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.
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.