Ladies,
I have a couple of observations about Michael Noer's article. As a man, I would like very much to comment on this. Since I'm in the USA, this article has garnered much attention; only if one is living in a cave can he escape hearing about it. It is all over our mass media here.
As for the points I wish to make, they are as follows: 1) Mr. Noer does NOT hate women; 2) Mr. Noer does NOT tell women to be barefoot & pregnant; 3) he is not saying career women evil people; 4) Mr. Noer IS saying that career women make poor partners, and he lays out sound reasons as to WHY this is so. That is all he said! In spite of this, you women get all angry and upset about that which is obvious to anyone who really READS the article.
Women have every right to pursue a career; they have every right to live their lives as they see fit. Conversely, us men have every right to decide whether or not we like your choices, and to decide whether or not these choices will be pleasing to us; we have a right to decide whether or not a woman will be a help or hinderance in our lives. Therefore, we have the right to select our mates accordingly, and we will excercise that right. Why do you women have such a problem with this?
Do you not make certain choices in men all the time? Do you not like certain types of men more than others? Isn't it true that you'll prefer certain men vs. others, regardless of the reason? Do you not have the right to make your choices? The answer would be 'yes' to all the above. Well, Little Missy, let me ask you this: how would YOU like it if we gave you grief over your choices, simply because we did not like them, hmmm? That is what you're doing with us. Why is it ok to give men grief for their choices, yet it wouldn't be ok if the shoe were on the other foot, as it were? We, as men, respect the right of women to make their choices; we, as men, also expect that respect to be returned. As I said before, we have every right to decide whether or not we like the choices you make (concerning the conduct of your lives), and to govern our mate selection accordingly.
Here's something else you're missing: Forbes Magazine is targeted at successful and wealthy men. A career woman offers nothing to these men, as they already have the success thing covered; the same is true for the money. They already have that, so what do they need you for? What do you offer to them that they don't already have?
You career women, though you may have studied and worked in business, seem to forget a lesson of rudimentary economics: comparative advantage. Comparative advantage says that you're MOST valuable to someone else when you have something they need. For example, the OPEC nations are valuable to us because they have something we need-petroleum. They can charge a pretty penny for it, because the world's economies revolve around this 'black gold'. Since they have something others want, they are valuable to us.
What's this got to do with the price of tea in China? One, by the time a career woman is ready to marry, she will be in her 30s. Two, her looks will have started to fade. Three, her fertility will have been declining for years; uh, ladies, contrary to what your feminist sisters told you, a woman's fertility, i.e. her ability to have healthy children, begins its rapid, inexorable decline at 27 years of age, not 35 or 40. Medical studies have proven repeatedly that, the farther (in time) a woman gets past 27, the greater her chances of bearing children with birth defects-assuming she can become pregnant at all! That is the truth; you can like it or lump it, but that is the truth. Ladies, you were lied to, big time, and you fell for it! Four, if a man has his act together (and the typical Forbes reader does; he has more than enough success & money), he will also appeal to women in their 20s as well. As a man, if I have to pick between a thirtysomething woman vs. a twentysomething woman, I know who I'm picking. Hint: it will NOT be the the thirtysomething woman...
This is not based on hate or anything like it. As men, if we wish to have children, then we will seek out the youngest, most beautiful woman we can find, and who will have us; biologically speaking, youth & beauty translate to fertility, or the ability to have healthy babies. If I'm going to plant my seed, then I want to find the richest, most fertile soil I can find, so that my seed has the greatest chance of growing; for a man wanting children, the richest, most fertile soil, figuratively speaking is a young, beautiful woman. Is that so hard to understand, Ladies?
Furthermore, speaking of biology, Ladies, you too are compelled by biology to seek out a male who's stronger than you physically, economically, every which way. This is why you'll seek out men who are superior to you. How many of you women who are doctors, lawyers, etc., would date a man who's an auto mechanic? I know, and I rest my case! Shoot, even Gloria Steinem, one of the matron saints of modern feminism and founder of Ms. Magazine, ALWAYS dated men who were more accomplished than her-always! She might have spoken & written rhetoric to the contrary, but she never, ever practiced what she preached-never! Why is this so? Because, she is a woman, and her biological imperative is to seek out a man superior to her in every way. Social engineering can never trump biology.
