Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Forbes, you stupid fucks.

This . . . article . . .

Yes, it's likely that marriages where both spouses are career-oriented are likely to encounter rough patches. Is this because careerwomen are essentially not "marriage material?" (Please note that particular sentence was dripping with sarcasm, so don't take too long pondering the answer.)

Careers are time-intensive. Marriages are time-intensive . Understandably, two-career marriages are a huge challenge. Is that because of women?

No. That's because of human nature.

Look -- There are just so many common sense criticisms you can make to an article that, quite seriously, lists "9 reasons not to marry a careerwoman" -- but, to me, it just gives yet another excuse for people who are like my sexist asshole ex-boss to denegrate women in the workplace.

This type of tone -- the idea, even, that this type of tone is acceptable for mainstream business press is horrific -- and unbelievably sexist. And disappointing and hurtful. And sad.

And note to self -- don't marry a man with a subscription to Forbes.

Stupid fucks.


Anonymous said...

Forbes was gay anyway, so this is kind of moot.

Regardless, while the "9 Reasons" was kinda Cosmo-esque, the article was decent, and brought up some good points that a lot of people (try half of everybody that gets married) seem to miss. Could you read it the wrong way if you're an ass? Of course! But most people can't interpret even the simplest of news correctly. Is that the fault of the authors?

Can this kind of marriage work? Sure. But people need to go in with their eyes wide open. Not many do.

So I disagree with you on this. But not about the fish, the fish are awesome.

Anonymous said...

Remember the bad old days:

Before my grandmother went to work, my grandfather spent all his money on gambling and drinnking. When Grandma went to work, suddenly Grandpa didn't go out at night.

Back in the 1960s I saw women find new-found respect from their husbands and families time and time again in American homes after the women went to work and didn't totally depend on men for their support.

There might possibly be more divorces with the strain of combining work and family, but its much better when what women feared was their husbands ditching them for their younger secretaries, with leaving them with no support, health insurance, credit, and retirement pay.

Maybe today's choices aren't so bad. I know we women sure worked hard enough to earn the rights to have them.