Pathetic little boys in men’s bodies

I’ve been laying low on one set of discussions (except privately) for reasons of my own[*]. But within those private discussions I have had more than one occasion to note that there really are a fair number of “men” who apparently never found any reason to grow up…and maybe close their little clubhouse with its No Gurlz Aloud sign.

Well, now. I don’t read Forbes. I’m not going to link directly to this article because I sure don’t want to give it any extra “link love.” I’ll link to this post instead.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Also shameful.

Even more shameful: That a supposedly respectfulable “business” magazine would run such tripe.

[Second revision: It's hard to type when you're outraged.]

Addition, 8/24: Apparently Forbes pulled the “article”–then reposted it as an opinion piece, side-by-side with a counterpoint of sorts.

Then I looked at some of the comments. Not all–Forbes’ message format doesn’t make that at all easy (you have to open each message individually)–but the most recent page (30, maybe?).

And then went to wash my hands.
In a comment on another blog, I made a silly pseudo-mistake relating Maxim to Forbes. Based on many of the comments, I now wonder whether that’s all that silly, at least as far as some portion of the male readership is concerned.

(Yes, you’ll see that charming term “feminazis” used more than once.)


*Footnote added: Having a lot to do with scapegoating one particular ALA session and group, even more to do with one particular personal situation, and nothing at all to do with the underlying issues: Yes, too many techie “men” are really little boys in men’s bodies; yes, that’s unacceptable; yes, it’s up to men who have grown up to call sexist “humor” what it is; and no, there really is no place within the library field or its technological segments for the trivialization of women.

7 Responses to “Pathetic little boys in men’s bodies”

  1. CW Says:

    Good grief – having followed the link you provided, I am speechless!

  2. walt Says:

    Apparently Forbes pulled the article–but that doesn’t excuse running it and the idiotic slide show in the first place. Unless Forbes is actually a wiki disguised as a magazine site…

  3. Brad K. Says:

    Walt,

    I followed the links to Jennifer’s site, where the articles are listed. Forbes.com has removed the articles.

    I started with the slideshow, the nine ‘reasons’. I disagree with the published motivations of the study findings listed, but the findings themselves feel reasonably correct. And the Noer article seems to proceed logically. I do not believe that the author, Michael Noer, feels strongly about the topic; the article does not seem slanted to personal bias, merely to reflect a surprising assortment of findings.

    Political correctness, the ‘emperor has no clothes’ conundrum, seems to be hysterically reacting to the Forbes article. And I am disappointed that all the criticism is about the title and tone of the article, with no attempt to refute the findings and sources cited. This feels more like a political agenda with the power to harm us all, and no intent to preserve objective consideration.

    What is most disappointing to me, is that if the findings cited are true, then there are lessons to be learned that will benefit coming generations. Lessons that will likely be buried under hysteria because Noer ‘dared’ to report those findings. I really believe any mistakes Noer made in composing his article are minor and without malice. If he actually made a mistake.

  4. walt Says:

    I disagree. Correlation does not imply causation: That’s the most fundamental issue when dealing with “statistics” of this sort.

    It was a misogynistic piece made even worse by the slide-show approach. You’ll note that I didn’t call the author out by name, but it was a foolish, sexist article.

    And if that’s hysterical, then so be it. For that matter, crying “political correctness” has gotten very old as a way of defending nasty pieces of work.

    It’s not a matter of “refuting findings”; it’s a matter of tone, interpretation–and, to be sure, of assuming that correlation implies causation. “Lessons to be learned” are not going to come from sexist articles in Forbes: Of that I’m sure.

    (After looking at the name of your blog, I was seriously tempted to delete this as trolling, but chose not to–particularly since the name is right there for people to link to. Readers can draw their own conclusions.)

  5. Kathleen de la Pena McCook Says:

    ..and people wonder why we still need COSWL?
    ========
    WHY YOU SHOULD MARRY A DOORMATE
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/08/23/why-you-should-marry-a-doormat/

  6. Diane Says:

    After reading this entry yesterday, I was interested to see it on Good Morning America this morning. Oddly enough, they mentioned trying to contact the author for his input and Forbes “spokeswoman” said he was unavailable for further comment and felt the piece spoke for itself.

    It reminded me of the song from “My Fair Lady,” “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” Alas, he can’t have it both ways.

  7. walt Says:

    I will certainly agree that the piece speaks for itself, as does Forbes’ “Maxim with Money” decision to run it.


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104619 Spams eaten and counting...