The C is for Crank
Seattle Best for Moms? Kinda.
Via the PI: The Daily Beast has ranked
US cities based on which are best and worst for moms, and found that---despite Seattle's relative childlessness (we're second to last in the number of households with kids under 18)---Seattle ranks as the fourth best city to be a mom in the nation.
Well, kinda. If you actually look at the criteria the Daily Beast included in its "Best for Moms" list, it becomes clear that what they're really talking about is the best cities for white, upper-class moms in two-income families---a fact the PI somehow missed in their report on the annual ranking.
Of the criteria the Daily Beast considered---the number of child care workers per child, the number of moms per capita, the availability of obstetrics and gynecology or maternal and fetal medicine specialists, the number of hair salons and restaurants offering brunch per mother, and the quality of public education---only one, the quality of public education, could plausibly be said to apply to both wealthy mothers and poor ones. (That's leaving aside the fact that a per-capita measure in a city with few moms is inevitably going to be skewed).
Poor moms and single moms (85 percent of single parents are women) aren't likely to be able to afford "pampering" visits to salons, or the leisure time to enjoy a long Sunday brunch with friends, or send their kids to formal day care (where, by the way, many of the workers are likely to be poor single moms themselves), or to have the health-care coverage required to access costly specialists in maternity, gynecological, and post-natal care.
So sure, if you're upper-middle-class, Seattle's a great place to be a mom (or, for that matter, a homeowner, or an employee, or someone with a hobby like boating). If you're not, though, like many other expensive cities on the Daily Beast's list, tough luck.
Happy Mother's Day.
Well, kinda. If you actually look at the criteria the Daily Beast included in its "Best for Moms" list, it becomes clear that what they're really talking about is the best cities for white, upper-class moms in two-income families---a fact the PI somehow missed in their report on the annual ranking.
Of the criteria the Daily Beast considered---the number of child care workers per child, the number of moms per capita, the availability of obstetrics and gynecology or maternal and fetal medicine specialists, the number of hair salons and restaurants offering brunch per mother, and the quality of public education---only one, the quality of public education, could plausibly be said to apply to both wealthy mothers and poor ones. (That's leaving aside the fact that a per-capita measure in a city with few moms is inevitably going to be skewed).
Poor moms and single moms (85 percent of single parents are women) aren't likely to be able to afford "pampering" visits to salons, or the leisure time to enjoy a long Sunday brunch with friends, or send their kids to formal day care (where, by the way, many of the workers are likely to be poor single moms themselves), or to have the health-care coverage required to access costly specialists in maternity, gynecological, and post-natal care.
So sure, if you're upper-middle-class, Seattle's a great place to be a mom (or, for that matter, a homeowner, or an employee, or someone with a hobby like boating). If you're not, though, like many other expensive cities on the Daily Beast's list, tough luck.
Happy Mother's Day.
