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:
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Joseph Stanko
...the important distinction between dating and marriage. I think that while dating it's perfectly reasonable, indeed it's a good idea, to discuss frankly each others' desires and plans for life and to try to find someone reasonably compatible.
Marriage, however, is an unconditional vow: for better or for worse, etc. After marriage you have to play the hand you are dealt.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for a man to express a preference for a stay-at-home mother and even to choose a wife with that "condition" in mind, however if it turns out she's miserable at home, or he loses his job and she has to work to support the family, or whatever the case may be he had better adapt, live up to his vow, and make the best of it.
Well said.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
The young man was not being sexist at all. When a woman expresses her preferences for marriage (ex: "I want to marry a man who will be fine that I travel every week" or "I want to marry a man who will relocate for my job"), no one calls her sexist. She is just saying what she wants and needs for a marriage to work for her, and that is totally fine. That's all this young man is saying. He's not demanding anything. We all have things that we look for in a spouse, and it's best to be cognizant of those things when we're dating.
--C
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 2:17amJul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
CandE
But you have implied that he would not consider a wife who does not accept as her exclusive (not just primary) task to stay at home to raise the kids. You have no way of knowing the details of what he truly wants, and by ascribing these demands to him you are setting up a straw man. Nothing this young man says suggests that he would not allow his wife to work. About the worst one can say about this young man is that he is imprecise in his language.
-E
He did say,
That isn't the same thing as not allowinghis wife to work, but assuming he said what he truly wants... · 7 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
He's using that as a summary, not an explanation. He starts with this:
I would like to get married to a woman willing to stay home and raise our children... and she would provide the best environment for my children.
It's not demanding or insistent. He want's someone who shares his values.
-E
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Earlier in the thread Judithann asked this:
To answer more fully than I did before:
I think there is nothing wrong with desiring it. Nothing wrong with aspiring to it. Nothing wrong with telling potential husbands that that's what you hope for; that's what you're convinced would be best for your kids.
But I do think it's wrong to lay it down as a demand.
Suppose the man agrees and then get married. Then, 15 years later, all the kids are in school. Finances are very tight. The husband is feeling overwhelmed with responsibility. He should be able to approach his wife with the concern; they should be able to consider solutions together, without a "But you promised I wouldn't have to work!" hanging between them.
Nov '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Good and challenging questions, Sandy. There are differences between the sexes that matter in marriage. Because women get pregnant and have children, they are vulnerable in ways men aren't. It's normal and right, IMO, that the main tasks of child-bearing and rearing fall to the woman, while the main tasks of provision falls to the man. But it's not impossible to imagine exceptions.
Anyone who wants to get married should be looking for someone who will dedicate himself or herself wholly to the "common good" of the marriage and family it forms. But we should beware the temptation to spell that out too concretely. We should beware of checklists of demands. Life is full of surprises. Individuals transcend generalities. · 24 minutes ago
I agree with every word here, and what you say about checklists is so true, and yet I think we should ponder the meaning of the likely fact that hardly anyone would blame a woman for requiring her potential spouse to have a job. In other words, some conditions are more reasonable than others. Everything depends upon the terms , of course, but this pre-condition seems like a good one to me.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I don't think that's totally fine. I think that's rigid and (kind of) dictatorial in exactly the same way as demanding in advance that a woman agree not to work.
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Joseph Stanko
Many of these young women would be reluctant to even agree to have children as a "condition" of marriage, let alone to stay at home with those children.
This is awful, but not to the point at hand. · 1 hour ago
My point is that we live in a society where some women want to focus on their careers and have no children, or one child after their career is well established. Other women would love to be stay-at-home mothers and have a large family.
Similarly, some men are willing and able to put in the hard work and the sacrifices necessary to support a stay-at-home wife and a large family, while other men don't want kids at all and want to keep working as a bartender so they have time to play in their garage band or keep working on that novel.
All I'm saying is: doesn't it make sense for the women who want to stay home and the men who are willing and able to support them to try to find each other? And how can they do that if they don't discuss it while dating?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Sandy
...I think we should ponder the meaning of the likely fact that hardly anyone would blame a woman for requiring her potential spouse to have a job. In other words, some conditions are more reasonable than others.
I agree with you that some conditions are more reasonable than others. And I think there may be something of a parallel between a woman expecting that her husband will have a job and commit to providing for her and her children to the best of his ability and a man expecting that his wife will want children and will make caring for them her top priority.
Those seem to me to belong to the objective demands of marriage and family life. Full-time stay-at-home homemaker doesn't. Neither does "he needs to have a six figure salary."
My mother-in-law worked hard and long hours, side by side with her husband all her married life in the family business. I think she was an outstanding mother. A rarely great mother--to judge by her sons. Much more selflessly dedicated to her family than many stay at home mothers I know.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Joseph Stanko
All I'm saying is: doesn't it make sense for the women who want to stay home and the men who are willing and able to support them to try to find each other? And how can they do that if they don't discuss it while dating?
I'm all in favor of discussing it while dating. What I oppose is approaching dating with a checklist of demands.
We should be looking for someone of high moral calibre who shares our values, of course. If we envision the same kind of future, all the better.
But suppose a man and woman are falling in love (like the couple I mentioned earlier.) They have similar religious and moral values. They both want a family. They're both intellectuals by training and vocation.
Is it right for him to say, "I'd like to marry you, but only if you agree not to work?" I think it's not. I think he imposes an unjust burden on her.
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
He did say,
That isn't the same thing as not allowing his wife to work, but assuming he said what he truly wants...
He's using that as a summary, not an explanation. He starts with this:
I would like to get married to a woman willing to stay home and raise our children... and she would provide the best environment for my children.
It's not demanding or insistent. He want's someone who shares his values.
Notice he said
I find that oddly instrumental wording. She is providing "an environment" for his children. Not their children, apparently, although he does earlier use the phrase "our children".
He may not be a demanding person, but from the way he writes, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was one. Or if he's not a native speaker of English.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I still think that we're talking past each other in some fundamental way. Once committed to a marriage, it's more than reasonable to expect each person to give, take, and grow, changing their goals and expectations along the way on a mutually agreed upon path.
The issue I take with katievs, as I understand her argument, is that it's unwise, out of bounds or perhaps even dictatorial to decide upon criteria you need in a spouse in order to have a successful marriage (while dating). For example, if I decide that I need my spouse (with whom I will presumably be raising a family) to be Catholic, or at least willing to convert, how can this possibly be too rigid, immature, unwise etc?
My sense, and I may be misreading it, is that it's the particular issue of a man wanting a wife who will stay at home with the children (with all its "sexist" undertones), not the basic idea of having standards for a spouse, that is the thing katievs and some others object to.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
He did say,
That isn't the same thing as not allowing his wife to work, but assuming he said what he truly wants...
He's using that as a summary, not an explanation. He starts with this:
I would like to get married to a woman willing to stay home and raise our children... and she would provide the best environment for my children.
It's not demanding or insistent. He want's someone who shares his values.
Notice he said
I find that oddly instrumental wording. She is providing "an environment" forhischildren. Nottheirchildren, apparently, although he does earlier use the phrase "our children".
He may not be a demanding person, but from the way he writes, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was one. Or if he's not a native speaker of English. · 6 minutes ago
Or he could be a typical 22 year old male that hasn't learned how to articulate all the subtle nuances of his thoughts in writing.
-E
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Sandy
...I think we should ponder the meaning of the likely fact that hardly anyone would blame a woman for requiring her potential spouse to have a job. In other words, some conditions are more reasonable than others.
<snip>My mother-in-law worked hard and long hours, side by side with her husband all her married life in the family business. I think she was an outstanding mother. A rarely great mother--to judge by her sons. Much more selflessly dedicated to her family than many stay at home mothers I know. · 5 minutes ago
Well, that's the key, isn't it really? Not whether or not you have the good fortune to both want and be a SAHM but where your dedication is as a wife and mother, regardless of the particular avenue(s) that life presents.
This may be our subject's unexpressed desire. My guess is it may not be, given his (young) age and given that truly appreciating dedication is typically learned through living life.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
He may not be a demanding person, but from the way he writes, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was one. Or if he's not a native speaker of English. · 5 minutes ago
Or an engineer.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Joseph Stanko
All I'm saying is: doesn't it make sense for the women who want to stay home and the men who are willing and able to support them to try to find each other? And how can they do that if they don't discuss it while dating?
I'm all in favor of discussing it while dating. What I oppose is approaching dating with a checklist of demands.
...
Is it right for him to say, "I'd like to marry you, but only if you agree not to work?" I think it's not. I think he imposes an unjust burden on her. · 11 minutes ago
Aren't "list of demands" and "unjust burden" a mischaracterization? He actually wrote:
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:13amSep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Obviously, if finances are tight, then women should do what is best for their families and find work, but I have known several men who make six figure incomes and insist that their wives work, even when there are very small children involved. No matter how much money some men make, they can always find a way to tell themselves that the kids would be even better off with more money, if only their mother would work, and if children don't need to be with their mothers full time, then why is it wrong for men to pressure their wives into the workforce?
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs, I probably agree with the great majority of what you are saying in the abstract. Of course there is a need for flexibility in dating and marriage, even about fundamental issues.
BUT... in the context of this young man you're off base. You infer certain attitudes and demands that are just not there. For example:
katievs
But suppose a man and woman are falling in love (like the couple I mentioned earlier.) They have similar religious and moral values. They both want a family. They're both intellectuals by training and vocation.
Is it right for him to say, "I'd like to marry you, but only if you agree not to work?" I think it's not. I think he imposes an unjust burden on her. · 8 minutes ago
Are you really suggesting that this young man does/says this?? If so, then it is you that is sexist, because it's not in what he wrote. If not, then why can't you accept that Yoffe's response was disrespectful and demeaning towards both him and his values (and, by extension, pro-family values)?
-E
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
Midge
CandE
He's using that as a summary, not an explanation. He starts with this:
I would like to get married to a woman willing to stay home and raise our children... and she would provide the best environment for my children.
It's not demanding or insistent. He want's someone who shares his values.
Notice he said
I find that oddly instrumental wording. She is providing "an environment" forhischildren. Nottheirchildren, apparently, although he does earlier use the phrase "our children".
He may not be a demanding person, but from the way he writes, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was one. Or if he's not a native speaker of English.
Or he could be a typical 22 year old male that hasn't learned how to articulate all the subtle nuances of his thoughts in writing.
Sure. But the very fact that he writes so woodenly about his desire for a homemaker wife reinforces my suspicion that his problem is a tendency to express his desire in terms that others find off-putting. If so, he could stand to work on that.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:25amFeb '12
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
If anyone has been "sexist," it is those who call this poor fellow sexist for wanting a wife who stays home. Many a single woman wants to stay home and would like nothing better than to hear an eligible bachelor ask if she would be willing to do so. Condemning him for asking the question is the same as condemning her for responding affirmatively.
If sexism means looking down on women as women, there are no sexists as great as feminists. Feminists insist that all women to be what only a minority of women are. If anyone thinks otherwise, feminists retaliate with a blast of moral disdain and personal abuse.
That the feminist approach makes a great many women (and men) deeply unhappy is beside the point. The goal is to bring all possible pressure to bear on everyone to conform to the new orthodoxy - on women especially because they are more likely to resist it. The smallest conversation about the possibility of a mother's not working must be condemned as an outrage!
Myriad ills result - among which is that marriage assumes "the form of divorce: a prolonged and impassioned negotiation as to how things shall be divided."
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson
Joseph Stanko
Aren't "list of demands" and "unjust burden" a mischaracterization? He actually wrote:
There I was speaking more on the general principle and using the experience my friend had to make a point.
A young man should not stipulate that a woman be a stay at home mom as a condition for marriage. A woman should not stipulate that she be able to be a stay at home mom as a condition for marriage.
Nothing wrong with expressing hopes and preferences.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:27am