Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
QotD: All Men Would be Tyrants
Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
–Abigail Adams
Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, was a very bright woman, farmer and investor. She was a devoted partner to her husband, and showed her strength and independence at those times that he was required to leave her alone at their home farm called Peacefield in Massachusetts.
During her lifetime, she very much supported women’s rights and spoke to her husband about them, including the right to vote. Yet in the years of his governance, only limited rights were extended to women.
Since Abigail Adams’ relationship with her husband was just as much a partnership as a marriage, her quotation is puzzling at first. But I think I know her reasons for saying it.
She was telling women in those times that they must own their own power and not give all of it to their husbands. Men, the testosterone gender, felt powerful, and the culture gave most powers to them in marriage. It wouldn’t have occurred to most of those men that the power in a marriage was meant to be shared.
Women have come a long way. And yet there are cultural leftovers from a time when women had little to say about their choices, preferences or family decisions. I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways. At the same time, our culture has browbeaten men so badly that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they harbor dreams of being tyrants in their marriages.
What do you think?
Published in Culture
Yes. It is different. And feeling of failure is different.
Susan, my statement about emotional instability was based on the Big 5 personality model, not anecdote or opinion. I avoided the technical term for emotional instability used in the model, which is “neuroticism.” While it is accurate to say that women are more “neurotic” than men in the terminology of the Big 5 model, this risks confusion between trait neuroticism and clinical neuroticism.
I want to give you good data, though I did not immediately find a good survey paper on the subject. Here are two sources, with results that are consistent with my recollection:
(1) A 2007 paper by Chapman et al: This one reports a prior study that US adult women scored 0.51 SD (standard deviations) higher on Neuroticism and 0.59 SD higher on Agreeableness. Chapman found a
slightly largercomparable gap for Neuroticism among older US adults — about .49 SD. I had to calculate this myself, from Table 1 — Chapman used a different measure, a statistic called d and referred to as “effect size.” Chapman’s d for Neuroticism was .52, which was statistically significant at the 99.9% level and is a “medium” effect size.(2) A 2011 paper by Weisberg et al: This one reports a consistent result, higher female Neuroticism, though with a slightly lower effect size (d = 0.39). Again, this was statistically significant, though they didn’t report the level.
The general result is that women are about a half a standard deviation higher in Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and that there is not a significant difference in the other three traits (Conscientiousness, Openness, and Extraversion).
These are not huge differences, but they are significant. Obviously, as I stated, we’re talking about generalities and distributions, so I agree with your statement that “women are not necessarily more emotionally unstable.” They are typically more emotionally unstable, but not always — just as women are generally shorter than men, but there are exceptions as the distributions overlap.
Incidentally, the male-female differences in Neuroticism and Agreeableness are not nearly as big as the height differential. The trait differences are about a half of a standard deviation; the height difference is closer to 2 standard deviations.
Note: I corrected item (1).
Spin, you have mischaracterized what I said.
Perhaps I did not explain well. I’ll try again.
The problem is how to resolve a deadlock in a 50-50 partnership. Your statement was: “In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision. What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.”
That’s not a decision rule. That’s why I said that it is an evasion, which it is.
I then proceeded to analyze the particularities of the husband-wife relationship, and explain why it would not work for the tiebreaker to go to the wife. You did not rebut this.
You made one further mischaracterization of my statement. I did not say that men are better able to make rational decisions. I said that they are less emotionally unstable, which is true. It may be true that a more emotionally unstable person is less capable of making rational decisions, but I’m not sure about that, and I did not assert it.
I suppose that you could propose a different decision rule. One could flip a coin. One could alternate, like a possession arrow, though this would create a record-keeping headache and would lead to strategic disagreement.
It wasn’t the start of the Democrat party that women are at fault for. It is the rise of progressivism that has pervaded the Democrat party that women are responsible for.
Birthed in women’s aides societies in methodist and Presbyterian churches across this country, progressivism and radicalism brought us to Civil War, prohibition, abortion, and the almighty Nanny State (or the government as wedded husband).
Hormonal fluctuation begs to differ.
We were approach by such a couple for our previous home under a land contract. They had some credit problems, but we would earn a great interest rate (8%) and their down payment was enough to cover reselling costs. Their accountant recommended the home for the Federal tax deduction! They were late for many payments, so the effective interest rate went to 12%! As the term of the contract was coming due (i.e., we could kick them out and resell it), they sold the house. I doubt they made any money on that deal.
Oh good lord, people. Here… so we don’t get accusations of evil mansplaining.
Men are stronger
Well, gosh darnit, wouldn’t you know… sometime around the point baby #3 hit age 2, I had a problem. He wouldn’t stay in bed at bedtime. Now what was I thinking? I really should have sleep trained him BEFORE he could get out of his bed. Because it’s a lot easier to exercise authority when your still bigger than them.
I’ve seen super passive moms have the nastiest 15 year olds because they never thought disciplining a 5 year old was ok. So you have a foul mouthed and aggressive teen beating up his mom because she can’t stop him.
Authority benefits from strength.
Now this doesn’t mean husbands are leaders so they can beat their wives. Rather, it should be an incentive to keep men invested on family life. Which brings up a second point (that I won’t bold because I’m on my phone).
Women are more invested in the family
Part of the reason women exert control and men passively let them in the household is because frankly, men don’t give a damn. Women are naturally and biologically more invested. They grew life in them for 9 months where he got 20 minutes of a rockin time in the hay. Hard work breeds appreciation, right?
What is also in the woman’s best interest is to maintain her husband’s interest in the family by giving him a share of that investment. When he is the authority on values, morals, vision, and goals, his investment rises to her investment and keeps him involved.
But is that the only reason?
Third bold point:
Families Flourish Where Dads Lead
Study after study show that leading fathers have healthier families and happier wives over and over again. FOTF did a study showing how the #1 indicator that a family will convert to faith is if the dad is a believer in that faith. Families, children, AND wives need leading husbands.
I didn’t like the conclusion of the OP and I’ve been around here long enough to know there’s some limp wristed men who worship women around here. Whatever problems women have these days, by statistics, are the fault of feminism and this balls-to-the-walls female empowerment schtick. Women are lonely, depressed, and stressed.
So I’m not a fan of more regurgitation of feminist talking points.
The Big 5 stuff is all well documented.
Women are more prone to depression than men buy a factor of 2 to 1 post puberty.
Dr Peterson had a hypothesis that this is because women have to attend more to babies in the past. It could be that the survival trait unfortunately makes women more prone to scoring high on the negative emotionality spectrum.
And some women are taller than most men. We can only speak in generalities and populations. Individuals differ. At the tails however these minor differences can be a big deal. The tallest person in the world is always going to be a man.
That’s weird.
Women are more at risk for mental illness in general.
My theory was constant chemical fluctuation in the brain to support our reproductive systems deteriorates the brain faster. Let me know when someone is motivated to actually do a study on that.
There are remarkably few matriarchal societies in the world and the ones that exist don’t seem to have created great Empires or great works of literature. Women have incredible power over men already and the power of women seems to be cemented in Christian societies that enforce monogamy.
Women are made for mammalian babies. Mammalian babies are very hard to produce. Also, once women are done reproducing. Nature has little incentive to keep them alive and healthy. Men are still useful for hunting and killing males of other tribes things until their sixties.
Nature is terrible and we should subdue it.
If my subdue, you mean seek medical advances that can alleviate the effects of hormonal change, sure… But first, we need to come to terms with observable reality that constant hormonal flux has a deleterious effect on those who experience it.
We are currently not there. SQ’s reaction to someone suggesting women are emotionally unstable on a conservative blog is not an outlier. The resistance to questioning the wisdom of hormonal therapy for a litany of hormonal issues in men and women is also high.
I will defer to your judgment on the issue of hormonal issues. I wish to subdue nature because humanity is always inclined to become tyrannical. Human beings are terrible and we should fight both our masculine and feminine nature because both are bad.
Not true in physical terms – women (as a group) live longer than men. Women use less food than men. Also not true in other terms, such as spiritual. Older women (the so-called Grandmother gene) help their offspring (especially daughters) raise their grandchildren.
Hmm. That’s an interesting point. Why would women live longer than men if it didn’t serve an evolutionary purpose.
Regardless, Joe Rogan talks about how weak human reason and decency are.
And we are also both good.
“We are a glorious ruin” Dan Allender
Speaking in generalities of course.
This entire post of yours is magnificent.
Also, I was happy to read your last paragraph, and somewhat humorously wondered if your wife made you write it…
Yes…I’m sorry I am at work and got busy. I shall in a separate comment. And maybe not until later.
I don’t know what a “decision rule” is. And since I don’t know what it is, I am not sure if I’m trying to make one or not. Well…no. I’m not. Had I know prior to commenting that I needed to provide a decision rule, I might have googled it to figure out what it is. But I didn’t know, so…
What I do know is this: in my marriage, some of the things my wife has the final say, and some of the tings I have the final say. How did we arrive at that? Largely it has to do with the things we care most about, what we are good at, etc. When I say “You decide for yourself”, what I mean is “In your relationship with your spouse, it may break down differently than in mine, so work it out. I can’t tell you how it should be in your relationship. I can give you advice on how to deal with conflict, and how to talk through it.
What I primarily object to is the notion that my comments are somehow evading something. They aren’t. I’m just telling you what I think. I’m not evading anything.
I didn’t rebut anything in my initial reply. I just said it was BS. Because the word count was creeping up on me and I got lazy…plus it’s been a busy day.
Thank you for this, @spin. I very much agree with you. Every couple has to decide what works for them. I don’t think this post is a plug for feminism. It is for partnership. And we all probably know that in real life, there is rarely a 50/50 partnership. At times, one person may take charge for any number of reasons; at another time, the other person may step up. What I was trying to say is that we all must be both responsible (recognize our part when it is appropriate) and accountable (not expect someone else to step in because we are afraid to do what needs to be done, or lazy) for our role as a husband/wife, and as a partner.
I also defer to the comments on women being more emotional, particularly due to hormones. I was fortunate because I didn’t go nuts every month–sometimes a little cranky. So I tried to take emotional and physical discomfort in stride. I was more fortunate than many women, and haven’t had to worry about it for a long time.
I don’t think women are more emotional than men. I think women are more open about their emotions than men, generally.
What I do think is true, in the main, is that women, more often than men, allow their emotions to drive their decision making. That isn’t to say that women aren’t capable of rational decision making, absolutely not.
Do you think that is true, in the main, Susan? Or am I wrong?
Thanks, Spin.
Do you have an idea for how to resolve a deadlock, other than breaking the partnership? It does strike me that this is the fundamental problem. Of course, it’s best to try to work things out through negotiation and compromise, but sometimes that does not work.
There was a traditional rule for breaking a deadlock. The man had the final say. This has a serious downside, which is the risk of a tyrannical husband.
There is no current rule for breaking a deadlock. This has a serious downside, which is the end of the marriage.
There is an alternative rule for breaking a deadlock. The woman has the final say. This has the same downside as the traditional rule, with the added disadvantage that I don’t think that the woman would even want a man who would agree to it.
There is
I’m not dodging your question, @spin, but I know that for most women, emotion factors in. Unfortunately I know plenty of women who do let their emotions have the upper hand, and sometimes that makes sense, but too often it doesn’t. I hate to make that generalization, because many women I know rely on emotion and reason both, but in the larger world, I’m skeptical.
Thanks. I really don’t think that it’s a bad thing to rely upon emotion to help guide decision making. It can get in the way. Ever discipline your child out of anger? That isn’t always the right choice. I think men and women both do this, but I think women tend to do it more often. That’s just my experience. And I do not mean it in any way as a criticism of women. I love women.
First things first: my original comment was really just in response to Susan. My point was simply to say that just because a woman defers to a man doesn’t mean the man is a tyrant.
As to this question, if I was counseling a young couple prior to a conflict I’d say a few things.
First: decide in advance. Decide who is going to have the final say on various issues. I’d bring up the areas in which my wife and I have had conflicts, and recommend how they can head off deadlock. In our case, money has been a huge issue. I have the final say, but I listen to my wife and let her have her input. There are areas where she has felt very strongly and I’ve disagreed, and we’ve gone my way. Deciding in advance doesn’t mean there isn’t conflict. But it does help you through the conflict.
Second: have a strategy for dealing with anger. When the conflict brews up, it is usually because you are chasing each other around the merry go round. One person goes faster to catch up to the other, so the other goes faster too, and we end up in different places in the conflict. For my wife and I, the phrase is “Is the milk on the counter?” Because when we were young and could ill afford to waste anything at all, we fought about something, and ended up going to bed angry, leaving the mil on the counter to be thrown out the next day. “Is the milk on the counter” defuses the anger and the chase. One of us stops, and turns, and says “Ok I’ll stop and listen to you.” And that usually gets us where we need to do.
Third: Think in five year increments. Will this conflict have any meaning five years from now? The argument above, where we left the milk out, I don’t even remember what we were fighting about.
And for my next installment of “The Marriage Doctor is In” I’ll give ways for breaking deadlock if it’s already started, and you DON’T have a strategy decided upon. But not until later. I gotta work.
I will say I think you’ve oversimplified things. Somewhere between “The man always decides” and “The woman always decides” there’s balance.
There is no mathematical formula here. People are different, relationships are different.
There’s a lot of blame passed around for the state of marriage these days. And probably rightly so. One thing that is rarely talked about is mentor-ship. It is a huge failing in our culture today. We used to get mentored by our parents and grandparents, our church family, etc. But that seems to me to be missing today. It’s a combination of lack of good mentors and role models, and lack of teach-ability on the part of young people.
I recall my nephew and his then fiance were at our house. This was years ago. Our pastor happened to stop by, and the nephew and fiance came down stairs. We introduced them to the pastor. “Oh, pastor, could you marry us?” she asked. The pastor said “Well, perhaps, but we’d like you to go through our marriage class, some counselling ahead of time.” She was incredulous. “Why do you require that?” Pastor said “Because when I marry someone, it’s a sacred thing before God. I want to be sure the couple has all of the tools they need to succeed and be partners for life. I don’t want someone set up to fail.” They did not go through the classes. They were not married by our pastor. And their marriage did not last more than a couple of years.
mistake, duplicate
Just today I browbeat Mrs. OS to go into a store and look at some recliners. We moved matching recliners to KY 5 years ago and mine was wearing thin a couple of years ago so we replaced it. Hers is looking pretty bad now so I’ve been egging her on to ‘just look’ for several months. It turns out she likes one in the store pretty well and we’ll probably get it next week after she decides what color she wants. So, that probably makes me a Tyrant in some eyes, so be it.
Seriously, my philosophy has always been that for any decision beyond what to have for breakfast I seek her advice before making up my mind. I don’t always get it, sometimes she just doesn’t really care. But two heads are better than one. Also, because I like to please her, I’ll often do what she prefers unless I think there is an overriding reason to go against her wishes. So, again, when I do decide to do other than she prefers, does that make me a Tyrant? I guess it depends on motive at least somewhat.
As far as the modern ‘liberation’ of women, I believe it has little to do with our enlightenment and much to do with mechanization. Before the advent of machines the division of labor as pertained to the sexes had more to do with muscle power than domination. Due to machines and especially computers that playing field has been somewhat leveled. That is why we now have women jet fighter pilots, construction workers etc. Formerly it was not even remotely possible that any woman could handle both a war horse and lance while wearing a full set of chain mail and armor, few men could. There were many occupations that men did because they could and many than women did to free up manpower for the ‘manly’ things. Those lines have now been mostly blurred for good or ill. It’s still the women that give birth regardless of what some idiots say.