Forbes posts and then pulls controversial article about marriage

[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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by the article

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.

Originally Posted by NA

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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."

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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.

[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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.