Forbes published an article about a week ago by Michael Noer called "Don't Marry Career Women"... and angry lesbians everywhere have not been able to shut up about it!
Just kidding about the angry lesbians.
According to the article: "professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat and less likely to have children. And if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it."
As you can imagine this article has upset a lot of people: talk shows and blogs have been buzzing and Forbes' chief editor has been buried under a mountain of hate mail. Everyone is upset about the sexist and backwards-thinking article Forbes had the audacity to print.
Because of the backlash another Forbes columnist, Elizabeth Corcoran, gave her response the next day (to the side of Michael's article). Read it if you want but it's mostly anecdotal. A better response was posted in Slate where Jack Shafer examines the actual sociological studies.
Now, I'm not saying that the sociological findings are right. I don't know if career women are more likely to divorce or cheat on their husbands. But that's not what bothers me here. What bothers me is
1) The way Forbes was called "socially irresponsible" for publishing the findings.
I agree that media is often socially irresponsible, but not here. A magazine isn't irresponsible because it published something politically incorrect. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true: if a magazine censors itself out of fear of public opinion it lacks journalistic integrity.
2) How people felt public outcry can refute scientific findings.
The underlying premise of a scientific finding is that an objective observer, faced with the same evidence, would come to the same conclusion. So if you hear a batch of statistics, the thing to do is to study how the poll was taken, what questions were asked, and how the conclusions were made. What you don't do is say, "I don't like that finding because it disagrees with my worldview. I will try and stifle the findings through my rage."
Once again, I'm not saying Michael Noer was right. But I do feel the public was wrong.
7 years ago
5 comments:
I see your point. Why else would he have entitled it “Don't Marry Career Women”? Obviously, it is not a completely objective article with a title like that. On the other hand, why can’t he form an opinion based on a sociological study? I haven’t read the article yet, but it does bother me that people freak out every time someone’s opinion differs from their own. It’s almost as if if we don’t all think the same thing then those outside the mainstream are stupid and wrong and those within the mainstream kick, scream, and whine until those with opposing views finally shut up. And that is what bothers me.
Are we as a public offended because it might be true? If an article is backed by studies, is it really more correct? I feel that the author has the right to publish whatever article he wants. If we as a public are outraged, hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook. Don't spend your money on what they are selling if you don't agree with it!!
I just wrote a big comment, and it disappeared. I'm ticked. To sum up:
The article was interesting. After all, we've got a lot of sociological problems in our society, many of which are rising rapidly. Divorce and extramarital affairs are two which are becoming frighteningly commonplace. Meanwhile, the traditional roles of men and women, including marriage, have been questioned. I think it seems only logical that studies be conducted that test correlation and causation, and darn logical that we pay attention to their conclusions.
I agree with Jared that a person can challenge the method of the tests, or choose to disregard them personally, but it's ridiculous to be angry because they were published, or because the author happens to agree with them.
I agree with Julare's friend that the author did have a bit of an attitude, which made it difficult to swallow -- even from a woman who happens to share a lot of those same concerns. I agree that the article seems to have been written in an inflammatory tone, rather than as a impartial and/or caring voice of caution.
Good points, all.
I'd love to leave this post up a bit longer but I have something else on my mind...
People have always overreacted to contrary opinions, and they probably always will. Heck, I've been guilty of it. The Internet only tends to fan the flames, since it's so easy for John Q. Moron to add his devalued-by-inflation two cents.
When it's an unpopular viewpoint, it's all that much easier to attack. We have grown up in a generation that's been told it's okay for women to work, indeed, it's practically expected. I more or less agree with the idea, and it may even be correct. It's funny--or perhaps not--that we are so ready to villify a different opinion without even thinking critically about it. After all, whatever the reader's bias, the article offers some things to think about.
Modern society is no different than its predecessors: always ready to attack and crush the dissident, the outsider.
Post a Comment