The Intolerance of Tolerance
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has provided an excellent service. He simply points to two pieces of advice offered by the same Washington Post/Slate advice columnist, Emily Yoffe, as part of a discussion of why social conservatism has much more appeal than, well, the folks at the Washington Post and Slate and other elite institutions realize. Here's the first piece of advic from Emily Yoffe's "Dear Prudence" column:
Q: I attend a small university studying engineering. I hold traditional values and I would like to get married to a woman willing to stay home and raise our children. I am lucky enough to not have any student loans and will be able to support a wife and children on my salary. Preferably, I would like to marry a woman who has a college degree and is smart because we would match intellectually and she would provide the best environment for my children. Women I meet on campus frequently call me sexist. I never thought of myself as sexist because I have no problem whatsoever with women who work in general and I respect my fellow female students and professors. Just because I don't want my wife to work does not mean I think women in general shouldn't work. Am I sexist? Is there any way I can meet a woman who shares my values, or was I born 40 years too late?
A: You sound like the male equivalent of the bride in the letter above who much preferred planning her wedding without the bother of a real person to marry. Of course we all have ideas of what our ideal life would be, then life happens and we have to--even want to--adjust to reality. Yes, there are women, even well-educated ones, who would prefer to stay home with their children. But dictating these terms before you've even gotten far enough to go steady makes you sound rigid, dictatorial, and yes, sexist. Instead of announcing your life plan for the so-far nonexistent woman you plan to marry, you should just date interesting, intelligent women and find out what they want out of life. But if you're determined to only spend time with women who meet your qualifications, go to a rally for Rick Santorum. He shares your views of women's roles, and during his Q&A ask if he can fix you up.
Now, I come from a different culture, one where even women who work want husbands who will sacrifice as necessary to enable women to spend more time at home with their children. The man could use more flexibility, perhaps, but the snide and judgmental tone from Yoffe -- the intolerance, as it were -- is really striking.
I'll let Taranto summarize the other piece of advice, lest I run afoul of the Code of Conduct:
In an earlier column, she responded in blasé fashion to a (fictional, we hope to God) letter from a man who claimed to be carrying on a homosexual affair with his own fraternal twin brother: "When people ask when you're each going to go out there and find a nice young man, tell them that while it may seem unorthodox, you both have realized that living together is what works for you," she advised.
But when a decent young man professes a desire to marry an old-fashioned girl and take financial responsibility for his family, Yoffe treats him as a deviant. She denounces him as "sexist" even though he is careful to affirm that women have every right to work outside the home if they choose to do so. He mentions nothing about politics, yet she feels compelled to bring Santorum, the feminists' Emmanuel Goldstein, into the mix.
Yoffe's hostility to this young man tells us more about elite culture than it does about her personally.
I can think of no better example of the "new tolerance," as D.A. Carson puts it in his new book The Intolerance of Tolerance. It's not tolerant so much as embracing of any social system that has no standards, quite intolerant of those that do, and firmly positioned to provide a morally relativistic philosophy in defense of this intolerant tolerance.
- Comment (258)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
All points of view are equal and valid...except yours.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I was right there with her in the first post until the gratuitous Santorum reference, which turned not terrible advice into something mean-spirited and inappropriately judgmental.
The second piece is just creepy. Clearly there is a radical agenda at work. No responsible advice columnist can suggest that engaging in a romantic affair with a sibling (or hey let's expand that to any immediate family member) of any sex is in any way a healthy or wise choice.
How does someone like that hold her position? Does Donald Graham even read his family's newspaper?
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I'm an old-fashioned guy who loved my late wife who had made the choice to stay home and raise our children, and I loved her all the more for it. However, I'm in agreement with Ms. Yoffe's statement that it would have been better for him to meet interesting women and find what their dreams are rather than come in with a preconceived notion. Conservatism -- of all stripes -- is about individual accountability. Until that person is your spouse, you are not their boss. After they are your spouse, you are partners (nobody is "boss") and you work out your life choices together. I would never have dictated to her that she give up her career in this way, but I respected and admired her choice. In the end, it's Conservatives who are the real "pro-choice" folks because we don't believe in forcing people into a predetermined social agenda. I agree about her tone, and that the other column was just creepy.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Ratzinger nailed it years ago with his phrase "the dictatorship of relativism."
Same here. Her advice wasn't bad until that moment.
Jan '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.It' s just another example of how far our society has gone in the wrong direction.I believe the majority believe in traditional values that helped make our country the envy of the worldLet's keep exposing these excesses and step up public awareness on these issues.Being traditional, ethical and spiritual is not something we should have to defend
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Progressives have a strict moral hierarchy. Non-traditional and even deviant values are to be celebrated when they are held by minority groups. Traditional values are to be disdained when they are held by the majority.
It is similar to progressives' attitudes toward political regimes in other countries. Cuba is good, because it flounders economically, it is Spanish-speaking, the people are "of color", and the regime is leftist. The lack of free speech and the imprisonment of democratic activists are facts to be disregarded. Israel is bad, because it is successful economically, it "oppresses" people "of color", and the government is at times right-wing. The seats held by Arabs in the legislature and the atrocities committed by the country's enemies are facts to be disregarded.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Is Emily Yoffe a real person? Could she be a nom de plume for Dan Savage?
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
This young man was just being upfront and honest about the kind of relationship that he wanted; I admire that. Men have a right to have a say in how their children will be raised. If he wants his wife to be a stay home mother, then he should be upfront about it. There are plenty of women who would love to meet a guy like him, even if the women on his campus don't appreciate him.
Nov '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Thanks for this. The entire Taranto piece is well worth reading. I especially recommend the 1996 Brookings policy brief quoted by Taranto on why the increase in out-of-wedlock births is connected with the availability of the pill and abortion, although one could intelligently disagree with some of its recommendations.
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
So Ms Yoffe thinks this fellow should marry a woman who wants a different life than he does. And when the inevitable stress sets in, divorce is the no-big-deal answer. What Ms Yoffe cannot possibly conceive is that there are educated women who want to be wives and mothers; this fellow is a dream come true for them.
On a related matter, I am now declaring my Catholicism a "lifestyle choice". I expect the same respect as that given to the homosexual incestuous brothers.
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs:
Same here. Her advice wasn't bad until that moment. · 10 minutes ago
Huh, well she lost me at "rigid, dictatorial, and sexist."
Dec '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I think both people should be open and honest about what they are looking for in a partner as soon as they know what they want. If you know you want to have kids and that is a non-negotiable for you, dating someone who doesn't want kids is a waste of both your time; if you want to have a military or missionary career, dating someone who hates moving around is dumb; if you want a career in politics, dating someone who does not want to have their life scrutinized by the media is unfair.
The only reason to just date "interesting, intelligent women" with no other restrictions, is because you don't know what you want. There is no problem with not knowing what you want and finding out through trail and error-but the idea that someone who knows what they are looking for in life and screens their potential mates based on those desires is backwards is well, backwards.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:30pmJul '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I'm trying to imagine the thought process.
Yeah it's kind of gross, but well... they're adults, it's consensual, and it isn't like they are identical twins. I mean, that would be crazy.
I guess the WAPO has it's own take on family values.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Belling Fan
katievs:
Same here. Her advice wasn't bad until that moment. · 10 minutes ago
Huh, well she lost me at "rigid, dictatorial, and sexist."· 3 minutes ago
Her language was too strong. But I basically agree with her there.
The guy's intention of looking for a college educated woman who doesn't work does reflect a tendency to think of his wife in terms of the role she will play in his life. It is too rigid; it is (kind of) dictatorial; and it is (kind of) sexist.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with being attracted to that way of life as a particularly good and beautiful and harmonious way of being. I don't think there's anything wrong with even aspiring to it.
But it's not the kind of thing we should be laying down as a demand in our search for a life's companion. Individuals transcend roles. Life throws curves. Expect the unexpected.
And all that.
Dec '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
If thats what he wants out life, more power to him. There is a butt for every seat. I wholesale reject the idea that what he wants out of a relationship should be subordinate to somebody elses, that IS dictatorial and sexist.
Its perfectly fine to be looking for a partner who wants what you want out of a relationship.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:57pmSep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
If a woman wants to be a stay home mother, is she wrong to lay that down as a demand? Obviously, people have to be flexible, there are times when we must adjust our ideal plan to reality, but single people should be honest about what they want.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Yes, IMO.
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Yes, of course, if that somebody else isn't a woman he loves who has different wants but loves him too. In actual relationships, what one wants is always tempered by what the partnership wants, unless one partner wants to be dictator. I would suggest that might not make him as happy as he thinks. It's wise to know what you want. It's not always so wise to create an image of it.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
The thing about the particular relationship that is marriage is neither spouse can be subordinated to the other's "wants". Rather, each subordinates his or her wants to the objective good for the other, for their love, and for their family.
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
But isn't marriage supposed to be about protecting children, and giving them the best upbringing possible?
I feel a little dumb for asking this, but what does IMO mean?