"Don't Marry Career Women"? LOL


Well-Known Member
I think any article that generalises is trash. And do not understand why you made it so important by commenting on it so much.

It is just a piece of trash and belongs in the trash can. And not to be made so important. The more you discuss it (and others on other sites) the more it gets read and commented on. And the more importance is placed on the writer... does he really deserve it?
Hi squirrel!

Haven't seen you around DF recently, yet mighty glad to see you today. :D

How's life and dancing?
Seems like she was just a bit angry with the comment about learning to tie his shoes. There isn't a guy likely willing to admit that was the last time he learned something, and it wouldn't likely be true anyhow.

See? Forbes prints an article like that, and this is what we get as followup. The goes to show they're looking for readers and advertising dollars. ;)

This is not what was being said. Can anyone say, twist, twist, twist?

It still comes down to the relationship, rather than blaming the man or the woman. ;)

Oh? Really? I'd say more likely it is about time management and priorities. The day I'm going to hire somebody else to clean my house ... oh, never mind. Neither one of these articles gets it. It's about the relationship.
lalala at least she didn't use freakeconomics or fake statistics, that I can respect ;0

don't be mad squirrel :) the truth is people already believe this sort of stuff anyway, it's just that no one ever really writes them down and publishes in top magazines like Forbes/Noer had the balls to , and entertain us at the same time :lol:

So bringing these outdated, inflexible mindsets to surface allows discussions that *might* help usher in change. I think it's better to know...
So bringing these outdated, inflexible mindsets to surface allows discussions that *might* help usher in change. I think it's better to know...
well... that's how a lot of people would describe marriage.... a superstition rooted in some medieval tradition. What were all those rights movements about other than that we don't need the sanction of some religious or government body to live our lives as we choose?

So you have a group of guys with a mindset out of the middle ages, probably quite rightly believing that "modern" women aren't going to fit their steriotypes about how women should act... and deciding (probably entirely correctly!) that they won't be appropriate candidates for this medieval quasi-religious ceremony ("i.e. make good marriage material")l because they won't be happy staying at home with the kids, cooking dinner, and cleaning the apartment.

This is a surprise to anyone?

(Disclaimer: This was only about 75% cynical and sarcastic)
oh no... I think marriage is fine. There are people who really, really want to get married, and settle down, and have 2.5 kids, and talk with neighbors over the fence. It serves a very important need for a lot of people. I'd even possibly consider it, because it does mean something to other people, and I recognize that (now. -cough-), even if it doesn't mean a lot to me.

but my feeling is that most of the guy's who are going to be "looking to get married" (as opposed to marriage just being more convenient than finding a new longterm monogamous relationship) could be described as "Traditional". "Traditional Values". "Traditional FAMILY Values". "Traditional RELIGIOUS Values".


Not strongly tied to the women's rights movement. A woman whose interests are "Non-Traditional" is probably not the best candidate for a guy looking for a "Traditional Domestic Arrangement"

I see a bunch of people slamming these guys for being "Traditional" when that is exactly WHY they are looking to marry to begin with. On average, as a total generalization, I don't think his reasoning is bad... although trying to support it with scientific studies does seem a bit like sensationalism.

(and even generally speaking... there are a LOT of deviations with people... I think that there are marriages that will work regardless of careers, and there are marriages that its kind of a coin flip whether they will last or not, and this is something that will push it over the edge. So will a lot of other things.)


Well-Known Member
This type of topic can sometimes lead to strong emotions, but I feel like we can handle ourselves if we are patient and slow ourselves down just a bit. ;)
Hi squirrel!

Haven't seen you around DF recently, yet mighty glad to see you today. :D

How's life and dancing?
Hey, my man! Life is good and dancing is better! :)

Actually, I've been around quite a bit recently (with a 2-week break due to vacation).

But I'm reading the posts and sometimes replying... :)
I actually agree with Azure Dreamer...

Different people have different values.

If I go to the country side in my country, I'll see a lot of different values among people of my age than those I am used to in my circle of friends.

Sometimes even in my circle of friends values differ a lot.

I am not saying I agree to the "man is provider, woman should be in the kitchen" type of attitude. But I can see that it exists. And it'll continue to for quite some time.

And I think this modern "independence is important, we are all equal" type of attitude is actually leading to a higher divorce rate than before. Of course, people learned not to put up with some behaviour or other of their spouses and can more or less easily get a divorce nowadays. What about 50 years ago? When one of my aunts was "condemned" to a lifetime of misery and abuse because, as my grandfather told her, she cannot get a divorce because "Our family never gets divorces! You chose him, now live with him!" She got a divorce when she was 40. She married him at 20. She endured 20 years of physical abuse, cheating, seeing him drunk, losing money over playing poker... And why? I don't approve of her behaviour. I would have got a divorce in 5 minutes. But... apparently we have different values. :(


Well-Known Member
Funny. I saw the original article as tongue-in-cheek sensationalism and didn't give it another thought. lol.

I think that, like most stereotypes, the original article had some truths in it. A lot of truths in it. That's what makes stereotypes so seductive, IMHO.

But the fact that there's some truth in a statement doesn't make the statement absolutely true. Which is exactly why I try to avoid journalism that involves grandstanding. (Pity, IMO, that grandstanding is so popular these days.)

Having spent the bulk of my life as a dreaded career woman (by the original author's definition) a couple things. Yes. I spent a lot of time less happy than my traditional, work-at-home Mom.

But I agree with DP and Peaches (was it Peaches?) who said that it's a function of the couple involved, not what they do for a living.

And I'd add that I agree with Galactic Dancer's thought from early on. Things have changed. Gender roles are shifting. So it can be hard to figure out how to keep things in balance, get reasonable expectations met and keep everybody happy (or at least content.)

That said, I've known couples from all over the map -- two income families with or without kids, families with work-at-home Moms, blended families, you name it. And I've seen people from similar backgrounds succeed and families from similar backgrounds fail. It's about the couple, bottom line, IMO.

Eh. The original article's more about making a splash for the author than anything else, IMHO. :?

And incidentally, where'd the $30K figure come from? :lol:
And incidentally, where'd the $30K figure come from?
I think his definition of "career woman" if pretty off. I don't think its money or time that matters so much as mindset. Lets face it, a lot of families need two incomes to make ends meet; and if you need the money, you might as well do something that pays decently.

I kind of read this with a big unstated assumption, "Assume you (the guy) earn enough money that its realistic for your wife to stay home and raise the kids, spend 20 hours a week as a volunteer at the hospital, and coach a girl's soccer team - if she wanted to."

That already disqualifies a large majority of guys; you've got a fairly limited target audience for this advice. On the other hand, it probably is the group of guys that works alongside the "career women", go out to drinks with them after work, and meet them at conferences.

So i think its mindset... do they put their careers ahead of spending time with their family? If so, probably a poor marriage propect.

(Digression Alert)

As an aside, this can also be applied to women look to marry "career guys"... who for the sake of example, are going to be putting their careers ahead of time with their family. I think that's a lot easier dynamic. Regardless of societal changes, I just don't think women are going to shift to dating men shorter, or younger, or less sucessful than they are... taller, successful, and financially secure is going to remain far more attractive. (lets face it... 10 years younger, 6 inches shorter, and unemployed with no prospect of a job ever? is that an issue for a man? a women? is that conditioning?)

Putting your career ahead of your family is probably a real deal breaker for guys looking for women, while being unemployed isn't.

A guy who is unemployed, no job ever, and whose goal is a "homemaker" isn't going to be much less attractive to women looking to get married relative to the "career man".

(End of Digression)

but to get back on target... I don't think 30K, or 35+ hours a week, has anything to do with it directly. Its mostly on values and priorities. Would she resent putting her career on hold to raise a family, if you could afford that she did so?


Well-Known Member
Wow, A_D, I think this is the first post of yours (regarding relationships) that I agree with.

Absolutely, 110%, couldn't have said it better myself, agree with.

I think I'm in shock. ;-) :)
OK, call me a cougar. I've been working since the day I graduated from college 20-odd years ago. I have two grade-school-aged children. Work definitely takes up more than 35 hours a week for me. Thankfully, I do seem to make more than $30,000. All of which, according to Michael, should make me a wretched wife.
This is not what was being said. Can anyone say, twist, twist, twist?
One thing I found interesting about her rebuttal was that she defended her right to work (which she has) and her right to make a good living (which she does) and apparently is a good wife (according to her). The part I find interesting is she mentions having two kids, but doesn't at any time tell us that they are wonderful, doing very well in school and have no personal problems related to not having a mom at home when they get home from school. Guess that slipped her mind.

Dance Ads