fundamentally anti-woman views.
posted by bearwife at 11:35 AM on February 22, 2016 [18 favorites]


One thing I'm having a hard time teasing out (and maybe I'm missing this in the article): It seems like the article is defining "single" as "not married". Which is the traditional definition, but then the article seems to push the idea of the under-30 women as "on their own"; probably true for many, but many also are in relationships but not married. At least in my corner of the world, the latter seemed like the default, and there was certainly a spectrum between "totally fancy-free" and "completely entangled with a SO".

Back in the old days of marriage dominance, long-term pre-marriage relationships were less common, so I'm wondering how much of this is the evolution of the idea of "marriage" and how much is women who are actually in wildly different circumstances.

Anyway, there is a lot of interesting stuff to chew on in this long article (that I'm still reading).
posted by selfnoise at 11:36 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also:

adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry

Hell yes! I feel so lucky to be part of this cohort and try to work every day to help make it larger. I wish there weren't so many women who are still hindered from achieving this necessary freedom.
posted by sallybrown at 11:36 AM on February 22, 2016 [25 favorites]


I need a framed print of that middle-finger-with-impeccable-manicure picture.

If you take a look, it's not the middle finger. It's the ring finger, minus a ring. I'm guessing it's to emphasize "single".
posted by Thorzdad at 11:39 AM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Speaking of tone deaf, Kasich just commented that the way he first won office was that women "left their kitchens" to campaign for him.

I loved that one of the women who attended the rally and supports him stood up and called him out on that, without apology or trying to downplay it.
posted by sallybrown at 11:40 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Incredible that this remains an explicit cornerstone of a major American political party's platform.

A con is nothing without marks.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:40 AM on February 22, 2016


My worry is the future of single women households and the economy. Clearly there is an economic advantage to a two income household, and clearly women, making less than men in the workplace, places them at a further disadvantage. And so yes, they are important for elections but what of the rest of the non-election time?
posted by Postroad at 11:50 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Speaking of tone deaf, Kasich just commented that the way he first won office was that women "left their kitchens" to campaign for him.

He probably meant it literally. His first election was in 1978, when women made up less than 50% of the workforce. Someone should notify him that 40 years have passed.

Also, this isn't the first time he's said something like that. 2012:
"You know, Jane Portman, Karen Kasich, and Janna Ryan, they operate an awful lot of the time in the shadows…It's not easy to be a spouse of an elected official. You know, they're at home, doing the laundry and doing so many things while we're up here on the stage getting a little bit of applause, right? They don't often share in it. And it is hard for the spouse to hear the criticism and to put up with the travel schedule and to have to be at home taking care of the kids. And where is the politician? Out on the road!"

Connie Schultz, the wife of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), begged to differ. She quipped on Facebook, "Yep, that's us womenfolk, livin' the shadow life. I'd write more, but this senator's wife's gotta a load of socks with my name on it." She followed that zinger with a picture of her dog: "Yet again, the hard, shadowy life of the political dog is completely ignored. FYI, Governor Kaisch: When it comes to the laundry in this house, I'm the beast of burden." (Can we please make #hardshadowylife go viral?)

posted by zarq at 11:50 AM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


Women weren't all in the kitchen in 1978 either. Good grief. It's a line worse than Romney's boast about having women delivered to him in binders.
posted by bearwife at 11:53 AM on February 22, 2016 [23 favorites]


As much as the media is all doom and gloom, things are generally getting better in the U.S. Obviously not evenly, obviously not everywhere, but things are improving.

Where they are improving, I can't help but shake the feeling that it's because of women's empowerment, single woman becoming a potent political force, and control no longer solely belonging to old white men. I do realize that correlation ≠ causation, but I'm pretty sure feminism has made things much better for the states that embraced it. In fact, it may have a lot to do with which states are economic winners and which ones have been left behind (when you control for factors that have nothing to do with that, such as natural resources).
posted by Strudel at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


My worry is the future of single women households and the economy. Clearly there is an economic advantage to a two income household, and clearly women, making less than men in the workplace, places them at a further disadvantage. And so yes, they are important for elections but what of the rest of the non-election time?

Then let's close the fucking wage gap.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2016 [27 favorites]


One more observation about the central thesis of this article, which accurately posits the following:

We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration, and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry.

This is clearly true. But it may not be an entirely good thing. Speaking as someone who cherished my freedom and married later in life, to a man who is entirely supportive and never controlling, I will say that marriage provides a good deal more economic stability than any other relationship. The law recognizes a spouse's claims on pensions, health benefits, property, earnings, etc. in ways that benefit married people tremendously. There are excellent practical as well as human rights reasons for LGBTQ people to have sought constitutional recognition of the right to marry.

In short, although single life can give women far more freedom, it can also leave them under the control of an intimate partner without much if any legally protected economic security.
posted by bearwife at 12:05 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I need a framed print of that middle-finger-with-impeccable-manicure picture.

It's not a middle-finger, it's a (ringless) ring finger.

Also, doesn't the NY Mag cover look like it's saying "Fuck Kanye West Three Ways: His Music, His Clothes and His Ego"?
posted by My Dad at 12:05 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clearly there is an economic advantage to a two income household, and clearly women, making less than men in the workplace, places them at a further disadvantage.

Elizabeth Warren did a lot of interesting and good work on this topic at Harvard--the main takeaway from her work is that two-income households are actually more brittle than married or cohabitating couples with one income, as two-income households that are essentially barely making ends meet are at much greater risk from loss of income, whereas the one income household can decide to send the other partner to work to make up for the loss of a job.

The other side of this, of course, is that we now live in a country in which it is almost impossible for an average middle class couple to not both work, as the economic demands are such that two incomes are necessary to meet financial obligations, especially when there are children.

I would imagine that the economic risk to a single person and a two-income household is weighted towards the single person, of course, since $0 income is much less preferable to income divided by 2.
posted by Automocar at 12:15 PM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]


How does she feel about Trump?
posted by infini at 12:15 PM on February 22, 2016


“A race is worthless,” he proclaimed, “if women cease to breed freely.”

I'm finding it increasingly hard to think of mainstream US social and political life as being much more than several centuries of baboons screeching and flinging dung at one another.

Women weren't all in the kitchen in 1978 either. Good grief. It's a line worse than Romney's boast about having women delivered to him in binders.

Yep - my paternal grandmother, who was working full time as a maid in the 50s and 60s, would no doubt give him an exhausted, withering stare.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


There is a lot of good research regarding the marriage gap and also differential outcomes between single wage earner families, families with a primary wage earner and a part-time wage earner, and dual wage earning families.

In general I think the idea that more than any other time in existence USian women have some degree of autonomy over their socio-economic outcomes irrespective of their marriage status to be a good thing. I think that allows people to make much more considered approaches to entering a relationship rather than entering relationships out of seeming economic necessity.

That policy decisions are increasingly driven by the needs of this demographic block is also a good thing because it can result in increased socio-economic prosperity rather than policies that advantage a specific social and cultural practice.
posted by vuron at 12:36 PM on February 22, 2016




Women weren't all in the kitchen in 1978 either. Good grief. It's a line worse than Romney's boast about having women delivered to him in binders.

My mother and grandmother worked in 1978 and were completely independent. It seems that archaic narrative is a favourite of those who cannot grasp that people are not going to give up their independence and autonomy, and are not going to be tricked or shamed into relinquishing power, control, or independence to conniving people with inferiority complexes who must meddle and dictate the lives of others to function. That ship has sailed.

It is natural and normal for women to work. It is evolution and part of progress. Rigging society unnaturally by trying to use ruses and feints to put toxic self-serving rules in place does not work. Even a fifties sitcom about housewives were made possible with a working actress pretending to be something she wasn't.

Single women are part of society and holding back people is the fastest way to destroy the whole. As a single woman, my independence is off limits. Deal with it.

I am happy to see a world thrive with people being given the space and time to flourish and cultivate their power and use it properly, and not just single women. I love when people have freedom and respect. It makes my heart sing.

Thank you for the link.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 1:48 PM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]


sorry for the tangential comment, but is that finger the normal one to use in the usa? or does it signify something different from "giving the finger" with the middle finger? (i can't even make that sign, with either hand).
posted by andrewcooke at 1:49 PM on February 22, 2016


sorry for the tangential comment, but is that finger the normal one to use in the usa? or does it signify something different from "giving the finger" with the middle finger? (i can't even make that sign, with either hand).

It's the ring finger. It bears no ring. Because the women in question are single.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:50 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


ahhhh! thank-you!
posted by andrewcooke at 1:52 PM on February 22, 2016


Wow I'm part of an important and noteworthy voting bloc- this is exciting! Of course the different methods that the candidates are using to "reach" me is a joke, so -- 6/10 would vote again?
posted by chonus at 1:53 PM on February 22, 2016


Then let's close the fucking wage gap.

Which wage gap? The one between, say, nurses and corporate lawyers or, the one between rich female corporate lawyers and even richer male corporate lawyers?
posted by ennui.bz at 2:07 PM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]


There was a last comic standing a few years ago that went into double triple overtime killer sets when Joe Machi killed with the joke: I haven't talked about gun control yet. I got into a discussion with my neighbors about gun control. He said, I bet if you asked the founding fathers what they thought about gun control, they wouldn't like it. I said, if you ask the founding fathers about what they thought about gun control, they'd respond with 'What's this I hear about women voting? And who is that in the White House? Is that one of Thomas Jefferson's kids?'

Point being, the dead don't get that change did indeed happen, even the walking dead that make up the rank and file of the Republican Party. Single women becoming the largest voting block when cut between gender and marital status is awesome, and if it makes dinosaurs uncomfortable and afraid, maybe they should start thinking about the policies that they put into place and the impact that it had on the people they marginalized with them. Maybe they should start to think about how to ensure the voting blocks of power learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them.
posted by Nanukthedog at 2:12 PM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


Why not both, ennui.bz?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:36 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


So far, any affinity single women may feel with Hillary Clinton is being trumped by the aspirationally progressive vision of Bernie Sanders.

I feel a tremendous affinity for Hillary and her struggles. Her perseverance and determination in the face of having crap thrown at her from all directions (deserved, undeserved - who cares? it never stops) for decades is something that truly amazes me. It's also not lost on me that Hillary - or any woman in politics - never really had the option to be a Bernie Sanders. If she had his ideas, she'd be some weird fringe hippy toiling in a non-profit. She would have never been able to build a political career as an independent or a socialist. Never.

However, I don't agree with her policies so will not be voting for her as I vote for policy, not affinity.
posted by grounded at 2:38 PM on February 22, 2016 [35 favorites]


Come now, let's not be needlessly cruel to baboons.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:38 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Which wage gap?

QUESTION TOO HARD MUST PUT WOMEN BACK IN KITCHEN
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:39 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


gosh, what a typo - I meant to say, if there are multiple axes of inequality why don't we try and and address them in multiple ways? You haven't even begun to look at the racial wage gaps where black women are worse off than white women. The way you raised that question sounded a lot like "this is too hard to even begin!" but plenty of people have already begun talking about intersectionality of disadvantage and if that was a serious question then you might enjoy reading up on that topic (in your question, it's an intersection of gender and class, roughly).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:43 PM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


If she had his ideas, she'd be some weird fringe hippy toiling in a non-profit.

I am seeing this a lot lately from folks, and it's really tiresome to see the constant erasure of unapologetically left-wing older women activists, or worse, the malignment of them as "fringe hippies" working at non-profits (as if non-profit work doesn't already have tons of gendered labor issues).
posted by mostly vowels at 2:52 PM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


If women ceased to do all the free labor expected of us, society would cease to function.

Fuck you, pay me.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 2:54 PM on February 22, 2016 [40 favorites]


Women weren't all in the kitchen in 1978 either. Good grief. It's a line worse than Romney's boast about having women delivered to him in binders.


True! My god how are people so dumb?

Sometimes I find it difficult not to be totally exasperated by people who believe there was a time that women didn't work. Keeping in mind that the majority of women were never well-to-do or rich, the majority of women have always worked and worked hard due to their exclusion from well-paying jobs. The idea I fear these guys are talking about is a woman who wore stretch pants and ate bonbons all day in front of the tv---this woman didn't exist except for on Fox sitcom Married with Children.

Even fiction touches on this, from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn back to Little Women. Women were always working and have always had to earn money because men were pretty unreliable breadwinners and even marriage didn't mean you didn't have to work. Maybe for higher paying occupations like teaching women were forced to leave their positions, but a scrub woman never got to hang up her apron after marriage. Women with children were earning money taking in laundry, sewing, all kinds of things.

That's not even mentioning the free labor, taking care of kids, etc. Good grief.
posted by discopolo at 3:29 PM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]


TFA:
So far, any affinity single women may feel with Hillary Clinton is being trumped by the aspirationally progressive vision of Bernie Sanders.

I see what you did there.
posted by eclectist at 3:43 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sometimes I find it difficult not to be totally exasperated by people who believe there was a time that women didn't work.

