Food, Water, and Women

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.

Michael Noer, Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html?partner=ninemsn

Back in the 70s and 80s I read a lot of those fat, mass-market post-apocalyptic novels available in the reading section of grocery stores. The plots of such books were all pretty much the same. A handful of people, including one or two everyman main characters, survive nuclear war/a comet hitting the earth/a deadly plague/giant insects etc. and spend the rest of the novel surviving in the rubble and putting some semblance of society back together.

After the first three or four chapters, once the pyrotechnics about society being destroyed are out of the way, there is almost always the moment when the main characters realize that morality-as-we-know-it is no more, and with much squaring of the jaw, heavy sighs and regretful looks back, chuck notions that can range from monogamy to sharing necessities to caring for the sick. There is almost always the moment when one character or another, with much squaring of the jaw, heavy sighs, and regretful looks back, kills his first person (generally depicted as a degraded marauder who, before the apocalypse, had been an effete liberal/bigoted conservative/corrupt politician/no-good hippie, or whomever else the author dislikes.)

And there is almost always the moment when the hardy band of survivors are gathered in some haven they discovered, like a shopping mall, or a sheltered valley that the fallout or Volkswagen-sized spiders haven’t reached, and the character who will eventually emerge as the leader gives an impassioned pep-talk. “The human race can survive, people! We CAN go on! IF we have the will and the guts! We have what we need here, food, water, women…”

That is why I eventually, with much squaring of the jaw, heavy sighs, and regretful looks back, gave up reading this kind of fiction. The image of all the women being carefully stored among the supplies, along with the canned goods and potable water, was just too pervasive. Which brings us to the recent piece in Forbes where Michael Noer goes on at length about the need to avoid taking “career woman” as wives.

I’m not going to give in to the temptation of clambering among the various sentences and paragraphs with a popgun and disposing of it on a point-by-point basis. What I find offensive is not so much Noer’s resurrection of flyblown objections about career women as wives. No, what fills me with the urge to seize his nose in two fingers and twist it sharply to the left is the attitude that drives all nine of his reasons, the notion that a wife is not a human being with whom you negotiate, but a major appliance that should be carefully chosen based on whether or not it is helpful or not helpful to the man. It’s the more civilized version of the post-apocalyptic fiction notion of women as supplies.

The basis of Noer’s premise is rooted in an assumption about roles that are apparently set in stone “Traditionally men have tended to do ‘market’ or paid work outside the home,” Noer announces, “and women have tended to do ‘non-market‘ or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal.”

That is why I eventually, with much squaring of the jaw, heavy sighs, and regretful looks back, gave up reading this kind of fiction. The image of all the women being carefully stored among the supplies, along with the canned goods and potable water, was just too pervasive. Which brings us to the recent piece in Forbes where Michael Noer goes on at length about the need to avoid taking “career woman” as wives.

It’s a rigidity that makes sense only if one regards wives as property rather than partners. One does not, after all, cut deals with one’s car about the division of labor. You might take steps to maintain it, change the oil, get it regular tune-ups maybe polish the chassis every now and then, but you don’t examine whether or not it absolutely has to be your car’s job to get you from point a to point b. In Noer’s piece, the notion that the stress of a two-career marriage might be relieved by a little give and take is apparently as unthinkable as the idea that you might carry your Lexis to work every now and then to save wear on the tread.

There is some lip service given to the concept of a career woman’s happiness here, but it comes across less as a recognition of women as human beings than as the concern you might have about keeping, say, an active breed like a Dalmation in a studio apartment downtown. The poor thing won’t be happy and so it’ll chew on the furniture, mess up the carpets, and eventually run away, or in this case, fool around with other men, neglect the housekeeping and eventually divorce you. Especially damning is the a passage in which, after allowing as that “A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy on,” Noer adds “But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of ‘low marital quality.’” (emphasis added)

In other words, if she’s less dependent financially on her husband, a wife is more likely to get out of a marriage of “low marital quality” by availing herself of the rather expensive option of divorce. Plainly, this is a bad thing in Noer’s worldview. And lest he leave a single double-standard unflourished, Noer invokes the specter of infidelity. “When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you.” Note the gender neutral term “spouse” rather than “wife.” Noer knows as well as any of his readers that countless stay-at-home wives have had to endure the office infidelities of their husbands, but the notion that a husband be subjected to the same risk is apparently unthinkable.

So, the ideal marriage in Noer’s mind is one where the wife is too sheltered and too dependent on her husband to get any uppity ideas about other men and/or striking out on her own. It’s not so much a matter of having a “happy” wife. It’s a matter of having a wife who can be controlled with the least amount of effort and inconvenience – and making allowances for a wife as a human being who might have a career she cares about qualifies as just too much effort and inconvenience to be worth consideration.

There is nothing especially surprising about the appearance of this piece in Forbes. In a climate where little wild buds of overt racism have been popping up all over the political landscape “Mexicans are ‘invading’ the country,” “Blacks can’t swim,” “Welcome to the country Macacca…” it should come as no great shock that the more “respectable” ‘ism, overt sexism, should blossom luxuriantly in the cultivated pages of a national magazine. It is, however, infuriating. I know how some men will react to this issue. Eyes will roll, terms like “hysterical” and “over-sensitive” will be used, and heads will be shaken in feigned incomprehension. “Why get so angry about it?” I’ll be asked.

So I’ll just close here by invoking another literary reference, one from an unquestionably masculine novel, CATCH 22. My gut reaction to this piece is the same as the main character in Joseph Heller’s book, when he explains why he took a swing at an Army nurse after she told him that his leg is government property.

To paraphrase Yossarian: “He called me a gear.”

1. I never intend to get marrried. It's against my moral values, so that makes Mr. Mysogenist's rant moot right there. I'm hardly heartbroken that I'll NEVER have to tolerate the likes of him in my home or my life or even worse, have his freakin babies (which I think is something that men, being the "stronger sex" ought to have to do).

2. IF I ever did marry OR live with anyone, I would not CONSIDER marrying a knuckle-dragging wife beater like this guy. And just because he has money and Forbes (magazine for snooty rich, white, control-freak males) publishes his crap doesn't make him anything above a knuckle-dragging wife-beater. He's moneyed trash and little else. We have one of those in the White House whose attitudes towards women are similar. Funny how they all come crawling out of the woodwork when one is in the Oval Office, innit? The American Taliban. They took Viagra and it just made them taller.

