<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" 
     xmlns:db="http://www.w3.org"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:ysrv="http://www.campusprogress.org">
  <channel>
    <title>Posts with the tag Motherhood</title>
    <link>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/tag_rss/Motherhood/html</link>
    <description></description>
                        <item>
            <title>Another Unsubstantiated Trend Piece</title>
            <description>&lt;p&gt;On Jan. 16, &lt;em&gt;The&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;New York Times&lt;/em&gt; 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, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/Dana/C3zz&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;pissed &lt;/a&gt;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. &lt;em&gt;Anyhow&lt;/em&gt;, yesterday I happened upon the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;&amp;#39; public editor &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/opinion/11pubed.html?_r=1&amp;amp;n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor&amp;amp;oref=slogin&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;column&lt;/a&gt;, which I&amp;#39;ve been mostly ignoring since the staid &lt;strong&gt;Byron Calame&lt;/strong&gt; took over last year from the feisty Daniel Okrent. But the headline--&amp;quot;Can a 15-Year Old Be a &amp;#39;Woman Without a Spouse?&amp;#39;&amp;quot;--caught my attention. It turns out that the entire &amp;quot;51 percent&amp;quot; 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&amp;#39;t traditionally expect or encourage to be married. In any case, I don&amp;#39;t know why &lt;em&gt;Times &lt;/em&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did you hear that biodegradable weddings are totally in this season? Yeah, I read that in the Style section. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
            <link>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/Dana/C3kz</link>
            <comments>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/Dana/C3kz/commentary#comments</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:28:48 EST</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/Dana/C3kz</guid>
            <dc:creator>Dana Goldstein</dc:creator>
                        <db:profile>
                <db:picture>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/profile_picture/c288e909ec3d8e9238_gyqmv26ig.jpg</db:picture>
                <db:author_name>Dana Goldstein</db:author_name>
                <db:school>Campus Progress</db:school>
            </db:profile>
            <db:comment_count>82</db:comment_count>
            <wfw:commentRss>http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/comment_rss/C3kz/</wfw:commentRss>
        </item>
      </channel>
</rss>