If you successful women date a man who is less accomplished than yourselves, you will NOT respect him; it's just that simple. If this were not true, why do you not date men who, though they've done ok (well enough to support themselves), have not achieved your level of success? Why is it we never find a female doctor dating, let alone marrying, a male nurse, hmmm? We see the male doctors with female nurses all the time, yet it's seldom, if ever, the other way around. Is it because women, almost without exception, marry up? It's the old biology thing at work again. No matter how much propaganda is fed to you, no matter how much you're told things to the contrary, you cannot stop being who & what you are. A woman's desire to 'marry up' is hardwired into her.
There was an article in the 'New Yorker' magazine about this very thing two or three years ago. In it, they featured married couples where the wife had achieved more success than her husband. In some cases, the husband had been more successful at the beginning of the marriage, and the wife had achieved more; in others, the wives had brought home more bacon from the beginning. In any case, the wives were more successful than their husbands, and their paychecks were bigger. Without exception, the women interviewed for the article said that, when they'd achieved more than their husbands, that they lost respect for him, oftentimes dooming the marriage. Unfortunately, it was printed before 21 February 2005, and it's not available online. I know, becuase I tried finding a link to the article. Sorry I digress...
There's something else to consider, given your biological imperative to seek out a mate superior to yourself. Achieving career success is akin to climbing a pyramid; the farther up you go, the fewer people there are at the top; there are both fewer men & women at the top. Well, Ladies, the farther up you go, the SMALLER your pool of suitable mates becomes. Consequently, the fact that your pool of eligible mates becomes smaller means that it'll be more difficult to find a mate-duh! I thought that this was common sense, but I guess not.
The mistake you ladies make is assuming that, because you have success, a good job, money, etc., that you'll be more appealing to men. This is not true. These are your criteria you use when seeking out men; men do not have the same critieria you do for mate selection. Can we say projection at its finest?
Furthermore, you have to remember the target demographic of Forbes Magazine. Their readers have money; they have success. They do NOT need a woman to bring these things to the table, for they already have them. However, a young beautiful woman HAS what the Forbes reader seeks: fertility. Hence, she's more appealing as a prospective mate. It's that old comparative advantage thing again, Ladies.
In closing, Mr. Noer said what any man with two brain cells knocking together ALREADY knows: career women make lousy wives! He then goes on to soundly make his case, citing studies conducted by respected, mainstream entities (universities, government agencies, etc.); Mr. Noer said nothing that was untrue, did he? Given the fact that your arguments addressed nothing that he said, I can only conclude that you ladies didn't like what he said, and you're angry about it. Furthermore, his article was targeted at men, not women. Hence, it was not written with them in mind, any more than articles in women's magazines are written with men in mind. The article simply gave successful men advice on how to find a woman who's likely to be a good partner, thus enabling the man to have a successful marriage-end of story. What is so hard to understand about that, Ladies?
Ladies, I think a big part of the problem pertains to another lie you've been told repeatedly: that you can have it all! Again, when one thinks about such a proposition, it defies common sense. To cite another concept from first year economics, there is an opportunity cost that must be paid. One cannot, nor will not, have it all; choices & sacrifices must be made. In other words, to have the opportunity to do one thing, other things must be sacrificed. We decide what courses of action, investments, etc. will benefit us most, and we govern our decisions accordingly. That is the essence of opportunity cost. For example, if one wants to take money to purchase a house, then one cannot purchase other things, such as a new car or motorcycle, with that money. On the personal level, if one decides that he'll go out on Saturday night to see a movie, then he cannot also go to the pub during that same time. Or, when I decided to ride my motorcycle during yesterday afternoon, I couldn't go kayaking or surfing during that same period of time. Again, for you ladies who studied business programs (economics, accounting, finance, et al) at university and spend years working in the business world, this should be common sense. If you want to really achieve career success, than your personal life will suffer; that goes for both men & women. It's really no more complicated than that.
Ladies, you have a right to make the choice to pursue a career. You have the right to do what it takes to achieve success. Michael Noer's article never, ever said you didn't. It simply said that those of you who make these choices will make lousy wives-end of story. Just as you have the right to make whatever choices you wish, we men have the right to like or dislike the choices you've made; we have the right to decide whether or not you'll be a good partner for us; finally, we reserve the right to make our mate selections accordingly, and we will exercise that right. If you're a career woman, you'll make a lousy wife-next!
