What Noer Really Said…

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What Noer Really Said…

What Noer Really Said…
Regular Contributor

Marta said:
What he said was “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.”

Quit ignoring what the article actually says.

Actually, Noer first cited studies that stated that as the numbers of hours women work increases overall, the divorce rate increases overall. That’s the overall picture (what more is there to say)?

Then, for the sake of completeness, Noer cited a couple studies which broke down couples in to those with “happy marriage” and “unhappy marriages” (as defined by some nebulous social science equation one would suppose), then says divorce rates increase in one group but decrease in the other. But these latter studies insofar as we can tell don’t say what *net* effect women working has on divorce rates.

Something tells me, that the only reason a social scientist would go through antics of trying to separate marriages into “high marital quality” and “low marital quality” according to some nebulous set of principles and then compare the two, is because they saw that the overall divorce rates were higher when women worked, and they didn’t like the result. That would be my hunch, but hey, I’m a cynic (and most often correct about such things).

And isn’t it it a non-sequitor to argue that those who are in “happy marriages” don’t divorce as often?

And by the way, neither men nor women are soothsayers, capable of predicting 20 years later whether a marriage will be in the “high marital quality” or “low marital quality” category (much less how that is even quantified).

Since you don’t stand to suffer much in a divorce, I suppose you don’t care. But other have different priorities.

End point: Michael Noer was not intending to write an advice column for women in this particular issue of Forbes. It’s a column for men. Why are women suprised or even insulted that he is not rooting for their team? Must everything that is published on paper think of the wee wittle wimmins first?

If you have a problem with the article, at least try to argue it from the perspective about how it would be in the best interest of a wealthy male Forbes reader to marry a career woman. If you’re arguing it form the perspective of what best fits the needs of women, I’m sorry, you have totally missed the point. So long as family law continues to coddle women and screw men, one can hardly argue one perspective without sacreficing the other.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-29-2006 06:53 AM

08-29-2006 01:06 AM

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

%d bloggers like this: