COMMENTS: 114
Gasp! I Married a Career Woman
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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."
The fracas matters because it adds to the building myth in the media of a scientific consensus that ambitious women create bad marriages and that only by returning to traditional roles can the sexes be at peace.
We have spent more than two decades researching the lives of working women, and written four books on the subject. We can reliably report that there is a growing consensus based on solid research that if a woman has a good job, the marriage benefits.
Jack Shafer says he "won't quarrel" with Noer's advice to men that "You'll be unhappy if she makes more than you." Shafer should quarrel, because Noer's science is sloppy. Today, some 42 percent of college-educated married women out-earn their husbands. Are these marriages falling apart? Not according to recent divorce data. These marriages are as stable as those in which husbands earn more.
Noer appears to rely, for his contention that men are unhappy with career women, on a study based on data from the early 1990s by University of Virginia researchers. But this study says nothing at all about men's happiness. It reports that women can be unhappy in marriage if they earn more than their husbands, if there is an unfair division of household labor and if men fail to do the "emotional work" to sustain the marriage.
Contradicting the thesis
We have just completed a major new analysis of data from our study of dual-earner couples that was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health. The data, not yet published, utterly contradict the Forbes thesis that men will be unhappy if they marry career women. Our study--which looks at men's marital happiness--finds that among dual-earner couples, as she works more, his marital quality goes up. Why so? Probably for a number of reasons.
Men's wages have been stagnant or declining for nearly 20 years, so her income may be easing financial tensions and making it possible for the couple to pay their bills. Her enhanced earnings may be heightening her self esteem, and so she brings these good feelings about herself into the marriage. He may want to spend more time with the family, and her work eases the breadwinning burden. Research tells us that men today do want more family time and are actually spending more time with their families than they used to.
Will men who marry career women have terrible sex lives? Noer seems to suggest this, though he doesn't say so outright.
Is it true? No. One longitudinal study of 500 couples by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Janet Hyde found that for both men and women, the highest sexual satisfaction was among couples who both worked and experienced high rewards from their jobs. A good job, it seems, is good for your sex life.
Will this research lay the chimera to rest once and for all? Don't count on it. The odds are that the beast will grow a batch of new heads, all of them nattering on and on about miserable working women and their miserable families.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 1, 2006 12:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: mullahs
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: mullahs
Posted by: Vincent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Sep 1, 2006 1:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I can't think of what you would talk about with a wife who only did domestic chores and watched TV.
But I do agree they are rubbish at providing support to you or your career. Everyday, the most important thing on their mind is their work. You will never be able to turn to them for any serious help. It is a fact that people only have so much psychic energy to spread around, and with a career woman, it is going 100 per cent on their career.
But then this is where you should cultivate a mistress or two. These will be the women you can turn to for the extra affection. This is an age-old tradition and works very well. Most smart career women are willing to look the other way if this keeps the show on the road and the husband happy and motivated. The French are very good at this.
Life is about making some compromises and adjustments for reality. A mistress on the side, is a small price to pay to get the other benefits of a two-income, career family. I get frustrated with the Christian moralists who keep jamming the old fashioned family model down peoples' throats. It doesn't work in the modern world, where a single income does not buy a comfortable life.
The best attitude is to see that life is an adventure, and that if both are you having adventures, you can share in a second adventure. This is far more rewarding and more fun.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: fork
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Career women are more dumb
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» "artsy" women are more dumb
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: "artsy" women are more dumb
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: DanYHKim
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: stevefoagardner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 1, 2006 2:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Posing the question
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Posing the question
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 1, 2006 3:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal healthcare and progressive taxation are the centerpiece of true-leftist countries such as are found in Western Europe. THe fake-Left here in America is actually a tool of the upper class and prefers to distract political energies away from trueLeft issues and focus instead on Identity Politics.
In order to get the bulk of the population (America is 65% white and the largest segment of voters is the white blue collar male (see 2004 election stats), you need to convince them that Leftism is on their side, too. Universal healthcare and taxing the rich is the way to do that.
Alternet is a very good window into the political issues that are favored by the American FakeLeft. Keep an eye on what issues are focused upon in Alternet articles over time. See how many articles are about race, gender, minorities, white guilt, religion, abortion, vegetarianism, environmentalism. These issues form the bedrock foundation of the Fake Left.
Now see how many articlesa are focused on universal healthcare and progressive taxation. These issues form the bedrock foundation of any true left.
Watch for a few months and then decide.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree: and Naomi Klein is the diva of the Fakeleft
Posted by: Bobsays
» You are both cracpot gonzos looking to propagandize
Posted by: mat38
» RE: The FakeLeft wants to focus political energies on Gender/Race issues instead of universal healthcare
Posted by: MaryQuiteContrary
» Tell us, Cryofan, about the fakeLeft
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» LakeFelt
Posted by: magmaybe
» Rebel Pig, right-on right-on, bitch!
Posted by: spittybanned
» And Yet Another Arrogant White Male Tries to Tell the Rest of Us WHAT Issues Are Important
Posted by: Kym525
» You were so boring you got kicked off Alternet and now you post under another name?!
Posted by: owleyes
» Didn't get kicked off.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Didn't get kicked off.
Posted by: fork
» Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: spittybanned
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!- make that three
Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: pitty
» Fork
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» translation
Posted by: rebel_pig
» RE: Fork
Posted by: fork
» RE: The FakeLeft wants to focus political energies on Gender/Race issues instead of universal healthcare
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» MY, MY, Isn't this division just splendid............
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Sep 1, 2006 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: according to this article
Posted by: lindalee
» RE: according to this article
Posted by: nanobubble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GROW UP !
Posted by: cmaukonen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 1, 2006 8:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are women who want to stay home and be the 'little woman of the house' and if they find happiness there, more power to them. The women I find attractive are those who are educated, informed and engaged in a career that they have chosen. There is something there that isn't present in the home-maker type. Can't describe it--but it is real, it's there and it's good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Sep 1, 2006 8:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it is not a surprise to me that Forbes which, in my mind, represents high powered, ego centric men who want a woman who makes them the center of their lives and is waiting with dinner at 5:00 pm each day, should be the publication which produced this survey - Duh!!!! They should get over it. As for the rest of us, let's just ignore them and these men go somewhere else to cry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The irony of June Cleaver
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: The irony of June Cleaver
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Is it a surprise that this came from Forbes
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Sep 1, 2006 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forbes knew that it would generate both readership (even curious readers who only pick up this magazine to see who the 100 richest people in the world are) and backlash - which it has done.
It's a tired old refrain and frankly, one that even the most chauvanistic of men don't even care about anymore. Let sleeping idiots lie.
And think on this, the guy probably got dumped by a career woman for being such an ass.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: underheart on Sep 1, 2006 9:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can certianly believe that...as long as that sexual satisfaction wasn't limited to "with each other".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I believe it...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: igoeja on Sep 1, 2006 11:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess, the issue of men out-earning women is more likely a problem for a traditional couple, and the problem might be more related to women's independence than any problems caused by income disparities. I'm getting married in the next couple of months - we're both first time married in our mid-forties - and although I earn twice as much as my partner, she is more educated than I, and we met when I was unemployed and making zilch. For myself, and I'm sure I have the material to argue for the improvement in one's quality of life (sexual satisfaction, income, etc) deriving from relationships with career women, a woman with a career seems a boon.
Anyway, the question I would pose, which seems to escape most, is to ask whether the problem is caused by a woman having a career or because it conflicts with traditional society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 1, 2006 11:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So! Everyone who wants to have a good solid relationship should quickly fall off a ladder and try to hurt themselves badly enough to get welfare for the rest of their lives!! Its the ultimate solution for eternal happiness!! Mutual couch-potato-ness!!
