On Tuesday afternoon, I was talking to a woman with whom I regularly work out. While chatting about her recent break-up with her boyfriend, my pal repeated a line I find particularly exasperating. She said she’d been on her phone with her mother recently, and her Mom had said:
The best relationships are those in which the man loves the woman just a little bit more than she loves him.
My buddy was wondering about the wisdom of that oft-repeated line, and it occurred to me that I haven’t blogged about it.
I didn’t grow up with that particular piece of wisdom. The first time I heard the suggestion that “marriage is best when the husband is more in love with his wife than she with him” was when one of my cousins got married. My cousin’s new sister-in-law and I were chatting at the wedding (comparing the relative dysfunction of our respective clans) and she mentioned that her brother was absolutely enraptured by my cousin. She said something like:
“I know she loves him, but my brother loves her more. And I think that’s the way it should be. When a man loves a woman more, he’ll pay attention to her and won’t break her heart. When the love is equal, or the woman is the one more in love, there’s a much greater chance he’ll stray.”
This was not the sort of conventional wisdom we shared in my family, so I nodded politely at my new relation-by-marriage and wandered off to explore a new food station. But what she said stuck in my mind, and I began to check it out with my acquaintances. To my very great surprise, this notion that “the man should love the woman more” was actually fairly widespread. In completely unrelated situations, in the past couple of years I’ve had perhaps half a dozen women mention to me that they were raised with this particular relationship philosophy. And talking to my workout buddy on Tuesday really got me thinking about it.
As my regular readers know, if there’s one thing that really sticks in my craw, it’s the various ways in which our popular culture reinforces the “myth of male weakness.” Whether it’s armchair evolutionary biologists opining that promiscuity is hard-wired into the male brain, or misguided Catholic bishops insisting that women cover up to protect weak men from lust, or pop psychologists suggesting that women ought to accept male porn use as natural, a tremendous amount of damage is done by those who reinforce the lie that men lack women’s capacity for self-control, commitment, and relationship. Call it the “all men are dogs” theory, call it what you will — it’s a belief about human behavior that’s shockingly widely accepted, in and outside of religious communities and across vast political and cultural spectrums.
The bromide that “the man should love the woman more” is rooted in the expectation that virtually every man, sooner or later, will prove to be a colossal disappointment to the woman who loves him. If she loves him just a little less, however, this gives her a small “bargaining chip” with which to forestall his presumably inevitable infidelity or abandonment. The romantic imbalance, when it “works in her favor” gives her the chance to manipulate. If she loves him as much as he loves her, however, she loses that chance. And she leaves herself far more vulnerable to being heartbroken when he does disappoint, as popular culture seems to insist he invariably will.
One particularly frustrating way in which the myth of male weakness functions is to relentlessly urge women to lower their expectations for male behavior. Beginning when they hit adolescence, if not earlier, we often send messages to girls to “tone it down”, “don’t be too aggressive”, “don’t be too smart”, “don’t be too sexual”, “don’t want too much.” Older adults and cultural sages urge women not only to give up their girlish longing for a handsome prince, but to prepare themselves to “settle” for a “good-enough guy.” We urge young women not to have too many hopes about finding a man who is sexually attractive, capable, ambitious in his chosen field, emotionally articulate, willing to embrace monogamy in all its rigor and all its joy.
(Parenthetically, at the risk of getting flamed for racism, I see this “culture of diminished expectations for male behavior” particularly alive in my Latina students. Many of them were raised by their mothers to believe that the best one could hope for in a “good” husband was that he “doesn’t drink too much” and he “doesn’t hit” too often and he “doesn’t go to prostitutes.” While that particularly low threshold for masculine decency is certainly not unique to one culture, I do hear it more often from those whose families recently emigrated from Latin America to the USA. Perhaps the issue is more class than race.)
I am not defending genuinely unrealistic expectations for a romantic partner. Insisting that “perfect abs are a non-negotiable must-have” is silly, as is demanding one’s mate produce a seven-figure salary and a four-carat flawless diamond engagement ring. But there’s a world of difference between expecting a man to smother you in minks and jewels and expecting a man for whom emotional competence, fidelity, and a general sense of direction are givens! It’s one thing to teach women not to expect men to provide for all of their material needs; it’s another thing altogether to advise a woman that since most men will leave (physically or emotionally), she ought to “hedge her bets” by picking a man who will love her more than she loves him.
One of the most basic tasks of the men’s movement — not the MRAs, but the pro-feminist men’s movement — is really three-fold:
First, on a societal level, we need to work all the harder to deconstruct the “myth of male weakness.” We need to look at the various institutions (ranging from the inspid works of John Gray to the pious musings of church leaders who want our daughters covered up to the “popular science” articles that suggest that “evolution requires” men to be less capable of commitment, tenderness, and emotional depth than their mothers, wives and sisters) that promote the myth, and we need to take those institutions on directly. Whether the battleground is biology or theology, we need to rebut those voices that urge all of us to “give men a break”; we need to smash the Tammy Wynette school of gender theory. (Wynette famously sang that a woman ought to “stand by your man… because after all, he’s just a man.”)
Second, we need to raise young men’s expectations of themselves. Despite the claims of some men’s rights activists, pro-feminist men aren’t interested in transforming young men merely to turn them into the sort of lads who will fulfill female fantasies. Though raising consciousness and instilling accountability in young men will indeed serve to improve their relationships with all of the women in their lives, the real goal isn’t just ending rape or domestic violence, or improving romantic communication (as worthy as those goals are.) The real goal is to encourage young men to stop living lives of either quiet desperation or passive stupefaction. The real goal is not just to make men more responsible, accountable, and emotionally articulate (all good things) — the real goal is to make them active agents of transformation. It is to give them a sense that by living a life of justice, living a life of ambition, living a real life of sharing and generosity, they will discover a kind of happiness that they’ve never imagined. It’s about expanding their own sense of what it means to be happy.
Third, we need to continue to reach our daughters with a strong feminist message. We need to remind young women that a romantic relationship with a man is not the sole vehicle for personal happiness. But we don’t need to discourage an emphasis on love and enduring commitment altogether. While we can and should do more to encourage young women’s autonomy, we ought also to discourage young women from buying into the “myth of male weakness.” While some women’s fantasy desires may be unreasonable (insisting on the four-carat ring, for example) others are not (expecting fidelity, devotion, a commitment to egalitarian roles in the household, an ability to describe his own emotional terrain without becoming mute or haltingly inarticulate.) Though many women have had and will continue to have disappointing experiences that reinforce their sense that men cannot be trusted, we need to remind them that men are just as capable as their sisters of responsibility and forbearance.
And we need to assure them that settling for a man whom you love less than he loves you is selling everyone involved woefully, tragically, short.
I definitely have the perception, perhaps unfair, that:
“fidelity, devotion, a commitment to egalitarian roles in the household, an ability to describe his own emotional terrain without becoming mute or haltingly inarticulate”
is much, MUCH harder to find than:
“the four-carat ring”
How I wish it weren’t so.
I think in our marriage, our goal has always been to outdo one another in our love. I strive to love Nancy more than she loves me, and she strives to love me more than I love her.
Works for us!
Wow, I hate to be the one to break it to yah Hugo, but you are in for a rude awakening when you become a father. I bought into the nurture vs nature arguments, then I had a son and saw the grim reality. At age five, he masturbates constantly, and humps everything that moves, or doesn’t move and is soft. All the little boys have have a pastime, which the girls do not seem to share. That is, they pick up sticks and hit each other with them, compulsively. Most annoyingly and sterotypically, he seems to excel at life a little more, when he is in a little bit of trouble.
Also, as a parent, I find it almost beyond rude for you to presume how I should raise my child. I want him to be successful and happy in whatever he chooses to do. I think it is more than a little bit manipulative and selfish (never mind foolhardy) to try and indoctrinate him as an agent of “transformation”. My only goal with my child is to raise him to be a decent and humane person.
On the topic of this blog post, it is interesting to note, that if you were to reverse the gender of this essay, it would be about male privilege. Historically, men were given a dowry from the woman;s father. It is interesting to note, that women’s privilege has advanced to the point, where there is an expectation of a certain income before a man become marriageable. It is interesting to note that you put standards on men’s expectations, and you place upon men the need to rise above “quiet desperation” and “stupification”, which is to say you expect them to be successful at something that you value.
Back to my son, if he wants to be a… monster truck driver… and that is a life goal that makes him happy, and successful, I wish him the best of luck. I really hope he wants to be a Doctor or a Lawyer or some other noble profession. However, as a parent, I will guide him to be the person he wants to be. It just so happens right now at age 5, he wants to be a ninja (or Spider-man) when he grows up.
It will give me much schadenfreude in a few years when you are a father dealing with these very same issues. I hope you have the courage to continue to blog about it even when the truth becomes apparent.
Your experience with your son is not the experience of all people with sons. Your son is not all sons.
One example does not equal a set in stone law.
Greg, I spend a great deal of time with young kids. I have never denied that biology exerts an influence on small children. I do deny, however, that biological impulses of the sort that may make some boys more likely to be hyper than some girls have much to do with how we live as adults. I’ve seen plenty of little girls rubbing their crotches and tormenting each other in my day.
I work with teenage boys every week. Day in and day out, I live this out with 14,15, 16 year-old young men — and women — in the full throes of hormones. Their biology is not their destiny.
I am glad you are helping your son become what he wants to be. But becoming what we want to be and becoming who we are called to be is sometimes not the same thing (ask Jonah). Good mentoring is surely about helping a chld develop his or her unique identity while ensuring that that child grows up to be committed to justice and sharing.
I will blog when the Lord blesses us with children, and I am sure I will be hit with many shocks — but I know many fathers in the pro-feminist movement who share my views, and I base my thoughts here as much on what they’ve shared with me as on my own experiences.
I’ve never heard this saying, but I’m not in the least surprised that it exists, given other stuff that I’ve heard.
I wonder what you think of a perhaps related view that my great-grandfather expressed to my grandmother when she was a young woman (of marriageable age). He told her that she should marry a man who had health, ability, and who loved her. He told her it was less important that she should love him because “a woman can learn to love a man, but a man will not learn to love a woman – he either loves at the outset or he never will.” (obviously not a direct quote). Do you think this is the same sentiment, or different?
Gosh, Emily, hadn’t heard that. I don’t know if it is the same sentiment. Certainly doesn’t ring true to me, regardless!
Hugo said about boys: “It is to give them a sense that by living a life of justice, living a life of ambition, living a real life of sharing and generosity, they will discover a kind of happiness that they’ve never imagined. It’s about expanding their own sense of what it means to be happy.”
Hugo, apparently you fail to realize that what you describe above is already happening. Young men are learning the important lesson that they can have a very rewarding life, full of ambition and happiness, without subscribing to the one-way street model of “sharing and generosity” that past generations held them up to be (i.e., putting wife above all else, including his own interests and well-being; husband as protector and provider of his wife and if there were any, children; etc.). Indeed, many boys understand that avoiding marriage and being single is the safest, most certain way to live such a life. Despite the outmoded messages and pressure from our culture, many boys are growing up comfortably self-confident enough to not settle for the old (one-way) model of “sharing and generosity” with a wife/partner in their lives. They call it the “marriage strike.”
Ah, isn’t feminism grand?!
It isn’t feminism that insists that happiness is linked to sharing and relationship. It’s that old boy Aristotle, for one, who linked happiness to social relationships, private virtue, and a healthy dose of self-restraint and moderation. The voices of the ages agree that we can’t be happy living chiefly for ourselves alone.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Hugo. The reason such relationships are desirable to many (myself included) is because when THEY care more, you have the power in the relationship. If we break up, I will miss her – some – maybe – and she will be devastated.
Who becomes “in charge” in such a disparity of emotional investment?
Gonz, the “he who cares less wins” model of human relationship reflects a junior-high school mentality, one in which fear of being wounded trumps virtually all other considerations. I would think all of us — feminists and men’s rights advocates alike — would want better for ourselves and those around us.
