Forbes posts and then pulls controversial article about marriage

[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!

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

(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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by iSm

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.