follow up on the Forbes piece

[rm]

Thanks to schpahky for alerting me to the Salon.com response, and the fact that Forbes pulled the piece (and then apparently put it back up in a point-counterpoint format -- via baldanders).
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/08/24/career_women/

It includes this fabulous quote from Linda Hirshman:

"Women are not natural slaves, as so many sociobiologists would like us to believe. Ergo, they get harder to bargain with as they get more resources. This is actually good news. If men want doormats, they will have to marry dummies and anticipate dependents. There's a price to acquiring someone willing to take a bad bargain."

Also note:

In this, it resembles the famous Newsweek piece claiming that women over 35 had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than getting married, a story that was recently recanted 20 years too late.

In a way, I have some dismay at the piece being pulled. Because these view promulgated and unchallenged in channels private or inherently favourable to them, just makes them more dangerous.

Comments

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

Forbes pulled the piece, but they then put it back up with a response piece in point-counterpoint format.

[rm.livejournal.com]

*rolls eyes* Ugh.

Adjusting my post.

sorry for the repost

[coyotegoth.livejournal.com]

It's also been cut and pasted in JournalFen, in its original form.

[sykii.livejournal.com]

Forbes also pulled (and hadn't as of a few hours ago reinstated) a piece from February by Noer, titled "The Economics of Prostitution," in which he compared "wives" to "whores" and wrote that "the implication remains that wives and whores are -- if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi -- something akin to champagne and beer.

(from a Salon article on the whole mess)