Marriage and Class in the NY Times

Today’s class article in the NY Times is about marriage. Like the previous articles in the series, it’s long on anecdotes and short on real analysis. We get a very long article about the marriage of upper class Cate Woolner with working class Dan Croteau.

Today’s story is a bad way to demonstrate class differences because, the way I see it, the bigger problem in the marriage described is that the woman has money and the man doesn’t. This would be a big problem for their marriage even if both were born to the same class but the woman earned more money.

At least the article describes liberal guilt:

She was always uncomfortable with her money; when she came into a modest inheritance at 21, she ignored the monthly bank statements for several years, until she learned to channel her unease into philanthropy benefiting social causes.

The article also reveals that she wouldn’t date anyone who was a Republican, and that she worked at an “anti-poverty” agency. What a waste of an Ivy League education. People on the right want to believe that rich people contribute more to society, but it’s obvious that she contributes very little.

I guess this is as close as we’ll get to an article in the NY Times that explains how the core of the liberal movement is rich kids who feel guilty about inheriting money from mom and dad.

Comments

[Michael H.]

Hi Half Sigma
Interesting article.

"I guess this is as close as we’ll get to an article in the NY Times that explains how the core of the liberal movement is rich kids who feel guilty about inheriting money from mom and dad."

Yes, that's right.

I agree that it is potentially a problem if the wife makes more than the husband (disclosure: my wife makes a bit more than me). A man marrying "beneath him" is unlikely to cause marital problems. Society still somewhat accepts that men with tend to have more power and more interesting careers than women. That might not be fair, but it is the reality.