Don't Marry Career Women - 9/5/06

Tue Sep 5 15:06:09 EDT 2006

- THE PERILS OF DUAL-CAREER MARRIAGES
- POINT: DON'T MARRY CAREER WOMEN
- COUNTERPOINT: DON'T MARRY A LAZY MAN
- MARRIAGE: UNSUCCESS STORY
- SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGES HELP BREED ECONOMIC VITALITY

###########################
- THE PERILS OF DUAL-CAREER MARRIAGES

MANY of you have asked why I didn't send the controversial Aug 22 Forbes.com
article "Don't Marry Career Women" to the list.  I thought it made such a
splash that you'd all see it.  Now I'm getting requests from people that
missed it and want to know if I can direct them to the original article or
want to know what I thought.  I was interviewed several times about the
original Forbes piece.  I said I thought it preformed a wonderful service in
identifying the weak spots/danger points for dual career marriages which
would help these couples better prepare and avoid the pitfalls.  I said that
time management is a huge issue for all couples so it makes sense that it's
an even more stressful issue for couples that are facing the dual-career
balancing act. And, of course, I said that these couples can be greatly
served by taking a marriage education class.  - diane

> POINT: DON'T MARRY CAREER WOMEN
> Forbes.com/August 22
> By Michael Noer
> How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists.
> 
> 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 and 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.

And, the rejoinder:

> COUNTERPOINT: DON'T MARRY A LAZY MAN
> Forbes.com, August 23
> By Elizabeth Corcoran

> Studies aside, modern marriage is a two-way street. Men should own up to their
> responsibilities, too.
> 
> Girlfriends: a word of advice. Ask your man the following question: When was
> the last time you learned something useful, either at home or work?
> 
> If the last new skill your guy learned was how to tie his shoes in the second
> grade, dump him. If he can pick up new ideas faster than your puppy, you've
> got a winner.
> 
> I'm not usually a fan of dipstick tests, particularly when it comes to
> marriage and relationships. But a downright frightening story written by my
> colleague, Michael Noer, on our Web site today drove me to it. According to
> the experts cited by Michael, marrying a "career girl" seems to lead to a fate
> worse than tangling with a hungry cougar.

Read the full text of both articles at:
http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.ht
ml 

#############################

And, it continues: lots of commentary around the world. I saw the piece on
GMA and have heard from you about dozens more.  Below are two of the most
recent opinion pieces, one from Philly and one from Washington state.  -
diane  

############################
- MARRIAGE: UNSUCCESS STORY

Jenice Armstrong | Marriage: Unsuccess story
Philadelphia Inquirer
Sept 4, 2006 

IF YOU'RE A college-educated female with earnings of more than $30,000 a
year and you work 35 hours a week outside the home, you're lousy marriage
material.

Astonishingly, that's according to the executive editor of Forbes, which
last month published an essay on its online edition saying, "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."

Michael Noer's reasoning is that, "professional women are more likely to get
divorced, more likely to cheat and less likely to have children. And if they
do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.

"Marrying these women is asking for trouble," he claims.

In other words, the June Cleavers of the world make better wives than the
Hillary Clintons. As a professional woman, I suppose I should be insulted.
But there've always been cavemen who think as Noer does.

In fact, I'm reminded of a conversation I had not too long ago with a
40something widowed man-about-town who told me that after being married for
many years to a housewife, he wanted to meet a career woman. But then he
dated some high-ranking corporate types and found he didn't like hearing
about "what happened in the boardroom." There's no pleasing this guy. Last I
heard, he was still single.

Needless to say, Noer's article caused quite a stir when it was posted last
month. Forbes.com reportedly removed it briefly before posting it again in
the opinion section and also running a counterpoint to it written by a
woman. In his essay, Noer justifies his position by citing a host of social
scientists and reports such as one published earlier this year in Social
Forces, a publication produced by the University of Virginia. That study
found that women are indeed happiest in relationships in which the man earns
more than they do.

But Noer neglects to mention that that particular study, which I wrote about
earlier this year, also found that the No. 1 thing that women want from a
marriage is emotional engagement - not money. In other words, it's not all
about the benjamins. Money doesn't trump having a solid relationship. It's
the connection that counts.

In his piece, the Forbes editor also warns men that "when your spouse works
outside the home, chances increase that he or she will meet someone more
likable than you." That's a possibility. But your stay-at-home wife could
fall in love with the gardener. (Apparently, this guy never saw "Desperate
Housewives.")

Noer even tries to use a 2002 study by the Institute for Social Research
against us, which says that women today do substantially less housework than
we used to. It all makes me wonder just what is it really that he's
lamenting - the fact that we're not living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world
anymore? That women today have more options and might exercise them?

The discussion Noer ignited reminds me of that old reggae song, "If you want
to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife."

The career woman's version of that same song should go, "If you want to be
happy for the rest of your life, never bring an insecure man into your
life."
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/living/15440875.htm
####################################

> - SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGES HELP BREED ECONOMIC VITALITY
> 
> The Herald (Everett, Wash)
> September 3, 2006
> By James McCusker
> Herald columnist
> 
>> In the interest of our own prosperity, we should be doing more to find out
>> what makes marriages successful. The answer might not make good drama, or
>> good 
>> comedy, but it would be good economics.
> 
> If you crave attention, you can always toss a rock at a hornets' nest.
> 
> The Forbes magazine Web site must have known it would get a reaction when it
> published an article that advised, "Don't Marry Career Women." The piece, by
> editor Michael Noer, explains why doing so is likely to result in marriages
> characterized by unhappiness, unfaithfulness and failure. The article
> generated buzz; hornets do make noise when you get them riled up.
> 
> Much of the negative reaction to the article was predictable and contained
> unseemly amounts of the name-calling that often passes for criticism these
> days. Still, it was fun to consider the irony of Noer's views being tagged as
> anachronistic by critics who wanted him "tarred and feathered."
> 
> Forbes.com did publish a thoughtful rebuttal by one of its own reporters, a
> mother and career woman, but her argument did not really demolish Noer's
> cautionary advice.
> 
> The content of the article that stirred up the buzz was not written in ranting
> or inflammatory language. It was, in fact, an almost academic compilation of
> social science research papers dealing with how the higher proportion of women
> working outside the home has been affecting marriages.
> 
> Economists have an abiding interest in marriage as an institution. It has
> been, and still is, central to our economy's consumer spending patterns as
> well as its accumulation and distribution of wealth. Gary Becker's Nobel Prize
> in Economics, for example, was awarded in part for his work in analyzing
> marriage as a "small factory" involving complementary labor specialization.
> (This illustrates not only Becker's brilliant analytical insight, but also why
> economists are almost never asked to write romance novels.)
> 
> The studies cited in the controversial article certainly lead us to the
> conclusion that the structure of our economy puts a lot of pressure on
> marriages.
> 
> According to the researchers, career women, defined as those with four-year
> degrees earning more than $30,000 a year working outside the home - are more
> likely to engage in extramarital affairs, and to be unhappy if they make more
> money than their husbands (who are also likely to be unhappy about it).
> Significantly, women putting in more hours at work tend to raise the odds of
> divorce, while men doing the same thing have no apparent effect on the
> likelihood of marriage dissolution.
> 
> There are other interesting statistics cited in the piece - certainly enough
> to justify the cautionary advice - but there is a big difference between
> compiling statistics and understanding what they mean. Probabilities do not
> determine outcomes. If they did, the people who assemble the data on the NFL
> teams would be rich and living on some tropical island. Instead, they are
> assembling data.
> 
> If we defined career not in terms of economics and education but in terms of
> attitude, we could get some insight into the problem. When an individual
> begins to prefer the workplace to the marriage, the job becomes a career in
> the sense of absorbing the person's attention and energy and the marriage
> often suffers - not because of the hours worked but because of the preference.
> 
> There are good reasons why an increasing number of people now have careers and
> failing marriages. The workplace is in many respects a more pleasant place
> than home. People dress and behave better there. Responsibilities are both
> clearer and more limited, and it is an environment more tolerant of behavioral
> quirks and personal shortcomings. All kinds of self-absorbed people can enjoy
> advancement and rewards in the workplace, and as a general rule it is far
> easier to succeed in business than it is in life.
> 
> Analyzing marriage by compiling the statistics of failure is interesting, but
> at this point less productive than looking at good marriages. Those who study
> psychology eventually came to realize that however brilliant Sigmund Freud was
> in his analysis of his patients there was a practical limit to how much we
> could learn about human behavior from the cuckoos of the world.
> 
> Just as we try to learn from successful businesses and successful athletic
> teams, we can learn something from successful marriages, certainly a lot more
> than by tracking down the odds of whether Jill, with a master's degree, a
> high-paying job, two kids, a husband and a mortgage, will run off with the
> marketing manager.
> 
> From an economics perspective, while households are no longer exclusively
> marriage-based, substantial increases in the rate of marriage dissolutions
> would be quite challenging for our economy to absorb, given the energy,
> globalization and terrorism issues it is already wrestling with. In the
> interest of our own prosperity, we should be doing more to find out what makes
> marriages successful. The answer might not make good drama, or good comedy,
> but it would be good economics.
> 
> James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant. He also writes
> "Business 101" monthly for the Snohomish County Business Journal.
> 
> Copyright ©1996-2006.
> The Daily Herald Co.

**************************
Send replies to this newslist to: diane at smartmarriages.com  Do not hit
"reply" - that goes to a filter.  This is a moderated list. Replies are read
by Diane Sollee, editor. Please indicate if your response is NOT to be
shared with the list.  PLEASE include your email address with your
signature. 

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form at: http://www.smartmarriages.com. Click Newslist - in the
column under the puzzle piece.

This newslist shares information on marriage, divorce and educational
approaches.  Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

To read ALL past posts to the newsletter, visit the Archive at:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/

11th Annual Smart Marriages Conference, Denver Adam's Mark Hotel,
June 28-July 1, 2007
Pre-Conference Training Institutes June 26-28
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 2-3
Details: http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html
Subscribe to the FREE Smart Marriages e-newslist at
http://www.smartmarriages.com

List your program in the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com
Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
http://www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332
cmfce at smartmarriages.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter/site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.