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 '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leslie Watkins:
0 minutes ago
There are lots of girls whom I have loved, and in some ways still do that werent ever going to be my wife.
One young lady decided she wanted to spend a few years getting high..... Its her life, I didnt want the drug lifestyle. I hung out in the apartments of the unmotivated guys who worked to fund their pot habits, and the young ladies that came around to trade favors for weed.
There is something worth loving about everyone, that doesnt mean that there is enough compatibility to build a successfull relationship. I am much happier with my wife than I was with some of my girlfriends.
My mother told me that the most important thing was find a spouse whose bad habits you could tolerate.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 5:15pmSep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
But it's not the kind of thing we should be laying down as a demand in our search for a life's companion.
What demands are acceptable?
Is it okay to limit possible mates to those that desire to have children? Is it okay to limit possible mates to those that are able to have children?
If you answer yes to both (I do), then it doesn't seem a large leap to limiting possible future mates to those that desire to be homemakers.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
It's supposed to be an advice column. And the advice to be a little more flexible in his initial template is good. Imagine a woman in college deciding that she wants three children and making this a criterion for a second date. I think that approach would be unwise. I would advise her to focus first on the person and secondarily on the lifestyle template. That's all. It doesn't mean his idea is not valid -- just that he might not want to be so rigid so early in the process and so early in his life.
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Reading both of Emily's posts, it strikes me that her rancor toward this young man derives from the issue of identification. She is emotionally attached to a certain view of romantic love (and, I'm totally guessing, is unmarried) and that view is threatened by want this young man wants. So she loses her cool. Conversely, the homosexual male twin's situation is so far removed from her own that she is able to give him so-called professional advice (she wouldn't have printed the letter if she wasn't going to advise him rather than tell him his problem is way over her pay level). It may gross her out, as she indicates at the beginning of the letter, but she's not threatened by it and so can sound extremely reasonable. ... Somebody wrote a recent post asking "the biggest issue facing America today" or something to that affect. It didn't hit me until now that, to my mind, the biggest problem affecting America today is this tendency to let people base their arguments on feelings rather than objective measures—the very notion that there is no such thing as objective measures.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Judithann Campbell: 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? · 7 minutes ago
It's shorthand for in my opinion.
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
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.
It's far less sexist than what roughly 100% of women feel about their marriage mate -- that he work more or less full time, all the time, until retirement age.
Of all the errors in the marriage market, knowing at the outset you want children and want a wife who shares that vision and has the gifts required to do the hard work of raising them is hardly worth the adjective of "dictatorial." And some sexism (i.e. sex discrimination) is fine. Women give birth. Men don't. Women nurse. Men don't. Women are more likely to nurture. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I work, but flexibly, and am mostly in charge of raising our children. This was the arrangement both my husband and I wanted -- even before we met.
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
A man asking on the first few dates, "So... how would you like to be a stay-at-home mom?" is at least as awkward as a woman blurting out on the first few dates, "You have no idea how much I would love to be a stay-at-home mommy!"
That said, I don't blame the man for wanting what he wants. He just should be smoother about it. Frequent circles where women are more likely to want to become homemakers, let the women talk about themselves and tell you (not outright, probably, but in the course of everything they say about themselves) that this is what they want.
I think most of end up marrying someone with traits we never would have expected. I married a bald guy who can't tell one end of a sonnet from the other. Never saw that coming.
Just because this guy says his preferences are rigid at this point doesn't mean that he'll stick to that. So I'd cut him some slack on this point.
But in today's culture, if this is what you're looking for, it pays to be tactful about it.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 8:20pmDec '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
IMO = In My Opinion
IMHO = In My Honest Opinion
I am having a disconnect here. How is telling potential mates what your life goals are dictatorial?
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
That sounds very fair, but it wasn't the message I got from the column. She basically told him that his idea was in fact, not valid.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
An advice columnist that understood human nature better than Yoffe would have told the engineering student to find a woman he loves and marry her. No need to worry too much whether she will want to stay home with young children because the odds are very high that once the little rug rats are in situ her maternal instincts will kick in and she’ll be grateful for your loving willingness to be the sole breadwinner. Save all the money she earns before the eggs hatch, it will come in handy then.
