Response to Forbes' "Don't Marry A Career Woman"
From Ash:
On Sunday, Forbes's on-line edition published a piece by Michael Noer entitled "Don't Marry A Career Woman," in which Noer rattled off the reasons sociologists have determined that career women are bad spouses. His argument is essentially that marriages to educated, working women are unhappier, less stable, and more likely to divorce: as such marriage to such a woman is done at the man's peril.*
I've taken a close look at the piece and much of the underlying research Noer cited. I haven't looked at everything, but, in each case that I reviewed, I disagree with Noer's depictions of that research, and I found additional research that contradicted his thesis. I'll specifically explain where I disagree with Noer, but here's the at-the-top bottom-line.
Women's increased education does not increase divorce rates.
Education increases marital stability.
A woman's employment does not increase the likelihood that she'll get divorced.
Women's employment does not decrease marital happiness.
And education nor employment do not appear to increase infidelity, either.
Now, some specific instances of how I think Noer has not accurately represented the research.
Noer writes that a 2004 report by John J. Johnson finds that "Women's work hours consistently increase divorce." But that is not Johnson's finding.
Instead, my reading of the report is that there's a correlation between women's increased work hours and divorce – but that Johnson makes no definitive findings that those work hours cause divorce. Conversely, he provides a list of reasons to show that his work does not answer the issue of causation – such as it may be that wives who want to get divorced work more hours before divorcing, either to improve the marriage or give them the resources they need to leave.
A 2006 study, in the Journal of Family Issues, does answer the causation issue.
In that report, its authors find that women's increased hours at work does not increase the likelihood of divorce.
In fact, women's employment, over all, lowers the rate of divorce. Not only that, but the wives' employment has no real effect – positive or negative – on marital quality for either spouse. In other words, husbands do not have happier marriages just because their wives stay home, and they don't have unhappier marriages just because their wives are working. (What really matters is if the wife wants to work, or if she's doing it because she has to financially.)
Moreover, (supporting Johnson's hypothesis) the authors did find that already-unhappy wives do increase their hours at work – either as a way to find other interests outside of the marriage or get the resources to leave.
So working is not a cause of marital instability – it's a way of addressing the instability that already exists.
(And going to work may actually improve the marriage, since working lowers the divorce rate.)
Another problem area I cannot reconcile the research: Noer's discussion of infidelity.
First, even though this is an article about why career-women are problematic spouses, Noer never mentions the fact that the vast majority of partners who are unfaithful are men. (So that section of his article should really be a warning to why women shouldn't marry career-men.)
Instead, Noer relies on a "wide-ranging review of the ... literature" to assert that "highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.)" and that people making more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.
It's unclear who conducted the "wide-ranging review of the ... literature," but for those who might believe it's Noer's own - I believe it's the work of Adrian J. Blow, whom Noer mentions in the piece. But Noer doesn't include Blow's further points: Blow explains the education-element only seems to be a factor when there's a real disparity of education within the couple (which is consistent with the scholarship on how educational heterogamy can be an indicator of marital instability).
In fact, most of Blow's comments are from an accurate review of a 2001 study entitled "Understanding Infidelity."
In that underlying study, the authors explain that the education factor is essentially wiped out when divorce is taken into account. Blow, by the way, includes this explanation in his work, though Noer does not.
In other words, the tie between increased education and infidelity is only a factor for those couples who actually divorced. And as study after study shows: educated women are more likely to divorce if their husbands have had an affair.
So increased education has not yet been determined to be a general predictor of infidelity within a marriage. A point omitted by Noer, but made crystal-clear in Blow's review of the literature:
"We have heard people state that highly educated individuals are more likely to engage in infidelity. However, it appears that assertion is not a categorical truth, but rather a factor that may depend on the educational dynamics of partners in the relationship and history of divorce. Further research is needed in this regard." (emphasis added)
Noer's slanted use of the research on the relationship between income and infidelity - using the $30K threshold - also fails to show the real picture.
In "Understanding Infidelity," the authors did find that increased income did mean an increase in affairs. But they don't think that making money is necessarily the underlying reason for an affair. Instead, it may be that those making less money just can't afford to have one. Richer people can afford those secret hotel bills and the like.
(I'd also like to note that since, depending on the family size and location, an annual family income of under $30K could qualify you as being poor under the federal poverty standard. While he seems to advocate a return to a single-earner family, I don't think Noer really intends on advocating increasing poverty rates as the answer to infidelity. And if he is, he should know that those in poverty are at an increased risk for divorce. I'd also like to remind everyone that wealth is a source of marital stability, while, on the other hand, money problems are a frequently mentioned cause of divorce.)
What I think Noer's theory is this: if more women are in the workforce, they will meet more hot guys at work to have sex with, than they will meet at the P.T.A., so they'll have more affairs. And more affairs mean more divorces. So keep the women at home.
Noer is correct that more women are having affairs, and that this can, in part, be attributed to an increase in potential partners in those affairs. But where Noer's theory falls apart is that, if he's right, then dual-earner couples should have higher rates of infidelity than couples with only one spouse at work. Because now both husbands and wives have all those new potential sex-partners, and they conceivably both have the money to check into a hotel suite.
But the researchers found that that is not the case.
Dual-earners are not the couples with the highest rates of infidelity. Instead, the highest rates of infidelity are when only one spouse is working, and the other is unemployed. (In other words, when the men are at work, and the wives are at home.)
The scholars theorize this is because the working spouse has more power in the family and more resources with which to have an affair. And that infidelity rates drop when the power and economic structures of the couple are more equalized.
It may also be that women usually have emotional attachments to their extramarital partners, so proximity alone isn't going to result in the dramatic increase of affairs Noer fears. (Perhaps that's because he's forgetting that he's talking about women, whereas men are is more likely to have sex just for sex's sake.)
As I said, I haven't gone through all of Noer's research. Some of it probably is accurate. I know I have seen research about the damaging effects of divorce on couples and their children. I know I've seen how the changing workforce, gender roles, etc. can affect marriages. But there are a lot of components to those findings which need to be addressed. (That's why we've got the blog, actually.)
Dual-earner families are the reality for many families now. Articles like Noer's do absolutely nothing to help those families; they just provide unfair and misdirected cannon fodder into the frey.
