If You Can’t Find a Spouse Who Supports Your Career, Stay Single

[Anonymous]

Have we discussed this yet? This is everywhere in my social media right now.

"Professionally ambitious women really only have two options when it comes to their personal partners — a super-supportive partner or no partner at all. Anything in between ends up being a morale- and career-sapping morass."

https://hbr.org/2017/10/if-you-cant-find-a-spouse-who-supports-your-career-stay-single?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Anonymous]

Well, yes, that makes sense. As a career-oriented woman I wouldn't consider a partner otherwise.

[Anonymous]

This seems sort of obvious. Why would you marry someone who doesn't support your career? You obviously aren't compatible in a fundamental way.

[Anonymous]

OP here. The way I read it, only some (a few?) men will be super-supportive. Which means probably a lot more women should stay single. See here:

"Even for couples who are committed to equality, it takes two exceptional people to navigate tricky dual-career waters. It’s easier to opt for the path of least resistance — the historical norm of a career-focused man and a family-focused woman. Especially if, as is often the case, the man is a few years older, has a career head start, and so earns a higher salary. This leads to a cycle that’s hard to break: Men get more opportunities to earn more, and it gets harder and harder for women to catch up."

She lists some strategies for helping to cultivate a more equitable partnership for two career-oriented people, but overall, it seems daunting, given how so many men are raised to expect their careers to take precedence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The way I read it, only some (a few?) men will be super-supportive. Which means probably a lot more women should stay single. See here:

"Even for couples who are committed to equality, it takes two exceptional people to navigate tricky dual-career waters. It’s easier to opt for the path of least resistance — the historical norm of a career-focused man and a family-focused woman. Especially if, as is often the case, the man is a few years older, has a career head start, and so earns a higher salary. This leads to a cycle that’s hard to break: Men get more opportunities to earn more, and it gets harder and harder for women to catch up."

She lists some strategies for helping to cultivate a more equitable partnership for two career-oriented people, but overall, it seems daunting, given how so many men are raised to expect their careers to take precedence.

I can see how this would be difficult in practice, but as long as there is mutual give and take I don't think it's that rare. I out-earned my DH and had a more demanding career for the first six years of the adult portion of our relationship, and he's earned more and had a more demanding career for the last three (we have one baby). I supported him going after a more demanding/lucrative role but was clear that I was unwilling to keep working 60+ hours/week and also be primarily responsible for a baby (he travels a lot), so I was going to do something less demanding for a few years. He would prefer that I return to my more demanding/lucrative role and I also hope to do that in a few years when I'm done having little kids, but we have discussed the fact that he will then need to shoulder more domestic responsibility. FWIW, I know very few couples in which the man is several years older. Almost everyone I know is in a relationship with a partner within one year of their own age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The way I read it, only some (a few?) men will be super-supportive. Which means probably a lot more women should stay single. See here:

"Even for couples who are committed to equality, it takes two exceptional people to navigate tricky dual-career waters. It’s easier to opt for the path of least resistance — the historical norm of a career-focused man and a family-focused woman. Especially if, as is often the case, the man is a few years older, has a career head start, and so earns a higher salary. This leads to a cycle that’s hard to break: Men get more opportunities to earn more, and it gets harder and harder for women to catch up."

She lists some strategies for helping to cultivate a more equitable partnership for two career-oriented people, but overall, it seems daunting, given how so many men are raised to expect their careers to take precedence.

I can see how this would be difficult in practice, but as long as there is mutual give and take I don't think it's that rare. I out-earned my DH and had a more demanding career for the first six years of the adult portion of our relationship, and he's earned more and had a more demanding career for the last three (we have one baby). I supported him going after a more demanding/lucrative role but was clear that I was unwilling to keep working 60+ hours/week and also be primarily responsible for a baby (he travels a lot), so I was going to do something less demanding for a few years. He would prefer that I return to my more demanding/lucrative role and I also hope to do that in a few years when I'm done having little kids, but we have discussed the fact that he will then need to shoulder more domestic responsibility. FWIW, I know very few couples in which the man is several years older. Almost everyone I know is in a relationship with a partner within one year of their own age.

^^ My DH's mother was an investment banker, which helps. He was not raised to view women as having less important careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems sort of obvious. Why would you marry someone who doesn't support your career? You obviously aren't compatible in a fundamental way.

Considering the number of SAHMs on here who opt-out the minute they pop one out , it's not that ridiculous of a statement. Needs to be said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems sort of obvious. Why would you marry someone who doesn't support your career? You obviously aren't compatible in a fundamental way.

Considering the number of SAHMs on here who opt-out the minute they pop one out , it's not that ridiculous of a statement. Needs to be said.

But the article OP referenced refers to professionally ambitious women. Someone who wants to opt out the moment she gets married and has a kid is not professionally ambitious.

[Anonymous]

This is common sense. For men and women. If your primary focus in life is career advancement, then either find someone who will accept that arrangement or stay single. Any other arrangement would likely lead to dissatisfaction or divorce.

[Anonymous]

My primary career goal is to make enough money to save for retirement and live reasonably comfortably. After checking that basic box, my family life is MUCH more important to me than career advancement. I think the same is true for most women, deep down. The women I know who went all in on their careers have regrets about the sacrifices doing so involved and are not particularly happy. Perhaps the same can be said for many men as well, although I do believe many are inherently more achievement focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is common sense. For men and women. If your primary focus in life is career advancement, then either find someone who will accept that arrangement or stay single. Any other arrangement would likely lead to dissatisfaction or divorce.

Women who are smart and successful in their career are often seen as the ones that cannot "keep" a home, please her man, have well-adjusted kids, and juggle her career when this is not true. Because of these preconceived notions, its makes the dating scene very hard for women with successful careers.

Now that I am older, and still have very desirable qualities, I find that those same successful high-earning men are looking to supplement their relationships with someone like me. No thanks, you chose her, had kids by her, and now YOU deal with her.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I don't know why women stay with losers who aren't supportive and helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The way I read it, only some (a few?) men will be super-supportive. Which means probably a lot more women should stay single. See here:

"Even for couples who are committed to equality, it takes two exceptional people to navigate tricky dual-career waters. It’s easier to opt for the path of least resistance — the historical norm of a career-focused man and a family-focused woman. Especially if, as is often the case, the man is a few years older, has a career head start, and so earns a higher salary. This leads to a cycle that’s hard to break: Men get more opportunities to earn more, and it gets harder and harder for women to catch up."

She lists some strategies for helping to cultivate a more equitable partnership for two career-oriented people, but overall, it seems daunting, given how so many men are raised to expect their careers to take precedence.

I can see how this would be difficult in practice, but as long as there is mutual give and take I don't think it's that rare. I out-earned my DH and had a more demanding career for the first six years of the adult portion of our relationship, and he's earned more and had a more demanding career for the last three (we have one baby). I supported him going after a more demanding/lucrative role but was clear that I was unwilling to keep working 60+ hours/week and also be primarily responsible for a baby (he travels a lot), so I was going to do something less demanding for a few years. He would prefer that I return to my more demanding/lucrative role and I also hope to do that in a few years when I'm done having little kids, but we have discussed the fact that he will then need to shoulder more domestic responsibility. FWIW, I know very few couples in which the man is several years older. Almost everyone I know is in a relationship with a partner within one year of their own age.

Doesn't sound like mutual give and take...why doesn't your husband stay home with the baby instead? Is it beneath him to be primarily responsible for a baby he created?

[Anonymous]

I agree with this article, BUT[u]

Most career ambitious women don't want a man who is not career ambitious. Not all, but most. They just aren't typically attracted to men who aren't their professional equals (see all the threads approving the suggestion that a salary requirement for men is acceptable).

Also, men in general are not as good on what has been termed as "emotional labor" to do much of the little tasks that generally fall on women.

Point being, career ambitious men are fine with marrying women who take a primary roll at home and the resultant income disparity. Are women? Not that I have seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The way I read it, only some (a few?) men will be super-supportive. Which means probably a lot more women should stay single. See here:

"Even for couples who are committed to equality, it takes two exceptional people to navigate tricky dual-career waters. It’s easier to opt for the path of least resistance — the historical norm of a career-focused man and a family-focused woman. Especially if, as is often the case, the man is a few years older, has a career head start, and so earns a higher salary. This leads to a cycle that’s hard to break: Men get more opportunities to earn more, and it gets harder and harder for women to catch up."

She lists some strategies for helping to cultivate a more equitable partnership for two career-oriented people, but overall, it seems daunting, given how so many men are raised to expect their careers to take precedence.

I can see how this would be difficult in practice, but as long as there is mutual give and take I don't think it's that rare. I out-earned my DH and had a more demanding career for the first six years of the adult portion of our relationship, and he's earned more and had a more demanding career for the last three (we have one baby). I supported him going after a more demanding/lucrative role but was clear that I was unwilling to keep working 60+ hours/week and also be primarily responsible for a baby (he travels a lot), so I was going to do something less demanding for a few years. He would prefer that I return to my more demanding/lucrative role and I also hope to do that in a few years when I'm done having little kids, but we have discussed the fact that he will then need to shoulder more domestic responsibility. FWIW, I know very few couples in which the man is several years older. Almost everyone I know is in a relationship with a partner within one year of their own age.

It kind of sounds like once you had a baby, you mommy tracked yourself. And now he "wants" you to go back, but has no plans of stepping back in his own career to make that happen. If you think it's easier to have two parents working 60+ hours/wk once your baby hits kindergarten, I have some news for you.