Single v. Dual Career Marriages

Here's an interesting point-counterpoint commentary at Forbes, regarding marriage to a career woman. The point, made clearly by Michael Noer, is that single breadwinner households (wherein the man is that breadwinner), are eminently more stable for producing quantifiable happiness all the way around. Of course, since this is my situation, I read this with positive bias - and also with some personal experience that leads me to believe he is correct.

In my salad days, I dated a small number of career women who were initially very attractive, due to their pursuits and interests. But as time wore on with each relationship, I had serious reservations about the success of a marriage with that person - apart from the nominal and unique "hard crap" (read: emotional baggage) I would be bringing to a marriage. I found myself in my mid 20s - early 30s attracted to lawyers, psychologists, and other professionals - finding their careers initially very stimulating. But my desires and goals for my life (and for the life I envisioned for my family) over time developed in such a way as to run starkly counter to those early stimulations.

This is not to knock a career woman, but simply to say I learned that this was not for me. When I met my wife, I met a woman with a great teaching career of 10 years, who shared goals similar to mine - that she become a stay-at-home mom initially and rather than abandon her career, use the fruits of that training and wisdom to impart a greater gift upon her kids and family. My wife may return to the marketplace in some capacity, but now she has the freedom to do so in a way constructive to our family and not at odds with that family.

Predictably, the counterpoint to Noer's point, on the part of Elizabeth Corcoran, is a particuarly personal diatribe, full of sarcasm and barbs. She apparently took the point as condemnation of her choices. This is a mistake, in that Noer's piece was not personally directed toward her.

To a woman with a marketplace career who, through the strength of her husband as well as her own strength, is able to pull off a happy marriage, I offer my congratulations. I'm certain her husband will aver she is far from the "wretched wife" she states Noer must deem her. But Corcoran's word-pictures criticizing a specific type of husband and seemingly, by elevating this straw-man, indicting all husbands is disturbingly unwarranted:

Take, for instance, the claim that professional women are more likely to get divorced, because they're more likely to meet someone in the workforce who will be "more attractive" than that old squashed-couch hubby at home.

Her further comments bely fear - a fundamental mistrust of the husband that loves his wife:

Women have faced this kind of competition squarely for years. Say you marry your college heartthrob. Ten years later, he's working with some good-looking gals--nymphets just out of college, or the more sophisticated types who spent two years building houses in Africa before they went to Stanford Business School. What do you do? A: Stay home, whine and eat chocolate B: Take up rock climbing, read interesting books and continue to develop that interesting personality he fell in love with in the first place.

For some people, particularly those without such fears, dual career households work. But I think that is tied to personality and character. If both mates are hard-working, no-nonsense sorts, I can see a successful household ship afloat. But given the stark statistics before us regarding divorce, I argue these pairings are rare. In any event, congrats again to Corcoran. But why the assault on this straw-man husband:

Note to guys: Start by going to the gym. Then try some new music. Or a book. Or a movie. Keep connected to the rest of the world. You'll win--and so will your marriage.

This reads as if she is angry with a particular sort who wronged one of her close friends or family members. She's taking an example and extending it to all husbands, again highly unwarranted.

I get Noer's caveat at the end of his piece:

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.

Noer's point to me seems reasoned and thus, reasonable. Corcoran's counterpoint seems like animus toward a specific individual.

UPDATE: 2006.08.24 - 15:35 - The article has caused quite a stir it would seem. See the comments at the Daily Reckoning blog. What is most interesting to me is that the protestation - both from men and women - seems to come from people who don't quite accept a traditional marriage (with differentiation of roles being a good thing) as a positive. I don't see Noer's point as a negative thing at all. Realization of matters is a serious beginning to success, in my view.