Careers and Marriage | Hacker News Reader

Careers and Marriage

forbes.com

20 pointsswombat45 comments

If you're worried about your spouses career 'coming between you' then I think you have other issues.

To single out 'career women' as the ones to avoid is simply stupid, some of the best marriages I've seen are the ones between two career people.

If your spouse leaves you for someone else they met 'on the job' that's only because your relationship has been found wanting, if you think tying someone to the couch is going to make them stay you're simply wrong.

Statistically the chance of them staying may be larger, but that's a shitty way of saying 'if there is no competition I can win'. Better get your act together then.

And beware of that neighbor...

Women have been on the receiving end of their men 'trading up' for years, the equality game has its downsides, but this isn't one of them. Keep in shape, keep your woman happy and I doubt you've got much to worry about, career or not.

If you're a slob, that's a different thing of course.

With two career-focused people in a relationship, there must be compromises. In particular, the best job opportunities for different economic sectors are usually in different locations in the world, directly leading to conflict about where the couple is going to live.

Unfortunately, the "most equalizing" compromise is going to involve the person with the best career prospects at the margin[1] to discard them, as they can get "reasonably good" prospects by moving to where the other half has best prospects.

If you're the one with the better career prospects at the margin, and you invest much of your personality in being the best at what you do, that's going to be a problem: because you simply won't be able to become that while in that relationship.

You're gonna have to choose.

1) By "at the margin", I mean at the step levels, such as promotions, new job offers, new opportunities: simple measurable things that indicate propensity for advancement.

That's me right now. I am where I am as it is where my girlfriend needs to be to do her studies, but it is not the best place for me career wise. I can still earn a reasonable salary with a reasonable company, but I am only here as she can go nowhere else without losing alot.

Still, I do not seem to be too saddened by this so I guess I do not 'invest much of my personality' in my career.

If you move where you need to live first, and then meet a girl second -- like many people do -- that might avoid the "want to live in different places" problem.

it might, but the reality is that plenty of people end up 'chasing the buck' at least once or twice in their lives.

So you might get a head start that way but eventually you'll be looking at making compromises.

Right. People, and their careers, change.

I would think tying your spouse to the couch would be more likely to result in divorce/open hostility. If your spouse wanted to be at home with the kids, you wouldn't need to tie them to the couch.

Being a stay at home mom is one of the most miserable jobs if you're not cut out for it. People understand a bad day at the office, but they seem to think staying at home with a kid means it's like a vacation day all the time. You can't vent to anyone without them reminding you that you should be grateful to your husband.

My husband doesn't see a problem with it, so couples counseling is off the table. Honestly, he doesn't have to worry about another guy - I don't want someone who is going to make more demands on time I just don't have. But If I were him, I'd start worrying that being alone seems like it would be less stressful than staying with him.

In all sincerity, I think you need to have a serious talk with your husband. You just joined this community, and you're telling strangers that you're considering divorce. I see that as a sign of real unhappiness.

Being a stay at home mom is a full time job and a very demanding one at that.

As for the rest of your posting, all I can say is wow, you two should talk. Now.

Whether he sees a problem with it or not it not really relevant, the fact is you are clearly not happy which means he has a problem.

Can you get your husband to take a couple of days off from work and watch the kids himself, while you are out of the house? This will educate him better than any words you could ever say.

You might look around for more sympathetic listeners, too. Staying home with kids is hard work. There are SAHM support groups out there, perhaps you can find one in your area.

This seems to be an emotive issue, but I'd want to point out that you haven't refuted the article at all.

The article references several studies that show, statistically speaking, that two-career marriages are harder than "traditional(?)" marriages. Responding with anecdotal evidence and feelings doesn't invalidate the original argument.

It's easy to accepts studies when they confirm our own world-views. Disregarding studies that go against personal philosophy (based on gut-feel) is just confirmation bias.

Why not go with it? Studies show two-career marriages are harder. So if you both are working just factor in that you may have to work just a little bit harder on your relationship - which is not such a bad thing anyway.

It depends. I think at least one parent should stay home to raise the kids (or at least take a half-day job).

I doubt that the current setup is a recipe for happiness:

- people putting of (or not getting) children because of careers

- people basically paying other people to raise their children.

- people working overtime to buy a more expensive car

A thought: No one - male or female - marries or gets into a relationship thinking it's going to break down into a lazy, unkempt, mildly hostile situation with minimal affection and no sex life with. Likewise, no one hires someone who they expect to half-ass it, break more things than they fix, and be a terrible coworker. Yet, bad hires are made and bad relationships/marriages are gotten into.

I've studied quite a lot of social science. It's really, really dangerous to say, "Blah on statistics - I'm not average." Everyone thinks that. Better to understand them, really fully understand the natural pressures and challenges that come along with something, and if you don't like the consequences - fight them with your eyes open. If you're in love, you'll rationalize that your partner is perfect and that everything that applies to "all those other folk" don't apply to you. That's a bit dangerous for obvious reasons.

That article's got a couple interesting points, and some ridiculous conclusions/extrapolations. Just keep in mind - when you see a statistic that you don't like and immediately go to dismiss as "not applicable to you" - well, don't dismiss it so fast. The older I get, the more I realize I'm part of all those statistics and commercials do, in fact, work on me like they do with everyone else.

This news, like all news about relative percentages of marriages which end badly, is of intense interest to anyone here who intends to marry a simple random sampling of women.

I once knew a guy who considers himself a bit of a hopeless romantic. One of our friends, who is not, started a sentence with "The average woman who". Friend #1 broke in: "Stop right there. I have no intention of dating the average woman."

More than that, even... I am an arrogant prick, when it comes down to it. I need to be able to respect my significant other. If she's not an intelligent, driven woman who goes out to get what she wants, then how can I respect her? If I don't respect her, it is bound to show eventually.

If I recall correctly, in Blink Malcolm Gladwell mentioned that one of the biggest predictors of divorce likelihood, for both sexes, was if one mate felt superior (in a dismissive way) to the other. I imagine that would have an even greater effect on a marriage than any of the statistics mentioned in this article.

I'm not sure why a woman (or man) who chooses to be a housewife/husband would not be someone intelligent, driven, and getting what he/she wants. Raising children is an incredibly difficult task worthy of a lot of respect. I don't know when the idea developed that spouses who stay at home are somehow necessarily lazy or stupid.

I didn't imply that housewives can't have those qualities. However, until they get married and settle down, I imagine you're more likely to find this kind of woman in a productive career than sitting at home waiting for prince charming to come along.

It's certainly possible for a housewife/husband to keep intellectually and socially active, but in practice, it seems to be fairly rare, especially considering the low incomes that single-earner couples tend to have, and the constraints that this lack of means will place on social functionality. When there's a single earner making a lot of money, then income's not a problem, but the working partner tends to be in a "martyr your family" job, so the non-working partner tends to become a supporting actor in the other's career.

There's a reason people of both genders are very averse to this lifestyle. It's possible to be a housewife or househusband and not rot away, but it's difficult and fairly uncommon in practice.

I don't think that being a subservient housewife is more damaging than the median, braindead cubicle job. They're both pretty awful options, and the subordination that follows from either situation is going to lead to lethargy and atrophy. But most of us are going to be marrying people with better career options than the uninspiring, dead-end cube job.

You don't have to work insane hours to make lots of money. Middle management at a large corporation will do the job and will earn more than national median income for two people.

My dad was a stock broker at a regional Merrill Lynch office (read: nothing like a Wall Street hustler) and he pretty much never worked crazy hours and was paid well enough. My mom, despite being a "housewife" was the more driven of the two and did a whole lot of volunteer / nonprofit work.

I would think twice about taking relationship advice aimed at Forbes's readership.

Scratch that. I would think about it once and then actively ignore it. The poor tender egos that they have to coddle and actively shelter from smart, talented, driven women have absolutely no relation to mine. Their worldview is so alien as to be antithetical.

These are the B players that hire C players: in work as in family.

My advice? Surround yourself with brilliance, talent, drive and passion in all aspects of your life.

Surround yourself with brilliance, talent, drive and passion in all aspects of your life

Well put! As always with surrounding yourself with brilliance, talent, drive and passion, you will find that your life after that will not be easier but it will definitely become more fun, more challenging and you'll grow faster (not physically :P)

These are the B players that hire C players: in work as in family.

My advice? Surround yourself with brilliance, talent, drive and passion in all aspects of your life.

Career people in some of the most demanding careers are B players. I'm talking about investment bankers and white-shoe "biglaw" attorneys. These are people who are "ambitious" in the sense of having strong (and indiscriminate, the image of a garbage disposal coming to mind) work ethics, but the content of whose ambitions are base and regrettable.

I agree, though, that a hard-working startup entrepreneur (regardless of gender) is a desirable mate. The same is true of a successful academic, doctor, writer, artist or teacher.

When people use "career women" pejoratively, they're usually talking about corporate and banker girls, the alpha chicks who are "in it to win it" but haven't reflected for a second on whether the prize holds any value whatsoever, much less whether or not it justifies the Pyrrhic nature of any victory attained.

I think this is a bit American-centric. At least in former communist Eastern-Europe (my place) all women work more then 35 hours - or about as much as men. Young children are looked after by a combination of maternity leave, grandparents and kindergardens. How is in your country?

in USA? TV raises kids...well nowadays you also have the internet

Hardly. Marginally clever, but unhelpful, answer.

Young children are generally placed in daycare or with extended family, then the public schools. That's how I grew up, and I'm ok.

"That's how I grew up, and I'm ok."

Says you... :P

Numbers make sense, causes aren't really looked at. People with social / financial mobility are more likely to get out of situations they're not happy with and be less satisfied with mediocrity.

I can't survive more than a few months in a relationship with somebody who's not a workaholic.

Their definition of career women is overly simplistic and seems to only focus on alpha types that are hell-bent on their jobs and on outearning their husbands. Who'd want to be with someone like that, of either gender?

My definition is a bit different - my wife loves her career as a nurse and can see herself loving the field of reproductive health forever. As a result, she's pretty grounded and we balance each other out well.

I've noticed it's pretty typical for the engineering and science guys I've gone to school with or worked with to marry nurses, physical therapists, religious educators, or HR gals. Think fem careers that are in demand wherever the two of you might live. And these marriages seem to last.

Interesting that the don't article has multiple citations whereas the do article has none.

The article itself dates to pre-economic crash times, as it came out August 23, 2006...

Good point, that is pretty interesting how the career woman who wrote the article made her case from an emotional appeal (her story wrapped up with this):

So, guys, if you're game for an exciting life, go ahead and marry a professional gal.

While the career man made his case primarily from an evidentiary standpoint. It doesn't invalidate either argument, but it certainly reinforces the differences in thinking between men and women.

In my experience, convincing people begins with good evidence and mixes in an emotional appeal - the evidence forms the basis for a good intuitive feeling that helps to win people over.

I saw that as well, though I wouldn't generalize so far as the differences in how men and women think just from a pair of articles.

Also, an exciting life is not necessarily a pleasant one...

Heck, it is only because my wife has a career, and a steady job, that I've been able to spend time exploring startup opportunities. I can do my work anywhere as long as there is a decent internet connection.

Instead of suggesting that they find ways to adapt marriage and family life for career oriented women, they suggest simply, on the basis of statistics, that those women with a shot and mind for independence simply be avoided.

How's that for social responsibility. Get back in that box.

ugh

Housework and child-rearing traditionally and statistically falls on our plates. This has changed little as women have entered the workforce, and many women, particularly those with young kids, are completely overwhelmed. The two-spouse nuclear family is insufficient as a social unit during the toughest times of raising kids: either more people need to come in, as in extended family households of old, or help needs to be hired.

For a much better article, read Penelope Trunk:

"Advice from the top: Marry a stay at home spouse or buy the equivalent"

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2008/04/10/advice-from-the-top...

"Jason was telling me that his wife went out of town for five days. She told him he had to take time off from work. He said he didn't want to use up vacation. He said he'd be fine.

But by the second day, he was going nuts. He said, "Penelope, it's unbelievable. I am telling the kids I'll be there in a minute and then I send an email. And I instant message chat while I'm driving. And I take phone calls when the kids are in the other room waiting for me. This is crazy. It's so hard."

But I have been doing this every day for years. That's really what convinced me to hire the house manager. Because Jason was doing my life for four days and he thought it was crazy. And Jason is the type of guy I'm competing with in business. He has a housewife. They are a good team."

Really, we should be embarrassed as a society that those who openly espouse the subjugation of women to be no more than child-raisers are not immediately laughed out of town. Instead, we give these misogynists a podium from which to preach their idiotic and oppressive doctrines. We should give no more quarter to misogynists than to racists, homophobes or others of a similar bent.

It is especially despicable that people like Michael Noer get to use prestigious magazines such as Forbes to launch their screeds from. I would live to think we've progressed past idiocy like "whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career," but apparently not.

No. There's a correlation/causation problem to this argument. Are two-career marriages unstable because of something inherent about marrying someone else with a career, or is it that there is some other correlative factor? Noer's response to those studies (which he doesn't provide detailed citations for; only the names of journals) is about as reasonable as giving children foot-growing medicine to help their math skills.

I don't buy for a minute Noer's analysis that two working spouses produce a marriage of lower "value" (which is ill-defined in this context anyway). Missing is any kind of discussion of heterosexual marriages where the man stays at home, or of homosexual marriages of any kind. His analysis is limited enough in scope that trying to draw the kind of broad conclusions that he does is ridiculous at best.

Heh, tell me about it.

Then again, I suppose it depends on your philosophy regarding women. Are they there to serve you or should they be prioritizing their career over you?

As much as I love startups, technology, and therefore, my career, I always put my relationships with people before my career. I know that I'll always have money in the bank, and my emotional state of well-being is very important to me.

While I believe that there's a nice balance between focusing on her career and making time for me, I do expect the same courtesy.

If not, "there are always plenty of fish in the sea." No hard feelings. We're all entitled to our own beliefs.

"Are they there to serve you or should they be prioritizing their career over you?"

I think there must be more options than just those two.

FWIW, the increase in high earners marrying other high earners instead of high earners marrying low earners is one of the big drivers in increasing income inequality.

I read this as "Don't do/marry career women" to start with.

my 2c: a woman YOU find attractive, who knows how to be happy on her own and its crazy about you.

Good luck

pg can add this to his list of shit that has a low barrier to entry for opinions.

Most men who marry subservient housewives are unhappy and gradually lose interest in their marriage partners as social and intellectual atrophy set in. On the other hand, anyone who marries a "career" person in the traditional corporate sense is signing up for misery.

Ascendancy in a corporate management hierarchy requires a martyred family. You're expected to spend long days at the office, attend and throw parties where no one has a good time, neglect your children, and relinquish all control over where you live, moving across the country if the company asks for it. No man with enough means to be self-sufficient wants to marry this type of "career woman". On the other hand, I can't imagine that a woman who has other options would marry this type of man either. This is why "alpha" investment bankers tend to marry women significantly below them in education and intelligence.

Also, what I said about social and intellectual atrophy for subservient housewives also applies equally to those who are trying to climb corporate ladders, as their social and intellectual lives end up being restricted entirely to their work. Subordinate status-- whether one is a corporate VP or a subservient housewife/househusband-- rots the brain.

Best is to marry a woman who has a creative, independent and satisfying career that allows her to work anywhere in the country, and that pays her enough that she is self-sufficient.

I venture to say careers and relationships have separate evolutionary roles. Relationships are for companionship, which increases survival potential (two can survive in a cave in the dead of winter better than one), which obviously increases potential for spreading one's own genes, or helping the genes of one's community to spread. The surviving genes will be more disposed to forming relationships. Careers (hunting/gathering) are obviously for survival, for obtaining basic necessities. Careers are the primary driver for survival. Relationships are more a tertiary, but still important, factor for survival. A career entails being a good hunter to bring meat, warm fur, and so forth, into my cave, for example. But having a relationship with somebody helps my emotional well-being, helps me get better sleep perhaps, which in turn makes me a better hunter. So I don't think in a relationship two people need the same careers or whatever. Careers and relationships simply play different, but mutually supportive roles for the benefit of the genes. Personally I tend to gravitate relationship-wise towards "artistic" type drag queens, who tend to not be too high-tech, but talented in other ways, like say karaoke. But that is fine, because it serves a different evolutionary purpose for the selfish gene than my own personal career interest in technology. In short, to be a good (read: successful) "gene-carrying robot", we need not have relationships that are in the same vein as our careers, rather, to serve the gene, we need only try to be happy, which increases our survival potential, which helps the gene. From an evolutionary point of view, the simple rule is to try to find someone that makes one happy. That is all the gene asks. Not a bad set of affairs, eh? :-)

Sometimes it's advantage to marry a woman in your career...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com