I don't like the use of the word "obvious" because of the pejorative connotations, but to me it seemed pretty self-evident when reading for effect (rather than the read-for-"content" that seems more common around here) that this piece should be taken as self-reflective and more than a little ironic. It's all the little things: word choice, framing of all the characters (author, father, author's husband, brother, brother's wife), and in particular the structure of the ending. It's the sort of thing you read in English Comp classes to recognize those signposts; if it's something that isn't regularly apparent to you, maybe it's a subject worth exploring further.
It was clear in its particularly East Coast Smug sort of literary omphaloskepsis. It isn't as easy as it reads to project a constant sense of superiority while pretending to be self-critical. I see the framing choice as a way to separate the author from any potential agency, a story viewed from behind glass, immutable. This conveniently absolves her of needing to actually grow, and the messiness inherent in the process.
//
(Please note this is in no way a criticism of you, or your point, with which I agree. But my experiences as a person who didn't live in the states until I was a teen give me... strong opinions about children who refuse to understand the deep sacrifices made to give them a shot (and that's what it is, just a shot) at a better life, no guarantees.)
