"Don't Marry Career Women"

Liar

now with 17% more class
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Posts
43,715
Today's talkie on the blogosphere. An opinion piece posted on Forbes, and then mysteriously pulled by editors, in an effort to bury the embarrassment as deeply as possible.

As such, it's my duty to spread it around, and I hope you get a chuckle out of this silly sexist-ish slugging below.

------------------------

Don't Marry Career Women
by Michael Noer
Forbes.com
August 21, 2006

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, 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. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

In Pictures: Nine Reasons To Steer Clear Of Career Women
Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. 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).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. 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.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."

There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.
 
Every woman on this planet (just about) makes more money than me, so I don't sweat it.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
But how well do they (we) fuck?
I'm pretty sure well educated women fuck better. Minimally I know they tend to be more open to sexual kink!

I think Forbes took down that article after the trouble it's caused in internetland.
 
Oh, God, ANOTHER stereotype! Fucking stupidity. Regarding their stats, let me remind you of what Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." It's more complex than their simplistic notion. And it's embarrassing. Some career women are like that. Some are not. And what kind of career do they mean, anyway? Fucking stupid! Some homemaker types are good, some are not, too. It's not what your career is that counts. People are individuals. Stop generalizing so damned much!
 
Well, suffice it to say, I disagree both with the fundamental statistics involved and with the implications thereof (which would be wholly unacceptable for a modern society, even if the statistics were accurate).

It is an interesting article to read the subtext of, at least.
 
My wife is one year older than me, two inches taller than me, has twice as many graduate degrees as me, and makes two times as much money as me...and it's all 100% turn-on, thank you very fuckin' much.
 
Having lived that article, I find it entirely reasonable. My ex took up with co-workers, complained about the house being messy, made more than I did and thought that her success was entirely due to her own efforts, despite the fact that we moved to different cities four times in eight years to allow her to progress in her job. My failure to keep pace was an indication of my weakness.

I take exception to the disparaging remarks about studies and statistics. Statistics aren't an argument, that you can agree or disagree with. Statistics are evidence for one argument or another. They don't purport to describe all individuals in a given group; a single instance of someone that doesn't fit the trend doesn't negate the finding entirely.

What findings cited by the article are so counter-intuitive? Does it surprise anyone that homes of 2-earner couples are messier? Or that people who get divorced have higher incidence of depression?

The cavalier attitude that the reader is male and considering marriage is a bit presumptous, but Forbes knows its readership better than I do. :rolleyes:

Isn't this pretty much the same thing Maureen Dowd wrote a whiney book about recently?
 
Well, I can speak to a lot of this, but not quite all of it.

My husband and I don't have children so all of the "kids are happier if..." stuff is not relevant to my situation.

But...

The other issues are very relevant and have the potential to create all sorts of problems. But we deal with them.

My husband and I are equally well educated (BA degrees from the same college since that's where we met).

I make about 3 times as much as he does but it's not quite a fair comparison since he is a teacher and only works 10 months per year. Also, he has all of the benefits (health insurance etc.) and he has a pension plan whereas I have to put aside money on my own. Still, even if you factor that in, I still make more than twice what he does.

I am also president of my own company (OK, so I don't actually have any employees but I do have a bunch of subcontractors that I work with and order around from time to time).

We felt the effects of this (the income part at least) as soon as we were out of college. At first, I just assumed it wasn't going to be a problem. But, without realizing it, I fell into many of the traps that "traditional men" fall into. I made financial decisions without consulting Bill and I had this unconscious assumption that I had more of a right to decide things because I was the one earning most of the money.

It had an emasculating effect on him, one that he wasn't even aware of at first. It also left me feeling a kind of emptiness in our relationship that I couldn't understand or describe.

Anyway, to make a long story short (and I fear it is way to late for that) it took us a year or two to realize that the economic imbalance in our relationship left him feeling used and left me feeling like there was no romance in my life.

We got lucky, instead of trying to get our needs met outside the relationship, we experimented with D/s and S/M, although we didn't realize that that was what we were doing at the time. In actuality, I encouraged him to "put me on my back" more often and dominate me in other ways, including a lot of the SM stuff that you will find in my stories (yes, that was a shameless plug... deal with it :rolleyes: ).

Over time, we became more directly conscious of it and actually talked about it, worked at it and learned more about "real" BDSM, although we have really cherry-picked BDSM.

Now, please understand: I am not saying that I have to be more submissive to my husband because I make more money than he does. In fact, I see it as a positive thing. The power that I have from my career *allows* me the *luxury* of being more submissive and allows me to enjoy being dominated by my husband.

I don't have to worry about being taken advantage of in our relationship so it allows me to let go and enjoy the thrill of being dominated. It also allows Bill "show me who wears the pants in the family" without having to feel like he is taking advantage of me.

Yes, I am grossly oversimplifying our relationship but that's kinda necessary since you can't describe an 11 year marriage in a single post.

What I am trying to say (and I hope I am saying it with some kind of clarity) is that, as a strong career woman, I can understand and agree with a lot of what the article is saying. The reason it isn't a problem for me is because my husband and I are conscious of it and work at it.
 
My ex took up with co-workers, complained about the house being messy, made more than I did and thought that her success was entirely due to her own efforts, despite the fact that we moved to different cities four times in eight years to allow her to progress in her job. My failure to keep pace was an indication of my weakness.

I would think that career people are sometimes susceptible to this attitude regardless of their gender, wouldn't you agree?
 
Oblimo said:
I would think that career people are sometimes susceptible to this attitude regardless of their gender, wouldn't you agree?


Yeah, I think it has much more to do with the "career" part than the "woman" part...

:eek:
 
moral from angela's piece,

i[f] you take up with a career woman, make sure she's kinky, esp. "subby"--and if she's not, better get her into it in a hurry.

a good whipping of the woman clears the air wonderfully-- put that in your stats!
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
moral from angela's piece,

i you take up with a career woman, make sure she's kinky, esp. "subby"--and if she's not, better get her into it in a hurry.

a good whipping of the woman clears the air wonderfully-- put that in your stats!

*chuckle*

You CAN make a choice to embody either the masculine or the feminine in a relationship... often our "balanced" and "equal" relationships leave our sex lives as bland as oatmeal... it's the law of polarity. You need two opposite poles to attract. It doesn't matter who is embodying one or the other, just as long as someone is. I can see how the D/S power play would bring the spice back to a relationship, as it mirrors those poles.
 
for all the complaints above, i see no reason to doubt the general drift of the statistics cited.

as the old song goes, HOW YA GONNA KEEP 'EM DOWN ON THE FARM (AFTER THEY'VE SEEN GAY PAREE)
 
Last edited:
It isn't better for men to marry women who don't care about a career, but it sure is more comfortable.

Imagine: a high-school dropout who works in the cash register at your local Try N' Save. She's got no education, she has no experience, she doesn't know what to demand of society, nor does she know how to ask for it.
How easy it is for a shrewd man to make her believe that she should be glad and grateful that he takes care of all the boring, complicated things like economy and stuff.
If she makes much less than him, she'll be less inclined to divorce him, because she can't afford to support herself and perhaps her kids (supposing she gets custody); nor has she any idea of what she needs to do to improve her economy, because he has always taken care of those things for her.
She grows more and more dependant of him. She has to stick to him, even if the marriage isn't working. He may treat her like a maid, he may cheat on her, he may be crippling her every option - she'll stay with him, because he has her tied down.

Imagine: a career woman with a diploma from a university. She has the education, the knowledge, the experience, and she won't get pushed around. She knows her rights. She knows what she deserves, and how to demand it. If the man doesn't treat her like an equal, she'll leave him and find someone who WILL. She won't be afraid to do it, because she'll have a job that pays enough to support herself - and her kids, supposing she gets custody.

In other words - career women are harder to please, because they demand to get as much as they give. Ergo, a relationship with a career woman will be stimulating for a man, but not as easy and comfortable!
 
SelenaKittyn said:
You CAN make a choice to embody either the masculine or the feminine in a relationship... often our "balanced" and "equal" relationships leave our sex lives as bland as oatmeal... it's the law of polarity. You need two opposite poles to attract. It doesn't matter who is embodying one or the other, just as long as someone is. I can see how the D/S power play would bring the spice back to a relationship, as it mirrors those poles.

Oh so many problems with that, where to begin?

Pure said:
for all the complaints above, i see no reason to doubt the general drift of the statistics cited.

as the old song goes, HOW YA GONNA KEEP 'EM DOWN ON THE FARM (AFTER THEY'VE SEEN GAY PAREE)

I can't say I know that song, but it does sound appropriate to the topic at hand.

Svenskaflicka said:
Imagine: a high-school dropout who works in the cash register at your local Try N' Save. She's got no education, she has no experience, she doesn't know what to demand of society, nor does she know how to ask for it.
How easy it is for a shrewd man to make her believe that she should be glad and grateful that he takes care of all the boring, complicated things like economy and stuff.
If she makes much less than him, she'll be less inclined to divorce him, because she can't afford to support herself and perhaps her kids (supposing she gets custody); nor has she any idea of what she needs to do to improve her economy, because he has always taken care of those things for her.
She grows more and more dependant of him. She has to stick to him, even if the marriage isn't working. He may treat her like a maid, he may cheat on her, he may be crippling her every option - she'll stay with him, because he has her tied down.

I see you've met my old neighbours...
 
Sadly I won't ever make enough money in my job for this to be a problem (my unemployed boyfriend who does occassional temp work brings in more money than me!).

I can kinda see what they mean in the article but I think it relys on generalization too much.

Elsie :rose:

xxx
 
I agree with the people who look at this article and say it's all too stereotypical. It just depends on the individual people.

My parents both made a lot of money in their careers-- I never knew who made more, but I suspect it was mom. Both of them cooked a lot of meals and ran kids to sports events and such while the other worked late or was out of town. Friday night was always "kids go away" night, because they spent it alone together. The thing I remember most was, whenever a large bonus or a bigger check came in, they'd be yelling something like "WhooHoo! We are GOING to the Caribbean this year!" (or getting the new car they'd wanted or whatever else their common goal that year was). Nobody ever pointed out just whose money was doing what though. Maybe that's why it worked for them-- they had common goals and approached everything like a money-making team?

I don't know. But I know it *can* work as long as there is no power struggle involved. I think the trouble comes in when the couple sees their money earning as some sort of a competition, or when the woman forgets to be a wife because she starts to see herself as the head of the family after she begins making money. I say that because the lady next door was a power-hungry career bitch that made her husband cower like a mouse beneath her. What a pitiful example of a woman (and a man!) Those two were a divorce just waiting to happen.
 
I was with you until:

nyte_byrd said:
<snip>...when the woman forgets to be a wife because she starts to see herself as the head of the family after she begins making money. <snip>

WTF? Please explain exactly how a wife should be, lest we forget, and why shouldn't a woman be the head of the family?

:rolleyes:
 
cloudy said:
I was with you until:
WTF? Please explain exactly how a wife should be, lest we forget, and why shouldn't a woman be the head of the family?
:rolleyes:

Do you not see a wife as someone who should give her man comfort? (assuming that he is a good man). Or someone who should nurture her children? If you read the section of my post that was right after that, you'll see exactly what I mean.

All I'm saying is that I've seen first hand how SOME (not ALL) career women begin to treat their men like dirt, no matter what he does to please her, because she is so full of her own accomplishments that she doesn't feel the need to be comforting nor to show any respect to the man. Many have little to no interest in their kids either (as was the case with that woman). Everything had to be her way, with no "middle ground," because SHE was the boss of everything.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but in many cultures even educated women act on the gentler side, and they take no shame in it.
 
And how do I fit in? I'd love to find a husband who makes enough money so I can stay home, raise kids, take care of the home and write. I don't seem to fit into their statistics. How typical of me.
 
*threadjack*

Cloudy

Pets : other?

Is that the snake?

Ken

*end of threadjack*
 
Back
Top