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:
Jul '11
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. · 0 minutes ago
No, he doesn't. The words would like, willing, lucky enough, preferably, and values are not implicit demands. The strongest words he uses are don't want. He never says that agreement on this issue is a pre-condition for marriage, much less a date. All he's doing is asking how to find women who share his values!!
-E
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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 [sic] have been belittled. I wouldn't have belittled him even he'd written to me. But I would have tried to persuade him to drop the stipulation. · 17 minutes ago
No stipulation was made.
-E
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Charlotte
Okay, how about sharing the same faith? Or perhaps a pro-lifer never considering marrying a pro-choicer? · 6 minutes ago
Mama Toad is a devout Catholic married to a Jew. I have devout Catholic friends who married Protestants.
When I met my husband he was an atheist.
It's very hard to imagine a serious pro-lifer falling in love with a pro-choicer.
So much is just attitude. Openness to goodness, beauty and truth, openness to value, openness to the mystery of love, openness to other persons, openness to the surprising things God might being doing in our lives.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
katievs
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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 [sic] have been belittled. I wouldn't have belittled him even he'd written to me. But I would have tried to persuade him to drop the stipulation. · 17 minutes ago
No stipulation was made.
You read him differently than I do, then, E.
Nov '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
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. · 4 minutes ago
There was nothing in his letter about "stipulating that a woman agree in advance." He only expressed a desire to find a woman willing to stay home with his children. I don't think they are the same.
Nevertheless you have expressed the problem in a nutshell. I suggest that it's a perfectly good, even admirable criterion, because I think that what his desire reflects is not rigidity but rather the desire to have what he thinks of as the best kind of family and I think we probably could agree that although the two-parent, SAHM-type family has been under severe attack for years, it is in fact a very good sort of family and well worth having when all parties are in agreement. Will compromises have to be made? Very possibly. C'est la vie.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
katievs
CandE
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
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 [sic] have been belittled. I wouldn't have belittled him even he'd written to me. But I would have tried to persuade him to drop the stipulation. · 17 minutes ago
No stipulation was made.
You read him differently than I do, then, E. · 1 minute ago
Funny, I wouldn't have pegged you, of all people, as a relativist. He didn't say it, or imply it. You simply assume it. You impugn his honor.
Since I'm starting to lose my cool I'm going to bed. Mark, I leave the defense of our fellow engineer in your capable hands.
-E
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Let me raise again the concrete case of my friend.
Doing research for her doctorate she met and fell and love with a man--either another doctoral candidate or already a professor. They shared the same moral and religious values and a desire to raise a Catholic family. But he stipulated that if she married him, he would expect her to give up her career.
Does that seem okay to you all? It doesn't to me.
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs: Let me raise again the concrete case of my friend.
Doing research for her doctorate she met and fell and love with a man--either another doctoral candidate or already a professor. They shared the same moral and religious values and a desire to raise a Catholic family. But he stipulated that if she married him, he would expect her to give up her career.
Does that seem okay to you all? It doesn't to me. · 21 minutes ago
He has a right to have a say in how his children are raised. I respect men who are straightforward about what they want; men who just go through life saying " whatever you want, honey", strike me as being wimpy. Even if they are not wimps, there are precious few men who are willing to bow to whatever their wives think is best. In most cases, women have to choose between men who insist that they work, and men who insist that they stay home. I think that men who want their wives to stay home are the better choice.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs: Let me raise again the concrete case of my friend.
Doing research for her doctorate she met and fell and love with a man--either another doctoral candidate or already a professor. They shared the same moral and religious values and a desire to raise a Catholic family. But he stipulated that if she married him, he would expect her to give up her career.
Does that seem okay to you all? It doesn't to me. · 21 minutes ago
Then she should break up with him.
Clearly that's a different case. He's not stringing a career-ambitious woman along for 12 months and then, when he's about to propose, adding new requirements and dashing her dreams.
This guy is saying far in advance that he wants to meet such a woman. Out of all the women in the world, he has a small group of them in mind--we know they exist--who share his values and presumably would be willing and eager to be a SAHM in the first place.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
Charlotte
Okay, how about sharing the same faith? Or perhaps a pro-lifer never considering marrying a pro-choicer? · 6 minutes ago
Mama Toad is a devout Catholic married to a Jew. I have devout Catholic friends who married Protestants.
When I met my husband he was an atheist.
It's very hard to imagine a serious pro-lifer falling in love with a pro-choicer.
I didn't say that those are necessarily your (or Mama Toad's) dealbreakers, katievs. Just that they are likely some people's.
And why is it so much harder to imagine a pro-lifer falling in love with a pro-choicer than it is to imagine a devout Muslim falling in love with a devout Catholic (or whatever)?
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mark Wilson
katievs:
Doing research for her doctorate she met and fell and love with a man--either another doctoral candidate or already a professor. But he stipulated that if she married him, he would expect her to give up her career.
Clearly that's a different case. He's not stringing a career-ambitious woman along for 12 months and then, when he's about to propose, adding new requirements and dashing her dreams.
