When did they become Cosmo?

The article was TITLED, not entitled. :)

I was irate because I had only read the "Don't Marry a Career Woman" article, and I was furious that Forbes was providing such one-sided advice.

I feel MUCH better now that I know that women, as well as men, are being provided with an article that will allow them to live out their lives in happy, sexually appropriate Forbes/GOP approved roles.

After all, it wouldn't be fair to tell the boys what kind of girls to go for, without telling the girls what kind of girl to be.

I guess any man who reads (and believes this article) will steer clear of me (Ph.D., make far more than $30K).

Where is the fascination of these old-fashioned ideas coming from? Just a few weeks ago, it was about single-sex education based on sex stereotypes.

Most of the "data" referenced in the article has to be selective. I have no evidence myself, but typically there are loads of studies that can be used to boost either side of an argument.

It seems like just about every magazine has taken a leaf from the Cosmo book these days. I remember Cosmo running a "How To Marry A Rich Man" type article at least once a year, every year, since the 1980's. Nor is self-help pap about How To Land the Kind of Spouse You Want new - remember The Rules? There even was a 1980's book called "How To Marry The Rich." New bottle, same old wine.

What does seem to be new is this Cosmo-type of dreck appearing in the sober confines of Forbes. Silly me, I thought Forbes was about the business world, money, and investments. When I read Forbes I'm looking for career or financial advice, not dubious articles on how to gold-dig.

(Vomits. Faints.)

Comparing this to the NY times article a few weeks back that many men lacking college degrees lack women to marry, does this mean the Forbes men are stealing their women? NY Times had thought more women were going to college and holding out for college educated men.

College educated and earning more than 30K is a huge pool of women. One assumption by this article is that Forbes men earn enough $ to afford a stay at home wife. That's a small pool of our population.

Sad to think Forbes puts out this drivel. . . . I'd really like to see another article that reexamines the data in more realistic manner.

Are we all quite sure that The Onion hasn't hacked into Forbes and started writing their content? Because I'd sure as hell feel better if this were some kind of April Fool's Day satire.

I about spewed on my monitor when I saw this...so upon reading this, it seems that the ultimate enemy of the happy marriage is women and their Damn Standards. Financial and occupational independence coupled with an education might make the poor dear think she has a right to expect more out of life, thus leaving her husband with the burden of having to be a better man? God forbid a man should have to be engaging, witty, romantic, and understanding to keep her attention. Women should not be insulted by this, but men should. What this says to me is that Forbes sees men as being ill-equipped to deal with a woman who is their equal at work and in love.

I eagerly anticipate brightstar's verbal droppings on this one...smart girls can be so icky!

This is outrageous. I particularly love all the biassed studies that provide the basis for the inane conclusion that career women are duds. Where's the study that examines the adverse effect of a man's career on the marriage? I'm sure a majority of men would be happier in many respects if given a reprieve from the demands of work. But there is no apples to apples comparison, so lets call the woman the saboteur.

As for Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker's assertion that a dual income family creates inefficiency from a labor specialization standpoint, what century is this guy living in??? Ever hear of a maid or a nanny? My husband and I work and my household is at optimum efficiency. And yes my house is clean. You could eat off my floors. Take THAT "Institute for Social Research"!

The next time someone says, "I'm not a feminist, but..." OR gives me the, "Women don't need to be feminists anymore" line, I'll hand them a copy of this article-- it's exhibit A that the backlash is alive and well!

I just posted a tirade on Forbes' reader feedback message board (scroll to the bottom of the Forbes article and you can to). You have to register, but it's free. Luckily, many women and men are posting their intention to divorce Forbes magazine as a result of this article. I doubt Forbes will be issuing any apologies, but the more unhappy feedback they get, the more likely they are to think twice before publishing such drivel again. The author is probably a lost cause, but at least take an opportunity to kick the idiot editor who authorized this article in the shins.

So college-educated women who make more than $30,000 are risky prospects for marriage. As another letter-writer points out, that's a lot of women, given $30,000 is hardly a commanding salary. (I'm in one of the least-lucrative fields out there, and I make more than 30K.)

I would be willing to bet, however, that it's not anything inherent in women who make 30K+ that makes their marriages more unstable. It's because if you make less than that (or nothing at all) you will be more willing to tolerate a lousy marriage because you are economically hugely dependent on your husband and your earning power is so low, especially if you haven't worked in years. So this is what men supposedly want? Someone who is staying married to them for the food and shelter?

What an awful picture these articles paint: Women searching for the rich husband by pretending to be interested in sports they don't like or believing in political philosophies that they don't subscribe to. Men who want a woman who makes little or nothing so she'll be content to stay at home and be happy as a golden retriever when he gets home from his long day at 9 p.m. Ugh. What about happy marriages?