__________
*Within hours, with arguments about the piece were lighting up the blogosphere, Forbes reposted it as a "counterpoint," with an essay arguing why career women were good spouses, after all. Thanks to Salon for its piece about what was going on.
On Sunday, Forbes's on-line edition published a piece by Michael Noer entitled "Don't Marry A Career Woman," in which Noer rattled off the reasons sociologists have determined that career women are bad spouses. His argument is essentially that marriages to educated, working women are unhappier, less stable, and more likely to divorce: as such marriage to such a woman is done at the man's peril.*
I've taken a close look at the piece and much of the underlying research Noer cited. I haven't looked at everything, but, in each case that I reviewed, I disagree with Noer's depictions of that research, and I found additional research that contradicted his thesis. I'll specifically explain where I disagree with Noer, but here's the at-the-top bottom-line.
Women's increased education does not increase divorce rates.
Education increases marital stability.
A woman's employment does not increase the likelihood that she'll get divorced.
Women's employment does not decrease marital happiness.
And education nor employment do not appear to increase infidelity, either.
Now, some specific instances of how I think Noer has not accurately represented the research.
Noer writes that a 2004 report by John J. Johnson finds that "Women's work hours consistently increase divorce." But that is not Johnson's finding.
Instead, my reading of the report is that there's a correlation between women's increased work hours and divorce – but that Johnson makes no definitive findings that those work hours cause divorce. Conversely, he provides a list of reasons to show that his work does not answer the issue of causation – such as it may be that wives who want to get divorced work more hours before divorcing, either to improve the marriage or give them the resources they need to leave.
A 2006 study, in the Journal of Family Issues, does answer the causation issue.
In that report, its authors find that women's increased hours at work does not increase the likelihood of divorce.
In fact, women's employment, over all, lowers the rate of divorce. Not only that, but the wives' employment has no real effect – positive or negative – on marital quality for either spouse. In other words, husbands do not have happier marriages just because their wives stay home, and they don't have unhappier marriages just because their wives are working. (What really matters is if the wife wants to work, or if she's doing it because she has to financially.)
Moreover, (supporting Johnson's hypothesis) the authors did find that already-unhappy wives do increase their hours at work – either as a way to find other interests outside of the marriage or get the resources to leave.
So working is not a cause of marital instability – it's a way of addressing the instability that already exists.
(And going to work may actually improve the marriage, since working lowers the divorce rate.)
Another problem area I cannot reconcile the research: Noer's discussion of infidelity.
First, even though this is an article about why career-women are problematic spouses, Noer never mentions the fact that the vast majority of partners who are unfaithful are men. (So that section of his article should really be a warning to why women shouldn't marry career-men.)
Instead, Noer relies on a "wide-ranging review of the ... literature" to assert that "highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.)" and that people making more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.
It's unclear who conducted the "wide-ranging review of the ... literature," but for those who might believe it's Noer's own - I believe it's the work of Adrian J. Blow, whom Noer mentions in the piece. But Noer doesn't include Blow's further points: Blow explains the education-element only seems to be a factor when there's a real disparity of education within the couple (which is consistent with the scholarship on how educational heterogamy can be an indicator of marital instability).
In fact, most of Blow's comments are from an accurate review of a 2001 study entitled "Understanding Infidelity."
In that underlying study, the authors explain that the education factor is essentially wiped out when divorce is taken into account. Blow, by the way, includes this explanation in his work, though Noer does not.
In other words, the tie between increased education and infidelity is only a factor for those couples who actually divorced. And as study after study shows: educated women are more likely to divorce if their husbands have had an affair.
So increased education has not yet been determined to be a general predictor of infidelity within a marriage. A point omitted by Noer, but made crystal-clear in Blow's review of the literature:
"We have heard people state that highly educated individuals are more likely to engage in infidelity. However, it appears that assertion is not a categorical truth, but rather a factor that may depend on the educational dynamics of partners in the relationship and history of divorce. Further research is needed in this regard." (emphasis added)
Noer's slanted use of the research on the relationship between income and infidelity - using the $30K threshold - also fails to show the real picture.
In "Understanding Infidelity," the authors did find that increased income did mean an increase in affairs. But they don't think that making money is necessarily the underlying reason for an affair. Instead, it may be that those making less money just can't afford to have one. Richer people can afford those secret hotel bills and the like.
(I'd also like to note that since, depending on the family size and location, an annual family income of under $30K could qualify you as being poor under the federal poverty standard. While he seems to advocate a return to a single-earner family, I don't think Noer really intends on advocating increasing poverty rates as the answer to infidelity. And if he is, he should know that those in poverty are at an increased risk for divorce. I'd also like to remind everyone that wealth is a source of marital stability, while, on the other hand, money problems are a frequently mentioned cause of divorce.)
What I think Noer's theory is this: if more women are in the workforce, they will meet more hot guys at work to have sex with, than they will meet at the P.T.A., so they'll have more affairs. And more affairs mean more divorces. So keep the women at home.
Noer is correct that more women are having affairs, and that this can, in part, be attributed to an increase in potential partners in those affairs. But where Noer's theory falls apart is that, if he's right, then dual-earner couples should have higher rates of infidelity than couples with only one spouse at work. Because now both husbands and wives have all those new potential sex-partners, and they conceivably both have the money to check into a hotel suite.
But the researchers found that that is not the case.
Dual-earners are not the couples with the highest rates of infidelity. Instead, the highest rates of infidelity are when only one spouse is working, and the other is unemployed. (In other words, when the men are at work, and the wives are at home.)
The scholars theorize this is because the working spouse has more power in the family and more resources with which to have an affair. And that infidelity rates drop when the power and economic structures of the couple are more equalized.
It may also be that women usually have emotional attachments to their extramarital partners, so proximity alone isn't going to result in the dramatic increase of affairs Noer fears. (Perhaps that's because he's forgetting that he's talking about women, whereas men are is more likely to have sex just for sex's sake.)
As I said, I haven't gone through all of Noer's research. Some of it probably is accurate. I know I have seen research about the damaging effects of divorce on couples and their children. I know I've seen how the changing workforce, gender roles, etc. can affect marriages. But there are a lot of components to those findings which need to be addressed. (That's why we've got the blog, actually.)
Dual-earner families are the reality for many families now. Articles like Noer's do absolutely nothing to help those families; they just provide unfair and misdirected cannon fodder into the frey.
__________
*Within hours, with arguments about the piece were lighting up the blogosphere, Forbes reposted it as a "counterpoint," with an essay arguing why career women were good spouses, after all. Thanks to Salon for its piece about what was going on.
posted by Ashley Merryman at 7:33 AM
32 Comments:
Hi Ashley:
(This is the same anon who suggested Elizabeth Barber's book to you in an earlier post. I think I'll start signing my name, if I'm going to make regular comments here.)
I remember you mentioning in an earlier post about the Sociological Association meeting, about several sociologists complaining that "the media" always gets things wrong: It's not you. It's nimrods like Noer who they are thinking of. And nimrods in the NY Times Science section who cheerfully serve us half-baked sociobiological theory. Unfortunately, all the "media" gets painted with that brush. That's too bad, as it is "the media" - as in bloggers - who called Noer on his misuse of statistics, bad social science, and just plain Neanderthalishness.
Stephanie Coontz also notes that educated couples have lower divorce rates. There was also a paper in the (I think) June issue of Journal of Marriage and the Family, by Steven P. Martin and Sangeeta Parashar. They show that a) divorce rates for educated women are low and dropping, b) educated women have less favorable attitudes toward divorce, while c) less-educated women have more favorable divorce attitudes AND d) their divorce rates are high and rising (over 50% for women who have not finished high school).
While I'm not a fan of divorce on a whim or because one wants to marry someone younger and more attractive, on the other hand - I think it's a GOOD thing that women can leave miserable marriages and not have to stay due to not having money or a job. A study by Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers shows that no-fault divorce has decreased spousal murder and domestic violence - women, especially, now have the power to get up and leave, which often serves to leverage better treatment.
And on an unrelated note: WTF is an article like this doing in a *business* magazine? Has Forbes merged with Cosmopolitan when I wasn't looking? Not only was Noer's article bad science, it was fluffier than an entire litter of Persian kittens. Sober articles on how to discuss money with your spouse, estate planning and so on are fine, but dang, this is pure Cosmo. Bleah.
Crystal
Given the inequities of family law in California in particular and the US in general, one might argue the article is only half true. Men perhaps should not marry at all. If you marry a woman who is focised on her career, well..., why marry at all? The relationship sounds like more of a roommate relationship than a romantic attachment.
If you marry a woman who stays at home, well, forget about seeing your kids if you get divorced (43% divorce rate nationwide, with 70% of divorces initiated by women), and kiss your hard earned wealth goodbye as well.
Medn are constantly goaded into traditional marriage by the media, which seems to consistently ignore the risks of divorce while touting the advantages of marriage.
The difference between "the nimrods" like Michael Noer referred to above and the ones whose view s are sutomatically assumed to be legit is that anyone with a perspective on men's needs and/or benefits tends to be regarded as a crackpot, but a "researcher" writing an article focusing on women's needs/PC feminist issues has tenure and is granted automatic legitimacy.
Women are a privileged class in America. They do not have to register for the Selective Service, they live longer than men, more healthcare dollars are allocated to their needs than to men's, I could go on and on. They get the great proportion of judicial discretion in their favor in family court ion matters of alimony and custody as well.
Perhaps men are tired of being stooges for women, careerist or otherwise, who create an instant wage slave the moment they get him to sign that license. This is never noted by the MSM or the folks making our laws in the sausage factory up in DC.
And if they cannot get something uniquely feminine out of the deal, it makes sense that marrying a de facto man with a vagina who works all the time is not an attractive proposition.
Go ahead, make fun of the article, but keep in mind that marriage in America is increasingly the purview of the poor and uneducated, and a strong possible reason for this is that men have become tired of signing up for an institution that makes one a slave upon pain of losing one's children and livelihood.
Actually marriage is not the domain of the poor and underprivileged. In fact, increasingly we are seeing a trend that poor people are having children but not marrying.
Educated and successful people are marrying aplenty, just a little later in life.
In criticizing Noer's misrepresentation of the research, I certainly don't mean to ridicule anything. Especially the very difficult challenges that every couple faces in making family life manageable. However, it's statistically incorrect to say that the challenges of being educated and successful are bigger challenges than those faced by the uneducated and poor.
I think it's fine for Noer to argue that men (or some men) might have happier family lives if they don't marry, or don't marry a career woman. Just that if he makes his argument by misquoting research, that needs to be pointed out. I was surprised that Noer didn't mention his own experience and strategy.
In my own case, both Michele and I have limited our work hours for our family. But we work hard within those limits, and have managed to keep our careers going.
I wish more men felt free to go to work for "family-friendly" companies, where they did not feel like they would miss out on a promotion because they leave to see their kids at 5:30.
Poor people are having children out of wedlock, but that has nothing to do with the fact that a greater proportion of new marriages consists of marriages between impoverished men and women, a proportion that is greater than it has been in the past.
You also did not address any of the inequities I listed in my post above.
The reality is that men should avoid marriage at all costs, given the legal and financial risks they face in marriage, risks that are not faced by women due to a more favorable legal and financial environment for them in Family Court.
The entire November 2004 issue of Journal of Marriage and the Family was about marriage. Many of the articles (for instance by Frank Furstenberg and Stephanie Coontz) noted that marriage is rapidly becoming something that only the better-off can afford. Poor people just live together. In the words of Furstenberg (paraphrased), Marriage is a luxury item and cohabitation is the budget way to start a family.
Anyhow, I thought of Roger Lancaster and his noting of retrograde ev-psych "Flintstones" tropes about human origins and behavior, when I read this article in the SF Chronicle today:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/27/MNGL2KQ8H41.DTL
It's about transgender kids and how, at least in the liberal Bay Area, they are being increasingly accepted. Some young children do not want to be put into the either-or "boy/girl" box. On the one hand we get writers like Noer and Louanne Brizendine who push all the old gender stereotypes, and on the other we read about the increasing acceptance of kids who do not want to be gender-typed. More and more I see Lancaster as having his finger on the pulse of something important: gender roles and what it means to be a "man" or "woman" are in radical flux in the US today, and the retro articles like Noer's act as a backlash against what is really happening.
- C.
As Po remarked, my intention was not to make fun of Noer's piece (I see nothing funny about it), but to debunk the misinformation that I believe had occurred. And I would do that, if an article came from a feminist about how men were awful, if it similarly distorted the research. My agenda for this blog isn't pro-women, or pro-marriage, but pro-truth.
Crystal provided some useful citations I would suggest looking at (I often read that issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, too.).
But I think it is also more important to specifically contradict some of the misinformation you've heard, and I'm happy to do so.
MARRIAGE AND ECON/EDUCATION:
Po is right: your statement "marriage in America is increasingly the purview of the poor and uneducated," is incorrect. In fact, it is the opposite of the reality: marriage is an exclusive club for the educated and the wealthy.
According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf) in 2001, about 10% of marriages in 2001 were by those who had an income below the poverty level. That's compared to those who had an income of over 200% of the poverty level – who accounted for 70% of marriages.
Educationally, about 16% of those who got married in 2001 didn't have a high school education. Which means 84% of those who got married did have a high school education or greater. And more than half of the men and women who got married in 2001 had attended college.
If you are interested, Kathryn J. Edin wrote about book about how the poor consider marriage too important an institution to enter into without sufficient funds.
DIVORCE - CAUSES AND CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
While in years past, there was a legal preference for granting women custody for children in divorce proceedings, that preference no longer exists. The reason women still get the kids is because the fathers don't petition for sole custody.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 70% divorce figure, but you should be aware that the leading causes for divorce include domestic abuse, infidelity, and drug and alcohol abuse.
DIVORCE AND DIVISION OF PROPERTY
As to your remark about "kiss your hard earned wealth goodbye" - that, too, is completely incorrect.
Spousal support is awarded in LESS than 15% of all dissolution cases. This amount is usually limited in time, and will vanish depending on the woman's subsequent income or marital status.
Census released a report on child support last week. It found that the average child support owed was about $5000 - and less than half of the children actually received the full amount (even though it's based on either agreement between the parents and/or a court order.).
Now, if you live in California, you are probably referring to the state's concept of community property. However, you misunderstand its application.
NOTE: I am NOT giving legal advice, IN ANY WAY, nor is this a complete recitation of the law, but just stating the general rule for informational purposes.
In California, the general rule is that a couple gets divorced, property (including income, real estate) etc is divided in half between the husband and wife. However, that is ONLY for property made / money earned DURING the marriage.
Unless they agree to otherwise, anything they bring to the marriage remains theirs alone. If a husband has income or property he owned prior to the marriage, say a house, for example, that would remain his alone.
So if you aren't marrying because you are already independently wealthy, and are worried about how to protect that wealth, you can enter into a pre-nup, which specifically lists what property each had before marriage, and may include how property is to be split during a divorce.
If you don't believe that wives add any value to a husband's life, during a marriage, well, you can try to contract around it. But generally the law believes that married men do benefit from the marriage, and that women should benefit as well.
Also, not all income received during a marriage is considered community property. Inheritances, for example, are excluded.
That's just the start. For particular questions, I'd find a divorce lawyer to ask. But it certainly isn't the "Half!" that you see depicted in comedy routines or may have read about in celebrity divorces.
Also, I heard presentation after presentation at the ASA on divorce and economics. Everyone agreed that divorce damages both spouses economically, but the woman's fate is much worse than the husband's, because she usually has worked less, at a lower rate, in order to take care of children, etc.
MEN'S EARNINGS IN MARRIAGE
Once again, men do not earn a slave wage once they've gotten married. Men do tend to work more hours once they have children, but that is because they desire to provide for the family: they see themselves as breadwinners. If you chose not to do so, then that would be something between you and your wife. Also, while it probably isn't true everywhere, there are a number of industries, where formally or informally, men's careers directly improve from marriage -- married men get promotions, raises, etc. while singles are sometimes capped.
As I said from the start, I'm not trying to convince anyone to be married. But your information is simply incorrect.
As a self-professed "career man," I'm not sure I would have married a career woman, but we need to be careful about what that means. If it simply means "gainfully employed woman," then I think the discussion is silly, it's obvious that in this day and age everyone has a right to become employed at whatever stage of life they wish, no matter what correlations are proven or not proven to be associated with that. But if it means "I put my career ahead of my family," then that's different. That's what the term "career person" means to me. And that's what I mean when I describe myself that way---if my family needed me to change jobs so we could all move (and in my field that would entail changing career areas as well), I would say "sorry, no." And I would, with sadness in my heart, wave goodbye to my wife and children as they left me. I keep my career because I want to, no matter how poorly it provides for my family, and no matter how many riches await in a different career that I might be qualified to pursue. Now THAT'S a career man. And, yeah, I think that in a marriage it's important to have at least one spouse put that marriage first in their life. And I think it's perhaps best if that person is the mother of the children, if there are any.
Noer's article about marrying a career woman sounded so strange to me. Agreed that it is not funny, but it just seems too bizarre to me.
Wonder if he deliberately wrote these anchronisms to start up a debate among people who read his article? He definitely got out attention!
I liked the counterpoint column, especially the part about the 18th wedding anniversary. I think the counter person made it clear that although she has a career, marriage is still high on her priority list, unless I misunderstood?
Hayley
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I wholeheartedly agree with anonymous - men should not get married. Ever. In any circumstances. At all. Among me & my buddies this isn't even an issue - all are keeping stalling to avoid it. Marriage seems to be a massive sham imposed on men...like it's something we're all supposed to crave. It starts with the hapless sucker blowing 4 months salary on a useless piece of jewelry... Her big day? When does he get his big day? Most of all, who wants to be a wage-slave to a wife who could turn on you at any moment? We've all seen other guys who have had their lives totally ruined by the divorce courts & an ex who turned vindictive or just merely bored, or simply took a liking to another guy. It's a mystery why, in this age of feminism, the courts have made marriage even more of a vast welfare transfer system to women, as if they are all helpess damsels in distress (I wouldn't be surprised if the courts award Heather Mills at least half of the fortune Paul McCartney made from the Beatles .. after a mere 3 years of being married to him) There's a 50% divorce rate - 80% of them being initiated by women. This refects the incentives the system has created -- State Laws and judicial customs buffer women from of the pain of a split. Divorcing mothers stand roughly a 95-percent chance of winning real custody of the children, thus child support. As a rule, ex-wives get to keep the house, half the marital property and most likely also spousal support. If they can forecast all these benefits & are getting a bit bored, why stay married? This all represents a huuuuuuuge risk for guys today. If young men have any sense they'll keep avoiding marriage in droves.
