Last Monday COTTonLINE reacted to a column by Robert Van Bruggen on problems associated with the "marriage as poverty solution" meme, particularly for black women. In response to his column, some have suggested a need to convince "lower class" women to marry unemployed men.
Today Van Bruggen writes for RealClearPolicy about the difficulties associated with women earning more than their spouses. What he writes seems true enough.
However, it takes two to conclude a marriage contract. Supposing she is willing, is he? Why would an unemployed blue-collar man marry if the quid pro quo was he must do the housework and childcare?
I doubt there will be many takers for that deal. More to the point, I believe the decline in marriages among the poor of all races reflects this reality: not many willing househusbands.
High unemployment and underemployment for blue-collar men discourages marriage. This encourages the women they might have married to have out-of-wedlock children who often do not thrive.
