Members Topic: Do you agree with this? - Page 2

I disagree. Somewhat.

1. When men were the breadwinners and women were homemakers, no one thought about work-life balance or the importance of family in terms of career. Only after women entered the workforce en masse did all these think pieces become prominent. This article may be gender-neutral, but "family" has always been used as an excuse to guilt women into sacrificing their careers and/or depending on their spouses.

2. This op-ed also feeds into the archaic notion that marriage is necessary for fulfillment. The declining marriage rates and increased dinks (double income, no kids) are bucking traditional notions. The op-ed overlooks the fact that the reduction in marriage rates has led to increased happiness, decreased divorces, and decreased midlife crises. Single, child-free women are the happiest, followed by dinks.

But here's what I will say - prioritize human connections over career. You don't need a romantic partner or children to cultivate meaningful relationships. Your job, employer, and career can abandon you at any moment, but your human connections will carry you through any crisis. So, get to know your neighbors and community. Invest time into your friendships. Stay connected with your family and distant relatives. Get to know your bosses and colleagues as human beings. My career has progressed as it has because of the human connections I have had, and I would never get to where I am without investing time in people.

That being said, each person is unique. Marriage and children do fulfill people. And it is perfectly fine to be a stay-at-home spouse or parent. But the happiest couples I have seen are the ones who do not have rigid gender roles and share tasks equitably. And some people are married to their jobs and find genuine meaning and satisfaction through their careers alone.

Marriage is not a one size fits all solution. It works for some, while others find solace in being single and living with minimal human responsibility over them. I know people around me who are immensely invested in their careers, especially being in social sector. And those who work at the intersection of law enforcement and social service are into it come what may. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if not for their careers. They're married to it and thrive in it. Would others consider that sad? Who cares, as long as it makes them happy. There's no point in vilifying. The world needs people who are career oriented as equally as people who find happiness in family and marriage.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I disagree. Somewhat.

1. When men were the breadwinners and women were homemakers, no one thought about work-life balance or the importance of family in terms of career. Only after women entered the workforce en masse did all these think pieces become prominent. This article may be gender-neutral, but "family" has always been used as an excuse to guilt women into sacrificing their careers and/or depending on their spouses.

2. This op-ed also feeds into the archaic notion that marriage is necessary for fulfillment. The declining marriage rates and increased dinks (double income, no kids) are bucking traditional notions. The op-ed overlooks the fact that the reduction in marriage rates has led to increased happiness, decreased divorces, and decreased midlife crises. Single, child-free women are the happiest, followed by dinks.

But here's what I will say - prioritize human connections over career. You don't need a romantic partner or children to cultivate meaningful relationships. Your job, employer, and career can abandon you at any moment, but your human connections will carry you through any crisis. So, get to know your neighbors and community. Invest time into your friendships. Stay connected with your family and distant relatives. Get to know your bosses and colleagues as human beings. My career has progressed as it has because of the human connections I have had, and I would never get to where I am without investing time in people.

That being said, each person is unique. Marriage and children do fulfill people. And it is perfectly fine to be a stay-at-home spouse or parent. But the happiest couples I have seen are the ones who do not have rigid gender roles and share tasks equitably. And some people are married to their jobs and find genuine meaning and satisfaction through their careers alone.

Very well thought out! I think you would be able to write a better piece then David Brooks. That would be a huge compliment if you asked some of his fans and I am very serious too!

Originally posted by: ohophelia

Marriage is not a one size fits all solution. It works for some, while others find solace in being single and living with minimal human responsibility over them. I know people around me who are immensely invested in their careers, especially being in social sector. And those who work at the intersection of law enforcement and social service are into it come what may. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if not for their careers. They're married to it and thrive in it. Would others consider that sad? Who cares, as long as it makes them happy. There's no point in vilifying. The world needs people who are career oriented as equally as people who find happiness in family and marriage.

Very insightful and thnx for commenting.

best is to diversify and cast your net wide. Then enjoy the haul. From time to time, go out to sea and get fresh catch.

Originally posted by: Grumpydwarf24

Yes, the best safeguard for women being stuck in unhappy marriages is a career. My issue with Brooks is on one hand he endorses crony capitalism. Which basically states you are on your own if you can't make enough even due to some unfortunate circumstances like health issues. If you could not make it you were probably lazy? Then he tells people not to focus on their careers?

I think you are over analyzing this. The best safeguard imo would be to get a new boyfriend.

Sounds like something a lovechild between a hedge fund manager and an Evangelical fruitcake would try to sell you at gunpoint.