Sunday, June 21, 2009

Okay, another Re-Post on an Important Issue

Actually I guess maybe Richard was half-right...

When I re-read my post I see that educated women do marry but are less likely to have children and their divorce rates are higher...but I re-posted the article anyway since it did make some other important points.

As usual I re-posted it with the comments as sometimes they are better then the articles.

Professional/Careerist Women More Likely to Divorce

Sometimes, in spite of every attempt to stop it, anecdotal evidence and plain old fashioned common sense will align with statistics and arrive at a logical conclusion.

This appears to be one of those rare occasions.

Obviously any relationship with BOTH parties focusing on their careers is not going to be one that puts the relationship FIRST. As let’s face it a career (not just a job as the author points out) but a career is not just a time consuming enterprise, but it’s a life-defining one as well. As in: I am a doctor (not a mom or dad who happened to work in medicine; or I am a police officer (not a husband or wife in law enforcement).

Generally you are what your career is.

AND I think that’s the way it should be.

As frankly, I don’t want someone in medicine or law enforcement who is just putting in their 8 hours until they can get home to do what they are really interested in. I want that doctor taking care of me when I’m sick to be obsessed with his specialty since about the age of 10 or so, when he or she was probably dissecting their Barbie dolls or a dead frog or something to see what makes living beings tick. The same thing with anyone working in law or the enforcement end of it.

So by definition a professional and/or careerist (and btw, anyone who thinks a blue collar police officer, fireman or even a corrections officer is NOT a careerist has never been involved in a household with one of them as a member of it) inevitably has a bad case of divided loyalty. In the past this wasn’t as big a problem, as the spouse who didn’t take on a career made up for this ‘divided loyalty’ of the careerist/professional spouse by spending the bulk of their time focused on the home and children, so that neither suffered from the divided loyalty of the careerist.

Generally this was a mother for the most obvious reason as she is the one who had already been chosen by God, evolution or nature to bring forth life. Thus she naturally had the most initially invested in the children. This spilled over into the ancillary interest in the home environment and everything connected with it.

Over time this ‘specialization’ by women made life pleasant for everybody, including the male professional/careerist. Since at least then when they did happen to be home (in between rescuing people from terrorists, carelessly started house fires and discovering the cure for cancer) they could relax in a pleasant clean house with a good home-cooked meal and well-adjusted kids around them.

Today the house is frequently a mess, if they want to eat they have to prepare it themselves or order take-out and the kids are generally being dumped off with total strangers for about 80% of their waking hours (with all the resulting problems associated with that situation) as their wife is now as deeply involved in her career as he, the husband, is with his.

So what was the point of the marriage????

As if most men wanted to have to work 10 hour days and then come home to cook and clean for themselves while a stranger is raising their kids, they could pay that stranger out of their own paycheck and cut out the middle-man entirely, namely the professional/careerist wife and mother.

So this article sums up the situation quite eloquently and has resultant research studies attached to back it up.

It’s nothing for ordinary women to get angry about, actually it can be used by us to plan our lives accordingly, particularly if we wish to marry and/or have children. If it cuts down on the divorce rate and millions of mothers losing custody of their children (which happens very frequently today) then it will be a good thing for women to know these things.

The only ones legitimately angry about these findings are gender-neutralized feminists and others like them (such as mens’ rights nuts) as the studies are another roadblock on the path to their ultimate goal of a totally androgynous society.

AND I could care LESS about what any of these gender-neutralized idiots think.

Don't Marry Career Women
Michael Noer 08.22.06, 6:00 AM ET

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).


Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

posted by NYMOM | Saturday, August 26, 2006

Happy Bullet said...
I'm surprised to see you comment on this and even more that I ardently *agree* with everything you wrote on this piece.

It is the same opinion most MRA's seem to have of it. When MRA's say they will remain single, it is because of situations like that explained in this article so presumably would not remain so if the traditional roles were in place. BTW MRA's are not "gender neutral" right? I generally find that acknowledging differences is a good thing as long as those acknowledgements don't lead to privilege. For example, in cases of domestic violence legislation I *am* gender neutral, but in cases of marriage I am not...
5:09 AM

NYMOM said...
You cannot pick and chose which issues to be gender neutral either accept the basic premise that we are all alike with NO essential differences between men and women, or you do NOT.

It's a basic misunderstanding about what gender neutral means to say you only support it for certain issues.

AND yes, I feel many of the leaders of the MRA movement are gender neutral just like many feminists are. Even all this focus on violence and aggression between men and women is an example of this. Any understanding of biology, history and just plain common sense would demonstrate that the male is the larger, stronger, and more aggressive of every species as well as our own.

So this focus on how women are just as aggressive as men, commit as many rapes as men, should be drafted since they are as strong as men, etc. plays into the gender neutralized feminist playbook...

So MRAs really need to think about these issues a little bit before deciding who legitimately speaks for you.

