They were even thoughtful enough to put up a slide show titled:
In Pictures: Nine Reasons To Steer Clear Of Career Women
Now, I can't link to that because it's since been taken down. Indeed, the article itself has even been revised to a be point/counterpoint article with the inclusion of a rebuttal by Elizabeth Corcoran titled: Counterpoint: Don't Marry A Lazy Man
Did Forbes forget that they actually had some female readers who may have objected to such a ridiculous article?
If you want to know how ridiculous it was, it defines a "career girl" as:
"...has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year."Pretty much EVERY woman you work with, huh?
Then to make matters worse, according to Shakespeare's Sister:
Slate’s Jack Shafer issues an apologia on Forbes’ behalf, but warns against his mean feminist “female readers break[ing] their nails pounding out angry e-mails to me” if they don’t like what he has to say. Still, if you must, he says, they can “Bore [him] with your fury.”And, just so you know where Michael Noer (the author of the original Forbes.com article) is coming from, Jessica at feministing points you to another article he wrote, The Economics Of Prostitution:
Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.So if I'm reading my Noer correctly:
"You'll be unhappy if you marry some uppity, smarty-pants bitch who has a career. The true path to happiness lies in marrying a girl that you rescue from behind the cash register of a 7/11, but keep in mind that she's no better than a whore."To quote feministing:
"Yeah...he doesn't have a problem with women at all."But do not despair completely, Gawker has a their own unique take on Forbes.com's slideshow (using the now "disappeared" pictures).