Politically Incorrect Dating Advice

Steve Forbes recently issued a public apology for statements in a Forbes Magazine opinion article by Michael Noer. For many of the article’s critics the apology was too little, too late. What outrageous statements did Noer make which required an apology by Steve Forbes? Did Noer make anti-Semitic or racist statement? Did he make an inappropriate comparison to Hitler or the Nazis? Michael Noer did none of these things. The following statement from his article seems to be what has put so many people up in arms:

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.

This is indeed a controversial statement but does it have any merit? It might be one thing if Noer wrote this comment off the cuff with no supporting evidence. In the case of this article, however; the above statement is a thesis statement. This statement is a conclusion Noer came to after doing something called research.

Here are some statistics Noer used to back up his statement, all of which are cited in his article:

-Career women who quit their jobs to stay home to take care of the children are usually unhappy

-Career women will be unhappy if they make more money than their husbands

-Husbands of career women tend to be unhappy when their wives make more than they do

-Husbands of career women tend to become ill (?)

-The home will be messier (Oh, no he didn’t!)

-Divorce rates rise as women’s work hours increase. There is no statistical change when the man works more hours.

-Professional men and women who work outside the home are more likely to cheat on his or her spouse

-Highly educated people are more likely to have extramarital affairs. People with graduate degrees are 1.75 times likely to have an affair than those with only a high school diploma

-Individuals who earn over $30,000 a year are more likely to have an affair

To be honest, I have not personally verified these statistics found in Noer’s article. Noer could very well be misrepresenting the data, I don’t know. What is interesting though is that very few critics of the article have taken it upon themselves to challenge these specific statements he made in result of his research. Most of his critics say that writing such an article is mean-spirited or misogynistic. One critic said that she couldn’t believe such a respected magazine as Forbes would publish such an article. Another said to the effect that Noer should find himself a boring woman to stay at home and watch the kids. Isn’t it interesting how it’s wrong to say anything at all about women working outside the home but perfectly okay to insult a woman who CHOOSES to stay at home and take care of the children? Taking care of one’s own children is the most important job of all!

Rather than dismiss Noer as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal and ask his boss to apologize, why not challenge his arguments point-by-point? There are probably just as many good reasons to marry a career woman as there are not to (i.e. financial stability).

To her credit Noer’s colleague at Forbes, Elizabeth Corcoran, writes a counterpoint article challenging some of his arguments in an article titled “Don’t Marry a Lazy Man” (the right side of the linked page).

Corcoran makes the following point:

The experts cited in his story think that professional women are more likely to get divorced, to cheat and to be grumpy about either having kids or not having them. But rather than rush to blame the woman, let's not overlook the other key variable: What is the guy doing?

I would have to agree with her that a relationship always must involve commitment from both partners but I did not see anything in Noer’s piece that would suggest otherwise. Both articles offer good points worthy of discussion.

In our politically correct society there are some things we are no longer allowed to comment on, regardless of whether an observation is true or not. To say that men ON AVERAGE have more upper body strength and are better at subjects such as math and science is taboo. To say that women are ON AVERAGE better drivers and better caretakers of children is as well. For a man to point out any differences at all is considered sexist and requires an apology (or perhaps even a resignation).

There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to the battle of the sexes. I am sure that there is no shortage of male bashing articles found in Cosmopolitan Magazine or similar commentary found on Oprah or The View. How often do these forums advocate marrying or not marrying a certain kind of man for superficial reasons?

The fact of the matter is that women have their own reasons for marrying one type over another (some are superficial, some are not). Generally speaking, professional women in-particular will not marry a man who earns less than she does. Women in-general are attracted to taller men and are not as attracted to shorter men (sort of like how men prefer women with large breasts and long legs). This is not to say that these preferences are right or wrong, they just ‘are’ and no one should have to apologize for his or her preference of a mate. Many of these preferences are hardwired into our evolutionary biology (our female ancestors desired healthy men of means to provide for the family while our male ancestors desired women with measurements at or near 36”-28”-36” because of the belief that these attributes would aid in child bearing and nurturing following a child’s birth).

My point is not so much to get into a battle of the sexes or to say whether or not Michael Noer is right but that statements made in his article should not require an apology. I would also like to point out that Noer’s article appears on the OPINION PAGE of Forbes Magazine. This means that the opinions expressed by Noer is his alone. Why even have an opinion page in a magazine or news paper if the writers cannot communicate their honest opinions on something as mundane as romantic relationships? Political correctness is destroying our ability to honestly discuss issues such as this and issues of much greater importance. What a shame.