Reply
Mon 28 Aug, 2006 05:16 pm
Quote:Forbes Article: 'Don't Marry Career Women'
Magazine Pulls Article Then Replaces It
POSTED: 2:23 pm EDT August 25, 2006
A magazine that usually sticks to drumming up lists of the world's richest men and exploring every angle of the American rat race is causing quite a stir on the Internet.
In a controversial article by Michael Noer, the writer breaks it down to unmarried men: "Whatever you do, don't marry a career woman."
Why?
"To put it bluntly, the more successful she is, the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you," Noer said. "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."
This isn't a conclusion that would make all men happy, given that men are often attracted to women who have similar aspirations.
Noer cited studies in various journals that say the professional woman is a woman who has a college degree, works at least 35 hours a week and therefore earns more than $30,000 a year. He said she's more likely to get divorced and cheat on her husband with co-workers. She will be either angry about having kids or angry about not having kids, Noer said.
Noer argued that marriage is hardest when both partners work outside the home, and that research shows divorce is more likely the more hours a woman works.
Conversely, the same is not true of a man's workload.
Many are calling the article outrageous. The response online was quick, and in most cases, brutal.
Hundreds of postings popped up in online chat rooms.
"I can't even imagine what would make someone say that. It's a throwback to the '70s, '60s or '50s and it's mindboggling," said one woman.
One blog called it "blood-boilingly misogynistic."
Forbes.com removed the article, later reposting it, accompanied by another article, from a happily married female Forbes writer who's worked for more than 20 years.
But for many, the damage was already done.
"This article highlights the epitome of male insecurity," another woman said. "I guess there are still men out there who want their women to just sit and look pretty. How prehistoric and irresponsible of Forbes to perpetuate this ideal."
source
This must be based on his own experiences
Thanks for the laugh, Reyn.
I can see why women would be offended by this article, but the thesis is not too preposterous. It may not be right, but I don't see how anyone can know that it is wrong without investigating.
Quote:Noer argued that marriage is hardest when both partners work outside the home, and that research shows divorce is more likely the more hours a woman works.
This was certainly true for me. The more unhappy I became in my first marriage, the more I buried myself in work. By the time we separated I was spending an average of 12 to 14 hours a day at the lab. Imagine my surprise in discovering within weeks of living on my own that I could complete my tasks and leave in a standard 8 - 9 hour work day.
It might very well be true that there is a strong correlation between divorce rates and hours worked, but strong correlations do not equate to cause and effect.
Interesting - I'll read the articles before I come back.
I wonder what the a2k network will make of this, too.
KP
(Historically, I've always attracted to career women!)
Phoenix32890 wrote:Today's women HAVE choices, and do not have to stay in a marriage that they despise, out of economic necessity. As a result, it is far easier for a woman to opt out of a bad marriage.
Yes....and no. I'll grant you that conditions are better, but economics have changed, too.
The price of everything has gone up, and wages haven't. You need a good job to be able to pay for it all. It still means that probably a woman needs to find a situation with
someone to share expenses.
Come on, though... if the 'little woman' is no longer satisfied with her boring humdrum life of washing clothes and preparing yummy tuna casseroles for the "Head of the Household", surely he has kept pace with her and no longer wishes for a vacuous mate who only converses about soap operas and neighbourhood goings-on.
Some men may be a little behind the times, but so are some women. I find most men appreciate the extras that a stimulated woman brings to the table, such as conversation, an appreciation for his efforts, someone to really share the load. I don't think I even know a man who'd go back to yesterday.
That's why I was laughing... this guy's a little anachronistic.
Mame
That's the view I've always taken - I'd rather have an equal than a contractual relationship with a concierge/nanny/cook/sexual companion.
For me, intelligence is the most important element. Whether this translates into "ambition to succeed" in a male sense of "measurable achievement at work" is less certain.
My friends who are career women of some "success" (e.g. investment banker, barrister) have told me of the difficulty they have in finding men who are prepared to deal with a woman who is equally/more accomplished, intelligent and highly paid, which I think is a great pity.
KP
I always wonder what people mean when they say 'career woman' - I mean, I've worked all my life and have a good job, but I wouldn't say I was a 'career woman'...
On the other hand, I guess if you have a profession that's what you'd be called.
Do you think it's a question of priorities?
Do women go for men who are socioeconomically inferior to them, generally speaking, though?
Mame wrote:Come on, though... if the 'little woman' is no longer satisfied with her boring humdrum life of washing clothes and preparing yummy tuna casseroles for the "Head of the Household", surely he has kept pace with her and no longer wishes for a vacuous mate who only converses about soap operas and neighbourhood goings-on.
Some men may be a little behind the times, but so are some women. I find most men appreciate the extras that a stimulated woman brings to the table, such as conversation, an appreciation for his efforts, someone to really share the load. I don't think I even know a man who'd go back to yesterday.
That's why I was laughing... this guy's a little anachronistic.
For reporting a study in a magazine???
Brandon9000 wrote:Mame wrote:Come on, though... if the 'little woman' is no longer satisfied with her boring humdrum life of washing clothes and preparing yummy tuna casseroles for the "Head of the Household", surely he has kept pace with her and no longer wishes for a vacuous mate who only converses about soap operas and neighbourhood goings-on.
Some men may be a little behind the times, but so are some women. I find most men appreciate the extras that a stimulated woman brings to the table, such as conversation, an appreciation for his efforts, someone to really share the load. I don't think I even know a man who'd go back to yesterday.
That's why I was laughing... this guy's a little anachronistic.
For reporting a study in a magazine???
He wasn't reporting a study, he was reporting on several studies. And for every study that said A, there's another that said B, so he's selecting the studies with the results he wants for HIS article.
I could make just as good an argument for my viewpoint, and I'm sure the studies would be out there to back me up.
As a child growing up in the 1960's I remember a few of my mother's friends saying they literally couldn't afford to leave their husbands. If they went to college they mostly had degrees in things like English or History, most only worked briefly as secretaries or shop girls before getting married. I think there is some confusion about career women vs. financially independent women. Plenty of poor women would get divorced if they suddenly won the lottery or received an inheritance. Having worked with abused women at one time I can tell you the main reason women stay is because they do not have the financial resources to safely get away. Give an abused woman some money and a enough bus tickets for her and her children and she will be gone. A so called career woman has money and therefore she has choices other women might not have.
Looks like all fingers are pointing towards finding myself a pretty little Japanese bride from the internet.
WOMAN! BEER! NOW!
Phoenix32890 wrote:I agree that in many cases a couple needs to have two incomes in order to live the way that their parents did on one. But that situation causes a change in the balance of power. Women no longer have to come to their husbands for money. Many have an equal say in how the money coming into the home will be spent.
I wasn't necessarily thinking of husband-wife situations, but rather room-mate-significant other kind of deals.
A classic situation are those who have McJobs, etc.
As we all know, I'm older than sin, and so was in on a lot of decades worth of changes. Phoenix and I are age peers. I was the one who actually tossed out Betty Friedan's book because I disagreed. (oh, god, to re-walk the walk). I wanted to marry someone I admired enough to obey (blush).
I've had at least three lives of mild worklife interest, but have always been someone outside of that, within marriage or out of it.
The author has his head in an amusingly contortive positon.
And yes, infrablue, I married a man who didn't earn much money for many years, or only sporadically, because of his brain and heart. Very interesting man, I still like him, though of course I'm still pissed as hell, mostly at myself. I get tired of reading about how experts say females select.
Yeah, me too. Some of it is interesting -- a lot of it is useless.
One of the aspects that make me most irritated is the methodology --> reportage of these things.
Say there are 10 women and 10 men. They're asked what their favorite colors are. 2 women say "yellow." 4 women say "red". 4 women say "blue". 2 men say "red." 4 men say "yellow." 4 men say "blue." The headlines read,
"MEN HATE RED, WOMEN HATE YELLOW"
There might be leanings one way or the other in the two demographic groups, but these things are nearly always made so damn monolithic. There are usually a whole lot of people who break whatever "rule" is being touted.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace