The statistic heard ’round the world!!!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The statistic heard ’round the world!!!

The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

*As a little note to the fellow who started the “the article is right” thread who believes men do things using their mathematic and scientific higher brain functions,…”Accept it for what it is men don’t use irrational behavior or emotions they figure lifes problems through math and science.” well, I doubt that a pair of men beating on each other are discussing quantum physics. Ever hear of testosterone? Tends to cause a lot of very irrational confrontations last I checked. Hell, Cain killed Able because he was jealous. Yep, a looong history of dispassionate, logical reasoning under the male belt, there..pardon the pun*

Well, let’s throw out all the finger pointing, billable hours, strikes against the feminist agenda, assorted hair pulling and cootie infestations. Want to talk science, let’s talk science.

Happiness is subjective. While social scientists have tools to measure it that produce empirical values that fall within the requirements of validity and reliability for the sake of calculating statistics, the information is still self-reported. Really they can only capture happiness in the most general sense. In six months, the same person filling out the same questionnaire and test might have completely different answers based on the current state or perceived state of their life or their social and cognitive developmental states. The variables that can be controlled for may not capture that and subsequently skew the data.

In other words, leave the studies as independent markers because the information can transfer poorly. It’s interesting, but contained. As the author Mike Noer (eventually) pointed out, don’t confuse correlation with causality, folks.

The sources talk about measuring happiness. What is also important to consider is the definition of UNhappy. Is what made us dissatisfied 3 years ago the same as what would make us dissatisfied today? What about ten years, or twenty?

Marriage is traditionally approached as a monogamous, life long arrangement and as such must survive all the trials and tribulations of the lives it encompasses. That’s a lot to ask from anything, and perhaps, in fact, it is THAT expectation which should be examined as unreasonable.

As people age, and we ALL do that, they pass through social, psychological and cognitive stages. These stages have been identified by social scientists (Erikson and Piaget having the most widely known of those theories) and are regarded as significant and continuous throughout our lives. They are happening until the day we die.

A key issue and cause of friction is that often two people are not developing at the same pace. Some are quick, some are lingering and some even have periods of regression or outright decay, much to the frustration of the person forging ahead. Very much like children walk or talk at different rates, so do we continue to develop socially and cognitively into our adulthood. As such, divergent interests might emerge, causing friction and interfering with the developmental agenda and priorities of each partner.

A widening gulf between these priorities, combined with the external stress of perceived expectation in the roles adopted through marriage, can create tremendous dissonance- should and should not, have and have not, wanting and wanting for nothing. If the tension becomes too great with no resolution presenting then the choice to sacrifice the relationship in order to preserve one’s personal identity is a reasonable and healthy one. A marriage cannot ever supersede emerging self-awareness and actually expect to be called satisfying.

Instead of looking at husband and wife, male, female, how about approaching marriage as a co-operative endeavour between two incomplete people who are still pursuing their own course of discovery? Roles and expectations, conventional or emergent, aside, if there is no room for growth then one of two things happen, explosion and separation or strangulation and atrophy. Neither is desirable, married or otherwise.

So what about the findings?

Well, to say that one income marriages were more enduring and happier begs to question exactly how the spouse WITHOUT an independent means of support is supposed to leave? Leaving takes money and if the dependent spouse has never worked and has been living on what is essentially an allowance, well it might be a case of better the devil you know than the one you don’t. Being alone is a daunting prospect if you’ve been the kept spouse. If they don’t believe they can support themselves, then how could they consider leaving as an option?

The infidelity, well that’s actionable opportunity, and quite frankly normal among most mammals. One must question the increase in the number of women having affairs now versus then. Statistics can always be compromised if the disclosure is not candid. In the halcyon days of the nuclear family would a woman having an affair feel secure admitting it on paper, even anonymously? Has the cynicism of this day and age left openings for full disclosure that didn’t exist before, or even encouraged fabrication to the other extreme- a female version of locker room bravado? Consider that the concept of The Affair itself has evolved. Do online trysts in anonymous chatrooms without the physical act actually count, or is it simply inexpensive, personalized porn? Some people would say yes, some would say no.

Determining the parameters for these studies are quite complicated and often result in contradictory findings if one set, say, chooses to include online solicitation as infidelity while another doesn’t. This is how you have to consider statistics. Tricky buggers, aren’t they?

And before anyone raises morality objections based on the fond memories of a bygone era, men still lead the infidelity race by a long mile and have for the last 2000 years, so no grousing. You don’t want women at work to have affairs, then keep it in your pants. Social accountability for this behaviour lands squarely on the shoulders of BOTH sexes.

In the end the article isn’t right or wrong, it’s SPECULATIVE! It’s an accumulation of data presented like breadcrumbs to play on the displaced, disillusioned or disgruntled.

I’ve found that people are most willing to believe what they’re AFRAID is true- whether or not it actually is -and in believing it is true creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. So stop and take a deep breath before you jump on your favourite statistic because it feels right and ask yourself why it resonates so deeply?

Is it logic, or is it something else?

Jennifer

(yup- I have a degree in Psychology and a Diploma in Nursing)

Message Edited by Contessa on 08-27-2006 11:03 PM

08-27-2006 10:57 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
SM777
Regular Contributor
SM777
“Ever hear of testosterone? Tends to cause a lot of very irrational confrontations last I checked. Hell, Cain killed Able because he was jealous. Yep, a looong history of dispassionate, logical reasoning under the male belt, there..pardon the pun*”
———————————————————————–

Ever hear of estrogen? Tends to cause a lot of very irrational child murders last I checked. Hell, Andrea Yates murdered her children because she was having an “emotional problem”. Yep, a looong history of dispassionate, illogical, post birth abortion under the female belt, there..pardon the pun*

08-27-2006 11:07 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

Unfortunately SM777, no where do I claim, state or infer that women are free from homonal impulse and it’s associated behaviours, murderous or otherwise, unlike your fellow man who flagrently claims exactly that on behalf of your gender. If I were you, I would be asking him to stop making such sweeping, inaccurate statements about men instead of trying deconstruct my criticism.

Your point is poorly made. Please try again.

08-27-2006 11:20 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
Sounds like SM777 made a good enough point to me. You just don’t care for estrogen being criticized out in the open so you want to suppress or censor it.

08-27-2006 11:23 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

In other words, leave the studies as independent markers because the information can transfer poorly.

Yes, let’s toss out the scientific method, rationality and peer-reviewed literature.
Cites and proof and links to prove the assertions in your post.
I have done so, and I hold you to the same standard others on this forum hold me to.

Cites, please.

08-27-2006 11:25 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself
“(yup- I have a degree in Psychology and a Diploma in Nursing)”

You have a degree in Psychobabble? You use Cain and Able for an example? Were you there at the time? Was Cain full of testosterone or maybe he had a mental deficiency that caused him to kill his brother. Is the story of Cain an Able true? I’m not sure the Bible is the truth very little scientific proof to back it up.

08-27-2006 11:29 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

Ummm..no. I simply won’t allow inferences to be drawn where there are none.

Both estrogen and testosterone are extremely potent biochemicals that consistently impact on the physiology and behaviour of a person. In fact the healthy ovaries of a female produce only about 2 tablespoons of estrogen in her entire life. Imbalanced production is associated with post-partum depression as well as physical conditions such as endometriosis. It’s serious stuff. Introducing testoterone as a steroid does increase muscle development and changes behaviour. For myself, as a Nurse, to ignore, repress or censure such widely recognized facts, well that would be just silly. In absence or excess they can lead to extreme pathological and psychological disturbance. This documented time and again medically.

The fact of it, is that it is a member of YOUR gender that is trying to exonerate your sex from irrational behaviour. It’s there in black and white. It is simply my point that because men DO have such potent chemical motivators in them that they are subject to spontaneous displays that might be regarded as irrational.

You really aren’t getting very far with this approach…Sorry

08-27-2006 11:49 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
And it is YOUR gender that is increasingly being exposed having sex with minors in school

08-28-2006 12:05 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

I never cited Cain and Able as a scientific source. And of course I wasn’t there. Your attempt at sarcasm is childish.

How I feel about the tale is irrelevant. It has a high recognition factor and the understanding of it is quite thorough through the general populace. Even a person such as yourself clued in. If you must, consider it’s use metaphorical.

However seeing as many people DO take the Bible as a relevant source, (the creationist movement can talk to you about that, in fact most of the Southern US might want to share a few opinions with you about the Bible) it was not inappropriate to supply it as an example, the first one in fact according to Genesis, of a man acting on emotion impulse.

If you do not consider it important to you as a source then feel free to disregard it. It is secondary to the point at best.

08-28-2006 12:06 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
JWatkins
Contributor
JWatkins
————————————————
Well, let’s throw out all the finger pointing, billable hours, strikes against the feminist agenda, assorted hair pulling and cootie infestations. Want to talk science, let’s talk science.
———————————————–

Science? Great. I rarely get an opportunity to engage in discussion with a girl on science. What topic shall it be? Quantum mechanics? Astronomy? Cryptoanalysis? I’ll let you pick…

————————————————–
Happiness is subjective. While social scientists have tools to measure it that produce empirical values that fall within the requirements of validity and reliability for the sake of calculating statistics, the information is still self-reported. Really they can only capture happiness in the most general sense. In six months, the same person filling out the same questionnaire and test might have completely different answers based on the current state or perceived state of their life or their social and cognitive developmental states. The variables that can be controlled for may not capture that and subsequently skew the data.
————————————————-

Oh dear, I thought you meant real science. Social science is not science. Just because it has science stuck to it doesn’t mean its science. If you stuck a label on your forehead with Mandy written on it, does that make you Mandy?

—————————————————
In other words, leave the studies as independent markers because the information can transfer poorly. It’s interesting, but contained. As the author Mike Noer (eventually) pointed out, don’t confuse correlation with causality, folks.
—————————————————

Translation: Let’s leave out all the things we disagree with, and the things we don’t have an answer for.

—————————————————-
The sources talk about measuring happiness. What is also important to consider is the definition of UNhappy. Is what made us dissatisfied 3 years ago the same as what would make us dissatisfied today? What about ten years, or twenty?
—————————————————

Happiness is an emotion, what triggers it is irrelevant. Just because the things that trigger satisfaction or dissatisfaction change, doesn’t mean anything. 200 years ago, children would be excited by a ball. Today it’s gamestations and nintendos. The same applies to dissatisfaction.

Whatever causes it, people will live there lives seeking happiness and avoiding unhappiness, so I don’t see your point.

Oh, I’ve just remembered we are talking about social science, so you need to increase the size of your argument to make it more true.

—————————————————-
Marriage is traditionally approached as a monogamous, life long arrangement and as such must survive all the trials and tribulations of the lives it encompasses. That’s a lot to ask from anything, and perhaps, in fact, it is THAT expectation which should be examined as unreasonable.
—————————————————-

The traditional concept of marriage is very different to the modern conception of marriage. Traditionally the expection that marriage survives life’s trials and tribulations wasn’t a too much to ask, it is with modern marriage given the fact there is a financial incentive for a woman to leave the marriage at any point, for the most trivial of reasons.

—————————————————–
As people age, and we ALL do that,
—————————————————–

Did you learn that on your social science course?

—————————————————–
they pass through social, psychological and cognitive stages. These stages have been identified by social scientists (Erikson and Piaget having the most widely known of those theories) and are regarded as significant and continuous throughout our lives. They are happening until the day we die.

A key issue and cause of friction is that often two people are not developing at the same pace. Some are quick, some are lingering and some even have periods of regression or outright decay, much to the frustration of the person forging ahead. Very much like children walk or talk at different rates, so do we continue to develop socially and cognitively into our adulthood. As such, divergent interests might emerge, causing friction and interfering with the developmental agenda and priorities of each partner.
——————————————————-

In other words, women aren’t being akward, it’s because they are developing at a different stage. Another step away from responsibility.

——————————————————-
A widening gulf between these priorities, combined with the external stress of perceived expectation in the roles adopted through marriage, can create tremendous dissonance- should and should not, have and have not, wanting and wanting for nothing. If the tension becomes too great with no resolution presenting then the choice to sacrifice the relationship in order to preserve one’s personal identity is a reasonable and healthy one. A marriage cannot ever supersede emerging self-awareness and actually expect to be called satisfying.
——————————————————-

There’s nothing wrong with bailing out of a failed relationship, but there’s everything wrong with the bias of the divorce laws that hand women half of a man’s paycheque and puts an obligation upon him to support her.

——————————————————-
Instead of looking at husband and wife, male, female, how about approaching marriage as a co-operative endeavour between two incomplete people who are still pursuing their own course of discovery? Roles and expectations, conventional or emergent, aside, if there is no room for growth then one of two things happen, explosion and separation or strangulation and atrophy. Neither is desirable, married or otherwise.
——————————————————-

Because unlike what they teach you at feminist camp, gender equality does not equate to gender equivalence. Men are different to women.

———————————————————-
So what about the findings?

Well, to say that one income marriages were more enduring and happier begs to question exactly how the spouse WITHOUT an independent means of support is supposed to leave? Leaving takes money and if the dependent spouse has never worked and has been living on what is essentially an allowance, well it might be a case of better the devil you know than the one you don’t.
———————————————————–

Maybe because traditional marriages aren’t wars, where battles are fought over the most trivial of things such as money?

———————————————————–
Being alone is a daunting prospect if you’ve been the kept spouse. If they don’t believe they can support themselves, then how could they consider leaving as an option?
———————————————————–

It may be for you, but that’s your opinion. Many women may find that risk acceptable. Whether they do or not is irrelevant, no one is putting a gun to their heads.

————————————————————-
The infidelity, well that’s actionable opportunity, and quite frankly normal among most mammals.
————————————————————-

Are you justifying it because other mammals are promiscuous? Other mammals also rape each other, should also copy that habit?

I’d also be interested to know if you apply the same standards to your boyfriend/girlfriend.

————————————————————-
One must question the increase in the number of women having affairs now versus then. Statistics can always be compromised if the disclosure is not candid. In the halcyon days of the nuclear family would a woman having an affair feel secure admitting it on paper, even anonymously? Has the cynicism of this day and age left openings for full disclosure that didn’t exist before, or even encouraged fabrication to the other extreme- a female version of locker room bravado? Consider that the concept of The Affair itself has evolved. Do online trysts in anonymous chatrooms without the physical act actually count, or is it simply inexpensive, personalized porn? Some people would say yes, some would say no.
————————————————————-

The study didn’t look at the “halcyon” days of the nuclear family, it compared traditional marriages with dual income marriages. So all the points you proceed to make are redundant, single income and dual income couples live in the same society.

————————————————————-
Determining the parameters for these studies are quite complicated and often result in contradictory findings if one set, say, chooses to include online solicitation as infidelity while another doesn’t. This is how you have to consider statistics. Tricky buggers, aren’t they?
————————————————————-

Funny how they only seem to be quite complicated when you disagree with them.

————————————————————-
And before anyone raises morality objections based on the fond memories of a bygone era, men still lead the infidelity race by a long mile and have for the last 2000 years, so no grousing. You don’t want women at work to have affairs, then keep it in your pants. Social accountability for this behaviour lands squarely on the shoulders of BOTH sexes.
————————————————————–

Are you suggest women who have affairs do it because men do? What proof are you using to back that up? If it’s true. is that how female logic works?

—————————————————————
In the end the article isn’t right or wrong, it’s SPECULATIVE! It’s an accumulation of data presented like breadcrumbs to play on the displaced, disillusioned or disgruntled.
—————————————————————

—————————————————————
I’ve found that people are most willing to believe what they’re AFRAID is true- whether or not it actually is -and in believing it is true creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. So stop and take a deep breath before you jump on your favourite statistic because it feels right and ask yourself why it resonates so deeply?

Is it logic, or is it something else?
—————————————————————

The facts speak for themselves dear, men in marriages with career women are statistically more likely to be unhappier, and divorced men suffer greater health problems. Put two and two together sugar, I know it’s not what they taught you at feminist school but it’ll lead you to the truth.

—————————————————————
(yup- I have a degree in Psychology and a Diploma in Nursing)
—————————————————————

Big suprise there. I’ve found nurses to be the bitchiest of all career girls. And I should know.

08-28-2006 12:18 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The statistic heard ’round the world!!!

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

In other words, leave the studies as independent markers because the information can transfer poorly.

Yes, let’s toss out the scientific method, rationality and peer-reviewed literature.
Cites and proof and links to prove the assertions in your post.
I have done so, and I hold you to the same standard others on this forum hold me to.

Cites, please.

Does my approach offend you so very much?

Well, technically the words you quote do not require citation. It is my personal recommendation that due to the subjective nature of the primary variable being explored, happiness, that the results should be considered in the context of the study and not extrapolated.

Without the studies originally cited present to examine their research methods it is reasonable to consider each result as self-contained, a possibility to be explored further.

