My posts on black American home life being influenced (maybe) by family structure back in Africa as well as fatherlessness affecting school performance, which no liberal dares come out and say directly were tangents turned into posts. Those topics were derivative of my real topic: gender and relationship bitchfests in the media. As the media is a left wing entity, this debate is usually from the anti-patriarchy side. It is mostly power posturing in the struggle for a bigger piece of the elite pie. While this is going on, the underclass and even middle class is rotting. The media wants to celebrate the triumph of women earning more, but there is the reality that a pursuit of riches through careerism leads to a life unfulfilled. These articles are still focused on a higher earning and educated subset of the population. Fishtown is unraveling, and it is due to the consequences of family law changes, the social welfare system, and also immigration's effect on the common man's earnings.
Forget man up columns, which are male shaming articles for 55 year old moms to read and then nag their sons about not being married. Just google 'when women are the breadwinners' for a taste of this elite bullshit. So many of these articles talk about Lady McGreatjob who makes over 50K and her husband makes less. They like to slip in women who make 100K as well, because 100K earners are so common. I'll add here the requisite, powerful black woman who still wants a man to pay for meals article. More and more women are breadwinners the articles echo, but some statistics stand in the way. These statistics though point out the clues as to why men are slipping.
1. Mean average income for men in 2011 was $48,948. For women, it was $30,553. Median income though was $32,986 for men and $21,102 for women.
2. While women have seen a steady rise in median and mean wages since the '60s, men on an inflation adjusted basis have seen a rise in mean income only, as median income has been stagnant ($32,986 in 2011 vs. $32,216 in 1966).
If I put my old college hat on, if the mean is rising for men while the median is holding steady, that means men are skewing more and more into haves and have nots as male income inequality rises. I wonder if the college degree job barrier and our schools failing our boys for decades has anything to do with that. As often stated on the Internet, outsourcing blue collar jobs destroyed the working class man's earning capabilities. The specialization of our economy with higher skilled white collar work taking a precedence created what some call value transference work, which shifts more revenue to fewer specialized employees. The other factor is that many professions men routinely worked in with decent wages saw a wage cap slap on their wages due to unchecked immigration (construction being top of the list). Women are overrepresented in education and health care, which usually have degree requirements or licensing programs that require you to speak the English. Women have been insulated better than men with regards to immigration competition. Add in a social welfare system that substitutes Uncle Sam for a man without the partnership requirements, and we have a nation of bastards on our hands. Replicate for over thirty years and you have the world of today. The social engineering and immigration policies of America have killed Fishtown.
This will not stop our media from spotlighting the difficulties of hard charging, high earning women have finding suitable mates. I laugh when they say they want a man with the same education or earning similar money and not to marry down. What did men do for eons when they were the educated ones with good jobs? Was what they did marrying down? This will not stop the family law fights back and forth. The media cannot shine their light on Fishtown or they would have to admit culpability in the dysfunction. Elite insularity kept them from professional competition and kept immigration's effects at arm's length. Joe Six Pack had to accept the same income year after year because more guys kept pouring over the border. Even if they did marry, their wife could divorce them for no reason and collect the same money from the government with him out of the door. If she was lucky, she could take half of what they had for assets and collect a check. If ever a class of people needed a restrictor plate on its impulsive, short sighted decisions, it would have been late 20th century American working class women. This is a disincentive to marry at all, and men are responding. The media's only response is for men to man up. The media can still bitch about a lack of diversity in Silicon Valley because there are high paying puff jobs to create and place women and minorities into to keep the EEOC lawyers and media spotlight away. Boardrooms and executive suites are the media's focus. If they had to spend similar energy on what ails Fishtown, the members of the media who championed the liberalization of divorce law, the expansion of the welfare system and unchecked immigration would be hung from lampposts by their toes and used as piñatas.