Forget work! It gets in the way of your happiness! Choose narcissistic hedonism first!
(and when you both get so friggin bored with your empty pointless lives... don't worry!! Wal mart sells guns!!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The secret to happiness: Welfare!
Posted by: nanobubble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SatanicJamboree on Sep 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya think? As long as there's money in it, we'll see these crass appeals to the hateful, reactionary aspects of our culture.
As the husband of a career woman who makes more money than I, I'm hoping that Forbes being quickly slapped down on this issue is a sign that these tired old reactionary myths are finally wearing out. Though perhaps that's wishful thinking. Popular culture does have a knack for repackaging the same old stinky crap as something fresh and new.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Sep 1, 2006 11:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is impossible to serve two masters. You cannot have both yourselves and the children as a priority. The reason for this is when a choice of whether to stay home with the kids or go to work is at issue someone is going to lose. When families are involved losing should not be an option.
Career couples could be a win win situation depending on how the couples work out the arrangements. However, I dare say there is no such thing as a win win when career couples have children. Unless someone agrees to make raising a family a career choice the family is going to lose.
Don't get mad at me for bringing this up just because you do not want to hear the truth. We are only human and are only capable of doing so much. We have been lead to believe we are more than flesh and blood and can do the impossible. The impossible dream is having two people competing with each other in two different careers and then taking on a third addition career of raising a happy, healthy, well adjusted family. The defining factor that makes this whole idea impossible is time. There is not enough time in a day to give what it takes to make it all work. We are only human.
To make it all happen something has to give. You can count on one thing for sure. Time happens. What you do with it is entirely and absolutely up to you and nobody else.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: fork
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: Kym525
» It's not that I don't want to hear the truth
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MTreich on Sep 1, 2006 12:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So women. If you want wealth workout and look hot then you will get a rich man. It is a much better route.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And if the women aren't hot?
Posted by: rclord
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: justfiregrrl
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: Kym525
» Zero-sum game.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: kit79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nanobubble on Sep 1, 2006 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I might like women who are more interested in careers of education, non-profit or healthcare, but that's my interests, and says nothing of women overall.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaukonen on Sep 1, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conversly there a women who marrie for exactly the same reasons.
A person male or female who is truly OK with themselves and their life does not "Need" to be married. But may get married as an addition to an already full life and would enjoy the company of their mate regardless of what he of she does career wise.
In other words, marriage is an option not a requirement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peter_Oz on Sep 1, 2006 7:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. the USA is full of crap, or all the family neurons are on vacation.
2. it is no secret to the rest of the world that children come first in a family - not the parents careers or incomes.
3. marriage is about compromise - you cannot have two heads of anything be it a corporation, army, or a boy scout troop.
4. men and women are fundamentally different - women reach conclusions based on emotion, men reach conclusions by logic.
5. nations that detroy the family unit are doomed - goodbye America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» as to point number 4
Posted by: sln70
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: Peter_Oz
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: morticia
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: aahb21
» As for point #3
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: As for point #3
Posted by: kablooie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Sep 2, 2006 8:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now you have yet another reason to vote Republican: you'll get financial stability and a great marriage. Thanks corporate overlords!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phenix on Sep 2, 2006 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Sep 2, 2006 2:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say this as a woman myself.
In this day and age, most wealthy or yuppie men, the type our parents have always told us to date and marry, seem to be extreme-right Republicans and/or centrist-to-right Clinton/Kennedyesque Democrats, both who are fascist, pro-elite and support wars in Iraq and Lebanon. For this reason, I think ordinary women are better off steering clear of men like this.
I would far prefer a hard-working, decent man over a spoiled, self-indulgent, tantrum-throwing Donald Trump type any day.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: After reading Michael Noer's "Don't Marry a Career Woman"...
Posted by: medstudgeek
» "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: fork
» I can't wait for some well-off woman to ask!
Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Sep 2, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're not spoiled babies like Forbes men. Gold-diggers are.
Many career women work for a living because they have no other source of income. Forbes men fiind them a turn-off because they're too responsible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Practical reasons why execs need housewives
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 2, 2006 11:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assume the problems and satisfactions of marital intimacy (sexual, yes; emotional, yes; intellectual, yes; sacrificial, yes; playful, yes; understanding, yes; etc.) are unmentioned, because most do not even know they exist.
And they certainly are not something that is testable by others. "What is your partner's deepest desire?" "What is your partner's worst fear?" "What is it that you and your partner cannot talk about?" Those might only be measured by whether someone is able to offer a response. Since the quality of a relationship is not measurable (that is, the quality is not a quantity), then Forbes will have nothing to write about.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kablooie on Sep 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Sep 3, 2006 4:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we so disturbed about an article which is disparaging a tentacle of the heteronormative fascist patriarchy? After all, patriarchy forces hapless women, who never have a choice, into lifetimes of servitude in a "comfortable concentration camp". Right? Right? Marriage is to womyn what Nazism is to Jews, right? "Who needs a man?", right? Fish and bicycles, right? "Men: Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em", right?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: may261989 on Sep 3, 2006 6:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While a working women and man may have a crises at home surely that has to do with both of them being controlling selfish arseholes . This is not the domain of men only ( Geez, I've had some real pyscho female bosses ) but men still rule when it comes to demeaning women and looking for any pissant excuse to take the blame off themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ight Wingers hate women
Posted by: kit79
» Psst - tell your friends . . .
Posted by: FauxPorteno
» "...a serious Rex complex..."? Huh? Elaborate please.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit79 on Sep 3, 2006 7:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are men who marry to have someone "take care of them" and there are women who marry to be "provided for" I cannot stand either type, as both show me nothing but glaring immaturity.
But this is one of the problems with marriage, as I see it. These icky roles. It's just absurd that anyone should expect a woman's life should revolve around her spouse, that she should dedicate herself to looking after him, cooking for him, cleaning for him like some warped maid/wet nurse/mommy combo. We weren't put on this earth to make life better (or worse) for *men* (or vice versa). We have our own lives and interests too. We aren't servants. And who cares who makes more money than whom in a couple? There is no reason on earth to care other than reasons of ego, unless there's job-place discrimination involved, which is a different matter. The whole heteronormative traditional arrangement just creeps me out.
Anyway, this article is pretty insulting toward males. I'm not sure I'd want to be portrayed as still needing my mommy to look after me and "monitor" me like a kid with a fever at an adult age, and one I don't want intereacting with any males but *me*. I want all the attention! WAH! All this article has done is reinforce negative stereotypes of men. Good job.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Can't tell the woman from the man." -- Bob Marley
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: raven1984 on Sep 5, 2006 7:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vincent on Sep 15, 2006 9:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 1, 2006 12:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: mullahs
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: mullahs
Posted by: Vincent
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Sep 1, 2006 1:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I can't think of what you would talk about with a wife who only did domestic chores and watched TV.
But I do agree they are rubbish at providing support to you or your career. Everyday, the most important thing on their mind is their work. You will never be able to turn to them for any serious help. It is a fact that people only have so much psychic energy to spread around, and with a career woman, it is going 100 per cent on their career.
But then this is where you should cultivate a mistress or two. These will be the women you can turn to for the extra affection. This is an age-old tradition and works very well. Most smart career women are willing to look the other way if this keeps the show on the road and the husband happy and motivated. The French are very good at this.
Life is about making some compromises and adjustments for reality. A mistress on the side, is a small price to pay to get the other benefits of a two-income, career family. I get frustrated with the Christian moralists who keep jamming the old fashioned family model down peoples' throats. It doesn't work in the modern world, where a single income does not buy a comfortable life.
The best attitude is to see that life is an adventure, and that if both are you having adventures, you can share in a second adventure. This is far more rewarding and more fun.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: fork
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Career women are more dumb
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» "artsy" women are more dumb
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: "artsy" women are more dumb
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: DanYHKim
» RE: Career women are more interesting
Posted by: stevefoagardner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 1, 2006 2:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Posing the question
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Posing the question
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 1, 2006 3:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal healthcare and progressive taxation are the centerpiece of true-leftist countries such as are found in Western Europe. THe fake-Left here in America is actually a tool of the upper class and prefers to distract political energies away from trueLeft issues and focus instead on Identity Politics.
In order to get the bulk of the population (America is 65% white and the largest segment of voters is the white blue collar male (see 2004 election stats), you need to convince them that Leftism is on their side, too. Universal healthcare and taxing the rich is the way to do that.
Alternet is a very good window into the political issues that are favored by the American FakeLeft. Keep an eye on what issues are focused upon in Alternet articles over time. See how many articles are about race, gender, minorities, white guilt, religion, abortion, vegetarianism, environmentalism. These issues form the bedrock foundation of the Fake Left.
Now see how many articlesa are focused on universal healthcare and progressive taxation. These issues form the bedrock foundation of any true left.
Watch for a few months and then decide.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree: and Naomi Klein is the diva of the Fakeleft
Posted by: Bobsays
» You are both cracpot gonzos looking to propagandize
Posted by: mat38
» RE: The FakeLeft wants to focus political energies on Gender/Race issues instead of universal healthcare
Posted by: MaryQuiteContrary
» Tell us, Cryofan, about the fakeLeft
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» LakeFelt
Posted by: magmaybe
» Rebel Pig, right-on right-on, bitch!
Posted by: spittybanned
» And Yet Another Arrogant White Male Tries to Tell the Rest of Us WHAT Issues Are Important
Posted by: Kym525
» You were so boring you got kicked off Alternet and now you post under another name?!
Posted by: owleyes
» Didn't get kicked off.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Doesn't make him any harder to spot, though.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Didn't get kicked off.
Posted by: fork
» Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: spittybanned
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!- make that three
Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: Yep Alternet does ban. I was banned!
Posted by: pitty
» Fork
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» translation
Posted by: rebel_pig
» RE: Fork
Posted by: fork
» RE: The FakeLeft wants to focus political energies on Gender/Race issues instead of universal healthcare
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» MY, MY, Isn't this division just splendid............
Posted by: psychochurch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Sep 1, 2006 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: according to this article
Posted by: lindalee
» RE: according to this article
Posted by: nanobubble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GROW UP !
Posted by: cmaukonen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 1, 2006 8:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are women who want to stay home and be the 'little woman of the house' and if they find happiness there, more power to them. The women I find attractive are those who are educated, informed and engaged in a career that they have chosen. There is something there that isn't present in the home-maker type. Can't describe it--but it is real, it's there and it's good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Sep 1, 2006 8:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it is not a surprise to me that Forbes which, in my mind, represents high powered, ego centric men who want a woman who makes them the center of their lives and is waiting with dinner at 5:00 pm each day, should be the publication which produced this survey - Duh!!!! They should get over it. As for the rest of us, let's just ignore them and these men go somewhere else to cry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The irony of June Cleaver
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: The irony of June Cleaver
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Is it a surprise that this came from Forbes
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Sep 1, 2006 8:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forbes knew that it would generate both readership (even curious readers who only pick up this magazine to see who the 100 richest people in the world are) and backlash - which it has done.
It's a tired old refrain and frankly, one that even the most chauvanistic of men don't even care about anymore. Let sleeping idiots lie.
And think on this, the guy probably got dumped by a career woman for being such an ass.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: underheart on Sep 1, 2006 9:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can certianly believe that...as long as that sexual satisfaction wasn't limited to "with each other".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I believe it...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: igoeja on Sep 1, 2006 11:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess, the issue of men out-earning women is more likely a problem for a traditional couple, and the problem might be more related to women's independence than any problems caused by income disparities. I'm getting married in the next couple of months - we're both first time married in our mid-forties - and although I earn twice as much as my partner, she is more educated than I, and we met when I was unemployed and making zilch. For myself, and I'm sure I have the material to argue for the improvement in one's quality of life (sexual satisfaction, income, etc) deriving from relationships with career women, a woman with a career seems a boon.
Anyway, the question I would pose, which seems to escape most, is to ask whether the problem is caused by a woman having a career or because it conflicts with traditional society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 1, 2006 11:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So! Everyone who wants to have a good solid relationship should quickly fall off a ladder and try to hurt themselves badly enough to get welfare for the rest of their lives!! Its the ultimate solution for eternal happiness!! Mutual couch-potato-ness!!
Forget work! It gets in the way of your happiness! Choose narcissistic hedonism first!
(and when you both get so friggin bored with your empty pointless lives... don't worry!! Wal mart sells guns!!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The secret to happiness: Welfare!
Posted by: nanobubble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SatanicJamboree on Sep 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya think? As long as there's money in it, we'll see these crass appeals to the hateful, reactionary aspects of our culture.
As the husband of a career woman who makes more money than I, I'm hoping that Forbes being quickly slapped down on this issue is a sign that these tired old reactionary myths are finally wearing out. Though perhaps that's wishful thinking. Popular culture does have a knack for repackaging the same old stinky crap as something fresh and new.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mom'z the word on Sep 1, 2006 11:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is impossible to serve two masters. You cannot have both yourselves and the children as a priority. The reason for this is when a choice of whether to stay home with the kids or go to work is at issue someone is going to lose. When families are involved losing should not be an option.
Career couples could be a win win situation depending on how the couples work out the arrangements. However, I dare say there is no such thing as a win win when career couples have children. Unless someone agrees to make raising a family a career choice the family is going to lose.
Don't get mad at me for bringing this up just because you do not want to hear the truth. We are only human and are only capable of doing so much. We have been lead to believe we are more than flesh and blood and can do the impossible. The impossible dream is having two people competing with each other in two different careers and then taking on a third addition career of raising a happy, healthy, well adjusted family. The defining factor that makes this whole idea impossible is time. There is not enough time in a day to give what it takes to make it all work. We are only human.
To make it all happen something has to give. You can count on one thing for sure. Time happens. What you do with it is entirely and absolutely up to you and nobody else.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: fork
» RE: ...miserable families?
Posted by: Kym525
» It's not that I don't want to hear the truth
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MTreich on Sep 1, 2006 12:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So women. If you want wealth workout and look hot then you will get a rich man. It is a much better route.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And if the women aren't hot?
Posted by: rclord
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: justfiregrrl
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: MTreich
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: Kym525
» Zero-sum game.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Work 8+ hrs. a day or workout 3 and diet? Get it right ladies.
Posted by: kit79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nanobubble on Sep 1, 2006 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I might like women who are more interested in careers of education, non-profit or healthcare, but that's my interests, and says nothing of women overall.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaukonen on Sep 1, 2006 3:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conversly there a women who marrie for exactly the same reasons.
A person male or female who is truly OK with themselves and their life does not "Need" to be married. But may get married as an addition to an already full life and would enjoy the company of their mate regardless of what he of she does career wise.
In other words, marriage is an option not a requirement.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peter_Oz on Sep 1, 2006 7:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. the USA is full of crap, or all the family neurons are on vacation.
2. it is no secret to the rest of the world that children come first in a family - not the parents careers or incomes.
3. marriage is about compromise - you cannot have two heads of anything be it a corporation, army, or a boy scout troop.
4. men and women are fundamentally different - women reach conclusions based on emotion, men reach conclusions by logic.
5. nations that detroy the family unit are doomed - goodbye America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» as to point number 4
Posted by: sln70
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: Peter_Oz
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: morticia
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: A View from Outside
Posted by: aahb21
» As for point #3
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: As for point #3
Posted by: kablooie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Sep 2, 2006 8:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now you have yet another reason to vote Republican: you'll get financial stability and a great marriage. Thanks corporate overlords!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phenix on Sep 2, 2006 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Sep 2, 2006 2:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say this as a woman myself.
In this day and age, most wealthy or yuppie men, the type our parents have always told us to date and marry, seem to be extreme-right Republicans and/or centrist-to-right Clinton/Kennedyesque Democrats, both who are fascist, pro-elite and support wars in Iraq and Lebanon. For this reason, I think ordinary women are better off steering clear of men like this.
I would far prefer a hard-working, decent man over a spoiled, self-indulgent, tantrum-throwing Donald Trump type any day.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: After reading Michael Noer's "Don't Marry a Career Woman"...
Posted by: medstudgeek
» "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: "...women LOVE these macho pigs...why?"
Posted by: fork
» I can't wait for some well-off woman to ask!
Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Sep 2, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're not spoiled babies like Forbes men. Gold-diggers are.
Many career women work for a living because they have no other source of income. Forbes men fiind them a turn-off because they're too responsible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Practical reasons why execs need housewives
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 2, 2006 11:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assume the problems and satisfactions of marital intimacy (sexual, yes; emotional, yes; intellectual, yes; sacrificial, yes; playful, yes; understanding, yes; etc.) are unmentioned, because most do not even know they exist.
And they certainly are not something that is testable by others. "What is your partner's deepest desire?" "What is your partner's worst fear?" "What is it that you and your partner cannot talk about?" Those might only be measured by whether someone is able to offer a response. Since the quality of a relationship is not measurable (that is, the quality is not a quantity), then Forbes will have nothing to write about.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kablooie on Sep 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Sep 3, 2006 4:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we so disturbed about an article which is disparaging a tentacle of the heteronormative fascist patriarchy? After all, patriarchy forces hapless women, who never have a choice, into lifetimes of servitude in a "comfortable concentration camp". Right? Right? Marriage is to womyn what Nazism is to Jews, right? "Who needs a man?", right? Fish and bicycles, right? "Men: Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em", right?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: may261989 on Sep 3, 2006 6:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While a working women and man may have a crises at home surely that has to do with both of them being controlling selfish arseholes . This is not the domain of men only ( Geez, I've had some real pyscho female bosses ) but men still rule when it comes to demeaning women and looking for any pissant excuse to take the blame off themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ight Wingers hate women
Posted by: kit79
» Psst - tell your friends . . .
Posted by: FauxPorteno
» "...a serious Rex complex..."? Huh? Elaborate please.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit79 on Sep 3, 2006 7:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are men who marry to have someone "take care of them" and there are women who marry to be "provided for" I cannot stand either type, as both show me nothing but glaring immaturity.
But this is one of the problems with marriage, as I see it. These icky roles. It's just absurd that anyone should expect a woman's life should revolve around her spouse, that she should dedicate herself to looking after him, cooking for him, cleaning for him like some warped maid/wet nurse/mommy combo. We weren't put on this earth to make life better (or worse) for *men* (or vice versa). We have our own lives and interests too. We aren't servants. And who cares who makes more money than whom in a couple? There is no reason on earth to care other than reasons of ego, unless there's job-place discrimination involved, which is a different matter. The whole heteronormative traditional arrangement just creeps me out.
Anyway, this article is pretty insulting toward males. I'm not sure I'd want to be portrayed as still needing my mommy to look after me and "monitor" me like a kid with a fever at an adult age, and one I don't want intereacting with any males but *me*. I want all the attention! WAH! All this article has done is reinforce negative stereotypes of men. Good job.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Can't tell the woman from the man." -- Bob Marley
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: raven1984 on Sep 5, 2006 7:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vincent on Sep 15, 2006 9:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
When Will Obama Stop Trying to Work with Republicans?




