A Statement


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A Statement

A Statement
Zash
Visitor
Zash
While we are all entitled to our opinions, said opinions should not be used to twist statistical data. This article was written with the purpose to say that women should not be in the workplace, because if they are they are useless as life partners. This degrades women by stealing their rights and abilities to function in an independent manner, and degrades men by saying that they cannot function if they don’t have a “little woman” to care for them. And to top it all off, this article breaks several rules of writing.

First and foremost, it breaks the cardinal rule a writer must always remember: be true to your subject matter. By blaming the careers of working women for all the problems men encounter in their relationships, Michael Noer was true to a chauvinistic agenda. This relates to the second rule he broke. He took statistical findings, mentioning the findings he approved of almost to the exclusion of other relevant findings he did not approve of, and used them to prove his opinions and agenda without consideration for any other possible reasons for the chosen findings mentioned. Noer also entirely ignores forty years worth of studies pointing to women’s dissatisfaction in marriage stemming from a leading cause of a man’s belief that it is a woman’s place to do any housework needed.

Aside from breaking these two rules, he breaks yet a third. He uses language that is disrespectful, inflammatory, and inaccurate. If I am a “career girl,” do there happen to be any “career boys” out there? He intimates that professional women are prostitutes, but how many men have extramarital affairs? Insulting your potential readers, even if they are not the intended audience (and since when was Forbes geared only to men?), is never a good thing to do. Especially with flawed reasoning.

I am 25, hold a Masters, teach college, and am a published writer. Still, only 8-9 years ago, I was pulled to side of a classroom (in full view and hearing of my rather large class) and lectured that my place was kneeling to my husband, keeping house, and threatening the kids with their father. This is not an exaggeration. All I’ve done is fit a long lecture into a long sentence. Noer ran eerily along the same line of argument as that lecture did. Does this mean Noer is speaking his mind? Perhaps, but he is also advocating sexism as acceptable behavior. He is absolving men of any responsibility in a failing relationship by implying that any effort is too much effort.

The Women’s Movement is still as necessary today as ever before! Because the sexism is currently being mostly covered over by a veneer of respectability! Which just allows it to continue and stifles the changes that are still needed! Placing a refutation, a so-called counterpoint opinion, next to Noer’s article is proof of this. This blatant example of chauvinism is now being allowed to flourish with a new sheen of respectability via the mantle of opinion. A mantle whose feasibility is corroborated by a woman’s “defending” opinion.

I think Noer’s article was ridiculous. It was badly written by a writer who seems to be insecure, which makes me wonder if he has been recently rejected by a professional woman for the sort of behavior he advocates in this article. I also think Forbes should not only be ashamed of publishing this article, but that both Forbes and Elizabeth Corcoran should be ashamed of making it seem acceptable. And that is how you truly state an opinion, not by twisting statistics and saying it is fact.

08-24-2006 08:03 PM

Re: A Statement
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Feminism is a genetic dead-end. High achieving men – those who are able to think for themselves – circumvent feminist indoctrination and more often than not maintain traditional values, which includes finding a women with similar values.

Ultimately you are welcome to do as you please. Nobody is keeping you from your career path or preventing you from taking it as far as possible. However, you are quite in error if you maintain the belief that there is no darwinian cost associated with this choice. Look around and you are bound to find that successful men fall increasingly into the conservative segment of society. This is an inescapable fact that no amount of denial, no amount of indoctrination, and no amount of censorship can ever refute. Feminism may have managed to censor conventional thought via their stranglehold on the MSM; but as the saying goes, the more you tighten your grip in an attempt to censor reality and rational thought, the more the truth will slip right past your fingers.

Feminist ideology is an evolutionary dead end. You can struggle against the universe and in the end the universe wins.

08-24-2006 08:17 PM

Re: A Statement
Zash
Visitor
Zash
Actually, if you look at history, femininism would seem to be the direction evolution is going in. We have the Jewish Prophetess and Warress Deborah, Boudiccea who led her people against the Romans, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth I, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many other women who have done great things for their people throughout history. They have fought and died doing what they believed was right for their people, but they are mostly unremembered because of the history books being written by those with agendas that did not include strong women. But they do seem to become more prominent as time passes.

So I must ask, have you noticed you’re the one fighting the universe lately? Feminism has been going on for ages, and it’s only getting stronger. Move over and stop just pretending to use your brain cells. Start by trying to actually answer my original post in a reasonable manner. Or is it too reasonable and logical for you?

08-24-2006 08:38 PM

Re: A Statement
yukio9us
Visitor
yukio9us

In writing her ridiculous Statement–replete with a personal anecdote that adds nothing and exclamation marks to decry Forbes use of the word “opinion” to describe the genre of newspaper writing to which these pieces clearly belong (uh…Op-Ed)– Zash breaches the cardinal rule of young academia: she takes herself too seriously. I can assure you Noer does not make the same error.

Here’s a fresh take for all those out there so intent on flaying Noer: His entire article is tongue and cheek. He nevers claims it to be an airtight argument; nor is he really arguing that one shouldn’t marry a carreer women. And for chrissake people, he doesn’t defend men, suggesting only that men might not want to marry women just like them. All he does do is present a provocative title to get readers (check) and present corellations. Read his final paragraph. I don’t think there can be a clearer parting line to all those who would rush in to declare him a misogynist, that they should not take his article too seriously.

Regardless of his attitudes about women, undoubtedly Noer is chuckling at those like Zash, whether male or female, who felt the need to diatribe.

08-24-2006 08:51 PM

Re: A Statement
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus
Your statement is so stupid and evidencing such talented doublethink I can’t for a moment entertain the idea that I can convince you out of your stupidity.

Obviously, for a fembot such as you, everything degrades women, steals their rights, and destroys their ability to function (nevermind you are just as intelligent and capable as men). I won’t try to argue that one since it’s so patently obvious to feminists just like up being down… i’ll conceed it I guess. However, I have one request. Could you provide me with a list of things that are NOT OPRESSIVE TO WOMEN that men can do? Or is it pretty much everything? That way we opressive males can finish earlier and stop walking on eggshells. Thanks in advance.

I never recieved my copy of the chauvinistic agenda… I do have the Patriarchy’s Manual somewhere, however. Seriously though, you feminists live in some sort of twilight zone and I wonder if you will ever realize just how sick, twisted, and plain evil you are. Just because you fembots work in collusion to change society into what you think it should be don’t assume men fight dirty too. I know the thief thinks everybody steals, but get it through your heads: MEN AREN’T WOMEN. STOP PROJECTING.

“The third rule of writing is to not be disrespectful, inflammatory, or inaccurate.” Says who? You? Who gave you these rules, your favourite teacher in a printout? Try reading Ann Coulter- for someone who breaks those rules, she’s certainly successful. In fact, read Ann Coulter, maybe some unpolitical correctness will unbrainwash you. As for the article in question being discussed- it’s only disrespectful in the sense that it threatens the feminist/PC status quo, inflammatory because you are not used to being challenged, and inaccurate because you won’t believe the truth.

As for a “man’s belief that it is a woman’s place to do any housework needed.” Who are you to paint all men in the same brush like that? And then accuse (read: project into) others of doing what you do? I guess when it comes to talking about MEN, there is no need for careful language or disclaimers.

Your statement would have not been complete without an ad hominem attack on the writer. Creative. Never seen that before. For someone with your writing talents and credentials, i’m not impressed.

08-24-2006 08:55 PM

Re: A Statement
Zash
Visitor
Zash
The only reason I wish to reply to your personal (and rather unintelligent) attack is one thing you said. I am not accusing all men of believing housework to be woman’s work. I am only pointing out that some men’s thinking this is what causes a high percentage of women’s unhappiness in marriage. This percentage would be 100 and not ignorable if it were all men that believed this.

08-24-2006 09:04 PM

Re: A Statement
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Zash the historic women you mentioned before achieved there position by leading working with and supporting men not shaming and attacking them, they also lack the entitlement complex of modern feminists and earned their status, Joan of ark did not get in on a quota.

08-24-2006 09:17 PM

Re: A Statement
MrDonadei
Contributor
MrDonadei

Zash, don’t care about them. Most people simply can’t reply with a well argumented post to what you wrote in a very good style. I totally agree on everything.

08-24-2006 09:17 PM

Re: A Statement
yukio9us
Visitor
yukio9us

“I am only pointing out that some men’s thinking this is what causes a high percentage of women’s unhappiness in marriage. This percentage would be 100 and not ignorable if it were all men that believed this.”

Does anyone understand what Zash means? Is she suggesting that a majority of women are unhappy in marriage because some men just happen to be sexist? I suppose it’s not worth figuring her out, but such poor phrasing is just so darn “not ignorable”.

Also intriguing that she goes from arguing that the feminist movement is as necessary today as ever in one post and then spends her second listing its glories and progress over the years.

08-24-2006 09:21 PM

Re: A Statement
MrDonadei
Contributor
MrDonadei

yuli,

Zash is saying that it is thanks to people able to spread stereotypes like the one in the article, because a man that read the article could actually believe in what is reported.

08-24-2006 09:27 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A Statement

Re: A Statement
Zash
Visitor
Zash

MrDonadei wrote:
Zash, don’t care about them. Most people simply can’t reply with a well argumented post to what you wrote in a very good style. I totally agree on everything.

Thank you! ^.^ It would seem that you are absolutely correct.

08-24-2006 09:27 PM

Re: A Statement
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

Zash wrote:
The only reason I wish to reply to your personal (and rather unintelligent) attack is one thing you said. I am not accusing all men of believing housework to be woman’s work. I am only pointing out that some men’s thinking this is what causes a high percentage of women’s unhappiness in marriage. This percentage would be 100 and not ignorable if it were all men that believed this.

I’m afraid the political is personal and the personal is political at this point- I learned that from the feminists. When a group makes me a second class citizen, I’m not going to be nice to those who think it’s a good thing.

There is nothing to discuss here since you are probably one of those who believe being a housewife is an degrading, unpaid job akin to slavery.

Message Edited by Angelus on 08-24-2006 09:49 PM

08-24-2006 09:38 PM

Re: A Statement
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

MrDonadei wrote:
yuli,

Zash is saying that it is thanks to people able to spread stereotypes like the one in the article, because a man that read the article could actually believe in what is reported.

In other words, people need to be protected from ideas you find threatening, because allowing people to read what they want ends up in beliefs you don’t like? Of course, you will fight stereotypes at the expense of free speech as long as it is OTHER’s free speech and the stereotypes YOU don’t like.

You are morally blind and I will never respect people who rationalize the way you do.

08-24-2006 09:47 PM

Re: A Statement
Hedgie
Regular Contributor
Hedgie

Antiriad wrote:

“Feminism is a genetic dead-end. High achieving men – those who are able to think for themselves – circumvent feminist indoctrination and more often than not maintain traditional values, which includes finding a women with similar values.”

Well said. The part of the population espousing feminism isn’t reproducing. It’s dying out. Either feminists remain childless, or they simply have very few children. The Blue-Staters are disappearing. But not soon enough, in my opinion.

Message Edited by Hedgie on 08-25-2006 09:06 AM

08-24-2006 10:42 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: