Gasp! I Married a Career Woman

By Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett, Women's eNews. Posted September 1, 2006.

We have a recurring nightmare. We're standing on a mountaintop, being attacked by a huge, winged chimera with an enormous head and a mouth that keeps chanting, "Working women are miserable. Their marriages are terrible. Their husbands are miserable. Their children are wrecks."

We slice off the beast's head with a sharp sword. Instantly 20 more heads appear to take its place, each chanting, "Working women are miserable, their marriages are terrible ...."

For the media, it is the story that simply will not die. Are you as bored with it as we are?

The newest chimera's head comes from Forbes.com, in the form of an article last week by editor Michael Noer with a headline, "Don't Marry Career Women" and subtitled "How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists." The article was accompanied by a slide show purporting to show the "social science" on which the piece was based.

The way this story played out tells us a lot about the workings of today's media, the Internet and the 24-hour continuous news cycle. It may also herald a major new media power source: Femalebloggers Inc.

Forbes retreats

Forbes quickly took down the slide show. The solo Noer article was repackaged as a point-counterpoint commentary with Forbes staff writer Elizabeth Corcoran. Disagreeing. Her commentary (obviously turned around on a dime) was anecdotal. So the result was a guy taking over the commanding heights of "science" and the woman offered a flimsier personal rebuttal.

Meanwhile, Slate media critic Jack Shafer weighed in, with a story headlined, "Forbes' Female Trouble: So what if career women are divorces waiting to happen?"

Shafer rightly said the original Forbes piece was largely junk and noted "the Web site entries appear to be a holding pen for crap Noer couldn't shoehorn into his overstuffed thesis." Noer included studies irrelevant to this thesis. One, for example, found that higher-income people cheat more in marriage.

But Shafer claimed he didn't understand why women got so upset over the article, saying, "I've yet to read a blog item or a protesting e-mail from a reader that convinces me that the article, as opposed to the deliberately provocative headline, really insults women, career or otherwise."

To which Jen Posner, executive director of Women In Media and News, responded: "He hasn't been convinced that the article insults women? Really? Even after all these women online and on radio have said outright that it's insulting?"

By week's end, Forbes was flooded by so many e-mails from furious women (some urging a boycott of the magazine) and heard from so many bloggers that the publication was sprinting away from its own story. Publisher Steve Forbes publicly apologized on Friday for insulting working women with the article. ABC ran the story on the evening news.

Female bloggers had made a difference.

The Times weighs in

On Monday, the New York Times moved in with a story about the possible business motivation behind running the Forbes piece. A provider of third-party Web traffic data told the Times that visits to Forbes.com had "tumbled" and were only about half of the 15.3 million a month the company continued to advertise. The story noted that the Forbes site was featuring glitzy lifestyle stories, raising the question of whether the career women story was simply a cynical attempt to get "buzz."

Caryl Rivers, professor of journalism at Boston University, and Rosalind C. Barnett, senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University, are co-authors of "Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children and Our Jobs."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »