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
Joseph Stanko
CandE
My reading of his letter leads me to believe that he wants his wife to make motherhood and homemaking her highest priority. I don't see anything that indicates he never wants his wife to leave the house or have any outside activities.
Let's also not overlook the fact that many of the young women he's meeting have been taught that their career should be their highest priority in life, and that having children is an entirely optional lifestyle choice. 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. · 4 minutes ago
That's the real problem here. After 140 comments debating what is the appropriate expectation for motherhood, it seems clear that we can all at least agree that motherhood takes priority over career, though there might be differences of view on what that looks like. Unfortunately for this young man, those values now run counter to cultural norms.
-E
Sep '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I am still wondering; if it is wrong for a man to want his wife to stay home, is it also wrong for him to demand that she work?
Nov '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Wish there had been room to reprint your entire comment here, because you did a great job with your points, but your final, perhaps most important comment for this thread brings up a question for me. Would it be wrong for a woman to lay down as a pre-condition for marriage that the man have a job or, perhaps the more parallel case would be, that the man be willing to support her? Should a man be offended at such a pre-condition?
Apr '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
I'm still mystified about one thing: I expect lefty advice columnists to attribute sexist motives to a traditional guy but I'm pretty surprised by katievs' reaction that the man in question improperly *demanded* to set criteria/preconditions/whatever you want to call it, particularly the stay-at-home mother criteria.
I happen to think it's a great idea, but even if it was foolishly limiting his search for a compatible mate, how does it hurt anyone but him and in what way would there be a moral component in setting these limits? And, if I'm understanding katievs correctly, why is this particular criteria so demeaning? The guy in question doesn't have any leverage over these women, he can't force them to accept his terms and if they're so out of bounds, then he's given them a handy warning system to get out of there.
Good for him, and anyone, who has a clear set of standards in mind when dating. It can only lead to more happiness and satisfaction when both halves of a couple know what's important to them and communicate that with each other.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
katievs:
I think it's wrong for a young man to lay down as a condition for marriage that his wife be a stay at home mom. · 9 minutes ago
Wrong as in foolish, or wrong as in immoral?
Not either really. More like wrong as in wrong-headed, misdirected, or immature.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
Lucy Pevensie
Would it now be appropriate to say, "It sounds to me like your bitterness over your own experience has made you markedly unsympathetic to the experience of others"?
Again, one's personal experience is not the point. Statistically, children of mothers who stay home do better than children of those who do not - in every category!
As to the first paragraph, I can't even imagine how you are missing my point, which is that you can't generalize from one person's experience that a certain family style is universal or always to be preferred. You are arguing that one commenter's unhappy moments in her childhood somehow show how all families should act; I am arguing that it's stupid to generalize from a single experience. Now you are arguing that I am generalizing from a single experience.
As to your second point, I cannot see how you can statistically test whether families of SAHMs do better. Unless you can do a controlled clinical trial, there are far too many socioeconomic and cultural cofactors to possibly come to a truly valid conclusion.
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
That's the real problem here. After 140 comments debating what is the appropriate expectation for motherhood, it seems clear that we can all at least agree that motherhood takes priority over career, though there might be differences of view on what that looks like. Unfortunately for this young man, those values now run counter to cultural norms.
Also worth pointing out that fatherhood should take priority over career as well. We live in a society that overemphasizes the idea that having the "fulfilling, rewarding career" of your choice is the sine qua non of a happy life for both men and women.
Nov '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Sandy
Wish there had been room to reprint your entire comment here, because you did a great job with your points, but your final, perhaps most important comment for this thread brings up a question for me. Would it be wrong for a woman to lay down as a pre-condition for marriage that the man have a job or, perhaps the more parallel case would be, that the man be willing to support her? Should a man be offended at such a pre-condition? · 14 minutes ago
I suspect that the distinction Katie is making goes something like this: If you say that you think that something like this would be desirable or best, that's fine. If you make it into a demand, with the underlying threat that "I will leave you if you can't support me," then it's wrong. A friend of mine dealt with just this attitude, when her husband lost his job and her parents tried to get her to divorce him.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
My reading of his letter leads me to believe that he wants his wife to make motherhood and homemaking her highest priority. I don't see anything that indicates he never wants his wife to leave the house or have any outside activities.
The letter makes plain that what he wants to marry a woman who will agree in advance to be a stay at home mom (i.e., not work).
I never dreamed he wanted a wife who would never leave the house.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Of course it is.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
Again, one's personal experience is not the point. Statistically, children of mothers who stay home do better than children of those who do not - in every category! Would it now be appropriate to say, "It sounds to me like your bitterness over your own experience has made you markedly unsympathetic to the experience of others"?
That comment of mine was in response to Judithann's unjustified imputation of selfishness and unconcern for children to a woman who has the experience of being a better mother when she finds some scope for her talents outside the home.
But, being individuals, we can't make particular prudential judgments by statistics.
From the fact that children generally do better with stay at home moms we have no right to conclude that this or that woman ought not to get a job.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Leporello
Next I suppose you'll argue that it's wrong to oppose same-sex marriage because some children raised by same-sex couples do fine, while some children raised by men and women don't. · 1 hour ago
Totally false comparison.
There is no moral absolute involved in the prudential judgment about whether a woman should or should not working outside the home.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Joseph Stanko
Let's also not overlook the fact that many of the young women he's meeting have been taught that their career should be their highest priority in life, and that having children is an entirely optional lifestyle choice. 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.
Jun '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Lucy Pevensie
If you make it into a demand, with the underlying threat that "I will leave you if you can't support me," then it's wrong. A friend of mine dealt with just this attitude, when her husband lost his job and her parents tried to get her to divorce him. · 25 minutes ago
But that also ignores 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.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Sandy
Would it be wrong for a woman to lay down as a pre-condition for marriage that the man have a job or, perhaps the more parallel case would be, that the man be willing to support her? Should a man be offended at such a pre-condition?
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.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Well, if he were coming to me for advice, I'd want to advise him against hurting himself. Wouldn't you? My advice would have been to drop the demand/expectation that the woman agree to be a stay at home mom as too rigid.
I don't know that I'd call it demeaning, so much as self-defeating.
It would be demeaning, IMO, for a man to demand that his wife not work, regardless of her interests and desires and talents and sense of need and sense of calling to work.
May '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
The problem lies in subordinating an individual to a social role. (I am not speaking of the vocation of motherhood, I am speaking of the occupation of home-making.) If a woman is bad at the role, miserable in it, and shriveling inwardly; if she has the training and talent to do something else, then I would think it selfish and wrong of her husband not to try to come up with a solution that allows some scope for her talent, some help in the home--some way to flourish as person while meeting the needs of the children.
To call this selfishness on the part of the woman is cruel and unjust. To deny that it is perfectly possible for provide well and amply for children if the mother has a job flies in the face of the historical evidence.
St. Therese of Lisieux lived with a wet nurse for the first 2 years of her life, seeing her mother once a week. Her mother had a lace-making business with 23 employees. They also had a cook and housekeeper, I believe. Four of her five daughters became nuns.
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
katievs
CandE
My reading of his letter leads me to believe that he wants his wife to make motherhood and homemaking her highest priority. I don't see anything that indicates he never wants his wife to leave the house or have any outside activities.
The letter makes plain that what he wants to marry a woman who will agree in advance to be a stay at home mom (i.e., not work).
I never dreamed he wanted a wife who would never leave the house. · 37 minutes ago
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
Jul '11
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
"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."
Just wanted to add my two cents about stay-at-home moms: It's very possible for an educated woman to stay at home with her children and have a fulfilling career, either through working from home during the child raising years and/or working outside the home afterwards. She can use her education and talents to enrich her life and the lives of those around her, whether or not she has a paying job.
I'm a mom who's chosen to put my own career aside for the moment, in order to focus fully on raising my baby girl. When she's a bit older, because I'm passionate about my degree and field, I will work from home and slowly transition into my career goals.
It's possible to put family first and still "have it all" as long as you're willing to be flexible, patient and creative.
-C
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 2:19amAug '10
Re: The Intolerance of Tolerance
CandE
katievs
The letter makes plain that what he wants to marry a woman who will agree in advance to be a stay at home mom (i.e., not work).
I never dreamed he wanted a wife who would never leave the house. · 37 minutes ago
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 allowing his wife to work, but assuming he said what he truly wants...
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 2:19am