« FORBES IRONY AND LINK ROUND-UP | Main | THE GRUMPY BRIDE: A CULTURAL CONUNDRUM FOR THE INDEPENDENT STRAIGHT WOMAN -- UPDATED »

Comments

Zan

Maybe there is a little fear in that article. Men don't want to be failures in there careers or their families. If finding out that staying away from career women will help them succeed in the family area, that is great for them. I would be afraid of marrying someone who is more likely to divorce me, as well.

Womanizers are probably more likely to divorce women, so I stayed far away from those type of guys when I was looking for a husband.

Starfoxy

"I would be afraid of marrying someone who is more likely to divorce me, as well."

In response, I would be afraid of being married to someone so dependent on me for meeting their physical needs that I could never be sure if they stayed because they love me or because they just have no other options.

Jen

Question: Isn't marriage also about trust? And if you don't trust your woman to stay with you as soon as she steps out of the house cause she's having a job - then couldn't it be that your marriage isn't as good as you might think?
I mean... if you are married to a woman who you fully trust (and I personally think this should be the case in a marriage), why should you stop trusting her only because she might get to know some other men?
No wife wants her husband to stay at home only because he might get to know other women at his job.
If you are a man who is afraid of taking his part of housework, his part of raising the children and so on - then it might be a good idea to stay away from "career girls".
If you are a man who actually is able to do some housework/children raising/... and willing to partly do that (and it is not like it's impossible - many woman are able to do both, too - it's not like men are the "weaker sex" and can't do both (career AND family life)) - then there is no reason why you should not marry a "career girl".
by the way - "career girl", what word is that anyway? i have never heard speaking of a "career boy"...

mythago

Zan, not following your analogy between 'self-supporting' and 'womanizing'. Of course nobody wants to marry somebody who is selfish, dishonest and can't be faithful (the womanizer). That's quite different from assuming that a good way to reduce your odds of divorce is to pick somebody who will be financially dependent on you.

Shawna R. B. Atteberry

Happy, I would like to correct something I read in the last thread. There was no comment post at the bottom, so I assumed that the thread was long enough. I have a B. A. in Religion and an M. A. in Theological Studies, and a great deal of those degrees are in Greek and Hebrew. In the "help meet" term that Tami brought up, the Hebrew phrase is grossly mistranslated in English translations. The literal Hebrew phrase, ezer cenegdo, means "a power equal to." Woman was created to be a power equal to man. Ezer can be translated as help or power because it is help you receive from somone who has the power to help you. Normally this word refers to God helping his/her people (and is God ever portrayed as a submissive helper anywhere in the Bible?). Women were made to stand equal with men and both the man and woman were commanded to work in the garden (career) and procreate. So men and women being equal in marriage and having careers and both raising kids is a biblical concept.

And to be honest: I'm from farm country where not too long everyone worked on the family farm--there was no division of men's and women's work--everyone worked just so you could survive. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that families were ruptured between home and career. One's career used to be one's home. So this whole role thing is a fairly new phenomena in culture and society as a whole. And coming from a poor, working class family, I've always viewed stay-at-home mothers as a middle class luxury. I see it much more as a socio-economic thing than I do a cultural, and especially a biblical, thing.

h sofia

Thanks, Shawna. And I would say that for most women in the world, working "outside the home" is actually the norm. Farmwork being a major part of that. But historically among the poor, not working has never been much of option. Even the children worked.

h sofia

I mean to add, before I hit "Post" that a lot of what is put forth as the "biblical" family model is really the post WWII family model. "Nuclear" families, as one woman mentioned in the other Forbes article thread, could hardly be considered the traditional family model when one considers human history beyond the 20th century.

And before divorce became common, there was death and abandonment, creating single parent families, extended families, conjoined families, stepfamilies, and so on. I question whether this concept that a household consists of one man, one woman, and their children together is historical reality. There is nothing wrong with that type of family, but it's certainly not the only way.

Erin

This article strikes me as similiar in intent (and less harsh in tone) to the Linda Hirshman piece we recently discussed. To men who want a strong family life, Noer is offering the prescription that statistically performs the best. How is this any different than Linda Hirshman prescribing that career-oriented women "marry down" and marry guys who want to be "house husbands?"

Twilight Troll

Happy,

you stated: By referring to "emotional responses," Twilight Troll is of course using a time-honored means of dismissing women's concerns.

You couldn't be more wrong. I was writing in response to both the male and female comments that were already written in response to the Forbes article. By describing them as an emotional responses, I was merely separating the disparity between those comments and the data discovered by the studies; not dismissing women's (or mens!) concerns. I was being open-minded enough to state that there might be some validity in what the data suggests rather than calling something dumb/pointed/sexist. Rather than accepting my comment for what it was, you turned it back on me, which likewise, is a time-honored means of dismissing those with opposing opinions. Thus, I rest my case, the emotional responses are clouding the facts at hand.

That said, it is still possible that the Forbes article should be taken with a grain of salt in regards to its comments where it suggests that men should not marry career women.

Mary

Shawna, thanks for that clarification. I knew that that earlier definition of "help meet" was wrong and was really amazed at what I learned at Crosswalk.com when looking up the original Hebrew. It's as you said that the same Hebrew word for help was used when referring to God in many other passages. I would love to see you blog at your site about Titus 2:3-5 and other "Biblical Womanhood" verses.

The comments to this entry are closed.