What is up with the "sics" on the "husband's" in the Traister piece? The case is possessive and the apostrophe is entirely correct.

Sorry 'bout that: I was dead wrong on the "husband's" bit in my previous letter. I was thinking in terms of "a" wife, when in fact the number in the quoted sentence is plural (wives). The correct form of the possessive, therefore, is "husbands'", with the apostrophe after the plural form of the word. Traister (or whoever edited the piece) is correct. I apologize.

I was able to read this article before Forbes took it down along with "Whore/Wife" article. The "whore/wife" article ostensibly dealt with the economics of prostitution ( a reasonable enough subject I suppose). Yet someone at Forbes saw fit to include a link to "how to be a gold digger". And let's not forget the related article of "How to Marry a Rich Man". So, according to Forbes, apparently those four years of college and three years of law school were a waste of my time?!

Not being a regular reader of Forbes anymore (being a "career woman" with three kids limits not only my ability to keep a spotless home (!) but also my reading time--New York Review of Books wins out over what I thought was a financial magazine), I was stunned to say the least by these articles. That is pretty much it...stunned. Rebecca covers all the bases but at this point I would like to know what the heck someone put in the coffee at Forbes editorial offices! How could anyone not see this as a problem?! Forbes is not Maxim or any of the other "lad" magazines where one expects such garbage.

I suppose I shouldn't be in this day and age when Caitlin Flanagan spreads her ridiculous lies, but boy it is exhausting. I try to teach my three kids that being a feminist is a good thing, that being able to take care of yourself and anyone you bring into this world is fundamental,you can do anything you want if you work hard, and one's happiness is not and should not be dependent upon someone else taking care of you. And then we have this stuff---

The bottom line is this article wasn't part of a "debate" (an interesting attempt at damage control). This article and its slide show was plain pure and simple stupidity. When I do decide to get back to regularly reading a financial magazine...obviously it won't be Forbes!

You can find both articles by entering the titles in quotes in a Google search and clicking the link for cached pages.

If Michael Noer has recently (say in the last year or so) been going through a painful divorce initiated by a wife with a career who decided that she wasn't going to put up with his crap anymore? The article (and the one before it) reek of sour grapes. Looked at that way, I almost could feel sorry for to see him acting out like this. Almost, but not.

I'm shocked this wasn't mentioned in the article.

Professional women make far more than $30,000.

It just shows that Forbes thinks women are inferior, and Salon didn't call them on the point.

Most of the truely happy couples I know the women make far more than $30,000.

Outstanding last line. Great piece. Crazy Man.

I'm happily married to a "career" woman. She makes more than I do. It's great.

If Noer's article is to be believed, then I should be expecting her to leave me any day now. I can't think of anything more silly.

I can also think of many of my friends and aquaintances happily married and with the woman as the primary bread winner. So far, no divorce and no cheating.

Where did he get this crap?

ps- the google cache of the original forbes article can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/zonf3

the point/counter-point article is here:

http://tinyurl.com/eh6mo

If you marry a guy that makes less, the following wil apply:

1. He's likely to have a small penis - he thinks money and power will compensate for that.

2. He'll have a boring madonna-whore complext - the wifey is for taking care of the picture perfect kids and the mistress is for real sex.

3. He won't be able to last more than 9 minutes in the sack because he's still using the same techniques in high school, the last time he was sure of his popularity

4. He won't go down on you - he thinks oral sex means fellatio, only he won't know what 'fellatio' means, he'll use the term 'blow job'.

5. He'll be secretly afraid he's a loser at any party where guys are expected to wear suits. Black tie will freak him out completely. To compensate he'll make fun of anyone with a foreign accent, anyone who lives in New York. anyone who works in media or fashion, and anyone famous, especially male actors. He'll act fatuous to any attractive woman who says she's a 'model'.

6. He'll have bad shoes. Worse, he'll never polish them.

7. He'll think calling a guy a fag or a queer is an insult.

8. He won't understand financials. The phrase 'cap table' will cross his eyes. But he'll bluster and pretend he does know, because he's too insecure to admit he doesn't know everything. And if someone calls him on his bluff, he'll call him a queer. If it's a woman he'll call her a feminist.

9. He'll live vicariously through the accomplishments of athletes in televised sports.

10. He'll have a bad body.

11. His libido will be arrested at the age he last wielded any power - Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears et all of that age will remain his ideal even as he grows fat, jowly and chronically dissatisfied with his wife.

12. He'll think having kids is some sort of proof of virility, but that hanging out with them or showing a real interest in their development is queer.

13. He'll idolize his mother because she cooked and cleaned for him and 'loved him as he is', and he'll resent his father, whom he will become more and more like every year.

14. He'll dress like a giant child - untucked stripey t-shirts and cargo pants or jeans with tennis shoes. Never anything stylish.