3. Women working outside the home and having their own lives and own money makes them independent. This cretin could have simply written this: "I HATE independent women because I cannot control them." That would have sufficed. That's all he said. And that reveals as much about HIM as it does any women on the planet.

Oh, and one other thing, what an asshole this guy is - and every guy who reads and subscribes to that attitude. To Hell with them all. Women are better off without these apes - even if some of them fail to realize it.

One who didn't want a husband with a career. Hell, I would have married her. :-)

as long as he knew how to do the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking and baking, and would greet me at the door each evening with a fresh drink and my slippers, and could then draw me a nice, hot bath. Then do whatever I want in the bedroom. Hell, no wonder guys didn't wanna give all that up in favor of "women's lib." :evilgrin: :bounce: :bounce:

....and whatever other dirty work there is to do that's too mundane, physically destructive, painful, or just too nasty for the powerful working wife to deal with. And when he gets too old and run-down from all that, trade him in for a newer, better-looking model without the stretch marks and saggy skin, wrinkles, and rough hands.

;)

:D

..but the lazy bastard would not do housework, yardwork, cook, or anything. He WOULD take my money though. It was ALL up to me. The problem seems to be that no matter what side of this equation women are on - THEY end up doing most or all of the work. Men just seem to want to be important enough to have people kissing their feet (at work and home) and having their babies. Too many of them seem to think that's their privilege, since they got - you know - a penis.

not losing too much sleep over that. :-)

More money for them to enjoy with their buddies and philanthropic interests. :toast:

;)

This kind of advice is only available for the men who CAN afford to keep a woman without a career; i.e. the rich Republican types who read Forbes.

Every married couple I know - and that includes childless ones - have both partners working, not for "her satisfaction," or even his, but because that's the only way they can financially survive.

They are not, by and large, people who spend a lot of money or take a lot of vacations. It isn't a matter of "luxury" that makes them both work.

This whole article is a rich jerk talking to other rich jerks. And you, Ms. Troy, should be satisfied when the coming economic collapse sends these jerks into the same gutter where most of us middle and lower class people currently scrabble for a living. Maybe, unlike the Crash of 1929, we won't find the downfallen rich objects of bemusement, but people we can beat bloody for their betrayal of humanity.

Who reads Forbes anyway? Nobody with a real job that I ever met. It's pretty much for white male executives with more money than heart or brains.

Which was my point. It would be a far more serious matter if, say, Oprah's magazine said it, or Parade, but it's Forbes. What were you expecting from the people who are turning all of America into Wal-Mart? A co-venture with Ms. Magazine?

the post to which I intended to respond.

survive in a male dominated society.

Most human are not much better than pack animals, and will follow an Alpha Leader. Sadly, in American society, the ones with the most brains or compassion rule, the ones w/the most cash do. Most of that money is in the hands of mysoginistic jerks.

FWIW, if the old stereotype "barefoot, pregnant and cooking in the kitchen" were true, that family could not afford a place WITH a kitchen.

"The Great Republican Nightmare is an intelligent woman that can survive in a male dominated society" and change and improve it in such a way that the idea of "male domination" or any other kind of domination becomes quaint.

The idea that the "status quo" can be undone in any manner causes many people to shreak in fear.

Sadly, in American society, the ones with the most brains or compassion "DON'T" rule,...:blush:

that there must be marriage. It used to be that there was something "wrong" with an unmarried man, but fortunately times have changed. These days there are very few benefits to the man in marriage and the the opportunity to give up half of everything when the marriage ends. I also think this idea that men consider woman "property" is a red herring that has very little basis in reality.

There are women who do want to live in the traditional role of wife and homemaker just are there are women who would rather devote their time and energies to a career. Women in that regard have a choice that men don't but both options are equally viable so why denigrate either one?

"These days there are very few benefits to the man in marriage"

I know quite a few men who want kids, kind of hard to do on their own. I know quite a few men who want companionship. I know quite a few men who want a house but can't possibly afford it on their salaries alone.

That sentence is your post is almost offensive - as if the only benefit of marriage to men was ever the maintenance of appearances. I think you're thinking of gay men in the past.

But I absolutely agree that there are men and women who *don't* want to be married and it is absolutely positive that the stigma attached to that is mostly gone.

"I know quite a few men who want kids, kind of hard to do on their own. I know quite a few men who want companionship. I know quite a few men who want a house but can't possibly afford it on their salaries alone."


Men should do what women have been doing on their own since the 70's: adopt and buy starter homes.

While I agree that the article is garbage, the quality of BOTH sexes is going down. As many of the feminists on this board will scream at me for, the fact is maybe women wouldn't have such bad experiences with men if they picked the right ones. Not all "nice" guys are needy creeps (yes, some are), but many are genuienly "nice".


If you don't want men to treat you like crap, don't pick/work/admire/validate men who treat you like crap. End of story.

I was objecting to the idea that apart from needing to 'keep up appearances', marriage was somehow only 'beneficial' to women. Men (and women) get married for reasons other than financial ones. Nonetheless, I was trying to make the point to the person I was responding to, that men actually *do* or can benefit financially from marriage - that it's not a one way street gender-wise. In my city a 'starter house' is $300k or more, difficult for most people, male or female, to do on their own.

there are plenty of men who pick the wrong women, i.e., the naggers, the bitches, the selfish manipulators, etc., and ignore the nice women. Then, when they get fucked over by the naggers, the bitches, the selfish manipulators, etc., as they always will, they'll sit around and bitch about how there aren't any "nice" women around anymore while, again, totally ignoring the really nice women, usually because they're not "hot" enough. So, it works both ways. And yes, women who continually pick the wrong men drive me just as crazy as well.

You hit the nail on the head regarding men who pass over the "nice" girl because she wasn't "hot" enough and then complain about the woman they chose. It also bothers me when EITHER sex does that.

I will say that I never liked movies that are labeled "romantic comedies" because typically the guys are either "hot" OR "nice" but the girls are usually both "hot" AND "nice".

Yes, there are many men who want those things you listed. None of those require marriage or even a committed relationship. Of course there are significant benefits to a committed two-parent household for the kids, but still it doesn't require marriage.

The whole point is that a lot of men would be in far better shape if they focused on careers instead of bowing to the societal pressure to make a family.

