DON'T MARRY CAREER WOMEN O!!!!!!

[_Waziri_]

Good greetings,


What?! Are we trading values with the West of recent or it is another truth that is coming which made Noer to write this stuff? Read, see for yourself why other things in your life need critical assesments other than politics. I read its rejoinder by Elizabeth Corcoran but was not impressed, as such I gave you the meet to chew for yourselves. Happy reading.


Don't Marry Career Women

Michael Noer


Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure...at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."

There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

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.

[_Waziri_]

One other thing is whether ppl like Dave who think keeping women at home is archaic for the only reason that it was Barde and Muhsin who said it, would see reason and stop attributing everything ppl say to their religion thereby producing more indepth works that would match the arguments posited above, or not.


Dave, inspite of his old age, doesnt see anything good in women apart from being them sexual objects. This, with reference to his posts in the thread, Make Me Laugh, which someone referred me to in the chit-chat corner of this forum. No wonder he insist on them coming out to work so that he can always have his way with them, not because he believes them to be any beta at it.

This old man even took a step forward to turning the discussion in that thread into a "ponographic" type, with our women, on our own website, with total disregard to our values. Yet he had the courage to label some ideas as archaic while believing his own bitchy, and near animalistic postures to be civilised.

It is unfortunate, very much so. Dave prove respectful always and as such I will continue to respect you.

Think hard enuff!

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

I take very serious exception to Waziri's insulting and stupid post.
What does he know of my attitude to women?
Having spent a considerable period of my life educating young women in a place where many people would like to have kept them locked up at home and ignorant I hold very strong views about the abuse of woman's freedom to make her own choices which is typical of reactionary societies in many parts of the world.

[_Waziri_]

Dave,

Your attitude to women is seen in the truth that you do not have any joke to share with them but those with ponorgraphic inclinations. May be that is why u insist they must come out working, that you may have access to them and demonstrate your licentiousness in full view.

Also you think you are civilised by displaying those inclinations on this forum, but you believe Barde and Muhsin are archaic in thinking women shud stay at home.

Again you think my post is insulting and stupid but your sharing pono jokes with married women who visit this forum is not insulting and stupid.

Wake up dave, yours is the highest form of uncivilised behaviour. Smell the blighted coffee please. You in the West are not the epitome of civilisation. You can't be right and all be wrong. Learn to respect us and our values or find your bearing elsewhere.

[Muhsin]

Salam,

Our esteemed members, don't please let it go such way- insulting, abusing each part. It'll only lead to palpable rancour in this forum, which is not what its built upon. But creation of good relation between kanawa(and maybe muslims?) whereever they are living on this planet, I think.

Sincerely, Dave, if you really think that way, so, better desist! Itsn't I, Barde, _Waziri_ or any other member that's pass? but maybe what we based our words upon. And I perfectly don't think you can do that- to think that Holy Qur'an is out-of-date. Its always current till doomsday!

Allah (SWT) says that; Oh you wives of prophet Muhammad (SAW) 'stay-put' at your houses. And don't just go (parading your beauties) to public as did by those at the first perion, i.e Pre-islamic. Therefore, whatsoever is laid for them to follow as a good path so it is now and it certainly will remain forever. Please, think of that!

Though, what one understand at a glance, other may not likely fathom that at an hour glance. Calm down. Read intensively on that so as to achieve a good comprehension. And moreover, if you choose to let you wife work, do that. But be sure that; Allah, on the day of judgement, must ask you of it because; His prophet says; All humanbeing are just like cattle rearers, and must be asked on each cow they are given to go with. So, your wife is your cow.

Allah yasa mu dace.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

I have no intention of entering a serious discussion with anybody that can't tell the difference between a joke and a serious opinion.
Try telling my wife she is my cow and see what you get.
Try telling it to any modern andd educated Islamic woman.
How insulting can you get?

[Muhsin]

I have no intention of entering a serious discussion with anybody that can't tell the difference between a joke and a serious opinion.
Try telling my wife she is my cow and see what you get.
Try telling it to any modern andd educated Islamic woman.
How insulting can you get?

Ouch! There is world of difference from where my boat is going and where yours is. Who told you I was jorking? Whats jorks there? C'mon Dave.......re-read my post please. I totally don't mean that Wallahi.

By the way, do you please study, even a bit, literature?

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

I do read a lot though I write a lot more, mostly newspaper articles and poems.
I am really annoyed by Waziri's post. First of all - pornography is specifically figurative or pictorial images of a sexual or sado-masochistic/sexual nature designed to sexually arouse those who look at them.
Rude jokes are not of that nature at all and usually dwell upon the comical failings and lack of dignity of us humble human beings driven to folly by our sexual appetite. They are absolutely harmless and make people laugh, not attack or indulge in sexual activity.
Of course if you believe grown women aren't allowed to have opinions at all about sexual matters then you might find them reading rude jokes unacceptable. I'll bet most of the fine people contributing to this site have had a good laugh or two about some of the rude jokes!

I'm reminded of a character in one of Robert Burns' poems "Holy Willie's Prayer."
Holy Willie (Willie Fisher) was a sanctimonious hypocrite who tut-tutted about the failings of everbody less "good" than himself (as he saw it) and he prayed to God daily telling God how good he (Willie) was and shouldn't God be sending everybody else to Hellfire and damnation. There are a lot of them about in every society - most of them covering up their own unsavoury characters under a disguise of exaggerated holiness and prayers and hanging about the church( or mosque).We have many in my country - a lot of them secret sodomites  - and they are known as "the unco guid" in old Scots language. They rant on about the behaviour of young women and miss serious moral issues like illegal invasions (Iraq for instance)which kill thousands of people, or Government officers and politicians stealing billions.

Significantly Holy Willie froze to death have fallen drunken into a ditch in a snowstorm.

[_Waziri_]

Dave as much as you read alot and write poems and articles, you also will find here among us who do the same.

It is suprising that you will be annoyed by my comments on the subject of discourse as well as your attitude towards it. It is like you don't realise that your ealiar comments about Barde and Muhsins' perception of women could generate the same tone of annoyance as my comment generated in you.

Here you are explaining your overt display of licentiousness in the light of a crude joke that is neva known in our culture and religion. To us speaking in such crude jokes formation is a high degree of beastiality and animalism. In fact if a husband would know that you share such type of joke with his wife over here, he would hate you for life or even stab you to death if he happens to be the unguarded type.

Dave, issues of right and wrong are not exclusive for the West to define. Different people, different value systems. You just can't assume you are right always and others are wrong and 200 years backward in thought just because they hold an opinion opposed to yours.  

You wouldl notice that the contributors to that thread in which you did that did not even attempt to corraborate your jokes in anyway. In fact, HUSNAA protested and tried to show you in a polite manner that there is nothing good in those jokes. Others like Bakan-Gizo did not comment at all.

In reality they were all embarassed by your display of the highest form of animalism according to their value system. But they were civilised enuff to let you be since you are a whiteman who doesnt understand their ways. They didn't say you were uncivilised and was thinking in the light of 2000 years ago where people do not choose the wordings carefully.