The religious difference—he is Roman Catholic, she is Jewish—posed no
problem. The real gap between them, both say, is more subtle: Mr. Croteau
comes from the working class, and Ms. Woolner from money.
The husband is a high school dropout
and a car salesman. The wife, the daughter of a doctor and a dancer, is educated
and wealthy. According to NYT, this is a problem because "in a quiet way,
people who marry across class lines are also moving outside their comfort zones,
into the uncharted territory of partners with a different level of wealth and
education, and often, a different set of assumptions about things like manners,
food, child-rearing, gift-giving and how to spend vacations."
I thought four things as I read this:
- Pretty much every man marries out of his league. Adam did. I did. A good
wife makes a man better than he ever could have been without her, no matter
how much money she has.
- The title of the article is A Marriage of Unequals with the subhead When
Richer Weds Poorer, Money Isn’t the Only Difference. Maybe it’s just
because I come from a working class background, but that strikes me as
a little offensive. Hasn’t the Times received enough bad press
for its hidden bias without baldly spelling it out on the front page?
- If a religious difference is
no problem (especially between a Catholic and a Jew) , then there’s no
real religious difference. Why even bring it up?
- How is this news? Or even a human interest feature story? Every couple
in the world has to move into the uncharted territory of partners who did
I come from
similar backgrounds, and we’ve had to make some painful adjustments
to our habits and assumptions.
My World Studies professor in college was a conservative Christian. He required
us to read the NYT every day because, despite its liberal slant, it was still
the finest news reporting organization in the country. I really don’t think
that’s true any more.