Again it's the old double standard: Women who sacrifice home & hearth for work are considered "career women." When men do it they are self-centered assholes who are probably not really working, but out drinking and cheating.

you're funny. and that's all i have to say about it.

In past times a man of 40, never married, was a "confirmed bachelor"...perfectly acceptable, yet presumed to be "available" if the "right" woman came alone..

yet..


a woman of the same age was an "old maid", or a "spinster"... she would be considered very "lucky" to ever find a man "willing" to marry her..

It's the fertility issue, folks..plain & simple..

Evolution demands that the "line" carry on, and the "best"" chance of that is a YOUNG fertile woman (also more likely to be youthfully attractive)married/paired/whatever to ANY male between 16-70..(men are fertile long after women, for obvious reasons)..

Women are always in the drivers' seat when it comes to chosing the males...(if the men plan to hang around, that is)...Human males have a vested interest in the offspring's upbringing, so most do intend to be a part of the life of the children, but facts are facts, and married men live longer..

Wives and children have a mellowing effect on those "wild and crazy" guys :)

"Evolution demands that the "line" carry on, and the "best"" chance of that is a YOUNG fertile woman (also more likely to be youthfully attractive)married/paired/whatever to ANY male between 16-70..(men are fertile long after women, for obvious reasons).."

- I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but what are the obvious reasons?
- I look at evolution as a consequence of; I have an urge, a female lets me satisfy that urge, an offspring might result

"Women are always in the drivers' seat when it comes to chosing the males...(if the men plan to hang around, that is)...Human males have a vested interest in the offspring's upbringing, so most do intend to be a part of the life of the children, but facts are facts, and married men live longer.."

- What vested interest? I guess my idea of the vested interest is that if I'm going to work my butt off helping Company X make widgets for 35-40 freaking years, I better make sure that my resources are being used for my offspring only and not some loser freeloaders. Is that what you mean?

"Wives and children have a mellowing effect on those "wild and crazy" guys"

- I read somewhere that the presence of children (maybe some pheromone present in their dirty diapers) somehow makes mens' testosterone production decrease, thereby making it much less likely that we will hurt or kill the little rugrats and leaving us with less "will" to stray since we don't want sex as much.

The more I write, the more I'm starting to agree with the earlier poster who said that men don't get nearly as much out of marriage as we used to. So far, my wife and I could be just as happy without the piece of paper. I suppose that having gone through the ceremony in front of so many family members makes it less likely for one of us to leave in the face of a really big argument. I don't view my wife as being less important than me in our relationship. What I mean is that we get what we need from each other without any of the "benefits" of marriage, whatever they are. ????

so youth helps.. men produce`viable sperm 'fresh' every day.. women are born with all the eggs they will ever have
and yes,.. the vested interest is just that.. a "successful" father will want to know that his offspring have good 'launch'
'

like Faludi-good! but Troy-good on top of that!

what I was thinking but unable to say so eloquently.

:toast:

and they drink and come home tired all the time! They are assholes!

/facetiousness

Assuming that a drinking problem doesn't befall a career man, it's pretty much a fact that career men are the ones most likely to have the most resources available for "family life", ironically a life that the career man has less time for. For some women, that doesn't matter. They like having the Lexus SUV and being able to go spend big money at home domesticating stores every weekend, then go pick up the little rugrats at soccer while daddy's stressing out at his job on a Saturday.

:kick:
Can you believe this is the 21st century? Minds still stuck on stupid, cars still using oil, robber barons still in charge. :eyes:

I mean these attitudes are beyond quaint

I am a middle aged female and my conservative father mentioned this article to me yesterday. I think it was a subtle dig at me for being a "career woman". I thought for a moment. My response was that I can understand why a man would want to marry a woman but have never understood why a woman would want to marry a man. Once she does, she is his property (whether she or he sees it that way is not the point. Society sees it that way and treats women accordingly). I find the thought of being in such a position to be extremely distasteful. Dad dropped the subject then. I think he was a bit taken aback.

Interesting first post . . .

Don't know whether I completely agree--but it's food for thought.

As for your dad's "subtle dig," you might want to ask him if he would really want his daughter--or any female he cared about--to be married to someone who thinks like Michael Noeor?

It's interesting to me that the marriage vows have "to have and to hold" which is a legal phrase that has traditionally been inserted into contracts of sale of property. (To be frank, having one's father or parents lead you as a bride down the aisle at a wedding seems demeaning as that too suggests a change of title from parent to husband.) I too have believed that the ownership/possession thing has been existent despite feminism in our society, even if it's not acted upon or explicity recognized.

The Forbes article misses the potential for husbands and wives (if one so chooses) to be partners; not just business partners, but life partners where the 50-50 split is sometimes 40-60 or 60-40 depending upon the situation, where no one is owned and trapped in a relationship.

Modern weddings still have tons of vestiges of property transfers veiled by tradition.

You mention the father or, in some cases both parents, walking the bride down the aisle. One friend, when she married, her husband was walked down the aisle by his parents also.

There's also the wedding ring, which many ministers will go into a long soliloquy about the wedding ring being a symbol of love. Love was not a prime motivator for marriages when the wedding ring originated. It also used to be that the husband didn't wear one. It was not important for everyone to know at a glance his marital status, but for women it was. Interestingly, Mrs and Miss both come from Mistress. In the Merry Wives of Windsor, Shakespeare uses the abbreviation Mrs for both married women and unmarried women. Miss came later to identify marital status in women. This was so important that you don't just need a ring, you need an honorific, too.

Man and wife. The man stays a man, keeps his status, but a woman becomes a wife. Not much mutuality here. Nowadays you hear husband and wife more often at the end of the ceremony.

"Love, honor, and obey" Those thankfully are out of the vows, but at my cousin's wedding, the priest was very unhappy that "obey" was not included and did his best to put it back in. He claimed that my cousin asked why "obey" wasn't part of the vows, despite it not being in his nature to want "obey" in there. It might have come up as a valid question, but the priest made it seem that my cousin wanted "Love, Honor, Obey" and was told no. The vows actually stated were exactly the same for both him and my cousin in law. I've been to weddings where the bride and groom wrote their own vows and didn't share them with the spouse until it was time to speak them. They weren't perfectly mutual, but they came from the heart in the speakers own words. The gist was mutual and the personal touch was beautiful.

