BlogHer - Feminist Blog Calls for Boycott of Forbes Magazine - Comments

Luke

sharadjha — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:24:00 -0500

Find the perfect vacuum cleaner at a price you can afford only at vacuum-home.com. Select from Hoover vacuum cleaners, eureka vacuum cleaners, royal vacuum cleaners and many other variants of vacuum cleaners and much more!

Boycott Forbes website

laurelcliff — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:09:02 -0500

www.boycottforbes.com

I don't read it but have

cooper — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:49:22 -0500

I don't read it but have convinced by brother to abandon it.

I personally think it was a publicity ploy; it appears to have backfired.

cooper

Is this a joke?

Absurda — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:03:26 -0500

Why would a magazine intentionally insult a part of their readership? They have to know that Career Women make up part of their readership, right? Intelligent men will realize this insults them as well, afterall it doesn't really paint men in such a good light either.

This article implies that the only way a man can keep his wife from leaving and acheive martial bliss is to make sure she's uneducated and locked in the house away from all men who could be his competition. That's the only way she can't prove a threat to his manliness. Not exactly the biggest ego boost.

And let's take a look at the whole, you're house is messier, thing. Like, what, the vacuum automatically stops working if pushed by a man instead of a woman? At any rate, the theory is, I guess, that the woman is spending all of her energy outside of the house working instead of inside it cleaning, so it's messier. This means that:
A) The man is too stupid to figure out how to clean the house himself
B) The man is too lazy to bother to clean the house himself
C) The man is too much of a slob to really notice that the house needs cleaning in the first place OR
D) Some unfortunate combination of the above.
That's not exaclty a flattering view of the male of the species.

So, I swore this had to be a joke. Then again, maybe not. Maybe it's aimed at beer-swilling fratboys and smug, narcissitic jerks who are too unsophisticated to understand the implications of what this article is really saying.

MEN

Liz Rizzo — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:51:25 -0500

Honestly, is it really so difficult to just not be a lazy bum? Seriously.

And I honestly can't believe anyone still cares who makes more money or who stays home with the children if someone does.

GET WITH THE FUTURE, PEOPLE.

It was a real drag for plantation owners to give up slavery, but that didn't mean it didn't have to be done in the name of FREEDOM.

Liz Rizzo

Everyday Goddess

SexySmart Blog

Great Post. Hard to believe

VT Girl — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:45:23 -0500

Great Post. Hard to believe this crap still exists. Check out the great discussions on their message boards.

http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board?board.id=respond_marry_career_woma...

A Mommy Story has some

Crunchy Carpets — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:01:48 -0500

GREAT things to say about that article and her readers were very vocal on the subject too.

Again...more of the strange sort backlash agains 'modern' woman that seems to be going on.

Link Text

Crippling us economically again...

Tish G — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:35:46 -0500

holy crap! I know Forbes is known for some seriously reactionary economic stuff (they put the "C" in capitalist for sure)...

I can't get over this gem:

the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you.

I wonder how many women he's talked with who were abandoned by their husbands once the guy got his medical career or ph.d.? The more successful, and upwardly mobile, he is, the more likely he might also pick up and move on...

Yet this neanderthalish essay plays to a very creepy, and utterly false, notion that women who stay home are always happy. How many women stay home (and stay married) not because they're happy or satisfied with who they married, but because they don't have any options to leave? How many women, who have stayed home for years, know the difficulties of getting back into the workforce, and know they will never be able to make enough money by themselves to support themselves (and possibly children)?

What this creep seems to be advocating is econoically crippling women by telling them if they make money (over 30 grand a year--not a great some) and have careers that they're not marriageable. Why is it always that, to get women to stay put, the best "solution" is to for them to be economically (or educationally) crippled?

Tish Grier
Editor, Corante Media Hub
Blogging at: The Constant Observer and
Love&Hope&Sex&Dreams

What a moron

feministmother — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:30:27 -0500

What was he thinking? I agree with the boycott, and glad you're spreading the word about it.

Feminist Moms

Feminist Blog Calls for Boycott of Forbes Magazine

Morra Aarons Mele — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:46:46 -0500

Echidne of the Snakes (the name is very Mists of Avalon, but we'll forgive her) is calling on a boycott of eminient business publication Forbes for a recent article warning of the dangers of marrying career women, written by executive editor Michael Noer. He writes:

"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."

And then goes on to cite many studies that show that "career" women are not as happy in the their marriages, nor do they make good wives.

Good night and shut the door!! Career woman? I thought that term went out with Diane Keaton in Baby Boom- only to be replaced with "stressed out blackberry-obsessed multi-tasking average American female."

I guess I'd better leave work now and get cooking for the return of my man tonight. Slippers and a martini, coming up! Actually, that doesn't sound so bad. Maybe I'll have a martini too.