Marry someone who will push you: another reason Michael Noer gets it so very wrong

I come late to this topic, but perhaps better late than not at all.

A short op-ed in Forbes Magazine last week aroused a justifiable storm of criticism across the blogosphere.  Written by editor Michael Noer, the piece was entitled Don't Marry Career Women. Among Noer's gems of wisdom:

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.

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).

Amanda, Jill, and the Happy Feminist do a superb job of taking down Noer's risible thesis from a variety of perspectives.  I won't try and duplicate what they've done, and I recommend their posts with enthusiasm.  I am pleased that Forbes has added a rebuttal piece by its Silicon Valley bureau chief, Elizabeth Corcoran, entitled Don't Marry a Lazy Man.

What annoyed me so much about Noer's essay was his assumption that men ought to see marriage as a way to make their lives easier.   I haven't read most of the research to which he refers, but for the sake of discussion, I'll grant that it's accurate.  (Others more willing to wade through sociological treatises can share their thoughts on this.)

As any responsible historian will tell you, marriage has meant different things at different periods in our history.  For educated, prosperous professionals, marriage has never been less "necessary" as a means of survival.  Never before have so many women been less economically dependent upon their potential husbands.  This is, from a feminist standpoint, good news.  For some, it heralds the end of marriage.  Social conservatives who long to preserve a traditional understanding of marriage worry about women's increased autonomy; some feminists who are suspicious of the institution of marriage altogether long for what they hope will be its inevitable demise.

But I'm going to argue that marriage -- particularly marriage between two individuals who have sufficient resources to make their union a choice rather than a necessity --  is a great and powerful vehicle for personal transformation and growth.  This is perhaps especially true for men.  Noer gets this magnificently wrong:

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.

From a pro-feminist standpoint, there are few greater enemies of social progress than marital "labor specialization."  Relationships built on mutual dependency and need (wife needs financial support, husband needs dinner cooked and baby's diaper changed) do little to challenge either party in the relationship to develop their full human potential.   The feminist ideal is one in which marriage becomes a supportive framework in which both men and women can become competent in a wide variety of arenas both in and out of the home.  A rigid belief in "labor specialization" robs both sexes of the chance to complete their own journey of transformation into the best people they can possibly become.

It's not surprising that women who have careers and incomes of their own seek divorce more often.  After all, women who do rely largely on their husbands for financial support have far more incentive to stay in an unhappy, emotionally empty, or even abusive marriages than do their sisters who have independent resources!  And of course, the fewer financial and educational resources a woman has, the more power she cedes to her husband. Men who know their wives can afford to leave them have a potentially powerful incentive to continue to work at the marriage that their brethren who control their family finances do not.

All marriages experience some sort of labor specialization.  One spouse might do the dishes one night, while the other feeds and cares for the pets.   Things get done faster when the various day-to-day obligations of living are shared.  But the greatest potential for growth comes when those burdens are regularly switched.   

The goal of a marriage is not comfort, but growth. It might be more comfortable for some men to work outside the home but never do a load of laundry; some women might be more comfortable handling all the cooking but never pursuing a profession in the wider world.  But when we only do what is comfortable, we atrophy.  If we only lift the weights that are easy to lift, we will never build muscle. If we only run until we begin to sweat, and then stop, we will never finish a race. If we only do those tasks that our culture, parents, or peers suggest that those of our gender ought to do, we never become the complete human beings we have the chance of becoming.

My advice to men: marry a woman (or a man) who is going to push you.  Marry a partner who will accept your pushing in return.  Traditional gender roles are easy and comfortable (particularly, perhaps, for men.)   Marry someone with whom you can do things you've never done, so you can become what you've never been, and have things you never thought you could have.

Comments

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Hugo, I absolutely agree. My husband and I are equals, and he is my biggest fan in my budding career as a freelance writer. In fact yesterday he was helping me track out a path for doing the work in feminist theology I want to do. I am also his biggest fan in what he wants to do, and we do share the housework. I cook because I love to cook, and he cleans up the kitchen. Just so you know, I left a comment on The Happy Feminist's site about what the Hebrew phrase normally mistranlated as "helpmate" actually means that turned into a post on my site: Does It Really Mean "Helpmate"?. You can't use the creation stories to argue that a woman's place is in the home.

Welcome back. I read your article in Mutuality, and it was very well thought out and well-written. It was interesting to see how what we discussed in your blog went onto the printed page. I'm hoping my blogging also winds up printed, so it was very cool to see how that process can work out.

[Toy Soldier]

While I am not inclined to agree with Noer on marrying “down,” I am far less inclined to agree with marrying a bully. Every marriage offers challenges, but marrying a woman who essentially has no use for you is a pointless endeavor. Noer’s point was not that men should see marriage as a means to make their lives easier. Rather, he suggests that men should not seek out unsuccessful pairings, which in this case tends to be professional women. To use your analogy, one does not get stronger by trying to lift weights that are too heavy. One builds up to that level. Noer’s suggestion allows for that growth whereas yours implies men simply wish to remain complacent wimps too afraid to face the challenge.

Besides, everything that you stated can be gained from other relationships. One does not need to marry a woman to find a person who will push you to be better.

[Arwen]

I would agree, Toy Soldier, that marrying a bully is not a great thing. Was there anything in Noer's piece or Hugo's response that addressed bullying? Unless you assume that traditional gender roles are innate, how is a husband cleaning the floor and a wife getting a paycheque a bullied proposition?

[Hugo]

Toy, marriage is not only about marrying someone "who has a use for you". It's about marrying someone with whom you can grow. Spouses are not weights, to continue the analogy, they are work-out partners with whom you "build up" your strength together.

Thank you, Shawna, for your comment and your terrific piece at your blog.

[mythago]

What an interesting take--that if a woman does not depend on you financially, she "has no use for you". I like to think that a husband's value is more than his paycheck, but perhaps Toy Soldier really has so little regard for men that he disagrees.

[Ruth Hoffmann]

I haven't read most of the research to which he refers, but for the sake of discussion, I'll grant that it's accurate. (Others more willing to wade through sociological treatises can share their thoughts on this.)

Echidne of the Snakes does a fine job here.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

You point at the real problem, Mythago. It's less "specialization" than the fact that domestic work is unpaid which lends Noer's piece it's fig leaf of versimilitude. And fig leaf it is; you'd think from Noer that stay-at-home wives don't file for divorce or resort to that other time-honored savior of the institution of marriage, adultery.
Still, for my part, I don't think it's necessary for mates to "push" each other to be "better people" in order for a marriage to work. I really doubt that tack will stave off the ennui that will surely creep in after a marriage hits the double-digit mark and I think the last thing humanity needs is for the personal-growth fetish (with its attendant products and services, naturellement) to invade the domestic sphere. I think luckless-in-love Nietszche got it right: simply ask yourself, "Can I have a conversation with this person when I'm old?"

[Toy Soldier]

Hugo, to continue with the analogy, one does not have to choose a hard-core bodybuilder to “build up” one’s strength. That seems to be Noer’s point. Perhaps he is wrong and men should marry women who, according to the research, grow disinterested and dissatisfied with them. It just does not strike me as wise for men to marry women who do not value them. Again, that is backed by the research.

[Hugo]

Toy, one can actually value a partner without being dependent upon them. I may not be the world's expert on long-term marriages, but I damn sure know that!

[DaveTheRave]

....Unless you assume that traditional gender roles are innate

Arwen, it's not either/or.

Where do traditions come from? Are they all part of a vast world-wide patriarchal conspiracy? Are you saying ALL the cultures of the world are ignoring biological traits and instead working against biological traits in the name of patriarchal power?

The vast majority of cultures around the world assume very similar roles in marriage (i.e. man as hunterer/gatherer/risk taker, woman as nurturer, homemaker). I think this is a nod toward biological traits and tendencies, with some cultures exarcebating these biological traits more than other cultures via socialisation. You are wrong to suggest there are no innate biological traits in people in the decisions they make when deciding the nature of their relationship (which is a personal decision anyway).

In terms of marrying 'up' or 'down', I think it's a question of personality and priority. If two people prioritise their careers ahead of their marriage, don't expect short odds on a long marriage.

[Toy Soldier]

Hugo, of course a person can value his partner without being dependant upon her. However, what you suggested was that men marry women who they would be dependant on ("Marry someone with whom you can do things you've never done, so you can become what you've never been, and have things you never thought you could have."). That may work for you, but every man might not want to marry a woman "challenges" him.

[mythago]

The vast majority of cultures around the world assume very similar roles in marriage (i.e. man as hunterer/gatherer/risk taker, woman as nurturer, homemaker).

What nonsense. The 'vast majority of cultures around the world', and throughout history, have had a variety of roles. The notion that men are supposed to go somewhere else all day while the woman cleans the house is a very recent one; in an agricultural society, EVERYBODY works.

It just does not strike me as wise for men to marry women who do not value them.

And, again, you seem to be agreeing with Noer's premise that the only 'value' a woman can place on a man is his willingness to provide her with financial support she can't obtain on her own.

[Sean H]

Good Lord, there is nothing more puzzling than when feminists talk about marriage.
The conversation is always about power relationships and success being some kind of win-win solution in a negotiation.

Even this talk about finding someone to “challenge” you to grow reeks of condescension. Some of the most intelligent and interesting women I have met were not “career girls” but what I suppose you might call “housewives.”

What I find most puzzling is that feminists, who claim to care most about women, rather than trying to change the world to accept women, spend more time trying to change women to be more acceptable to the world.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Feminists are trying to change the world, Sean H. Why do you think so many people bear an animus against them? I'll grant that in this case, many feminists might seem more enthralled than they should be with women who are high up on the food chain. It doesn't validate Michael Noer's gleeful assertions that women who make a lot of money are a bad risk in marriage. I take your implied point about the unsalubrious effects of seeing marriage as a personal growth vehicle, though.

[Arwen]

I'll second mythago, Dave the Rave; there isn't much "angel in the house" going on in any but the most privileged of societies. The "jobs" seen as "women's work" vary radically over societies. In the one place they tend to be missing is in the military (although shieldmaidens of various stripes did exist in many cultures), and I imagine this is why political factions featured fewer women. And the women who were there were largely unmarried. I doubt it's a coincidence.

Having many, many children constrains women from riding to battle or perhaps going on long hunts in many societies; and oftentimes societies where there is no reliable birth control have jobs split along gender lines due to this biological reality. Innu women were the society's carpenters, for example; the kayaks created for seal hunting were custom built to a warrior's body, which is hard to do if your midline is expanding and contracting once every 3.5 years. Not to mention the difficulty of harpooning a seal while pregnant. My great-grandmother was pregnant 10 times, had 11 babies (one set of twins) starting at 26, and she died at 60.

Now, we have certain technologies which were not once available: the pill, foam, IUD, condoms. We also have the internet. Your argument seems as strange as saying that traditionally, postmen rode their horses across the country, shooting rebel factions on the way, and because of this mail carriers should be good equestrians and marksmen. Times change: we're having smaller families and longer lives due to technological improvement. Therefore, the roles people have can change.

[mythago]

Sean, an awful lot of feminists are women, and are puzzled that anti-feminist men such as yourself spend so much time telling us what we are or aren't really like.

And please don't even try the Friend of Housewives gambit. Some of us have actually been housewives and are perfectly aware of just how much value anti-feminists really place on what they do.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Well put, Mythago. I was a househusband for awhile and it was exactly those men I knew with the worst attitudes about women that had the greatest tendency to denigrate not just me, as a man, but domestic work in general. I can only imagine their appreciation for women of home and hearth is only skin deep.

[Sean H]

Mythago,

It seems to me that you are assuming what I am "really like" with precious little information.

When I married - fairly young - my wife and I planned the whole two-career life. No housewife in the future. Unfortunately, this plan ran into the reality of another person, my first son. That is what I find interesting in this whole conversation - a lot of talk about roles and positions and power and divisions of labor, but precious little about people, and in particular, children.

I suppose I have to accept the label anti-feminist in terms of what feminism has come to mean. It judges the worth of people by what they do. You may take me to task for playing the friend of the housewife, but it has been my experience – without exception – that housewives suffer the greatest indignities and cruelty at the hands of feminists. Does this mean that there aren’t sexists? Of course not, but the greatest contempt I have seen for women who stay home with their children comes from the very people who claim to champion women’s rights. It’s just that their version of women’s rights mean the right of a woman to participate in a traditional man’s world and that women who chose not to are “sell-outs.” It is popular to deny this is a characteristic of modern feminism, that it is a myth, but I have seen it and I suspect many others if they are honest will agree they have as well.

I judge a thing by what it produces, and I don’t think feminism by and large has resulted in any great increase in the happiness of women, or men, or children at all. Though many of its goals are laudable, it has thrown the proverbial baby of family life out with the bathwater of injustice and inequality. A few weeks back, I was speaking with my roommate from college, now a successful surgeon married to another very successful physician, about family happenings. We talked for a while about the problems one of his young sons was having in school, and before I hung up, he heaved a sigh and said, “Other people are bringing up my kids,” and then he said it again. He’s a dear friend who I have known since we were both younger than my own children, and it like to broke my heart. My point is not that women have no place in the workforce, I don’t believe that, but I think there is a price being paid that most feminists won’t acknowledge.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Nothing prevents you friend the surgeon from leaving the workforce, Sean H. If his wife is successful and he laments the fact that others are bringing up his kids, he could solve that with a simple letter. My ex was an LVN and we did fine on her income while I looked after our daughter, who is now four. We even went to Europe on her gross pay, repeat gross, pre-tax, of $50,000 per annum. What made it possible, first and foremost, was putting aside the ridiculous notions that only a man's star is worth following and that God or Nature made childcare the woman's job. That's the key; exaggerations about the extent to which feminist pundits put down SAHMs (repeat, exaggerations, I don't deny it happens) are an unfecund red-herring, not to mention unseemly in adults who should look at the true sources of the price being paid in modern capitalist family life. Indeed feminists, with their insistence on family allowances and social wages, are one of the few sectors acknowledging the problem. If they destroy the traditional man's world while they're about it, so much the better.

[DaveTheRave]

What nonsense. The 'vast majority of cultures around the world', and throughout history, have had a variety of roles. The notion that men are supposed to go somewhere else all day while the woman cleans the house is a very recent one; in an agricultural society, EVERYBODY works.

Well, my own experiences and understanding suggest you are wrong. Only the poorest families who have absolutely no choice in whether to work or not send all of their family members out to work (including their children). This isn't a desired choice of these families but a necessity. My recent trip to Thailand showed me that there is a distinct division of labour between men and women in family households. I didn't see this as oppressive, it's just the way they organize their families in their society. It would be cultural bigotry to call their own society 'oppressive'. Societies/cultures/traditions that don't work don't last, those that do work last centuries. The jury is still out on feminism and whether it will have any sustaining long-term benefits for all members of society. By the way, this might give a feminist a case of cognitive disonance, but some of the smartest and most resourceful women I have ever met are Thai women - many of whom are happy to fulfill very traditional roles (as Thai men do too).

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

I believe in human nature as much as you do, Dave the Rave, but the above post is a testament to the paucity of both relying on it exclusively to explain sex roles and relying on personal experience to evaluate culture's other than one's own. Do you really think Thai men are the ones sewing those Nicole Miller dresses or sorting out those Intel chips? As for those happy Thai women, I'll take your word for it that many are happy to take on the domestic sphere and I gather you'll grant the inference that many aren't. Speaking of cognitive dissonance, where are these feminists that suggest that SAHMs are dumb and unresourceful? And when is opining on personal choices out of bounds? Or for that matter, when did it become bigotry to express disdain for retrograde cultural practices? I'll compare my passport stamps to yours any time and while I understand it's not my job or place to change a culture while visitng as a tourist, I'll happily plead guilty to the charge of chauvinism before shrugging my shoulders at child marriage or labor, clitorodectemy, purdah and discrimination against ethnic/religious/sexual minorites. The jury may be out on feminism, it isn't on these things.

[The Happy Feminist]

Sean H. says:

I judge a thing by what it produces, and I don’t think feminism by and large has resulted in any great increase in the happiness of women, or men, or children at all.

You seem to be judging feminism by your arbitrary notion of what the goals of feminism should be. Feminism is NOT AT ALL about guaranteeing personal happiness, any more than the civil rights movement guaranteed (or was intended to guarantee) the personal happiness of racial and ethnic minorities.

The goal of feminism has been to achieve freedom and equality of opportunity for women. It is beyond question that feminism has been dramatically successful on that score in societies such as the U.S. (although there is certainly much work still to be done). I have choices and opportunities that were virtually closed to my mother just a generation before me.

(Notwithstanding the foregoing, it's tough for me to see how one is likely to be happier with fewer freedoms and opportunities, notwithstanding the persistent and pernicious notion - aka wishful thinking - that women are happier when they lead lives of limitation and constraint.)

That is what I find interesting in this whole conversation - a lot of talk about roles and positions and power and divisions of labor, but precious little about people, and in particular, children.

It is sad that this needs to be said: bu WOMEN, who to this day are expected to be the primary caretakers of children, are people too. Roles and positions of power are crucial topics if you are interested at all in serving the needs of WIVES and MOTHERS, as well as the needs of children and husbands.

Of course, if you are not interested in the welfare and happiness and equality of women, then it is preferable to just say, "What about the children?" without ever having a serious look at the power balance in your marriage or the fairness of the division of labor vis-a-vis household chores and -- yes oh yes -- the care of your children.

[Toy Soldier]

"And, again, you seem to be agreeing with Noer's premise that the only 'value' a woman can place on a man is his willingness to provide her with financial support she can't obtain on her own."

I do not believe that is his position at all. However, if that is how you interpret his position, perhaps you do so because you have little regard for men whom you disagree. No, the studies Noer cited demonstrate that career women--by virtue of their own actions--do not appear to value the men they marry.

[The Happy Feminist]

By not cleaning up after them and wiping their noses for them? I am sorry but no one would conclude that my husband doesn't value me because he doesn't play housekeeper/nursemaid/mommy to me, so why the double standard?

I do not see any data in Noer's article to support the notion that "that career women--by virtue of their own actions--do not appear to value the men they marry." The only statistic Noer cites that could possibly be read as supporting such a conclusion is that a housebound woman is less likely to cheat on her husband (because she has fewer opportunities to meet men). But this statistic ignores the fact that working men are more likely to cheat and have workplace affairs as well. No one argues that working men fail to adequately value their wives. This is a double standard.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Toy Soldier, the studies Noer cited imply what should be salient common sense: women who make over $30,000 per annum are more likely to divorce because they have don't have to take marriage to a self-absorbed slob. Noer simply takes this to mean "why bother marrying anyone but the checkout gal at Wal-Mart?". That might be what I'd do, but that's only because talk about work from anyone, man or woman, soon becomes palaver to my ears. I was married to a graphic designer once and hearing about the relative merits of different pixel sizes got to be a bore. That aside, if you take umbrage with Mythago's riposte, you'd do a lot better to explain what you mean by a wife valuing her husband. A quick look-see at your own blog makes me think it revolves a hot meal and hot sex for the man upon request. That doesn't do any man any favors.