It’s an interesting contrast to see the difference between men and women’s approach in dealing with complex social issues such as marriage; men deal with logics, reasoning and statistics, women deal with emotion, hysteria, and intimidation, as the two articles posted side by side in the Forbes.com best illustrate. It’s amazing a woman (or a person) of this caliber who cannot cite single source of reference or data to back her claim up, is charged with writing a front page article for such a large magazine - all hail to the affirmative action! Without it, she wouldn’t have and certainly shouldn’t have come this far.
It is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society. Is it advancement for a society or start of the decline of civilization?
It’s a fact of life that only liberals and feminists get to have articles pulled out from the internet immediately after it was posted, and have your “counterpoints” posted side by side to it; you don’t see very often conservative or men’s “counterpoint” posted on feminists issue articles that are posted perhaps thousand times more frequently. It’s also a (sad) fact of life that only feminists and liberals could write article solely based on hysteric fits and have other treated it as an “article’ worthy of being posted on a large website.
I’m sure that this poor author will be stripped of all his career opportunities, probably fired for any reason that feminists could concoct (Mr. Noel, don’t be surprised that suddenly any of one of the recently mass-manufactured 50-plus year old high-powered female exec will accuse you of sexual harassment for the suggestive look that you give to her two years ago), maybe a mandatory sensitive training for all male staff will be instituted at the entire magazine, or even worse, at the entire industry. I have no doubt that the New York Times and the Washington Post are more than willing to write articles to push for it.
Usually the typical responses from the feminists and liberals to articles or views that are not in line with their dogma are intimidation and implying instituting censorship. However the New York Times took a slightly different approach this time, attacking the website itself that posted such article, claiming that, contrary to the claim by the company, the website does not have as much web visitors as it claims. Maybe they were hoping that their article will reduce the readership or visitors to the website and the magazine, and the advertising companies to would consider putting ads in the Forbes. The article in Washington Post tried to associate Mr. Noel’s article with Forbes’ occasional so-called ‘saucy” articles thus discredit it. Overall curiously devoid of any analysis or her own views on the issue, she attempts to put on some of neutrality by citing some “support’ for Mr. Noer’s article, but she could cite only one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sure, Noer spews a lot of data. But that does NOT mean that the data support his conclusions. His conclusions are all VALUE judgments and furthermore, they are very much driven by hysterical emotionalism.
Noer's aassumptions and value judgments impose a heavy burden on wives to do all the work in a relationship and demand nothing from the husband other than a paycheck (from which the husband reaps enormous personal benefits in terms of personal autonomy and career advancement). For example, it may be a fact that the homes of two-career couples are "dirtier." But Noer goes beyond that "fact" to argue that marrying a career woman is a bad idea-- never does he consider that the solution to a dirtier home is the husband pitching in or the husband not having a career, or the couple simply sacrificing cleanliness so that both parties can pursue other goals that are more important to them.
Noer also utterly ignores the context in which some of the facts arise. For example, it may be a fact that career women with children are often stressed out and unhappy. But that is due to the fact that women are expected to maintain the burden of primary care of home and children even while having a career. So Noer again goes beyond the facts to argue that women shouldn't have careers so they can shoulder all the (unpaid) responsibility of making sure that the house is clean and that their husbands aren't sick.
Furthermore, Noer is transparently motivated by fear and insecurity (i.e. hysterical emotionalism), as summarized in this piece at Feministe:
Noer’s Forbes article reeks of [fear]. All of his “advice” about marrying career women is at heart a manifestation of his fear, and the fear of men like him: that unless he keeps her in a cage, no woman will stay with him. My God, if she finds out there’s a world outside the house, there will be no keeping her at my side! If she has a job, she has contact with other men, and she might cuckold me. If she has money, she has the means to leave me. If she’s invested in her career, she might refuse to get tied down with children, and she’ll not only leave me, she’ll leave me without giving me ownership of her womb. If she works as many hours as I do, she might expect me to do my share around the house.
Also, I am unaware of any censorship of Noer. He is perfectly free to start a blog and spout any beliefs he wants. But Forbes magazine is naturally concerned about its customer base, 35% of subscribers being women (likely career women given Forbes's focus on business issues). As a business woman, I have every right to say to Forbes, "The values your magazine espoused in your Noer article are morally repugnant and therefore I am canceling my subscription." In the U.S., we call this free speech -- and women have just as much of a right to it as men.
It’s amazing a woman (or a person) of this caliber who cannot cite single source of reference or data to back her claim up, is charged with writing a front page article for such a large magazine - all hail to the affirmative action!
Speaking of not being able to back up one's claims with facts, you should know that affirmative action is illegal in the United States private sector. The law prohibits private companies from discriminating on the basis of sex. Therefore, a private United States company like Forbes is precluded from affirmative action programs in which hiring decisions are made to favor women applicants.
. . . [M]en deal with logics, reasoning and statistics, women deal with emotion, hysteria, and intimidation, as the two articles posted side by side in the Forbes.com best illustrate.
I note that there are no statistics to back up your claim.
It is actually to some extent a frightening to think that women who are not able to distinguish, or understand, or value the difference between statistics and personal anecdotes is taking on more and more executive positions in American society.
Again, no statistics to back up your claim. One wonders also about writers who are unable to distinguish between factual data and value judgments, as the writer of this post was apparently unable to do.
Thank you for your comments.
I do not know why feminists always want to attribute "fear" as a motivation that drives men to write articles that feminists don't appreciate. Maybe it's because their entie worldview is based on power relationship between classes (men and women)and they cannot understand things in other terms.
Also you said that you are unaware of any censorship of Noer. Right. And in the next sentence you suggest that Forbes should be concerned about female readership which constitutes.... Forbes would consider whatever factor that they deem to be relevant and that may or may not include large percentgae of female readership but it's not your job to suggest it, if you are to suggest it, it is called "intimidation".
Regarding the affirmative action in the next comment (are you the same person? if so, thank you again), private companies may not be subject to the same law that forced the universities and public sectors to do some race-based or gender-based admission/hiring/contract awarding but we are all too aware of myriads of empowerment programs/incentives/quantitative goals/etc. that are targeted for particular gender and race.
Post a Comment