It's interesting to attend weddings and see how people personalize them. The things that don't change are the walks down the aisle. I've yet to see a wedding where the bride and groom come down the side aisles and meet in the middle. If both are walked down the aisle by their parents, the groom always comes first. There are always rings involved, not some other form of jewelry. If the point is simply to give each other a gift, it doesn't have to be a ring.

The property transfer angle is probably why the ultra conservatives have to really reach for reasons why same sex couples can't be allowed to marry. Who is the owner of whom if the partners are both men? Which man becomes the property? Or which woman becomes the owner of the other if both are women? You'll never hear the ultra conservatives admitting it. Think about this every time you hear ultra conservatives stating that the Meaning of Marriage Should Never Change.

"The property transfer angle is probably why the ultra conservatives have to really reach for reasons why same sex couples can't be allowed to marry."

very interesting.

insubordinate to the other and since conservatives believe that men are the top dog...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I understand your point, even tho' I am married (almost 9 years) and have NEVER thought of myself as my husband's property. Thankfully, he doesn't think that, either - if he did, he would no longer be my husband.

:D

here are some reason why you shouldn't married a career man

1. his job will always come before you

2. he would cheat on you with his fe/male secretary

3. he won't be having sex with you because he is too busy getting it on with his girl/boyfriend and tired from his job

4. he expect you to wait on him hand and feet

5. he will divorce you for someone else

6. he will either give you too much kid due to extra energy from sleeping with his coworker or not enough due to sleeping with his coworker

7. when you do have kids, he either thrill because when he divorce you, he and his lover/Mistress will take away the kid from you, and start their own happy family while you are left in the cold, or he is angry as hell, because his lover/Mistress aren't the one having the kid

8. due to his "mescaline" outlook, he will be quiet angry if he perform any household duties at all, even take out the trash, walk the dog, or hold the baby for a seconds while you wash his feet

9. if the man is more educated, make more money, ambitious, and will educated, once you get married, he will be dissatisfies with you, mainly because your not up to his standard or that he is jealous that he can't bear children, or that he wants to stay at home, while you do everything to please him, can't really tell

10. career Man are more likely to be dissatisfies with their spouse, thus ending into the five stages:
A. denial: i am not really married, she just a spouse
B. Anger: why do i have to stay and sleep with only one women
C. bargaining: i want to sleep with my coworker, i will do anything to get away from my spouse, please give me more work so that i can stay away from the wife, please oh just please more work
D. depression: i don't care if i am an a** to my wife, if i can't be married to my job/girl/boyfriend, i don't care about anything
E. Acceptance: i am ready to divorce my wife for my career/boy/girlfriend

11. if a man quit his job or was fire due to his sexual harassments with his older/more educated/ambitious female boss, he will be unhappy because you are now the one making money, the house will also be extraordinary dirty and complete mess because he will be out there cheating on you with the neighbor wife/stripper/prostitute/new girlfriend, than when you come home, he still expect you to do everything, such as wash his feet, feed him his food, take care of the kid, and keep your mouth shut while he enjoy his games

12. when you have fallen ill, he still expect you to do everything around the house, when he have fallen ill, he expect you to drop everything and come to his need whenever he call for you, even if your in a meeting at your job, he would wants you to come home and change the pillow, pull the blanket up, and change the channel

13. he will make your life hell because he is just so darn sad that you won't divorce him so that he can be with his job/girl/boyfriend more

14. the more hour a career man work, the more he is just cheating on you, and using the extra hour as an excuse to be with his lover/Mistress

15. marriage to a career man will cause health defect/disease, since he is out there spreading his semen without a condom, it will also cause terrible pain and anger to the kids because the father is rarely home due to his cheating and spreading his seed, cheating on you, and leaving you for his new girl/boy fried

so a few folks are just turning the whole piece around to show you how ridiculous it is to make assumptions about every career man or career woman.

If he/she publishes this article somewhere let us know...

Male bashing as a reply to misogyny in a specific article is offensive and stupid and irrational.

The logical approach would have been to bash the author.

As a man, I didn't ask to be bashed, neither did I write the article, so leave me alone.

That you would say I should leave you alone. :rofl:

Earth to cgrindley: You are on a discussion board, where people discuss issues like sexism. If you do not wish to discuss an issue brought up by a thread, simply hide the thread or do not read the thread titles. Turn off your computer and go play golf or something.

Now, that's logical....:)

that an appropriate response to misogyny is misandry rather than a critique of misogyny. That's the irrational part.

but it does not bother everyone, and there are some on this thread who are excusing the misogyny of the article referenced in the OP. These are the sorts who claim that women are just overly "sensitive" or they are the sorts who view women as property.

It helps these sorts to see that sexism is wrong but often they can only see it when the tables are turned. If this device bothers you, why read a thread about sexism?

And last time I checked, men were running most of the institutions and corporations in this society; they make more money than women and they make the rules to suit themselves. If you are bothered by a post that is satire aimed at showing how ridiculous sexism is, imagine how bothered you would be if you were a woman living with blatant sexism everywhere you turned?

... trust Forbes to express the research correctly.

Its infuriating talking to the press. They come to you and let you talk for a while, then ask you questions until you say something close to what they predetermined you to say, and then go with that.

I was interviewed for a TV human interest story about sparring with padded weapons. The interviewer kept asking me about whether I felt that this sport was unfeminine. I said it was feminine because I'm female and I'm participating.

He didn't like that answer. He asked the question again and again and I kept giving the same answer. Finally he gave up.

I do technical articles at times with scientists. I let them review it before I print it. Wisdom is often just realizing what you don't know.

What an accomplished group on this thread!

I suppose the nice people at Forbes give him a job because otherwise he'd be out on the street masturbating in public or something, and people would be passing by saying things like, "Eeeeeewwwwww, put on some pants, dude!"

This is one man who is not rolling his eyes or shaking his head at Pamela Troy.

While I haven't read the original article, there are some things that I feel like commenting on:
“When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you.” Okay, what happened to the bond of love that develops in a long term relationship? Is the author saying that his own marriage is so shallow, that the far more casual relationship of a co-worker is on par with it? And even if one's spouse meets someone that they "like" more than you, so what? The two of you made a lifelong commitment to each other, and if you can't trust them not to break their word the moment some Bright Shiny comes along, you have bigger marital problems than whether or not your wife has a career.

