“She’s so pretty”: on partners, compliments, and thank-yous

Those of you who know me well know that I tend to be zealous about guarding my family’s privacy, rarely blogging about my wife and keeping family pictures password-protected. But I wanted to repost this 2007 piece, largely because my lovely Eira has been getting more than her usual share of attention on the street lately, thanks to her resemblance to the Brazilian actress Morena Baccarin, who plays an alien on the TV series “V”. We haven’t watched V, but we’ve seen the promos — and with her short hair, Baccarin does look very much like Eira. My wife has been stopped on the street a couple of times recently by curious folks.

And so this seemed worthy of reposting.

Not unexpectedly, most of the photographs on my desk are of my wife and me, including a formal wedding portrait. Time and again, students and colleagues come in, look at the pictures, and say “Your wife is beautiful” (or something similar). And after a long time, I’ve grown very comfortable saying “thank you.”

Years ago, I was at a wedding (remarkably, it was one of the few in which I wasn’t involved as either groom or minister) with an ex-girlfriend of mine. I introduced my date to some friends, and one of them, an older woman, blurted out, “Hugo, she’s very pretty.” She said this right in front of my date as if she wasn’t there, and I said “thank you.” When my date got me alone, she punched me firmly in the arm and asked “Why did you say ‘thank you’? Are my looks your accomplishment to be praised? Some feminist you are!”

Ouch. There’s no question that within a great many different social circles, it is considered customary to offer praise of a woman’s looks to her husband, boyfriend, or father. It often doesn’t seem to matter whether the praise is entirely justified, either. Ever since I started dating, I noticed that it seemed standard protocol to make a remark about the perceived prettiness of the woman in my life. I note that with my fourth wife, I get the remarks more frequently because she is truly striking, but by now I know enough to know that this particular compliment is almost a cultural universal.

I understand why a visitor to my office might remark that my wife “looks lovely.” They can’t tell from looking at her picture that she’s brilliant, that she’s got an absolutely brutal left hook that can floor most men, that she has hundreds of phone, account and credit card numbers memorized in her head (it’s part of her job). They can’t tell that she’s a great salsa dancer or that she is a marvelous cook or passionate about Gabriel Garcia Marquez. They can tell that she’s lovely, and so that’s what they remark upon.

But saying “thank you” to a compliment paid to your wife or girlfriend about her looks is at least somewhat problematic. The friend at the wedding who praised my date’s prettiness directed that praise at me, and there seemed to be an implication then — as there often is now when folks comment on my wife’s pictures — that I am to be credited with having succeeded at something by “landing” a “hot” woman. One of the things that feminists work very hard to reject is the notion that women’s looks are currency for men to measure their own status. The phrase “trophy wife” or “arm charm” resonates painfully. Ask women whose husbands or boyfriends have dumped them because they couldn’t provide sufficient “hotness” to boost the ego of their male partners. Using women’s attractiveness to measure a man’s status is as disastrous as it is (still, sadly) ubiquitious.

On the other hand, I can’t give everyone who compliments my wife’s looks a lecture. Most of the time these days, especially since she and I have been married, I do say “thank you”. I say it not because I believe that my ego has just been boosted, but because I take very seriously the idea that my wife and I are joined together. We have become a team, a union of flesh and spirit. Her triumphs are my triumphs, my triumphs are hers. A compliment to either of us is a compliment to both, an insult to either is an insult to both. That doesn’t mean I need to fight all of her battles for her. That doesn’t mean that we don’t retain a considerable degree of autonomy even within marriage. It means that in terms of how the outside world perceives us, we are a unified front, standing shoulder to shoulder. (This unity, however, does not impose an obligation on my wife to look a certain way; if she gains a huge amount of weight, for example, I am not entitled to use the “but we’re a team” card to badger her into looking “good” for my benefit.)

On the other hand, I’m very reluctant to praise the looks of a male friend’s wife or girlfriend, at least until after I’ve gotten to know her much better. When shown a photograph that requires a compliment, I usually say something (fashionista that I am) about clothing or accessories. “What a great suit”, somehow, seems far less sexist than “She’s a knock-out.” Perhaps that’s not a distinction everyone sees as meaningful, but it works for me.

Please share your thoughts.

UPDATE: I’m bumping this up from the comments, because when I wrote this post, I gave the impression that I only say “thank you” when someone compliments my wife’s looks. What I almost always add afterwards is “I think so, too.”

And of course, perhaps the most feminist response would be the “I think so, too” without the “thank you.” But sometimes etiquette and ideology conflict and etiquette wins; I was raised to thank everything that moved.

“But you’re pretty!”: on men, feminism, and the misuse of compliments (reprint)

This post originally appeared in January 2006.

The discussion sparked by Jill’s online experience with her fellow NYU law students continues.  Here’s my post, Amanda’s, and Lynn’s.  Amanda and Lynn both have excellent things to say about the difficult position women find themselves in on the Internet, and in the wider society, when it comes to their appearance.    I liked this bit from Amanda:

Calling feminists ugly is actually shorthand for a longer thought process that goes something like, "Women’s most important quality is their looks, so good-looking women have everything they could want. The only reason a woman could be dissatisfied is if she isn’t good-looking, and so feminism is the last resort of women in denial that they are failures as women." That argument falls apart if you show that conventionally attractive women also feel like second class citizens, and that being eligible for being a well-regarded sex object doesn’t mean that you aren’t still being treated just as a sex object.

Nicely put.

When the fellas at NYU called Jill "fat" and "ugly", many folks at Feministe rushed to reassure Jill that she was anything but.  There are several problems with responding to insults with compliments, as zuzu pointed out in the comments:

These guys are obviously assholes, but it bothers me that being called fat and/or hideous provokes such a strong, “But you’re not fat! You’re not ugly!” response. I could just be feeling marginalized by the idea that being fat is the worst thing a woman could be called.

I’m thinking this morning of what a male pro-feminist response to this issue might be.   

Most men are aware, to one degree or another, of how powerfully the women in their lives are affected by messages about beauty.   If we’ve been raised in this culture, we’ve grown up with mothers, sisters, cousins, classmates, girlfriends and wives who’ve suffered from the tremendous pressure to be thin and pretty.  We’ve witnessed that anxiety from an early age, and many of us have tried — with limited success at best — to offer comfort and reassurance to the women around us.  When I was younger, whenever any woman would worry out loud about her weight or her looks, I would rush to compliment her.  I figured dispensing kind compliments was part of my job as a man.

The subtext of this, of course, was that I was being raised to believe that women were emotionally dependent upon my praise and my judgment.  And just as I — or any man — had the power to comfort and reassure, I also had the power to hurt and wound.  As a "nice guy" in my youth, I knew that I ought never call a woman "fat" or "ugly", but the fact that I didn’t use those epithets didn’t mean that I wasn’t aware of their potential power.  And I’m convinced it’s fundamentally unhealthy for men to have this kind of power over women, even if we don’t use that power abusively.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Some thoughts on autonomy, freedom, reason, and suicide

I’ve caught up on the recent threads (both the ones about teachers, students, and young women’s agency — and the one about Pal Sarkozy and the question of whether an eleven year-old could ever sexually assault an adult). I’d been away from the computer for the holiday weekend, and when I’ve had some time to mull, expect to turn to both subjects again. For now, I want to answer a question posed to me by a reader named Natasha, who notes that I often write about the preciousness of autonomy.

She aks:

My question is about sovereignty and suicide.

Some background, firstly: I have recently been involved in a heavy and emotionally tiring (if mentally stimulating) debate with a very firm pro-life friend of mine (i.e. no abortion in any circumstance except if there is no way whatsoever for both mother and child to survive). I am firmly pro-choice, and this stance is centered on my belief that people have a right to bodily sovereignty and being able to make decisions that affect that sovereignty.

The difficulty I am having is that I come quickly to an impasse when I consider this philosophy beyond a woman’s reproductive rights. How do I reconcile – if it is at all reconcilable – bodily sovereignty with stopping a person’s decision to commit suicide (which is a right of bodily sovereignty if any, isn’t it?) (or, actually, any type of harm to oneself)? It’s not that I believe suicide is immoral or wrong – a relative of mine killed himself and I could never think of what he did as “something evil”. I think it’s a very sad, grief-filled action that people should avoid, but I can’t see it as immoral. However, this doesn’t change the fact that if I saw someone attempt to jump off a bridge, I would try my best to restrain him or her from doing so.

I could argue that the person may have been irrational, but how can I decide that if, afterwards, the person seems perfectly rational? If a person is in persistent unbearable pain that will never end, my gut reaction to a plea for euthanasia is that it’s understandable and rational, and I wouldn’t deny that person their right to live with dignity. But what if they’re not so? What if they’re healthy and really honestly believe that they’re not happy anymore with life or that life is too horrible? To that scenario, I just want to say, “You’re not thinking this through!” and I would call the police if I have to to keep them from committing suicide.

