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:
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
What woman here insists that children don't need their mothers?
The only one doing any insisting here is you, when you treat women who seek some kind of work outside the home as if they are ipso facto selfish and unconcerned about the needs of their children.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
While this man may have had a sexist motive, that doesn't mean that the desire for a home-maker wife is sexist.
It's not the desire; it's the demand. · 8 minutes ago
There's that demand word again. Who is demanding (aside from the man in your story)? All men? The young engineer?
-E
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
What if a woman discovers about herself that she is in love with someone other than her husband? By what right would you tell her that she must stay with her husband?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
It's her own vows that tell her that; it's "the law of marriage".
What you are doing, it seems to me, is "adding to the law" things that are not matters of law, but matters of prudence.
Dec '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
While this man may have had a sexist motive, that doesn't mean that the desire for a home-maker wife is sexist.
It's not the desire; it's the demand. · 22 minutes ago
I really need someone to explain to me how wanting to marry someone who will be a homemaker is in a different category than wanting to marry someone who is of the same religion, is willing to deal with the rigors of military/missionary/political life, or is HIV negative. I am not understanding how people are categorizing certain things as necessities and others as demands.
Or am I misunderstanding your positions and you would view all of those things as demands?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
There's that demand word again. Who is demanding (aside from the man in your story)? All men? The young engineer?
Anyone who makes that a woman agrees to be a stay at home mom a condition of his dating and/or marrying her.
That's a demand, not a desire in my book.
I recently read about a rabbi who had imagine himself marrying a woman who would be the ideal rabbi's wife. Then he found himself falling for a woman who dreaded social functions and otherwise fell short of his ideal. He broke up with her, but then missed her so painfully that he reconsidered and eventually married her, adjusting his demands and expectations to be with the one who had won his heart.
It was his demands that had to give. Individuals transcend roles. We're looking for a person, a companion, a spouse, not a functionary.
I've also know women who thought they wanted careers, only to find, once they were married, that all they really wanted was to be at home with their kids.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
A better rule is to be willing to casually date anyone you find interesting, but hold off on the physical intimacy!
Perhaps it's different for men. Maybe men shouldn't date women they're not interested in marrying. But I'm not a man.
While it's a bit different for men , an element of exploration and spontaneity is important for men too. Men should work within a framework but be flexible and recognize that if you have a too detailed idea of what you think you want then you'll miss out. In my case, I wouldn't have dated my wife if I hadn't been flexible. That said, we both saw eye to eye on fundamental values and life goals, and we knew that before even dating.
-E
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
It's her own vows that tell her that; it's "the law of marriage".
What you are doing, it seems to me, is "adding to the law" things that are not matters of law, but matters of prudence. · 9 minutes ago
That is why I left the Catholic Church. In my experience, most Catholic men are not willing to support their wives; after all, there is no law saying that they have to. I married a wonderful agnostic, who supports me.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Nyadnar17
I really need someone to explain to me how wanting to marry someone who will be a homemaker is in a different category than wanting to marry someone who is of the same religion, is willing to deal with the rigors of military/missionary/political life, or is HIV negative. I am not understanding how people are categorizing certain things as necessities and others as demands.
Or am I misunderstanding your positions and you would view all of those things as demands?
I'm maybe making it sound more like there's a hard and fast rule than there is. It's really about attitude I think.
Marriage is all about breaking out of the ego, in love and service of another. If we approach it with our list of demands, in an ego-centric way, we're going about it all wrong.
I think Midge had it about right.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Judithann Campbell
katievs
It's her own vows that tell her that; it's "the law of marriage".
What you are doing, it seems to me, is "adding to the law" things that are not matters of law, but matters of prudence. · 9 minutes ago
That is why I left the Catholic Church. In my experience, most Catholic men are not willing to support their wives; after all, there is no law saying that they have to. I married a wonderful agnostic, who supports me. · 2 minutes ago
Again you are projecting a lot of ugliness onto others--as if everyone who doesn't see things your way is selfish and demanding. Sheesh.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
There's that demand word again. Who is demanding (aside from the man in your story)? All men? The young engineer?
Anyone who makes that a woman agrees to be a stay at home mom a condition of his dating and/or marrying her.
That's a demand, not a desire in my book.
You make it sound like men with that desire are forcing it on other people. They're not. What they're doing is looking for people that have compatible values. If a man asked a woman up front, "do you want to be a stay-at-home mom?" and then based the future of his relationship with her on her answer, it may be immature and even foolish, but it's not sexist.
It would be sexist (and worse) to impose your will on someone, but there ain't none of that going on here.
-E
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Judithann Campbell
katievs
It's her own vows that tell her that; it's "the law of marriage".
What you are doing, it seems to me, is "adding to the law" things that are not matters of law, but matters of prudence. · 9 minutes ago
That is why I left the Catholic Church. In my experience, most Catholic men are not willing to support their wives; after all, there is no law saying that they have to. I married a wonderful agnostic, who supports me. · 2 minutes ago
Again you are projecting a lot of ugliness onto others--as if everyone who doesn't see things your way is selfish and demanding. Sheesh. · 4 minutes ago
So if a man wants his wife to stay home, that is wrong, but if he demands that she work, that is ok?
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
In case any young men or college students are trying to figure out where they can meet highly intelligent, traditional women, take a look at the Network of Enlightened Women, an organization of college student groups dedicated to fighting feminism on campus and bringing together conservative women for mutual support.
Phyllis Schlafly endorsed the group, as did Mary Katherine Hamm and many others (and donations are tax deductible, too.)
http://enlightenedwomen.org/
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
There's that demand word again. Who is demanding (aside from the man in your story)? All men? The young engineer?
Anyone who makes that a woman agrees to be a stay at home mom a condition of his dating and/or marrying her.
That's a demand, not a desire in my book...
We're looking for a person, a companion, a spouse, not a functionary...
It's a pre-condition, not a demand. There's no obligation by the woman to agree, since they're not married yet. They're just dating.
And why are you so opposed to the idea of mothers staying home? One cannot exactly rear children if one is at the office and they are at home with a nanny (or, worse, in daycare). It's not just a "choice" without consequences, as liberals claim it is.
I have to believe that you were writing too quickly when you described a mother as a "functionary." Raising children is the most important thing we do. And it is far superior - intellectually, morally, emotionally - to working a job for a paycheck. Or is the worth of a mother better understood in terms of income?
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Of all the errors in the approach to marriage in our society, perhaps the most basic is thinking of it as a market.
I would have once agreed with you without question, Katievs, but now I see things differently:
For marriage to be non-mercenary and self-sacrificing is one thing. For your dating habits to be that way is another. The main point of dating is to screen out people you wouldn't get along with as a spouse. You are "shopping around" for someone you're compatible with.
People committed to dating in a too-self-sacrificing manner waste each others' time and cause each other heartbreak. Better to cut both your losses (yes, there's that mercenary language again) and look elsewhere if you're not compatible with a boyfriend or girlfriend, even if it's for a shallow reason, like looks or money.
Trying to be nobler than you are -- marrying into poverty when you prefer luxury, marrying a plain person when looks really matter to you -- is probably a major cause of marriage failure. We have to be realistic about our weaknesses.
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Marriage is all about breaking out of the ego, in love and service of another. If we approach it with our list of demands, in an ego-centric way, we're going about it all wrong.
I think Midge had it about right.
Uh-oh. You might not be so happy with what I just wrote, then.
Anyhow, I agree we shouldn't have a laundry list of demands while dating, but we can't be shy about quitting dating people we're not compatible with, either.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
katievs
And why are you so opposed to the idea of mothers staying home? One cannot exactly rear children if one is at the office and they are at home with a nanny (or, worse, in daycare). It's not just a "choice" without consequences, as liberals claim it is.
I have to believe that you were writing too quickly when you described a mother as a "functionary." Raising children is the most important thing we do. And it is far superior - intellectually, morally, emotionally - to working a job for a paycheck. Or is the worth of a mother better understood in terms of income?
No one here is opposed to mothers staying home. For crying out loud, Katie is a stay-at-home mom. (I on the other hand am not.) We are both objecting to the idea that anyone on the outside who doesn't know the internal realities of our families should judge Katie to be necessarily the better mother. I appreciate her support, by the way.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
By the way, I think it's kind of sad and funny that Mollie's post on the intolerance of the Left has exposed such a large streak of intolerance on the Right. Folks, isn't this the point? We're not supposed to have the same rigidity of the people who hold as a given that all women should work outside the home.
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
May I quote from a column I wrote for Christianity Today a while back "White Flag in the Mommy Wars: The Theology That Many Parents Are Missing":
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
And you're saying that Katie and you are the more tolerant ones? A fellow has said that it's essential to him to marry a woman who will stay home with the children. In response, Katie and you have mischaracterized his concern and responded with unjustified indignation, not hesitating to refer to a mother as a "functionary." This isn't the blog of the National Organization of Women.