"Traditionally, men have tended to do ‘market’ or paid work outside the home,and women have tended to do ‘non-market‘" Like most chauvinists, the author marches out the old "traditional role" argument, while not bothering to delve into how the roles came about. They developed when our forest-dwelling, foraging ancestors started becoming hunter-gatherers, and are no more applicable to modern society than if I went out and hunted a buffalo with a handmade spear.

The author's comments reveal far more about his own insecurities than they do about the subject matter. I feel sorry for any woman unfortunate enough to marry him, thus becoming the unwitting external projection of his unexamined fears.

I'm so very happy to have you as one of my partners. That dickhead who wrote the Forbe's article would not survive 15 minutes with me.

I like that my partners see me as a valued individual first. That's how I see them as well.

Hey, dude, welcome to DU and get a star already! Lots of cool extra features including being able to stalk me in cyberland (just kidding).

sounds all too much as if he'd be delighted to put a burqa on his wife and keep her locked up during the day, to be allowed out only in his company.

News flash: People in happy marriages are not seriously tempted by others.

people in happy marriages are not seriously tempted, especially women.

Generally, men are more likely to cheat because of physical attraction. That's not to say all men, that's just to say many men who cheat are will often tell you they love their wives. But women cheat when they are unhappy. Those old jokes about housewives and the milkmen probably came from somewhere.

:hi:

Well-said!

Well, I can pretty much guarantee that my hubby will not be subscribing to Forbes anymore; I guess he married an uppity woman who might influence his decisions disproportionately.

or even 1956.

Excellent.

"He called me a gear."

Your last line puts a finger exactly on what is so wrong with this article. I, too, read and discarded those scifi books of yesteryear that for some reason could imagine anything but equal, capable women between their pages. This was an awesome editoral. k & r.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Saying "I'm too lazy to do anything for myself and too cheap to hire a housekeeper" just wouldn't have gotten him much.

I'll comment more later, but my wife is originally from China and has several female friends from China that are all career women (e.g, one is a cardiologist, one is an executive at Pepsi, etc) and Chinese women working seems to be expected... At our daughter's 2nd birthday party, I even made a joke that I was going to have to wear a bag over my head in shame because my wife was the only one that didn't make more than her husband at the party. (though, it was very close at the time, and I suspect my wife will be making more than me within a few years at the most)

Welcome to DU!

A national magazine published a blatantly extreme article in an attempt to create news and sell more copies?

No way.

First off I, like several others, am amazed to find something like this published in 2006, not 1906. Are you SURE of the date on the article? Is there a chance it's a spoof?

Oh, I know that it really is intended to be serious and really was written this year.

The REAL problem with career women as I see it is that there is almost no societal support of a woman who works full time outside the home. Schools assume a stay-at-home mom. Bosses assume you either don't have children or that there's someone else who deals with them. It infuriates me, and is an important reason I managed to stay home for twenty-five years while my children were growing up.

There actually are a reasonable number of stay-at-home moms out there. I personally know of any number, across the income spectrum. But it doesn't matter why a woman works: for personal fulfillment, to supplement the family income, because she's a single mom with no other support, whatever. In Europe there's plenty of support for families.

Every so often a discussion gets started here in which those without children express great resentment towards those with children over what they see as the latter not carrying their share of the load at work. What's always missed in those discussions I feel is that the assumption of total devotion to the job is not questioned. I have always felt that personal life should be more important in the long run.

Fortunately that article will ultimately do no more than start a lot of lively discussions out there.

I wonder exactly how old Noer is. It sounds like something written by a man who is at least 50. And I wonder even more what his personal marital situation is.

There is virtually no societal support for a mother who works outside the home, which most do out of economic necessity, regardless of whether or not they enjoy their jobs. I think the resentment that people without children feel when asked to do more work or to work longer hours than those with children is that there is an assumption that their personal lives and need for private time is less important than the needs of parents to spend time with their children. So childless people are asked to carry the burden for those with children. The solution has to be a societal one, with decent childcare available to everyone who needs it. European countries take this seriously and try to make the lives of parents with young children easier. That, of course, is labelled socialism in this country. It is time that we stop accepting "family values" as a political slogan used by Republicans who have done everything they can to make life harder for all families except the very rich, who need no help but get plenty, at the expense of everyone else.

Thank you for this excellent piece!

:applause:

:yourock:

:thumbsup:

Fuck him!! That about sums up all my feelings for this guy

if he can't handle a woman who is more than just a housekeeper and baby machine...fuck him.

fuck him that is. Who would WANT to fuck him? He should fuck himself.

who'd have me as a husband. (Stolen from Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member.)

Satire as thick as a president's skull

The piece left me with a deep sadness for the spiritual poverty of this man (and others) who cannot imagine marriage being a union of two human beings, but who look upon the state as a transaction of material and personal comfort. Marriage can be a transcendant experience, in which in trust we open our souls to one another in order to grow more fully into ourselves. Instead, he debases the union to one of two humans wrestling in the mud with each other for material gain, ownership, and a clean rug. I hope for some redemption for him, that he may finally find value in his own potential for relationship.

Pamela, I hope to see more of your excellent prose here. Welcome.

My wife and I can prove them all wrong. My wife and I have been HAPPILY MARRIED for 22 years. Life is simpler when two people share all the task required in a home.
She has had a very successfully career making as much or more than I do at times.
The secret is that I fully support everything she chooses to do and likewise she supports me.She supported me when we moved half way across the country and I supported her when she chose a new career path. We share all duties in the home, including the laundry and child raising. We also spend more time together than many of those traditional marriages because we choose to, she is my best friend and I am hers.

That is how it works, two people, partners in life.

i.e., reading all those hideous post-apocalyptic novels???

Your description of them is so mind-numbingly depressing that I can't imagine spending more than 60 seconds looking through one, if I were ever so bored as to actually pick one up off a shelf.

So much so that I am afraid of what would happen in an actual post-apocalyptic world.

Anyway, the only novel like that that didn't treat women as chattel was Stephen King's The Stand. There, the good guys established a society that was, while not a utopia, reasonably democratic. at least I didn't noticed much sexism.

