haha no incentives in rebuttals.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – haha no incentives in rebuttals.

haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
No rebuttals to this article have given any reason why it is in my best interests to marry a career woman.

Sure, they’ve been very angry and accusing men of low morality, that we belong in preschool, that it’s our fault and that we should buck up our ideas to live up to their standards etc. That’s all really nice and I really appreciate that and stuff but at the end of the day it indicates that they wouldn’t really enrich my life, rather that they would ruin it.

Just pointing out that obvious one that some ahh “presumably well educated people” seem to be missing.

The entire rebuttal next to the original article does a better job of convincing me not to go near career women than the original article:

“Counterpoint: Don’t Marry A Lazy Man”

Not a Counterpoint: Marry a career woman and you will be told you are lazy.

“If the last new skill your guy learned was how to tie his shoes in the second grade, dump him.”

Not a Counterpoint: Marry a career woman and you will be more likely to be dumped.

“OK, call me a cougar.”

Not a Counterpoint: I’m positive that most men prefer a kitten that you can pet rather than a predatory animal that chews your leg off.

“You’ll see us snuggling at a mountain-winery concert this month, enjoying the occasion.”

Haha So Not a Counterpoint: Marry a career woman and you’ll have to pretend you enjoy “mountain-winery concerts”… Where’s the sports game please? Not an incentive Lizzy.

“What is the guy doing?”

Not a Counterpoint: Same thing as he’s doing in a marriage to a non-career woman.

“Note to guys: Start by going to the gym. Then try some new music. Or a book. Or a movie. Keep connected to the rest of the world.”

Not a Counterpoint: Yeah no guy has ever done anything like that. Obviously what she means is “do it more”, also note that if this isn’t done presumably the marriage fails when it doesn’t to a non-career woman.

“seems like the rules of preschool should take over:”

Not a Counterpoint: Career women will try to shame you by implying you are like a child if you don’t buck up your ideas.

“So, guys, if you’re game for an exciting life, go ahead and marry a professional gal.”

There is NOTHING in this rebuttal to indicate marriage to a career woman is more exciting than not.

There is a lot in this rebuttal to indicate marriage to a career woman is more TROUBLE than not.

TROUBLE IS NOT EXCITEMENT LADIES. When you’re on the receiving end of this sort of thing it’s called abuse.

It seems women have gone somewhat mad with power and the big unintended consequence of feminism is that men have gone right against their instincts and want nothing to do with them.

Even more amusing is that the person that brought this idea into the mainstream was none other than Maureen Dowd with her pointless book.

Leave us alone desperate career women!

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-28-2006 10:10 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Happy_Bullet wrote:
No rebuttals to this article have given any reason why it is in my best interests to marry a career woman.
Actually, the article itself suggests that if you and your wife are happy together, her “working outside the home actually increases marital stability.”

It does suggest, however, that if you can’t be happy with a career woman (for whatever reason, perhaps the oft-referred to missing beer?) then you’d best avoid them.

08-28-2006 10:20 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
warbaby
Regular Contributor
warbaby

Um, yeah, Marta? That’s the idea, hon.

08-28-2006 10:29 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
placidlake
Contributor
placidlake
Marta is trying so hard…

08-28-2006 10:31 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

warbaby wrote:
Um, yeah, Marta? That’s the idea, hon.
What’s “the idea?”  Mr. Noer’s evidence suggests you should marry a career woman if you want increased marital stability, unless you can’t be happy with a career woman for some other reason.

Let’s talk about those other reasons, shall we?

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 10:43 PM

08-28-2006 10:37 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
abarnstall
Contributor
abarnstall

Question for you guys who are now saying “yeah, I definitely won’t ever marry a career woman! Thanks Mr. Noer!”

Did this article really convince you of that, or were you sort of averse to career women in the first place? I’m just wondering because the vitriol indicates a predisposition to not liking women with ambitions outside the home. It’s bizarre because I can’t really imagine any man I know (boyfriend, father, brother, coworker, friend) reading this article and saying “hell yeah!”

08-28-2006 10:42 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
placidlake
Contributor
placidlake
it’s a mutual jumping on a passing bandwagon.

whether it’s to reassert our rebellious nature, or to rant about personal beliefs on the feminist movement, or to justify one’s personal position. Or maybe simply because it holds a little truth.

08-28-2006 10:44 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
abarnstall
Contributor
abarnstall

If you’re with a woman who’s making you unhappy, then LEAVE her! And maybe examine why you’d choose a woman that makes you so unhappy. Right? Reading all of this stuff from men in this forum (posted for whatever reason) leaves me sort of stunned. And very, very grateful for my boyfriend, who has a life of his own outside of our relationship and appreciates the fact that I have a life of my own outside our relationship. I think he’d actually WORRY if I didn’t have career ambitions. And vice versa.

08-28-2006 10:54 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
It’s in a man’s best interests to marry whatever kind of woman is best for him and his situation, whether it’s a woman with a career, without a career, a woman who wants 10 kids, a woman with three heads, whatever.

What’s not in anyone’s best interests is a man waving around a warning flag telling ALL men to stay the hell away from one particular type of woman.

08-28-2006 11:00 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
placidlake
Contributor
placidlake
i don’t blame you. i came into this forum because i was curious about what women were taking on this. i’m glad they are appaling to you, cause they would be for me too, and my friends.

it makes me glad to be in a university with intelligent people.

08-28-2006 11:00 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – haha no incentives in rebuttals.

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
warbaby
Regular Contributor
warbaby

Marta2003 wrote:

warbaby wrote:
Um, yeah, Marta? That’s the idea, hon.
What’s “the idea?”  Mr. Noer’s evidence suggests you should marry a career woman if you want increased marital stability, unless you can’t be happy with a career woman for some other reason.

Let’s talk about those other reasons, shall we?

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 10:43 PM

Marta, is this the paragraph you are selectively quoting out of context saying that Mr. Noer’s article supports marrying a career woman?

“Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse’s parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married–it’s just that they are less likely to be so than nonworking women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub. ”

You should be ashamed of yourself, Marta, for using such an obvious and easily reavealed tactic.

08-28-2006 11:14 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

warbaby wrote:
Marta, is this the paragraph you are selectively quoting out of context saying that Mr. Noer’s article supports marrying a career woman?
No, it’s not.  It’s this one:

“[W]orking outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”

08-28-2006 11:17 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
“Let’s talk about those other reasons, shall we?”

Haha the entire article talked about them. The point is you’re not even saying it’s not true your nagging is through the roof, or that you blame the man at an increased rate. You just exhibit this behaviour yourselves , thus proving the point.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-28-2006 11:17 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Happy_Bullet wrote:
Haha the entire article talked about them.
Yes.  The article noted that she won’t clean as much and may be able to cheat on you.  Minus the unsupported increased risk of divorce, those sound the reasons of an insecure man.

It’s interesting how you characterize my disagreement as “nagging.”  Are all the guys that post here also “nagging?”

08-28-2006 11:20 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
“Did this article really convince you of that, or were you sort of averse to career women in the first place?”

Nah it’s bleeding obvious and I’ve known it for ages. Opinions like the ones in the article aren’t very common because, despite being true, they attract a lot of negative attention (ie. what you’re giving it). Please understand that this sort of thing isn’t said a lot, even though we all think it.

And it’s not the “ambitions outside the home” part. It’s the stuff that comes with. Not getting it right doesn’t do any good.

“Minus the unsupported increased risk of divorce,”

Welcome to troll-land Marta! A whole host of studies does not mean unsupported. You can bluster all you want about how it’s all men’s fault, fact is, I’ll be filing you away as a shining example of why not to marry a career woman. Well done on achieving your goals sister ohh yeah!!!

This thread requires way more attention to desperate career women than I’m prepared to give. Get back to your damned careers already or buy a cat or something. Just get away from me!!

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-28-2006 11:35 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

I direct you to Mr. Noer’s article that referenced a whole host of studies which said:

“[W]orking outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”

You can not like that fact and find it inarguable, you can even insult me and suggest I buy (of all things) cats.  All amounts to nothing more than a denial of the evidence.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:39 PM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:39 PM

08-28-2006 11:37 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
abarnstall
Contributor
abarnstall

Happy Bullet – If “it’s not the “ambitions outside the home” part. It’s the stuff that comes with,” then what is all that “stuff that comes with”?

My boyfriend (yes, I have a career AND a long term boyfriend, no cats though) doesn’t seem to have so many of the problems that all of the unfortunate men on this forum seem to encounter so frequently.

08-28-2006 11:41 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
warbaby
Regular Contributor
warbaby

Marta2003 wrote:
I direct you to Mr. Noer’s article that referenced a whole host of studies which said:

“[W]orking outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”

You can not like that fact and find it inarguable, you can even insult me and suggest I buy (of all things) cats.  All amounts to nothing more than a denial of the evidence.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:39 PM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:39 PM

Ah, I see. I had the wrong paragraph. Here’s the one you shamelessly selectively quoted:

“In 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. 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 one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”
The finding is that the more hours women work, the more likely a divorce.

Then, here’s the part where you said there were a “whole host of studies” saying that both spouses working actually leads to stable marriages.

If you had bothered to actually read the part you hang your argument on, Marta, you would see that it is “a few” other studies, and that these studies “focussed on employment (as opposed to working hours)”.

In other words, if both are working to support the household, the marriage is stronger. If she is working more hours than full-time, as would be necessary in a woman who (unnaturally) puts her career before her family, the marriage will very likely end up in divorce.

And we know who gets raped in divorce.

08-28-2006 11:48 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

warbaby wrote:
If you had bothered to actually read the part you hang your argument on, Marta, you would see that it is “a few” other studies, and that these studies “focussed on employment (as opposed to working hours)”. So, we have one study (against career women who work lots of hours) vs. a few, i.e., more than one (supporting work outside the home, of indeterminate amount, could be few, could be tons).  Hardly a slam-dunk you’ve got there.

If she is working more hours than full-time, as would be necessary in a woman who (unnaturally) puts her career before her family, the marriage will very likely end up in divorce.
The article did not say that.  You know, I know it, end of story.  Speculation is cheap.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:53 PM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:54 PM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-28-2006 11:56 PM

08-28-2006 11:52 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Good stuff warbaby! You have more patience than I do man.

Marta, a cat can enrich your life beyond what you thought possible. They are furry loving creatures. They can’t understand when you blame them for stuff, so that might now meet your needs completely, but many people have found joys in cat ownership. Some people have indoor cats that can provide attention as necessary throughout the day if they’re needy and I think that’s just great.

(Make sure it’s actually a cat though and not a large predatory beast like a cougar or career woman because they can stuff your life up badly, so I hear anyway.)

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-28-2006 11:57 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – haha no incentives in rebuttals.

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Happy_Bullet wrote:
Good stuff warbaby! You have more patience than I do man.
Too bad s(he)’s wrong.

Marta, a cat can enrich your life beyond what you thought possible.
I prefer dogs as household pets.  I also have a steady beau, thanksmuch.  He’s hairy, but no beast.

08-28-2006 11:58 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I take it he’s been on holiday for the last 5 days and 226 posts so hasn’t given you the attention you obviously require then? When he comes back and you tell him “all men are bastards, I posted 226 times saying so and none believed me” will he validate your feelings? If not I say dump him. Uh, then we’re back to cats I think.

CATS MARTA. CATS.

This is going round in circles. Can you tell I’m bored?

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-29-2006 12:07 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Happy_Bullet wrote:
When he comes back and you tell him “all men are bastards, I posted 226 times saying so and none believed me” will he validate your feelings?
Yeah, sure I did.  Whatever.  Clearly you’re a jokester.  I’m off to sleep.  Nighty-night.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-29-2006 12:10 AM

08-29-2006 12:09 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Maybe you lost track. It’s to the left of your posts.

227 now .

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

08-29-2006 12:11 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
warbaby
Regular Contributor
warbaby

Sorry? How does “as opposed to working hours” NOT mean that the amount of hours worked has far more to do with the problem than simply the fact that she’s working? Most people who work, work full time. That’s 40 hours per week. So to put an emphasis on hours worked, leads to the conclusion that we’re talking about more than 40 hours per week. The article also said that the amount of hours men work doesn’t seem to make a difference in divorce rates. So it follows that they’re talking about the amount of hours women work. And what woman works more than 40 hours per week if she’s not putting her job ahead of her family? Note here I’m not talking about those heroic, mythic single moms who manage to raise their 3 children on their own by working 4 part-time jobs. They are clearly the exception.

So you see, Marta, the article DOES say that.

By the way, I’m a she. I also believe I’m older than you, and therefore have more life experience.

08-29-2006 12:12 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
GenghisKhan
Regular Contributor
GenghisKhan
those sound the reasons of an insecure man.
____________________________________________________

You call it insecure, I call it taking proactive measures to cover my butt in case the marriage doesn’t work. Whatever “tag” we place on it, it doesn’t change the fact that men select who we ask to marry. If I don’t want to choose you, I can choose another woman. Women can’t do that (though they think they can) because they have to be asked, which is why they put so much pressure on men to commit and marry. And guess what? more and more men are saying no. Noer’s article simply says to men, don’t ask the career girl to marry you. This is what is driving career women up a wall because now despite how much pressure they put on us this article predisposes us with the idea to eliminate the career woman completely. Essentially, She loses her opportunity before getting a chance to play. All the arguments by career women are just trying to get this opportunity back: “We are independant, we are educated, men are insecure, men feel threatened by a career woman” The problem is such assertions not only are of no use to men who marry to create a family, they are voiced by many women as demands nullifying our right to choose. Here’s a hint, If career women want us to propose to them, bring something to the table that is beneficial to us and to raising a family. Maybe then will you provide us with a better case to choose you.

08-29-2006 12:17 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
suma
Newbie
suma

someone right said ” half knowledge is dangerous”. Wish that  besides sharing conclusions of various studies Michael had also shared the valid reasons behind them….it is too superficial to just say career woman is a reason.

Guys also have to ask those millions of fathers who are busy preparing their daughters for some or the other career…perhaps they exactly know their breed and know what problems their daughters may face.

There are millions others who are not confident enough to run the house with the money they earn and want an equal contribution from the wife especially in terms of money…though you may rarely see them sharing other responsibilities…isn’t it a dual exploitation of women?

Yes in many a cases woman wants the husband to be a primary earner as she knows she may have to take-off during major events like preganancy or growing up toddlers.

So, grow-up men and be respectful to the gender who gave you birth

08-29-2006 06:53 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Sorry, we already voted with our feet.  No interest in career women.  Have a nice life, sponging off someone else.

08-29-2006 09:44 AM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
suma
Newbie
suma

be sorry to yourself boy….wake-up…most men out there are unwilling to have house wives…too scared to run the show on their salaries….in fact that too is pushing women to be independent

08-29-2006 01:08 PM

Re: haha no incentives in rebuttals.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Most men are unable to afford a SAHM.  I have the income and lifestyle which would easily support one.  I don’t intend to have children, so why marry?  If I did, I would not have a problem marrying a professional woman, provided she signed a prenuptial agreement.  I repeat, I will not have children nor do I desire them.  If I were to desire children I would NOT marry a career woman as that increases the likelihood of raising latchkey children who know the daycare workers and nannies better than their mother.  Additionally, career women tend to have children later in life which is much harder on their bodies, may necessitate fertility treatments (additional cost and time, which can also lead to multiple births), which leads to children later in life and the problems that presents.  It is a practical argument.

08-29-2006 01:52 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: