Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

senseandsensibility

(24,914 posts)

3. I read the whole article

Reply to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sat May 4, 2013, 10:33 AM

May 2013

and it is both fascinating and depressing. I'm glad that this was written and it needs to be talked about more. I would like to see this discussed on Ed's new week-end show. The situation is ruining lives.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Marrying Kind: (Ghettoization of the working class) [View all] HiPointDem May 2013 OP

k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth May 2013 #1

Well, well, well. "Financially independent women who both earn the bulk Nay May 2013 #2

Study of various historical 'underclasses' shows one of the predictable tactics of capital HiPointDem May 2013 #4

Exactly. They are doing to the white underclass just what they did to the black underclass -- Nay May 2013 #5

i don't think that it's really "culturally unwilling". i think it's a bit more complicated. when HiPointDem May 2013 #6

I still think 'culturally unwilling' fits, though, because doing women's work seems to make men Nay May 2013 #7

I think it's a mistake to view things exclusively through the lens of male/female, because the HiPointDem May 2013 #9

I think you have to look at the micro AND the macro. Most people just trying to get along in Nay May 2013 #10

"EXCEPT by making individual choices that work for them in the here and now". the choices HiPointDem May 2013 #12

If by essentialist you mean that men and women have definite characteristics that will always Nay May 2013 #13

likewise. HiPointDem May 2013 #14

You both forgot the name calling and insulting mythology May 2013 #16

easy to forget it when one's co-discussant doesn't lead with it. HiPointDem May 2013 #17

It is, isn't it? I tend to bug out of threads that get nasty, as so many of them do. Again, I have Nay May 2013 #21

This is the kind of post that makes me wish I could rec individual posts. redqueen May 2013 #8

Well, thanks. Nay May 2013 #11

"dumping marriage," though, isn't an unalloyed 'good,' just better than the alternative -- maybe, HiPointDem May 2013 #15

Not celebrating it, no, because I think kids do so much better with an intact family. Nay May 2013 #19

Women hold on to high income men Fumesucker May 2013 #18

Low-income men are not always bad marriage partners; Mr Nay and I are high-income, and we know Nay May 2013 #20

Evidently you are now changing your tune.. Fumesucker May 2013 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author galileoreloaded May 2013 #25

+1000 YoungDemCA May 2013 #26

i've got a great idea... galileoreloaded May 2013 #29

I read the whole article senseandsensibility May 2013 #3

Nothing surprising here... PopeOxycontinI May 2013 #22

Or, as the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan got into trouble for saying - hedgehog May 2013 #23

nothing to do with anything the late unlamented pat moynihan ever said. HiPointDem May 2013 #24

Community issues are a product of economic circumstances... YoungDemCA May 2013 #27

I think Moynihan saw it as a chicken and egg problem or feed-back loop - which enraged people hedgehog May 2013 #28