For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!

For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
cwilford
Newbie
cwilford

In my high school and college days we had to do research papers. When we wrote papers we looked up studies on a particular issue, such as marriage and careers, and we wrote about what we found out from the studies. We did not write what our opinion was, we wrote what all of the studies on the issue concluded,  and we let that tell the story.
This man was not stating his opinion. He was stating what a bunch of research studies found. REREAD the article.
The funny thing is, these were research studies that all concluded the same thing. In order to come to these conclusions, these studies used real living women, and they had to have used career women. In order for them to come to this conclusion about this topic, that had to survey/interview people that they were researching…career women.
I think you all are so upset becasue someone let the cat out of the bag about you. About what you really think and feel. Maybe not all of you, but a majority of you.
And I am a college educated, former career woman, who decided to leave her career to stay home with her children, and I am much happier because of it.  🙂

08-25-2006 04:09 PM

Re: For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
pinkpantie80
Visitor
pinkpantie80

That is great that you stay home with your children now.  Your right women are taking this article the wrong way.  But what should we expect with all the feminist out there.

08-25-2006 04:16 PM

Re: For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
TennisPirate
Newbie
TennisPirate
It’s not the statistics we’re upset about. It’s the tone he uses. For heaven’s sake, the title is, “Don’t Marry Career Women.” What do YOU think the writer is trying to say here?

He could very well have taken the same stats and used them to write an article about how we need to try harder to accept women with jobs instead of shunning them as we seem to be doing now. All his statists show is that men are, as a whole, uncomfortable with the idea of their wives working. That should be viewed as disturbing, not embraced as a way of life.

The author is writing from a man’s point of view, advising men on how to select their wives. This in itself is annoying. He does not at any point consider the feelings or personalities of the women he is telling his readers to avoid. Just because a woman has a job, does that automatically make her any less of a good person?

Marriage should be based on love, not on jobs or income.

08-25-2006 04:22 PM

Re: For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
meeper
Visitor
meeper

Mmm.

“We did not write what our opinion was, we wrote what all of the studies on the issue concluded,  and we let that tell the story.”

Could be a good point….  but come on, girl, *reread the article*.  What I learned in the 9th grade in my journalism class was that a good opinion article states all the data and arguments for your point, states the data and arguments for the opposing point and then refutes each of them, and lets *that* tell the story.

Mr. Noer at no point quotes a single article or data point that tells a different story (do you really, honestly believe that he looked for them and they don’t exist?).

Therefore, his article, though it quotes a lot of sources is NOT well researched, or particularly well argued and I think it’s perfectly fair for people to become incensed at that kind of twisting and filtering of data to serve his agenda.  It’s not journalism that’s worthy of a major magazine (I would never have let it get into my high school newspaper without a major rewrite), and Forbes really ought to be ashamed of itself.

08-25-2006 05:09 PM

Re: For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

TennisPirate wrote:
It’s not the statistics we’re upset about. It’s the tone he uses. For heaven’s sake, the title is, “Don’t Marry Career Women.” What do YOU think the writer is trying to say here?

He could very well have taken the same stats and used them to write an article about how we need to try harder to accept women with jobs instead of shunning them as we seem to be doing now. All his statists show is that men are, as a whole, uncomfortable with the idea of their wives working. That should be viewed as disturbing, not embraced as a way of life.

The author is writing from a man’s point of view, advising men on how to select their wives. This in itself is annoying. He does not at any point consider the feelings or personalities of the women he is telling his readers to avoid. Just because a woman has a job, does that automatically make her any less of a good person?

Marriage should be based on love, not on jobs or income.

“It’s not the statistics we’re upset about. It’s the tone he uses.”

Well let’s hope Mr. Noer can attend some feminist “sensitivity training” classes so he can sugar-coat those statistics for you.

“For heaven’s sake, the title is, “Don’t Marry Career Women.” What do YOU think the writer is trying to say here?”

Ummmm… err… I think he’s trying to say, “Don’t Marry a Career Woman”…. perhaps because the statistics show the odds are stacked against a man who does vs. other marrying other types of women.

“He could very well have taken the same stats and used them to write an article about how we need to try harder to accept women with jobs instead of shunning them as we seem to be doing now.”

