Don't Marry a Career Woman

[Shuckins]

An article by Michael Noer of Forbes magazine cautions working men about marrying a woman with a career, stating that such a marriage carries an increased risk of marital failure.  

The political incorrectness of the statement is absolutely stunning.  So stunning, in fact, that it is actually comedic.  Bloggers around the nation have been all agog and atwitter about it.

So how come it hasn't already made it to these bbs?  This ought to be good for a major bb donnybrook.

[Vudak]

The Political Incorrectness may be stunning, but is it statistically true?

I don't know if it is or isn't.  Does anyone?

[cpxxx]

I just married a woman with a career. She earns more than me has no intention of giving up work after she has our baby and hasn't changed her name.

I haven't a problem with any of the above. But I think many men would. Therein lies the problem, the big old male ego.

[eagl]

Who cares if it's not PC...  It's true.  Turns out my wife's career isn't very compatible with mine and we've been physically separated for about half of our marriage so far.  It hasn't killed our marriage, but it's been far tougher than it would have if one of us wasn't tied to a career.

If we had kids, it would have been impossible and whoever gave up their career to take care of the kids would have guaranteed resented the other for the rest of our life.  That's not a healthy marriage by any measure.

[JB88]

Originally posted by eagl
Who cares if it's not PC...  It's true.  Turns out my wife's career isn't very compatible with mine and we've been physically separated for about half of our marriage so far.  It hasn't killed our marriage, but it's been far tougher than it would have if one of us wasn't tied to a career.

If we had kids, it would have been impossible and whoever gave up their career to take care of the kids would have guaranteed resented the other for the rest of our life.  That's not a healthy marriage by any measure.

well, that or the dancing in the spiderman suit thing...that's enough to
stress any marriage.

heh.









ahem.

digress.

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by cpxxx
I just married a woman with a career. She earns more than me has no intention of giving up work after she has our baby and hasn't changed her name.

I haven't a problem with any of the above. But I think many men would. Therein lies the problem, the big old male ego.

Wanting to work if fine... no problem with her earning more than I do... hell my wife brings in more than I do a month...

but if my name isn't good enough for her, I'm kickin her sorry bellybutton to the curb.  And none of this hyphenated crap either.

[bkbandit]

why a woman, there horrible, get a camaro or a mustang(or if u got it a viper or a porshe). Rub my feet, go to the nail place wit me, carry this, buy me that, then the annoying questions, do u love me do u think im fat... and here is my favorite (me) babe im tired can u make me a grill cheese, (her) im not ur dam mother go to hell, ooo then there the other things, why dont u write me poetry, why dont u bring flowers no more, why dont u tell me u love me. Maybe its just the younger women, i dont noe. I have no prob wit doin that bull for her but dammit a quick meal will keep me alive. A muscle car doesnt do this, u buy gas u maintain it and it makes love to u when u mash the pedal and hop up on 2 wheels. I love women, all of them r bueatiful in there on ways but dam, there to difficult, maybe later maybe never but dam those muscle cars look better and better when i think about them. no wonder those old aces feel in love wit there planes. "if my hellcat could cook i would marry it" i would do the same, add some "attention" and im all set.

just my 2 cents

[Holden McGroin]

In a related story,

National Organization For Women Turns 39 Again
August 23, 2006 | Onion

WASHINGTON, DC—With members of its closest sister organizations insisting that "it doesn't look a day over 30," the National Organization For Women once again honored its 39th year of feminist activism Monday with a small celebration.

"NOW has been around for—a number of years, and what's really important here is not age, but all that we've accomplished in that time," said NOW President Kim Gandy in a press conference announcing the group's thirty something year of public service. "We've made great strides to secure reproductive rights, combat domestic violence, and rid the workplace of discrimination and harassment. There's no reason why we can't continue to make amazing achievements in our 39th year and in all our other subsequent 39th years."

NOW, one of the largest and longest-functioning feminist organizations in the U.S., states in organization literature that "a champion of women's rights is only as old as it feels."

"Sure, we've been around for a long time, but I could name ten organizations that have been around longer," said Gandy, who called NOW "marvelously mature."

 "Besides, no one ever asks the ACLU or the NAACP how old they are," Gandy said. "NOW is just as relevant today as it was in whatever year it was founded."

In the year since it last turned 39, NOW has actively lobbied on issues from same-sex marriage to international women's rights, only once falling into a weeklong lull in activity after a Newsweek interviewer jokingly asked the organization "what it was like to see the 19th Amendment pass."

Confronted with much younger women's organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation and College Feminists, NOW is finding it more and more difficult to compete for the public's attention.

"People are being seduced by these flashy, twentysomething organizations because they openly flaunt their assets and have a casual membership policy," said NOW Vice President Latifa Lyles, who added that she "had it on good authority" that the Center For Reproductive Rights has recently had some work done on their offices. "But I think the public can see NOW has only gotten better with age, and respects the organization for its stability and experience. A lot of people find uncompromising ethics really attractive."

Despite an increased workload and growing societal pressure to form lasting partnerships with other activist groups, the 39-years-young NOW has never been seriously affiliated with any other organization, perhaps due to its decision to focus on ambitious campaigning and legal advocacy work during its twenties instead of public relations. However, NOW vehemently denies rumors that it is only interested in other women's groups, declaring it "just hasn't found the right partner organization to start a coalition with yet."

"Here at NOW, we refuse to further the stereotype that a women's organization isn't complete until it finds a strong partner organization to support it," Gandy said. "No matter how lonely our late-night conferences can get."

In spite of her organization's advancing age, Gandy said that NOW was "going as strong as ever." Over the next year alone, it will lobby Congress for over-the-counter emergency contraception and increased economic protection for mothers and caregivers, as well as confront its more internal concerns of unmanageable lateral expansion and sagging fundraising.

"We've taken aggressive steps to make sure no wrinkles appear in our public image," Gandy said. "Although, around the office, we like to call them 'battle scars.' Or 'laughter lines.' Or 'dignity doodles.'"

NOW's first order of business in their 39th year of operation is to begin preparations for the anniversary celebration next year, during which the organization is rumored to be turning 39. Although the theme, location, and guest list are still being debated, both NOW's national and regional leadership unanimously agreed to invite '70s heartthrob Burt Reynolds to deliver the keynote address.  

[1K3]

My brother in law married a woman with a career, she's the breadwinner while my brother in law works at Walmart and takes care of the house work.

hmmm i think there's something wrong with this scenario:D

[Nilsen]

As of august 1. my wife brings home the cash and will do so for one year.



Doesnt bother me one little bit

[FUNKED1]

http://nomarriage.com/

[Suave]

Is there a nokids.com ?

Or, youngchildlesssinglewomenwith oututeruses.com ?

[takeda]

Same here, the wife brings in about 30% more than I do, and I'm quite glad about it, I can be more relaxed about work stuff, before that I was always worried about finding ways to bring in more instead of doing stuff I just liked. We share the housekeeping stuff quite OK, and here wives have always kept their last name.

Of course I can see how this situation would help the practical matters of a breakup as both of us are quite capable of living on our own, so in a way, yes it makes it "easier", but should we really view crappy marriages kept together just by a dependence relationship as something preferable?

[cpxxx]

The name thing doesn't bother me at all Caveman! Never saw the point in name changing anyway. But I do like to tease her about it:p  None of her sister's changed their names either so she's just keeping in with the clan. I reckon it's their stubborn Viking heritage.

But I agree with Takeda 'should we really view crappy marriages kept together just by a dependence relationship as something preferable?'. In my Mother's time, women had to give up work once they married. If that happened now the economy would collapse.

There is some merit in the argument that some careers are not conducive to a stable marriage. With one or other spouse devoting themselves to climbing the corporate ziggurat, something has to give.

[Leslie]

It was King Edward who abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson.  He gave up his career for love.  I admire him for that.

"I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as king as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love."  King Edward VIII Dec. 11, 1938




Les