That said here is the Article: link and here is the excerpt:
"But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.
It’s a story we’ve seen played out on the pages of People magazine. Oscar-winners Sandra Bullock and Jesse James and Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe. Madonna and Guy Ritchie. Jennifer Lopez and past hubbies Chris Judd and Ojani Noa.
As reported in The New York Post, researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks."
This proposes that women do indeed "only care about money" etc. in marriage and that it's not about love in the least. Even though the statement addresses a feminist notion what I want you to actually talk about is Marriage. The concept of marriage in society is one of joy for females and drudgery for males because of the fact that it's, for better or worse, a business deal but by modern standards this deal has changed into what some may call an unfair institution in which the bride receives both her own "dowry" AND life support for her own ends and endeavors.
The topic is not divorce so try to veer from that. The idea here is to see how you feel about data that contradicts the common notion that marriage is a good thing and that women aren't "money grubbing" people. By all means bring in your own data for your own points and if you wish to prove something else or discuss something else entirely ( with data backing it ) go ahead.
Another data-backed jilting statement is that religious people are "dumber" than their irreligious counterparts ( link so choose either one to discuss and why you think it is right or wrong.
Try to be logical but there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. It's all opinion.
Most Helpful Girl
The opposite can be true as well, just because women that earn more are more likely to get divorced does not mean that they are "money grubbers". It could also be the Sonny and Cher issue in which the male INSISTS on being the breadwinner and needs to assert his dominance in the form of financial control. I think a great deal of whether or not a relationship is successful have to do with society and how we as a society define success for both genders. Males are taught that the more money they have, the more power and the bigger their penis is the more valuable they are not only as people but as a partner. Women are taught that the younger you are, the prettier you are, and the slimmer your waist the more valuable you become in general and as a partner. Therefore when you have an atypical relationship in which the woman earns more than the man, it may be emasculating for him.
Not to mention that females and males admit that women both working and housewives do the majority of cleaning and child rearing. link Here is a cute study that has the point I'm not sure if it's reliable since it was done in 1999. Anyway, if a woman is not only working her butt off, but having to come home and clean and raise her children it may make her feel exhausted and point out that their partnership is more like a parent child relationship than an equal partnership. I mean for instance when men care for their OWN children it is still often refereed to as babysitting because it is rare, and a lot of women which IO find odd don't trust their SO with their children. I think that in order for a man to make less than a woman he needs to learn to pull his weight in other ways which is perhaps why there has been this struggle. In the past the roles were clearly defined, women do X,Y and Z and men do A,B and C. There was a balance, now that the balance has been disturbed women are doing more than they ever have in the white middle class.
I specif white middle class because these roles were never afforded to women in poverty or minority women. Often because it was and still is much easier for female minorities to get jobs than their male counterparts as the male positions tend to be seasonal and or unreliable. Female minorities are classically known for being nannies and housekeepers and the like. The idea of having a frail woman that couldn't do anything is very much and wealthy English phenomenon, and has never really affected the lower classes or minorities.
If men define their worth with their financial success, and women define their worth with their attractiveness; we cannot be surprised when women look for the wealthiest men and men look for the most attractive women. If you want this to change we have to change what is defined as feminine and masculine, what is seen attractive to the opposite sex, and finally define people's worth on numerous factors not just within rigid gender stereotypes.0