Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.


————————————————————–

Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
Jad69

You have presented a complex and controversial issue as if it were a one-sided no-brainer, and this, Dear Forbes, is a no-no. I’m a journalist with a psychology degree from Yale, which gives me a good idea as to how this article was constructed. Michael Noer, the writer, searched through a scientific database and picked out of all the articles he could find that correlated working women with unhappy marriages, and then he ignored everything else. And trust me, he ignored a lot. I don’t have the time to go through every piece of scientific evidence that runs contrary to the article, so I’ll just direct your attention to the National Marriage Project, a source that Mr. Noer actually references.

The National Marriage Project is nonpartisan, interdisciplinary initiative based at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Mr. Noer wrote that in 2004, the National Marriage Project found that almost one out of five women in their early forties was childless, and that’s true. But he failed to mention that the project also found that women can dramatically lower their chances of divorce by receiving a college education, marrying over the age of 25, and earning more than $50,000 per year. In fact, according to the National Marriage Project, the two factors that hurt a woman’s chances of ever marrying the most are having a child out of wedlock and being unable to hold down a steady job.

There is nothing wrong with taking a controversial stance on a sensitive subject, but the reporting has to be good. Mr. Noer, I think a career change is in order, because the way things stand right now, I can’t imagine why someone would want to marry you.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Drapkin

08-23-2006 06:29 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jmurtell

I completely and wholeheartedly agree.
My company will be canceling our three subscriptions immediately.

The multi-layers of wrongness in this article cannot go unnoticed.
Or unpunished.

It is an outrage.

08-23-2006 07:29 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jlseagull

“I’m a journalist with a psychology degree from Yale”

I agree with your assertion of cherry-picking research, but the basic premise still stands – career women aren’t the best choice for successful family-minded men. Period.

Lastly, psychologists aren’t scientists, no matter how much they wish they were. 🙂 Sorry hon.

08-23-2006 07:59 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
JohnJameson

Listen you ladies need to stop being so dramatic, and look at what the article is saying. It’s saying that career women are not exactly the best marriage material because they HAVE CAREERS! DUH. This ain’t rocket surgery. In no way does it mean that YOU can’t have a successful marriage. Maybe your circumstances and choice of mate are perfectly compatible. Guess what? In GENERAL, they are NOT for most other career women. That’s all it is saying.

Want some more staistical backup??:
www.nomarriage.com

08-23-2006 09:21 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
outraged

JLSeagull, I would perhaps argue that psychologists are not doctors, but if you had ever taken a single serious psychology class in your life (I was not a psych major and in fact a biochemist.), you would have not made such a statement. Perhaps you should not talk about something out of your element.

08-23-2006 09:59 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
LL

Jad69, or Jennifer (How do you like to be addressed),?

You are right. There is nothing wrong with taking a controversial subject.

However,

Why the personal attacks on the author? Not that I know the guy, but it seems if someone posts something that is not “politically correct”, then not only is he “wrong” but then he must be denounced and silenced.

Are you afraid at what he has to say? Then rebut his article! Don’t personally attack him. For all you know, he may be happily married to a woman who loves him equally.

I seems that women (in general) are able to jump on someone when he/she even remotely criticises the female gender. Fine. But then, why the silence when men are attacked?

I am only to assume that this is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Personally, and I don’t mean to denounce what you say and I don’t mean to disacknolwedge the hard work it took you to get the education that you did. I fully respect the credentials you have BUT a yale degree is nothing in terms of what a person believes in. A KKK member can enroll in Yale if he is smart enough and get a Yale degree. Just because someone has a harvard degree (or any other ivy league degree) and, on paper, is the smartest person in the world doesn’t mean they are right on everything. There are scholars who are dead wrong on what they preach, as well.

All I am saying is that it does upset when scholars, sociologists and policy makers vehemently attack an article that criticises a certain aspect of society (let’s say, women) but then totally miss when someone attacks men.

My 0.02 cents.

-LL

08-23-2006 10:45 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jlseagull

Psychology’s propositions are by definition non-falsifiable; therefore, it is not and cannot ever be a science. At best, it is a methodology for therapy – and at worst it is a mechanism for separating the gullible from their money.

I have minors in neurology and psychology in addition to my two Master’s degrees in philosophy and electrical engineering. Leave science to the scientists.

08-23-2006 10:57 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
outraged

Do you really expect the readers here to believe that you “have minors in neurology and psychology in addition to two Master’s degrees in philosophy and electrical engineering”? Maybe in your own little mind. And again, if you really knew anything about psychology, you would not have called it a “methodology for therapy.” Try reading up on the subject. Here’sa start for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

08-24-2006 12:45 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
careerbitch

JLSeagull:

“Lastly, psychologists aren’t scientists, no matter how much they wish they were. Sorry hon.”

Do you honestly not understand that many areas of psychology are exclusively scientific? Do you know the definition of “science?” Do you think all psychologists are therapists? You must. Clearly you don’t know that it was a (female) psychologist who discovered neurogenesis. Or that it was psychologists who developed the theory and collected empirical findings about parallel distributed processing? Or that it was a psychologist who won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics (it’s a little award they give to pretty smart people).

Psychology (from the APA website):
Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior. The discipline of psychology embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the environments in which humans and other animals develop; from child development to aging. Psychology is a science based on a large body of social science and behavioral science research and which is expanding its boundaries to overlap with neuroscience and health science. Psychologists study two critical relationships: one between brain function and behavior, and one between the environment and behavior. As scientists, psychologists follow scientific methods, using careful observation experimentation and analysis to learn more about the world in which we live and its inhabitents.

Stop posting such ignorant comments. You continue to embarrass yourself. Sheesh.

08-24-2006 01:35 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jlseagull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Psychology does not provide adequately for falsifiability of its own theories – meaning “if X is true, then theory Y is demonstrably false.” In psychology, there is no analogue to Galileo falsifying Aristotle’s theories about gravity – psychology continues to build upon itself without a mechanism to invalidate any of it.

It can however be empirical and this makes it an entertaining diversion – but certainly not something I’d want a career in.

Psychology – good for a dilettante, bad for a scientist.

08-24-2006 01:58 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
Marta2003

jlseagull wrote:

I agree with your assertion of cherry-picking research, but the basic premise still stands – career women aren’t the best choice for successful family-minded men. Period.

So you’d agree that a not-so-successful family-minded man could deal with a career woman? Say a man who is interested enough in the children he’s created to actually make personal sacrifices for them in the form of lost professional glory and advancement?

Well at least you’re honest.

08-24-2006 03:24 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
outraged

Heh…. your comments just continue to prove how ignorant you are and show a lack of understanding for the wikipedia articles that clearly define psychology and falsifiability. Again, if you have ever encountered the field of psychology, participated in its experiments or conducted an experiment, you would not have made such statements, including the Galileo/Aristotle analogy. I suggest reading some scientific journals on psychology. As Careerbitch pointed out, there are many fields of psychology and I would suggest understanding the fundamentals of the field before commenting on it.

I agree with Careerbitch. Stop posting such ignorant comments and posing as a “scientist.” You are embarassing yourself and starting to embrass the science community as well.

08-24-2006 08:26 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
balroggie

“But he failed to mention that the project also found that women can dramatically lower their chances of divorce by receiving a college education, marrying over the age of 25, and earning more than $50,000 per year.”

Yes and *you* fail to mention that the reason divorce is less for such women is that by marrying over 25 with a college education the chances for the woman marrying period are drastically reduced. It is true you do not run the risk of divorce if you never get married, just like you do not run the risk of dying in a plane crash if you never fly. Is this what passes for science in the Psych ward of Yale these days?

08-24-2006 08:53 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jlseagull

Do you honestly not understand that many areas of psychology are exclusively scientific? Do you know the definition of “science?” Do you think all psychologists are therapists? You must. Clearly you don’t know that it was a (female) psychologist who discovered neurogenesis.

Neurogenesis. That would be biology, right? A SCIENCE.

Or that it was psychologists who developed the theory and collected empirical findings about parallel distributed processing?

And how were those theories proven and implemented? By computer SCIENTISTS.

Or that it was a psychologist who won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics (it’s a little award they give to pretty smart people).

They also have a Nobel Prize in literature, and literature is no more a science than economics or psychology. What was your point again?

Look, just admit that psychology is a realm where smart, motivated people can make a difference in the world, just like literature. But like literature, it’s not a science. It’s OK that you’re a psychology major, just don’t try to say you’re a scientist.

08-24-2006 10:54 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
grrlpower

to JLseagull

did you go to yale? because the original poster’s point was that you can take ANY stat and make it fit your sorry little excuse of a story.

the fact is – this article is akin to the Time magazine “women over 40 have a better chance of getting kidnapped by terrorists than getting married” – its a scare tactic for women to stop being successful so they can suit weak minded men’s insecure egos.

you are a sorry sad little man and i feel bad for any woman that passes your path.

08-24-2006 12:37 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
jlseagull

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Do they even TEACH argumentation any more?

Listen. If you have an issue with the FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED, by all means rebut the facts. Don’t go after the messengers, it is merely a tacit admission that you’re not capable of addressing the topic at hand effectively. The reason rational people don’t resort to ad hominem is that it’s rhetorical laziness.

08-24-2006 05:18 PM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
MidsummerKnight

“As Careerbitch pointed out, there are many fields of psychology and I would suggest understanding the fundamentals of the field before commenting on it.”

Just… uh… don’t ask me to actually clear anything up, m’kay?

That’s essentially the tone of the opposition here. “Yeah, you’re wrong, because you’re stupid and ignorant, so go get yourself smart and informed, and then you’ll agree with me, and then you’ll be right.” QED, or something.

08-29-2006 11:57 AM

————————————————————–

Re: Wow, this article offends me as a journalist, a scientist and a woman.
dflynn5656

Jennifer – I was very impressed by your ability to twist peoples minds regarding the following comment:

“The National Marriage Project found that almost one out of five women in their early forties was childless, and that s true. But he failed to mention that the project also found that women can dramatically lower their chances of divorce by receiving a college education, marrying over the age of 25, and earning more than $50,000 per year. In fact, according to the National Marriage Project, the two factors that hurt a womanâ s chances of ever marrying the most are having a child out of wedlock and being unable to hold down a steady job.”

So Jenn, when women didn’t have $50,000 jobs in the 1950’s do you suppose the divorce rate was higher or lower?

This sort of tripe is silly, and a reason why I chose engineering for my educational path over psychology. The ability to think will always trump the ability to be a better statistical researcher – which you criticise Noer for not being.

Do you believe ANY career girl here would select another work team member who was on three other projects as a “first choice” her OWN team?

Not likely – cause when THEY needed her – she’d be otherwise occupied on the other tasks. Same for marriage kiddo. If you want to be good at something, you need to focus on THAT, not be daddy and mommy – and godless to boot.

David

09-01-2006 11:29 AM

————————————————————–

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: