Forbes posts and then pulls controversial article about marriage

[LSPoorEeyorick]

So Forbes posted a column on Monday about how why men should not marry career women. And then today, they pulled it down, and later reposted it with a rebuttle from another writer on their staff-- a woman. Here's a clip of the original article.

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.

Read the rest of the article and the rebuttle here. (http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html)

Who is this idiot? How dare he suggest that, because a woman is interested in pursuing her interests and earning her share of income, she's any less worthy of partnership than someone who chooses differently?

No scientific study can adequately determine the cause of happiness, or the terms or length or the quality of marriage, based on the extensive variables that must be considered.

And it seems he's only picking out the negative studies and the the negative aspects of the situation, and this is a one-sided journalistic misstep. It's ric*ckulous.

[Not Afraid]

Was this written this week or in 1930?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Published Monday, but apparently he's still living in 1930.

And you'd be surprised (or maybe not) by the quantity of "right on! the women posting rebuttles are probably just lonely lesbians!" posts from men in response.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Well, the guy's article is chock full of citations from recent statistics. The woman's rebuttal is simply a collection of her own experiences. This is a rebuttal how? :confused:

Personally, I am not offended by the concept that it is harder to maintain a marriage when both people involved assert their identities and when each have different schedules. I'm also not surprised that the infidelity rate goes up - the woman is out meeting others, and the chances are higher that the man feels neglected. Notice I said "higher" - doesn't mean it's epidemic, just higher.

I'm not surprised at any of it, really. Does this mean that I'm going to be a housewife because of it? No, it just shows that the people in modern relationships have to work harder than those from the stone age, and I'm up for the challenge.

[blueerica]

Well, said.

I did, however, think the article was kind of silly... Why would Forbes put that out there?

[Not Afraid]

Women, don't marry men with careers because, chances are, they'll meet someone the like better than you.

There's nothing wrong with the studies cited and, yes, 2 career marriages are difficult. Marriage is difficult! I don't buy author's simplistic conclusions. But, whatever. If that's what the author want to believe, then go for it.

I've made more than my husband, I'm made equal amounts, and I've made less and worked part time. I've also been divorced once. What works for me right now is different than what worked for me 10 years ago and I can't say that ONE way is the right way. The way WE choose to do it now is what is working for us now. Subject to change without notice.

[innerSpaceman]

Not Afraid's shoe-on-the-other foot is perfectly valid. Which just goes to demonstrate the validity of the initial concept. Yes, two working people is likely to be a stress factor.

Unquantifiable is the trend that career women might be, well, better people and thus better mates and thus worth working out the stress factors. But there's probably not statistics on that, so I have no problem with an article gathering and reporting on the facts about break-ups and self-satisfaction and cheating, etc.

It will be up to the discerning reader to figure out the obvious, namely, that everyone is an individual ... and when it comes to love, marriage, mating and relationships - - statistics mean jack crap.





* I'm not suggesting that working women are inherently better than housewives. But there might be some independence, vitality, vivaciousness, integrity or strength indicated by a person with a career motivation. And, of course, there may not be.

But give me a career woman every time.


And then let me stay at home and take care of the house!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Women, don't marry men with careers because, chances are, they'll meet someone the like better than you.

There's nothing wrong with the studies cited and, yes, 2 career marriages are difficult. Marriage is difficult! I don't buy author's simplistic conclusions. But, whatever. If that's what the author want to believe, then go for it. 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).
<snip>
n 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.
These aren't the author's beliefs, they are what he found in many, many studies. If you disregard the studies, you'll have to disregard any and all other studies - even ones you (gasp!) agree with.

Just because we don't like the facts doesn't mean we can ignore them. Now if one would want to actually look up the studies and argue their merit (sampling techniques, demographics, rigor) I'd love to see it.

I've made more than my husband, I'm made equal amounts, and I've made less and worked part time. I've also been divorced once. What works for me right now is different than what worked for me 10 years ago and I can't say that ONE way is the right way. The way WE choose to do it now is what is working for us now. Subject to change without notice.But of course. Same here. But this is exactly the same kind of "rebuttal" the other woman wrote - "my life is good therefore marriages with working women are good." Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It will be up to the discerning reader to figure out the obvious, namely, that everyone is an individual ... and when it comes to love, marriage, mating and relationships - - statistics mean jack crap.See, just like I said, if you want to throw out the statistics, fine, but you have to throw out ALL statistics, which is what iSm just did here. That works. :)

[Not Afraid]

"DON'T MARRY A CAREER WOMAN"

It's the title that irks me most.

[Not Afraid]

Just because we don't like the facts doesn't mean we can ignore them. Now if one would want to actually look up the studies and argue their merit (sampling techniques, demographics, rigor) I'd love to see it.

These are his "facts" that he culled from a variety of studies. He was able to take the information and craft it in a way that supported the point he was driving at. If I was interested enough in bunking his myth, I'd have a lot of fun with it. But, bottom line for me is, these so called "facts" aren't factual in my life so they really aren't that factual for me. So, I just say, eh, so what.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

These are his "facts" that he culled from a variety of studies. He was able to take the information and craft it in a way that supported the point he was driving at. If I was interested enough in bunking his myth, I'd have a lot of fun with it. But, bottom line for me is, these so called "facts" aren't factual in my life so they really aren't that factual for me. So, I just say, eh, so what.So what, of course, "so what" is how I feel about it, since I'm not going to quit my job. But I don't think the guy is an idiot or that he's from 1930. I also don't dispute what the studies found, because I want to be able to cite other studies in the future and not have other people say "these so called "facts' aren't factual in my life."

[Prudence]

However, the facts say things like

"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.

I confess I didn't read the article because I'm already sufficiently annoyed today and don't need more help in that area.

However, most of the time when I read about the "evils" of women working it is, in reality, the "evils" of a dual-income household presented, with the implication that the natural solution is for the women to stay home. Dual-incomes are bad, therefore women should stay home.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

So what, of course, "so what" is how I feel about it, since I'm not going to quit my job. But I don't think the guy is an idiot or that he's from 1930. I also don't dispute what the studies found, because I want to be able to cite other studies in the future and not have other people say "these so called "facts' aren't factual in my life."

Yep. But I would hope that when you cite studies in the future, you thoroughly investigate to make sure that there aren't contrary studies out there (and that the study isn't slanted, as this author is portraying it with his commentary.)

I don't deny that it's difficult for two-income families. But I'd assert that it's not any less difficult for one-income families. It's just difficult in other ways. I've observed stay-at-home parents resent that their lives revolve around their children. I've observed working parents resent that their life is dictated by their work. I've observed both sorts happy with their circumstances. There are too many variables for feelings, so I think statistics on the subject are rather worthless.

[Not Afraid]

I don't think the author is from 1930, I just think his ideas are rooted in a past viewed through rose colored glasses - or some similar falicy.

Like I said, anyone can take bits and pieces from various studies and craft a point. I think his conclusions are a bit to black and white for this shades of grey world.

[Alex]

Oh my god! A columnist that opens with a hyperbolic point to grab attention before delving into details. Never before in the history of journalism have I seen such shenanigans.

Did you all read the article? He pretty much says everything everybody in here has said: For obvious reasons dual careers is an additional stressor. For obvious reasons you'll want to do it anyway. There are studies that show a "quality" marriage isn't much affected by them while overall it still correlates since many marriages aren't "quality." Correlation is not causation. For many people it still works out, there is just a statistical increase in it not working out so individual results may vary. Marriage has benefits beyond simple "individual happiness."

I see nothing particularly controversial about this article other than the attention grabbing lede.

[Not Afraid]

I agree with you, Alex. But, his title still irks me. I don't care if it's done all of the time.

What I don't get is why Forbes pulled the article.

[innerSpaceman]

Because, if it does put forth statistics that it then claims are meaningless, it really has no journalistic value.


Perhaps it was less controversy than quality control on Forbes' part.

[Alex]

It doesn't claim the statistics are meaningless. It just acknowledges the limits to which they are meaningful.

[innerSpaceman]

yes, but that's a much less pithy notion.

[Frogberto]

The title of the article, and the fact that Forbes pulled it, are what are of note here. Everyone's entitled to their experience and opinions, including commemorating them to writing.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Oh my god! A columnist that opens with a hyperbolic point to grab attention before delving into details. Never before in the history of journalism have I seen such shenanigans.

What I'm saying is that hyperbolic point is obnoxious and I did not care for it. Attention he wanted, attention he got-- but that doesn't mean that his lead paragraph should be so slanted it distorts the studies.

[Prudence]

Swell.

So what was the point of that? I'm going to have a miserable marriage and life and because I already have some education under my belt even quitting now to play the happy homemaker won't work and I'll eventually kill myself anyhow?

These sorts of pieces seem to have a "neener neener" playground quality to them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Swell.

So what was the point of that? I'm going to have a miserable marriage and life and because I already have some education under my belt even quitting now to play the happy homemaker won't work and I'll eventually kill myself anyhow?

These sorts of pieces seem to have a "neener neener" playground quality to them. Knowledge is power. Too many people blindly enter into marriages without understanding the amount of work that's necessary to maintain them. These kinds of things, when presented right, help reinforce that.

Unfortunately, this one wasn't presented right.

The first thought that came to me was, well, duh it's going to look like it's the result of working women for the simple fact that we're starting from a baseline where it was more common for women to not work. In an equal world, I'd expect the results to show that simple a 2-income household results in more marital problems than a 1-income household, regardless of the gender of the 1 worker. The "woman's fault" slant likely comes from the fact that A) there are more single income families where it's the man who works and B) we're still in a culture where it's the woman in a DINK marriage that, when kids come, gets the brunt of the pressure.

None of this, of course, applies on an individual level. Statistics never do, that's the nature of statistics. A study like this isn't out to prove that there's something wroing with your marriage. It simply is a way to highlight pitfalls to be aware of, something too many people like to ignore. I just wish the findings could have been presented better.

[Prudence]

But there was no intention here to present it right. Maybe I just never see them, but these statstics and whatnot never seem to be presented with the intention to highlight potential pitfalls and perhaps help avoid them. They're presented as neener neener gotcha "proof" that working women are responsible for society's ills. Which always seems to go over gangbusters because it appears to confirm what so many already believe.

[Stan4dSteph]

So I need to quit my job now or remain forever single. Bummer.

[Ghoulish Delight]

But there was no intention here to present it right. Which I acknowledged. But considering that it's pretty much a given that the public presentation of such studies are a load of crap, if it's something that interests me I find it no trick to look right through the b.s. and do what I can to find details on the actual study, not just read an article published about the study.

This guy's sensationalist headline was deservedly thrown out. But that doesn't mean the study itself doesn't have some valid points to glean. No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[tracilicious]

Unquantifiable is the trend that career women might be, well, better people and thus better mates and thus worth working out the stress factors.

* I'm not suggesting that working women are inherently better than housewives. But there might be some independence, vitality, vivaciousness, integrity or strength indicated by a person with a career motivation. And, of course, there may not be.

But give me a career woman every time.




Ouch. Disclaimer or not, I bristle at the notion that a woman would choose to raise kids because she's possesses less independence, vitality, integrity, strength, or motivation than a woman that chooses a career. Perhaps it could just be different priorities? I have my whole life to have a career. But I happen to feel that *my* kids will be better cared for, educated, nurtured, smarter, whatever because I'm choosing this time of their lives to be with them.

(Prudence, I hope you don't mind if I use you as an example.)

So how about Prudence's husband? Will he be have less integrity, strength, independence, vitality and motivation because he'll stay home with their kids? I'd wager not. Stay at home Dads generally get the, "you are so amazing for doing that comments." Yet it's just the same choice being made by a different gender.

Prudence and I actually share a lot of the same feelings regarding the issue. She obviously feels a great deal of pressure to conform to a more traditional role and experiences ridicule for her "different" choice. Whereas, I get the your-less-of-a-person looks from most people that find out I'm a stay at home mom.

You're going to find boring stay at home moms and boring career women. I don't think that a single life choice, albeit a major one, is an accurate assessment of one's personality.

As for the article, I'm not really sure it is easier for a one income family. Unless the one income is a large one, supporting an entire family on one income is probably just as much stress as being time crunched is.

[Tramspotter]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e81/whindwisper/CaveWoman.jpg

[Prudence]

(Prudence, I hope you don't mind if I use you as an example.)


Not at all.

I'm particularly sensitive to the issue because I do hope we can be a one income (or one-and-a-half income) family. I'm sure as hell not back in school for my health. If I can manage it, I'd like my kids to have the same benefit I had of a parent at home with them during the day. In that sense I'm quite traditional.

However, any discussion on the perils of a dual-income household tends, as this piece does, to focus on the female career as the superfluous one. And it's that attitude that keeps my paycheck smaller than men who are hired into similar positions, but with less experience or education. It's that attitude that helps keep teacher and librarian salaries low. (Nurses, thanks to a little help from aging baby boomers, are in short enough supply now that their salaries are on the rise.) Apparently I'm just working for pin money the mortgage will mysteriously pay itself.

[€uroMeinke]

I think men should just marry women they are in love with - I wonder how the stats fair from being in love to not being in love and the overall success of the relationship?

[Prudence]

I believe the article specifically mentioned educated women being a "problem" as well.

I wonder if educated and/or career women have different standards? Are SAHMs with degrees as "bad" as career women? Do educated and/or career women have a broader exposure to the world and tend to feel they deserve, and thus demand, more? And if so, why is the focus on career/educated women and not on the men who've apparently been skating by?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Which I acknowledged. But considering that it's pretty much a given that the public presentation of such studies are a load of crap, if it's something that interests me I find it no trick to look right through the b.s. and do what I can to find details on the actual study, not just read an article published about the study.I was just about to post basically the same thing. I'm not a fan of reading opinions, so all I see is whatever information the article provides. I guess that prevents me from getting mad at stuff like this. Like Alex says - nothing new under the sun.