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?