Remember Hanna Rosin? She's the author of last year's controversial "End of Men" cover story in The Atlantic that suggested that because women do better in school, earn over half the college degrees, and are soaring into the professions, a matriarchy is precious minutes away.
Last week, she was interviewed over at Slate where, in anticipation of a Slate/Intelligence Squared U.S. debate yesterday -- and possibly to pimp the publication of her upcoming book on men's demise -- she held fast to her premise that women indeed are poised to dominate.
We've done a bit of kvetching about her theory, which is to say: We disagree. Sure, women may be doing better in school, but we're still up against the pay gap and glass ceiling at work and the second shift at home. And that's only half the story.
What left us scratching our heads was the mental juxtaposition of Rosin's end-of-men business with the national poverty stats, released the same day by the Census Bureau. In case you missed the memo, the numbers showed that, as of 2010, 15.1 percent of all Americans are living in poverty (defined as an income of $22,314 or less for a family of four), the highest rate since 1993. That's a staggering -- and embarrassing -- 46.2 million people, the largest number of poor Americans since estimates were first published 52 years ago.
In addition, the data showed that the poverty rate for children under 18 was 22 percent -- over one-fifth of all kids in America.
Horrifying, right? But what you had to search hard to find -- and probably didn't, at least in the mainstream media -- was an even more horrifying breakdown of those stats by gender. According to an analysis by the National Women's Law Center, for households headed by a single woman, the poverty rate was 31.6 percent. For those headed by a single male, the rate was about half that: 15.8 percent. And among women who head families, 4 in 10 (40.7 percent) lived in poverty (up from 38.5 percent in 2009).
There's more. The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund drilled down the data a little further and found the raw numbers -- not to mention the way the gender gap has been ignored -- even more unsettling:
In 2010, adult woman were 29 percent more likely to be poor than adult men, with a poverty rate of 14.5 percent compared to a 11.2 percent rate for adult men. There were 17.2 million poor adult women compared to 12.6 million poor adult men.
In their analysis, the WLDEF found that Census stats revealed "a deep gender gap in poverty rates, even when factors such as work experience, education, or family structure are taken into account." For example:
* Women who worked outside the home in 2010 were 22 percent more likely to be poor than men who worked outside the home, with a poverty rate of 7.7 percent compared to 6.3 percent for men.
* While education reduces the likelihood of being poor for both men and women, women are more likely to be poor than men with the same level of education. In 2010, at every education level women were again more likely to be poor than men.
* The 37.1 percent poverty rate for single parents in 2010 was 4.2 times the 8.8 percent poverty rate for married parents. However, comparing married parents with all solo parents gives a misleading impression of the significance of family structure by concealing the sharp difference in poverty rates between solo fathers and solo mothers. The 40.7 percent poverty rate for solo mother families was 68 percent greater than the 24.2 percent rate for solo father families.
We're baffled. How exactly does one reconcile the fact that women are more likely than men to be poor with this so called "end of men" nonsense? Rosin herself, back on Slate, concedes that the dominance of the alpha-gals she writes about is not quite all it's cracked up to be:
The dominance of women is a good and a bad thing. If you take the non-college-educated class, for example, the women are really, really struggling. They're holding down the jobs, they're going to school, they're raising the kids. One economist calls that situation "the last one holding the bag" theory. In other words, the reason that women are doing better than men is because the children are with them, and so they have to make ends meet. So they hustle in order to make ends meet, but their lives are really, really hard, and it's terrible for the children. And the fact that about one-fifth of American men are not working--we're almost at Great Depression levels--that's really terrible. And it doesn't seem to be getting any better. So, no, this isn't like, "yay, we won! yay, we triumphed!" It's actually really bad.
And so we wonder. Isn't all this chat about the "End of Men" just more backlash? A smokescreen that keeps us from tackling deeper and more serious issues that won't go away? We vote yes. Especially given the fact that the only place, outside of the classroom, where women appear to be dominating is in the poverty stats.