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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.