Polimom thinks Michael Noer (Forbes magazine) picked the perfect career. Where else can you stick your foot square into the gaping mouth of an open laptop:
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.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?
It just gets better from there.
Unfortunately, the original article was yanked yesterday by the quailing Forbes editors and then reposted (with rebuttal but sans sideshow slideshow). Thanks to some alert folks, though, you can still find the original and the slideshow text (a must read!).
I wanted to write about this yesterday afternoon sooo-o-o badly… but I couldn’t; in spite of having finally groped my way to the Kleenex box to wipe the tears of laughter away so I could SEE again, my stomach hurt too much. (Belly-laughs are fun, but this was too much of a good thing.)
(An aside — I had a boyfriend like this once who could have been a model for this Freudian Posterboy with the quivering Id. Question: Can a Super-ego shrink in the wash?)
I have enormous empathy with those folks who are taking this sexist pig bozo highly respected writer seriously… but I have equal (even greater?) admiration for Mr. Noer, who evidently possesses bionic toes. Rather than disparage him, Polimom thinks we should instead give him the adulation due; most folks are limited to merely sticking their feet into their mouths — a messy but far more common method of looking like a fool.
I’m not sure how fast he can type with those toes but even now, they may be poised above the keyboard — his mouthpiece to the world.
Seems like the best thing to do here is simply go through Noer’s article and replace all the male nouns/pronouns with non-gender words. If he had written this from a non-gender viewpoint, it would just be a list of interesting marriage-related statistics.
It’s my understanding there are differences between male and female that exceed the external (and internal) biophysics.
Do I see a reference to another group originating the thought? “Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, …”
So now we’re killing the messenger? I do so love modern liberals.
As side note: Freudianism? I thought most modernist thought SIg’s stuff, including his simpleton theory of ego super-ego and id was dated more than bloomers, petticoats, and knickers?