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."

However, the facts say things like

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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