FORBES WRITER MICHAEL NOER DRIVEN BY INSECURITY AND FEAR

More on the Forbes article arguing that women with careers (as opposed to men with careers) are bad for marriage: In the comments thread of my last post, Twilight Troll says (in part):

I find the defensive, yet emotional responses quite interesting. In Noer's defense, he's just reciprocating facts reported by several studies.

By referring to "emotional responses," Twilight Troll is of course using a time-honored means of dismissing women's concerns.  Of course, this time-honored method is a logical fallacy. A person's emotionalism does not invalidate her point.  You know, there is such a thing as righteous indignation. 

And Noer was not simply reiterating facts.  "Don't marry a career woman" is not a fact.  The assumption that women should bear primary responsibility for protecting their husbands from dirt and germs is not a fact.  Nor is the assumption that it is okay for men, but not for women, to have the opportunity to cheat.  And these are just a couple of examples from the article.

But my real point in bringing up Twilight Troll's comment is its irony.  Because the real emotionalism is to be found in Noer's unthinking double standards.  Zuzu hits the nail exactly on the head when she notes that Noer's conclusions are a product of fear and insecurity:

Noer’s Forbes article reeks of [fear]. All of his “advice” about marrying career women is at heart a manifestation of his fear, and the fear of men like him: that unless he keeps her in a cage, no woman will stay with him. My God, if she finds out there’s a world outside the house, there will be no keeping her at my side! If she has a job, she has contact with other men, and she might cuckold me. If she has money, she has the means to leave me. If she’s invested in her career, she might refuse to get tied down with children, and she’ll not only leave me, she’ll leave me without giving me ownership of her womb. If she works as many hours as I do, she might expect me to do my share around the house.

Now, there are several levels of fear represented here. First, there’s the insecurity that a woman with her own interests might grow tired of him. There’s the fear of losing privilege — after all, if a guy’s been raised to think that his wife should be his maid and his mommy, and she refuses to play along, that might mean he might have to consider picking up some of the slack instead of having things done for him. There’s the fear of her finding someone else — someone better. There’s the fear she might outearn him, or succeed where he has stalled out, and that’s not supposed to happen . . .

. . .

But Noer — and the editorial staff of Forbes — are well aware that even though Noer and his ilk are afraid, playing to their own fears won’t get them very far. They need to play on the fears of women as well — don’t get too into that career, gals, you’ll never find a husband — the right kind of husband — that way. And we all know that you’ll be miserable if you stay single, even if you claim to be happy. You need a husband and babies to be a complete woman. They’re joined in this effort by the likes of Caitlin Flanagan, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, David Brooks and whoever the hell it is at the New York Times and the Washington Post who keep assigning these kinds of articles to reporters — not to mention Newsweek and its infamous “You have a greater chance of being killed by a terrorist than finding a husband after 35″ article.

Read Zuzu's whole point.  She ties a lot of threads together.

Also see Rebecca Traister's piece on the Forbes article. She quotes Gloria Steinem who finds the article so ridiculous that she is not even indignant:

“I’m deeply grateful to Forbes Magazine for saving many women the trouble of dealing with men who can’t tolerate equal partnerships, take care of their own health, clean up after themselves or have the sexual confidence to survive, other than a double standard of sexual behavior,” wrote Gloria Steinem in an e-mail. “Since a disproportionate number of such unconfident and boring guys apparently read Forbes, the magazine has performed a real service.”….

 

Comments

[Zan]

Maybe there is a little fear in that article. Men don't want to be failures in there careers or their families. If finding out that staying away from career women will help them succeed in the family area, that is great for them. I would be afraid of marrying someone who is more likely to divorce me, as well.

Womanizers are probably more likely to divorce women, so I stayed far away from those type of guys when I was looking for a husband.

[Starfoxy]

"I would be afraid of marrying someone who is more likely to divorce me, as well."

In response, I would be afraid of being married to someone so dependent on me for meeting their physical needs that I could never be sure if they stayed because they love me or because they just have no other options.

[Jen]

Question: Isn't marriage also about trust? And if you don't trust your woman to stay with you as soon as she steps out of the house cause she's having a job - then couldn't it be that your marriage isn't as good as you might think?
I mean... if you are married to a woman who you fully trust (and I personally think this should be the case in a marriage), why should you stop trusting her only because she might get to know some other men?
No wife wants her husband to stay at home only because he might get to know other women at his job.
If you are a man who is afraid of taking his part of housework, his part of raising the children and so on - then it might be a good idea to stay away from "career girls".
If you are a man who actually is able to do some housework/children raising/... and willing to partly do that (and it is not like it's impossible - many woman are able to do both, too - it's not like men are the "weaker sex" and can't do both (career AND family life)) - then there is no reason why you should not marry a "career girl".
by the way - "career girl", what word is that anyway? i have never heard speaking of a "career boy"...

[mythago]

Zan, not following your analogy between 'self-supporting' and 'womanizing'. Of course nobody wants to marry somebody who is selfish, dishonest and can't be faithful (the womanizer). That's quite different from assuming that a good way to reduce your odds of divorce is to pick somebody who will be financially dependent on you.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Happy, I would like to correct something I read in the last thread. There was no comment post at the bottom, so I assumed that the thread was long enough. I have a B. A. in Religion and an M. A. in Theological Studies, and a great deal of those degrees are in Greek and Hebrew. In the "help meet" term that Tami brought up, the Hebrew phrase is grossly mistranslated in English translations. The literal Hebrew phrase, ezer cenegdo, means "a power equal to." Woman was created to be a power equal to man. Ezer can be translated as help or power because it is help you receive from somone who has the power to help you. Normally this word refers to God helping his/her people (and is God ever portrayed as a submissive helper anywhere in the Bible?). Women were made to stand equal with men and both the man and woman were commanded to work in the garden (career) and procreate. So men and women being equal in marriage and having careers and both raising kids is a biblical concept.

And to be honest: I'm from farm country where not too long everyone worked on the family farm--there was no division of men's and women's work--everyone worked just so you could survive. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that families were ruptured between home and career. One's career used to be one's home. So this whole role thing is a fairly new phenomena in culture and society as a whole. And coming from a poor, working class family, I've always viewed stay-at-home mothers as a middle class luxury. I see it much more as a socio-economic thing than I do a cultural, and especially a biblical, thing.

[h sofia]

Thanks, Shawna. And I would say that for most women in the world, working "outside the home" is actually the norm. Farmwork being a major part of that. But historically among the poor, not working has never been much of option. Even the children worked.

[h sofia]

I mean to add, before I hit "Post" that a lot of what is put forth as the "biblical" family model is really the post WWII family model. "Nuclear" families, as one woman mentioned in the other Forbes article thread, could hardly be considered the traditional family model when one considers human history beyond the 20th century.

And before divorce became common, there was death and abandonment, creating single parent families, extended families, conjoined families, stepfamilies, and so on. I question whether this concept that a household consists of one man, one woman, and their children together is historical reality. There is nothing wrong with that type of family, but it's certainly not the only way.

[Erin]

This article strikes me as similiar in intent (and less harsh in tone) to the Linda Hirshman piece we recently discussed. To men who want a strong family life, Noer is offering the prescription that statistically performs the best. How is this any different than Linda Hirshman prescribing that career-oriented women "marry down" and marry guys who want to be "house husbands?"

[Twilight Troll]

Happy,

you stated: By referring to "emotional responses," Twilight Troll is of course using a time-honored means of dismissing women's concerns.

You couldn't be more wrong. I was writing in response to both the male and female comments that were already written in response to the Forbes article. By describing them as an emotional responses, I was merely separating the disparity between those comments and the data discovered by the studies; not dismissing women's (or mens!) concerns. I was being open-minded enough to state that there might be some validity in what the data suggests rather than calling something dumb/pointed/sexist. Rather than accepting my comment for what it was, you turned it back on me, which likewise, is a time-honored means of dismissing those with opposing opinions. Thus, I rest my case, the emotional responses are clouding the facts at hand.

That said, it is still possible that the Forbes article should be taken with a grain of salt in regards to its comments where it suggests that men should not marry career women.

[Mary]

Shawna, thanks for that clarification. I knew that that earlier definition of "help meet" was wrong and was really amazed at what I learned at Crosswalk.com when looking up the original Hebrew. It's as you said that the same Hebrew word for help was used when referring to God in many other passages. I would love to see you blog at your site about Titus 2:3-5 and other "Biblical Womanhood" verses.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

h sofia, I agree that the nuclear family in definitely not normal in history or other parts of the world. In fact, a normal biblical model is polygamy--that normally gets glossed right over in the "family values" debate. Extended family and tribe are much more biblical than the isolated nucelar families of the US today.

Mary, thanks for the suggestions on posts--I always need ideas. Christians for Biblical Equality has a lot of resources on the Titus passage as well as the other Scriptures that get twisted in the more fundamental circles.

I just saw on CNN that they are taking people's comments on the Forbes' article on marriage and career and what people think. You can go to their website to put in your two-cents worth, and they will be reading responses throughout this afternoon.

[Erin]

Shawna,
Polygamy was not a biblical "model", because that implies that it was held up as an example to be followed. Throughout Scripture, the one man/one woman model is endorsed, while polygamy, etc., is simply presented as fact (and the stories of these "unions" NEVER end well!)

[Mermade]

Shawna, would it be okay if I quoted your first comment in my upcoming post on a similar subject? You summed up my thoughts on perfectly... and with evidence!

[Mermade]

Just to add...I read this off the Focus on the Family website. Diane Passno, an executive vice president at Focus on the Family, answered the following question. And I don't think she could possibly be more wrong on what feminism is all about.

What are the implications of feminism for the family?

She said:

In regard to the family, the children are the losers. Women are told, "You have to contribute to the household financially," "You have to have a career," "You have to live in this neighborhood," etc. As a result, life has become incredibly hectic. You have to get up at 5 a.m. and pack lunches for school or get your kids dressed and to child care. You go to work, where you give 100 percent for eight or nine hours. Then you get in bumper-to-bumper traffic to pick up the kids. Even if there is a dad in the house, your feminist indoctrination tells you that you don’t need his help; you should be able to do it all on your own. By the time you get home, you’re exhausted and there are still four or five hours of fixing dinner, helping with homework, keeping house and participating in church or school activities. The children are yanked from one place to another. What little is left of you at the end of the day goes to the kids. And they are the losers, because the one person who cares about them more than anyone else is not there or is too tired to nurture them.

[Starfoxy]

"Even if there is a dad in the house, your feminist indoctrination tells you that you don’t need his help; you should be able to do it all on your own."

I've seen rather the opposite. Most of the feminist discourse I've seen regarding employed mothers say that men should be held accountable for helping their wives with the family work (changing diapers, making lunches, baths, picking up etc).

[The Happy Feminist]

To men who want a strong family life, Noer is offering the prescription that statistically performs the best. How is this any different than Linda Hirshman prescribing that career-oriented women "marry down" and marry guys who want to be "house husbands?"

Erin, you're breaking my heart. What you could do with that brain if you ran for Congress! I know you're happy with your choices, but you're depriving the rest of us of your talents! (I'm not being facetious. I really mean it.)

A couple of points: Hirshman is directing her advice at a particular segment of society -- the elite (i.e. well-educated women) who have the opportunity to have high-powered careers but of ten opt out. She also raises other options besides marrying down -- like marrying someone that you're sure is extremely progressive, or marrying someone much younger after you are established professionally, or marrying someone much older who is already established professionally and is cutting back on that aspect of his life.

Noer on the other hand seems to make a blanket pronouncement that no man should ever marry a career woman.

There is also the question of why he is aiming his advice at men only. If two career families are really so destabilizing to marriage, then shouldn't the advice be that career people oughtn't to marry each other? That all career people ought to marry people who aren't into career? Instead, he assumes that it is always the woman who should do the unpaid labor of cleaning up after and caring for the man.

Hirshman, on the other hand, makes no assumption that one party should do all the unpaid labor; she just wants to make sure that there is an even balance of power in the marriage so that women can pursue outside careers and she makes suggestions towards achieving that goal. She aims her advice at women because she identifies the paucity of women in public life as a problem. Noer offers no reason for the double standard, thus seeming to assume that it's just the way things should be.

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

Mermade, yes feel free to use it. If you need anything else let me know. My contact info is on my website.

Starfoxy, I agree with you too--both feminism and egalitarianism hold both partners accountable for things like housework. In our household it's very simple: I cook (because I'm Italian and I love to cook), and he cleans up. I clean the bathroom because a dirty bathroom bugs me, and he constantly takes out the trash because smelly trash bugs him. Laundry is whoever sees it needs to be done and does it. It's something you work out. And if I want a few more things cleaned over the weekend and need his help, I just ask him--he's not the type to see what needs to be done (unless parents are on the way), which is fine. And he's never told me no when I asked if he could do something. I think that's what gets me the most about the Forbes' article: it's so insulting to men, and my man is not a mama's boy who needs everything done for him! Does it ever bug men that they're expected to remain emotional 3 year olds their whole lives? I'm not being facetious for the men who read this. I really want to know.

Erin, polygamy was normal in the biblical times whether we like it or not, or whether God intended it or not. It may not have been God's model or THE model, but it is one of the biblical models for family life. By the way, nice gloss over.

[Erin]

"Erin, you're breaking my heart. What you could do with that brain if you ran for Congress! I know you're happy with your choices, but you're depriving the rest of us of your talents! (I'm not being facetious. I really mean it.)"

HF, no really...I don't think you want me in Congress! I sincerely doubt you would resonate with some of the legislation I would sponsor! However, it's a nice compliment--thanks. I truly hope that I will not deprive others of my "talents" (not sure what you're referring to here)...on the contrary, I believe that opting out of the office place is giving me more time to practice them. Though I haven't accomplished anything very significant in the public sphere thus far, I'm not opposed to doing so as long as I can do it on my terms while keeping my highest priorities (family) first. For instance...I've aspired to write my entire life. God willing, I will continue to pursue ways to channel this desire (compulsion, actually;o) in a way that will benefit others.

Thanks for your comments in response to my question. You said: "Hirshman is directing her advice at a particular segment of society -- the elite (i.e. well-educated women)". Since Noer is writing for "Forbes", I presume that he is also writing for a more elite group of men. That isn't exactly a publication directed at the "working" classes!

"There is also the question of why he is aiming his advice at men only. If two career families are really so destabilizing to marriage, then shouldn't the advice be that career people oughtn't to marry each other?" Well, Noer states that the studies show a positive correlation between WOMEN working many hours and divorce, not true of men. He also recognizes that the pairing of one spouse at home while the other spouse works on a career is the most successful statistically, regardless of who does what, but states that women are most often at home while men do the career thing. That's just the fact, so that's what he addresses. Of course, you and I have different opinions on WHY women are usually the homemakers, but that's beside Noer's point.

I'm not trying to defend Noer here, because I know nothing about him or his views other than this piece. But I still think that it's very similiar to Hirshmans piece, only in the opposite direction. And in fact...he in Hirshman are even in agreement! Hirshman should be applauding this piece, because it is directed towards the very man she is encouraging her female audience to avoid. And Noer is encouraging his male audience to avoid Hirshman's target woman. How convenient!;o)

I'm sorry...I'm sure I have gone over your word limit, though I tried to stay as brief as I could in response to your comments. Aah...just too much to say!;o) Forgive me this once?

[Erin]

"Erin, polygamy was normal in the biblical times whether we like it or not, or whether God intended it or not. It may not have been God's model or THE model, but it is one of the biblical models for family life. By the way, nice gloss over."

Shawna, I didn't question it's frequency. Just the use of your phrase "Biblical model," because to me that implies endorsement. Maybe we're just disagreeing over semantics, because at least you agree with me that polygamy is not presented as "God's model". That's my point. Instances of polygamy in the Bible are never endorsed. They are not presented in an attractive light...far from it! That's not a "gloss over", just plain facts.

[The Happy Feminist]

Erin says:
Hirshman should be applauding this piece, because it is directed towards the very man she is encouraging her female audience to avoid. And Noer is encouraging his male audience to avoid Hirshman's target woman. How convenient!;o)

I think that's what Gloria Steinem was getting at! (Who knew you and Steinem would agree!)

[drumgurl]

The difference between Noer and Hirshman is that Noer defines a career woman as someone who make $30K or more a year. Huh? I drove a fork truck for a living in college, and I made over $30K. Did that make me a career woman? Hardly.

According to Noer, you can be a career woman even if you make less than the median income (which was $44,743 in 2004 in the US. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html). I seriously doubt Noer would consider a career man to be someone of this income level. How unfair to men! The bar is set so much higher for them.

I agree that if you have a *top* career, it is beneficial to marry someone who will support your career - regardless of whether you are male or female. And in order to support your career, it would be difficult for him/her to also have a *top* career. I believe that is what Hirshman is saying. She has never said, "Stay away from boys who make $30K!"

[Calista]

I find it interesting that we're attributing the Noer article to fear and condemning it because of our own feminist fears that men are all losers who can't grow up and want to get married so they'll have a new mommy or something.

I am a feminist. I share those fears. But I think that the Noer article speaks to the failure of feminism to define men's place as well as women's. I think Noer's article is a reflection of uncertainty rather than fear, and I can sympathize with him. You don't see a lot of 'equal partnership' models anywhere. In pop culture; men are either "in charge" or they are inadequate or jerks. No wonder Noer is uncertain. If I thought these three options were all I got, I'd be pretty uncertain, too. I think his article is less about 'putting women in their place' than about a desire to think of the world in terms that he understands and feels welcome in. It's our responsibility as feminists to model the kind of healthy partnerships we aspire to, not just in our private lives but publicly as well. en masse.

I don't think a man can be faulted for wanting to understand his place in the world. Given a lack of positive male role models in this culture, it's no surprise to me that men seek to regress to the '50s style of masculinity. Noer isn't the only one. The way to change this is not to condemn men for their insecurities, but to understand them and their valid point of view. Only once this has been accomplished, can positive change occur.

[drumgurl]

I do not share those fears. I have always dated pretty cool guys and have never had a reason to fear that men are all losers. Also, I am more of a fan of personal responsibility as opposed to "feminism, come save us all!" I am grateful to the feminists who came before me, but I do not expect them to make my life peachy. That is up to us as individuals.

[The Happy Feminist]

Yes and no. I do relate to the fear Calista discusses. My father was abusive and domineering and my first boyfriend was (emotionally) abusive and domineering(a truth that did not emerge until well into the relationship). I did start to wonder at one point in my life whether all men are like this-- although, thank goodness, it turns out there are plenty of great men around.

I don't think Calista is proposing that feminism solve everyone's problems. But I think that the idea of modeling feminism and egalitarian partnerships helps others to conceive that egalitarianism is not only possible but can also be happy and successful. Conceiving such a truth is a nice antidote to the Noers of the world and to the women who fear they have to play by Noer's rules in order to get a man.

[Erin]

"I think that's what Gloria Steinem was getting at! (Who knew you and Steinem would agree!)"

I didn't read Steinem, but if that's what she said than I guess we do agree on ONE thing. Yikes!;o)