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
Mark Wilson
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. · 13 minutes ago
Well, yes. There's that.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
The only one who called him sexist was the woman who replied to his note. I criticized her language as too strong for the circumstances.
Nor am I "condemning" him. I'm not calling it an outrage. You are unjustly imputing and stubbornly misreading.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
No spouse should be "insisting" that their spouse do something. The couple should be discerning together what's best for the family.
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
If children don't need their mothers full time, then why is it wrong for men to pressure their wives into the workforce?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
"Standards" is the wrong term in the context. Of course we should have standards. Very high ones. But they should be right standards, not wrong-headed ones.
I think we'd all agree off the bat that it would be wrong for a man to stipulate that his prospective wife agree to stay slim and physically fit.
Stipulating that a woman agree in advance to be a stay at home mom seems to me plainly an invalid criterion. It is a criterion that exposes a tendency to conceive of a wife too much in terms of her function in the household rather than as a spouse and a person in her own right.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
CandE
Midge
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. · 21 minutes ago
Edited 13 minutes ago
I completely agree. Would that the response to his letter would have constructively addressed his manner instead of belittling him.
-E
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
What's wrong is men pressuring their wives to do something their wives don't want to do and think is not good.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Hope I'm not too late chiming in on this. Thanks to Mollie for posting.
Doesn't everyone have dealbreakers when it comes to dating and marriage? Mark earlier mentioned that he would never marry a drug addict. I am certain that many Ricoteers would never marry outside their faith. What is wrong with placing "doesn't want to stay home with the kids" on the dealbreaker list?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
The only one who called him sexist was the woman who replied to his note. I criticized her language as too strong for the circumstances.
Nor am I "condemning" him. I'm not calling it an outrage. You are unjustly imputing and stubbornly misreading. · 7 minutes ago
Well, you did write this:
katievs
Mark Belling Fan
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 really don't like meta-debating (debating about the debate) but I don't think Leporello has unreasonably misread your words. I interpreted them the same way. I'll take your word for it if you meant something different, though.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:45amMay '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
CandE
Midge
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. · 21 minutes ago
Edited 13 minutes ago
I completely agree. Would that the response to his letter would have constructively addressed his manner instead of belittling him.
I'm sure we all agree he should have been belittled. I wouldn't have belittled him if he'd written to me. But I would have tried to persuade him to drop the stipulation.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:07amMay '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson
katievs
The only one who called him sexist was the woman who replied to his note. I criticized her language as too strong for the circumstances.
Nor am I "condemning" him. I'm not calling it an outrage. You are unjustly imputing and stubbornly misreading. · 7 minutes ago
Well, you did write this:
katievs
Mark Belling Fan
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 Leporello has unreasonably misread your words. · 2 minutes ago
Well, he has. Grossly.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
I dislike the language of demands in marriage.
You're the one who introduced the language of "demands", in post #14. You are criticizing our longing-for-domesticity engineering student for your idée fixe.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
At the risk of opening a whole new (likely unwelcome and unwanted!) can of worms...
While I find the gay twins creepy and gross, can someone please explain how, exactly, their relationship is injurious? I'd like to leave aside questions of religion in this case, because the sinfulness of the situation is obvious. But from a secular standpoint, is there harm being done?
And no, this does not mean I approve.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Charlotte: Hope I'm not too late chiming in on this. Thanks to Mollie for posting.
Doesn't everyone have dealbreakers when it comes to dating and marriage? Mark earlier mentioned that he would never marry a drug addict. I am certain that many Ricoteers would never marry outside their faith. What is wrong with placing "doesn't want to stay home with the kids" on the dealbreaker list? ·
Not comparable. A drug addict is incapable of taking on the demands of marriage.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Full disclosure: I regularly read and enjoy Emily Yoffe's Slate column. But I think she was mean and dismissive to the engineering student.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Grendel
katievs
I dislike the language of demands in marriage.
You're the one who introduced the language of "demands", in post #14. You are criticizing our longing-for-domesticity engineering student for your idée fixe.· 3 minutes ago
It's not the word I object to so much as the thing. He didn't use the word, but he has his implicit demand.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Charlotte: Hope I'm not too late chiming in on this. Thanks to Mollie for posting.
Doesn't everyone have dealbreakers when it comes to dating and marriage? Mark earlier mentioned that he would never marry a drug addict. I am certain that many Ricoteers would never marry outside their faith. What is wrong with placing "doesn't want to stay home with the kids" on the dealbreaker list? ·
Not comparable. A drug addict is incapable of taking on the demands of marriage. · 1 minute ago
Okay, how about sharing the same faith? Or perhaps a pro-lifer never considering marrying a pro-choicer?
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Charlotte: Hope I'm not too late chiming in on this. Thanks to Mollie for posting.
Doesn't everyone have dealbreakers when it comes to dating and marriage? Mark earlier mentioned that he would never marry a drug addict. I am certain that many Ricoteers would never marry outside their faith. What is wrong with placing "doesn't want to stay home with the kids" on the dealbreaker list? ·
Not comparable. A drug addict is incapable of taking on the demands of marriage. · 1 minute ago
I actually said "takes drugs", not necessarily an addict. I'm really talking about somebody who even occasionally smokes pot or does recreational stuff like ecstasy once in a blue moon. Doesn't interfere with the demands of marriage. Still a total deal-breaker.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson
I actually said "takes drugs", not necessarily an addict. I'm really talking about somebody who even occasionally smokes pot or does recreational stuff like ecstasy once in a blue moon. Doesn't interfere with the demands of marriage. Still a total deal-breaker. · 2 minutes ago
Yes, I agree those are deal breakers, because they indicate serious basic character defects. To me that's a different category altogether. The whole moral sphere is. If a person is a liar or a cheat or brute or thoroughly self-centered and vain, he or she is not someone you should be entrusting your life to.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Grendel
katievs
I dislike the language of demands in marriage.
You're the one who introduced the language of "demands", in post #14. You are criticizing our longing-for-domesticity engineering student for your idée fixe.· 3 minutes ago
It's not the word I object to so much as the thing. He didn't use the word, but he has his implicit demand. · 4 minutes ago
Can you distinguish between "implicit demand" and "Nothing wrong with expressing hopes and preferences" from your comment #180 (bottom of page 9)? Remember what he actually wrote:
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 4:04am