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.

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?

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.

[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.