That last post by anonymous deserves to be analyzed. First, it says the very same points as an earlier post, so much so that it makes me wonder if this really comes from a different person. Both posts argue that courts so favor women that divorce is a huge risk for men - therefore don't ever marry. But logically, if you have kids out of wedlock, you are no more protected if you split up. It is not getting married that puts you at risk, but having kids, and commitment in general. So the title of these posts should really be, "Don't have commitments, live independently and take care of yourself." In this day and age, we all certainly can choose to live that way - eithout partners or children - and have a meaningful and rich life. But the value of family and partnership is that you're stronger together than apart. That someone is there to pick you up when you have a bad year, and vice versa. That you can care for your kids, and that they can care for you when you're 87 (or if not, they will pass on that caring to someone else). I used to think I wanted nobody's help - I would take care of myself, thank you. I had been burned the one time I really counted on others to help me out. But I have since come around to understanding that with the numerous challenges we all will face eventually, we'll be stronger and more resilient by facing those challenges locked arms with a few others - be they spouses, children, parents, cousins, or diehard friends.
(In case you're wondering, I deleted a comment because I'd accidentally posted the same comment twice. I hate it when I do that.
More to the point:
I couldn't agree with Po more.
From my understanding of this article Noer was writing about women who are very career oriented not simply women who hold jobs. The very same article could have been written by a woman addressed to women. Of course, if that was the case there would have been no controversy. There is some sexism going on here. Many people feel that it is ok for women to criticize men but not for men to be critical of women.
I know of marriages that failed because the woman worked too much. I know of marriages that failed because the man worked too much. This includes childless marriages. The fact is excessive devotion to one's job can either destroy marriages or make them unhappy.
If a guy is family oriented and wants kids, he really is better off avoiding a woman who wants to become an executive or be a law partner at 40. But a woman who is family oriented should also avoid men like this because she'll never see the guy and will for all intents and purposes be a single parent.
I was not at all offended by Noer's article. Just like I would expect most men would not have been offended if Noer was a woman writing the very same piece warning women to avoid career men. Women need to develop a thicker skin.
Michael Noer's article, "Don't Marry a Career Woman" has some valid points.
by, Raven Smith
Michael Noer article Don’t Marry a Career Woman provoked a rush of criticism that besieged the experts. My criticism and where I agreed, comes down to this; his article was true for some career women and completely untrue for others. The questions that I’m suggesting is this, did his article have more truths in it or was it just plain imaginary? Mr. Noer didn’t write an article that wasn’t backed up with research, he provided some facts and not one boycott article I’ve read thus far addresses those.(noting that you Mr. Bronson did discuss)
Statistics can be a writer’s dessert or poison depending if what you’ve claimed is in the minority so therefore possibly pointless, or within the majority and worth discussing. The backlash for his audacity to write the article, brings a hidden light where social biases prefer to not see.
Topic 1) Mr. Noer wrote…”a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.”
In the last forty years, Americas social conscious has changed. Some men and women feel obligated to be a caretaker for their children and spouses. Some men and women feel honored to be caretakers. Some men don’t equate their manhood with any caretaker role at all and some women don’t equate their womanhood with a caretaker role either. Our passions are changing and unfortunately, our economy and the value of materialism has left an impression on the American family. Today, the majority of women still desire to care for their children first and if they have to work, the typical preference is part time and not full time. It is because of this reasoning that women are happierif the husband is the primary breadwinner but unfortunately, many of us don’t have this opportunity to utilize a choice. Economics have come into play and an option for the choice to stay at home is limited.
Topic 2) Mr. Noer wrote- “…the more successful she is, the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you.”
This statement is about human nature and its premise is non-gender specific. One of the advantages to having a career is it builds your confidence. This factor can come home and there walks in a puffy spouse, whether male or female; success at the job, can build you up with your presumed superiority at home. It’s very rare, considering human nature that when we can climb the ladder of success, we can remain humble. Periods of dissatisfaction within a marriage is a given because all marriages have seasons of struggles. For many, the test of ones character does come into play with career achievements and this is a behavioral fact and not a gender bias. When you’re the big guy at work or you have some power at the workplace, to come home to a job that doesn’t have awards on the walls isn’t an easy adjustment. You receive pats on the back all day long and come home to a job that doesn’t have praise wrapped around its little finger. You take that situation and tie it around any periods of struggle within a marriage and yes, it’s easier to become dissatisfied with your spouse. Topic 2 is true for both women and men.
Had Mr. Noer written a non-gender article about how success at the workplace can create dissatisfaction with ones spouse, the article wouldn’t have been controversial. And, there are articles out there on just that but our sensitivities on women’s rights have clouded some of the finer parts of accuracy in his article.
Topic 3) Mr. Noer wrote- “Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect.”
I saw this argument as ambiguous. It’s more widely accepted for a man to spend more time away from home than a woman. If a career woman works full time men tend to feel abandoned, where a woman does not. Again, if a career woman is a mother, she is still expected to carry more of the parental responsibilities than the father. An increase in divorce, due to a woman’s increase in work hours is because we’re raised in social climate that teaches differently. Do I think that’s acceptable? No, I don’t but Mr. Noer’s argument is still nevertheless, true.
Topic 4) Mr. Noer wrote- “The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen his or her mate run off with a co-worker.” He also wrote, “The work environment provides a host of potential partners…"
Opportunity sparks options and opens doors for betrayal by both men and women. You can have an affair at Burger King but if you have a job that provides financial stability the temptations for an affair has fewer drawbacks. If you rely on your spouse’s income you’re less likely to jeopardize your marriage. If you rely on your spouse’s income you’re less likely to leave an unhealthy marriage. This is human nature that's true for both men and women. Had Mr. Noer written an article stating that most affairs from career men come from the workplace, that wouldn’t have been viewed as controversial.
Topic 5) Mr. Noer wrote- “They will be unhappy if they make moremoney than you do. You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do.”
One's frame of mind towards their spouse who makes less money or stays at home is tested by our value in materialism and the male ego. It’s not a woman’s fault if she makes more money than her spouse but most men would agree, it’s a jab to their ego. Socially men are geared for the provider role and yes, it causes problems. It’s just another area where society hasn’t progressed but it’s still a very real problem that supports Mr. Noer statement. What's also causing this? We, both men and women interpret a higher income as being a better provider. Work ethic is no longer enough because attaining wealth is admired by so many.
Topic 6) In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.
When both spouses have careers the labor specialization has a greater opportunity for equal grounding but once you throw children into the labor realm, the dynamics change far more.
Interjecting my personal reflection
With my own personal struggles as a single mother and working on my career, I found I had no time to be a mother. I remember getting up at 6 am, dropping my kids off at the sitter at 7:15 and I was off to work. At the end of my day, I picked up my kids, drove through traffic and got home around 7 pm. I still had to accomplish homework time, cooking dinner, bathing, getting their clothes ready for the next day and all of this, within two hours before bedtime. I was spent. I lasted a few years and I couldn’t bare it any longer. There is a very popular erroneous American parenting quote, “Its not quantity but quality time.” Children need quality and quantity time with mom and dad. It becomes their lacking when they don't have both. So, I sacrificed my career and in time, I realized I made the wrong decision. Why? I allowed my children to not be first because I feared I couldn’t provide for them. So I stayed in an unhealthy relationship for a few years instead of taking the bull by the horns and saying enough. Lessons learned.
Children first
A full time career choice leaves parenting time down to two or three hours a day during the work week and often, that isn’t enough. If your happiness comes through a career first and you're a better parent for it, than by all means you should, but that doesn’t excuse a lack of character either. There are enough statistics out there that support that one parent being at home when children get out of school, creates a more balanced kid. Time and quantity is of the essence. When one spouse comes home at 6pm, and the other spouse was able to tend to the children’s homework, do the shopping and prepare dinner, there is more time in the evening for quality fun time with the kids and spend more quality time together as a couple. Those dynamics are simply true but often comes with criticism. As Mr Noer suggests in his article, kids tend to turn out better adjusted when someone is home or in my opinion, at least part time. I agree.
Wounds and Fears
I look back historically at my sisters suffering and I carry that in my heart and how inequality cost them happiness. To have no choice but to surrender to an unhealthy relationship because of the fear in loosing a god-given right for their children, deeply saddens me. To not have the right to own property or have a career, deeply saddens me. The brave women in our history will always marvel me but if we don’t take back our integrity for the family unit; our children will continue to reveal their shortcomings from our choices.
Many of us don’t have the options to be home with our kids and we carry guilt over this. I believe if our hearts have the right motives than our sacrifices should be guilt free. If we strive for a career to have big screen TV, nice cars and to attain materialism, than that’s a job that should be dismissed. If strive for careers because we can't keep a roof over our heads than we should work. If we work jobs to build our confidence, inflate our egos than that’s a job that should be dismissed.
If you were to take Mr. Noer article and replace all attributing “female” and “male,” words with non-gender “spouse” wording, you will discover that this article wasn’t very controversial at all. Why? Because the subject at hand does have some merit but our sensitivities stood in the way of reason. Rewording the article does shade some light on this and with lesser biases, we're more open to some of his conclusions. We must not let our fears create road blocks. The non-gendered version carries both the male and female possibilities in Mr. Noers argument. If you can find her and his truths in this rewritten version then there are some truths for the career woman as well.
To close,
Mr. Noers article has more insight to offer than not. Women and men can have careers, children and a happy marriage. This is true, possible and it happens. The time you spend serving these can show up as a great savings account when you’re older, a bigger house, more vacations, a happier marriage and balanced children. Our choices can also show up with unhappy children, an unhappy marriage and a bigger house to settle in divorce court.
Po: re your response to my post (4.31 am) – I wish I could share your faith in the institution of marriage. But the reality is that more and more young men are learning about the tyranny of family law and are holding off on marriage. In an informal relationship you’ve got far more flexibility to arrange a just and balanced relationship. Once you’re married you’re roped, saddled and gelded. A lot of divorces ruin guys’ lives with or without children – eg in Bar Review class we came across the concept of "imputed income" applied to alimony – i.e. not your actual income, but what you could make if you were really giving it your all and living up to your potential. Scary stuff. We examined a Virginia case where a guy had been through a godawful bitter divorce, and decided if he was going to have to pay his ex half his income, it was going to be half of a much smaller pie. So instead of slaving away as a lawyer (as he had previously to keep his wife in the manner she had grown accustomed) he took a more blue-collar job, making far less money. Tough, said the judge. You're liable for what you could make, not what you actually make. And that's the legal principle that’s applied across-the-board here.
The issue of career women is interesting. But there’s one basic thing that’s key here, which is ‘hypergamy’ … described by anthropologists as the compulsion among females to partner up with males of higher social/economic status (through all societies allegedly - both civilised and more primitive). Where high-flying women gain high levels of power and wealth, so the theory goes, it screws up the dynamics of this - i.e. if they start to out-achieve their partner. There’s probably something in this – while it’s possible to evolve beyond it, you don’t have to look far to see a lot of women who still appear to be hard-wired in this way – eg going for the alphas with the Porshe over the ‘nice’ guys. Personally I’m all for relationships with women who have equal or greater wealth ... if they’re comfortable with it. Much rather that that being a wage slave for a woman who wants to cut-back/give up on work as soon as possible. So many husbands even without kids) seem to end up as breadwinners on the tread mill, stuck in careers they hate, or working for exploitative management, for excessively long hours, in jobs that are physically threatening, have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc, powerless to affect any change their own lives. Another fun outcome of marriage – even before the divorce kicks in.
Raven,
I appreciate the time that you took to reply. But I think you are missing an essential point of Noer's piece. If Noer wants to write a personal essay, such as yours, on why career women shouldn't be married, that's well within his rights.
But he made his argument with citations to misleading scholarly journals to turn his opinion into "truth." I checked out the facts. He was either wrong, or distorted the truth for every thing I looked at. His logic isn't worth defending, because he is NOT right, factually. Period.
It isn't about gender-bias or controversy. It's about distorting the truth. And that's not just acceptable journalism.
And the fact that it's unacceptable would not change if the article had been written by a women about men, or a business writer about the stock market.
Steve Forbes has apparently apologized for the article, stating, "The piece was intended to be part academic and part humorous. Instead, it profoundly offended hardworking career women everywhere. We deeply regret having done so." http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2357818&page=2
I don't accept that as an apology, because he stands by the distortions. Forbes essentially reasserted that this was supposed to be an accurate reflection of the academic scholarship, which it is NOT.
...despite several decades of feminism, & touted female financial independence, it seems many women still have a highly materialistic approach to relationships - eg see this hot-off-the-press release of recent UK survey data, which shows how much higher women rate money over looks in men &, more than that, just how high their financial expectations are:
http://p21.news.re2.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_financial_women
That's right guys, if you don't make more than $US 95,000 (GBP 50,000) a year, with at least $US 48,000 in savings -- these female survey respondents will judge you as "unsuccessful" ... with "more than one-in-ten" women setting the minimum benchmark for a "successful" man at $US191,000 (GBP 100,000) a year. These expectations go beyond meeting essential needs into the realms of sheer materialism. (This of course is old news, as is the claim that, if men can be labelled shallow in seeking attractiveness in women, surely women are de-facto prostitutes for seeking large wallets in men) Since women generally seek to 'marry up', presumably the expectations of successful 'career women' of their husbands will often be much higher still than the average woman (like these survey respondents) hence placing all kinds of pressures on these marriages.
Why can't woman take criticism? Seems like male bashing comes easy for women, and having Forbes bashing men so they can print a report that shows the reality of marrying a career woman is pretty petty on the woman's part.
Interesting comments. I have linked to this post in my own article on this issue at:
http://www.feelgoodgirl.com/?p=173
And you'll find an interesting commentary there on how it was men who originally started leaving marriage thanks to the Playboy movement...I'm amazed at the comments here that are still representative of that mindset.
To the Anon who wrote on "marrying-up," that "...surely women are de-facto prostitutes for seeking large wallets in men" --
Under your definition, that women think spouses are only about money, I guess I, too, want to marry "up" -- because I'm so saddled with school loans, etc, so, at this point, a guy with mere solvency would be a step "up."
But here's the thing. I'm just not good enough in bed to be a prostitute.
So I'll stick with hoping that my future spouse and I will be able to offer each other something other than a straight trade of sex for money. Love, companionship, maybe even a laugh or two if we're lucky.
Wow - this thread is still going. What you say is all very well Ashley - but you see the thing is there's a vast universe between what most women say they want in a man and how they actually behave in the dating world. All guys come to realise this sooner or later ... while a lot of women don’t even seem willing to admit it to themselves. This is a key reason why men get so cynical about women saying all they’re looking for is a nice guy with a sense of humor who they can talk to ... yada yada
The reality is that social status & wealth play a major role in who most women go for. There’s so many examples of this it’s hardly worth going there.
It’s not just the Donald Trump types with women half their age on their arms, it’s repeated at all levels of society through and through - eg I have a friend who worked in an office prior to starting medical school and although he earned ok money back then he was never hit on anything like he is now, and he’s still just a ‘lowly’ resident, as he puts it. (And he's worse lookin lately, that's for sure.) He says he gets hit on by nurses and PA's all the time. If he’s at a social function and talking to a woman, he says she’ll be makin’ her excuses to leave & then her eyes suddenly light up when she learns he’s a physician. He’s become deeply cynical about women – evidently there's a lot of women who just really, really just want to be a doctor's wife; they're just less willing to admit it the way they might have been in the past .. because it's not PC for them to be a status-seeking golddigger.
They might be entirely financially independent now, but it seems deep down a lot of women's relationship aspirations haven't much changed from the days of Jane Austen. Maybe that's why that dreary book "Pride & Prejudice' is still so popular among women. (OK I admit it - I've never read it - but I did have to sit through the f*@#*?% film)
I am 41 and worked very hard to be where I am and trust me, I didn't sleep my way to the top either. I had to give up a lot of my personal life to have the successful career that I have. Here is my minority’s view on the topic:
I am 41 and worked very hard to be where I am today. I had to give up a lot of my personal life and put to use the education that I’ve earned to have the successful career that I have. Trying not to feel guilty about the decisions that I made, and it's hard to meet people in my caliber but to read this article is so discouraging. Why Mr. Noers doesn’t write about beautiful women in theirs 40s that makes over 300K a year and can't find men that are qualified to date her...
It's hard enough to fight the men in climbing the corporate latter, stigmatism, ethnicity, give up the personal/social life just to be in the same playing field, I definitely can live without being put down further by this ridiculous article on top of it - Put down because now I also need to feel that I am not marriage material and shouldn’t have children?????
Hey, I don’t want to marry up – I would just like to even meet men that are even my equal and with balls!
What enslaves a man, in my opinion, isn't a "career woman", whatever that means, but a woman who believes that a man is obligated by default to be the primary breadwinner.
He's stuck if her putting her "career" or employment on the back burner means that he must take the highest-paying job he can get regardless of his own career preferences.
Any person who makes $300K a year and is looking for her (or his) equal in that regard is going to have a hard time. There aren't that many of 'em! The same goes for any person who is a statistical outlier of any kind -- 175 IQ, more than seven feet tall, whatever.
"What enslaves a man, in my opinion, isn't a "career woman", whatever that means, but a woman who believes that a man is obligated by default to be the primary breadwinner.
He's stuck if her putting her "career" or employment on the back burner means that he must take the highest-paying job he can get regardless of his own career preferences."
I couldn't agree more.
"I guess I, too, want to marry "up" -- because I'm so saddled with school loans, etc, so, at this point, a guy with mere solvency would be a step "up." "
Yes I guess you are a prostitute. By definition a prostitute exchanges: sex, companionship, time, etc for money. So if you do want to marry "up" and money is a factor in marrying then you are a defacto wh0re.
When a woman divorces, she gets the children, half the assets and a monthly child support check.
When a man divorces, what does he get?
He loses his children and half his assets, then gets to pay child support on the children he'll never see.
People don't get paid for fixing their own leaky faucets, why should they get paid for changing the diapers of their own children?
If we're counting in-home tasks as "work" then I want $75/hr for being the family plumber.
Where do people get the idea that if you stay at home and raise YOUR OWN children, you deserve half the assets of your CEO husband?
You didn't make that money, he made that money, if he didn't have you he could have hired a maid and a whore for alot cheaper.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a good woman doesn't have ANY value to the family, I'm just saying I'm not seeing any good women, all I'm seeing is gold-diggers who want half of what I make for looking after their own kids.
You're not in it for love, you're in it for the money.
If thats the case my dears, its better to hire a whore than to marry a wife.
“Hey, I don’t want to marry up – I would just like to even meet men that are even my equal and with balls!”
Honey:
Why a man? You think you are straight—So What! I suggest finding a successful woman that can be your mate and life partner… The sex is out of this world--- you would be pleasantly surprised how good it feels, and you can still have children with the help of fertility specialists. Most men have confidence issues and cannot handle your success or strength and the majority of men in your age range have problems performing in the bedroom anyway. Women are now the new Alphas of this world.
“Hey, I don’t want to marry up – I would just like to even meet men that are even my equal and with balls!”
Honey:
Why a man? You think you are straight—So What! I suggest finding a successful woman that can be your mate and life partner… The sex is out of this world--- you would be pleasantly surprised how good it feels, and you can still have children with the help of fertility specialists. Most men have confidence issues and cannot handle your success or strength and the majority of men in your age range have problems performing in the bedroom anyway. Women are now the new Alphas of this world.
Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up."
However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.
"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."
Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."
It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.
While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children.
Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.
Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support.
As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.
He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.
He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.
"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."
For those of you who know me in real life, this will not come as a surprise, but I have no designs on ever getting married. Now, it appears I am not alone in my disposition.
"Why Men Won't Commit: Exploring Young Men's Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage," a study released by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, concludes that men are, indeed, more apprehensive about getting married than before.
"The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in our nation's history," Mr. Popenoe remarked in the Washington Times. "If this trend of men waiting to marry continues, it is likely to clash with the timing of marriage and childbearing for the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility," he continued. You know this is a collegiate study when an examination of a trend that is affecting men is used to fret about the state of women.
The study contains several possible explanations for this phenomenon, based on interviews with 60 single men, 25 to 33, who live in four parts of the country. While that level of measurement certainly is not statistically significant enough to reflect any kind of a national trend, responses generally revolved around the possibilities of suffering huge losses if the marriage ends in divorce. ("An ex-wife will take you for all you've got" and "men have more to lose financially than women" were common
refrains, the study reports.)
To humor the study's results for a few minutes, let's examine whether or not these young men's concerns are justified. If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that -- given the current state of the nation's family courts -- divorce is slavery for men.
Take a hypothetical husband who marries and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be the wife who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that the man was a decent husband. The reality of the situation is that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.
The new trend that has taken hold of the court system is what as known as the "no fault" divorce, in which the filing party needs only to cite their general discontent with the marriage in order to be granted a hearing. Women initiate these unilateral divorces-on-demand 3 times as often as men.
While the courts may grant the former spouses joint legal custody, the odds are nearly 40 to 1 of the wife winning physical custody. Overnight, the husband, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will now be lucky if he is allowed to see them even one day out of the week.
Once the couple is divorced, odds are at least even that the wife will interfere with the husband's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.
Then, of course, there is the issue of financial losses due to court-imposed payments. In the end (99 times out of 100), the wife will keep most of the couple's assets and --if they jointly own one -- the house. The husband will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to his ex in child support, on top of whatever alimony payments the courts impose upon him. These can run as high as another third of his income. (Add the cost of taxes to that and the man gets to keep exactly 13% of his take-home pay -- he'd better pray that's enough to keep him alive.)
But as bad as all of this is, it would still make our hypothetical man one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.
He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.
He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. Our imaginary man might consider himself lucky if he knew what his life could have been.
Over five million divorced men in America are currently experiencing the situation I just outlined. Without a doubt, their stories and experiences are heard by unmarried men. Can anyone truly blame the men for having apprehension? They stand to gain little and lose everything they've worked for in their entire lives should they "take the plunge", so to speak.
So ladies, if you have a problem with this, speak to your feminist brethren. This is the legacy which they have left behind. By erasing the stigma of premarital sex and encouraging physical liberation, they have eliminated one of the most powerful incentives in history for men to tie the knot. By advocating government as a surrogate husband in the case of single motherhood, they have eliminated the disincentive for women to file for divorce. And through decades of litigious activism, they have given rise to the bloated and intrusive family court system and stacked it so egregiously against the men of this country that it now appears they are subconsciously engaging in what could be called a "marriage strike", preferring to play the odds rather than assume a massively disproportionate amount of risk.
As for the men, make no mistake, they are slowly beginning to realize that the power is now in their favor. They have more and more perfectly legitimate reasons for remaining unmarried every day. Given a choice between not marrying one's lady friend -- assuming no risk whatsoever and still having the historical benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, etc.) available to them, or marrying the woman and having a 50-50 chance of their lives being utterly destroyed should the woman so much as be "unhappy" with the marriage, the decision is a no-brainer. What women perceive as a "fear of commitment" is really nothing more than a pragmatic assessment of the odds facing men in the prospect of a marriage.
Therefore, the trends evident in this study are not much of a surprise. I would wager that if the study were conducted nationally, similar results would be produced. Of course, such a study would invariably seek to address the grievances of the dejected single women of the country. My advice to them would be simple: offer to sign a prenuptial agreement that outlines the exact terms of a possible divorce: how assets would be divided, how any alimony and child support would be handled, and other vital elements that may be causing apprehension. And don't be insulted if your potential mate asks you to sign one, or if he desires terms that will be equitable to him. No matter how strong your love may be for one another, the demand for eligible bachelors willing to commit to marriage is currently exceeding the supply, and if you won't sign it, odds are that there's another woman out there who will.
Actually marriage is not the domain of the poor and underprivileged. In fact, increasingly we are seeing a trend that poor people are having children but not marrying.
======================
michael gentry
"dofollow">Persian Cats
Post a Comment
<< Home