Working women more likely to divorce

Telegraph ^ | 7/11/05 | Sarah Womack

[Crackingham]

Women working full-time are 29 per cent more likely to get divorced than those who stay at home and raise children. Research to be published this week in the European Sociological Review finds that the probability of divorce is in direct correlation to the number of hours a woman worked.

Marilyn Stowe, a female divorce lawyer, suggested that working women had the economic freedom to consider life beyond marriage.

She added that they had greater confidence in their ability to make new friends and find new partners. "You suggest going out to work to a woman who has been at home for 15 years and their response is often that of horror," she said. With both partners increasingly going out to work, the findings go some way to explain the country's rising divorce rate.

[xzins]

However, given the respect/love relationship would you dump that woman if she had a demanding career? That's the real question.

[TheWriterInTexas]

"or that the women who keep their job after they marry are simply not as likely to have the physical characteristics or personality that men find admirable in a wife over the long haul, or that women who marry and keep their jobs are less likely to be satisfied by any men."

I don't agree with this statement.

Just a quick scan of my posts in the past will reveal a deep respect, love, and continued passion for my husband of 12 years. I don't need any man, I have the EXACT man that God intended for me and I am honored to be his wife.

I am also a working woman. I am not working because my husband does not satisfy me, or that I crave material possessions, or need a career to feel complete; I am working because several years of medical issues and the ensuing medical bills have put a financial strain on our household. I fully intended to quit working after our children came, but complications in both my pregnancies and deliveries made that impossible. A battle with cancer also made a physical and economic impact on my family.

Just when there was light at the end of our financial tunnel, the Lord has blessed us again with another child (I guess I still possess the physical characteristics my husband finds admirable, even at 40 years old). Given what we already know is waiting for us (yes, even after insurance pays), it will put us back in the hole again to the tune of thousands of dollars.

There are a number of couples on my street where both parents work. I can honestly say that these are strong and loving couples; but the one thing that they all have in common is a strong belief in God and a firm dedication to their wedding vows. They share the same outlook my husband and I share; we are a team, working together, for the best interests of the family.

[Goodgirlinred]

Well, whatever woman you choose is going to be lucky I guess. She won't be forced to work for a living.

I did not have that option. I would have loved to have stayed home with my children and watched over them.

I loved my husband, but it was his idea that I work. When I got into management, his answer was for me not to work the long hours. Yeah, right! What boss will let you do that? Therefore, since he wanted me to keep working, he had to put up with my being home late after working 12 hour days, missing certain family events because I had to work (often in another city or state), and all of the other wonderful things that women have had to put up with for years!

Yep, I am on a rant. I feel a little better now. Women, my friend, are not a commodity. We are human beings with needs, likes, dislikes, etc. just like you men! It just enrages me when people blame divorce rates on women working. Whose idea was it for us to have to go out to work anyway? Don't punish us just because we turned out to be good at it. Isn't that what this boils down to anyway?

[Irish Eyes]

I wonder why they say this. Where would a non-working woman go after a divorce? I mean seriously...if she had no parents or close friends?

It must have been a really, really slow news day.

[Delphinium]

Thankyou for understanding.

I worked for years as a waitress, and believe me these women had to work. I understand women having to work, and wanting some independence.

I guess, I have been focused on some of the unbalanced situations close to me.

[xzins]

I agree that employment is not the cause of a transfer of interests. What employment offers is a greater opportunity to transfer interests.

Similarly, a variety of dating prospects is more available to young ladies in high school or college than to those stuck in a cave on the banks of the Amazon.

There are generally more people to be met in the work environment, and the time to develop interest in them, than there is in the average family home.

[HitmanLV]

If I had a spouse I seldom saw, who spent more time at work than with me and our children, and especially given that I don't ask her to bear that burden with me (I am self employed and now have it down to about 3-4 hours of work a day at my home office), the answer is i probably would begin to grow alienated from her, and that might lead to me finding a more compatible mate.

My answer, honestly but not produly, is yes, I can see myself being alienated from her and seeking a more compatible mate.

[Goodgirlinred]

It all depends on her age and her education and work history. If a woman has spent her life as a stay-at-home wife and mother, it is very difficult to get a good paying job in today's workforce. There are lots of new college grads looking for work.

Also, a woman would require a decent salary if she is to support herself and her children. Daycare is very expensive. Also, all of the other expenses for taking care of a family and for maintaining a job add up.

[xzins]

You certainly know yourself better than I do. If I was in a real respect/love relationship with some woman, I'd work to keep it together; I'd do some work-arounds on things that made the 2 career thing difficult. But that's just me.

[durasell]

Women are remarkable creatures. They're able to carry resentments over a very long haul for a variety of reasons. If men faced with the same circumstance that women face, the murder rate in this country would go into the high eight digits.

[marajade]

Then I guess my husband should thank his lucky stars.

[Delphinium]

My answer, honestly but not produly, is yes, I can see myself being alienated from her and seeking a more compatible mate.

So you would be moving on to another marriage, and what about your children?

[LibertarianInExile]

I never advocated that explanation. I'm just pointing out that nothing here seems to exclude any of those possible explanations for the correlation. There could also be other expalations. But the point is that they dragged in this divorce lawyer to spin the study that 'women left because they had options,' when neither the authors of the study nor the subjects of the study drew such conclusions, at least according to the article.

[HitmanLV]

You misunderstand me. I'm not against women working, or cultivating sucessful careers.

It's just that I have no desire to be a mate with someone who I seldom see, and whose career demands eclipse me and any children we might have.

Women who want that kind of time-intensive career should seek out men who will accomodate that. I won't. I seek out women with a similar perspective.

That way everyone is happy. As I said on FR before, women now have more options and choices when it comes to life, career, etc. That's wonderful. The flip side of the coin is that I have more options and choices, and I exercise that freedom by rejecting women with very time demanding careers.

And to be fair, it's the kind of demands you are talking about: 12 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week, unreliability to keep dates and apointments, etc. A 2,000 hour work year is no problem, I can live with that (even though I work much less, I'll bear that minor burden). I worked in two major law firms in NYC for 8+ years: 3,000-3500 hour years were common for both men and women.

They had a difficult time maintaining a relationship. It's called rejection: they were rejected by mates (or prospective mates) because they just didn't carry their end of the relationship.

Like you said, "We are human beings with needs, likes, dislikes, etc. just like you men!" That's exactly my point: the other side has needs, likes, wants, dislikes, etc. too. It's perfectly fair to reject someone because they have adopted a status quo that doesn't agree with you, and is horribly lopsided in their favor.

In other words, plenty of men are happy that you have a rewarding, time demanding career. We just have no interest in dating or marrying a woman with that kind of schedule.

Not controversial at all.

[Delphinium]

#37? #44?

[xzins]

I suspect you respect and care about him, and that's the real reason why he's lucky. Gotta thank God for the good things in life when you have them....so you're right...he should thank his "lucky stars" (God.) But, I'm a chaplain. Of course I'd say that. :>)

[Free Baptist]

I do not know your variables, I am merely stating Biblical principle based on a passage of Scripture. There are also measures in the Bible to fit your case, but the qualifiers would have to be known, and believed and practiced. I don't know where you are relative to these things. If you noticed, I commented in parentheses "(e.g. in the church)." If you are not active in a church that teaches, and by God's grace obeys the Bible literally in all of these aspects, then you would have to just do things the way you are doing them, wouldn't you. I am not advocating any government restriction on your right to work, nor can our church restrict you (nor would we try to restrict you), so you sure don't have to worry about me...or us. You can ignore us.

We have a very peculiar church, as churches go: (1.) Strong Biblical work ethics preached; (2.) Strong home life preached; (3.) Home schooling the most common method of education in the church (not mandated from the pulpit, but encouraged); (4.) Most heads of households are self-employed and have their entire families working with them in their respective enterprises (not mandated from the pulpit, but supported as a very positive option); (5.) Church cares for widows who don't have extended families that can help them sufficiently; (6.) Church cares for handicapped and ill members as much as possible (more is done from member-to-member than through the church budget, but MUCH is done, nevertheless). We ask the Lord to help us, by His grace, to obey what we read about husbands, wives, children, widows and the poor within the church literally. As far as we know, none are on government support (but we don't actually nose-in to the lives of the members to know this for sure; that would be outside of our actual authority as a church, you know), but we do TRY to help one another in real terms. Biblical requirements for membership and terms of church discipline are rigid enough that we wouldn't have people trying to join just to take advantage as if the church was a welfare system for the world.

At any rate, we are sympathetic with your difficulty of having to provide for your family since your husband has poor health. We are not going to ridicule or criticize you. God richly bless you.

[Nowhere Man]

ping

[marajade]

Number 20 was your first post in this thread and it said a lot about you.

[marajade]

I'm a believer in God. But sometimes its just not so black and white or every answer can be supplied with Scripture.