It’s pretty amazing


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – It’s pretty amazing

It’s pretty amazing
shovel
Regular Contributor
shovel
that the Career Boy Chorus had nothing to say about what is most likely the most intelligent post on this from PsyGuy:

http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=respond_marry_career_woman&message.id=1613

(Don’t worry, it will open up in a new window so you can continue with the dramatic diatribes on how feminism is destroying society, yadda yadda…)

08-25-2006 08:04 PM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
miscwit
Contributor
miscwit

That was indeed a logical post.

This part was most intriguing:

I’ve long argued that to achieve true egalitarianism, we all need to let go of the desire to have our respective cakes and eat them, too.   While men cannot expect their working wives to come home/cook dinner/take care of the kids/do all the housework, it’s the idea that a women deserves both equality and special treatment that leads to statistics like the one Noer reported.  That a woman could become successful, get a high-paying job, and then be discontented because she still internally harbors the belief that she should be taken care of (or that a really good husband is bigger and stronger and fundamentally “better” in some way than his wife!) seems backwards and ludicrous.

But never forget that actions speak louder than words. When at least 50% of single post “househusband wanted” on their dating profiles, only then should any man take women’s collective words regarding egalitarianism seriously.

08-25-2006 08:17 PM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
Hedgie
Regular Contributor
Hedgie

I didn’t reply because it appears to have been written by a third rate Dr. Phill wannabe.

08-25-2006 09:59 PM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
klymen
Contributor
klymen
lol

08-26-2006 12:21 AM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
I’ve found that whenever a woman brings up the topic of chivalry (they’re usually for it), if I just raise the issue of chastity belts, it usually puts a pail of cold water on it…

Part of the problem is that the topic of marriage and relationships is totally female-dominated. Men just don’t get a say, and when they do you can see the results in the boards here and on the blogs; the whole female half of the I-Net is like someone kicked over the anthill. All because of one little opinion piece. Men just aren’t allowed in the discussion unless they parrot the party line. It’s pretty much like when women 35-40 years ago started saying they wanted to be CEO’s and the like, and got criticized by the Archie Bunkers of the world, only now it’s the women doing the name-calling and making the put-downs in an attempt to protect their traditional turf from encroachment by men. This hardly makes men take women seriously when they say they just want equality. When do men get a turn?

If single men should indeed avoid “career” women, what is his implicit recommendation? That men should either marry only non-aspiring traditionalists, or that women should stop the foolishness of having personal goals and return swiftly to their kitchens en masse? Perhaps a more reasonable conclusion to draw from the data presented is that women and men now both have an equal opportunity to either weaken or preserve their marriages and families.

Well, before I get back to that question let me just say I think much of the uproar here seems to be based on the idea that what Noer is reporting on is somehow new. It isn’t. In fact, the ideas have been around for a long time but haven’t gotten any attention because they don’t play well to the female-dominated audiences of the mainstream media like Oprah and The View where such things might be discussed. Here’s a quote from a book written circa 1990:

An article in the December 4, l988 Los Angeles Times Magazine, dealing with the lifestyle of six Los Angeles women who “had it all,” “the personal stories of six women who have found success,” indicated that the six women had altogether a total of two children, both offspring of one woman married to a househusband and employing a full-time live-in housekeeper. A l985 survey showed that executive females were three-fourths divorced or single, and that only 20 percent of them were in their first marriages (versus 64 percent of male executives who were in their first marriages.) Ms. Friedan interprets such female independence as showing that money is a “love-spoiler.” She is thinking of men’s money as inhibiting women’s promiscuity. From the man’s point of view, it is the woman’s money which is the love-spoiler, or at least the marriage and maternity spoiler. It is the man’s aim to integrate love, marriage and maternity into family life, using the male paycheck as the binder; but these economically and sexually emancipated women are able to use their own paychecks to avoid such commitment to marriage and maternity. The birthrate of such women is minuscule, their divorce rate is far higher than that of economically dependent wives, as is their adultery rate, otherwise known as “a woman’s right to control her own body.” The answer to the question “Where are the men for women like us?” is that there aren’t many, because most men want families–because it is men, not women, or not autonomous women, who have the long-term sexual horizons.

As far as what men should do, I think the argument against marriage for men – any marriage – is much simpler than Noer imagines: marriage confers no substantive rights on men, only obligations; conversely, marriage confers rights on women but imposes no obligations on them.

In other words, marriage is a crap-shoot at best and very likely a raw deal for men regardless of what the “research” reports about increases in happiness, health, and income. What’s even worse is that when things go wrong it seems to be the man who’s always blamed. Naturally, a sane man would avoid this situation like the plague that it is.

Given this fundamental fact, it’s no wonder then that women tend to be marriage-philic while men tend to be marriage-phobic. The mainstream, female-dominated play on this state of affairs is that men are pathological by nature: afraid of intimacy, intimidated by strong women, committment-phobic, peter pans who refuse to grow up, etc. This is sort of like how women who wouldn’t “put out” were accused of being “frigid”. Only once again it’s the women who are the Neanderthals. The more telling thing is that almost no one is talking with and listening to what men have to say. They just assume they know the answer already, and that’s that.

The implication for women is that if you want a husband you need to find a chump, someone who mistakenly thinks they’re getting something in the deal. I.e., you want someone who hasn’t thought about these things too much for your own good.

The research which backs up this line of thinking hasn’t been mentioned anywhere around here yet. What it did was survey a bunch of men and sort them along a scale from traditional to “modern” in their way of thinking. You can guess at what a questionnaire which did this might be like. The result was that the more traditional a man was the more likely he was to be married. In other words, most women want traditional men. They want men to ask them out, pay for them, pursue them, buy them diamond rings, walk down the aisle on her special day, etc. (all things that a liberated man wouldn’t think of doing). When women then expect these men to do a one-eighty and start doing “women’s work” (diaper changing, laundry, etc.) is when the trouble starts. The net effect is that traditional men are also more likely to be divorced than those with a more modern outlook!

So, the other main function of marriage these day is to provide women with ex-husbands. But that’s another story.

One other point: because it’s a female-dominated area, it will be up to women to make the changes, to make marriage attractive to men again. What men have been hearing for the last thirty years is all the things women aren’t going to do for us any more, combined with demands for more from us. In increasing numbers men are deciding women just aren’t worth the time and trouble. Women think there’s a man shortage when in fact census figures tell us that in the never-married 34-39 age group that there are four men for every three women! (I.e., woman shortage is more like it…) What’s happened is those men who have anything to lose (via a sex harassment lawsuit, paternity suit, divorce settlement, etc.) have simply dropped out of the dating/mating scene because women just aren’t worth the risk. This leaves the field to those who have nothing to put at risk. Somehow women haven’t clued in, partly because everything in the media is constantly telling them how great and valuable they are. So it will take women to catch up with the real state of affairs and decide it’s in their interest to lobby for the change which is needed to again make relationships and marriage with them attractive to men.

Just my $0.02…

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-26-2006 12:28 AM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
PsyGuy
Contributor
PsyGuy

Hedgie –

… I guess I don’t mind if you consider me third-rate.  But I can’t let the Dr. Phil part stand, as it only advertises your ignorance.  Dr. Phil is a counseling psychologist  (in my opinion, a mediocre-to-poor one, but this is more or less irrelevant).  I am a professor and a researcher who gets governmental grant money to study human behavior.  So what you mean to say is that I’m a third-rate Dr. Milgram – which I’d take gratefully – but you probably don’t know who Stanley Milgram is (see http://www.stanleymilgram.com/… he’s an incredibly interesting man).

Try reading my post to see if you have any actual, reasonable objections to it instead of judging it based upon your misapprehensions about it’s author.  I won’t hold my breath on a cogent critical commentary, but I honestly welcome being proven incorrect.

Best,

PsyGuy

Message Edited by PsyGuy on 08-26-2006 06:18 AM

08-26-2006 06:17 AM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad

PsyGuy wrote:
I am a professor and a researcher who gets governmental grant money to study human behavior.

A professor of the humanities? I would have never guessed…

Leftist indoctrination in academia – especially the humanities (which our good professor is proudly part of) – is so rampant these days, I let the facts speak for themselves:

http://www.noindoctrination.org/

Fact: humanities – especially fields like psychology – have been overrun by feminists. Tell us, professor, how many “gender identity” courses/seminars have you taught or have you personally taken/were required to take?

Wait…

…is that you, Hugo?

08-26-2006 09:45 AM

Re: It’s pretty amazing
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen

PsyGuy wrote:

Hedgie –

… I am a professor and a researcher who gets governmental grant money to study human behavior.

What a surprise!

Aligned with the Government – check
Aligned with Academia – check
Aligned with the Feminists – check

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-26-2006 10:37 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: