Do these fumes of Ajax and smoke from yonder burnt banana muffins deceive mah eyes? Or has the already-parodied article which cautions menfolk against matrimonializin' with cash-earnin', brain-cell-totin', emasculatin' harpies been rah-moved? Link to screengrab, here was the original url. (thanks, Ariel)
Update: It's true. A moment of internet silence please, while we all shed a single, collective, airbrushed tear like the miserable wage whore in the stock photo that once accompanied the article in question. Jess Hemerly says,
They pulled the article down from Forbes.com about an hour ago, but
thanks to readers in the forums I got the text. Unfortunately, I
don't have the "In Pictures" part with 9 reasons not to marry a career
woman. If you're interested, I posted it here.You also might want to check out [the article's author] Michael Noer's recently updated Wikipedia
entry.
Update: Here are screenshots of the original article: one, two (Thanks, PJ). Here's the slideshow text, annotated by a LiveJournaler named Sara.
BoingBoing reader Tim Altom wrote:
I am an avid reader of BoingBoing posts, a supporter of 'net freedom, a user of open source software, someone who does the family laundry and scrubs the toilet, and a proud husband of a late-life college student, yet it causes me some pain to read your gleeful post on Forbes' removal of its "don't marry a career woman" article. Am I the only person who notices the irony of such gloating on the same page with a prominent link saying "defeat censorware"?
I never suggested that Forbes should remove the article. On the contrary: its removal from Forbes.com is worthy of ridicule (hence, all the pointers in this BoingBoing post to cached copies of the article's full, original text). Why can't the publication stand behind the work of one of their own? Did Forbes editors not read the item prior to publication? If so, shame on them for poor quality control. But if they just can't take the heat, shame on them for pulling the article as if to pretend it never happened — regardless of the article's merits or shortcomings. Poor Michael Noer needs a blog!
Update 2, at 630PM PT: Jess Hemerly says,
Yet another development. The article is back up, but next to a
counterpoint article. Interesting attempt at redemption, eh?
Link to Forbes' too-lame-too-late attempt at redemption from blog-flogging.
BB reader L. Perg says,
Forbes has also taken down the Michael Noel article, "The Economics of Prostitution." It is still available for the moment via Google cache. Comparing the Google cache vs. the current version of the special report shows that the article was deliberately removed, and is not part of the "site redesign." (Searching the Forbes site for the article also brings no joy.)