This previous comment of mine addresses this (with sources!). Women's labor force participation in the US was not recorded or was underrecorded in official sources for a long time. There is also a tendency to erase the existence and labor of female slaves.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:54 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


it's really tiresome to see the constant erasure of unapologetically left-wing older women activists, or worse, the malignment of them as "fringe hippies" working at non-profits

Good grief. Not 'erasing' them or 'maligning' them. Just stating the obvious that the door to mainstream, mass-population politics is closed to women in a way that it's not for men.
posted by grounded at 4:01 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sometimes I find it difficult not to be totally exasperated by people who believe there was a time that women didn't work.

Except that there was a long period of time where they didn't. While melissasaurus is correct that they were the pioneers in textile industries, they were quickly drummed out as factory work was increasingly considered men's work. Her source shows that only 25% of working age women worked in 1940. Even if we consider women's participation under-reported prior to that, we're a long way from a majority.

I'll agree there is quite a bit of erasure that exists for those women, but there are sources that can be easily checked before we create our own statistics.
posted by politikitty at 4:15 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Which wage gap? The one between, say, nurses and corporate lawyers or, the one between rich female corporate lawyers and even richer male corporate lawyers?

First one, then the other?
posted by box at 5:35 PM on February 22, 2016


It's also not lost on me that Hillary - or any woman in politics - never really had the option to be a Bernie Sanders. If she had his ideas, she'd be some weird fringe hippy toiling in a non-profit. She would have never been able to build a political career as an independent or a socialist.

While what your say is true, it also hints at the experience difference between them. Sanders has been flying his socialism flag for many years, God love him, but he's not been very effective with it. Until this year, he was the hippy dippy that everyone ignored.

And that's a pretty big down-side when it comes to dealing with the current congress as President.
posted by Dashy at 6:06 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Her source shows that only 25% of working age women worked in 1940. Even if we consider women's participation under-reported prior to that, we're a long way from a majority.

Granted, but that's only in the U.S. and the 25% is women who worked for pay, which would exclude pretty much all family farms and a lot of other family businesses, especially in that era.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:10 PM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


Almost a quarter of the votes in the last US presidential election were cast by women without spouses

I was getting ready to be over here all excited and feeling included until

adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry


Still over here, still doing a thing.

I get it; legal marriage until very very recently was a very heteronormative institution in U.S. (and still is in so many people's eyes). But... oh never mind, I can't even quite articulate the point I'm trying to get at.

Still, good article. I get to teach a (the most damn queer ever) marriage and the family class in the fall, and I expect I'll use this.
posted by joycehealy at 7:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


"whereas the one income household can decide to send the other partner to work to make up for the loss of a job."

Since when? I don't know about you, but women who've been out of the workforce for a few years probably can't get employed too easily. Or make a whole lot of money if they do.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:47 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


>"whereas the one income household can decide to send the other partner to work to make up for the loss of a job."

Since when? I don't know about you, but women who've been out of the workforce for a few years probably can't get employed too easily. Or make a whole lot of money if they do.

I think Warren would probably see those both as part of the problem she's outlining, actually, which is that we didn't adequate plan for women's entry into the labor force, and there aren't sufficient protections or regulations to address the issues that have arisen from that -- like paid maternity leave, for example, although I'm not sure offhand if that's actually one of her argument -- things like that, though. She started off looking at bankruptcies and tried to find out why people were going bankrupt -- was it overspending? Was it insufficient savings? -- and what she found was that households in the (then-current) period had less discretionary income than did the generation preceding them, and that, consequently from that, they were ill-prepared to weather any kind of variability in their income, such as one parent losing their job. The 'two-income' framing is slightly misleading -- it's really an argument about income, flat-out, and how household income hasn't kept pace with household costs.

Warren's 2004 book on the subject, 'The Two-Income Trap,' articulates her argument better than I could. There are a lot of good summaries online, though.

Here's a contemporary interview with her co-author discussing the book:
[W]e looked at the data for two-income families today earning an average income. What we found was that, while those families certainly make more money than a one-income family did a generation ago, by the time they pay for the basics -- an average home, a health insurance policy, a second car to get Mom to work, child care, and taxes -- that family actually has less money left over at the end of the month to show for it. We tend to assume with two incomes you're doubly secure. But if you count on every penny of both of those incomes, which most families today do, then you're in big trouble if either income goes away. And obviously, if you have two people in the workforce, you have double the chance that someone will get laid off, or double the chance that someone could get too sick to work. When that happens, two-income families really get into trouble, and that's how a lot of families quickly go bankrupt.
And here's a 2014 New Yorker article on Warren, summarizing her position:
Warren’s counterintuitive argument is that, for all the public and private good that has come from gains made by women in education and employment, earning money has made women who are mothers more economically vulnerable, not less...

...It used to be that when a middle-class family was faced with a financial crisis the woman in the house could get a job, to tide things over, which is what happened when Warren’s father had a heart attack and her mother got a job at Sears. This cushion doesn’t exist in the two-income family, which, in its short history—it has its origins, as a middle-class phenomenon, in the nineteen-seventies—has also taken on a great deal more housing debt.

The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act required lenders to count a wife’s income when evaluating borrowers; the deregulation of the mortgage lending industry began in 1980. With two wage earners and low down payments, middle-class families took on bigger mortgages and contributed to an increase in the cost of housing, especially when families with children paid a premium for property in school districts with high test scores. Financial crisis, for a two-income family, usually means having to live, quite suddenly, on one income. In these straits, families with children tend to totter on the edge of ruin. “Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse,” Warren and Tyagi reported. Between 1981 and 2001, the number of women filing for bankruptcy rose more than six hundred per cent.
posted by cjelli at 9:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Fuck yes!

Thank you for this article.

And what's amazing is the groundswell hasn't even got here yet. I see it in my younger cousins and in the daughters of friends and colleagues. They fully expect to be fully independent, they see how the deck has been stacked against them and so many others, and they fiercely want it to change. It delights me to the tip of my toes.
posted by susiswimmer at 9:46 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


Those links are very interesting cjelli, thank you. As a single female (with cats to support) I am often puzzled by couples who imply they are worse off financially when they have two incomes and I have one (the cats haven't shown any interest in working). I could easily afford to support a partner (most of the household running costs wouldn't change) and if that partner had an income we could 100% save we would be super comfortable. But I guess it makes sense that people come from the perspective of the two incomes being normal and spend accordingly.
posted by kitten magic at 1:07 AM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


not to encourage the Warren two-income derail, but I think another way of looking at the single-income vs. dual-income fragility is that the ideal case is where you can earn dual incomes but live on one. Structure your life so that you can pay your bills with one person's paycheck. Use the other for savings/retirement/that next renovation project, etc. However that does require hard choices, because it feels like the economy has adapted to make dual income the default model for families and everything that feels necessary to help your family level up in class just doubles in price because so many people just get into this trap of paying for it with both of their incomes.

It's like a societal wide game of Prisoner's Dilemma where if we all cooperated to just keep our spending moderate and only incur bills that can be paid with one paycheck, we'd all be better off, but we're so tempted to cheat and stretch ourselves, and the market is only happy to give us the rope by which to hang ourselves.
posted by bl1nk at 6:47 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


However that does require hard choices, because it feels like the economy has adapted to make dual income the default model for families

That's one of key points of Warrent's argument, for sure: that society (and the economy) now (for the now of when she was publishing on this) presumes two incomes per household, whereas in the past it did not -- that this didn't used to be a hard choice at all. Because of that, a lot of people who grew up in the single-income generations have a biased view of the economic picture facing families today -- to many, they never had to contemplate that sort of trade-off. This has also made things particularly tough for single mothers, whom society now effectively effects to have two incomes despite being one person.
posted by cjelli at 7:17 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


effectively effects

Effectively expects, rather. This is why I shouldn't comment before coffee.
posted by cjelli at 7:38 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]



Structure your life so that you can pay your bills with one person's paycheck. Use the other for savings/retirement/that next renovation project, etc. However that does require hard choices, because it feels like the economy has adapted to make dual income the default model for families and everything that feels necessary to help your family level up in class just doubles in price because so many people just get into this trap of paying for it with both of their incomes.

It isn't just people keeping up with the joneses and refusing to make hard choices though. If your two incomes are both extremely low you're probably still making all the same hard choices as a family living (or pretending to) on a single income, but without the luxury of a secret second income that goes to building security. At a certain earning point two incomes are actually economically necessary to just barely scrape by.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


The ad I get on that site says "WHEN WILL I GET MARRIED?" and offers me a free tarot reading to find out. (Thanks, but I prefer my occult dealings patriarchy-free.)
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:48 PM on February 24, 2016


« Older Come For The Outrage, Stay For The Sloths   |   It's Not a Streetlamp Photo Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments