Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls

Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656

Elizabeth Corcoran said Michael Noer’s article (in her rebutal) “According to the experts cited by Michael, marrying a “career girl” seems to lead to a fate worse than tangling with a hungry cougar.”

Hence my Cougar Picture above.

Michael Noer of Forbes magazine did an article that really turned heads Tuesday called “Don’t marry a career girl”.   According to Forbes magazine, this cause a firestorm inside and outside of the magazine.  <SCRIPT></SCRIPT>

See  http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html?boxes=popstories&boxes=custom

In short, the article substantiates several well founded statistical areas of expected failure for any man who DOES marry a career girl.   They are:

1.)     Professional women are more likely to get divorced
2.)     They are more likely to cheat
3.)     They are less likely to have children
4.)     Even women who are self described “feminists” are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
5.)     If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003).
6.)     They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006).
7.)     You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001).
8.)    You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology).
9.)    Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).

They also state that “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)…”.

Frankly – I’m not sure any of this is a surprise to men, but I did take the trouble to respond to Elizabeth’s article (see text at bottom).

As of today, the link to the Forbes article ahs been changed to accommodate the rebutle of one of the female staff writers Elizabeth Corcoran.   Unfortunately, Elizabeth’s article never embraces the central point of failure in these poorly fitted unions.   Namely, it is now women who do the choosing – not men.   So when women have their own money, they feel free to select men who don’t have it.  Does this sound smart?  After all, Britney Spears (who could have anyone) picked Kevin Federline.  Hot?  Yes – useful, not likely. <SCRIPT></SCRIPT>

See   http://www.hecklerspray.com/britney-spears-and-kevin-federline-split-back-together-anyone/20051777.php

I’m sure you’ve seen this in the tabloids of this famous marital failure in your local supermarket.

My Forbes submission to Elizabeth Corcoran’s article follows:

After reading Eliabeth Corcoran’s response to  Michael Noer’s article “Don’t marry a career Girl”, one might wonder if she understood any part of the problem he described.

Most folks today would agree that men did the asking for dates and made the marriage proposals in the 50’s, but that has all changed now.   Whether acting directly or just giving license, it is now women who do the choosing.

Dr. Laura has amassed a 14 million person radio audience just to address women’s poor choices.  She even wrote a best selling book on the subject – “Smart women, stupid choices.”

See http://www.drlaurashop.com/product.php?id=41

It doesn’t take much to see that long standing tradition had men raising the money and women raising the kids. When you have a woman with her own money, she no longer requires the man in her life to be a great bread winner.   So with the man’s minimum bar of competence forgiven, what’s left?  Not much worth marring.  And what decent man would marry a selfish woman?   I really don’t feel very sorry for women who select the unemployable “eye candy” just so they can maintain “control” in a relationship. <SCRIPT></SCRIPT>

In fact, the moral climate today (and associated divorce statistics) make marriage a poor proposition for men unless children are in the equation.   Men no longer marry for sex considering today’s loose morals. Women are more successful than even in divorce court, and win more assets more often.

Marriage becomes a foolish proposition for any man the might meet Elizabeth’s virtually “childless” marriage description.    I say this because being a mother, she never mentioned any kids or religion in her priorities, which was the traditional purpose of the 50’s marriage, a time when society didn’t seem to have these sorts of social problems.   Lets face it, most people get married in the church they attend.  For most folks, there is still a linkage between marriage and religion.

Elizabeth – Letting some foreign national raise the kids while you run off to the wine festival is what Columbine Kids are all about.

See http://www.thedailycamera.com/shooting/28blawsu.html

To Elizabeth and her followers I would advise “If you want a man with traditional enough values (children and religion) to marry you rather than just move in with you- you need to be traditional enough to prefer the life style of your mothers, rather than those of your fathers.”   Men have little need for a marriage that is just childless opportunity to swear off every other woman – because unlike women, men rarely marry just for love.   In the case of the woman who plans that childless and churchless (some might say selfish) existence, one would wonder if she even knew what love was.

One of my elder women friends advised us that “if you’re too selfish to have kids in your 20’s and too selfish to be alone in your 30’s, you probably don’t belong in ANY marriage.”

I agree completely.  Men and women are equal – but not interchangeable.   The “interchangeable” feminist model has hurt women over time, and hurt children and families far worst.  See Michael Noer’s statistics and links for proof.

David Flynn

08-28-2006 03:53 PM

Re: Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls
brukerbabe
Newbie
brukerbabe
“If you want a man with traditional enough values (children and religion) to marry you
rather than just move in with you- you need to be traditional enough to prefer the life
style of your mothers, rather than those of your fathers.”

I think we have certainly changed the definition of marriage and the roles within it.
To marry someone is no longer a property exchange in order to ensure paternity. In today’s
society marriage is considered a contract between two people to commit to spending their
lives together. Partners, not property. If children are desired, it makes things easier
for both parents.
But not every marriage requires children or religion.

08-28-2006 06:05 PM

Re: Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

To marry someone is no longer a property exchange in order to ensure paternity.

Paternity is no longer ensured, that’s the sad truth.  Multiple paternity surveys show that Daddy isn’t really Junior’s ‘Daddy’ in about 10% – 30% of the cases.  What is even worse is that many U.S. states still base paternity upon Lord Mansfield’s Law, which automatically assigns paternity to the husband of a woman who gets pregnant.  That worked well in 1776 to maintain lineage, but with DNA testing it is simply out of date.

08-28-2006 08:07 PM

Re: Reply to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Obfuscation about Career Girls
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656
Brukerbabe,

you said:

“I think we have certainly changed the definition of marriage and the roles within it.
To marry someone is no longer a property exchange in order to ensure paternity. In today’s
society marriage is considered a contract between two people to commit to spending their
lives together. Partners, not property. If children are desired, it makes things easier
for both parents.
But not every marriage requires children or religion.”

Unfortunately for your point – marriage IS still a religious institution. People go to church
to get married. In fact, marriage is invalid in many churches if you are not open to children. Other churches will not marry you unless you go there.

The central problem with feminists is their failure to understand the beliefs and values
of the people they oppose (God, other women, Men and society). If you don’t attend
church anywhere and are “Godless” as Ann Coulter puts it – you can’t debate people who believe in something other than feminism.

Men will rarely marry if children aren’t an option. Reason – they gain absolutely nothing and risk divorce attaching themselves to a woman with some “other” agenda.

Who WOULD want that?

David

08-28-2006 09:26 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: