entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
The Sunroom Sea - well, there goes that good mood
Aspen's LJ Home
silveraspen
silveraspen
Add to Memories
Share
well, there goes that good mood
And just when I thought that the corporate world could not manage to really annoy me-- I am proven wrong.

Linked from voleuse, Forbes Magazine writes about "Nine Reasons to Steer Clear of Career Women."

Text reproduced behind the cut in full due to Forbes's [censored censored censored] slideshow of a website.

ETA: In the comments below, fire_and_a_rose tracked down the source article for the slideshow text. It's written by a man named Michael Noer, published in the "Careers" section of the website, and titled "Don't Marry Career Women." As of this writing, it shows up as one of their "most popular stories" links. I've reproduced THAT text as well, behind the cut, below the slideshow.

Nine Reasons to Steer Clear of Career Women: Slideshow

1. You are less likely to get married to her.
So say Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite of the University of Michigan's Michigan Retirement Research Center. In a paper, "Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses", published in April, 2000, they found that for white women, higher earnings, more hours of employment and higher wages while single all reduce the chances of marriage. "This suggests that (1) success in the labor market makes it harder for women to make a marital match, (2) women with relatively high wages and earnings search less intensively for a match, or (3) successful women have higher standards for an acceptable match than women who work less and earn less." Some research suggests the opposite is true for black women.

Source: "Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses," Lee A. Lillard, Linda J. Waite, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center, Working Papers, April, 2000.

2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
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 said. 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."

Sources: "A Treatise On The Family," Gary S. Becker, Harvard University Press, 1981; "Do Long Work Hours Contribute To Divorce?" John H. Johnson, Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004; "Wives' Employment and Spouses' Marital Happiness," Robert Schoen, Stacy J. Rogers, Paul R. Amato, Journal of Family Issues, April 2006.

3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
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.) One April, 2005 study, by Adrian J. Blow for the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy summed it up: "If a woman has more education than her partner, she is more likely to have a sexual relationship outside of her primary relationship; if her husband has more education, she is less likely to engage in infidelity." Additionally individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. "In a more general sense, it appears that employment has significantly influenced infidelity over the years," Blow said. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners, and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."

Source: "Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review," Adrian J. Blow, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, April 2005.

4. You are much less likely to have kids.
According to the National Marriage Project, the incidence of childlessness is growing across the socioeconomic scale. In 2004, 20% of women over 40 remained childless. Thirty years ago that figure was 10%. But the problem--and it is a problem because the vast majority of women desire children--is much more extreme for career women. According to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, only 51% of ultra-achieving women (those earning more than $100,000 a year) have had children by age 40. Among comparable men, the figure was 81%. A third of less successful working women (earning either $55,000 or $65,000) were also childless at age 40.

Sources: The State of Our Unions 2006: Life Without Children, The National Marriage Project, July 2006. Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Miramax Books, 2002.

5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.
A 2003 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family concluded that wealthier couples with children suffer a drop in marital satisfaction three times as great as their less affluent peers. One of the study's co-authors publicly speculated that the reason is that wealthier women are used to "a professional life, a fun, active, entertaining life."

Sources: "Parenthood and Martial Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review," Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell, and Craig A. Foster, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003; "Money doesn't mean happy parenting," USA Today, July 21, 2003.

6. Your house will be dirtier.
In 2005, two University of Michigan scientists concluded that if your wife has a job earning more than $15 an hour (roughly $30,000 a year), she will do 1.9 hours less housework a week. Of course, this can be solved if the husband picks up a broom.

Source: "Data Quality of Housework Hours in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Who Really Does The Dishes?", Alexandra C. Achen and Frank P. Stafford, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, September 2005.

7. You'll be unhappy if she makes more than you.
You aren't going to like it if she makes more than you do: "Married men's well-being is significantly lower when married women's proportional contributions to the total family income are increased."

Source: "Changes in Wives' Income: Effects on Marital Happiness, Psychological Well-Being, and the Risk of Divorce," Stacy J. Rogers, Danelle D. DeBoer, Journal of Marriage and Family, May 2001.

8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
According to the authors of a controversial 2006 study: "American wives, even wives who hold more feminist views about working women and the division of household tasks, are typically happier when their husband earns 68% or more of the household income." Reason? "Husbands who are successful breadwinners probably give their wives the opportunity to make more choices about work and family--e.g., working part-time, staying home, or pursuing a meaningful but not particularly remunerative job."

Sources: What's Love Got To Do With It? W. Bradford Wilcox, Steven L. Nock, Social Forces, March, 2006; www.happiestwives.org.

9. You are more likely to fall ill.
A 2001 study found that having a wife who works less than 40 hours a week has no impact on your health, but having a wife who works more than 40 hours a week has "substantial, statistically significant, negative effects on changes in her husband's health over that time span." The author of another study summarizes that "wives working longer hours not do not have adequate time to monitor their husband's health and healthy behavior, to manage their husband's emotional well-being or buffer his workplace stress."

Sources: "It's About Time and Gender: Spousal Employment and Health," Ross M. Stolzenberg, American Journal of Sociology, July, 2001; "Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses," Lee A. Lillard, Linda J. Waite, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center, Working Papers, April, 2000.


Don't Marry Career Women, by Michael Noer, Forbes Magazine.
Don't Marry Career Women
Michael Noer 08.22.06, 6:00 AM ET


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, of 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.


I trust, I hope, that I need not go point-by-point and explain the problems with this article. Because if I need to -- and please, if there's anyone reading this who wonders at all, DO let me know -- I will be glad to.

I will point out, however, that I am very, very disheartened to see this in such a high-profile professional publication, one whose website tagline is "home page for the world's business leaders." It says a hell of a lot about their readership and what they think they can get away with, doesn't it?

Don't let them.

Email can be sent to the Forbes Magazine editors here.

A good old-fashioned paper letter can be sent to this address:

Forbes Magazine
60 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10011


According to Wikipedia and a few other searches on Google, the current editor is William Baldwin. I plan to address mine to him.

Their customer service phone number is (800) 295-0893.

ETA #2: As of 4:15 PM MDT, I note via this link in genarti's journal that Forbes has evidently removed the offending slideshow and article, and that searches of Forbes.com don't turn it up either (I tried both links and searching "michael noer" and "career women" without success).

This is a good sign. However, the error page helpfully includes a link asking you to tell them how you got there in the first place.

I suggest we all continue to do just that. Let's drive this point home, and drive it in deep.

ETA #3: This link at tigerlilyaj's contains a collection of some reactions 'round the web. Of them all, I particularly like Gawker's nicely pointed reworking of the original slideshow... including the actual images that Forbes used.

ETA #4: As noted by copperbadge here, Forbes has now restored the original version of Noer's article-- in the Opinion section, not the Careers section-- newly placed next to a contrasting article by Elizabeth Corcoran.

ETA #5: More contact information! As noted above, William Baldwin is editor of Forbes magazine. His email, courtesy of the Forbes website, is editor@forbes.com.

The editor of the Forbes.com website, however, is Paul Maidment. According to the site, he can be reached via email at letters@forbes.net, by phone at 212-366-8900, and by fax at 212-366-8804.

Tags: ,
Current Mood: angry angry
Current Music: The Suffering - Coheed & Cambria

Comments
Page 1 of 2
[1] [2]
varadia From: varadia Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
*raged about that yesterday, and sent e-mail. Whee*

Also. It amuses me that your 'now listening' song is one my brother absolutely adores.





The house is very quiet now that he is in Boston.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yay for the email, if not the rage. *passes tea and scones* Oh, I am fuming over here.

I imagine it is quiet. *hugs lots*
jezrana From: jezrana Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
The particular part that made me see red, not that the rest of it's much better:

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.) One April, 2005 study, by Adrian J. Blow for the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy summed it up: "If a woman has more education than her partner, she is more likely to have a sexual relationship outside of her primary relationship; if her husband has more education, she is less likely to engage in infidelity."

Yes. Because EVERYONE KNOWS if you start educating the womenfolks, the downfall of society is next.

*goes off to hit things, and possibly send a strongly worded email when clear-headed thought becomes an option again*
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, clearly. And let's not even BOTHER to analyze it from the OTHER side of the gender divide, shall we?

Please excuse the sarcasm dripping like acid from this comment.
zarahemla From: zarahemla Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
YOUR HOUSE WILL BE DIRTIER?????????????????????????????

Holy blue fuck, excuse my french, but I think we just went back to the 1950s with that one.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
NO KIDDING.

I mean. Ignoring for one moment the logic in perhaps considering things like "hire help with the salary increase" or anything like that--

HOW IS THAT EVEN APPROPRIATE IN THIS DAY AND AGE???
agonistes From: agonistes Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
Linking this to public folders at Agnes Scott, and bringing it to the attention of faculty.

We'll see if we can't get a campaign started.

Knowing me as you do, I will leave the expletives coming to mind out of this comment, because I am sure you can imagine the general gist.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's probably much like mine. And you know how much I swear, or don't, as the case may be.

Campaigns are shiny. Let me know if there's anything I can do at this end.
(Deleted comment)
fire_and_a_rose From: fire_and_a_rose Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
...*gets out pen, considers getting over her distaste of phones and calling, as well*

Hello, rage.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:38 pm (UTC) (Link)
Lovely to have rage come and visit, isn't it? Only not.

*is actively practicing meditation techniques to calm the fury*
gramarye1971 From: gramarye1971 Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
...okay, that may be getting a letter. An actual sit down and write it out on nice paper with a good pen letter.

Or perhaps it will be, once the red mist clears away from my vision and I'm no longer grinding my teeth.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
Same here. I figure I'll be calm enough to write by this afternoon or tomorrow, and I already have notes at hand for when I am.

Looks like it's time to practice those professional corporate communications skills that have served me so well for the past decade.
(Deleted comment)
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
That is a very interesting article. Thanks for the link!

And yes, you are exactly right: women are *gasp* human! With success and failure and goals and accomplishments and imperfections, women are members in good standing of the human race.

Betty Friedan is spinning in her grave right now, I just know it.
batyatoon From: batyatoon Date: August 23rd, 2006 06:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
...

"You know those old find-the-hidden-assumption-and-that's-the-solution problems they used to give us in school?"
"Yeah?"
"I think this is one of those."
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah. It just saddens me. Well, and angers me as well, obviously.

One likes to think that we've moved beyond such things.
rymenhild From: rymenhild Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
I sense that someone out there is frightened of intelligent, practical, successful women.

I want us all to find that person and terrify him by looking SCARY AND SMART.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
That would be a trip well worth making.
agoodshinkickin From: agoodshinkickin Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
I read this and it makes me think that maybe it's the Men that need liberation now.

#9 is by far my favorite.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
Isn't it great?

Never mind that research shows that provision of care by women (to children & grandchildren, and ill spouses as well) is detrimental to women's health, putting them at increased risk of coronary heart disease.

I have copies of the papers themselves, even.
furikku From: furikku Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:16 pm (UTC) (Link)
....guys, I know I'm not really following the news, but I'm pretty sure that nobody has issued a declaration stating that coincidence now equals causality.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
Aren't logical fallacies fun?
phoenixchilde From: phoenixchilde Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
...What. In the everloving. Fuck.

Well, that's that. Guess if I ever want to get married, I'd better call up Pitt and drop out while I still have the chance!

*just seethes*

Holy hell, are there going to be Words with this magazine, if I can ever calm down enough to write them.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
Don't forget to don your 1950's style pearls and smile while you're doing it.

(Obviously, I'm right there with you in the seething and the writing, both.)
misslucyjane From: misslucyjane Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm now picturing cigar-puffing, men's club-attending, WSJ-reading, three-trophy-wives possessing Forbes readership clucking over this article and patting themselves on the back for finally having a justification for their careless tending of their marriages.

I could use a wife of my own, dammit. My apartment's a mess.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's extremely annoying, to the point of infuriating, not to mention insulting to women in the workforce AND those in the home, as well as to standards of scholarship.
From: illmantrim Date: August 23rd, 2006 07:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
yeah, saw this the other day. Stop. Swore in several languages. Stop. Wrote my own letter. Stop. Poked people to write letters. Stop.

Will eventually calm down enough not to use sentences like these, Stop.

Not soon. Full stop.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
The more the word spreads on something like this, the better.
pat_trick From: pat_trick Date: August 23rd, 2006 08:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
it's times like this that make me absolutely loathe members of my sex.

*facepalm*

*writes email*
pat_trick From: pat_trick Date: August 23rd, 2006 08:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
also, interestingly enough, the discussion portion of the article doesn't have the most savory responses to its content either.
oneechan19 From: oneechan19 Date: August 23rd, 2006 08:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
... what. the. fuck.

So much of that is total BS. And if any of that is true, it's not the woman's fault. It's the man's, not being able to deal. Gah.

*digs around for pen and paper to write letter*
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's badly nuanced, poorly researched, vitriolic and inequitable in terms of gender.

The fact that it's published by such a highly-regarded media presence is infuriating.
tigerlilyaj From: tigerlilyaj Date: August 23rd, 2006 08:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
aevalin's man, planetexpress, first brought the article to my attn this morning, and he does a point-by-point rebuttal. Part of me knows they are cynically doing this for the publicity, and I expect to see the reporters involved being interviewed on "The Today Show" and/or "The View" soon. The other part does believe this reflects what Forbes sees as its readership.
I don't want to know what Prof. Employer thinks of this.
I love how the loaded term "career woman" gets parsed down to "makes more than $100,000 by age 40." While there are certainly few jobs that pay that much and don't consume your life, there are plenty of women (and men) who are toiling at jobs they care deeply about and whose they are committed to while earning nowhere near that remuneration. I wonder how they feel about learning that they don't have "careers" but merely "jobs" in Forbes view, b/c your salary determines all. [eyeroll]
tigerlilyaj From: tigerlilyaj Date: August 23rd, 2006 08:55 pm (UTC) (Link)

SAH

And I surely hope Sylvia Ann Hewlett pipes up soon about this abuse of her important qualitative work. She hardly had intentions of the woeful decisions women are forced to make in the current labor market to be used in a Maxim-style article on whom to not date.
shoroko From: shoroko Date: August 23rd, 2006 09:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ok... so, never mind that almost every one of those "points" could be solved by the male part of the relationship say, cleaning, or monitoring his own health (um, really. wtf. wives are not mothers), or not bitching because "omg a female makes more money than I do wah!!!"

But no, the clear answer is to avoid such issues all together and make the world easier on men by going back to delegating women as it so pleases them. Right. Because that really worked so well.

I'm sorry, your wife is more likely to cheat on you because she's educated? The same apparently holds true for men, does cheating not count when it's committed by men, or should we just do away with education all together?

*facepalm* What. The Fuck. Ever. And I like the little face-saving note at the end: "oh yeah, correlation does not imply causation so everything I just wrote might be crap." Nice.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:44 pm (UTC) (Link)
Far be it from the author to take his own advice, when evidently he would greatly prefer to publish slanted sensationalism masquerading as "fact."
manicmarauder88 From: manicmarauder88 Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
I found this linked through another person's LJ and OH MY GOD the rage. *face scrunching up in frustration* When reading this, I was sorta reminded of this article that I read for English last year: http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/wantawife.html and it made me think that the jackass who wrote this ridiculous piece of chauvinism read "Why I Want a Wife" at some point in time and didn't quite understand the satirical element of it.

Angry letter about to be written in five... four... three... two... *brain kerplodes from rage*
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 10:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hello, and thanks for the link to the article!

Regarding Noer, I'm inclined to agree that he has a limited perspective at best. I've seen several people discussing the idea that maybe his article was intended to be humor or satire itself, but I think that's rather more wishful thinking.

Even if it was so intended-- which is a far stretch, I think-- it still falls into the category of "extremely inappropriate humor," especially when considering the context, readership, and influence that Forbes has.
adiva_calandia From: adiva_calandia Date: August 23rd, 2006 11:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
*thoughtful* I think I will send a copy of this post to my breadwinning mother at her job, since the article itself has disappeared.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 11:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Absolutely do! I'm just glad I saved the text to begin with, especially now.
metalsaurus From: metalsaurus Date: August 23rd, 2006 11:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Apparently, we're not the only ones irritated. I've seen at least two other articles mentioning it today, one at Mother Jones, and the other somewhere more mainstream.

Even the worst of the southern Good Ole Boys I've met had more sense than to publish that shite! Yeesh. Mr. Noer must have been feeling lonely and needed some attention.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 23rd, 2006 11:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
Good. The more people get outraged over something like this, the less likely it is to happen in the future.
elysistrata From: elysistrata Date: August 24th, 2006 12:41 am (UTC) (Link)
May I share with you the cache of his now-also-removed older article on the similarities between wives and whores, entitled "The Economics of Prostitution"? It's just as bad and you can see why it was removed (especially since Gawker linked to it...).
(Deleted comment)
From: (Anonymous) Date: August 24th, 2006 01:10 am (UTC) (Link)

Sad state of affairs

It's really sad too see that no one looks beyond cause and effect. We are the instant gratification culture. We trust text more than we do experience. We trust degrees from universities more than those that are actually discovering or our own experiences.

The author unfortunately does not phrase things well and pisses everyone off. If anyone ever thought about "why we work" and why the last generation could survive on single income. Ever wonder about that? Neither man nor woman should be working, did God invent money? It's harder for a woman as well (please dont give the equal speech its real old, women are able to sense things and men can lift more weight list goes on and on how we are different, equal, but very different). With drugs/surgeries its all possible I suppose.

Ask yourself why we work and why do women have to work now. And ask yourself if you are really happy or if you are happy about being able to buy an ipod. If you answered ipod, its better you dont have kids and mess them up.

The people that want you to work have good reason, so they dont have to. The more workers they have the less they can pay, since the talent pool is larger. Thats why the wealthy are getting richer (heck thats forbes). Keep it up GO FEMINISM! Get women to work more than men! That might be best. Do 60hr weeks and see how your kids end up (With an extra 20 hrs of labour even more work/manhour is available lowering income).

Trust your kids to strangers to take care of. You goto work so you can pay someone to take care of something you created and love. The world's a cool place and its hard to see when you are someone's bitch in an office. And yeah I do my own thing and I'm my customer's bitch. Why because they are paying thats why and if you think you are free LOL!!!

Also for those that need to reply. Flaming this. Your reply is only worth something if you have actually experienced this. Man or woman, if you have divorced or had kids etc. Just blowing your horn without going through and experiencing it is just another example of your ignorance that you think you can learn things from a book. If you are going to challenge me go experience the stuff yourself.

Please do comment if you disagree and have been through what the author discussed or what I commented on.
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 24th, 2006 04:48 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Sad state of affairs

Wow. Your point of view is ... intriguing, to say the least. Still, let's see here:

* Ask yourself why we work and why do women have to work now.

I'm going to presume you meant this rhetorically, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. In the simplest terms, an individual works to obtain goods or services either directly or through the garnering of currency that is assigned a value, and thus can be exchanged for goods and services-- which in turn are applied to the needs of survival according to structures such as Maslow's hierarchy.

The more that is needed, the more is required to obtain what is needed, the more people work -- in terms of both time spend working and individuals who work. Including both men and women.

* Just blowing your horn without going through and experiencing it is just another example of your ignorance that you think you can learn things from a book.

In my opinion, it is regrettable that you believe that the only way to learn is by direct experience. George Santayana would disagree with you, I believe, among many others.
(Deleted comment)
silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 24th, 2006 04:39 am (UTC) (Link)
Good to know!

Hi and welcome then, btw! It's definitely a topic worthy of discussion in many places, I think.
From: (Anonymous) Date: August 24th, 2006 01:51 am (UTC) (Link)

Wow. Politically correct hysteria again.

Assume for the moment that people with more formal education miss out on mundane educations on family, children, and social behavior (at the family and congregation levels) because they are focused on other things. They trade years in college for years spent picking up 'adult stuff' from their parents and neighbors. Now go back a read Noer's article and the '9 reasons' compilation. The article is about life skills and ability to adjust to changes in our personal lives -- little things that aren't nourished in a corporate environment.

While the findings presented in '9 reasons' seem reasonable, I gravely disagree with the proposed rationales. But I find the misunderstanding by the sources and the author to be within bounds of responsible professionals.

Yes, the '9 reasons not to marry' article sounds gross and nasty. And maybe a bit light headed. But sexist? Bigoted? Misogynistic? No. From the first paragraph to the last I did not feel compelled that the author feels strongly, one way or the other, about the content or conclusions of the article.

Brad K.
Ponca City, OK

silveraspen From: silveraspen Date: August 24th, 2006 04:34 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Wow. Politically correct hysteria again.

Hello Brad--

birdseyeview speaks to a number of points very well in her comment just above this one, so I won't spend time repeating her statements.

Although I will agree with you that people who spend more time pursuing formal education do have to make sacrifices in time and choices in focus, I do not agree with your conclusion that the article itself is about "life skills" and adjustments in one's personal life, nor is it really discussing things that "aren't nourished in a corporate environment."

The scholarship cited in the "nine reasons" is selective at best and deliberately slanted to obscure an unbiased analysis of facts at worst. The lack of comparison from the other side of the gender fence, as it were, causes the tone to be one of sly insinuation. Sections like point six, "your house will be dirtier," deliberately overlook changing roles in these modern times, as well as practical solutions such as the possibility of a family effort toward cleaning, or even hiring outside help, and instead state that the situation in general will obtain -- in this case, the house will be dirty-- because the wife is working outside the home and therefore is not spending time in her traditional role. Remember, as well, that the conclusion and the point of the article is that these are reasons that career women, women who have pursued and found success outside the home, are not to be found acceptable to marry.

That's a real problem, and one compounded by the fact that an internationally recognized publication felt it acceptable to publish something with such views in a "factual" section and under such a heading, in this "modern" world.
90 comments or Leave a comment
Page 1 of 2
[1] [2]
profile
scientific integrity and blah blah blah
Name: scientific integrity and blah blah blah
calendar
Back July 2014
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
links
tags