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 08:55 am (UTC)Even my male relatives have made jokes about it. Chinese women are apparently not as good (submissive) wife material as Indon women. (facepalms)
I once almost had to make a mail order bride website, but I quit before I had to. Sadly, my female co-workers were excited about it, because they also wanted to include their profiles. I tried not to judge them.
The dominant/submissive issue is one of the reasons why I 'wince' when some Zutara enthusiasts extol 'Yin and Yang' or 'Opposites Attract'.
Dominant!Zuko/Submissive!Katara squicks me a bit; however, I have to admit that Dominant!Katara/Submissive!Zuko tickles my funny bone.
By the way, Forbes' website is irritating - it kept automatically forwarding to the next page before I could finish reading. Is it supposed to work like that or does it have trouble with Mozilla Firefox?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 09:15 am (UTC)Dominant!Zuko/Submissive!Katara squicks me a bit; however, I have to admit that Dominant!Katara/Submissive!Zuko tickles my funny bone.
I get a kick out of Dominant!Katara/Submissive!Zuko because it's different from the status quo, and frankly because I'd rather read fic about women being empowered than men. And considering that most fanfic is written by female fans, you would think Dominant!Katara would be the norm in any dom/sub relationship presented-- but that's not often the case. It makes me sad that so many fic portrayals where the male character is made dominant and the canonically bossy/strong female character is made weak and submissive, are only being written that way because a lot of fanfic writers, especially the new and the young, believe that's how it should be because that's what media and television tells them about the roles of men and women in the bedroom as well as in society. Even if it rarely reflects the reality of things (more precisely, the fact that in a dom/sub relationship the outwardly dominant person can just as easily be the submissive person in the sexual part of the relationship.)
Mostly, I like fics where Katara and Zuko trade off dominance, in a kind of fun competitiveness that ends with sharing instead of dominant/submissive. But I'm a romantic at heart who truly believes that a relationship can only be happy between equals.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 09:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 10:04 am (UTC)Just want to muse that it's not only het relationships which are a lot of times stereotyped as dom/sub. From the complaints of some of my LJ buddies - even slash relationships have been stereotyped as dom/sub. I even found out that they even have ship naming rules. Dom must always be written before the Sub. And it's such a big deal that there's even shipping wars over who is the dom/sub (even if it's still the same pairing).
Hmm... would kind of be nice (exciting) if the AtLA fandom becomes that crazy.
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 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 04:25 pm (UTC)I want someone to "buffer" my emotional stress. Oh wait, that's the wife's job.
I love how all these statistics get twisted up. One could also write an article about the perks of marrying a career woman ("Men who expect their wives to be their servants need not apply").
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 05:46 pm (UTC)That was classic. Read it in middle school. I have no clue who it was by, though.
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 07:26 pm (UTC)But yeah... even though I want to get married AT SOME POINT in my life, reading this makes my head hurt and shake in utter dismay that there are still middle-aged idiots out there with the maturity level of an 8-year old.
So basically,
Date: 2006-08-23 07:57 pm (UTC)Re: So basically,
Date: 2006-08-23 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 10:10 pm (UTC)1. You're More Likely To Marry A Successful Woman
98% of Successful Women say that they prefer mates with skills in buffering their stress, massaging their feet, cooking them delicious and nutiricious food, and running an orderly house. Modeling yourself into a domestic slave is guaranteed to make you a big hit on the marriage mart!
and
9. You're Less Likely To Fall Ill
Staying at home means less contact with germs! And flexible hours mean you'll have the opportunity to take better care of yourself. You can exericese and nap between bouts of menial labor! You'll be ever so much healthier than all the other boys who go out and have a life.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 10:18 pm (UTC)Oh, and
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 11:08 pm (UTC)This article is just fucking stupid in all ways, and it's no wonder they took it down. I'm sure they've gotten a ton of emails telling them so.
And someone thankfully copied it before it "mysteriously" disappeared: http://chaos-pockets.livejournal.com/754678.html
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 01:38 am (UTC)Oh, and since I'd hate to do it without asking: would you mind if I friended you?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 02:07 am (UTC)I thought you might be interested to see that this article has been tackled by some feminist bloggers in beautiful and sarcastic ways. Here are a couple of links, if you're interested:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/08/23/why-you-should-marry-a-doormat/
http://pandagon.net/2006/08/23/because-once-shes-seen-the-city-you-cant-keep-her-in-the-cave/
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 04:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 04:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 06:12 pm (UTC)Re: So basically,
Date: 2006-08-24 06:13 pm (UTC)