That's how mothers really got into the mess we're in not delving deeper into the feminists philosophy before passively accepting them as spokesmen for women. They are not true advocates for all women, but advocates for a certain group of women. Probably the professional/careerist women who don't marry and/or have any kids like Maureen Dowd or Condi Rice. They are good advocates for them. Gender neutral feminism ensures that women cannot be discriminated against in the educational and professional fields they enter into...or in credit, mortgages, all that sort of stuff which really is gender neutral and should be...

But regarding children, marriage, family issues, gender neutralized feminists are not really good advocates for mothers or children. Quite simply, their refusal to accept the differences between men and women in the question of investment in children, for instance, opens them up to being used as pawns against mothers.
11:18 AM

Anonymous said...
Just wanting to point out that your comment about nature is a bit off the mark. In a very large number of animals the females are bigger, and in some, such as lions, the females do all the work, like hunting and bringing food for the pride.
2:19 PM

NYMOM said...
MOST males however are larger.


We cannot keep running to the edge of the bell-shaped curve and dragging back some rare bird or spider and then using that as an example to overturn what 99.9% of the rest of us conform with.


Female lionesses, like many females, hunt and provide food for the young. Male lions perform two functions, one sex to produce the next generation and the other keeping the only predators out of the pride's terroritory that could kill a lioness and her cubs: other male lions.

Something even human males oftentimes do...

So it's not true that male lions aren't useful, just like male humans they can be.
6:43 PM

Anonymous said...
do u even realize its not so simple today as women tending to kids and men earning and everyone living happily ever after? today money rules..the one who's earning tends to dictate the household's functioning..and im not talking about the general day2day talking about how houseives have to depend for their spending money on their husbands, getting monitored, saving a little on the side for themselves..andf god forbid if the guy loses his job/turns out to be an alcoholic/has an affair somewhere cos his wife at home seems too boring for him, then what will this poor woman -- who willingly adopted the role of the 'mother hen' after getting in touch with her inner female tendencies like u suggested -- do? she will be forced to carry on, compromise with the situation, since she's so dependent on the DH that she cant go out in the world later and do anything on her here she is, apparently trying to do what according to some of u "mother nature" intended her to do..and yet suffering...
guys, this is not NatGeo where we can go by what nature wanted us to do..its a human world..its complex, chaotic..and women have long suffered the brunt of being at home and wiping up everyone's shit and cleaning the house while the husband went outside and was made to feel plz dont talk such regressive stuff from the B.C. times now!!
3:42 AM

NYMOM said...
First of all, I have nothing against women who wish to focus on their careers. It's up to each individual how they live their lives.

What I have a problem with is when these same professional women then try to force their personal decisions and life-style choices onto the backs of every other woman on the planet.

That's my problem.

Our legal system and government is full of these women who have placed their careers first and their families second. Furthermore they have no problem passing public policies and laws that discriminate against women who chose to place their children first. This new Family Medical Leave Policy is a good example of this. It's nothing but an underhanded attempt to subvert mothers' maternity leave policy.

Probably professional women don't care as they are rushing back to work anyway a week or so after their baby is born. But many mothers do NOT wish to do that and replacing maternity leave with the gender neutral family leave is only something a gender neutralized feminist careerist would do...

I predict that we will see within two years or so after family leave is implemented custody fights BEFORE your child is even out of your womb...

That's where gender neutral female professionals are leading the rest of us.
11:34 AM


s4m said... can help divorced women, single moms to get financial aid grant or grants for continuing education. Please visit our site now.

PolishKnight said...

Richard and I have fought it out on your blog, NYMOM, as to whether educated women's marriage rates are going up (and divorce rates going down) or whether it's due to a statistical aberration. Here are some explanations:

Marriage rates are going down across the board for ALL women so this may be similar to a grading curve.

"Educated women" tend to be of a higher class and use online resources to meet the traditional breadwinners nearly all women crave. For a short period of time during the 90's, this wasn't the case since they had shot themselves in the foot with sexual harassment legislation which discouraged professional men from asking them out in the workplace and regarded online dating as distasteful. However, working class and traditional women are catching up. That brings us to:

The famous Hewlett study/book that Richard refers to as "outdated" referred to a specific subset of educated/professional women of the ultra-educated variety. Richard defines "educated" women as those with a college diploma which may include women who traditionally (pun intended) got "Mrs degrees" and English literature diplomas and aren't fundamentally different than traditional women in their thinking. On the other hand, ultra educated/professional women are still having a hard time marrying up as ever and it's going to get worse.

Women avoided the online personals because, in the long run, it gives an advantage to men since the men don't need to risk rejection to see whether a particular woman of a certain degree of attractiveness is available. In the short run, therefore, "educated" women are marrying more but men are also increasing their own demands (from what I hear from that generation.) Also, these resources are becoming more popular with the mainstream (this blog is a great example of that.)

NYMOM said...

I already stated that Richard could be half right...educated women MIGHT get married as much as less educated ones, but their divorce rate is higher and they have fewer children...

Did you even read this or just reactively respond to it. AND might I add, I still don't 'get it' why you and/or Richard care so much...

