Plenty of loser men out there. Low expectations do not help.
And plenty of decent sorts who are in a tight spot due to the economy and our country's policy of flooding the labor market.
More like, lack of reward for useful adult males is the problem. Many of the "useless males" are reacting rationally to a society which no longer rewards the behavior it used to.
Indeed. An objective and secular evaluation of the risks/rewards and costs/benefits on the economic, social, intra-family, and legal front would suggest staying single and getting a vasectomy. Luckily for the rest of us, not all "useful"(1) adult males so evaluate their relationships.
“I can support myself. I always have. I can support myself and our kid. I just can’t support myself, the kid, and him.”
The text of the article says otherwise, what with the help from parents and the buttload of welfare benefits the author extolls for giving women freedom. Given that I am a taxpayer, I would rather see her in a less than perfect relationship as a married family that can support itself than as a tax-dollar hoovering duo.
So essentially the take-away here from the article is that: "ZOMG! White women in the bottom half of the economic ladder are now starting to have the same poor odds of finding/keeping a suitable male partner that black women have had starting with LBJ's 'Great Society' in 1964."
Did I get that right?
Pretty much. Such is "progress" in this day and age.
(1) "Useful" as defined by the main character in the piece seems defined as "What can he do for Lilly?" I wonder if these sorts think about how they might be deemed "useful" to squared away eligible men? Might start with not getting pregnant with some loser's kiddo.