On Jan. 16, The New York Times reported on its front page that for the first time in history, more than half (51 percent) of American women were living without spouses. The story, supposedly based on a Times in-house analysis of U.S. census statistics, pissed me off because it was completely class-biased, billed as a good news sociological piece about middle aged divorcees liberated from nagging hubbies. The article completely ignored the staggering difficulty of being a working poor single mother. Anyhow, yesterday I happened upon the Times' public editor column, which I've been mostly ignoring since the staid Byron Calame took over last year from the feisty Daniel Okrent. But the headline--"Can a 15-Year Old Be a 'Woman Without a Spouse?'"--caught my attention. It turns out that the entire "51 percent" hook was a total misrepresentation, and relied upon including in the figure girls as young as 15 and students living in dorms, among other groups of young women who we wouldn't traditionally expect or encourage to be married. In any case, I don't know why Times editors get such hard-ons for these kinds of stretch-the-evidence trend pieces--especially when they have to do with the state of the American woman.

Did you hear that biodegradable weddings are totally in this season? Yeah, I read that in the Style section.