Encouraging generalization of the information without even knowing the sample size would be irresponsible. This is why I feel the information could transfer poorly and cause subsequent discord…but seeing as how you are familiar with research methods, you can understand that…

08-28-2006 12:19 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
“It is simply my point that because men DO have such potent chemical motivators in them that they are subject to spontaneous displays that might be regarded as irrational.”

Much the same way women do. Heck, they even formally termed a hormonal condition in women that leads to irrational behavior – PMS.

“Ever hear of testosterone? Tends to cause a lot of very irrational confrontations last I checked. Hell, Cain killed Able because he was jealous.”

The bible also wrote of Jezebel – “Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord, hiding others in a cave with bread and water. Jezebel is referred to as the corrupt woman, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.”
Sounds like irrational behavior to me, maybe she was PMS-ing at the time.

Message Edited by Romulus on 08-28-2006 12:28 AM

08-28-2006 12:21 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

Well I’m off to bed, so I leave the fort undefended…

Let the mudslinging ensue.

Night folks..it’s been enlightening.

08-28-2006 12:23 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

In other words, leave the studies as independent markers because the information can transfer poorly.

Yes, let’s toss out the scientific method, rationality and peer-reviewed literature.
Cites and proof and links to prove the assertions in your post.
I have done so, and I hold you to the same standard others on this forum hold me to.

Cites, please.

Does my approach offend you so very much?

Well, technically the words you quote do not require citation. It is my personal recommendation that due to the subjective nature of the primary variable being explored, happiness, that the results should be considered in the context of the study and not extrapolated.

Without the studies originally cited present to examine their research methods it is reasonable to consider each result as self-contained, a possibility to be explored further.

Contessa, the studies cited have been linked to on several posts in this forum.

Look them up.  Take the initiative.

You are saying that we should toss the study because there is some aspect of subjectivity, as there is in any endeavor involving humans.

Lastly you don’t feel the need to provide proof.  Therefore I am to conclude that you have none.

I am not offended.  I merely hold those who disagree with me on this forum to the same standard they hold me to.  You have demonstrated that those who disagree with me, and Noer, are unwilling, unable or prejudiced against providing proof to prove their assertions.

Yet many have repeatedly insisted that I provide proof, cites, links and papers.

Well, I have done so.

Why do those who disagree argue with no proof, volume and smear, if the facts are on their side?

08-28-2006 12:31 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
And it is YOUR gender that is increasingly being exposed having sex with minors in school

What does that have to do with the topic? Are you drunk?

08-28-2006 01:21 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
dillonator
Visitor
dillonator
Not nearly as drunk as your feminine gender that engages in the behavior I just described. And thanks for not refuting it because you can’t.

08-28-2006 01:28 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
Well Mr Watkins. I won’t pilfer endless quotes as that would get tedious and just plain hard to read. I must say, at least I know you actually read it all. Well done.

You do not consider psychology or sociology a legitimate science. That is fine:
“Social science is not science. Just because it has science stuck to it doesn’t mean its science. If you stuck a label on your forehead with Mandy written on it, does that make you Mandy?” (sorry, had too, I rather liked that one)

However you do realize that your position on the sciences listed invalidates the research produced? If you are correct, and you strike me as the type who is..unfailingly..This of course means that the studies supporting the article in question are worthless. GASP! The man’s just blowing smoke up our collective asses. Thanks for unveiling his trickery!!! It was a close one I’ll tell you..whew.

Social science does differ from traditional science in the shear volume of information required to produce a formula that would reliably and exactly predict and replicate all the behaviour of a person. Theoretically you would have to account for every second of that person’s life, catalogue all the events, and as well as their personal interpretation of these events which then lead them to make the decisions they did. Even if collection of this data (a period lasting a lifetime to collect the data for just ONE suject..if you’re lucky they die at age three instead of 83) were completed, the formula which resulted would be unreasonable. Add to that the fact that to reproduce the findings it would take a period of time equal to the duration of the collection process because that process would have to be linear. It would literally take a lifetime to apply the formula.

Wow, 2 hydrogens + 1 oxygen gives you water every single time? …cooool!

However if you want a pretty solid example of scientific method in psychology Skinner and Watson’s Behavioural theory is it.

Oh..and be nice to nurses, one day you or someone you love will need us..

08-28-2006 01:56 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
“Lastly you don’t feel the need to provide proof. Therefore I am to conclude that you have none.”

I reiterate. It is not something that requires proof. It is a cautionary statement, not a conclusive one. The point of my thread was that it’s very easy to grab on to statistical research and manipulate (in this case apparently inflame) perspectives through its careful selection.

“You have demonstrated that those who disagree with me, and Noer, are unwilling, unable or prejudiced against providing proof to prove their assertions.”

As someone who seems to understand the nature of the beast, you also know that it is fair to question the sources being cited in terms of their application. The numbers may be legit, it can be statistically significant, but if you’re looking at a study population of 100 people you can’t take the results and generalize it to a population of 10,000 or even more which, by posting the findings in an online article, Mr Noer did and essentially armed the whole world with just enough information to make them dangerous.

As this is my first time navigating this site, I would greatly appreciate those links, or directions on where to find them. I am curious, this thread aside, about these findings. Sociology was my minor. I am someone will to make the effort and look at where the support is coming from.

Why do those who disagree argue with no proof, volume and smear, if the facts are on their side?

I have been smeared, berated, belittled, even had my education diminished for something that was an articulate, thoughtful post. I learn when people can rearrange my logic or play the devil’s advocate, I enjoy the challenge, but these responses have been venomous, spiteful and in some case utterly unrelated. This behaviour is unbecoming in people over the age of 6. Are we really on the Forbes site????

08-28-2006 02:32 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
“Much the same way women do. Heck, they even formally termed a hormonal condition in women that leads to irrational behavior – PMS

The bible also wrote of Jezebel – “Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord, hiding others in a cave with bread and water. Jezebel is referred to as the corrupt woman, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.”
Sounds like irrational behavior to me, maybe she was PMS-ing at the time.”

Yep, certainly does. Dude, you do realize that you’re agreeing with me..right? No matter how hard you guys try you can’t put the words in that post that aren’t there, cut and past all you like. What was being contested was a statement from your camp. Sorry. He said it, I didn’t.

“Accept it for what it is men don’t use irrational behavior or emotions they figure lifes problems through math and science.”

See..he said it again!

I like the quote, though. Revelations has got some pretty cool stuff.

08-28-2006 03:00 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
“Dude, you do realize that you’re agreeing with me..right?”

If your assertion is that both men and women are both susceptible to irrational behavior due to hormones, then yes I agree with you. Your original post seemed to argue that only men are susceptible to such influence. And the Jezebel I quoted was from Kings, not the Jezebel as described in Revelation. What did you think that I was going to argue with you for the sake of arguing? I think your post was well thought out. But it fails to address why women are so angered by Noer’s article. Under all the statistics, cites, etc. he quoted his ultimate message was to not marry a career woman. What is so threatening to women about that? As much as your diatribe provides a unique perspective in interpreting the statistics, it doesn’t negate them. You can define happiness, unhappiness, irrational behavior, etc. anyway you please and you can ramble on to your heart’s content that Noer’s article is speculative. The cold hard reality is that 50% of marriages end in divorce with 70% initiated by women and no amount of speculation, happiness dissertations, etc. detract from that.

Message Edited by Romulus on 08-28-2006 04:40 AM

08-28-2006 04:03 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The statistic heard ’round the world!!!

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
crella
Regular Contributor
crella
‘Oh..and be nice to nurses, one day you or someone you love will need us..’

Hmmm….

08-28-2006 05:54 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
cd22mf
Visitor
cd22mf
Contessa,

Just wanted to let you know that I think your posts have been well-rationed and excellently written, and I’m impressed with your ability to remain composed when faced with the overwhelmingly negative sentiments of the forum.

I think it’s wonderful that you have pointed out that women are not “threatened” by this article, but that women and men alike are angered at the implication that women and their careers are the sole cause of marital problems. One would assume that it was only rational to speak out against an article of such narrow scope and unfair conclusions.

Well done, and keep up the good work.

I’d also like to quickly address this statement:

“Oh dear, I thought you meant real science. Social science is not science. Just because it has science stuck to it doesn’t mean its science. If you stuck a label on your forehead with Mandy written on it, does that make you Mandy?”

Might I remind you that the article you are so vehemently defending was built upon data collected by social scientists? Just thought you might need a reminder.

-cd

08-28-2006 11:57 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
JAGUAR1020
Newbie
JAGUAR1020

Beautifully written article, Jennifer. Now there’s the type of woman I would like to marry. Much better article than the counter article written in Forbes, “Don’t marry a lazy Man”. At 42 and a bitter divorce, I have come to a few conclusions. Marriage is not a 50/50 partnership, its not a contract, its 100% or nothing. We have a high rate of divorce in the United States because we unrealistic expections of each other and we do not know how to forgive.

