Your logic eats itself.
Aug. 22nd, 2006 11:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockI think I want to puke after reading this.
I sent out an email to most of my friends and relatives with that link, to show my disgust for Forbes and how they just permanently lost me as a potential future customer.
My closest male relative replied with this response: "Are you saying that their isnt some true to that? Don't boycott me by the way." and then "also i only read the first page.."
I told him I loved him and would never boycott him. Then I explained to him why it was so bad, starting with the first page, and then commenting as well on the last page.
It's not the numbers they present that are a problem (and that's taking the numbers on faith, I haven't looked into them)--- it's the conclusions the article reaches with that data, and the attitude with which it presents them. You only read the first page. It gets much worse. Let's look at page 1:
1. You are less likely to get married to her.
So say Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite of the University of Michigan's Michigan Retirement Research Center. In a paper, "Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses", published in April, 2000, they found that for white women, higher earnings, more hours of employment and higher wages while single all reduce the chances of marriage. "This suggests that (1) success in the labor market makes it harder for women to make a marital match, (2) women with relatively high wages and earnings search less intensively for a match, or (3) successful women have higher standards for an acceptable match than women who work less and earn less." Some research suggests the opposite is true for black women.
This starts with a number of questionable assumptions. Firstly, the assumption that either a man or a woman needs to marry to live a whole and complete life. Many men don't think they have to, and if more women also prefer not to be married, then what does it matter? You wouldn't have been happy married to that kind of person anyway, so you (being a guy who hopes to one day be married) haven't lost anything.
Secondly, number 2: that women search less intensely for a match. ...So what? Again, you're going to be looking for someone who also wants to get married, and if they don't, then they don't. The idea that a woman's "real" life doesn't begin until she has a husband is antiquainted and chauvanist. Women should not be expected to constantly be on the search for the perfect husband, any more than all men should be expected to constantly be on the search for the perfect wife.
And number 3, oh number 3. So the fact that successful carreer women have higher standards is a problem? Men don't complain "Oh gosh gee darn, I'm educated now so it's such a frickin' pity that I have, like, high standards and stuff." First of all, I personally believe that everyone should have standards of what they want. Second of all, if more women had better standards for husbands there'd be less women killed by their husbands every year, less children abused every year, and less women and children living in fear, misery, and enslavement in the form of financial dependency.
And that's just page one, ignoring the grammatical and logical brainfart that the person who came up with this list had in saying that "you're less likely to marry her" is a reason "why you shouldn't." Likelihood of attaining something (like a marriage agreement) doesn't have anything to do with why you should attain something once it's become a viable option for you to attain. The question of likelihood of something happening has been resolved long before you get to the point of whether or not you choose to make it happen-- if you can choose it, then clearly likelihood of getting it isn't a problem, because you have it.
They're all pretty horrible, but the worst was number 6 ("your house will be dirtier"--I trust I don't have to explain the idiocy and sexism embedded in that observation), no. 7 ("you'll be unhappy if she makes more than you"), no. 8 ("she'll be unhappy if she makes more than you"--- a stupidity I can't even begin to touch, nor would want to) and number 9, which is as funny as it is sad and pathetic:
9. You are more likely to fall ill.
A 2001 study found that having a wife who works less than 40 hours a week has no impact on your health, but having a wife who works more than 40 hours a week has "substantial, statistically significant, negative effects on changes in her husband's health over that time span." The author of another study summarizes that "wives working longer hours not do not have adequate time to monitor their husband's health and healthy behavior, to manage their husband's emotional well-being or buffer his workplace stress."
Because didn't you know? Your wife is also your mommy, and it's her job to monitor your health and set aside time to manage your emotional well-being and buffer your workplace stress. She'll also wipe the brown gooey stuff from your bottom, wipe the snot from your nose, and patiently explain to you how to read the label on the cough syrup bottle. That's why every man gets married, right?
Edited with further thoughts:
Not to mention that this article never once explains the negative affects on the WOMAN's health, and all the stress she goes through picking up "the man's house" (not THEIR house, notice, and not her house) and tending to his stress on top of her own. Because god forbid he be concerned about her health if he can't even be concerned about his own.
I'm just glad my parents' marriage doesn't look like that. When I get married, I don't want MY marriage to look like that. Last time I checked "in sickness and in health" was something both people said at the alter, not just the woman.
And that's not even touching on the appalling fact that someone felt this article deserved to be written in the first place. Who the hell makes a list of why you shouldn't marry successful women? Do people make lists of why women shouldn't marry successful men? There's something so inherently mean-spirited and sexist about the concept of the list in the first place. Like women should apologize for wanting to work hard, earn money to support the lifestyle they desire, and feel accomplishment from their own carreer choices. You should commend them for what they've worked to achieve, and encourage your daughters and sons to try their best as well.
I sent out an email to most of my friends and relatives with that link, to show my disgust for Forbes and how they just permanently lost me as a potential future customer.
My closest male relative replied with this response: "Are you saying that their isnt some true to that? Don't boycott me by the way." and then "also i only read the first page.."
I told him I loved him and would never boycott him. Then I explained to him why it was so bad, starting with the first page, and then commenting as well on the last page.
It's not the numbers they present that are a problem (and that's taking the numbers on faith, I haven't looked into them)--- it's the conclusions the article reaches with that data, and the attitude with which it presents them. You only read the first page. It gets much worse. Let's look at page 1:
1. You are less likely to get married to her.
So say Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite of the University of Michigan's Michigan Retirement Research Center. In a paper, "Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses", published in April, 2000, they found that for white women, higher earnings, more hours of employment and higher wages while single all reduce the chances of marriage. "This suggests that (1) success in the labor market makes it harder for women to make a marital match, (2) women with relatively high wages and earnings search less intensively for a match, or (3) successful women have higher standards for an acceptable match than women who work less and earn less." Some research suggests the opposite is true for black women.
This starts with a number of questionable assumptions. Firstly, the assumption that either a man or a woman needs to marry to live a whole and complete life. Many men don't think they have to, and if more women also prefer not to be married, then what does it matter? You wouldn't have been happy married to that kind of person anyway, so you (being a guy who hopes to one day be married) haven't lost anything.
Secondly, number 2: that women search less intensely for a match. ...So what? Again, you're going to be looking for someone who also wants to get married, and if they don't, then they don't. The idea that a woman's "real" life doesn't begin until she has a husband is antiquainted and chauvanist. Women should not be expected to constantly be on the search for the perfect husband, any more than all men should be expected to constantly be on the search for the perfect wife.
And number 3, oh number 3. So the fact that successful carreer women have higher standards is a problem? Men don't complain "Oh gosh gee darn, I'm educated now so it's such a frickin' pity that I have, like, high standards and stuff." First of all, I personally believe that everyone should have standards of what they want. Second of all, if more women had better standards for husbands there'd be less women killed by their husbands every year, less children abused every year, and less women and children living in fear, misery, and enslavement in the form of financial dependency.
And that's just page one, ignoring the grammatical and logical brainfart that the person who came up with this list had in saying that "you're less likely to marry her" is a reason "why you shouldn't." Likelihood of attaining something (like a marriage agreement) doesn't have anything to do with why you should attain something once it's become a viable option for you to attain. The question of likelihood of something happening has been resolved long before you get to the point of whether or not you choose to make it happen-- if you can choose it, then clearly likelihood of getting it isn't a problem, because you have it.
They're all pretty horrible, but the worst was number 6 ("your house will be dirtier"--I trust I don't have to explain the idiocy and sexism embedded in that observation), no. 7 ("you'll be unhappy if she makes more than you"), no. 8 ("she'll be unhappy if she makes more than you"--- a stupidity I can't even begin to touch, nor would want to) and number 9, which is as funny as it is sad and pathetic:
9. You are more likely to fall ill.
A 2001 study found that having a wife who works less than 40 hours a week has no impact on your health, but having a wife who works more than 40 hours a week has "substantial, statistically significant, negative effects on changes in her husband's health over that time span." The author of another study summarizes that "wives working longer hours not do not have adequate time to monitor their husband's health and healthy behavior, to manage their husband's emotional well-being or buffer his workplace stress."
Because didn't you know? Your wife is also your mommy, and it's her job to monitor your health and set aside time to manage your emotional well-being and buffer your workplace stress. She'll also wipe the brown gooey stuff from your bottom, wipe the snot from your nose, and patiently explain to you how to read the label on the cough syrup bottle. That's why every man gets married, right?
Edited with further thoughts:
Not to mention that this article never once explains the negative affects on the WOMAN's health, and all the stress she goes through picking up "the man's house" (not THEIR house, notice, and not her house) and tending to his stress on top of her own. Because god forbid he be concerned about her health if he can't even be concerned about his own.
I'm just glad my parents' marriage doesn't look like that. When I get married, I don't want MY marriage to look like that. Last time I checked "in sickness and in health" was something both people said at the alter, not just the woman.
And that's not even touching on the appalling fact that someone felt this article deserved to be written in the first place. Who the hell makes a list of why you shouldn't marry successful women? Do people make lists of why women shouldn't marry successful men? There's something so inherently mean-spirited and sexist about the concept of the list in the first place. Like women should apologize for wanting to work hard, earn money to support the lifestyle they desire, and feel accomplishment from their own carreer choices. You should commend them for what they've worked to achieve, and encourage your daughters and sons to try their best as well.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 12:45 pm (UTC)Vast majority, eh? Say, 80%?
I would like to see these numbers that prove that the vast majority of women want kids, and then I would like to see the numbers that said that these 20% wanted kids but didn't have them. Where are they? This 20%, are they dissatisfied? I really doubt it.
This article has some things that are true. But I see them as good.
More divorce if unhappy = good. Messier house = good (if the alternative is the woman working 40 hrs+ and then going home and doing everything herself).
Also, the whole "she's more likely to cheat on you because she interacts with people" just creeps me out. Are they saying that women 1) can't be friends with men, 2) can't be around men without wanting to jump them? What?
Thank you for pointing this out. Even if it is horrible.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 06:00 pm (UTC)I agree-- it takes plenty of statistics which I would see as positive or neutral and makes them negative...but only if you're deliberately looking for the sexist point of view. Like the house being messier thing. It's so freaking obvious-- "like, duh!", but only makes sense if the guy never helps either and relies on the assumption that in addition to working a full time job the woman must still do all the domestic labor of a housewife. Who exactly is the one in need of a "work stress buffer" here? The point of a woman not being trapped in the house is that the husband and wife *share* the housework as they share their professional labor.
Also, the whole "she's more likely to cheat on you because she interacts with people" just creeps me out. Are they saying that women 1) can't be friends with men, 2) can't be around men without wanting to jump them? What?
What bothered me about that comment was the fact that it never once mentioned what effect on fidelity being a career professional has on a man. Men already tend to cheat more than women-- could it be because they work? And if being a working professional does make you more likely to cheat, so what? Men made the same promise of fidelity that women did-- women should not be held to a different standard than their husbands, no matter who they come in contact with on a daily basis. The article doesn't even mention how many male professionals cheat on their wives, but says god forbid your wife have the chance to work in proximity with other men on the chance she might cheat.