Jul 17 2006, 10:17 AM
and of course they dont add that many women who are home full time suffer from depression and are more likely to be fat. so really, can we EVER win?
Jul 17 2006, 02:52 PM
Jul 17 2006, 06:13 PM
From the CNN article:
"For men, working longer hours has no negative impact on exercise, caffeine intake or smoking," O'Connor said in a statement released by the Economic and Social Research Council, which funded his study.
I'll be sure to tell my male supervisor that the next time he's taking frequent smoke breaks and drinking lots of coffee when we're working overtime. In fact, I think one of my male coworkers started smoking again once we started back on all this overtime crap, and I know another one (male) is eating more junk food. No negative impact my ass, or do I work surrounded by the exceptions?
Jul 17 2006, 06:41 PM
I think what disturbs me most about the article katie just posted (about the "crisis pregnancy centres"), is that women, and particularly, feminists, have been researching and reporting the truth about these organizations to the public for YEARS - I've known the truth about those organizations since I started working in a feminist organization (and it's not just teens they are misleading and lying to). But now when a man decides to confront the issue, he gets the media publicity.
Jul 19 2006, 08:11 AM
Doodle, I couldn't agree more.
Another distressing aspect is that this is just another instance in a long list of medically inaccurate/biased information my gov't is paying money for (along with incomplete/inaccurate/biased sex ed in schools, inaccurate/biased breast cancer info on the NIH website, etc.) while simultaneously, the organizations that provide complete and medically accurate information are losing public funding left and right.
Jul 26 2006, 08:19 AM
Jul 26 2006, 09:10 AM
Jul 26 2006, 10:55 AM
I just read about that on LJ. What one of the posters over there had to say:
As more than one parent pointed out, PBS is the network that hired George Carlin to narrate "Thomas the Tank Engine" and invited James Gandolfini (mob boss), Tom Green (sexually pleasured farm animals) and Robin Williams (stalked suburban family) - plus numerous other actors whose previous roles might confuse children - to appear on "SesameStreet"?
To me this smacks of a sexist double standard. Male actors are allowed to take on sexually charged or sexually themed roles without getting pigeonholed as "for grownups only" actors. Melanie Martinez, on the other hand, does a few COMEDY SKETCHES about abstinence and suddenly she's not a good role model for kids?!
Jul 27 2006, 08:45 AM
I'm in no way defending PBS's decision to fire her, but PBS doesn't produce all the shows it runs, any more than NBC or Fox or any other network. For instance, Children's Television Workshop does Sesame Street and I don't know that PBS could veto their hiring a particular actor.
What do you think Nickelodeon would do if the guy on "Blue's Clues" started doing really raunchy ("blue", heh) stand-up comedy?
Jul 27 2006, 04:03 PM
That's true, vesica, but I think this is more like if he had done some "blue" stand-up in the past before he became uh, (is it Steve?). Anyway, it's not like adults doing children's shows are waiting around in some bulletproof Glass Cage of Purity just waiting for new kid's shows roles to be available. I just don't know what group PBS is trying to cater to, as all the people I've talked to who actually give money to public television think the decision was flippin' ridiculous....
Jul 27 2006, 06:41 PM
i wrote them back when they sent me their mushy little pc response to my first letter. i told them right off. hateful, judgemental, nasty watching out for their asses and nothing else, crapfest. it's ticks me right off, where do they get off deciding that their actors can't have a LIFE of their own that isn't in line with their puritanical standards? sheesh. it would have been ok if she was in a commercial for makeup or hairdye but not speaking out about s.e.x. ooohh, heaven forfend!
Jul 28 2006, 03:52 AM
I started reading this article in good faith-http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1832035,00.html
- because I was interested in the idea of virginity/ celibacy/abstinance as an informed choice (as opposed to getting your little silver ring then going out and having anal sex because 'virginity's a technicality, right?) being subversive in the light of the whole 'raunch culture' thing.
