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:
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
And you're saying that Katie and you are themoretolerant 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.
I believe you are mischaracterizing Katie's and my posts. Not only that, but you have accused Katie, who is a stay-at-home mother, of being opposed to stay-at-home mothers.
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Everyone, let's make sure we're working to put the best construction on what everyone else is saying. Things are getting a bit heated.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I just wanted to drop back into the earlier posts and say that this is precisely what I think Katie has been trying to say, and what the rigid-traditional-roles people are missing.
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Lucy Pevensie
Leporello
And you're saying that Katie and you are themoretolerant 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.
I believe you are mischaracterizing Katie's and my posts. Not only that, but you have accused Katie, whoisa stay-at-home mother, of being opposed to stay-at-home mothers.
As you wish. Katie is the one who started crying "sexist" and referred to a mother as a "functionary." Within the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter that she is a mother if she makes arguments that diminish the critical importance of a mother. Her personal identity is not the point.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I can tell you right now many traits of a woman that could prevent me from falling in love with her, as I no doubt have many traits that would prevent many women from falling in love with me.
For example, I want to marry a woman who doesn't take drugs, who doesn't get angry over small things, and who accepts my choice of career. This is not a list of demands, whereby I start to date some unsuspecting woman and then force her to quit drugs, mellow out her temper, and bite her tongue about her moral objections to my career. It is a set of traits that will help me and the women I meet decide whether we might work out. What's the big deal?
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Judithann Campbell
It seems to me that a woman would have to be a pretty bad mother if her children are better off when she is not there, but I not obviously not an expert at moral reasoning.
It sounds to me like your bitterness over your own experience has made you markedly unsympathetic to the experience of others.
Your personal attacks are completely unmerited, especially as Judithann has repeatedly shown great sympathy to the experience of children, those who are most important - and most vulnerable - in a family.
And it's ridiculous to insist that what you believe about marriage is based on objective nature while stating that Judithann's (quite sensible) logic is "not rooted in moral reasoning."
Dec '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Lucy Pevensie
I just wanted to drop...
That happens AFTER love. When two people have started dating they don't really know each other yet, much less love each other. The dating/courtship period is just as much about screening out Mr Wrong as it is finding Mr Right.
Yes a lot of marriages fail because of selfishness, but many also fail because people weren't honest with their potential spouses or themselves at the beginning of the relationship. You are suppose to discriminatory and at least some somewhat selfish during the courtship period. I don't believe a person does themselves or their potential spouses any favors by being treating the person they are dating like their spouse.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 10:42pmAug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
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...
Here's the thing. The guy is an engineering student. Still in college. He likely doesn't have the life-experience to know what's essential for him in marriage, and he's less likely to get that experience by foreclosing so many options so soon.
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with him looking for women who want to be stay-at-home mommies, to be so forward and strident about it that he offends many women may not be doing him many favors in finding a compatible wife.
He may be shutting out women with whom he could have a very happy married life. He may even be turning away women who would be perfectly happy to be stay-at-home mommies but who are simply taken aback by guys who make demands about it as a first step in the dating process.
Online dating is different, though. There people take these up-front general demands less personally. Maybe he should try that.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
katievs
Your personal attacks are completely unmerited, especially as Judithann has repeatedly shown great sympathy to the experience of children, those who are most important - and most vulnerable - in a family.
And it's ridiculous to insist that what you believe about marriage is based on objective nature while stating that Judithann's (quite sensible) logic is "not rooted in moral reasoning."
I think you are taking an impersonal observation as a personal attack. Judithann's argument is as follows: I felt bad in x situation therefore I can generalize that all people who create x situation are doing wrong. Surely you can see that there isn't any logic to that formulation, if you see it in the abstract, apart from your own ideas about whether x is wrong or not? Imagine that x is a potentially desirable thing, like, say getting a vaccination. That something makes one person feel bad does not make it a universal wrong.
Katie in response is saying not "you are a bad person" but "you are arguing from emotions (bitterness) not logic." Can't you see that she is right?
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson: I can tell you right now many traits of a woman that could prevent me from falling in love with her, as I no doubt have many traits that would prevent many women from falling in love with me.
For example, I want to marry a woman who doesn't take drugs, who doesn't get angry over small things, and who accepts my choice of career... What's the big deal?
No big deal at all.
But I expect you're smooth enough not to cross-examine women about their drug habits, temper, and opinion of your job in the first few dates.
This guy is maybe not so smooth:
Yes, we know the campus environment is hypersensitive these days, but if this is happening to him frequently, he might reconsider how he expresses his desires. There are plenty of women on college campuses who would love to be stay-at-home mommies, but they might be shy about admitting it -- to themselves as well as to other people.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 10:57pmMay '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
It's a pre-condition, not a demand.
I'm saying it shouldn't be a pre-condition. It's a wrong-headed pre-condition.
You've misunderstood me completely if you think I'm opposed to the idea of mothers staying at home. My mother and both my grandmothers were stay at home moms. I'm a stay at home mom. Most of my closest women friends are stay at home moms. I hang with homeschoolers. Those are my peeps. I love and admire them.
I didn't describe mothers as functionaries! Ack! I described a bad approach to marriage--one where instead of looking for spouse and companion, a man or a woman is looking for someone to fill a role in his or her life. Jeepers.
Sep '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with him looking for women who want to be stay-at-home mommies..
That is just the point. Some people in this thread think there is something wrong with that kind of screening process.
The argument isn't a value judgement about whether or not this engineering student is going to find happiness in the long run.
The argument is simply: Is he sexist and/or dictatorial?
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with him looking for women who want to be stay-at-home mommies, to be so forward and strident about it that he offends many women may not be doing him many favors in finding a compatible wife.
How do we know he's being "forward and strident" about it? The women calling him sexist might not even be women he's dating. College students tend to hang out in groups and have lots of wide ranging discussions (not unlike Ricochet) and if he's not shy about speaking up about his traditional beliefs he probably gets called a sexist quite often.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Nyadnar17
That happens AFTER love. When two people have started dating they don't really know each other yet, much less love each other. The dating/courtship period is just as much about screening out Mr Wrong as it is finding Mr Right.
Yes a lot of marriages fail because of selfishness, but many also fail because people weren't honest with their potential spouses or themselves at the beginning of the relationship. You are suppose to discriminatory and at least some somewhat selfish during the courtship period.
There's a paradox here, isn't there? Because probably the most important person to screen out is the potentially selfish future spouse.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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. ·
Of course we do.
I am flabbergasted by the way I am being interpreted today.
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Lucy Pevensie
Leporello
katievs
Your personal attacks are completely unmerited, especially as Judithann has repeatedly shown great sympathy to the experience of children, those who are most important - and most vulnerable - in a family.
And it's ridiculous to insist that what you believe about marriage is based on objective nature while stating that Judithann's (quite sensible) logic is "not rooted in moral reasoning."
Katie in response is saying not "you are a bad person" but "you are arguing from emotions (bitterness) not logic." Can't you see that she is right? · 1 minute ago
No. Judithann's points were made as dispassionately and as logically as one could imagine, and Katie's response was undeserved, dismissive, and insulting. And since you have taken the typical feminist line - "the traditional family is like a 50's sitcom, but sending your kids away to be tended by others is grand!" - I'm not sure you're an unbiased judge. Let's let Katie speak for herself now, if she wishes.
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
This guy is maybe not so smooth:
Yes, we know the campus environment is hypersensitive these days, but if this is happening to him frequently, he might reconsider how he expresses his desires. · 3 minutes ago
These days all you need to do is say you are pro-life, or that you oppose the HHS contraception mandate, to be called a sexist. The word is practically devoid of meaning any more.
Feb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
For anyone who would like to read an engaging and intelligent article on the importance of staying home, I highly recommend this article, "Home Alone America," by conservative scholar, Mary Eiberstadt. The article largely summarizes her excellent book by the same name.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson: I can tell you right now many traits of a woman that could prevent me from falling in love with her, as I no doubt have many traits that would prevent many women from falling in love with me.
For example, I want to marry a woman who doesn't take drugs, who doesn't get angry over small things, and who accepts my choice of career. This is not a list of demands, whereby I start to date some unsuspecting woman and then force her to quit drugs, mellow out her temper, and bite her tongue about her moral objections to my career. It is a set of traits that will help me and the women I meet decide whether we might work out. What's the big deal? · 27 minutes ago
You're right, Mark. That's not a list of demands in the sense I oppose.
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Joseph Stanko
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with him looking for women who want to be stay-at-home mommies, to be so forward and strident about it that he offends many women may not be doing him many favors in finding a compatible wife.
How do we know he's being "forward and strident" about it?
He may not be forward or strident about his desires in an absolute sense, but it sounds like he hasn't met with much success on the tack he's been taking. He is, after all, frustrated enough to write an advice columnist about the matter.
Perhaps what we can agree on is that what seems merely outspoken to one person can come across to another as forward and strident. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of his problem.
____________
EDIT: Also, he is an engineering student. They're not known for their tact.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 11:10pm