Marriage: more evidence of MSM reading my blog?
With the idea out there (created by the De Beers cartel) that men are supposed to spend two months of their salary on an engagement ring, and with the median wedding costing $18,086, marriage seems to be totally out of reach of minimum wage workers. … People who are actually pro-family, maybe religious leaders, maybe Republicans, maybe even Democrats, ought to be out there on the front lines getting out the message that you don’t need an expensive ring and a big wedding to get married. No one should ever feel that they can’t afford to get married.
Richard V. Reeves (who I assume is center-left based on his role at the Brookings Institution) has taken this idea of mine and turned into a feature-length article at The Atlantic:
Most Americans support marriage, most Americans want to get married, and most Americans do get married. Why then is the institution atrophying among those with least education and lowest incomes?
A lack of “marriageable” men is a common explanation. It is clear that the labor market prospects of poorly-educated men are dire. But the language itself betrays inherent conservatism. “Marriageability” here means, principally, breadwinning potential. Nobody ever apparently worries about the “marriageability” of a woman: Presumably she just has to be fertile.
. . .
Perhaps propaganda—or, more politely, social marketing—has a role to play. The elites running our public institutions aren’t abandoning marriage: but maybe they aren’t encouraging it either.
Hopefully liberals in the MSM will get the message.