Have you ever seen a woman exclaim at death’s door, “I only wish that I could have spent more time in the office?”
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.
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 University professor 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.
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 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."
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.
Editor's Note: The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of this website
The “Career Woman” part is badly phrased here. I think the point is, don’t marry a woman (or a man) that will put career over family life, unless you don’t particularly want to see that spouse very often. Of course, if you don’t want to see your spouse very often, why did you get married?
I don’t think there’s a double standard here either regarding women getting all upset about men’s dating advice. We’re talking two different camps here. The women who are reading Cosmo articles about how to snag a man aren’t the people complaining, I bet. The uber-feminists are getting upset, and I don’t think they’re the ones spending much time reading about how to attract “Mr. Right”.
Then again, I could be wrong. If feminists aren’t the ones looking for “Mr. Right”, then why would they care about this article one way or another?
Great, now I’ve confused myself.
Did Noer’s article appear in Forbes? It would be kind of sad to think that men are getting dating advice from Forbes. Come to think of it, I think it’s kind of sad to get dating advice from Cosmo or whatever other supermarket mags are out there. Then, I haven’t been dating for over 20 years and I’ve never been “with it”, so the observations have to be taken with a grain of salt. :-)
As a side note, the posting rules are interesting. Rule #2 (the ad hominem attacks part specifically), if enforced, should clear up a good bit of space. SOME posters might not even get printed anymore. :-)
I was raised by an ambitious career woman who loved wearing a t-shirt that read: “A Woman’s Place Is In The House…And Senate”. She came home all stressed out from work and was more interested in making sure the house was perfect than she was in my well-being. As I grew, she apparently didn’t see in me her same ambition and labeled me a “non-person”.
My ex-husband was also raised by an ambitious career woman who didn’t lose her interest in the feminine arts and was a good cook, probably owning to her southern upbringing. However, she was staunchly independent from her husband and believed a woman should not depend upon a man. Her daughter, who is unmarried at 50, perfectly personifies her mother’s values.
I wasn’t wired to be a career woman. I loved being at the center of things at home and will never regret all the time I spent at home full-time raising my children. I even homeschooled them during their formative years because I loved exploring life with them and teaching them the basics.
My mother never respected my decision to stay at home with my children and kept comparing me to my brother and his wife who put their children in daycare when they were 6 weeks old. The fact I breastfed my children was also seen as a limitation upon me. My mother-in-law, while generally supportive, thought I was leaching upon the money her son made and ended up convincing him I wasn’t good enough for him. He left me after 25 years of marriage for an older woman who has never married, never had children, and has always had a career. I don’t think my ex-husband ever wanted to provide for a wife in the traditional sense, or more likely didn’t understand how to.
My ‘career’ has been in my home and I always envisioned it would be. Today I feel a lot of pressure having to enter the workforce among women who have invested their main energies there, and I can feel tempted to regret that I stayed home. I know that I will never regret the time I spent at home. I just hope that if my sons marry women who are inclined to stay at home when they have children that they will not look down on their wives for frying the bacon instead of bringing it home.
There’s a great article by our former columnist Wendy McElroy on the Fox News site addressing the Forbes article – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213545,00.html
Didn’t read the book, but in reading this opinion, I have to ask myself: in light of the assertion that nobody wishes on their death bed that they spent more time in the office, is Carey suggesting that the statistical status quo is preferable to a gender balance? Wouldn’t it be fair for the sexes to share in that regret equally? and wouldn’t the status quo have to change to effect that? Maybe I missed the assumption that a ‘Male income generator family’ is the best?
I am a student getting a doctoral degree and I have no intention of having children, which means to me that I do not have to have a husband. I love the fact that I am able to live the life I choose without feeling guilty or getting shamed which is what was happening just a generation ago. I firmly believe that not all women are meant to have children and will never be fulfilled by that role. I believe that the women who have careers and neglect their children would not have been great mothers even without the career. There were plenty of children who grew up neglected or emotionally abused by women who never had a career. I do not really buy that a female who would have been a lovely and wonderful mother would morph into a neglectful and abandoning individual the moment she had a career outside the home. Certainly, I would concede that there are time constraints and physical exhaustion, which will take a toll but being emotionally detached is something else entirely and no career can create that phenomena. I was saddened to read Paula’s comments about her mother and mother-in-law. That really is too bad. I am afraid that your mother was ill suited to have children and you paid an emotional price. It sounds like you were neglected as a young child and then was abandoned in your later years and that is tragic. I hope that your life now is filled with people who are supportive and accepting. .
I love you Paula, and everybody else who sacrificed for a better family. I hope my daughters meet sons like yours. Your children will one day appreciate the time you gave them and the rest of us enjoy the difference you make in the world. You probably have way more ripples of influence on society than the average female CEO.