FORBES IRONY AND LINK ROUND-UP

I have big plans to spend this evening making googly eyes at the lovely man to whom I am married.  We make googly eyes at each other quite often, but tonight they are going to be extra-special googly eyes because today is our ninth anniversary.  Thus, it is ironic that after being distracted for a couple of days, I learned today of an article published recently in Forbes Magazine (moved from its original location but archived here) that starts off as follows:

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Apparently we career women ruin our husband's lives by having dirty houses and making too much money.  To which I (with earnings significantly in excess of my husband's) reply: NINE YEARS, SUCKAS!

Of course, my husband and I are just one couple.  The real problem with the article is that it puts all the blame for unhappiness that does exist among career couples on the WOMAN'S career.  Apparently, the author assumes that the wife has responsibility for keeping the house clean, doing all the childcare, making sure her husband stays healthy, bolstering his fragile ego by keeping her earnings lower than his, and nurturing his little emotions.  What the husband is supposed to be doing and what his responsibility is for any marital unhappiness is left utterly unaddressed.  This is an extremely anti-woman piece.  While I shouldn't be shocked at the misogyny and contempt for women that routinely pops up in mainstream publications, I have to say this takes the cake.  The fact that Forbes -- FORBES! -- would publish this claptrap should say something about how entrenched limiting assumptions about women and men really are. 

And as Jill at Feministe points out (see link round up below), this article is pretty insulting to the men too.  For example, the article reads:

You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).

Translation:  You are an insecure baby who needs a mommy to bolster your ego, nurture your health, and clean up after you because you're incapable of doing anything for yourself.  (Sheesh -- and I thought it was the feminists who were supposed to be emasculating.)

Of course, even if the solution to all these ostensible problems is for the woman to give up her independence, the article neglects to consider the COST to the woman.  Quite simply, if the price of a happy marriage  is to sacrifice my individuality and hopes and dreams and autonomy (which I don't believe for a moment by the way), then it's NOT WORTH IT.  Maybe instead of me giving up my entire life on the altar of marriage, maybe, just maybe, the husbands can pitch in to make a two-career marriage work.  I know that's asking a lot of a husband to want to help support his spouse's vision for herself, but, unlike the Forbes article author (Michael Noer), I have faith that men (and not just my husband) can be as supportive and giving and loving and strong enough not to be threatened by a high-powered wife. 

Here is a round-up of links on the subject:

-- After arousing the ire of the feminist blogosphere, Forbes moved the original article and put up a counterpoint article called "Don't Marry a Lazy Man," by career woman/Forbes editor Elizabeth Corcoran.  You can read the article and counterpoint here.

-- Jill fisks the original article.  She also takes down Jack Shafer's stupid defense of the Forbes piece.  Shafer's defense is that the problems cited in the article can be attributed to career men as much as career women. Career men have extra marital affairs as much as career women he crows, thus missing the point.  The point being that the Forbes ARTICLE argues that career WOMEN are the problem -- which makes no sense since it takes a career MAN and a career WOMAN to make a two-career marriage.  Amanda weighs in here and here, summing up the anti-career woman points in the original article as follows:

#1, #2, #3 are predicated on the notion that it’s fine for men to have alternatives to marriage that women don’t have. #4 and #5 are based on the idea that kids are men’s property but women’s work. #6 is based on the idea that women owe men their unpaid labor. #7 and #8 are based on the idea that women owe men support and loyalty, but men are entitled to actively withhold support and resent women for having a life outside of servitude to them. #9 is based on the idea that men’s very health is women’s responsibility.

But oh no, the article isn't sexist or anti-woman at all. 

-- Finally, for a conservative view, see Crystal's post and ensuing discussion. 

Comments

[Moi]

What kills me about the article and the website/magazine that published it is that 35% of their readership is women (see my blog for a post re: this issue and the relevant links–Sidebar–for the other half– http://sidebar.blogspot.com ). This article serves to alienate 35% of the readership–most likely the exact sort of women disparaged in the article. For a webiste/magazine that pegs itself as a resource for business men (and presumably, women) that’s a pretty sorry-ass business plan.

[will]

Congratulations on your 9th! That is a great accomplishment.

I hope you have a great evening.

[Scott Lemieux]

Congratulations! Many more mutliples of nine to come, I'm sure. :)

[Joel Monka]

Happy, you and your husband are NOT "just one couple". I'm a 51 year old conservative man who has been married twice. In my first marriage I was the breadwinner, and in my second- nine years, and going just fine, thank you!- my wife earns just under triple what I do. In neither case was money an issue. In both cases we both worked around the house. Is my house dirtier than many? Yes- because there are times when we should have been cleaning, and I said something like, "Hey- why don't we drop this stuff, get dressed, and go to IU to see 'The Merry Widow'?" I just don't understand what kind of egos some people must have- love is too precious to squander it on "sexual bargaining" or male power trips, and our few hours of life are too precious to waste chasing a "Good Housekeeping" lifestyle. Sure, we COULD have the house ready for Martha Stewart to inspect every evening before we go to bed... but I'd rather let the dishes and the vacuuming pile up now and then and LIVE. I didn't marry to gain a maid- when I lived alone, I kept a very well kempt apartment, and ironed my own shirts. I married because I found a woman of infinite fascination, who delights me more today than the day we met- and I think anyone who marries for any other reason is just taking their chances, regardless of income differential.

[Sydney]

Happy, Look at this as a positive for women. Career women divorce more often because they can't stand having to take care of a man who can't take care of himself. And now that women can afford to leave their husbands (because of their careers), some of them choose to do so. Obviously not all men are like this, but personally, I don't really see what the big deal is.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Happy Anniversary Happy! That's wonderful. I'll have to direct my hubby to the Forbes article just to see how hard he laughs. He, not only has no problem with my career, he's my biggest fan. And Joel, I couldn't agree with you more. There are many more important things to do than cleaning house! And making googly eyes at each other is at the top of the list. Of course, I'll be married three months on Saturday, so I'm still in that sappy, googly eye newlywed stage. And I'm enjoying every minute of it!

[mythago]

The real "nice try, loser" moment is when the author makes a catty comment about female readers 'breaking a nail' sending off angry e-mails to him. But no, no sexism here!

[tami]

remember- woman was created to be man's help meet, not the other way around. while a house doesn't have to be perfect it should be cleaned and picked up. fast food meals are not healthy and children shouldn't grow up with others taking care of them. working women "suffer" all these things and more becuz they work outside the home.

[anni hunter]

What amazes me is that men like Noer apparently believe marriage exists solely for their benefit.

I'd like to ask him what else men bring to the marital table...besides a paycheck?

Then I would ask Noer why marriage to a self-entitled, distainful, lazy, immature incompetent, intellectually, emotionally and sexually insecure whiner is good for any woman?

[Starfoxy]

"Remember- woman was created to be man's help meet, not the other way around."
I'm not meaning this to be snarky, I'm really honestly curious what your answer is. What is it that God wants men to be doing that they need women to help them? Why aren't women supposed to be doing the same thing?

[tami]

starfoxy-glad ya asked! women are to help men become the men God intends for them to be. men and women have very different roles- equal but different. no one can deny, for example, that women are the ones who have babies so if God wants a couple to be parents the man will need help. lol seriously,she is to encourage and support her mate. she is to be the nurturing part of the couple ( not that dads aren't loving) . a woman thinks more with her heart and a man thinks more with his head. this isn't a bad thing! it enables couples to make the best decisions becuz they see things in all possible manner when they work together. women are not to be doormats or keep silent.! they have opinions and they should be listened to. women are to be doing the same thing! marriage is a partnership- not a dictatorship! we are to work together to be who Christ wants us to be.

[annamal]

So apparently Christ wants my boyfriend to work fulltime (which makes him miserable), me to stay home and keep the house clean (which makes me miserable) and for us both to get married and have children (presumably so that we can make *them* miserable).

Christ does not seem to be a very nice person.

[Catherine]

I'm always saddened when I read comments like the ones on Crystal's website, about how women who work outside the home could not possibly make good wives for their husbands - at least not as good as a SAHM would be. I think it shows such a narrow take on an institution as diverse and varied as marriage. Yes, all marriages should have certain fundamental qualities - love, respect, appreciation, support, and sacrifice, etc. - but those qualities can exist in many different circumstances, depending on the people involved. My parents' marriage has only improved since my mother went to work oustide the home (while all her children were still of school-age). My father respects her more; she respects herself more. This might not be the case for other people, to be sure - maybe if my father had felt very strongly about my mother staying at home, her career would have doomed their marriage. But he is a fair and flexible person, and he is inordinately proud of her work - and everyone I know would say that my mother is a faithful and loving wife. So many of the men I know WANT their future wives to have careers of their own - that is what works for them. (I am a Christian, too, and fairly conservative in a lot of respects - but I emphatically do not believe that a family must look one certain way in order to be considered godly, or that a woman must stay at home in order to be covenanted and sanctified).

[tami]

annamal if you and your boyfriend are so miserable then maybe you need to look elsewhere for your fulfillment. may i suggest Christ? besides- embracing your God-given roles doesn't make you miserable- it's makes you fulfilled. have boyfriend try a new job ( or is it really laziness? ) and no one said you had to LOVE cleaning toilets. believe me - it's not my favorite to do list item.your life shuldn't be defined by those things but rather by your relationship with GOD.

[anni hunter]

Uh Yeah...

Respectfully Tami...I do my thinking with my very adequate brain.

And just so I'm clear...you are not suggesting that women should subvert their own talents, interests and skills, and instead direct all their energies to supporting hubby's needs, wants and interests...are you?

[mythago]

"tami", if you're mad that your mom or girlfriend won't pick up your room, that's one thing, but why bring it here?

I'd like to ask him what else men bring to the marital table...besides a paycheck?

That's the part these idiots never get, isn't it? They want no responsibility for anything but making money, and then they wail about how women don't "need" them.

[annamal]

Actually we're incredibly happy with the way things are. All I said was that so-called traditional roles (which have been traditional for all of a few hundred years) don't work for us.

My boyfriend works part time (and writes his Masters thesis)and keeps the house hyper clean. I have more earning power and I really hate cleaning (and am somewhat of a slob).

I am beginning to believe that you are something of a troll.

[anni hunter]

Exactly Myth...

Men like Noer look at marriage for what they can take, not for what they could give.

Why would any woman marry such a man?

[Emily]

I really want to comment something insightful, but that Forbes article left me dumbfounded with rage, so I'm speechless. And I went in and read Crystal's post about it and that made me even more frustrated. And the comment here in this thread about women thinking not with their brain but with their heart? Puh-leze.

Gah... Ok, I'm trying to remain calm and be civil, but seriously, guh? Is it really so much to ask that when two people in a relationship have careers, then both should divide the housework accordingly? There are many, many couples who do this and love each other and live just fine (btw, congrats on your anniversary Happy!).

I'm just grateful that not all men are as closeminded as the author of that article. I for one am in a great relationship with a wonderful man who understands that we each had chosen our careers before we chose each other, so we both understand the ups and downs of our work (we're in the same field), and together we've learned to balance and prioritize. Key word: together.

Sorry for the incoherent rambling, but I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the article and reactions such as the one in Crystal's blog (which is why I didn't comment there -- I would get too agitated).

[Twilight Troll]

I find the defensive, yet emotional responses quite interesting. In Noer's defense, he's just reciprocating facts reported by several studies. Probably just to poke fun at the mainstream and to see what type of reaction he would get--who knows. At any rate, I haven't heard anyone here point out the logical consequences of having one person stay home. Most of your responses are defending pride not facts.

Children, especially kids five and under benefit the most if one person stays at home assuming that the parent is of solid character. First, the children get the LOVE of that parent and one-on-one attention for most of the day. Second, educating one or three children at home is far better than educating 15 to 20 kids at day care. Thus, the children learn faster. Last but not least, kids don't learn bad behavior from other kids if they're at home (And society questions why kids are growing up so fast--sex, drugs, rude behavior).

For those against one person staying at home, you have to admit that the studies presented in the Forbes article can't be way off base if you think about it. If the person staying at home gets the bills paid, house cleaned, errands run, and kids off to school (if kids exist), there is more time available in the evening for what? Answer: Relationships! The value of having quality relationships within a nuclear family cannot be argued against.

Finally, if someone were to choose between who stays home, the male or female, who would be the logical choice? Questions to ask: Who is more nurturing, Mom or Dad? Who has the baby and can't work for a few months after or during pregnancy to earn an income, Mom or Dad?

annamal: As far as Christ is concerned, he must be a nice God since he gave his life for us.

Christ is about relationships and love. With a strong nuclear family there's security, relationships, and love. Answer me this: Why, in this day and age with our "progressive" culture, do we have so many divided families? It's because there's no time for relationships because of too much work!

[Starfoxy]

"women are to help men become the men God intends for them to be."
Tami, what exactly is it that God intends for men to be, that it requires so much help from women? Also, couldn't one say that this should be reciprocal, that is that women are to become what God intends for *them* to be, and that men should be helping their wives to do so? I've never read anything that indicates that this isn't the practice, but while there is a preponderance of discourse admonishing women to always support their husbands, there is no discourse admonishing men to do support their wives in ways other than a paycheck.
I'll agree with you that men and women have separate roles, strengths, and weaknesses. However there is clear difference between a duet, and a soloist with an accompaniment. The 'women should always support their husbands' type of marriage sounds more like the soloist than the duet to me.

[anni hunter]

Actually, my husband and I share a great many strengths, and we are both capable of stepping into whatever role the family requires of us at any given moment, from breadwinner to nurturer.

Just a reminder...

[mythago]

At any rate, I haven't heard anyone here point out the logical consequences of having one person stay home.

Probably because many of us here are moms, and therefore find it pretty funny when trolls, Forbes writers and other people who've probably never changed a diaper start prattling about what the One True Family ought to look like.

[drumgurl]

I worked up until the time I went into labor, and then only took 6 weeks off for maternity leave. I wanted to go back to work sooner, but I couldn't get my doctor to write a release. Oh well. That was from a teen pregnancy, and I really can't talk about how that happened on the internet (although I'm sure the strict traditionalists don't care and will just refer to me as "slut" from here on out.... I can handle the criticism).

My fiance and I have talked about having a child, and we've decided that he would be a better fit to stay home. He is more nurturing and patient with children, and he is not quite as ambitious as I at work (although he is not lazy and makes good money). I think logic is a great way to determine who should stay home. It is a much better determinant than gender alone. Remember, God made people unique as individuals. Not all women are nurturing by nature.

[drumgurl]

I just re-read the twilight comment... who is against one person staying home? I can't find that anywhere on this blog.