First of all, who the h..l died and made you God?!?! When you suggest that anyone should indoctrinate anyone to conform to your preconceived notions and biases, you are no different than fascists of old like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Human liberty works because it allows society to conform to nature if it so chooses (and if society does not conform to nature – history shows such societies eventually collapse and are replaced with societies that do conform to nature moreso), your attempts at fascist indoctrination do not work and will not work because you have no right to force your expectations of how anyone should be in this regard upon anyone whatsoever. The very fact that you say “we need to try harder to accept women with jobs…” is fascist-minded, not liberty minded. Your fascist views on indoctrinating will not work, because they are evil. Anytime anyone thinks they have a right to tinker with another human’s psyche, such a tinkerer is absolutely evil to the core. How would you like if I said, “We need to try harder to accept women as barefoot and pregnant instead of shunning them as we seem to be doing now.”? If you think your statement deserves action whereas my statement deserves ridicule, it can only be so because you’re a fascist who is evil to the core. By the way, I do not believe we should try harder to accept women as barefoot and pregnant, I simply used that to prove my point that you have been indoctrinated to the point that you now spout out evil fascist rhetoric, and you probably think you should be applauded for it! God help us!

“All his statists show is that men are, as a whole, uncomfortable with the idea of their wives working. That should be viewed as disturbing, not embraced as a way of life.”

I don’t know where you got that conclusion from. Why would a man marry a career woman in the first place if the man is uncomfortable with his wife working? Are men really that stupid to be uncomfortable with a woman who is working and yet still marry her? If they are, don’t you think they get what they deserve? Ya know, stupid is as stupid does. Again, I’m liberty-minded, so I don’t know why it should disturb me or anyone else what another man desires or despises in a wife. If you are an evil fascist who thinks that God died and put you in charge, then I can see how it would be disturbing to you when men or women do not conform to your fascist worldview.

“The author is writing from a man’s point of view, advising men on how to select their wives. This in itself is annoying. He does not at any point consider the feelings or personalities of the women he is telling his readers to avoid.”

Do you ever listen to yourself? For example, let’s take that last statement and switch the genders around like this, “The author is writing from a woman’s point of view, adivising women on how to select their husbands. This in itself is annoying. She does not at any point consider the feelings or personalities of the men she is telling her readers to avoid.” Everyone who selects a spouse usually shuns a few potential spouses or gets shunned as well, that’s life, deal with it. You really seem to have a problem when things are not sugar-coated or sanitized to your liking. In other words, you can’t handle the facts as they are, you seem to want them sugar-coated and sanitized for your consumption — the problem is that only happens on fantasy island, and we are living in the real world cupcake.

“Just because a woman has a job, does that automatically make her any less of a good person? Marriage should be based on love, not on jobs or income.”

The article was about marriage. If a man does not find a career woman to be desirable to him, and he shuns any and all attempts at even entertaining a thought of being within 10 feet of a career woman, why does that get under your skin enough to make statements like you do? What a man desires or finds attractive is none of your business or care, unless you are the target of that man’s affections! Please get over your evil fascist views and your god-complex thinking that you have a right to tinker with other people’s psyches! You will be happier for it, and so will the rest of the world!

08-25-2006 05:35 PM

Re: For Career Woman you are DUMB! Reread the article without your feminist eyeglasses!
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Therefore, his article, though it quotes a lot of sources is NOT well researched, or particularly well argued and I think it’s perfectly fair for people to become incensed at that kind of twisting and filtering of data to serve his agenda.  It’s not journalism that’s worthy of a major magazine (I would never have let it get into my high school newspaper without a major rewrite), and Forbes really ought to be ashamed of itself.

The fact is that the points he argued ARE backed up by study after study, and he just encapsulated them sans data points.

I have had this conversation over and over the past 4 years – the fact that I continually run into ignorance is, frankly, not my problem.

Anglo-Women who have lived in the U.S. for more than 2 generations are having children at a below replacement rate.  Career women are more likely to divorce, and 66%-93% of divorces are initiated and filed by the woman.  These are not opinions, these are facts.

Lastly, almost every article that bashes men has had a distinct lack of data points and a twisting and filtering of data to serve the feminist agenda.  Why do you hold this article to a standard that you don’t hold for the average feminist article?  Could it be that you agree with the latter but disagree with the former?

It’s not journalism that’s worthy of a major magazine (I would never have let it get into my high school newspaper without a major rewrite), and Forbes really ought to be ashamed of itself.

Too bad.  Men read anti-male articles day in and day out, but no one complains.  This is just a case of a truthful article you don’t agree with.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks…

08-25-2006 06:11 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: