They were going for "Humorous and Academic" in the Noer/Cocoran Piece? Does Forbes.Com smell what they are steppin in?

Becky over at I'd Like to Buy a Vowel sent a letter to authors, journalists and other professionals urging us to comment about Forbes.Com and express concern about a recent Point/Counterpoint article written by Michael Noer and Elizabeth Cocoran. My initial reaction to the article? "Why did Forbes.Com run this? It bites. " I concluded, "Incomplete research citations, flat humor. Pointless waste of space. Marriage advice? Is that what the 'World's Leaders in Business' expect to find at Forbes.com? I don't think so!"

Had I not been penning my response at the crack of ass (my new favorite expression for the hours between midnight and 8AM), I may have thought about opening my letter with, "Steve, you ignorant slut..." paying proper homage to the king and queen of Point/Counterpoint, Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. Demonstrating how banter should be conducted. I was sleepy. It was late. I wasn't that quick with the keyboard.

Sooooo, I wrote a brief response noting the piece failed at being funny, wasn't particularly informative then I finished up saying Forbes.Com should address real issues; flexible work weeks, telecommuting options, released time to attend parent/teacher conferences, and other ways businesses could develop caregiving policies which could then take pressure off workers being pulled between home and office responsibilities. Information that would actually be of use to their readers - "The World's Leaders in Business."

This is the response I received today from Steve Forbes:

I want to acknowledge your communication with us on the article “Don’t Marry Career Women.” Sensitive issues demand sensitive treatment. The piece that appeared on Forbes.com this past week was intended to be part academic and part humorous. Instead, it profoundly offended hard-working career women everywhere. We deeply regret having done so.

Steve Forbes
President and Editor-in-Chief
Forbes

I am fairly certain I am one among many recipients.

I decided to answer it as though the email was sent to me and only me.

"What the hell! Why not?" I asserted loudly. "What? What are you doing?" From the other room came the voice of my 10 year old. (Note to readers, when asserting yourself and cursing, consider using your inside voice. )


Maybe someone at Forbes.com will read my communication responding to their communication responding to my communication

Maybe someone will appreciate the academic content, maybe it will be deemed humorous.

Dear Mr. Forbes,

Actually, I wasn't offended until I received this response from you. I read this response to put the onus on me--i.e. "If you had a better sense of humor and understood academic research you would have appreciated this piece." Um, no. I have a sense of humor and I do understand academic research. But this article just didn't have those components. I was not offended; I simply expressed my bewilderment as to why Forbes would publish something written by somebody who was a) trying much too hard to be funny, and failing, and b) citing incomplete and poorly interpreted research.

As for sensitivity, you are absolutely correct: "sensitive issues demand sensitive treatment." So how come you aren't concerned about how hard-working career men may have felt about this piece? Are only hard working career women sensitive enough to be offended by this dreck?

If you want humor and academic rigor wrapped in a package others will find appealing, trying posting a short mea culpa 'fessing up that this piece was FUBAR. I think that would be funny. And, since it incorporates an acronym will require some readers to look up, you can call that part your "research" component.

Devra Renner, MSW