DON''T MARRY CAREER WOMEN - says Forbes

[decodelighted]

Oh, you''re gonna love this choice article lady Pscopers!

Among the genius quotes:

"recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it."

"For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year. If a host of studies are to be believed,
marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research)."

Ummm. No words.

 

[galeteia]

At first I got all annoyed, but then I read this last gem in the slideshow and had to laugh: "wives working longer hours not do not have adequate time to monitor their husband's health and healthy behavior, to manage their husband's emotional well-being or buffer his workplace stress."

Because, obviously, men aren't adults and therefore need to have this done for them.

I love how this whole article manages to mention an important factor only once: "wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."

Meaning if your husband is a useless lump/abusive/a cheater/etc, you have the resources to walk away, unlike women who are depedent on their husbands.

 

[CaptAubrey]

It makes some sense when you consider this part of the article:

In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

It''s not so much that having a career = divorce but that marriages in which both partners work are more stressful.

Plus, let''s keep this in perspective--they''re talking about broad social trends, which don''t equate to predictions of success or failure for a specific marriage.

 

[partgypsy]

I don''t like those articles because I would fit the career women definition.
These are generalizations, and don''t describe what happen in any particular marriage.
There is some truth about what Capt Aubrey was saying; in my relationship I am the primary breadwinner, while my partner is the "house husband". It works out great since we are both not working full time (he works once a week). I still do some cleaning, house work, but can work late and know my child is in great hands, also come home to home cooked meals, He enjoys cooking, house projects, loves being at home with his daughter, and since not exhausted with full time job can in the evening work on his art in his studio or music with his bands.
It''s all a matter of the two people being happy with the division of labor, that it be equitable (not necessarily equal)
not what the particular division of labor happens to be.

 

[FireGoddess]

The writer seems like a male chauvinist pig.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 8/23/2006 12:08:21 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
Plus, let''s keep this in perspective--they''re talking about broad social trends, which don''t equate to predictions of success or failure for a specific marriage.

Ummm...you''re right: they''re not predicting, the title of the article ENTREATS men NOT TO MARRY CAREER WOMEN. It''s a "call to action"!

Forbes''ll never get another cent of this career gal''s impulse-purchase-magazine-stand-checkout $$.

 

[lizz]

This is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

 

[fatafelice]

Date: 8/23/2006 11:48:20 AM
Author:decodelighted

''For our purposes, a ''career girl'' has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

I could *ALMOST* get it if they were talking about women who work for Fortune 500 companies with 12+ hour days and travel, etc, but the above standard would apply to nearly every woman I know, including all the teachers. You have got to be kidding me.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 8/23/2006 12:39:04 PM
Author: lizz

This is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY!! I also find it so HILARIOUS that men reading it wouldn't be INSULTED too! It basically implies that

--The only reason women would want to be married to a MAN is for financial support
--The only reason a woman would stay with any particular MAN is lack of cheating options!
--MEN can't take care of their own health
--MEN can only convince women w/o higher education** to bear their children/love them/ stay with them
--MEN can only be happy/healthy in a relationship if they HOLD ALL THE POWER.

The dark-ages called, they want their handbook back.

**Edited for clarification (the implication that women w/o higher education are STUPID existed in the article, and is def not MY opinion)

 

[Christa]

I''m pretty sure the title was meant to be kind of tongue-in-cheek, don''t you think? The article was about studies that have been done, not someone''s random unfounded opinion. Rather than be insulted, I''d like to think I''d take it as a heads-up about possible marriage pitfalls, if I was a "career woman" . . . which I''m not.

 

[Christa]

Date: 8/23/2006 12:48:04 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 8/23/2006 12:39:04 PM
Author: lizz

This is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY!! I also find it so HILARIOUS that men reading it wouldn''t be INSULTED too! It basically implies that

--The only reason women would want to be married to a MAN is for financial support
--The only reason a woman would stay with any particular MAN is lack of cheating options!
--MEN can''t take care of their own health
--MEN can only convince STUPID women to bear their children/love them/ stay with them
--MEN can only be happy/healthy in a relationship if they HOLD ALL THE POWER.