We place all sorts of reasonable limits on the right of individuals to do as they please, limits which don’t automatically contradict the principle that individual autonomy — sovereignty over one’s flesh — is particularly precious. California requires adults to wear seat belts in cars and helmets when they ride motorcycles. The state knows that the behavior of not wearing helmets or seatbelts has verifiable social and economic costs to our health care system, costs that others will bear. Society limits our ability to do as we please when our behaviors impinge upon others; my freedom to swing my fist, of course, stops at your nose.

A close friend of mine discovered his sister’s body after she had taken her life. She had electrocuted herself with a hair dryer in a bathtub; he found her body more than 48 hours after her death. He needed a great deal of therapy to cope with the experience, and nearly a decade later, still suffers from nightmares. Very few people commit suicide in a way that doesn’t leave a nasty mess for others to clean up. It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable for the state to say that this particular exercise of sovereignty — the exercising of the “right not to be” — needs to be limited because of its enormous impact on others. Continue reading

“Scrubbing the calendars of every conceivable risk”: Carolyn Hax on fidelity and trust (reprinted)

The links don’t work, but the post still makes its point, or so I hope. This is a reprint from June 2008.

Leslie very kindly sends me a link to this Carolyn Hax column that ran in the Minnesota paper. Carolyn responds to a young man who has broken off a relationship with his girlfriend over her refusal to give up her (platonic) friends of the opposite sex. After some general remarks about the importance of honesty, Hax opines:

…you were hiding, too, behind that ridiculous opposite-sex boycott. You were hiding from the very real risk every couple faces, that one of you will fall for someone else. People who love and respect each other do so not in a vacuum, but in a world populated by others — some of whom, inevitably, will prove tempting.

If your relationship can’t survive that, it can’t survive, period, no matter how thoroughly you scrub each other’s calendars of every conceivable risk.

Emphasis in the original.

“No matter how thoroughly you scrub each other’s calendars of every conceivable risk” is a terrific line, and I am going to borrow it regularly. Hax is on to something very important: despite our best and worst efforts, we can never — thankfully — control what an adult romantic partner will do. Part of being in a real relationship, a real marriage, is honoring the omnipresent possibility that your partner could make a different choice. For some, that reality is too terrifying to contemplate, so they stay in denial; for others, that reality is so terrifying that it turns them into over-controlling snoops. And for others, that reality is part of the risk of what it means to love someone. We cannot be vulnerable to the possibility of joy without being concomitantly vulnerable to betrayal; it is axiomatic that intimacy and risk are nearly perfectly correlated. To the extent that you are unwilling to take on the latter, you assure yourself of not having the former.

My wife is somewhere in central Africa at the moment. A classic ESTP and a successful businesswoman, she travels a great deal (sometimes without me). She’s beautiful and gregarious, and every day she meets and works closely with handsome men and gorgeous women in what is our town’s most famous industry. She has excellent boundaries, or so I believe; the ring she wears is an outer symbol of a profound inner commitment, one that I am confident radiates forth from her. Mutual friends have said to me that they have seen my wife in social situations (such as “girlfriend weekends” in Las Vegas) where I wasn’t present, and that she was exuberant, extroverted, and — in her words and actions and aura — evidently married. I like hearing things like that.

My wife could be meeting all sorts of men on her trip: hot young European businessmen in the British Airways T1 lounge, dynamic Ugandan tour guides, impassioned volunteers with NGOs in Kigali or Kampala. Some of these men will be cuter than I am, younger than I am, better muscled than I am, wittier than I am, and so forth. But they won’t be the unique package of Hugo-ness to which my beloved has pledged her fidelity and her love, and I trust in that love and in her good judgment.

I meet all sorts of attractive people in my world as well. I’d like to think I exude a certain level of married-ness (uxoriousness?). I was a pretty damn good flirt in my younger years, and I consciously avoid being flirtatious with women (or men) these days. Though I always wear a wedding ring in public unless I’m working out, I am fairly certain I project a clear “taken” energy even when that David Yurman band is not on my left ring finger.

Better than most, I know marriages can end. A promise given on a wedding day is not, in and of itself, surety of everlasting faithfulness. For me, fidelity is a choice. It was a choice I made when I first decided to stop seeing other people and be “exclusive” with she who is now my wife. It was a choice I made again when I asked her to marry me, a choice I made when we were married, and a choice I make day after day after day.

