For the most part, the media coverage of the recent Pew Research study on the changing gender balance in household earnings has been pretty odd. As I ranted about on the live show, no less than three media outlets decided to frame the new study by pointing out that marriage is now much more beneficial to men than ever before. Making this study about men is like making the Tiger Woods story about the tree. Sure that’s what got hit, but is it really the lead?

Given how brain-dead most reporting is these days (warmed over press-releases anyone?), I’m guessing that the reporters for mainstream media all went with the angle that was pitched to them by the study’s authors.  Why would the authors try to make this about men?  Maybe they were fishing around for controversy to get greater pickup.  I understand the strategy. But I think this angle did the interesting data a disservice.

A much better analysis of the report can be found in this Sunday’s NYTime’s Style section. Tara Parker-Pope’s article is a solid piece of thinking on the subject. I only have one quibble: why is the dynamic of mom bringing home more income always illustrated with the story of a stay at home dad? I guess a family decision to have dad stay home because he earns less is the most dramatic illustration of this emerging family structure.  While I think that it is really important to give primary caretaker dads their due, the more pervasive impact is probably a lot more subtle.

Two income families are reforming, adapting to the new reality by changing how they get by every day.  Husbands and wives are re-imagining their roles and finding a new equation of co-operation every day in a way that’s more complex than just having one parent or the other stay at home to care for the kids.  Stay at home dads are one sign, but I’m still waiting for somebody to dig a little deeper to tell the story of the guys I know.