i haven't yet read the article but while the whole thing is appalling, i couldn't help but laught at this:

"When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you."

that doesn't say much about these men then, does it???

Yeah, because bored, unfulfilled housewives never fuck around.

Cup of sugar, anyone?

Eerrr what is the alternative?

Having the stress of the whole household depending financially on you, having a wife who doesn't understand the stress of work and why you have to work long hours, if you get divorced you have to pay a lot more to cover the fact that you've had a non-earning servent in your house for the past few decades who has not the skills/experience to earn enough to live on reasonably after the divorce, who nags you about the way you leave the house she has spent hours cleaning all day, anything else????

Yes I can see that being a much better alternative. Jeese I'm really not trying to get at all the housewives out there but there are pros and cons to all relationships. Personally I can't see what my man has to complain about. He doesn't want kids, I can't lie to save my life so I'd be a rubbish cheat and when I graduate from the PhD we can get a cleaner!

"When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you"

I love how the obvious solution to this problem is to lock your wife away; there's no advice, like, "help her with the housework" or "have intelligent conversation" or "make sex about HER for a change" or anything. If a woman finds someone else she likes better, that's obviously the woman's fault for being a slut; not the mans fault for *possibly* being a bad husband.

Bah.

And I love that most of the benefits of marriage listed are those that accrue to men and children. "Women don't benefit by getting married! Marriage in fact makes them unhappy! The only logical solution: keep them chained in the house so they don't escape!"

hahahahaha i love the slide show! everyone should watch it, i think i spit up water all over my keyboard. definitely great for lunchtime entertainment. hmmm and this becomes reason 504 that i am more than happy to be a lesbian-not having to meet that guy on a blind date!:)

These stories always baffle me. Is there really a non-conspiracy theory reason why people would say that marrying a career woman is a bad idea but marrying a career man is fine? In every marriage, somebody's got to work, if not both of them. Why *shouldn't* it be the woman?

I think they just left out a little bit of the title:

"Don't Marry Career Women...if you want a maid and a nanny rather than a partner, if you're insecure and/or plan on treating her poorly so she starts looking elsewhere, and you don't understand that correlation does not always equal causation"

It says: women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Why is "feminist" in scare quotes? Do "feminists" prefer "office" cock? Is the "career" the problem?

These people are stupid. My personal fave is that the first reason not to marry a "career woman" is that she won't want to marry you. Um, while it's true you shouldn't marry someone who doesn't want to marry you, I'm not sure why it's being presented as a choice that the man is making.

Can we please call all men with jobs "career men"?

Please? At least for a week or so? It's to thank Forbes for being oh-so-progressive and writing "career women" instead of "career girls."

There's a classist element in this. Only richer families can afford to be single-income, so women staying home is kind of a luxury anyway. So this article has a bit of a ring of, "Let's give all those poor families *yet another* reason to feel inadequate!"

Should any of you like to contact the douchebag who wrote this, his contact info is as follows:

email: mnoer@forbes.net, direct phone: 212-366-8887

Should any of you like to contact the douchebag who wrote this, his contact info is as follows:

email: mnoer@forbes.net, direct phone: 212-366-8887

"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."

can't these grown men who are supposedly so freaking capable (of doing all but household chores, apparently) monitor their OWN health and healthy behavior??? and if working makes one so busy that they can't take care of themselves or others, then who the hell is supposed to have the time to help take care of the housewife while the man is off working???

i mean, besides the pool boy...

BULL!

I agree with the classist comment, Kuri. It's pretty much saying that anyone who has to have two incomes to support their family just has to suck it up and be unhappy... though I honestly wonder if rich people can fully grasp the idea that everyone with a college degree isn't rolling in it; I think this guy would say that lower income families are more likely to have uneducated "cash register minding" women in the mother role, who are allegedly less likely to become unhappy.

Although I have to question the assumption that if a woman doesn't work full time, she will make babies and cookies with all her free time. If my husband could support us, I would probably go back to school for a supplemental degree, go to graduate school, hunt for a journalism internship, etc... all of which would contribute to the career I hope to have some day. Actually, that IS the plan when he finishes graduate school and *can* support us for a time. It's not like I'd sit at home waiting for him to get off work and impregnate me, and I don't think many women would.

What an absurd article! I realize Forbes is a publication aimed at the wealthy, but I am nonetheless surprised by the complete disconnect from reality, not to mention reason.

Forbes is a magazine aimed at the wealthy, but until now I had never really heard of it being this explicitly aimed at men. If the whole point of the thing is to be aimed at business people, then any women who would be reading it are "career girls" (I think from now on I will start referring to 60 something oil magnates as "career boys") and they're the ones being bashed by this article as "unmarriageable" because of the accusation that they'll cheat on you and divorce you.

Although perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this whole article is really just telling me that when I settle down with a nice lesbian, she needs to be unemployed.

Did anyone else see the other article he wrote for Forbes--the one comparing the economics of fucking a prostitute (kindly referred to as a "whore" in the article) and fucking a wife? It's truly a wonder this man is permitted to write such hate-filled drivel for this publication.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.html

He's the executive editor of news at Forbes. That's probably how he got it published; he didn't have to run it by anyone.

My head hurts.

You guys have to see the parody slide show done by Gawker. Normally they're way too cool to actually get offended by anything, but this article forced them to break through the snark and actually critique something (in a snarky way, of course).
http://www.gawker.com/news/forbes/gawker-cliffsnotes-dont-marry-career-women-196165.php
Way better than the original.

C - I followed your link. He actually wrote about someone elses theory, not his own. Check out this unbelievable quote from the paper he was writing about:

"The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."

Does this really suprise any of you. Didn't we already know that the ideal wife for many men is one who cooks, cleans, screws, and raises babies?

esme, the assumption by investment types like forbes is that they're speaking to men. when i've emailed both ameritrade and etrade, i've had to i.d. myself as a bitch-feminist to insist they stop calling me "mr."

the proper response to this crap, gals, is clearly to make even more man-terrifying money by doing a little investing.

In addition to all of the other points about, I like how he cites all of these studies to support his thesis, then gets to the end and discounts the last one about married people being happier and healthier, just for the fun of it. Don't marry a career woman because of this report, and this report, and this report. We should pay attention because they are all valid reports. And this report says you should get married because married men are happier, but that might not really be because of the marriage, so you don't have to believe it.

Women: A word of advice. Marry built ones or skinny ones. Bald ones or hairy ones. Hung ones or tiny ones. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a man who reads Forbes.

I just started reading this site and I am so glad to get re-connected to all the bullshit that's going on and to all these women, bitch-feminists, dykes, "career girls", etc. who care!

I think that Kuri & Andrea are missing a subtle point. Poor women don't have "careers", they have "jobs". This stupid POS article is aimed at ressurecting the trophy wife, or more accurately the Stepford Wife. I bet the author doesn't even THINK about households that NEED more than one income to get by.

I haven't followed the references, but a LOT of those journals exist b/c the research they publish does not stand up to rigorous peer review in better social science journals.

Oh, and Forbes has pulled the slide show.

How in contrast with the earlier Forbes article, in May:

High Heels To The Top
May 17, 2006 - Women don't have to sacrifice family life or their femininity to climb the corporate ladder.

Link here:
http://www.forbes.com/workspecial/2006/05/16/climbing-corporate-ladder-highheels-cx_ka_0517heels.html

By the way, that article, too, has issues...

Whoa- I'm guessing a lot of people didn't like that article. It's been pulled off the site entirely already!

they have a rebuttal

I've never been a fan of Forbes magazine, however considering how unfulfilling the average career of an employed person is his opinion's (but not necessarily argument) quite understandable.

If the woman's a scientist working on something that will affect all man kind or is doing something positive for the community that's one thing. However there are many, many jobs where the only real fulfillment in working them is the paycheck that's recieved. If a woman can't be bothered to leave a job like that behind than 9 times out of 10 she possesses many other qualities that have already scared away the most eligible bachelors.

I can't remember what you were so offended about? Are you worried that this article might be persuasive to some men or that most men already feel this way?

I've never been a fan of Forbes magazine, however considering how unfulfilling the average career of an employed person is his opinion's (but not necessarily argument) quite understandable.

If the woman's a scientist working on something that will affect all man kind or is doing something positive for the community that's one thing. However there are many, many jobs where the only real fulfillment in working them is the paycheck that's recieved. If a woman can't be bothered to leave a job like that behind than 9 times out of 10 she possesses many other qualities that have already scared away the most eligible bachelors.

I can't remember what you were so offended about? Are you worried that this article might be persuasive to some men or that most men already feel this way?

anonymous0002 maybe we are offended because it says that career women make bad partners but makes no mentions of how incompatible the average "career man" maybe.

Couldn't a man who can't be bothered to leave a job like that (where the only real fulfillment in working them is the paycheck that's recieved) behind than 9 times out of 10 he possesses many other qualities that have already scared away the most eligible single women?

Oh well, I suppose you let me off the hook being a 'scientist working on something that will affect all man kind' and all, but what you fail to see is that powerful jobs bring fulfillment through the power over others and the project you are working on. Men obviously get a kick from these jobs so why can't women? The happy feminist (check out her blog from the link down the side) has a lot of good discussion on this in her analysis of Linda Hirshmans work.

"Oh well, I suppose you let me off the hook being a 'scientist working on something that will affect all man kind' and all, but what you fail to see is that powerful jobs bring fulfillment through the power over others and the project you are working on. Men obviously get a kick from these jobs so why can't women? The happy feminist (check out her blog from the link down the side) has a lot of good discussion on this in her analysis of Linda Hirshmans work."
-Chem-fem

Unfortunately there are a great deal of people who feel that somehow power over other people is something that's to be cherished and it seems you're one of them.

"Couldn't a man who can't be bothered to leave a job like that (where the only real fulfillment in working them is the paycheck that's recieved) behind than 9 times out of 10 he possesses many other qualities that have already scared away the most eligible single women?"
-Chem-fem

You're right for the most part. If a man in that situation doesn't have some better goals that he intends to pursue than I imagine he'll be less attractive as a result.

I've just read the rebuttal and loved it. I had the misfortune to take a quick look at the comments section though: You have to see it to believe it. I didn't know so many Neanderthals had acquired (very) basic reading and writing skills.

"anonymous0002 maybe we are offended because it says that career women make bad partners but makes no mentions of how incompatible the average "career man" maybe."
-Chem-fem

What did you expect from a journalist? It seems like all they can be bothered to produce is controversy since that sells well and is very easy to produce.

You're right though, it might've made for an interesting article had it attacked the career choices and aspirations of too many people these days.

anonymous002- Unfortunately there are a great deal of people who feel that somehow power over other people is something that's to be cherished and it seems you're one of them.

I wouldn't say cherish at all. Power over others is a responsibility. Using this power to handle situations appropriately is very rewarding when you've done a good job. I maybe cherish the feeling that I have got everyone to do a good job that they can go home and be proud of but you can do this positively. I don't think everyone who enjoys power is a bad person. To live in an organised society we need some to have powers over others for everything to work. Power is good when it comes with accountability.

anonymous0002 - You're right for the most part. If a man in that situation doesn't have some better goals that he intends to pursue than I imagine he'll be less attractive as a result.

It isn't just that though. I find people of both sexes who do jobs of a certain level have a certain level of arrogance about how they look at the world and treat others (even if their job is beneficial to society). It is common that they only respect people who do a job of a similar level or of a similar level of importance. I would find it hard to be in a relationship with someone then that couldn't see me as equal. I wouldn't marry a career man without being a career woman because essentially I'm far too proud to be looked down upon.

anonymous0002 - What did you expect from a journalist? It seems like all they can be bothered to produce is controversy since that sells well and is very easy to produce.
You're right though, it might've made for an interesting article had it attacked the career choices and aspirations of too many people these days.

As a scientist who is aware of the very poor levels of general media reporting of my subject I don't expect much from a journalist. Does that however mean that I can't or shouldn't question it? Especially as this journalist has so much power.

I really would have liked to see an unbiased article on that too.

Such smart people and they all miss the obvious.

Women cheating is different than men cheating because it puts in doubt the main purpose for existing. Men are not going to allocate their resourses for another man's gene. It is not nice to fool evolution. This is the most basic factor influencing all other behaviours and on which we base a society. This is quite similar to rape, where resourses are forced to be allocated by the victim againt her will.

To have doubt about whether it is YOUR genes that you are exhausting your life for is a serious problem. Being tricked into it is a crime -just as much as forcing your genes onto someone is.

These "good for the goose, good for the gander" arguments are products of the attempt to make genders equal when their comparative advantages are different.

Wait--I know this is late and all--but did this clown really just compare cheating on one's husband to rape? Or have I suddenly lost all my reading skill?

All right, bozo. Rape isn't terrible because of some issue with "allocation of resources"--it is terrible because it is an intimate assault on a person that wrenches her body and sexuality away from her. Rape is terrible when it is doesn't result in pregnancy; rape is terrible when it cannot result in pregnancy because it is anal or oral.

And actually, no, "being tricked into" raising children who are not related to you genetically is not a crime. Check your local lawbooks for details. And here's why: nobody has attacked your body.

Next: the idea that female infidelity is just horrible because it might result in a man working to support children who--horrors!--are not genetically related to him is based on two patriarchal assumptions.

1) Women can't support their own children. The capitalist patriarchal system under which we live has done its best to make this true, by keeping wages low for women, by structuring careers around the supposed life cycle of a 1950s man, by fighting tooth and nail against any kind of social material support for mothers. But there's nothing "natural" about that idea.

2) The most important aspect of relationality is genetic. Well, bullshit. Being a father is about caring for and loving one's child.

Now, as to the "natural" "evolutionary" nonsense--I assume you don't wear glasses. Or get vaccinations. Or take antibiotics. Or use birth control. Or take any kind of long-term medication, like for asthma or diabetes or epilepsy or anything. Or, hell, wear shoes or warm clothing in winter. Because all those items are--again, horrors!--artificial, cultural inventions that work against the "natural" state of affairs. What if with your bad eyesight you would have fallen down a flight of stairs and broken your neck before reproducing, but now, with glasses, you are free to spread your nearsighted genes unto the next generation?

Don't be absurd. We are human beings. We have managed to significantly alter quite a lot of our "natural" state. Even if I bought your bullshit evolutionary argument in favor of persecuting women, it would be no reason to perpetuate that state of affairs in this day and age.