MarkyMark
I have a couple of observations about Michael Noer's article. As a man, I would like very much to comment on this. Since I'm in the USA, this article has garnered much attention; only if one is living in a cave can he escape hearing about it. It is all over our mass media here.
As for the points I wish to make, they are as follows: 1) Mr. Noer does NOT hate women; 2) Mr. Noer does NOT tell women to be barefoot & pregnant; 3) he is not saying career women evil people; 4) Mr. Noer IS saying that career women make poor partners, and he lays out sound reasons as to WHY this is so. That is all he said! In spite of this, you women get all angry and upset about that which is obvious to anyone who really READS the article.
Women have every right to pursue a career; they have every right to live their lives as they see fit. Conversely, us men have every right to decide whether or not we like your choices, and to decide whether or not these choices will be pleasing to us; we have a right to decide whether or not a woman will be a help or hinderance in our lives. Therefore, we have the right to select our mates accordingly, and we will excercise that right. Why do you women have such a problem with this?
Do you not make certain choices in men all the time? Do you not like certain types of men more than others? Isn't it true that you'll prefer certain men vs. others, regardless of the reason? Do you not have the right to make your choices? The answer would be 'yes' to all the above. Well, Little Missy, let me ask you this: how would YOU like it if we gave you grief over your choices, simply because we did not like them, hmmm? That is what you're doing with us. Why is it ok to give men grief for their choices, yet it wouldn't be ok if the shoe were on the other foot, as it were? We, as men, respect the right of women to make their choices; we, as men, also expect that respect to be returned. As I said before, we have every right to decide whether or not we like the choices you make (concerning the conduct of your lives), and to govern our mate selection accordingly.
Here's something else you're missing: Forbes Magazine is targeted at successful and wealthy men. A career woman offers nothing to these men, as they already have the success thing covered; the same is true for the money. They already have that, so what do they need you for? What do you offer to them that they don't already have?
You career women, though you may have studied and worked in business, seem to forget a lesson of rudimentary economics: comparative advantage. Comparative advantage says that you're MOST valuable to someone else when you have something they need. For example, the OPEC nations are valuable to us because they have something we need-petroleum. They can charge a pretty penny for it, because the world's economies revolve around this 'black gold'. Since they have something others want, they are valuable to us.
What's this got to do with the price of tea in China? One, by the time a career woman is ready to marry, she will be in her 30s. Two, her looks will have started to fade. Three, her fertility will have been declining for years; uh, ladies, contrary to what your feminist sisters told you, a woman's fertility, i.e. her ability to have healthy children, begins its rapid, inexorable decline at 27 years of age, not 35 or 40. Medical studies have proven repeatedly that, the farther (in time) a woman gets past 27, the greater her chances of bearing children with birth defects-assuming she can become pregnant at all! That is the truth; you can like it or lump it, but that is the truth. Ladies, you were lied to, big time, and you fell for it! Four, if a man has his act together (and the typical Forbes reader does; he has more than enough success & money), he will also appeal to women in their 20s as well. As a man, if I have to pick between a thirtysomething woman vs. a twentysomething woman, I know who I'm picking. Hint: it will NOT be the the thirtysomething woman...
This is not based on hate or anything like it. As men, if we wish to have children, then we will seek out the youngest, most beautiful woman we can find, and who will have us; biologically speaking, youth & beauty translate to fertility, or the ability to have healthy babies. If I'm going to plant my seed, then I want to find the richest, most fertile soil I can find, so that my seed has the greatest chance of growing; for a man wanting children, the richest, most fertile soil, figuratively speaking is a young, beautiful woman. Is that so hard to understand, Ladies?
Furthermore, speaking of biology, Ladies, you too are compelled by biology to seek out a male who's stronger than you physically, economically, every which way. This is why you'll seek out men who are superior to you. How many of you women who are doctors, lawyers, etc., would date a man who's an auto mechanic? I know, and I rest my case! Shoot, even Gloria Steinem, one of the matron saints of modern feminism and founder of Ms. Magazine, ALWAYS dated men who were more accomplished than her-always! She might have spoken & written rhetoric to the contrary, but she never, ever practiced what she preached-never! Why is this so? Because, she is a woman, and her biological imperative is to seek out a man superior to her in every way. Social engineering can never trump biology.
