Last Week's Scuffle, Point/Counterpoint
The last word in the Forbes magazine career woman bushwa, brought to you by Blonde Sense:
Point: Don't Marry Career Women
Counterpoint: Don't Marry An Asshole.
By Michael Noer, Forbes Magazine: not reprinted here with permission.
How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists.
By Jaye Ramsey Sutter, J.D. BlondeSense How do women, careers, and helpless men mix? Not well, says this little black duck.
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.
Gals: A word of advice. Marry handsome men or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blonds or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a man with no sense of shared responsibilities.
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.
Why? Because he just doesn't get it. If he doesn't get it and get to counseling, then get the hell out. You didn't marry him so you would have to clean up after him, you didn't marry him to compete about who has the higher salary. You didn't marry him because you needed to marry him. You married him for the same reasons you stay married to him, because you found someone who is your partner and who wants you to excel at being yourself. Why be married to someone who isn't willing to cook, clean, and raise the kids? Why is his job more important?
read the rest here.... [though I'd say this was the best of it]
Point: Don't Marry Career Women
Counterpoint: Don't Marry An Asshole.
By Michael Noer, Forbes Magazine: not reprinted here with permission.
How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists.
By Jaye Ramsey Sutter, J.D. BlondeSense How do women, careers, and helpless men mix? Not well, says this little black duck.
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.
Gals: A word of advice. Marry handsome men or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blonds or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a man with no sense of shared responsibilities.
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.
Why? Because he just doesn't get it. If he doesn't get it and get to counseling, then get the hell out. You didn't marry him so you would have to clean up after him, you didn't marry him to compete about who has the higher salary. You didn't marry him because you needed to marry him. You married him for the same reasons you stay married to him, because you found someone who is your partner and who wants you to excel at being yourself. Why be married to someone who isn't willing to cook, clean, and raise the kids? Why is his job more important?
read the rest here.... [though I'd say this was the best of it]
It’s an interesting contrast to see the difference between men and women’s approach in dealing with complex social issues such as marriage; men deal with logics, reasoning and statistics, women deal with emotion, hysteria, and intimidation, as the two articles posted side by side in the Forbes.com best illustrate. It’s amazing a woman (or a person) of this caliber who cannot cite single source of reference or data to back her claim up, is charged with writing a front page article for such a large magazine - all hail to the affirmative action! Without it, she wouldn’t have and certainly shouldn’t have come this far.
ReplyDeleteIt is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society. Is it advancement for a society or start of the decline of civilization?
It’s a fact of life that only liberals and feminists get to have articles pulled out from the internet immediately after it was posted, and have your “counterpoints” posted side by side to it; you don’t see very often conservative or men’s “counterpoint” posted on feminists issue articles that are posted perhaps thousand times more frequently. It’s also a (sad) fact of life that only feminists and liberals could write article solely based on hysteric fits and have other treated it as an “article’ worthy of being posted on a large website.
I’m sure that this poor author will be stripped of all his career opportunities, probably fired for any reason that feminists could concoct (Mr. Noel, don’t be surprised that suddenly any of one of the recently mass-manufactured 50-plus year old high-powered female exec will accuse you of sexual harassment for the suggestive look that you give to her two years ago), maybe a mandatory sensitive training for all male staff will be instituted at the entire magazine, or even worse, at the entire industry. I have no doubt that the New York Times and the Washington Post are more than willing to write articles to push for it.
Usually the typical responses from the feminists and liberals to articles or views that are not in line with their dogma are intimidation and implying instituting censorship. However the New York Times took a slightly different approach this time, attacking the website itself that posted such article, claiming that, contrary to the claim by the company, the website does not have as much web visitors as it claims. Maybe they were hoping that their article will reduce the readership or visitors to the website and the magazine, and the advertising companies to would consider putting ads in the Forbes. The article in Washington Post tried to associate Mr. Noel’s article with Forbes’ occasional so-called ‘saucy” articles thus discredit it. Overall curiously devoid of any analysis or her own views on the issue, she attempts to put on some of neutrality by citing some “support’ for Mr. Noer’s article, but she could cite only one.
those pesky feminists.
ReplyDeletethey boil an argument down to its bare bones and then mock it without paying any attention to the nuances and statistics. Nobody else does that 'cept maybe Bill O'Reilly. And they look at you funny to boot--oops but that's anecdotal.
Interesting that somebody so interested in statistical analysis and logical reasoning completely failed to catch the way Noer manipulated and distorted the information he had. The core numbers aren't what's in dispute; couples who have careers outside the home are more likely to divorce. What we're disputing is Noer's interpretation, i.e., that it's the damn woman's fault.
ReplyDeleteOne would also think that such a big fan of Noer's article would at least spell his frigging name correctly.