One of my favorite conceits in Bill Willingham's Fables is that Cinderella's marriage ends badly and because she has neither family money nor a title to fall back on, she ends up a shoe shop owner/secret agent. Willingham's a noted conservative, but since he obviously has a great deal of affection for "Cindy," I suspect he's somewhat antipathic to the obstacles of social mobility in this day and age.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that it's a lot harder to "marry up" than it used to be. In February, Dalton Conley wrote in the WaPo:
The old story of the boss marrying the secretary (and her quitting her
job) might have been fairly common back in the days of Ward and June
Cleaver; today the manager is more likely to marry the manager. (In
fact, doctors have the highest rate of occupational intermarriage of
any profession, and they are all likely to keep working -- at least
part time.)
"Women Have Come a Long Way. The Future Is Less Bright," Feb 13, 09
(Speaking as one media hack married to another, I can understand the allure of occupational intermarriage. In our house, love means never having to say, "Leave me alone, damn it! I'm on deadline!")
And then the NYT reported yesterday:
Some of the same social changes that have unsettled traditional
1950s-era marriages have seemingly deepened them in the 1990s and
2000s. Today women are contributing more financially to relationships
than earlier generations, and men are contributing more to the domestic
duties. Compared with earlier generations, men and women today are more
likely to marry someone like themselves, with a similar educational
background, experts say. The relationship is less about dividing
economic and domestic duties and more about shared interests and mutual
happiness.
-- "Marriage Stands Up for Itself"
I will happily fly into a frothing rage the moment any fictional narrative suggests that the best way for a heroine to make money is to marry it. However, the trend toward marital homogamy in the U.S.-- i.e. marrying someone of similar cultural, educational and income background -- has me thinking it's a good news/bad news scenario.
The good news: social scientists tend to believe that homogamous marriages tend to be longer-lasting, happier and less stressed than marriages where partners' backgrounds differ wildly. The bad news: these marriages make terrible sitcoms -- not that Dharma & Greg stands astride a mountain of martial sitcoms -- and they are contributing, however indirectly, to the widening income gaps between America's assorted socioeconomic classes. Some folks may not see this as a problem. I am of the opinion that a socioeconomically fluid society is about as close as you're going to get to a meritocracy under capitalism; it's also one in which all classes value the idea of social safety nets for the most vulnerable members of society.
I doubt the solution is to force marriages between the Joads and the Buchanans. But it is worth noting that a social institution ostensibly meant to stabilize a larger society might actually fracture it instead.
Recent Comments