You're both very invested now in acting like educated women have the same outcomes in family life as less-educated ones.

Anonymous said...

NY, can we quit with this "invested" business?

I'm just talking about facts that anyone can look up.

Sure, educated women may have FEWER children. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but it sounds right. But according to our most recent government data they are just as likely to HAVE KIDS as uneducated ones.

And the kids they do have are much more likely to be winners than those born into lower classes.

Quality vs. quantity.

Their divorce rate is not higher. They are more likely to divorce if they outearn their husbands than if they are more or less equally matched, but that's a matter of rates WITHIN the pool of educated women.

As a group they are less likely to divorce than uneducated women. And twice as likely as they were a thirty years ago to have restrictive view on divorce.

You were the one that pointed out the higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt. What do YOU think accounts for that difference?

And the reason I care is because I want everyone to figure out what our best and brightest women have largely figured out on their own. Divorce (and unwed parenting, of course) is a shitpie for everyone.


PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I read the forbes article a while ago (it was paraded around on MRA sites!)

Richard is claiming that recent statistics show that "educated" women are divorcing less and marrying more or at least compared to non-"educated" women. I'm inclined to believe him due to recent floods of lesser educated immigrants with high out-of-wedlock births and divorces. On the other hand, it's entirely possible the forbes article is correct at least for white women and men in that educated white women are having more problems than before. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest the latter.

In answer to your question as to why we care so much... if women are having a harder time marrying and feel stress from post-feminist policies, then it will mean political changes that will impact our lives. We're thinking ahead of the curve. I, for one, don't want a bailout for unwed mothers just as you may not want a bailout for fortune 500 executives who blew trillions on real estate. I chuckle that Obama has given the latter more than the former. Think about how pays his political campaign donations...

I don't think educated and non-educated women have the same outcomes but just the opposite: A working class woman whose already half-foot in the door with the welfare state may act more recklessly than an educated woman who may not want to rock the boat and risk affecting her middle class lifestyle. Or the opposite also takes effect: There are middle class career women who walk on a dime when men offend them because they have mad money. On the other hand... such women may not get married to begin with or have children because if they don't like cleaning up after a man, why would they want to clean up after a child?

I know a woman lawyer who felt this way and she hit her 40's and thought about going the sperm bank route and... didn't because she was so busy with her career. I think it's admirable she just didn't dive in, have the kid, and then dump them with an illegal immigrant nanny to save a few bucks. I suspect that's happening quite a bit and statistics indicate that middle class married women are almost as "conservative" as white males.

PolishKnight said...

Richard asks NYMOM: "You were the one that pointed out the higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt. What do YOU think accounts for that difference?"

I really don't know Richard. It's possible, maybe, that BibleBelter women are going to college more and getting those degrees and then developing feminist attitudes? Another thing I noticed when I briefly lived in the belt was that while the regions were ultra-conservative, the cities were hotbeds of liberal thinking and commercials ran 24x7 for DV shelters and promises of easy, profitable divorce. Ohio, for example, has incredible incentives for women to make false accusations of abuse and file for divorce.

Another reason for high divorce rates in the belt might be simply that such people marry more (The Elizabeth Taylor effect).

I would like you to clarify if there's a difference in these staistics between mere MRS degrees (women having degrees but not using them for high paying careers) and women with careers and degrees. They might now just be a sign of social or ethnic groups.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know the whole truth about the MRS degrees too, PK. I've been looking around some but I can't find sources that break it down in this manner.

But about the Bible Belt...

I've lived both in the far north and the deep south. In the north it was not at all unusual for guys to wait till their mid-30s to marry. But in the deep south guys like me were a rather scarce commodity because most people were married off by their early to mid 20s.

Which of course leaves a lot of time for wifey to "outgrow" her husband and go "find herself."

And the Bible Belt has a larger uneducated population too.

IMO less education and younger ages at first marriage account for most of the difference.

It's a pretty interesting subject.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for your blog. I almost lost custody to a husband who abandoned his kids, cut off the grocery and other money (actually shared marital property!), moved out and dated, and was sporadically violent. The courts looked down on me as a stay-at-home mother and wanted me to have "child free" time. A miracle - my kids themselves and their heroism - saved the day. I could not believe the attitudes I faced from the law. I was college educated, but was a housewife and almost a "prairie muffin" as that is what my husband said he wanted - until we got to court. His career was taking off and he wanted to run with a flashier crowd. Instead of upgrading me, it was easier to go shopping for a new wife. I believe it was society that encouraged him to do this.

NYMOM said...

Well Anonymous I'm glad that your children rose to the occasion; however, not all children are so strong willed nor are all stay-at-home mothers so fortunate...and I don't see it getting better anytime soon especially since so many gender neutral careerist women have flooded our legal system...they either have no kids or pay no attention to the ones they do have so they are extremely cruel to any women who come before them who are mothers.

I have said many times is that one goal mothers must work towards is a clean sweep of our legal system of these gender neutralized they do nothing good for mothers yet expect our support for their own career issues.