Yoffe’s advice brought to mind the recent words of Archbishop Chaput:
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Belling Fan
katievs
But it's not the kind of thing we should be laying down as a demand in our search for a life's companion.
What demands are acceptable?
Is it okay to limit possible mates to those that desire to have children?
I dislike the language of demands in marriage. It's not an economic exchange (though it involves a transfer of "all our worldly goods".) We are entering a sacred institution; laying down our lives; pledging our love and fidelity; receiving a gift beyond all deserving.
We are giving ourselves to an utterly unique and infinitely valuable "other", to whom we owe everything. And we are setting out together on an unpredictable journey.
Since children are the objective "end" of marriage, in the Catholic view (and I am Catholic), it is not even possible to marry unless we are open to children.
It is possible to marry a person who is (because of physical condition) unable to have children.
Dec '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
The more I think about it, the best advice you can give the young man is that the girls you date and the girls you marry arent necessarily the same.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Nyadnar17: IMO = In My Opinion
IMHO = In My Honest Opinion
I am having a disconnect here. How is telling potential mates what your life goals are dictatorial? · 4 minutes ago
I always thought IMHO was "in my humble opinion".
Dec '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Mark Belling Fan
katievs
But it's not the kind of thing we should be laying down as a demand in our search for a life's companion.
What demands are acceptable?
Is it okay to limit possible mates to those that desire to have children?
I dislike the language of demands in marriage. It's not an economic exchange (though it involves a transfer of "all our worldly goods".) We are entering a sacred institution; laying down our lives; pledging our love and fidelity; receiving a gift beyond all deserving.
We are giving ourselves to an utterly unique and infinitely valuable "other", to whom we owe everything. And we are setting out together on an unpredictable journey.
Since children are the objective "end" of marriage, in the Catholic view (and I am Catholic), it is not even possible to marry unless we are open to children.
It ispossible to marry a person who is (because of physical condition) unable to have children. · 5 minutes ago
Why enter into a marriage you know will end in divorce in about 5 - 10 years?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I've known the opposite phenomenon to happen too. Women who thought they wanted to be stay at home moms finding themselves climbing the walls and ill with depression.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Guruforhire
Why enter into a marriage you know will end in divorce in about 5 - 10 years? ·
If you are open to divorce, you aren't open to marriage in the Catholic view.
Dec '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Guruforhire
Why enter into a marriage you know will end in divorce in about 5 - 10 years? ·
If you are open to divorce, you aren't open to marriage in the Catholic view. · 0 minutes ago
My views dont necessarily matter in this regard. She can want a divorce and I can be divorced regardless of how I feel about the matter.
Would openness to divorce be a deal breaker before your married?
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
My mother worked part time when I was a child; I missed her terribly, every minute she was gone. Even when she was there, I lived in dread, because I knew that she would be gone again soon. If the women who climb the walls and are ill with depression understood how much their children need them, maybe they would find meaning in staying home with the kids.
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I think the disconnect here is that you are viewing the situation retrospectively (i.e. already married), whereas the young man in question is viewing the situation prospectively.
He isn't demanding actions from a particular woman. He is filtering out potential women on the basis of what kind of professional life they desire.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
It's far less sexist than what roughly 100% of women feel about their marriage mate --
Well, personally, I'm for not sexist at all, rather than "less sexist."
Of all the errors in the approach to marriage in our society, perhaps the most basic is thinking of it as a market.
Openness to children is a demand of marriage. To look for a spouse of high moral calibre, who loves children, and who is willing to do whatever is within his power to give them a good life is wisdom.
To lay down demands: He has to have this level of income; she has to be a stay at home mom; she has to be willing to live here or there, etc., betrays a tendency toward a self-defeating ego-centrism.
We're not looking for a type to fill a role. We're looking for a person to have and to hold.