As the cousin of whom you refer, I feel compelled to add my two cents. I think the concept of one partner loving the other “more” is indeed an impossible notion to quantify. Our marriage is very strong because we both consider the other’s needs to be as important as our own. This is tested by our growing family, as we have both a toddler and a newborn. My husband considers it just as much his responsibilty as mine to complete household tasks and caring for our children. As much as you say this should be the way men are, I find that among our friends this is not the norm. One reason is that some women tend to think that the house and children are their domain and make their husbands feel inadequate when they mop the floor or change a diaper becasue it is not the way they would do it. Soon the man starts to feel that he never gets any support for “helping” and the woman is left to do it all and then complain that she has to do it all. This reinforces the stereotype of both men and women’s traditional roles.
For what it’s worth, beloved cousin, I’ve never thought the comment actually applied to your marriage. You’re talking about a vital issue, though: our culturally-conditioned attachment to certain roles often does leave women with a sense that the home is “her” turf.
We still live in a culture where an unclean house or an unkempt baby will reflect badly on the woman, not the man — and women sense this, I think. The man gets props for doing even a half-assed job, because he’s breaking gender stereotypes — but houseguests may still blame the wife if something appears amiss, as she’s “ultimately supposed to be in charge”.
That’s a separate issue, and one well worth addressing!
xo
Mr Bad, I noticed that you contrasted `the safest, most certain’ life and being `comfortably self-confident’ with Hugo’s life `of justice, … of ambition, … of sharing and generosity’. I’m sure anyone who takes Hugo’s life of justice seriously — whether theist or otherwise — would tell you that justice and ambition usually require sacrificing one’s safety, certainty, and material comfort, and adopting an attitude of humility. The safest, most certain life is the one where you never leave your home. The good life requires being involved with one’s community, caring about other people and being cared about in turn, and that means actually taking a risk.
Are we drifting here, or can we continue on this thread.
I am curious, are you talking about basic day to day disorder that is very common in houses with young children, or are you talking about filth?
It depends, I’d say, on what priority in your life you place “A Relationship.” For myself, I rank it rather low – it can be pleasant enough in the right place, but it is not a centerpiece of my life. For those to whom it is – more power to them. I have my children, the rest of my family, my work, my friends, my charitable work, a host of hobbies, my writing, my chores, my cats, my dog. To be perfectly frank, if it wasn’t for the fact of the occasional desire for sex, I wouldn’t bother. I don’t put a lot of emotional investment into it – it is just not worth it to me.
Some women have found this not enough, and walked away with my blessing. I’m wrong for them, obviously. Some have continued to beat their head against the wall until they became angry and leave in a huff, and some have become quite unpleasant in their dissatisfaction and have had to be invited out of my circle of associations, one with a restraining order. There is not a one in my circle of lady friends, however, who is tied there and isn’t free to walk away whenever she sees fit, for whatever reason, or to change our relationship to a non-sexual one at her option anytime.
And your cousin makes a good point, and the phenomena is called “Maternal Gatekeeping.”
I think that the idea that we should educate our children about sexism (and racism) and other issues in our “biased ways” reflects our desires that our children will help develop a better world than we now live in.
Saying: “I just want my child to be happy (and not ‘bad’” – and similar) reflects an acceptance of the world – our part of it anyway, as being basically okay!
Obviously -you Hugo – don’t live by a credo – that “men are completely ok and should just have a good time” – as some of your male responders talk of. I find it silly that they can read your blog, hear some of who you are, and simply not accept you as you are – in general.
I’d not waste my time – “fighting” – right wingers, or conservative evangelicals or similar – pushing my ideas at them In Their Venues.
Thanks!
Noumena, you say that “sacrificing one’s safety, certainty, and material comfort” is the path to “the good life,” but you fail to tell us to whom or what one must sacrifice to. Hugo seems to be claiming that we men must make those ‘sacrifices’ to a woman (or gay man), and at the same eschews the idea that a woman (and presumably, a gay man) do so similarly for us. In other words, we’re not truly a fully-adult mature human until we live to serve another person. I think think that such a scenario is no better than the ‘domestic slavery’ that Betty Friedan railed against, and thus, makes the likes of Hugo and his fellow travelers no better than the (male) chauvanists of the 50′s and 60′s. You, Hugo, et al., are certainly entitled to your opinion re. “the good life,” but at the end of the day, that’s really all it is – your opinion. All usual, others’ mileage may vary.
Hugo said: “Gonz, the “he who cares less wins†model of human relationship reflects a junior-high school mentality, one in which fear of being wounded trumps virtually all other considerations.” Ah yes, how cliche – the “fear” canard, not-so-subtle references to adolescence, etc. . Correct me if I’m wrong, but it certainly seems that folks like you just can’t tand the idea of men tossing aside the feminist rule book and defining – for ourselves – the conditions for our own personal happiness. It seems to me that you-all would rather that we let others (i.e., you) tell us what we need to be happy. How perfectly old-fashioned and patronising (or rather, matronising).
And you call yourselves “progressive.” Heh.
Hugo:
I have found in my 20 years of marriage that it requires a tremendous amount of courage and character to love my wife selflessly. Paradoxically, the more I die to my own desires and selfish wants, the more she responds to all of my needs without my prompting. This is contrary to what I thought would happen. I believed that the more I gave, the more she would take. From what I have seen, that’s the fear of most husbands.
As a result of my own positive experience from attempting to show more love for my wife than I expect her to show me, I am offering a service to other husbands to help them learn how to do the same.
Gerry
http://www.byhusbandsforhusbands.com
I would hate to be in a marriage in which my wife’s love for me is considered less important than my feelings for her. Would ANY person want that, really? That’s not a partnership; it’s idolatry.
Mr. Bad, some of your remarks have been deleted. Remember, general attacks on feminism will be removed. Stick narrowly to the issue at hand, without working in the standard MRA tropes.
Hugo, I have to agree that it’s one of the dumb-assest pieces of marriage advice I’ve ever heard. It’s also foolish in that ‘more’ is relative, not absolute. You can love somebody very little indeed and still love them “more” than they love you.
I bought into the nurture vs nature arguments, then I had a son and saw the grim reality.
