Forbes Fudges It Up

There have been enough angry and clever responses to the distasteful Forbes article on the evils of marrying career women, responses I can’t even begin to compete with.

I think Shakespeare’s Sister may have put it best when she wrote: “Were this article more honest, it might be titled instead “Don’t Marry a Career Woman if You’re a Lazy, Sexist Shithead Who Doesn’t Want to Lift a Finger to Help Around the House.” Although Discombobulation Station will not be outdone.

A poster who goes buy the name Henry Holland had some interesting things to say about a specific aspect of the article – the idea that men’s work hours have no statistical effect on divorce. Anecdotal evidence aside, I believe that Forbes journalist Michael Noer, who started another exciting article (read: foray into mindless sexism) with the words “Wife or whore?”, really ought to examine the social mores that make it acceptable for men to push themselves in the workplace, while women are often called “selfish” and so on when they work longer hours. He might just get to the bottom of this divorce conundrum.

This is all BESIDE the fact that, as Jill at Feministe has pointed out, some of the statistics being brought forth in Noer’s article are actually gender-neutral. Noer just uses them to attack women, assuming that men are simply entitled to, for example, extra-marital sex if they are highly educated (the latest statistic being that higher education and cheating are somehow correlated). Slate has used the supposed gender-neutrality to stick up for Forbes, but Jill ain’t buying it, and neither am I. The statistics might be neutral, but the language isn’t.

Hm. Now I have to wonder why Slate rejected my piece about trying to obtain emergency contraception in Charlotte. Perhaps Jack Shafer was behind that decision. Har har.

Personally, I think Americans just work too much in general. I think it sucks that all of us, men and women included, have some of the smallest vacations as compared to the rest of the industrialized world. But we are all jumping through hoops here, myself included, and being called “bad marriage material” by a supposedly leading magazine leaves a bad taste in my mouth… No, not for that reason. Pervert.

P.S. From the couch, Khaled is telling me that the statistics used in the article should be created using econometric regressions. You can run them with whatever component you want, and without peer review, they are basically worthless. Polls alone don’t tell you anything, and real causation can’t be established at the drop of a hat. I’d like to look at just what kind of research Noer was looking for. Of course, the article is no longer available at Forbes.com, so GAWD knows what’s actually going on.

5 thoughts on “Forbes Fudges It Up

  1. Hi Natalia,

    You probably saw the comment I left on the Muslim Hedonist’s blog about giving her as a link for Blog Day and I wanted to check it would be OK if I linked to you as well. I would have asked earlier but I wondered if it might be cheating to link you, since I only found your blog via MH’s… then I thought, no, Rachel, you are being ridiculous and taking this far too seriously. In any case, I’d like to say I really enjoy your writing.

    Cheers,
    Rachel

  2. Another gem from http://dannysmensstudies.blogspot.com/

    He seems to think about his own “empowerment” alot…translation: he lives with his parents and his wife wears the pants in the famliy. I also love how he believes in power for men by taking it from women.

    “Empowered over Man’s Rules
    I was just reading:

    “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27b-28

    What Jesus offers us is freedom from petty Rules of Men [be it religious legalism or political correctness or any other set of rules]. Under God’s Laws we are not only freer [as compared to being under Rules of Men] but we are empowered to be men: to lead, guide and explore.

    Of course we can temporarily choose to be under a set of rules [like a game of poker or football or chess], but they are only for a limited time. The rules of the land is similar but more lasting since we choose to live in a specific location [country, state, city] and even more so if we buy property in that location [and it would be worse if you choose to be enslaved by debt: i.e., mortgage].

    How does all this affect my daily life? Hmm. But I am [still] working on my declaration of empowerment.”

  3. “It makes no sense for them to go follow whatever stupid crap pops up into their heads. They could be devoting more time preparing themselves for motherhood.”

    This was posted on Vox Popoli. Now I ask you…why then are men out there pursuing careers and hobbies? Shouldn’t they just fully commit themselves to fatherhood from the time their voice first cracks?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s