Steven

08-28-2006 12:23 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
Ah, I mixed up my Jezebel reference, Kings I, mea culpa. Thank you for the clarification.

“If your assertion is that both men and women are both susceptible to irrational behavior due to hormones, then yes I agree with you.”

As I had said to an earlier critic.

“Unfortunately SM777, no where do I claim, state or infer that women are free from homonal impulse and it’s associated behaviours,”

If you read the text this is absolutely true. It would be faulty logical to assume that because someone is aruging against something they are doing so to support it’s counterpoint. This seems to be an ongoing problem with that opening paragraph. In principle it’s like saying that if you hate purple, then you MUST be saying you love yellow, even if no such assertion ever crossed your lips. I was criticising the gentleman’s statement because it was wrong. It’s that simple. I am fully aware of the potent impact hormones have on lives, male and female.

“I think your post was well thought out. But it fails to address why women are so angered by Noer’s article. Under all the statistics, cites, etc. he quoted his ultimate message was to not marry a career woman. What is so threatening to women about that?”

Thank you. In fact my post was tailored to address the statistics people are reacting to, not the reactions themselves. In a situation such as this, those articles are polarizing the arguments. People are picking the citations according to their position and pumelling each other with them. This is not what these studies are designed to be used for. Hitting someone over the head with a hammer is MUCH more effective. A research paper at best might give you a nasty paper cut. lol.

Why do women appear angry or threatened? Well the most obvious theory is that they feel the article belittles the hard work they’ve put into their personal accomplishments. Where a man would be lauded for the same achievements, and in fact be found quite attractive, his career and financial capacity being the feather in his cap, this article SEEMS to suggest that a woman with these same qualities is an anathema. To most that’s grounds to cry foul.

It’s a complex time in a nation’s social evolution. Everything is personal to everyone because everyone’s been affected by the changes, and not just this generation, but the one before it and the one after it. It’s a painful process of displacement, but it’s not going to stop, no matter how much lawyers charge.

My approach to the post was to try and strip the conflict down to the ideas of our personal growth and change that happen throughout our lives. If we work on ourselves, if we come to understand what will actually satisfy us as opposed to what we are told will satisfy us, or what we THINK will satisfy us, then we may make wiser decisions with regards to love and marriage. It may not guarentee that the marriage will work, but it certainly strengthen the odds.

Message Edited by Contessa on 08-28-2006 01:27 PM

08-28-2006 12:57 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
Thank you so much for your gracious complement!

“Might I remind you that the article you are so vehemently defending was built upon data collected by social scientists?”

Bless your rational mind, and indeed it had occurred to me. In a rebuttle post I mentioned that very fact, I’m not sure which page it’s on though, but thank you for being on the same page as me.

Jennifer

08-28-2006 01:02 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa
Thank you so very much, Steven.

“Marriage is not a 50/50 partnership, its not a contract, its 100% or nothing. We have a high rate of divorce in the United States because we unrealistic expections of each other and we do not know how to forgive.”

I am truely sorry that personal growth seems to be so expensive these days. Being honest is a very difficult thing, especially with ourselves. As a person in the health profession I’ve repeatedly obsesrved one thing:

The most fragile thing in the body is the human ego.

We are bombarded daily with influences that leave our psyches reeling, like having our heads caught in a swarm of mosquitoes. Trying to forge a strong path under those conditions is so difficult.

I wish you all the best, and thanks again.

08-28-2006 01:15 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
cd22mf
Visitor
cd22mf
No problem. It was simple logic.

-cd

08-28-2006 01:16 PM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Good work, Contessa!  Thanks for your posts!

08-29-2006 04:56 AM

Re: The statistic heard ’round the world!!!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

SM777 wrote:
Ever hear of estrogen? Tends to cause a lot of very irrational child murders last I checked. Hell, Andrea Yates murdered her children because she was having an “emotional problem”. Yep, a looong history of dispassionate, illogical, post birth abortion under the female belt, there..pardon the pun*

That is not science, it is stereotype. Andrea Yates was psychotic, not emotional. You know, like how the majority of insanity pleas and criminals deemed insane are white men. But, I’ll bet in those isntances its, true and not about emotion, huh?

09-04-2006 12:19 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: