Letters to the Editor
-
happy
I'm happy that they published the article but not because I believe it. The danger of being or forcing P.C. behavior is that it hides people whose views need to be addressed and taken on. I prefer to know where the people are whose opinions are dangerous rather than have them hidden behind a veil of civility, then at least something can be done about it.
In this case it illustrates that there are many men who still are caught in a time warp of societal expectations, like the publishers and editors of Forbes magazine.
"You've come a long way baby." NOT!
-
The Magic of Statistics
I'm a social scientist (and one of my objects of study is marriage) and the research and presentation of research here makes me cringe. The lack of any sort of complex analysis of why the numbers might work out this way is appalling for people doing supposedly scholarly work (and I include the Nock study in this). I wish the response had used the figure that men's life expectancy increases with marriage while women's declines and had begun her article. "Tall or short, rich or poor, fat or thin, women DON'T GET MARRIED." Though his article does make it sound like life for career women is a lot more fun--less cleaning, less caretaking, more sex, more money. Maybe this was an inadvertant attempt to encourage ambitious women!
I guess the fact this appears in Forbes does go to demonstrate that it's not just backwoods red-staters who cling to unequal and outmoded gender roles.
Just a small note to those disparaging the $30,000 income, the national median income (I know--statistics) is around $45,000 and in the South it is around $40,000 so there are plenty of folks earning less than that. And the majority of Americans don't have college degrees and still manage to have careers and in some places college grads aren't getting a huge boost with their degrees. My mother was a microbiologist for more than 10 years--a job requiring a master's degree--and never earned more than $24,000 and that was actually a fairly good salary in small-town Nebraska. My partner also has a job requiring a master's degree and earns around $32,000 in Philly (though in higher ed where everyone's education/salary ratio is off). For the average Forbes reader it's probably not a lot but for a lot of people that's not bad money.
-
Putting gender aside for the moment...
Here's the main thought I came away with after reading the description of the Noer piece: I'm not sure why, in this day and age, anyone is forcing him/herself to stay married, OR WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO STAY MARRIED TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO BE MARRIED BUT HAS NO OTHER CHOICE. What the heck is so enticing about being in a marriage that requires arm-twisting to maintain?
True, if you marry someone who earns close to or more than your salary, it does tend to make you more vulnerable (than you otherwise would be) to being left for someone else. But don't we all want desirable mates who are so wonderful and successful that they could leave at any time, but they fervently choose not to? Doesn't any successful marriage have built into it the equal (or at least comparable) freedom of both parties to leave? Doesn't the inferiority of one partner always come back to bite the other partner in the ass anyway?
Yes, it's moronic that Noer's observations were limited strictly to married women, leaving out "career boys" completely, but it seems to me that Noer is doing not much more than announcing to the world that he'd prefer to date someone he's sure will never think of leaving him.
When you look at it that way, Noer's writing says more about his mating insecurities than the women of this country.
-
Double Shame on Forbes
It's bad enough that Forbes would publish an article with this kind of anti-woman drivel...what does it say about a publication that would publish an article with so many gramatical errors?
I'm not missing the point here. The premise of the article is built on draconian thinking and the author has likely been on the receiving end of several wives bailing on his sorry butt.
But can't Forbes afford an editor? More sloppy journalism. Jeez...
-
Maybe it's "strident"?
Ok, fine I agree the article is stupid. Nevertheless this "I can't believe someone would publish this" outrage is pretty funny. You even quote Gloria Steinem, and find nothing peculiar about her happily insulting the Forbes' male readership as "unconfident and boring".
It's easy to overlook insults to other people, I suppose.
-
Steve Forbes?
Dear me Steve Forbes and his magazine is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan. Everyone knows that. Makes the Op-Ed page of the WSJ look like Communism. Nothing new to see here folks.
-
anecdotal evidence
Just wanted to say that my Dad married a woman who makes more than he does (a lot more than 30,000 bucks..where do they get these numbers?) She does the dishes and the laundry and decorates..he cooks and makes her laugh. It seems to be working for them. It helps I suppose that they are both in the same industry (my dad works for the state and his wife is corporate)
That some women act just as jerky as some men do when they have more money should not be a revolution. I don't think this article should be a rallying cry for righteousness parades or anything. The article isn't really any different than what is on MTV that according to all the recent commentary is geared to 11-15 year olds. People with money can be jerks. People with power can be jerks. If Forbes wants to play the wiseacre with Cosmo style article than so be it. I just won't ever buy it.
-
Noer is as much of a dinosaur...
...the Helen Gurley Browns of the world who encourage women to marry rich guys, who write books about "the rules" of power-dating and marrying for cash and prizes.
He was wrong. They are just as wrong. Both push a sexist viewpoint/agenda.
Good article, Rebecca.
-
The empirical studies are biassed.
The studies that provide the basis for Noer's conclusions are biassed. They examine the adverse affect of a woman's career on (i) marital fidelity; (ii) cleanliness in the home; and (iii) contentedness with domesticity. Let's see what affect a man's career has on each of these issues. But, predictably, there are no such studies. I suspect the organizations that conduct these studies do so to support a certain conclusion, which isn't really a conclusion at all but rather a sexist assumption. As a result, there can be no apples to apples comparison. Because of the lack of availability of comparable statistics for men, the woman is the saboteur.
And for the record, I do occasionally buy Forbes, if I'm flying somewhere as us cosmopolitan career women do. Or I should say "did." From now on, I'll pick up an issue of Money.