The Times reports that 51% percent of women are living without a husband.
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
More women are divorced, never married, or living with a partner. The article interviews various happy, single women who find great strength in their singleness. I couldn't help wondering if the article was a little one-sided. What was their socio-economic status compared to married women? How many women in that group were struggling and supporting three kids on their own on a waitress salary?
But I don't mean to rain on the parade. I think it's fabulous that more women have more options than ever before.
The article briefly mentions the impact of this major sociological shift on politics.
Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.
However, the article doesn't expand on this observation. I like to think that they are right. The 51% tipping point might force businesses and politicians to make more female and family-friendly changes. Single women may have more clout than married women. There is always the assumption that married women have their husband's salaries to fall back upon. Their jobs are considered optional, so there's no pressure to improve daycare, no accommodations at the workplace, and no support from the school system. There are very strong resentments against married women with kids and prejudice lurks around the edges. Perhaps the Murphy Browns have more a chance of making change than June Cleaver. Which is fine. I'll take change from any corner.
Am I right? Who gets more respect? Married women or single? Which group has a better shot at making changes.
