Do girls only want a career because they can't attract a man?

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1s8RU6FwA

There was once another study done of secretaries in Washington DC. The study was constructed to determine whether DC secretaries were actually skilled in typing, as a proxy for their having any office talents at all or were they mainly there looking for men.

The survey found that 18% of DC secretaries could actually touch type. The rest of them were just hunt 'n' peckers.

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1s8RU6FwA

There was once another study done of secretaries in Washington DC. The study was constructed to determine whether DC secretaries were actually skilled in typing, as a proxy for their having any office talents at all or were they mainly there looking for men.

The survey found that 18% of DC secretaries could actually touch type. The rest of them were just hunt 'n' peckers.

I saw that.

Rush Limbaugh's undeniable truth number 24, circa 1988.

[GSlob]

well, the title question, as formulated, is meaningless: there are so many career women that among such a number surely some do, while some others do not [and what to do with the married career women? They do exist]. Hence the examples can be found in support, or rather, as illustrations, of any answer. A meaningful question has to be asked with more rigor: how widespread and important is the phenomenon in question?

Last edited by GSlob on Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I find the subtle sexism in the title oddly appropriate. Females who refuse to learn any skills whatsoever or are just gliding by (as gcruse suggests of goverment secretaries) are still "girls" and not "women."

Leykis 101 is back on the internet!

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."

You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."

You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

"Only the onlies,
Know why..."

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."
You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

Not "pretty high" but the ironclad 1.0000000000 - even a single bona fide exception would blow that "only" to shreds. Hence it is no longer a matter of correlations.

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."

You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

"Only" is indeed the troublesome word, but here it's not intended to mean "the sole, universal reason", but as a form of belittlement: "the shameful reason".

But let's rephrase it: women who want careers do so because they expect that nobody else will support them economically. Isn't that the same reason men want careers, and don't we hold that self-reliance in high regard? Don't we consider a self-supporting man to exhibit high self-esteem, rather than low self-esteem?

Consider the young man who dates older women: we say that he "only" wants a sugar-mama to buy him things, and we think very little of him.

I know at least 3 career women who are doing it because they absolutely love what they are doing. Of course, they are in it for the money too, but their careers are intensely interesting to them.

I know at least 3 career women who are doing it because they absolutely love what they are doing. Of course, they are in it for the money too, but their careers are intensely interesting to them.

I know a few of them who work because they truly enjoy working as well. One had a rather unique job (I "ran into" her not on/at her job for the record) as a professional dominatrix.

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."
You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

Not "pretty high" but the ironclad 1.0000000000 - even a single bona fide exception would blow that "only" to shreds. Hence it is no longer a matter of correlations.

As a matter of language precision -- but the knowledge of a correlation becomes useful well before 1.0000...

Considering our evolutionary history, mating being an essential driver -- there's little doubt that there will be a correlation in many other behaviors that revolve around mating.

1972 called. It wants it's talking points back.

The rest of them were just hunt 'n' peckers.

Ssssshhhhhh...be vewwwy, vewwy quiet...

Not the only reason. It does give the girls somewhere to look for someone who is employed.

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."

You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

"Only" is indeed the troublesome word, but here it's not intended to mean "the sole, universal reason", but as a form of belittlement: "the shameful reason".

But let's rephrase it: women who want careers do so because they expect that nobody else will support them economically. Isn't that the same reason men want careers, and don't we hold that self-reliance in high regard? Don't we consider a self-supporting man to exhibit high self-esteem, rather than low self-esteem?

Consider the young man who dates older women: we say that he "only" wants a sugar-mama to buy him things, and we think very little of him.

well put.

The only troublesome word in the title is "only."

You need a pretty high correlation to seriously claim that.

"Only" is indeed the troublesome word, but here it's not intended to mean "the sole, universal reason", but as a form of belittlement: "the shameful reason".

But let's rephrase it: women who want careers do so because they expect that nobody else will support them economically. Isn't that the same reason men want careers, and don't we hold that self-reliance in high regard? Don't we consider a self-supporting man to exhibit high self-esteem, rather than low self-esteem?

Consider the young man who dates older women: we say that he "only" wants a sugar-mama to buy him things, and we think very little of him.

well put.

Not "well put". It would have been put "well" if the social expectations were unisex- the same economic roles were expected [how and to what degree such expectations are realized, is a different question] both from the females and from the males. And despite all the modernization, postmodernization, etc. etc. it is not yet the case - blame it on the conservative social norms.