The other day, I was in a coffee shop I don’t normally go to, playing with my iPhone, which I still don’t understand. An attractive woman near my age also had her iPhone out, and we started talking about our mutual frustration that the “new” model was coming so soon after we had purchased the soon-to-be-outdated ones. I was getting ready to go to Pilates, so I was in workout clothes with no ring on my finger. At one point, I caught “that vibe” from the woman in Seattle’s Best Coffee, the vibe that suggests at least some initial interest. And I made the decision that comes blessedly easily to me these days: I dropped a reference to my wife into my next sentence (remarking about my beloved’s far greater technological facility.) The tall brunette deftly picked up on it, and in that unspoken and yet obvious way, withdrew “the vibe” without the slightest hint of incivility. We chatted for a few minutes more, and off I went.

Bottom line: I make choices every damn day to honor my marriage. I have other options, my wife (younger and lovelier than I) has far more. My happiness and security are not predicated on controlling who it is that she talks to. My goal is to take all of my sexual energy and direct it towards her, and no one else: that means fidelity in fantasy as well as in body. She has told me she does the same, and I believe her. It would devastate me if I found out it were otherwise, but I am smart enough to know that joy and growth are contingent upon two things: my own trustworthiness on one hand, and my radical willingness to be open to devastation and betrayal on the other.

Carolyn Hax nailed this one; brava, sister woman.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Nannies, adultery, class and consent: some thoughts on Pal Sarkozy

Briefly back in the office with a non-April Fool’s post.

Christine caught my attention with this post about something I’d managed to miss: French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s father, Pal, and his story of having sex with his nanny when he was eleven. The anecdote appears in the new autobiography from the elder Sarkozy.

Christine is struck by the circumstances of the encounter that Pal relates. Though only eleven, the father of the French president recalls himself as the initiator, and the nanny as silently acquiescent. Lots of power dynamics are at play. She is older, but he is male. She is his nanny, but he is the son of her employers. She is an adult, he a child — but he is the aggressor. Christine notes that today, we might charge the nanny with a crime for failing to stop Pal’s overtures. But the story raises the troubling reminder that aggressive sexual behavior, and a disdain for consent, is not limited to adolescents or adults.

It is not hard to imagine that Pal’s nanny weighed the cost of resisting the boy’s advances. He wasn’t an infant; if he made his displeasure known in one way or another, she might well have feared for her job. His capacity to consent was vitiated by his age, but hers was no less vitiated by her subordinate economic status. Given that all we have now are the recollections of a man describing an event that took place before the Second World War, there’s little more we can say definitively.

There is one thing that we do need to point out, and that is that even pre-pubescent boys can be sexual aggressors. Their targets are usually those who are, for reasons of age or status, vulnerable. An eleven year-old boy who is sexually assaulted by his thirty year-old female teacher is in a very different position than an eleven year-old boy who initiates sex with his thirty year-old nanny. Age compromises the capacity to consent, as we all know. But we must also acknowledge that class, status, and fear compromise consent as well.

There is also this much-reported related nonsense: Do Nannies Really Turn Boys into Future Adulterers? Based on a thoroughly unproven theory by an English psychiatrist, the discussion centers around the hypothesis that a little boy, “abandoned” by his mother for his nanny, develops the idea that multiple women are required to meet his needs. His mother’s “infidelity” to him (by having a life or a job of her own) leads to his own future infidelities years later. It’s a clever notion, nasty enough to add an extra frisson of guilt and anxiety into the lives of working mothers.

I didn’t have nannies growing up, but I spent a great deal of time with an au pair or two. I can vaguely remember that when I was five or six, I had a young woman named Sue (who must have been college-aged), whose job it was to take care of me one summer we spent on the family ranch. I am quite clear on the memory of the time she tried to teach me origami. It didn’t end in tears, but very nearly.

I had a great many women taking care of me when I was small: mother, aunts, babysitters, au pairs, grandmothers, and so forth. I am quite confident that I would have ended up a rotten husband (which I was in my first two marriages) no matter who it was who had raised me. One thing that I did bring out of my childhood, however, was a genuine liking for women as people. Women weren’t just my caregivers, they were my first friends and my best interlocutors. And my feminism, as imperfect as it was for so many years, was in no small way rooted in those early experiences.