They don't actually believe this shit....for one, if you look at the daughters of all these rick fucks, they ALWAYS have careers. They are put into high paying jobs, and given opportunities even men of the lower classes don't have. What they want is for us to remain ignorant, while they reap the benefit. Women are an incredible resource (not like water thought lol)...when both men and women pool their talents, brains, and education, there is so much progress that could be made. Hell, thats why Russia beat the U.S in the space race. What they want is to keep half the population ignorant, and the other half so busy that we can't rebel.

Thats what it is....they don't want us to destroy them.

that was a good one

down from the Neanderthals (we can't be sure), but I see the problem wrapped up in concocted religions - the premises and interpretations (written, signed, distributed, and preached by men?) are in sync with what the Noers are saying: walk three feet behind, don't drive even if wearing a burqa, carry 100 pounds on the head. but don't carry the weapons, be a submissive obedient homeperson ... there is a lot of religion setting the stage which becomes the culture, especially with radical fundamentalists and just plain old insecure chauvinists?

This tis in interestingly with some recent threads pointing out that women are grabbing the headlines (in this country and Israel?) for taking risks as peace activists and more.

It also ties into the wonderful concept evolving from the novel - the DaVinci Code - what could have been possible for women if the Gospels and Letters had not all been written by men and the decrees signed by men only.

We should be grateful that some Queens were allowed to rule?

Yep, in this country, certain people like the way it was - decades and centuries ago.

Great post!! Bravo!:applause::yourock:

Bakc in the seenties, several of my friends and myself came down with this killer flu.
Over a very lame study group that we could barely keep going as there were just too many trips to the bathroom, we knew we needed help.
It was exam week, and all of us wanted to postpone being sick, or especially, avoid it all together.
"Hey" said one of my best friends "ya know that stuff we were saving for the next big party?"

We nodded knowingly. "Well, I've heard it can stop the flu dead in its tracks..."
The "stuff" was Owlsley grade bliss tabs and with a bit of trepidation, all of us consumed said product.

Within two or three hours we were all back on our feet. Granted some of us were talking to God and others were seeing paisley patterns in the air, but we made it through the study group and none of us missed the first of the exams the following day.

SO what if it turned out that it was the hallucigenists who survived the killer plague, avian flu or otherwise? Stranger things have happened...

"women and the economy"

So you view women - again - as some inanimate quantifiable entity that you can discuss? And you are qualified to weigh in on the pros and cons of women's "liberation" (cringe) WHY?

In case you haven't noticed, women are fighting the wars these days. Yep. They wear pants too, and some even smoke in public!

Could someone PLEASE explain to me why so many men refuse to live in the present? I really, really want to know. Are they incapable of rational sight? Do they fall victim to their own fantasies? Where the hell does someone hide out so isolated and uninformed that they don't know that women are doing dirty work like law enforcement, truck driving, piloting planes, farming and working at Gitmo?


:banghead:

is dirty work? Next time you call a plumber, see if a woman shows up. Auto mechanic, trash truck driver (you know where the person has to get out and person-handle that quarter-ton dumpster out from between the cars) underwater welder, high-steel construction worker, crab fisherperson, lineperson, hell, I've never even seen a female copy-repair person. Yep women are out there in droves taking those dirty dangerous jobs. :eyes:

Some of us not only live in the present; we live in reality. And reality is that most women do not have the luxury of being a stay-at-home wife. Yes, it is a luxury. It is a luxury because it is a choice men have NEVER had. You want a newsflash? Men WORK. We always have and always will.

Then how do you explain the stay-at-home husbands I know? Or the guy who forced his wife to live in a car (she worked two jobs, he slept in the car all day) so he didn't have to work? How do you explain the fact that I put my frist husband through school? If I didn't work, no food for us.

I know plenty of men with zero work ethic, and plenty of women who have climbed cellphone towers, built houses, shoveled horse shit, cleaned chicken houses (a neighbor) , welded ( another neighbor), flown planes (my ex was a pilot), so get off your high horse. Men don't have a corner on working hard. My male bosses - except one - are the laziest things I've ever had to work under.

:eyes: Indeed!

me niether. Or hot tar roofing? or hod carrier?? or choke setter? (buddyhollysghost... you can look those last two up, I'm pretty sure you have no clue). most men dont have the strength to last in many of these brutally hard, dangerous jobs and virtually no women do. I could'nt do them, at least not for an entire career. I lasted just over a year as an insulator when I was 20 and it was MISERABLE. Drywall?? forget it. the only rockers I knew who lasted year in year out worked out over the winter on wieghts just to have a chance of avoiding injury. Linemen?? by the time they make foremen half of them dont climb anymore because of wasted backs and knees. One of the yards in my division in my company does'nt have a single climbing foreman. All eight are "non-climbing foremen" due to injuries. Barely any linemen make it to 50 without some physical problems due to injury. My office has many estimators who were former linemen that were injured, some without legs or arms due to electrocution injuries.

There is a whole group of brutally hard working MEN out there sacrificing their bodies so this society can function. Could they be replaced by women in those jobs?? office jockies like me sure could'nt replace them. women?? give me a break..

that ninety nine percent of men would or could never do, and I could find an obscure woman somewhere who would do it and do it well.

The "either or" mentality has really gotten us nowhere, but some will keep operating in that mindset and never open the part of the intellect which teaches them to get along and work together.

What you fail to see is how desperately, with your post, you are trying to draw a line between "male" and "female."

If you can locate that weak spot, your generalizations and prejudices become valid.

"Woman cannot do X
Only very few, very strong men can do X
Therefor, woman is not as valuable as man."



I will tell you of one experience I had: working at a garden center. This hundred pound, five foot tall woman loaded landscape timbers for hours while broad-shouldered American men watched her throw them in their SUVs. They certainly didn't jump in there to help, being those manly men and all. There was no natural propensity to "do the hard work so a woman doesn't have to." Do you guys turn this on and off at will?

Using a few very remote examples to make your case sure makes you feel all manly, but women are out there working their asses off in thankless jobs all the time. If you can't see that, you live in a very sad, very small world.

I have never seen a job out there that is above and beyond the capacity of a woman to do, and to do as well as a man, as long as the woman has the physical prowess to do it. The same can be said of a man-- there are probably just as many guys who don't have the physical constitution to last a week on a roofing or drywall crew either.