Its not what I thought though. It's just icky.
Jul 28 2006, 09:18 AM
I emailed them too Pepper but got no reply. What did their response say?
Jul 28 2006, 12:55 PM
whats icky about it funnybird? the modesty people and their views? cause i totally agree!
Jul 28 2006, 09:39 PM
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding PBS KIDS Sprout’s decision to no longer have Melanie Martinez appear as the host of The Good Night Show. Ms. Martinez has been an important part of Sprout and we are saddened that this difficult decision had to be made.
Our foremost priority is maintaining the trust of the parents and families we serve. With this in mind, the management of Sprout determined that the short films in which Ms. Martinez appeared were inappropriate for her role as a preschool program host. We apologize for any disappointment that our decision has caused you and your family.
Sprout remains committed to The Good Night Show as a valuable tool for parents to help children wind down after a busy day. Plans are in development to launch a new season of the program with a new host in late 2006. In the meantime, regularly scheduled programs within The Good Night Show (e.g. Dragon Tales™, Bob The Builder™, Thomas & Friends™) will continue to air in their designated time slots with new short-form content replacing Ms. Martinez’s segments.
Thank you again for your comments.
Jul 29 2006, 10:31 AM
What the hell? It's not even like she was in a porno or anything, she just made some jokes. As someone who very clearly remembers watching George Carlin on Shining Time Station, I can't wrap my mind around their decision to fire her.
Jul 29 2006, 11:10 AM
that article gave me the shudders, funnybird. Yes, they're going against raunch culture, and although they might have made an informed decision (ok, informed as in "wacko ultra-conservative uninformed") but they don't want it to be an informed decision for everyone else. And it just spooks out.
re the whole children's-presenter-malarkey, all I can think is "surely the tots who watch her on tv aren't going to be watching sketch shows about sex". I could understand if she was on drugs. But comedy?
Jul 30 2006, 02:11 AM
And it just seemed to boil down to the whole repressive 'women who have sex before marriage are damaged goods' double standard. And if that's why we should be modest, it doesn't seem to me to be about empowerment or choice at all. That's why I found it icky, Katiebelle.
Jul 30 2006, 05:39 PM
I recall hearing in recent Bush years that he appointed some conservative as president of PBS..can't remember who though-does anyone?
Aug 8 2006, 11:38 AM
Have you guys heard that the President of the Sioux tribe in South Dakota, Cecilia Fire Thunder (who has been a big supporter of reproducitve rights) was impeached? I just heard it today but it happened over a month ago.
She was the first female President they had and I think it really sucks that they impeached her. There might have been a very good reason for it but so far I haven't actually heard/read the reason.
Aug 8 2006, 12:09 PM
Its because of the abortion clinic she planned on launching...
Aug 8 2006, 12:54 PM
Surprise surprise, the founder of Girls Gone Wild is a dodgy misogynist. I may be late to this newsstory, but this blog piece was pretty shocking.http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/08/...oes_wild_on.php
Aug 8 2006, 01:04 PM
I read that in feministing... urgh urgh and double urgh, is all I can think. It's horrific and shocking and disgusting all at once.
Aug 8 2006, 03:42 PM
Christ, that made me sick.
Aug 8 2006, 03:57 PM
GRRRR!!! I read that to on myspace. It mad me see red!
Aug 9 2006, 05:26 PM
the most annoying part is that it wont affect his sales. people like us wouldnt have bought them anyway and people who do clearly dont give a shit about the fact that hes a misogynist.
part of me wonders why you dont hear stuff like this more often about him which is the only reason it struck me as odd/slightly suspect.
its always been pretty obvious that anyone who makes his living like that is a scumbag, but basically accusing the guy of rape, well i cant imagine its the only time hes done it if it is indeed true. he could very well go after her for libel and i really would love it if that girl pressed charges. what a disgusting asshole.
Aug 10 2006, 08:25 AM
There's a section at the beginning of the book Female Chauvinist Pigs about Girls Gone Wild. The writer went around with them and tried to answer the same questions that are asked in this article - why do girls enjoy this? One of craziest things was the women on the GGW crew who would never participate but think it's funny when they get girls to flash for them. It was disgusting but not as disturbing as this article.
Aug 11 2006, 01:42 PM
Aug 11 2006, 04:59 PM
That's so sad.
On libel - presumably she has a record that the girl said those things to her - I notice that she has only reported that the girl told her he did those things, and on some other things for which there were witnesses.
Aug 20 2006, 06:43 PM
Never mind. I get it now.
Aug 22 2006, 12:32 PM
i am so shocked and disgusted at this article i kept hoping it was a joke. i mean, i can hardly believe what i just read.http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/25/cx_mn_sin...mp;boxes=custom
honestly, i am speechless about this. YOUR HOUSE WILL BE DIRTIER? YOU WILL BE MORE ILL bc your wife doesnt have time to MONITOR your HEALTH. i want to puke. everywhere.
Aug 22 2006, 03:19 PM
LONG POST WARNING!!!
What. The. Hell. That forbes.com article was some kind of joke right? I mean, I just missed the punch line due to just seeing the slide show??
As a guy, I would have to disagree with ALL of their 'points'.
1. Less likely to get married: At least they explained this with the possibility that a successful woman would have higher standards. Hmm, I wonder why? She has a lot to offer, why not find a guy that has a lot to offer back and will actually appreciate her contributions to the household, even though they may not be 'traditional'.
2. More likely to get divorced: I think the high divorce rates have more to do with instant gratification we as a society seem to seek these days. If things aren't just as you want them, don't try to change them, just cut and run. Besides, divorce isn't always a bad thing. Why live with someone that turns into a complete asshat and makes you miserable?
3. More likely to cheat: For the life of me, I don't see how this relates to who works and who doesn't. Obviously, if both parties work 80 hours a week - especially with a coworker of the opposite sex - then the opportunity is there more than if they work the straight 40. Men have been fucking their secretaries for years while their wives stayed home with the kids, why would anyone think that would be any different than a woman CEO fucking her personal assistant.
4. Less likely to have kids: So what? Not everyone is cut out to be a parent - even a lot of them that think they want to be (my sister-in-law and her baby's daddy, for example). Besides, it's not like there aren't a number of children that need adopted parents to care for them.
5. Wife more unhappy if you have kids: I can see this - if the husband is a jackass. Of course the wife won't be happy if you both work all day yet she does all the child rearing duties. Less football on the tv, more dad time with the youngins will almost surely make for a more happy mom/wife.
6. Dirtier house: Like they said, husband could pick up a broom now and then. My wife and I both work 40-50 hours a week and our house isn't a mess. We do what needs done to keep it up. Some weeks I do more housework, some weeks she does.
7. Unhappy if she makes more: Why the hell would that bother me? I don't care how much she makes, or if she works at all. I just want her to be happy and fulfilled in what she's doing, just as she does with me.
8. She'll be unhappy if she makes more: Yes, because all women have this need to be 'taken care of' by their man - hmm, there's a word I'm looking for, something like BULLSHIT. I've never known anyone, man or woman, to be disappointed with a good salary - regardless of what their spouse makes. Besides, isn't it supposed to work that no matter which earns more, it benefits the couple as a whole??
9. I'll be more ill: For me, this is probably true. If she works a lot more than I do, she doesn't always see when I don't feel good and quite frankly, I hate going to the damn doctor and won't until absolutely necessary. I know, not a good idea but just how I am. Funny thing, she's the exact same way. We'll worry about stupid little shit with regards to the other feeling bad, but have to be damn near dead to go to the doc on our own. Overall though, i don't buy this. Any adult should know when it's time to quit self-medicating and go see a doc.
There you have it. Nine explainations as to why Forbes is completely and totally full of shit. Who cares which partner is the 'career' person, and which one stays home (if either do). I always thought that was one of the goals that two people talked about prior to getting married. Hmm, maybe they don't. That would help explain the higher divorce rate. Nothing like unreasonable & uncommunicated expectations to torpedo an otherwise happy couple.
Aug 22 2006, 04:03 PM
EXACTLY what i was thinking yet was too pissed off to say hoosierman. EVERYTHING they said was BS. its like I am sorry, its a BAD thing she has higher standards? ARE YOU KDDING? i mean so marry someone who isnt a career woman and isnt educated so shes dumb enough to marry your sorry ass! Women have settled for generations bc they "needed" to get married so they would pick anyone who asked after a certain amount of time. its ABOUT time they started being more picky. This leads right into "more likely to get divorced". Basically, a career woman is smart enough to realize that she doesnt need to stay with someone who sint fulfilling her needs and who is a total ass, so she leaves him cause she doesnt need to stay for the money, which is what was most likely the case 85% of the time.
I love the more likely to cheat one. So basically, what the case is is anyone who works is more likely to cheat. so dont marry a career woman bc that means shes going to be cheating on you in addition to you cheating on her, as opposed to you cheating on her while shes at home washing dishes thinking everything is hunky dory with her picket fence life.
less likely to have kids-i have nothing to add to your astute observation about that one hoosierman.
more unhappy if you do have kids-again, right on the money hoosier
this one KILLS ME. DIRTIER HOUSE? ARE YOU KIDDING. FORBES basically just said you are going to have a dirtier house bc your wife has OTHER things to do besides do mindless picking up all day and you are too much of an asshole to help her at all. bc CLEARLY its the womans job whether she works or not. i almost put my fist thru the computer with that one.
unhappy if she makes more-thats YOUR problem and its very similar to having an inferiority complex about the size of your penis. its nobodys fault but your own.
all women like their men to make more-who doesnt like to have more money no matter whose making it.
the final one and really most ridiculous-you will be sick more. what this says to me is basically that MEN ARE TOO STUPID TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES SO DONT MARRY SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO BE A GODDMAMN MOTHER TO YOU BC YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON AND NEED ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET. right. i am sorry, i didnt realize that when you got married there was an assumption you would have a kid right away. and by kid i mean husband.
Aug 22 2006, 06:15 PM
as i obsessively read this type of tired shit online (see: MSN, netscape, et al.) i noticed that journalists have a hard time making the distinction between CAUSATION and CORRELATION.
(and, really, in this case, i don't even think either applies! i call bullshit across the board!
Aug 22 2006, 08:04 PM
Check out these two articles. There was a New York Times one too that was titled: Man Is Stabbed in Attack After Admiring a Stranger
While I think violence was extreme, I have a hard time believing this guys story.
Aug 23 2006, 12:04 AM
And... he *didn't* hate women? Given that he spat on one who turned him down? Just wanting to fuck women doesn't mean you like them.
Aug 23 2006, 04:34 AM
'Just wanting to fuck women doesn't mean you like them.'
Aug 23 2006, 12:55 PM
Aug 23 2006, 02:11 PM
This guy at Forbes is a complete and utter asshole. I won't even begin to shred some of the theories by these economists, but i will address one.
The third option, or working a 'straight' job and not getting married is dismissed?? What the hell? I guess the fragile little women can't take care of themselves, so they are good only for cooking, cleaning & fucking?? (Or just fucking if a prostitute). I really don't get where some people get their hair brained ideas. Yes, there are women who don't want to do anything other than be arm candy for some rich guy, this isn't breaking news. There are men that do the same thing, it just isn't as publicized. To label the entire female gender with either 'golddingging wife' or 'whore' is an incredible diservice to the multitude of amazing women out there.
Aug 23 2006, 03:07 PM
not to mention what he says about the "only" downside of marriage for a woman is the fact that she cant earn money as a whore. this guys logic SUCKS.
i hate this guy. seriously. hate. him.
i would also like to add that yes, there are more money hungry women who marry for money then men. you cant argue that. HOWEVER the REASON is bc women are taught from the moment they are born that they obviously wont be making as much money as men statistically for doing the same job AND that their worth lies in who they marry (basically their relationships to other define their worth) then what they accomplish. men of course, are taught the complete opposite. i mean their worth is defined by who they marry, but not in the same way bc they have to earn alot to achieve that trophy wife.
its a vicious cycle and its not good for either sex. grrrrrr
Aug 23 2006, 04:36 PM
Forbes has removed both of those articles from its website, but you can still read this weeks article on this blog.Better yet, you can read the full article as well as the text that went along with the slideshow on this blog.
BoingBoing has been giving the story a lot of coverage, too.
BoingBoing's original post about the article
Let the remixes begin
Forbes kills sextardian "Don't Marry Career Women" article
I'd just like to add that this article has infuriated me beyond words. My parents have both had careers for the entire length of their marriage. In 2007, they will celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary. So I put far more stock in their example than in any ridiculous article written by an obviously bitter man.
Aug 23 2006, 06:21 PM
The cache of the "Economics of Prostitution" article:http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:RbIVb6...t=clnk&cd=1
Don't mess with a BUSTie with a photographic memory and Google!
Aug 24 2006, 08:50 AM
interesting article. i would tend to agree with her wholeheartedly
Aug 24 2006, 10:11 AM
Forbes has put the article on marrying a career woman back on its website. And next to it? A counter-point article. You can read it here.
Oddly enough, the article on prostitution has not returned to the site. Hmmmmmm.
Aug 24 2006, 11:49 AM
I like the rebuttle from the female Forbes writer.
Think that guy is just trying to get attention? Also, do you think the studies he cites are real (and therefore equally sexist) or does he just spin them to suit his arguement?
And that is a good article, Katiebelle. Thanks for linking to it.
Aug 24 2006, 02:14 PM
i would say mermaid, that most of those statistics are true, but its not the fault of the women. what they are basically saying is that educated sucessful women wont put up with guys shit and will divorce them AS THE SHOULD. its also saying women who arent educated and successful are more likely to stay with their husbands. of course they are, they cant and dont make money on their own.
women are more likely to cheat if they work. but so are men. men just want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to be able to have that option but not the women. really i think it just shows humans arent cut out for monogamy.
the house is dirtier. sure, bc the man doesnt help and leaves it for the woman who ends up having two careers.
basically he just spins it by not looking at WHY these things are true and lays all the blame on women.
Aug 24 2006, 02:41 PM
huh. i liked the female comeback, but what's disturbing to me is that the article would even go up in the first place.
anyone who's worked in media for a nano knows that there is a considerable amount of work making sure that whatever is printed will not offend a valuable market base- i mean, they won't run a midget joke- but career women? in a magazine that targets investors? at a time when women dominate in the universities? wtf!
guess our money's not important. never buying that mag again.
Aug 25 2006, 06:59 AM
I know this is a thread for outrage, but I'm so happy at the news I read this morning about the FDA approving over-the-counter Morning After pills. There are some restrictions and I'm sure there'll be backlash, but with so many abortion rights being eroded in the last few years, it feels really great that this got through.
YAY!!! NY Times is one of the sites that reports on this.
Aug 25 2006, 07:51 PM
This probably belongs in the choice thread, but I certainly felt outrage when I went to Planned Parenthood Monday and had to switch pills because the ones I used were now too expensive:Slate on pill price hike
Aug 27 2006, 07:59 PM
Interview with Harvard prof Harvey C. Mansfield
about his new book Manliness
. What a tool. Review by Martha Nussbaum
, who rips him a new one, beautifully. via
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here