I agree, apples and oranges. Earlier it was suggested that the engineering student's chief problem was bringing this up so early in a relationship, but I think katievs' example shows the greater danger of waiting too long. How on earth did this jerk wait until after she fell in love with him to mention how important this issue was to him?
I think the engineering student's approach is much more commendable, he's giving women with different values the chance to walk away early without wasting time or having their hearts broken.
Jul '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
One of the interesting aspects of this thread is the seemingly widespread presumption that young folks rarely change their minds.
My kid sister made partner in a reasonably prestigious law firm in her early 30's. She had an undergrad degree in elementary education and taught for a year, which of course led her to attend law school.
She adopted my nephew in her first year as a partner, and planned to continue as a working mom. The firm generally tried to be accommodating. But within eight months, she (and my brother-in-law) decided that it was better for them if she left her position.
I've known sis all her life, and I've known her husband for 20+ years. There is almost no chance that either (they have been together since high school in the early 90's) would have expected that outcome.
It seems to me a darn shame if we presume that a sensible kid with a good plan should limit himself to that plan forever.
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Upon rereading his letter, it's amazing to me that the language of "demands" ever made it into this thread, 200 comments ago. He was simply expressing preferences -- and perfectly fine preferences at that.
I'm glad my husband wanted a wife who would stay home to raise our children. He's glad I wanted a husband to support us in that effort. And we're so much happier than all those couples who forgot to even talk about it before they had kids.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: Upon rereading his letter, it's amazing to me that the language of "demands" ever made it into this thread, 200 comments ago. He was simply expressing preferences -- and perfectly fine preferences at that.
I'm glad my husband wanted a wife who would stay home to raise our children. He's glad I wanted a husband to support us in that effort. And we're so much happier than all those couples who forgot to even talk about it before they had kids. · 55 minutes ago
And did you discuss those preferences prior to the first date? Did you eliminate a host of prospective suitors that failed that question on your first date prenuptial questionnaire?
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Trace Urdan
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: Upon rereading his letter, it's amazing to me that the language of "demands" ever made it into this thread, 200 comments ago. He was simply expressing preferences -- and perfectly fine preferences at that.
I'm glad my husband wanted a wife who would stay home to raise our children. He's glad I wanted a husband to support us in that effort. And we're so much happier than all those couples who forgot to even talk about it before they had kids. · 55 minutes ago
And did you discuss those preferences prior to the first date? Did you eliminate a host of prospective suitors that failed that question on your first date prenuptial questionnaire? · 20 minutes ago
The point of discussing these matters early on is to avoid disappointment and hurt feelings later. The fact that two people agree on how the kids should be raised doesn't necessarily mean that they will fall in love, but it is much easier to fall in love when you know who you are falling for. How is a woman supposed to fall in love with someone who won't say who he is?
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
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. · 10 hours ago
Thank you, that answers my question: in your opinion, he is using an invalid criterion when he says he wants his wife to stay at home with the kids. I disagree, because what I take from that expressed desire is that he seeks someone who shares the same view of parenthood (and motherhood specifically), not that he can only see his wife's value in her role as a specific kind of mother. I think you're reading far more into his comment than warranted.
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I assume the guy in question is looking for a wife who will not only be a SAHM, but possesses a wide variety of admirable qualities that recognize her as a unique and independent person. It seems his mistake was not fully detailing everything he looks for in a woman, whether or not those wish-list items were the source of feminine pique and cause for his asking for advice. Although apparently, if he had listed the other qualities he looks for in a wife, that "checklist" would be proof that he was too rigid.
I can't imagine why so many men avoid commitment these days.
Aug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Judithann Campbell
Trace Urdan
And did you discuss those preferences prior to the first date? Did you eliminate a host of prospective suitors that failed that question on your first date prenuptial questionnaire?
The point of discussing these matters early on is to avoid disappointment and hurt feelings later... it is much easier to fall in love when you know who you are falling for. How is a woman supposed to fall in love with someone who won't say who he is?
But you agree there's a difference between letting another person know who you are and blurting out your opinions and desires in a tactless manner, right?
On a tangential note, this scenario also illustrates the value of dating more than one person at a time, at least at first. That way you get to meet a variety of people, test and refine your preconceptions about your own preferences, but you're not so invested in any one person that you get your heart pulverized if it doesn't work out.
Dating only one person at a time is, in my opinion, one of the unfortunate byproducts of a culture that expects premarital sex as routine.
Feb '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs: Let me raise again the concrete case of my friend.
Doing research for her doctorate she met and fell and love with a man--either another doctoral candidate or already a professor. They shared the same moral and religious values and a desire to raise a Catholic family. But he stipulated that if she married him, he would expect her to give up her career.
Does that seem okay to you all? It doesn't to me. · 11 hours ago
Of course it's alright. We're talking about the fundamental form and structure of the prospective family for decades to come. This isn't some cosmetic detail, like a quixotic effort to maintain youthful physiques. If your couple has waited to broach this subject until the eve of their engagement, then they're fools rushing too fast into something so profound. Love is great, but marriage requires more than that - especially if it's to be a happy one.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:51pmSep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Totally agree with Midget Faded Rattlesnake about dating, and yes, men who are smooth about things will always be more successful than those who aren't.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 3:54pm