Far too often, the problem with the lack of women in these lines of work gets to be whether the paycheck is worth the sh*t that the woman has to take on the job from many of their male coworkers. I've known women in all phases of the construction trades, having been a painter and drywall hanger at one time myself. However, many of the women i know who have lasted in the trades have formed their own companies and employed other women, if only to be able to rein in the rampant sexism and misogyny that goes unchecked on so many job sites, and to be able to choose general contractors to work for who will treat them fairly and equitably.

yes, I am absolutely sure you can find "a" woman out there tough enough to do any job a man can do. In fact, you can probably find a thousand, maybe even ten thousand. But can you find a million?? hmmmm??? not a chance.

get real.. its a numbers game and in the world of tough dangerous jobs only men are available in sufficient numbers with the toughness and strength necessary to fill all these jobs. You could eliminate every woman in these jobs and it would have no significant impact on our economy or society. That cant be said for the men.

and there is nothing "sexist" in any of my comments. There is no value judgement going on here. It is simple fact. Why simple facts like this bother (american) women is beyond me. I could't do most these jobs myself and I take no offense or loss of self esteem in the fact that there are millions of tougher guys than myself out there willing and able to do this work. We all have differing capabilities and skills.

Thank you so much.

<nt>

Some other posters have mentioned that this idealized (from some points of view) vision of marriage, that the author fears will be lost to career woman wives, has never been the domain of other than a few privileged households. Poor women have always worked, married or not. Does he expect that only men will earn their living by cleaning house and cooking for the wealthy? Likewise, only men will teach, do data entry, and other jobs? The author is ignorant, and makes a clueless argument.

Unfortunately, some women agree with him, and those women are the real problem. They opposed the ERA, oppose a woman's right to choose, support shrub's illegal war, and look for the theocracy to come and the end times close by. This article does not only express the view of white, wealthy males. It is also the view of too many brown skinned wealthy men and women, and white wealthy women -- even of some poor ones. The point of view is dangerous. Don't take it lightly.

The sky is not falling, yet. And we don't wear purdah here, yet. Because some of us know Tom was correct when he said that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance.

MB

think that they rules they would impose on others don't apply to them.

Phyllis Schlafly never quit her job on the anti-ERA speechifying trail. Laura Schlessinger never gave up her radio show as she lambasted every woman caller who got paid for their work. Laura David thinks husbands should make all the decisions and wives should give in and let them, but she isn't the ghost writer of the book where she goes on and on about it.

Handmaid's Tale mentions this and when Serena Joy has to give up her active and visible role in the ministry, she's stuck at home and miserable now that she has to live the life she demanded other women live.

Any time someone like that would dare to claim I should live the life the way they say I should, my response is: You first, honey. You first. Then we'll talk. And I'll still say no.

Who had the courtship odds stacked against? Mr. Jones.

That describes my household.

..if you decide that one person should stay home with infants.

Yes, I am forgoing more income by staying at home than I would have without the doctorate, but in another way, it was a perfect fit--my son was born as I was finishing my dissertation, so, since I had no job yet and my wife has one with bennies, staying home was an easy call, especially since the academic job market, being what it is, takes a while. Lots of folks I know make a similar choice around grad school/children. Some others I have known do it the other way--both start out unemployed, the first one to get a Job works while the other stays at home with the kids. That being the case, stay-at home fathers are becoming a peculiarly common thing among folks with advanced degrees.

What we really need is student loan deferment for people who stay at home with the kids--that would be "family friendly."

It's little more than a cheerleader publication that tries to manippulate the market in an overt fashion. The overt sexism, racism and elitism of the magazine is there in many areas for all to read.

as pointed out by Marie26 on a previous thread.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RbIVb6Rv-VcJ:www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.html+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Both were taken down by Forbes.
What I don't understand is why he was allowed to retain his job after his first steaming misogynistic pile was published.

Forbes is it? Hmm. Too bad really.

I'm certain the article will get attention, ala Coulter, but I see "lets cater to male insecurity and sell a magazine" (I'll leave the blatant sexism out of it)

Men? Unsure what your insecurities should be? Well Mr. Noer is more than happy to tell you. And the sad thing is their exists both men and women will buy this shit via anecdotal--or lack of critical thinking-- experience hook, line and sinker.

I'll tell you what. Let's go to our local oh, say, grocery stores, find those not on the fast career track who make less that $35,000 a year, and find out how happy and faithful those who live in poverty are. Lets find out the alcoholism, depression and suicide rate. (Since alcoholism has it's own correlation to suicide if not causation, I find it interesting he brought that up at a credible statistic)

Hell, while were at it, lets find out who's on crack.

That is some manipulative writing. As a woman, unfortunately I expect this kind of bullshit from time to time. I'm not shocked. I love the response in the essay (Thank you Pamela Troy)

But If I were a man, I'd be outraged. Because in a way, as insulting as that article is to women, it insults men in a different manner. It tells them they can't handle it, their very manhood/maleness is not enough, they lack what it takes, they are NOT ENOUGH (he tries to blame women for this, but I said I'd leave sexism out of it)-- not for a career woman and a family. Oh no. Run away little rabbit, before something comes along and hurts you. You know they're out to get you baby.

I would think it's easier to carry on numerous meaningless affairs if you have a wife too preoccupied with her career to keep an eye on you. Of course this is pure speculation on my part...

Maintaining the commercially correct appearance is practically a full time job. I work nights so I see them at my gym in the early afternoon. Flawless blonde coifs, nails, tans, and bods. They look eerily alike. I'm not saying it's a tough life, in comparison to most working people, but it appears to be very time-consuming.

Economic independence is essential for true equality and free choice. Neanderthals like the author of this column want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, with no other options or choices.

It is clear that Noer has met up with some woman somewhere who was smarter than he is, and he did not like the experience. But with his diatribe, he has sealed his fate to never be with any intelligent woman for the rest of his life. Hope he likes stupid women.

After all, who wants to be with a man who thinks of you as a chattel, a machine.

Many studies have documented the benefits of marriage over singleness and shown that, compared to single persons those who are married:
are happier;
are healthier and live longer;
earn more, work harder, and save more.

Some studies have noted that the profit in marriage is mostly because of the “commitment” factor; which is basically having another person to rely on, especially financially. And financial support means that both parties to the marriage must be employed and earning a living.

Knowing that someone is “committed” to you allows you to have greater flexibility in life, to choose work over domesticity or vice versa without endangering your “living.”

“Commitment” also is an excellent arrangement for rearing offspring, since one person is not (generally) responsible for the sole physical, emotional, or financial support of those offspring. Married people in good relationships simply “have each other’s back,” which relieves stress and makes life a little easier. Married people also have (in most cases) an extended network of interested parties who are also willing to help (in-laws, friends, grandparents, etc.). When you are married, if you are in a good marriage, you simply don’t have to go it alone.

This is basically why marriage benefits men most—men simply aren’t very good at “going it alone in life,” and frankly, left to themselves, they do tend to botch things up a bit. Beat me up on this one, but testosterone tends toward mostly risk taking and careless sex and little else.

That said, it must also be noted that married people are simply WEALTHIER than single people. WHY? Because in the vast majority of cases TWO people usually contribute incomes instead of one. There are those cases of “Trophy Wives” who are “supported” by rich husbands simply because they are ornamental (and nothing else), but that’s not what I am talking about. “Trophy Wives” are the ultimate “appliances” in that they contribute nothing except “being there” beautifully and when they are no longer good to look at (like an old beat up car, for example) they are traded in for the latest model.

I am talking about the usual, everyperson sort of marriage. In marriages like that where the wife and husband work (job/career-wife families), home ownership is more likely, savings are greater and retirement nest eggs are bigger. Children are more likely to have beneficial activities and college savings accounts. And these marriages are more likely to last longer because the burden of providing for everyone is not resting solely on the husband.

When I first heard of this so-called Forbes study of “career women,” I laughed. When I read the Forbes nonsense, I laughed even harder. It is more than obvious—Noer is a man who has been outsmarted, outlasted and outdone by a very intelligent “career woman,” and he is filled with resentment at that. We need to do a little digging until the skeletons in Noer’s closet chase him around at night. His so-called study is little more than a rant against smart women. To him, the “Trophy Wife” is the ideal. Good looking and stupid, she has no thoughts or opinions that the husband doesn’t tell her to have and is ever ready for any type of sexual abuse. God forbid that a woman be smart or have options.

He must have met up with a woman somewhere who managed to outsmart him, and show him up for the fool that he is. He’s eating crow, and he doesn’t like the taste.







l

I have the greatest job on earth, but I'd rather be doing nothing with my spouse than doing anything else. I don't think that the problem is career women, but career people. Caring too much about a mere job is retarded. Go to university to get a job? Wow! That's just so wrong headed. Try to balance work and children? Again, quit your job and raise your children. Jobs should always come in dead last in any foot race. A woman who describes herself in terms of her job should be avoided like the plague (same goes for men who describe themselves in terms of their jobs, by the way).

I took 2 years off when my kids were born and I only worked 3 hrs a week from the time they were 3 until they were 7. Sure I probably lost a lot of income in the adventure, but screw that. I spent time with my kids that all those career idiots will never get back.

And as far as the second opinion piece goes, I found it pretty stupid. Learn rock climbing? Try out new music? What? To keep someone else happy? No way. If you have to change to make someone else happy, you've just betrayed yourself. There are plenty of fish in the sea without having to worry about retooling your personality to keep someone else amused. Jesus! What would a woman say if a man said that to her? Sexist nonsense.

I saw the article a few days ago in Salon, written by Rebecca Traister

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/08/24/career_women/

Also, when you quote an essay, you need to limit yourself to 4 paragraphs...

Plagiarism is a serious matter. Before you accuse someone of it, especially on a public board, you'd better be sure you've got your facts straight.

I don't know what I was thinking this morning when I posted that. I am truly, horribly sorry for implying that you had plagarised. I was 100% wrong, and I apologise for any annoyance my accusation had caused you.

This is probably the stupidist thing I have ever posted, and probably in the top 10 for DU in general. Again, I am sorry.

I enjoyed what I saw in your journal. I look forward to reading some more of your posts here.

I'm sorry I saw this too late to recommend it for the Greatest Page, but it took me a while to break out of that packing crate in the warehouse. ;-)

you can't post more than 4 paragraphs at a time when quoting stories

This is my piece.

This article is horrible, not only because of its sexism, but because the author has warped his depiction of reality to make reality comply with his sexist worldview. I am (for now) a stay at home dad, married to a career woman (for seven years now), and don't have the worries and problems he cites. I know I'm not disposable.

There are so many problems with this article. Here's one paragraph:

"According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat."

If you are going to cite literature, cite it, don't just paraphrase it. Give me a frickin name and date of publication. I'd mark this guy down as a freshman for doing this--any "professional journalist" to does this deserves a failing mark.

Secondly, if you're going to cite statistics, please put in the appropriate unit! " those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas." 1.75 what? Percent? What a moran. Even worse, even his editor is so boneheaded that this slipped through.

There's also the bit about "individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat." Of course, moran, that's because most of the people who earn more than $30,000 a year are men! This is a classic example of spuriousness. What is mind boggling is that this is evidence that women of all income levels are less likely to cheat than men, and this pinhead, because he has no understanding of statistics or even basic logic, turns it around and cites it as an example of how better-earning women are more likely to cheat than men. There's no evidence that the researcher he is "quoting" even controlled for gender. Of course, we have no way of knowing that either, thanks to the failure to attribute this "finding."

I've met Gary Becker (one of the few times moran actually cites someone by name). He may have been brilliant thirty years ago, but nowadays he's just another aging academic who lives off of his reputation. Anyway, Becker today just publishes whatever the hell he wants to, and nobody bothers to argue with him, out of respect, perhaps, but also because he's irrelevant.

The real problem with this article, however, is this:

"And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women."

Let's just turn this around for a moment--who, exactly, is it among women who are able to give up working outside the home? Married women. In fact, all of the things that he cites as "fact" with regard to career women have been found, in my recollection) (since he doesn't bother to cite his sources, neither will I) to be true of single women. In other words, what he's really "measuring" is that most stay at home moms are married, something we knew already.

My wife and I had similar education, similar salary. Her insurance was better. I stay at home. Been at home for 5 years now.

I have one more year before both kids are school full time. Yes it was a blow to my career, but it was the right decision.

The hardest part was to adjust consumption to a single salary, after jet-setting for 6 years w/o kids.

Anyway, I agree with Alcibiades. This article was written to feed into false precept, where any real story would work to do the opposite.

It's not just for war, anymore.