Apparently, You Can Beat a Dead Horse

Caitlin Flanagan by way of Time Magazine has given us yet another inane, inaccurate and downright insulting matrimaniacal article. A few highlights:

“There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and  human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage.” Hmmm…I can think of some other things causing human misery: Poverty, lack of affordable healthcare, the toxicity levels in our food and water, terrorism, war….feel free to add to this list, dear readers.

“…[I]n all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.” Bella DePaulo did a brilliant job of explaining how this is bullshit…for the 47,874th time!

Regarding lifelong marriage: “We want something like that for ourselves; we recognize that it is something of great worth, but we are increasingly less willing to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice to get there.” So unmarried couples are just phoning it in?

“A lasting marriage is the reward, usually, of hard work and self-sacrifice.” But how much of yourself do you have to sacrifice to make a marriage/relationship work? Eventually you can get to a point where you don’t recognize yourself anymore.

“What is the purpose of marriage? Is it…simply an institution that has the capacity to increase the pleasure of adults…[o]r is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function: to raise the next generation…” Is it impossible for these people to imagine that many people just aren’t interested in raising children?

Basic translation of this piece: I am better than you because I am married with children. My life has more value than yours, you single barren sluts  and miserable welfare queens.

Anyone else tired of these Smug Married Suburban Soccer Bitches? I know I am.

2 responses to “Apparently, You Can Beat a Dead Horse

  1. Methinks the lady (meaning the woman from Time) doth “support” too much! Poor thing.

    But yeah, I’m pretty sick of it myself!

  2. It would be slightly less annoying if they were saying something new, but they are just recycling the same old inaccurate conclusions from a handful of questionable studies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s