Funny, I never realized how much people push ‘nurture’ until I had a son. If you want to see a red-faced panicked adult, watch a little boy twirl around in his sister’s swirly skirt, or a little girl hit another kid and take his toy away. I do hope Greg will be just as supportive if his son decides to be a jazz dancer or a fashion designer, if that’s his “nature”.
” Correct me if I’m wrong, but it certainly seems that folks like you just can’t tand the idea of men tossing aside the feminist rule book and defining – for ourselves – the conditions for our own personal happiness.”
Ah, male privledge. It never ceases to amaze me how some don’t choke on it when making statements such as these.
Consider yourself corrected. Feminists are interested – primarily – in stopping human trafficking, inequality, injustice and bigotry. Somehow, what men consider neccessary for their personal happiness just isn’t all that important to us.
Define it however you like. Do whatever you like, providing you aren’t hurting yourself or others. It’s entirely irrelevant to feminists what makes men happy. As shocking as it may seem, not everythign is about men.
(I have two ridiculously long comments, and I apologise for that. The first is directed pretty much exclusively at Mr. Bad.)
Mr Bad, a sacrifice doesn’t always need to be made to someone, though it seems right on the first pass to say that a good sacrifice is made for the sake of someone. (That’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.) For example, a doctor who leaves the US for a rural clinic in Africa is sacrificing a great deal of safety, certainty, and material comfort (especially in the parts of that continent which have the most desperate need for doctors). More mundanely, I could have easily chosen to be an actuary, or gone to law school, and ended up a very wealthy man. Instead I’ve chosen academia, with its very uncertain career track and relatively modest material rewards, because I strongly believe the academic life is generally better than the life of the lawyer or actuary. Have the hypothetical doctor or I made sacrifices to any particular individuals? It seems weird to claim that. However, we have made sacrifices for the sake of various individuals, though his are certainly more altruistic than mine.
With that point in mind, let’s turn to Hugo’s young men. It’s true that neither he nor I specify just what kinds of sacrifices these are, and who they’re being made to. But look again at Hugo’s post:
Second, we need to raise young men’s expectations of themselves. Despite the claims of some men’s rights activists, pro-feminist men aren’t interested in transforming young men merely to turn them into the sort of lads who will fulfill female fantasies. Though raising consciousness and instilling accountability in young men will indeed serve to improve their relationships with all of the women in their lives, the real goal isn’t just ending rape or domestic violence, or improving romantic communication (as worthy as those goals are.) The real goal is to encourage young men to stop living lives of either quiet desperation or passive stupefaction.
That’s right before Hugo starts talking about justice. Right off the bat, Hugo rejects the idea that feminism is all about getting men to make sacrifices for women or romantic partners more generally. I read this passage as saying that men must learn to make sacrifices — to sacrifice some of their safety, comfort, and self-esteem, to borrow your words — for their own sake. The right comparison, I think, is to the sacrifices I have made to pursue a career in academia.
You slide very quickly from the language of sacrifice to the language of slavery. This is a bad habit I’ve noticed in other libertarians, though frankly only in much more adolescent libertarians than you. Obviously there is a difference between an ethically required sacrifice and being forced into slavery at the end of a gun, though how exactly to draw the line is more than a little difficult. Looking at just the sort of sacrifices that are the subject of this thread, it seems clear to me that the slide from making sacrifices for one’s own sake to domestic servitude is rather silly. If this slide is right, then I’ve become a slave to academia by virtue of my sacrifices. As a grad student, of course, I make jokes to just that effect, and I wish I was living a little bit further above the poverty line, but that still doesn’t mean I really am any kind of slave.
(This one is more general, and much more consistently on-topic.)
I also wanted to comment on an idea shared by Mr Bad, Gonz, and Vera Venom. I’ll use Mr Bad’s way of putting it: `You, Hugo, et al., are certainly entitled to your opinion re. “the good life,†but at the end of the day, that’s really all it is – your opinion. All usual, others’ mileage may vary.’ The idea, in its crudest form, is simply that there’s no such thing as the good life in general, only what’s good for each individual life. There’s the good life for Mr Bad, the good life for Hugo, the good life for Vera, and the good life for Noumena, and any resemblance between these orders of goods is purely accidental.
I reject this notion, at least in this crude formulation. We all agree that good food, clean water and air, shelter, and health are necessary for a good life. We all agree that a certain amount of education and political freedom is necessary for a good life. There even seems to be general agreement that living in a community of loved ones, whether romantic or purely platonic, is necessary for a good life. And you’d be hard-pressed to find a nation anywhere in human history that did not agree with us on these broad strokes. I take this to be our best evidence that there is something very much like an objective idea of the good human life.
But, of course, we also disagree. For Hugo, as a recovering alcoholic, drugs and alcohol — even `in moderation’ — are quite inimical to his living a good life. On the other hand, a nice glass of wine or a beer with dinner a few nights a week is part of the good life for me. While we can find agreement in the broad strokes, we can also find disagreement in the details. Hugo’s hesitancy about one-size-fits-all ethical judgements (as expressed quite well in his posts on talking about sex with his youth group) is not a wholesale rejection of all objective ethical judgements, but a recognition of what political philosophers call `pluralism’.
Pluralism is a philosophy of balance, specifically between a crude, `anything goes’ libertarianism (and its feminist form, `choice feminism’) and the sort of moral authoritarianism beloved by many social conservatives. Pluralists recognise the difference I’ve been developing in the last few paragraphs, between the as-universal-as-one-could-like broad strokes and many-viable-ways-of-life details. Turning back on topic, it’s no contradiction for a pluralist to say, in one case, that different people can have very different views on a topic, and, in a different case, to make fairly strong normative claims. Let me finish this dissertation by sketching an argument that the way of life Hugo has been championing in this thread comes under the as-universal-as-one-could-like category.
We all agree, as I pointed out above, that being part of a community, caring for one’s loved ones and being cared for in turn, is part of the good life. I ask: What are the habits and characteristics of the members of a thriving community? What sort of person is capable of caring for others and being cared for in turn? The suggested answer to these questions is the sort of person described by Hugo: a man who is responsible, accountable, emotionally articulate, an active agent of change in himself and others, cares about justice, has ambitions, and in general shares his life with others, is a man who is deeply involved with his community. Perhaps Gonz is right, and the good life doesn’t need romantic love; I’ll grant that for the sake of argument. But this in no way implies that the good life doesn’t require the sort of virtues of civic involvement that characterise the way of life Hugo is articulating.
Oops. I need a third comment. I was cribbing freely from Martha Nussbaum — a feminist political philosopher, and an Aristotelean no less — in that last comment.
Mr. Bad:
It seems to me that it’s a given that the woman (in a straight relationship) would be making those ‘sacrifices’ for the man, as that’s the expectation in our (western, US) culture. The radical idea is that a man would deign to put his wife’s or partner’s needs above, or at least at the same level as, his own. Of course Hugo didn’t write about that part, as it’s always been assumed that the emotional work of a relationship is women’s work, not men’s.
Hugo seems to be claiming that we men must make those ’sacrifices’ to a woman (or gay man),/I>
Good grief. “We men” means only men who aren’t gay?
Noumena – I do agree, for the most part. There are some obvious basic needs to all humans share. It’s in the particulars where we find disagreement.
However, the impression that Mr. Bad’s comment gives is that his idea of personal happiness would not include women, or at least not feminsts. Therefore, I fail to see why he thinks feminsts would care what he does. He can do whatever he likes – again, providing he isn’t hurting himself or others. I also fail to see why he thinks feminists would be against that. I’m guessing there’s another agenda at work with Mr. Bad.
Whoops. Hope that fixed it.
Noumena: I listed among the things which I consider more important in my life than “The Relationship” my charity work. As for the rest, If you can demonstrate where I am not “responsible, accountable, emotionally articulate, an active agent of change in himself and others, cares about justice, has ambitions, and in general shares his life with others, is a man who is deeply involved with his community” I will take that chastisement – keep in mind, too, that in your pluralistic worldview, these things are not necessarily expressed in your way – and that is a good and “diverse” thing.
And as for Vera Venom – Well, you too, sister. The last time I worried about what concerned women or feminists was years ago – pursue your pet causes and leave me out of it. What concerns you is immaterial to us, and it’s not all about women, either.
Noumena, you stray very far afield from the topic of the post, i.e., ““A man should love his wife more than she loves himâ€: rebutting a nasty old piece of conventional wisdom with some pro-feminist thinkin’.” I took this to mean that we’re talking about one-on-one partnerships, not our larger and more complex relationships with society, the world at large, etc. Of course YMMV, but IMO your impressive ramblings are, while interesting, off-topic and as such are thread drift. I’d be glad to discuss career choices, etc., in another thread, as Hugo chooses to introduce them.
Also, Noumena, your statements claiming “we all agree…” are in fact debatable, as certainly we all do not agree on those things. For example, I know more than a few backwoods ‘mountain men’ who are completely disaffected from society, community, etc., and who are by their personal definition most certainly living “the good life” as they choose. At the same time, I’m certain that Hugo would find such a life to be living Hell, or at least not “the good life.” That’s the point I was trying to make re. allowing us individual men (and women) the right to choose our “good life” path.
mythago, you never fail to deliver vis-a-vis a meanspirited barb. By “us men” I mean Hugo’s target audience, and by including gay men in my discussion I expressly and (at least try to) clearly acknowledge that some of “us men” are indeed gay and have appropriately gay partners. However, no matter how inclusive and civil I try to be, you just can’t pass up a chance to try and insult, paint me in a negative light, etc., eh? Sigh. Where are the ‘politeness police’ when one needs them?
The politeness police have arrived and ask everyone, everyone, to stay narrowly on topic and to treat other posters with civility. We’ll be serving tea and vegan crumpets later.
I’m reminded of the joke where someone comes upon the old Irishman snoozing by the river with his fishing pole, and starts in on him about how he should be applying himself – why, if he did, he could develop a method of fishing in mass, get a bunch of boats, hire people, sell the fish, and make lots of money.
The Irishman asks, “Faith, and why would I be after doin’ a daft thing like that?”
His critic replies, “Well, then after that, you could retire, enjoy life, and go fishing for fun!”
The Irishman then responds, “Begorrah, ye mean like I am now?”
ks,
Actually, I think you are wildly off base, and working off of feminist stereotypes about men and women in general. For example, when you look at the science, like this recent huge and long lasting study:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1326959.pdf
We find that women are more likely to suffer from PTSD, even though men suffer from more trauma.
Furthermore, the study suggests for additional research, finding why men recover from PTSD faster and more completely then women do.
It is an interesting area of research, because for the first time we have scientific evidence that men are emotionally stronger and more resilient then women.
I might be stretching the conclusions of this research, but perhaps women do more emotional work in relationships because they have to. Women are not as emotionally endowed as men, they are emotionally needy as it were.
“And as for Vera Venom – Well, you too, sister. The last time I worried about what concerned women or feminists was years ago – pursue your pet causes and leave me out of it. What concerns you is immaterial to us, and it’s not all about women, either. ”
I say – do whatever you want providing you don’t hurt yourself or others. That feminists aren’t against anyone going about their own way. And I get back thinly veiled insults and clear misogynistic overtones. That’s what I get for trying to be diplomatic with MRAs.
And, refering to working to end human trafficking as a pet cause is about the most callous thing I’ve ever heard.
Folks, I am really, really close to closing this thread. Stay on topic, don’t malign other posters, and, please understand my comment rule about not permitting blanket attacks on feminism.
From GregA’s link:
“A slightly modified potential explanation for the apparently higher frequency of PTSD is the women and girls tend to experience different kinds of traumatic events (perhaps more severe or pathogenic events) than do men and boys. Judging the relative severity of different types of PTE is problematic, but severity might be surmised from the frequency of PTSD amont both male participants and female participants experiencing the event. Large-scale studies have suggested that rape and sexual assault (e.g., Kessler et al., 1995) and combat (e.g., Weistt et al., 1992) are associated with higher risk of PTSF amont both sexes than are other types of PTE; hence, a higher prevalence of these experiences among female participants than among male participants might reasonably be interpreted as a contributor to sex difference in PTSD frequency.”
In later pages, this is discussed further.
Though I’m sure I will be argued with over the point – far more women and girls are subjected to rape and sexual assault (including child molestation) than men and boys are subjected to combat or rape or sexual assault. ( link
Is it that women are just more “emotionally less evolved” or “emotionally needy” or is it that they are the far more likely victims of the PTEs at higher risk for resulting in PTSD?
V. Venom,
We are wildly off topic. I am inclined to repect Hugo’s wishes. However the study did control for sexual assault, and still found that women are significantly more likely to suffer PTSD, even though men suffer more trauma. See page 968, Question 4.
Hugo, I hate to pile on you, but when you’re a dad you will quickly find that “No, you kids behave! THIS time, I really MEAN it! Okay, back to your room for ANOTHER time-out and I bet you’ll see the error of your ways!” doesn’t work any better on children than the online equivalent does on trolls.
mythago,
Oh cool, we are back on topic, Im all for that!
As I stated in my original post, my son at least, does a little better when he is in a little bit of trouble. This is a stereotype opinion that is common among educators, that boys do better when they are in a little bit of trouble.
My strategy has been to set the boundaries a little shorter than they actually are. I am of the school of thought that I reward good behaviour, and minimally correct the bad choices. I am a big believer in natural consequences. Sometimes however there are safety considerations.
For example, right now he is learning to ride his bike. Last year he spent the whole summer on training wheels, and on a beautiful day earlier this week, he asked me to take the training wheels off the Bicycle. Because he had spent so much time riding around on training wheels, he picked it up right away…. And off into the neighborhood he went. When I finally caught up to him, to say I was exasperated, would be an understatement(He was trying to cross a rural highway, shudder). He knew I was angry, I sent him home, and yes, I did send him to his room. After I cooled off a little bit, I spoke with him about the incident. His punishment was to spend the evening in his bedroom. I admonished him that if it happened again, he would lose the bike. Might sound harsh, but as far as Im concerned it is a safety issue.
You know what? He chose to spend his time wisely. He got out a drawing book, read it to the best of his five and a half year old minds ability, and proceeded to start drawing pictures. It was deadly important to him that I see he made good use of his time.
Hugo seems very level headed to me. I suspect given his experience and maturity, he will make a fine father. I bet like me, he will almost never resort to yelling. I bet he will never unfairly banish the children to their room, because he is unable to control his emotions. Still, my point very early on in this thread stands, parenthood will defy his expectations. I think… he has already acknowledged that in this thread.
P.S.
I too thought it was trollish for V. Venom to come to the opposite conclusion of that study even though roughly half the text of the study talks about controls for sexual assault. I didn’t think it was polite (or even within the rules of the forum) to point it out. Perhaps Hugo could blog that study, and the biological implications of it? I found it traumatizing, but now I am over it.
GregA, I wasn’t talking about yelling at your kids, but about uneven discipline–when they know they can keep doing as they please because punishment will be temporary and minimal.
Mythago,
Wow, I had you read all wrong. That is a remarkably old school view on child rearing. You must be some sort of knuckle dragger. Sheesh get with the times, now days all the behaviorists are Waaaaaayyyy down on conflict models of parenting.
mythago said: Hugo, I hate to pile on you, but when you’re a dad you will quickly find that “No, you kids behave! THIS time, I really MEAN it! Okay, back to your room for ANOTHER time-out and I bet you’ll see the error of your ways!†doesn’t work any better on children than the online equivalent does on trolls.”
And:
“GregA, I wasn’t talking about yelling at your kids, but about uneven discipline–when they know they can keep doing as they please because punishment will be temporary and minimal.”
OMG- Am I the only one who is busting a gut over the irony of the likes of mythago making these statements!!…
myth, that’s why I love you the way I do!
Now, back to your regularly-scheduled discussion of the dynamics of love in the context of long-term committed interpartner relationships.
And, refering to working to end human trafficking as a pet cause is about the most callous thing I’ve ever heard.
Yeah, I’m such a mean S.O.B., getting my hands dirty working on problems I can actually solve, like teaching homeless or jailed men who can’t read, to read, or rebuilding computers for poorer kids to have one, or busting my knuckles in a St. Vincent DePaul warehouse that’s unheated in the winter, and un-airconditioned in the summer so people might have things like food or blankets or such. Or spending time getting data and communication back after Tornados whacked Southern Indiana a few moons back. Etc. Etc.
Of course, since my work is connected through a “patriarchal” organization like the Catholic Church, I am sure somehow it doesn’t count.
Gonz,
The last time you and I spoke, I was totally a prick to you, and disrespectful of your beliefs. A lot of stuff (I wana use a stronger word) has happened since then, and I now realize how out of line I was. And…
Im sorry.
GregA
Nothing happens in a vacuum. The implications of that study go far beyond simple biology. It is generally accepted that factors such as poverty and having a social safety net are influential in developing and recovering from mental illness. Getting a divorce or losing one’s job can bring on a nervous breakdown, for example.
Also, psychologists have been studying the links between racism and depression. There is evidence that shows that people who are members of a minority group and who report experiencing discrimination are more likely to also report depression.
Let’s take this knowledge and apply it to the study. Is it at all possible that social constructions of gender could have an impact on the development of or length of duration of PTSD?
I say yes.
Take for example the experience of rape in the military. Look at the reaction of the general public to the men who were raped by a fellow male soldier (sympathy and outrage) to the comments made on a recent salon article describing women who were raped by male soldiers (they were asking for it by joining the military).
Now, assuming that both stories are true (and I have no reason to doubt they are) wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that a male soldier who has the support of his commanding officers, the legal system, and the media behind him would be less likely to develop PTSD from his rape than a female soldier who was quietly asked by her commanding officer to suck it up? Could you really say that both situations are exactly the same and the only difference is that one victim is male and the other is female?
Could men be more likely to recover from PTSD by learning to reclaim their manliness and courage? Would therapists and doctors be as likely to tell a woman returning from war how strong and brave she must be?
Women are more likely to live in poverty and more likely to be single parents than men.
These factors can not be discounted when evaluating the prevalance of a mental illness like PTSD between sexes.
In The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms With America’s Changing Families, by Stephanie Coontz writes about “situated social power” in male/female relationships. Basically, she makes the point (among others) that good will alone cannot change the reality of the actual or perceived consequences of one or the other partner walking out of a relationship. If one party has the most to lose economically in a breakup, then it makes sense to argue, as a counterbalance, that the other should have the most to lose emotionally.
That has less to do with weakness, in any sense, than privilege. And while I try to face my privileges, I know better than to think I can make them go away. Which means that if other people want to arrange things (as in asking for a greater emotional investment on my part to protect themselves, I can say yes or no to that. But I don’t consider them wrong, and I wouldn’t accuse them of selling me, or anyone else, short.
Gonzman, if I bragged about all the charitable work I do, would that make it OK for me to dismiss the suffering of homeless or abused men as your “pet cause”?
Elizabeth,
We need to find a different venue to discuss the article further. I wish to remain in Hugo’s good graces. I will labor to keep my writing topical with the existing discussion. Please bear with me.
I only included the study as evidence for a legitimate etymology for the conventional wisdom in the phrase we are discussing. I also thought it segwayed nicely with Hugos “myth of male weakness”. Finally, as with all study of abnormal psychology, it gives up insight into what is happening with normal psychology. In our case, as you have already admitted, the trauma of divorce or losing a job. Even if the symptoms of trauma are not to the degree of a clinical diagnosis of PTSD. As with most things in psychology, it is a question of degrees.
Please read the article again. The research very carefully controls for the effect of sexual assault. Bringing it into the discussion only serves to obfuscate. At the beginning of the paper, it makes it clear that sexual assault is a special case, because of the significant differences in the way men and women experience it. However, even in that case, the result may not be what you think it is.
In one etymological study that the report summarises on car accident survivors all the factors you question are taken into account. The PTSD sufferers were interviewed, that particular study didn’t even allow for self selection. The men in that study suffered more trauma. The men were more likely than the women to report PTEs, and seek help. However, the women suffered significantly more and longer clinically defined PTSD.
In another study the paper discusses, it looks at soldiers returning from Somalia. Once again… Men suffered more trauma, they were more likely to be in a combat area and suffer trauma. Yet, once again, the women suffered more clinically defined PTSD. IIRC, that study did not research the length of the suffering.
The paper also makes references to self selected populations, and convenience populations. One example was college students volunteering for the study. The effect was less pronounced in these groups, but remained.
Finally, even in the event of sexual assault. Men were more likely to have been raped by multiple perpetrators. They were more likely to have been raped multiple times. They were more likely to have been beaten in the assault. Curiously, this was a surprise to the researchers. Still the effect remains. However, the report does reflect that women are much more likely to be the victims of sexual assault. None the less, even in this case, the effect remains, when controlled for relative populations.
(As an aside, I do not like talking about sexual assault out side of the context of sexual assault becuase it is such an incredibly inflammatory topic, but several people have brought it up, so I feel I have to address it)
All the way back to the topic at hand. The etymology of the phrase “The best relationships are those in which the man loves the woman just a little bit more than she loves him.” Perhaps women are less loving and giving in relationships (and more likely to leave later on), because they have more to lose. Women experience the little ups and downs in relationships more deeply than men do.
In this case the specific feminist CW would seem to cause more harm. It would expose women to more trauma, and thusly the long term effects of that trauma. It certainly explains differences in risk taking behavior between men and women.
Actually, this realization is an epiphany for me. Having slept on this data now, I feel I have a much better understanding of gender issues. This new data certainly does fit like poetry with a range behaviors I have witnessed. I guess I have a new found respect for the fragility of women, the strength of men, and the way women must experience that day to day.
Back to Elizabeths question… I agree there are certainly culteral influences happening here. But I suspect that does not explain the whole effect. What are your suggestions to do something about it, to limit the effect?
The best relationships are those in which the man loves the woman just a little bit more than she loves him..
Doesn’t that guidance presuppose one can actually measure the amount of love between the two people in question? The vague “just a little bit more” makes the statement even more problematic from a measurement perspective (as your cousin noted).
Col Steve,
I took it as having very cynical meaning, using the myth of male weakness stereotypes. The man doesn’t love you, he is just using you for sex, so you shouldn’t love him back. The relationship should be all about that most important matrimonial word, “half”.
In that regard, Barbra P, the very first poster on this thread nailed it.
I guess I was just trying to explain why women seem so unwilling to commit to relationships. Then even when they do commit to a relationship, that commitment is fleeting.
Back to Elizabeths question… I agree there are certainly culteral influences happening here. But I suspect that does not explain the whole effect. What are your suggestions to do something about it, to limit the effect?
Perhaps there is a biological mechanism that makes women more prone to PTSD, I don’t know. I wasn’t saying that divorce or losing a job can bring about PTSD, I was questioning the possibility that a person who had recently lost a job or who was living in poverty would be more likely to develop it than a person in a secure job after each of them experienced the same traumatic event. I went on to question if the reaction to the traumatic event by the surrounding community contributed to a person’s recovery time – a rape victim being supported by the community vs told s/he is a liar. Could a man be better able to cope because all his life he was told “I am a man. I am strong.” whereas a woman breaks down more easily because she was told “I am a woman. Women are weak.”?
If you brought up this study to support Hugo’s claim that “male weakness” is a myth, it did not seem that way. You said:
I might be stretching the conclusions of this research, but perhaps women do more emotional work in relationships because they have to. Women are not as emotionally endowed as men, they are emotionally needy as it were.
Do you know what ks was talking about? Feminists talk about “emotional work” and are referring to things like spotting minor problems in a relationship and trying to fix them before they get out of hand. I don’t see how that connects to this study. If I notice that the man I am involved with and I are always disagreeing about a certain thing and I don’t want it to ruin the relationship so I ask to sit down and talk about it once and for all, that makes me emotionally needy? Are you saying it is a sign of emotional strength to ignore a problem until a woman gets fed up and leaves you? When I notice that my tires are getting deflated and it’s making it difficult to drive in the rain, and then I put more air in them to solve the problem does that make me emotionally needy too?
Haha, Its late Saturday night, and I have had a few drinks… Please give me a chance at a thoughtful reply. Until then, I offer this nugget.
When I was younger, I worked as an automobile service technician. I worked in an instant oil change business. It was a running joke among the techs, and I bet I could conduct a survey comparing tire wear patterns on cars across gender to prove the point scientifically, but women tend to over inflate the tires on their cars.
At the same time, men don’t change the oil often enough…
That was funny!! Laugh.
I guess I was just trying to explain why women seem so unwilling to commit to relationships. Then even when they do commit to a relationship, that commitment is fleeting.
It’s insulting for you to generalize from your wife to “women”.
//I guess I was just trying to explain why women seem so unwilling to commit to relationships. Then even when they do commit to a relationship, that commitment is fleeting.//
If I could find someone worth committing to who actually wanted to commit in return, I wouldn’t have an ounce of trouble settling down.
Not that they don’t exist, pf course, I just haven’t met any of them lately.
mythago,
I was drawing the generalization from the original statement that started this thread. The sentiments of several women in this thread who complain there are few men worth committing too. The feelings of several men in this thread that feel they must surrender their individuality to their wives to maintain their marriage. A large body of popular culture media that somewhat realistically depict women’s reluctance to commit to a good guy (Bridget Jones Diary, or ugh… Sex in the City for example). The entire history of the Pandagon and Feminista blogs, where the bloggers loudly proclaim their lack of desire to commit. The single mothers by choice movement. Never mind the grand arc of the family law professions experiences over the last 30 years. Or recent contemporary research that suggests women are not committing to relationships, and feel no desire to do so.
I didn’t realize it was a cutting edge observation anymore. I am sorry it challenged your perceptions.
Elizabeth,
A thoughtful reply is forthcoming, I ended up enjoying the afternoon flying my kite. A 3.6 meter beamer para-foil if you must ask. I am performing my chores for the week, then am retiring for the evening to watch Battle Star Galactica. I don’t have a Tivo yet, so I am forced to watch it real time.
Just to keep you interested I will offer you some tantalizing details, so you come back and read it. It is my best recollection of my rape and my experiences in the wake of that very traumatic event in my life. I will cover how the rape not only affected me, but the people around me. Additionally, in the outline of the event, I think I may have found closure on something that occurred in the aftermath, that may have been a PTE.
Finally, maybe the fine people on this blog, will help me come to terms with why this feels like a confession, even 20 years after the incident.
But please be patient. This has been an extreme challenge to not blog angry. But I feel I have been shamed into addressing the sexual assault issue in great detail, even though, I would rather not talk about it. I am not claiming expertise on rape, only that it happened to me.
Hugo,
Let me know if you would rather I included specific names, dates and places, so that it can be fact checked, if needed. Also, I will be going into graphic sexual detail, of not only the rape but homosexual experiences after the incident. Now would be the time to caution me on appropriate sexual details. Thanks.
Graphic sexual details, Greg, are not appropriate here. And frankly, I’d love to have you post on this at a site you create (blogspot is free!) I am trying to enforce a thread-drift rule, and this is simply too far afield.
A large body of popular culture media that somewhat realistically depict women’s reluctance to commit to a good guy (Bridget Jones Diary, or ugh… Sex in the City for example)
Oh dear. Do we have to play Idiotic Duelling Culture Anecdotes, where I have to point to movies or TV showing women dying for romance and getting the guy? Did bridal magazines go out of business when I was out of the office?
HUGO: THIS IS THE B*E*S*T* P*O*S*T E*V*E*R !!
It’s going into my “Koufax Nominations” File !!
mythago,
I don’t see the point of going back and forth like that. The plural of anecdote is not data. You are quite correct that such an exchange would be idiotic. Your criticism of that particular reason is noted.
That is why I presented a large list of reasons to think such a generalization was safe to make. Most notable, this thread its self, which is all about that range of generalizations. The idea that women have trouble committing to relationships, or that women should be reluctant to commit to relationships.
It is kind of funny that you would mention brides magazine, because I would hold that out as an example of women’s privilege. I don’t think any honest person would maintain that the extravagant weddings characterized by Brides magazine are held for men’s benefit. In fact, I think many men feel oppresed by large extravagent weddings, even if they are not the one paying for it.
The question might be rhetorical, or even a little too personal, but what are your feelings about commitment? Or were you ‘just saying’? Do you have anything at all to add to the conversation, or are you just gonna take pot shots at me?
It’s interesting that being “trollish” is apparently nothing more than disagreeing, despite the fact that the one leveling the charge is just guessing at what I said. That’s very convenient.
~~~~~~
“Of course, since my work is connected through a “patriarchal†organization like the Catholic Church, I am sure somehow it doesn’t count. ”
I have to say I’m confused as to why you think it matters what organization the good works are done through matter.
As mythago pointed out – what does your good works have to do with someone else callously calling mine “pet causes”? or is it because you’re male that your good works are relevant and important and mine, because I’m female, are “pet causes” – despite several of them being exactly the same?
This is a serious question. I’m interested to know exactly what makes mine “pet causes”.
That is why I presented a large list of reasons to think such a generalization was safe to make.
No, you presented plural anecdotes, including a handful of fictional presentations of women. I guess it’s “safe to make” in the sense that you’re not likely to get banned over it, but that’s not quite the same as “true”, is it?
The question might be rhetorical, or even a little too personal, but what are your feelings about commitment?
More like “ridiculously overbroad”. What do you mean by commitment? Do you mean my own personal inclinations to commitment, or what I think People Ought To Do? Are my feelings supposed to be generalizable to everyone who has to pee in the same position I do? What would “this is how mythago feels about commitment” add to the conversation?
I am genuinely sorry that you were raped. I hope that you are able to find healing, and that the person who raped you gets eaten slowly by itty bitty bugs with sharp mandibles. But again, I’m not sure why that is supposed to say anything about an entire gender.
Interesting post. One thing—maybe the idea that men should love more is a reaction to the inevitable imbalance of power between a man and a woman in a marriage. If he’s a little more vulnerable, then they are closer to equal, maybe?
Amanda, I think that’s part of it. But wanting equality of vulnerability seems very closely connected to an absence of trust, at least to me.