About Me

My photo
Live it up Laugh it out Drink it down Life is short ! Have Fun !

Friday, August 25, 2006

Frost Bite

Its the end of another 50 + hour week
I'm working the weekend too.
Its close to midnight and here is what I read.
Mind you - This is on the Forbes Website- Written by one of its Editor ?!!!
Suddenly my fingers are cold while writing this .
Honestly - I'm not shocked that someone actually said this . At least they are being open about how blatantly sexist and opinionated they are.
I guess we wont waste any more time talking about them - not on this blog atleast .
Like someone very wise once said - Drunkeness can be sobered , Immaturity can be aged , stupidity can be wisened ..But Ignorance ...Ignorance can never be cured.

I just cannot get over this .


Point: Don't Marry Career Women
By Michael Noer
How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists.

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.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. 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).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. 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. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which
have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one.

But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality." The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their

mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with
these individuals."

There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly
educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see
their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively
associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Kau,

I read an article in a financial journal earlier today, thought you might find it uplifting given the crap they wrote on the Forbes website!

Avi

Women Leaders Boost Profit
By ROBIN COHEN and LINDA KORNFELD

WOMEN EXECUTIVES ARE CLIMBING the corporate ladder and exerting a powerful influence on a substantial number of companies. Witness the elevation of Indra Nooyi as CEO of PepsiCo, soon to be the largest female-led U.S. company by stock-market capitalization and the second-largest by revenue, after Archer Daniels Midland. On Oct. 1, when Nooyi's post becomes official, 11 Fortune 500 companies will be headed by women -- barring any new executive shuffles.

Many other companies have women in significant leadership positions. This is progress. However, the road toward gender parity in Corporate America still is long. To make real headway, the focus of the gender-diversity debate should shift to the bottom line. That, in turn, should crack the "glass ceiling."

In discussions about why women are still disproportionately absent from top corporate-leadership positions, we hear about issues such as women opting out, facing networking challenges and making slow progress to the top.

Real change won't occur if the focus remains negative. Why not attend to the proven positive impact that women leaders have on companies' financial performance? Companies that increase the number of women in leadership roles have a competitive advantage. For public companies, supporting women is a savvy practice and should therefore become an obligation to investors.

One study, conducted over 28 years and published in the Harvard Business Review, evaluated 215 Fortune 500 companies. Compared with the median companies in their industries, organizations with a higher number of women executives performed better with respect to profits as a percentage of revenue, assets and stockholders' equity, by a range of 18% to 69%.

The independent research organization Catalyst reviewed 353 Fortune 500 companies. Catalyst found a 35% advantage in return on equity and a 34% advantage in total return to shareholders for the companies that had the highest representation of women in top management.

The University of California/Davis' Graduate School of Management surveyed the 200 largest publicly traded companies in California. This survey concluded that having more women in top leadership roles results in "stronger relationships with customers and shareholders and a more diverse and profitable business."

Researchers at the University of Delaware found a positive stock-price reaction following publicity over diversity-promoting initiatives.

These studies suggest a correlation between boosting the number of female executives and an increased bottom line.

Our interviews with women executives provided some insight into qualities women typically possess that may give rise to enhanced profitability. As Barbara Kolsun, General Counsel for jean-manufacturer 7 For All Mankind stated, "Women are skilled at efficiency, mediation, getting to the heart of matters quickly, communication and consensus building, skills that have critical impact on a bottom line.

The actual experience of many companies also indicates that including women in leadership provides a financial benefit.

For example, in 1995, IBM launched its women's task force, focused on increasing opportunities for women within the company. IBM's executive ranks included 185 women, accounting for 11.2% of its executive population, none of whom were country general managers. At that time, IBM's stock price was in the low 30s, adjusted for two subsequent splits.

A little more than a decade later, there are more than 1,045 women executives within IBM worldwide, making up 19% of its executive population. Ten are country general managers. IBM's stock price is now around 80. The company ranks among the Fortune 10, and its efforts on behalf of women leaders have only further strengthened its position as the leading U.S. technology company.

At DuPont, supporting women's advancement is a global issue. DuPont sees it as the only way to outpace the competition. Women lead two of the best-performing business groups.

Says Willie Martin, DuPont's vice president of diversity and work life, "Supporting diversity increases our competitive edge. The business case is a completely win-win scenario. The bigger question is: 'Why wouldn't you?" "

Georgia-Pacific has been promoting a "Bridging Cultures, Leveraging Differences," initiative, a comprehensive effort to recruit, develop and advance women. The program, which began in 2001, is based on a vision that the more culturally diverse an organization is, the more competitive it will be. Between 2002 and 2005, Georgia-Pacific's representation of women in general management positions and its facilities increased from 12% to 17%. On the financial side, Georgia-Pacific now better mirrors its consumer market, which its studies show to be majority female. An ability to better understand and meet its customers' needs may have translated into more profits.

The studies and the experiences of these three companies show a relationship between women leaders and positive financial results. It stems from better identification with consumers, diversity of thought and approach, and access to a broader talent pool.

Women in the U.S. hold more buying power than ever before, and reportedly make 80% of household consumer decisions. If more women are making consumer decisions, companies must be able to successfully market to them.

Creating a corporate environment that is diversity-friendly is critical to a company's ability to hire and retain the best professionals. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women earn more than half of all bachelor's and master's degrees and nearly half of all doctorates and law degrees. To profit and succeed, companies must tap this growing segment of the potential leadership pool.

The academic research and the experiences of companies such as IBM, DuPont, and Georgia-Pacific indicate that businesses that embrace gender diversity at the highest levels reap financial rewards. Organizations that don't use women leaders are more likely to lose their competitive edge.

This is not a male-versus-female issue, but rather one of financial performance: Corporate leaders must focus on how best to perform in today's marketplace. Increasing gender diversity in the leadership ranks plays an important role in ensuring success in a changing economy.

ROBIN COHEN and LINDA KORNFELD are, respectively, managing partners at the New York and Los Angeles offices of Dickstein Shapiro. They both are partners in the law firm's insurance-coverage practice, representing corporate policyholders.