If you successful women date a man who is less accomplished than yourselves, you will NOT respect him; it's just that simple. If this were not true, why do you not date men who, though they've done ok (well enough to support themselves), have not achieved your level of success? Why is it we never find a female doctor dating, let alone marrying, a male nurse, hmmm? We see the male doctors with female nurses all the time, yet it's seldom, if ever, the other way around. Is it because women, almost without exception, marry up? It's the old biology thing at work again. No matter how much propaganda is fed to you, no matter how much you're told things to the contrary, you cannot stop being who & what you are. A woman's desire to 'marry up' is hardwired into her.
There was an article in the 'New Yorker' magazine about this very thing two or three years ago. In it, they featured married couples where the wife had achieved more success than her husband. In some cases, the husband had been more successful at the beginning of the marriage, and the wife had achieved more; in others, the wives had brought home more bacon from the beginning. In any case, the wives were more successful than their husbands, and their paychecks were bigger. Without exception, the women interviewed for the article said that, when they'd achieved more than their husbands, that they lost respect for him, oftentimes dooming the marriage. Unfortunately, it was printed before 21 February 2005, and it's not available online. I know, becuase I tried finding a link to the article. Sorry I digress...
There's something else to consider, given your biological imperative to seek out a mate superior to yourself. Achieving career success is akin to climbing a pyramid; the farther up you go, the fewer people there are at the top; there are both fewer men & women at the top. Well, Ladies, the farther up you go, the SMALLER your pool of suitable mates becomes. Consequently, the fact that your pool of eligible mates becomes smaller means that it'll be more difficult to find a mate-duh! I thought that this was common sense, but I guess not.
The mistake you ladies make is assuming that, because you have success, a good job, money, etc., that you'll be more appealing to men. This is not true. These are your criteria you use when seeking out men; men do not have the same critieria you do for mate selection. Can we say projection at its finest?
Furthermore, you have to remember the target demographic of Forbes Magazine. Their readers have money; they have success. They do NOT need a woman to bring these things to the table, for they already have them. However, a young beautiful woman HAS what the Forbes reader seeks: fertility. Hence, she's more appealing as a prospective mate. It's that old comparative advantage thing again, Ladies.
In closing, Mr. Noer said what any man with two brain cells knocking together ALREADY knows: career women make lousy wives! He then goes on to soundly make his case, citing studies conducted by respected, mainstream entities (universities, government agencies, etc.); Mr. Noer said nothing that was untrue, did he? Given the fact that your arguments addressed nothing that he said, I can only conclude that you ladies didn't like what he said, and you're angry about it. Furthermore, his article was targeted at men, not women. Hence, it was not written with them in mind, any more than articles in women's magazines are written with men in mind. The article simply gave successful men advice on how to find a woman who's likely to be a good partner, thus enabling the man to have a successful marriage-end of story. What is so hard to understand about that, Ladies?
Ladies, I think a big part of the problem pertains to another lie you've been told repeatedly: that you can have it all! Again, when one thinks about such a proposition, it defies common sense. To cite another concept from first year economics, there is an opportunity cost that must be paid. One cannot, nor will not, have it all; choices & sacrifices must be made. In other words, to have the opportunity to do one thing, other things must be sacrificed. We decide what courses of action, investments, etc. will benefit us most, and we govern our decisions accordingly. That is the essence of opportunity cost. For example, if one wants to take money to purchase a house, then one cannot purchase other things, such as a new car or motorcycle, with that money. On the personal level, if one decides that he'll go out on Saturday night to see a movie, then he cannot also go to the pub during that same time. Or, when I decided to ride my motorcycle during yesterday afternoon, I couldn't go kayaking or surfing during that same period of time. Again, for you ladies who studied business programs (economics, accounting, finance, et al) at university and spend years working in the business world, this should be common sense. If you want to really achieve career success, than your personal life will suffer; that goes for both men & women. It's really no more complicated than that.
Ladies, you have a right to make the choice to pursue a career. You have the right to do what it takes to achieve success. Michael Noer's article never, ever said you didn't. It simply said that those of you who make these choices will make lousy wives-end of story. Just as you have the right to make whatever choices you wish, we men have the right to like or dislike the choices you've made; we have the right to decide whether or not you'll be a good partner for us; finally, we reserve the right to make our mate selections accordingly, and we will exercise that right. If you're a career woman, you'll make a lousy wife-next!
MarkyMark
