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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 70 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    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.

    You are simply a dear, loving husband who cares about his wife. Not even close to being a tyrant, @okiesailor! Your tendencies sound a lot like my own husband’s. We’ve been married 46 years, and I think you’ve been married even longer. That matters a great deal in these situations–love and respect go a long way to wedded bliss.

    • #61
  2. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    to go into a store and look at some recliners.

    You must be old.  Only old people go to the store to look at some recliners.  ;-)

    • #62
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Spin (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    to go into a store and look at some recliners.

    You must be old. Only old people go to the store to look at some recliners. ;-)

    Watch your tongue, you whippersnaper, you!

    • #63
  4. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Spin (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):
    to go into a store and look at some recliners.

    You must be old. Only old people go to the store to look at some recliners. ;-)

    .7 centuries, that’s not OLD ;>)

    • #64
  5. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I’ve often thought that the existence of Abigail Adams is evidence that women in the past weren’t so passive and lacking in power as modern feminists would have us believe. There are plenty of other examples, too. I don’t think having the ability to vote is only way to exercise power, influence or independence in life. She was married to a forceful and opinionated man, and it seems unlikely that he would have been pleased with a meek and subjugated wife.

    I completely agree, @lilybart. Today’s supposed feminists should read her biography. She and John made a great team!

    Susan,

    You may think I’m going off-topic but to me, it is exactly the same topic. Over 1,000 years ago Christianity and Judaism anointed heterosexual monogamy as the gold standard of moral marriage. Abigail is a brilliant and good woman but she is actually making a fundamental mistake with her statement.

    Susan Quinn: Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.

    The very fact of being a husband as defined by heterosexual monogamy is a limitation of power. If Abigail thinks differently then she should imagine her John being legally free to marry a second, third, and fourth wife. She should then imagine what life would be like if he could keep any concubine he could afford all affirmed by the law of the land (Sharia).

    Western marriage already is a severe limitation of a husband’s power. This does not mean that women shouldn’t have even more balanced rights. However, fantasies about the tyrannical nature of Western men are ludicrous. Western men are the least tyrannical already by definition.

    There is an old saying. Be careful not to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Our present woke generation seems hell-bent on jumping directly into the fire. I don’t think we should let them drag us with them.

    Regards,

    Jim
     

    • #65
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    The very fact of being a husband as defined by heterosexual monogamy is a limitation of power. If Abigail thinks differently then she should imagine her John being legally free to marry a second, third, and fourth wife. She should then imagine what life would be like if he could keep any concubine he could afford all affirmed by the law of the land (Sharia).

    I see what you’re saying, Jim, in terms of the legal aspect of the relationship. But the laws for heterosexual monogamy don’t extend to the way people treat each other, particularly in Abigail’s time. It doesn’t help the woman, either, in terms of refusing to participate in a relationship of domestic violence. I just don’t think the legal aspect and interpersonal are the same. And I want to say again, I don’t want to browbeat men anymore that the current environment does it.

    • #66
  7. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    It doesn’t help the woman, either, in terms of refusing to participate in a relationship of domestic violence.

    Susan,

    In Sharia law there is a proper way to either beat your wife or have her beaten for you. That is for the most minor disrespect. If the wife truly acts out then she may be subject to an honor killing. The entire family may participate in her murder.

    Once again it is important to understand that Western Civilization has been practicing a higher moral code in relation to women for 1,000 years. Trust me that Islamic scholars were well aware of it. They chose not to change but continue the ultimate tyranny over women. It is odd that you associate heterosexual monogamy with being forced to participate in a relationship of domestic violence. Neither Christian nor Jewish theology would endorse this. She is the uncontested Queen of the House. She owns half of the property. She is the uncontested mother of the children. Remove heterosexual monogamy and none of these things are true.

    Are there cruel charlatans that brutalize women? Of course, almost every pimp beats up his whores and steals their earnings. Even my own father once used violence. He threw a cooked vegetable at my mother at the dinner table. I think it was a string bean. She was furious with him and let him know for at least a week what a complete boor he was. They mistreated each other like that for over 50 years.

    Suzy, we need a little perspective that’s all I’m saying. There aren’t 100 genders. Getting married and having children are the most important thing for both man and woman. Nothing has changed but a new level of complete stupidity has now confused a new generation. They will make very big mistakes because of it. Too bad.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #67
  8. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Power is less an issue the more there is a division of labor and zones of activity. 

    Let me wander off in this analogy for a bit:

    Some years back I observed a pair of Great Horned owls who took over an old hawk’s nest in my favorite nature area. I made frequent visits and watched four fledglings grow up. 

    Great Horned owls mate for life. She is much larger which works because she is better suited to cover the eggs and hatchlings and makes her more intimidating to those who might attack the nest. He is a more efficient hunter, as much as a 95% or more success rate on diving to secure prey. He provides a steady stream of food to the next. In the daytime he watches the nest from a concealed position nearby. (Back in the 1890s when egg collection was a thing and collectors were dumb enough to climb to the nest  of  Great Horned owl, daddy owl would attack the head and neck. If the idiot collector actually made it to the nest, mommy’s 7-inch spread talons would go for the eyes. People died doing this.)

    Once the fledglings go off on their own, mom and dad move to different parts of their territory in the off-season. She hunts larger prey (as big as a skunk), he takes smaller critters so they don’t compete for food. If there is a challenge to their turf, they rally to one another with a single call.

    The differentiation of tasks and duties within the context of a fierce commitment to the common project of life is why owl marriages are so stable. 

    I have never understood young couples who think that equality in all things and tasks is the goal. That sounds to me like endless negotiations and score-keeping. Divide according to natural abilities, celebrate being able to rely on someone who can do for you and celebrate being relied upon. There is joy and clarity there.

    • #68
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    It is odd that you associate heterosexual monogamy with being forced to participate in a relationship of domestic violence.

    I think you misunderstood me, Jim. I didn’t say that. I said that a woman needs to recognize that even in a marriage, she has to take responsibility for her well-being, and if she is being beaten, she needs to get out; or have him arrested. (I don’t think a string bean would qualify.) Whether she’s a Jew or a Muslim.

    • #69
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I have never understood young couples who think that equality in all things and tasks is the goal. That sounds to me like endless negotiations and score-keeping. Divide according to natural abilities, celebrate being able to rely on someone who can do for you and celebrate being relied upon. There is joy and clarity there.

    Perfect. And your owl story is a wonderful illustration for what we’re discussing. And I agree that the score-keeping is ridiculous. Terribly boring and a waste of energy. And what is wonderful to see is that those roles can shift. My husband has decided that he loves to cook. (I never minded cooking and for a while we cooked together.) Now he kicks me out of the kitchen; I feel a little guilty but I’m getting over it!

    This sharing is what mature and loving adults do. Thanks, @oldbathos.

    • #70
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.