Posted on 09/11/2006 10:39:33 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Wondering about that muffled howl you’ve been hearing the last couple weeks? It’s the sound and fury of feminists reacting to Michael Noer’s latest exegesis, Don’t Marry a Career Woman.
Noer’s column, which ran at Forbes.com, surveyed marriages in which the wives doggedly pursue a high-powered career, all the while neglecting family and home. The research shows these women are more likely to be unhappy if she earns more than the guy, or if she quits her job and stays home. Either way, she’s going to be a grump.
Her husband is more prone to be discontented if she is the primary breadwinner. The house is going to be dirtier. In the end, she is more apt to cheat on him and the marriage will fall apart. [www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html]
Of course, these findings don’t apply to every ambitious woman who has risen to the top of her field – but the connection is true in many cases.
In practically every woman’s magazine, you’ll find advice columns to help the reader find Mr. Right and then entice her football-addled boyfriend to commit for the long-haul.
But when a male columnist dispenses relationship advice for men, that appears to be strictly verboten — at least according to the Shrieking Sisters of Silliness who cut loose on Mr. Noer.
On Good Morning America, one Rutgers U. prof claimed to be absolutely shocked: “I’m surprised that the man thinks it. I’m astonished that he wrote it. And I’m astonished that anyone published it, particularly Forbes.” (No word whether MIT professor Nancy Hopkins swooned at the news.)
Forbes hastily arranged for reporter Elizabeth Corcoran to pen a response sporting the acid title, “Don’t Marry a Lazy Man.” Describing Noer’s factual article as “frightening,” she dispensed this condescending advice about men: “If he can pick up new ideas faster than your puppy, you’ve got a winner.”
Needless to say, Ms. Corcoran’s screed only reinforced the worst stereotypes of the “I-know-what-I-want-and-I-know-how-to-get-it” career woman portrayed in Noer’s column.
Thereupon the readers jumped into the fray, all recounting their grudges about members of the opposite sex. A pretty picture it was not, but the debate is long-overdue: http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board?board.id=respond_marry_career_woman and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688730/posts .
Part of the ladies’ discomfiture with Mr. Noer’s article springs from the fact that for the last 30 years, discussions about women in the workforce have been guided by the unspoken rule, “Men’s Opinions Don’t Count.”
But then women’s one-sided conversations lapsed into over-wrought declamations about men who didn’t pitch in around the house, forgetting that that men often put in longer hours on the job, commute longer distances, and do physical labor that leaves them exhausted.
Doesn’t mowing the grass, killing creepy-crawlers that traipse through the kitchen, clearing leaves out of the gutter, and coaching Little League count for anything?
And let’s not forget the old axiom that rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. If women are demanding more rights, then what additional duties – like compulsory registration for the draft — are they going to shoulder?
Ironically, the same day that Michael Noer published his op-ed, columnist Nancy Levant came out with a fem-ripper called The Cultural Devastation of Women. [www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy55.htm]
Levant deplored the fact that thanks to the libbers, American women “now hire maid services, landscapers, pool cleaners, painters, interior decorators. . . .while losing every intuitive aspect of our female natures.” In the process, women “use men like ATMs” and “bankrupt multiple men with mandatory child support payments.”
One can only imagine the hullabaloo if Mrs. Levant had uttered such heresy at Forbes.
So what’s a career woman to do? For a moment, let’s can the feminist ideology and take stock of that rare commodity, common sense.
Have you ever seen a woman (or man, for that matter) exclaim at death’s door, “I only wish that I could have spent more time in the office”? Neither have I.
It’s no secret that the most rewarding parts of a person’s life revolve around relationships with spouses, children, and other family. So why are career women driven to dismember those connections that give the most meaning to their lives?
It’s true that women find satisfaction and fulfillment from paid work. And some have no choice but to get a full-time job.
But the reality is, wives’ happiness is not tied to living out of a suitcase or having an equal paycheck with their husbands. Indeed, the opposite is true. When husbands are the primary wage earners, wives have more freedom to pursue their own interests.
So Mr. Noer, lick off those wounds, straighten up that tie, and sharpen your pencil. Get ready for Round Two.
Wives are given the same guilt trips these days. From both men and women, too. Though, you're right, it's probably not at the same level. I do hear many men complain about their wives staying home. They want their wives bringing home a paycheck.
The way I see it, one parent has to give up the career, or at least slow it down. Someone has to be there when the kids are sick, etc.
Same here, I'm involved with a woman from Honduras.
Yes....I have to agree, after years of observation, and given the mind set of todays women, it is best to avoid marriage completely.....
If you ever want to see this rule applied across a broad sample, look at career women layers.
This "don't marry a career woman" is very applicable to the women who predominate there.
I wonder how many career women fall to the left side of the isle.
I think you hit onto something.
It sounds like you are a good guy, and your wife is a good woman.
I think it is important for women to be able to take care of themselves financially before they are married, and then in the event that the man cannot the women should be able to step in and be able to do that.
I want my daughter to both go to college, so that they can take care of things if they need to.
Of course, my girls (and my son) are also being raised that it is important for a parent to be at home when kids are little.
However, I also have no problem with women working while kids are in school. I need to go back to work in order to pay for private school. Plus, it's lonely at home by myself.
It is clear that God put these specific women with these specific men and gave them these specific children. Those women submitted to this mission of God, instead of saying, "I don't care about what God will have me do for my family. I will work!" This selfishness is not to be mistaken for women who truly submit to what is best for their husband and family as led by God.
This is also true of women who have not been blessed by children. People call them selfish and sure some women do not have children for just this reason. But there are also other couples that God will not bless with children and have been led to do his will in other productive, creative and beautiful ways. I being one of them realize that it is not Man's judgment of how other's should live their lives, but that a couple should submit to God's direction for their lives no matter how unpopular or judged.
If I let other conservatives or even liberals dictate that I should be a Mother instead of following God's leading, I would use invitro. Yet, in my heart I know that (invitro) is Man's and the world's solution to my problem, but not God's. He has made it clear children are not my future (unless it is adoption.)
This to me is a dynamic and loving God that takes a special interest in the variable plans for each of us. These selfish career women put many of us on the defensive for conservative values, but the devil uses this understandable abhorrence to obscure that God does not plan for each women to stay at home, but for some to serve in other ways. The devil is a tricky game player. Let's not submit to his machinations.
Ding Ding Ding
We have a WINNEEEER!!!!!!
Truer words could not have better been spoken.
Women who swallow the feminist MEME are doomed to make the mistake you have observed. Then again it seems those women are not women but they happen to be female.
I don't believe that American women are inherently bad. I think the feminazis have created an environment where it's impossible to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
Speaking of which,
you're late for the Bellygram ;)
Why are women's feet so small?
- So they can stand closer to the sink.
Why doesn't your wife need a watch?
- Because there's a clock on the stove.
Good luck in your quest for doing God's will. I think it is something all of us should strive to do.
I agree with the article, for the most part.
Women need to choose one or the other, IMO. A person can't do everything, and do everything well.
And pissy can make his own damn pie. : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.