The dark-ages called, they want their handbook back.

Actually, if I was going to be insulted, it would be at the implication that I''m stupid because I don''t fit the definition of a career woman.

 

[Mara]

lol i posted it to greg and he pointed out the line where it said that driven career men typically married similar driven career minded women which meant they were headed for trouble (or something like that) and then he said well your aspirations are to be a couch soap-watching potato with bon bons. i said SEE we don't fit that bill. hahahaha!

it is interesting to watch the dynamics in a marriage change depending on career changes as well. since i have left corporate and gone into sales, i have more flex over my schedule and i spend more of it at home than i used to....therefore leading to nicer cooked meals for greg, more workout time for myself, more quality time with portia or a cleaner house or whatever. he's totally getting spoiled by all the extra attention and the extra meals and this and that and starting to 'expect' more than he did when i worked the same corporate kinda gig he did. the other night i didn't feel like doing anything in the kitchen and i said well let's just have soup or raviolis or something from the pantry (which is well stocked)...he said okay fine i guess and then i made him his soup and my darling piggy husband goes 'well where's my english muffin for the soup?!'...i was like 'IN THE PANTRY'...

...and i made him make his own while i made my dinner, and he groused for a full 5 minutes. i said SOMEONE is getting spoiled!!! so now i think i better make him help out more around the kitchen and stuff so that he doesn't turn into a caveman!

 

[Allisonfaye]

Date: 8/23/2006 2:08:20 PM
Author: Mara
lol i posted it to greg and he pointed out the line where it said that driven career men typically married similar driven career minded women which meant they were headed for trouble (or something like that) and then he said well your aspirations are to be a couch soap-watching potato with bon bons. i said SEE we don''t fit that bill. hahahaha!

it is interesting to watch the dynamics in a marriage change depending on career changes as well. since i have left corporate and gone into sales, i have more flex over my schedule and i spend more of it at home than i used to....therefore leading to nicer cooked meals for greg, more workout time for myself, more quality time with portia or a cleaner house or whatever. he''s totally getting spoiled by all the extra attention and the extra meals and this and that and starting to ''expect'' more than he did when i worked the same corporate kinda gig he did. the other night i didn''t feel like doing anything in the kitchen and i said well let''s just have soup or raviolis or something from the pantry (which is well stocked)...he said okay fine i guess and then i made him his soup and my darling piggy husband goes ''well where''s my english muffin for the soup?!''...i was like ''IN THE PANTRY''...

...and i made him make his own while i made my dinner, and he groused for a full 5 minutes. i said SOMEONE is getting spoiled!!! so now i think i better make him help out more around the kitchen and stuff so that he doesn''t turn into a caveman!

Yes, Mara, I see a similar effect here at my house. Although my husband helps out a LOT around the house, there are certain things he expects me to do and I get the impression that is entirely due to the fact that I have ovaries.

I agree with the poster who said this is not someone''s opinion and the article title was meant tongue in cheek.

I am not sure why everyone is so insulted at the results of a few studies. I don''t find this insulting at all. I quit my career to become a stay at home mom. I am happy most days. Are there days I feel like I would like to go back to work? You better believe it.

Maybe the odds are that I am more likely to get a divorce but some article isn''t going to worry me. In fact, quite the contrary. Maybe I will know what to watch out for.

 

[Mara]

yep allison, greg also does a ton around the house too and he helps with housecleaning and it''s his job to clean the kitchen if i cook, but yes sometimes there''s that one or two minutes where he acts like JUST because i''m the gal that somehow i''m supposed to be heating up the soup or the english muffin or whatever while he reads his paper. i''m like hey you have legs too buddy!!

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 8/23/2006 12:36:18 PM
Author: decodelighted

Ummm...you''re right: they''re not predicting, the title of the article ENTREATS men NOT TO MARRY CAREER WOMEN. It''s a ''call to action''!

Forbes''ll never get another cent of this career gal''s impulse-purchase-magazine-stand-checkout $$.

By "they," I was referring to the authors of the studies the article discusses, not Forbes. The article itself is pretty typical of what you get when you have non-scientists trying to draw conclusions by throwing together the results of a bunch of different studies, which may have had widely differing methodologies and may not be the least bit comparable.

Nevertheless, the studies they discuss should not be dismissed out of hand simply because the results may irritate.

 

[Kismet]

Heh, I read it and thought that they''re trying to scare women out of the workforce by insinuating that they won''t get married (or have a successful marriage) if they have a career. Obviously we''re taking over too many jobs and must be put in our place. :p

 

[Christa]

Date: 8/23/2006 2:20:30 PM
Author: Allisonfaye

Maybe the odds are that I am more likely to get a divorce but some article isn''t going to worry me. In fact, quite the contrary. Maybe I will know what to watch out for.

Exactly what I was trying to say--you did a much better job of it, though.

 

[sanfranciscoellen]

Sensationalist journalism at its best.

That said....

This topic is a can of worms that I hesitate to open. Unless it being served warm, with a nice toasted english muffin delivered with love by uber housefrau Mara.

But what the heck...I''ll say this...I think it is possible to recognize some validity in some of those studies without throwing your hands up and sending us all back to the 1950''s. We are just in a very confused place as a society, dealing with women''s issues, mother''s issues, working mother''s issues. Anyone read "A Perfect Madness?" it is very thought provoking.

My question isn''t whether or not it is true that all of the statistics exist that might support the traditional male-female dichotomy, or getting angry with the fact that the statistics always seem to favor this. My question is, how do we fix this? How do we even out the teeter-totter so that everyone has the option to pursue their career dreams, have a satisfying home life, and the children get enough attention when all is said and done?

Because I can tell you, after being married for 11 years and a mother for 8, and after watching friends, family, and distant acquaintances tussle over this issue as they marry and have children, there is no such thing as 50/50, at least not when kids arrive.

So rather than

or

, how do we as a society evolve past this? Or can we?

Oh my, I guess I dove into the worms

 

[movie zombie]

yes, wallermama, it is a can of worms.

there are only 24 hours in a day.....and we, both men and women, want it all: marriage, career, children. but each of those takes time and effort to maintain properly. so where does the time for each of these? something has to give somewhere.....and hopefully that giving is the recognition that there is a price to be paid by both husband and wife to ''have it all''.

a career usually requires more than 8 hours a day.
how many hours a day are required to raise a child?
how many hours a day are required to maintain a relationship?
how many hours a day are required to maintain ones own sanity?!
anyone want to get a few hours of sleep?!
everything is a trade off when there are only 24 hours in a day.

traditionally, men had it all. wealthy women could have it all as well. however, as more and more women from other class backgrounds entered the work force and wanted a go at having it all, there was a price to be paid. and many men while professing to support equality in the work place and in the home just don''t get it that that equality requires that they become more involved in the home.

it has only really been since the 1970''s that the women have entered the work force in numbers. it is unfair to expect that traditional roles will have changed so very much in that short amount of time. it is a fine thing to teach our daughters to be all they can be, but we also need to find a way to teach our sons how to be non-traditional, which includes but is not limited to child-rearing, relationship maintance, self-development, cleaning house, cooking, laundry, etc.....in other words, all those things that traditionally have fallen to the wife. face it: for most men its ok if you have a career as long as they don''t have to change or do anything much different. therefore, that change has to be in how men are raised so that their expectations regarding who is going to get the soup on or the muffin toasted isn''t even an issue, its a joint effort.

movie zombie

 

[sanfranciscoellen]

Hey, Movie Zombie! Give me back my brain! Or in other words, "YEAH! What she said!"



And, in all of this examination of what we want as individuals, I think often the needs of the kids get pushed aside. In this balance of how to spend our 24 hours, we''re all fighting over the same scraps, and the little ones can''t fight as hard. I feel that we waived our right to get everything we want as individuals when we became parents.

My husband and I often talk about this. As a very liberal feminist strong-headed gal, sometimes I say to myself, "Oh my god! I just made my husband a lunch to take to work! WHO AM I???" The difference for me, I guess, that keeps me from feeling like someone I don''t want to be, is that my husband doesn''t expect these things, and truly feels like I have given him a gift if I take the time to do something purely to help him out.

And I feel thankful that he drags his bod off to work when I am snuggled with the kids on the couch, still in my PJ''s. I''m so thankful that he recognizes that we are all in this together, even though we are doing two very different jobs.

It''s all about being cozy in the balance you strike, I guess. Work or no work, kids or no kids. We all have to find that balance.

 

[Christa]

Date: 8/23/2006 4:08:27 PM
Author: wallermama
Hey, Movie Zombie! Give me back my brain! Or in other words, ''YEAH! What she said!''



And, in all of this examination of what we want as individuals, I think often the needs of the kids get pushed aside. In this balance of how to spend our 24 hours, we''re all fighting over the same scraps, and the little ones can''t fight as hard. I feel that we waived our right to get everything we want as individuals when we became parents.

My husband and I often talk about this. As a very liberal feminist strong-headed gal, sometimes I say to myself, ''Oh my god! I just made my husband a lunch to take to work! WHO AM I???'' The difference for me, I guess, that keeps me from feeling like someone I don''t want to be, is that my husband doesn''t expect these things, and truly feels like I have given him a gift if I take the time to do something purely to help him out.

And I feel thankful that he drags his bod off to work when I am snuggled with the kids on the couch, still in my PJ''s. I''m so thankful that he recognizes that we are all in this together, even though we are doing two very different jobs.

It''s all about being cozy in the balance you strike, I guess. Work or no work, kids or no kids. We all have to find that balance.

Well said, Wallermama! We aren''t in competition with our men--if we''re doing it right, we''re a team, and the team has to come before either team member''s individual goals or dreams.

 

[decodelighted]

The website Gawker did a funny summary here ... now all we need is a Pop-Up book version & start spreading the word in elementary schools nationwide. Attention girls: stop listening to the teacher & start copying her makeup application techniques!


ETA: I appreciate the discussion of roles & compromise & what to do make things better - but I'm a little stuck in the fury right now. Because the article is so COMPLETELY slanted toward WOMEN as the troublemakers, the un-satisfied, the "too-smart-&-demanding for their own good".

 

[kcoursolle]

As one of these so-called "social scientists" he is talking about (I am currently working on a PhD in family sociology at a top ranked university)..I can say that he left out half of the story. While it is true that "career women" are less likely to marry, more likely to divorce, less likely to have children, etc...there is another side to this story, and as a man it's something Michael Noer really needs to acknowledge.

One MAJOR part he left out is that much of the divorce, cheating, and less children that occurs because of these terrible career women is that men are not stepping up to the plate and helping out with the housework and childcare (Hochschild "The Second Shift" and "The Time Bind" along with many journal articles I could site).

In our society women are finally able to earn a decent living and have a fulfilling career...the only catch? It's incredibly difficult for women to balance family, house, and career. Most men are still traditional in that they expect women to be the main caretakers of the house and children. Many researchers have found that dual earnings couples are less likely to divorce, more likely to have children, and more likely to report higher quality marriages, when the husband does an equal amount of household chores and child raising with the wife!!! Kudos to those men!!

Another part that he didn't mention...the counter argument to Becker. While Becker is a famous and well-respected economist, there is en entire other half of the academic literature that feels that aspects of Becker's "New Home Economics Theory" is outdated and not capturing recent family change.

For example, Researchers have found that increasingly today women's increased earnings have been seen as a positive trait towards men choosing a wife and this has increased over time. For example, men now look for women's earnings potential when choosing their wife because it's harder to exist on the man's earnings alone today (Sweeney (2002) "Two Decades of Family Change: The Changing Economic Foundations of Marrige" and Oppenheimer-Kincaid (198 "A Theory of Marriage Timing".


Poo on Michael Noer, not just for furthering the ideas that men can't help in the home and women should be taking care of them, but also for missing an entire other half of the academic literature!!!

Alas

...just another example that people in the popular media pick and choose what they want to from the academic literature without really stating the full story. Unfortunately, he will probably get much more attention than all of the scholars that produced the work he is citing, even though all he did was read the abstracts of a few articles that matched his article title. Professors in my department often get calls from newspaper and magazine authors that are writing a story and what an expert's opinion. They always dread the article coming out because the authors seem to have a title already picked out and pick and choose the professor's words that go with their title. It's an unfortunate aspect of the job.

 

[allycat0303]

Well I see some of myself in the article, so I don''t know if I can be offended.

I think everything is true in my case except for "more likely to cheat" and being unhappy if I make more money then my husband

. But I would hesitate to say that it''s because of I''m into my career, or just basic personality type.

So what if my house IS dirtier. I hate to clean, and I have no desire to be superwoman.

I think I take more exception to the fact that the article kind of assumes that these are "woman''s roles" I would hate to marry someone that assumed such tasks were delegated to woman and refused to help out. I really, really believe in 50/50 for household tasks. I do all the cooking (that includes the clean-up and packing his lunch)

He does everything else including laundry, cat litter, yard (home maintence) and passing the vacum, and cleaning the bathroom.

Alright that might seem unfair, but I have to cook 2 times a day. All the other tasks are somewhat sporadic. And even if it''s slightly unbalanced...I''m certinly not going to tell him

 

[Christa]

Hey everyone, take a deep breath . . . this article isn't an opinion piece, and no one is blaming women for this phenomenon. It is simply discussing a phenomenon that has been found to exist.

I don't know what life stage the people who have replied are at, but my guess is that most of those who are outraged have not yet experienced the demands of a career, marriage and kids all at once. Because of my life experience as a wife and full-time mom it seems obvious to me that I could not possibly expect my marriage and family to function as well as it does if I was out doing something else 10 hours a day.

Even as a stay-at-home mom it takes some doing to balance the kids against the marriage, so I'm way to wimpy to try to add a full-time job to the mix!

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 8/23/2006 4:24:40 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Alas

...just another example that people in the popular media pick and choose what they want to from the academic literature without really stating the full story. Unfortunately, he will probably get much more attention than all of the scholars that produced the work he is citing, even though all he did was read the abstracts of a few articles that matched his article title. Professors in my department often get calls from newspaper and magazine authors that are writing a store and what an expert''s opinion. They always dread the article coming out because the authors seem to have a title already picked out and pick and choose the professor''s words that go with their title. It''s an unfortunate aspect of the job.

My point exactly.

Mrs. Aubrey worked in academia before becoming a stay-at-home-mom (a mutual decision), and frequently complained about exactly the same thing. The trick these reporters frequently used was to listen to her answer, then reply, "So what you''re saying is... [fill in conclusion they want in the article]." If she was so incautious as to indicate any kind of assent, she would find herself quoted saying exactly that, even if it wasn''t what she had really said. When she stopped falling for that one and insisted on putting things her way, she stopped getting calls.

There''s a term in the publishing business for academics who will go along with this kind of thing: "Trained Seal." IOW, this is someone who will bark the way you want when you wave at them.

Frankly, the state of "science journalism" in this country is absolutely abysmal. I don''t know how some of these people look themselves in the mirror.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Hmmmm... as a woman who has TWO full time jobs, no children (but one verrrry bad dog), a husband who cooks (I do laundry), a clean house (thanks to my cleaning lady), and no desire (nor the energy) to cheat on or get divorced from my husband (who did just have heart surgery -- ought oh; maybe that was my fault somehow?

), I'm feeling pretty good about my life right now.

As for whether marrying me was asking for trouble--I'm sure my husband would state adamantely that it was!

 

[kcoursolle]

Christa, I fully agree with you. However, I also think that he should have considered the other half of the acdemic literature. He simply took what he wanted from it and wrote his story without acknowledging the other side. This is really what bothered me more than anything.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/23/2006 2:39:54 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

The article itself is pretty typical of what you get when you have non-scientists trying to draw conclusions by throwing together the results of a bunch of different studies, which may have had widely differing methodologies and may not be the least bit comparable.

A hearty AMEN to that!

 

[fire&ice]

Career women are not at home baking pies. We all know pies keep the peace!