I subscribe to Voice Male magazine, the tag line for which is “Changing Men in Changing Times.” It’s kind of like Ms. for the profeminist men’s movement. (Many of their issues are archived online; they are definitely worth a look.) In the most recent issue, Rob Okun, the magazine’s editor has republished an article from the early 1900s by a man named Floyd Dell, a successful novelist, playwright, poet and literary critic who influenced writers like Theodore Dreiser, Sherwood Anderson, and Carl Sandburg. Today, however, at least according to what Voice Male’s editor has to say, those people who know about him–and I did not before I read this article–know about him because he was an ardent feminist.
The article was first published in July 1914, six years before women got the right to vote, in a socialist magazine called The Masses, of which Dell was managing editor. In its unapologetic heteronormativity, among other things, the piece is definitely a product of its time, but I was struck by how familiar Dell’s argument for how feminism will free men from “the slavery of masculinity” sounded. (The phrase is my paraphrase, but the word slavery is his.) I hope my excerpts do justice to the tongue-in-cheek tone of the entire piece:
Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free. At present the ordinary man has the choice between being a slave and a scoundrel. For the ordinary man is prone to fall in love and marry and have children. Also the ordinary man frequently has a mother. He wants to see them all taken care of, since they are unable to take care of themselves. Yet, if he has them to think about, he is not free.
Dell goes on to talk about the “irresistible economic forces…taking more and more women every year out of the economic shelter of the home [and] making them workers and earners along with men.” He suggests that the education women will have to receive in order to be “fit for the world of earning” and the achievement of “equal pay for equal work”–the quotation marks are his; this was a slogan even back then–will inevitably result in the “setting free of men.” Dell even goes so far as to imagine “a social insurance for motherhood, which will enable women to have children without taking away a man’s freedom from him.” The problem, Dell says, is that
Men don’t want the freedom that women are thrusting upon them… Men want the sense of power more than they want the sense of freedom. They want the feeling that comes to them as providers for women more than they want the feeling that comes to them as free men. They want someone dependent on them more than they want a comrade. As long as they can be lords in a thirty-dollar flat, they are willing to be slaves in the great world outside.
The part of Dell’s article that I found most fascinating was the conclusion, which he called “A Question of Privilege.” “If the cult of masculine superiority is to be maintained,” he wrote
there must be some things that women are not allowed to do. From the Polynesians with their sacred mysteries which women are not permitted to witness, to modern gentlemen in their exclusively masculine clubs, there has always been the instinct to dignify the male sex by forbidding certain of its privileges to women.
By way of example, he talks about things that to us would seem remarkably trivial, drinking alcohol and smoking, women’s sports, and swearing; but he also talks about the way men in 1914 “pass[ed] ordinances to keep women off the streets when they venture to wear the new trouser-like skirts,” and while he does not call it slut-shaming, this is what he describes when he write about the men who “gather in crowds and hoot at the shameless female who cannot even let a man keep his pants to himself.” The main target of Dell’s argument, however, is the fact that in 1914 women still did not have the right to vote:
All the reasons that men give for not wanting women to vote are disingenuous. Their real reason is a deep annoyance at the profanation of a masculine mystery. The vote is all we have left. The women have taken everything else that we could call ours, and now this–it is too much! “Can’t we be allowed to do anything by ourselves?”
Change the terms of the argument–from, say, whether or not women can vote to whether or not women should be able to serve in combat–and it seems to me we are in many ways having the same discussion today.
Recovering and honoring the history of the women’s movement is one of the most valuable contributions women’s studies scholars have made to our understanding of gender and sexual politics; it’s good to be reminded that male feminism also has a history worth honoring.
Cross-posted on my blog.
Re: Men don’t want the freedom that women are thrusting upon them… Men want the sense of power more than they want the sense of freedom. They want the feeling that comes to them as providers for women more than they want the feeling that comes to them as free men. They want someone dependent on them more than they want a comrade. As long as they can be lords in a thirty-dollar flat, they are willing to be slaves in the great world outside
It’s a bit strange to me that Dell is saying this in a *critical* way. (I don’t know if you agree with him or not). Because I’d have to say that at least *to me*, that just sounds like common sense, at least in terms of personal affairs. When I think about what I would want from a relationship or a marriage, I definitely am looking for ‘someone dependent on me’, more than I’m looking for a ‘comrade’. Which is part of the reason I’d be uncomfortable dating/marrying someone who was on an equal level in terms of income, education, etc.. I think this is probably true for a large number of people- women typically want relationships with dominant, higher-status men, and men want relationships with women that they can provide for. I realize of course that’s not the case for *everyone* of course- there are people who are looking for a more ‘equal partnership’ situation, and some men who want to be the ‘provided for’, lower-status partner.
So in short, I guess I’d agree with Dell as to the existence of the phenomenon, I just disagree that it’s something bad or unnatural.
You cannot see what is bad about prefering to be a slave and a petty tyrant to being a free person? It *might* be natural, but it is sickening.
When I think about what I would want from a relationship or a marriage, I definitely am looking for ‘someone dependent on me’, more than I’m looking for a ‘comrade’. Which is part of the reason I’d be uncomfortable dating/marrying someone who was on an equal level in terms of income, education, etc.
Well, you should definitely copypasta that into your OK Cupid ad and let us know how it goes.
He might not get good results for bluntness. Is there evidence that he would get bad results for being wrong?
I see some people seeking out equal partnerships, and I see (with some satisfaction) that such partnerships are valorized much more than they used to be. But most of the people I see are, in fact, in search of a partnership which is unequal in important respects, be they sexual, economic, intellectual, or what have you.
Is there evidence that in fact this perception is wrong, and there is a huge plurality or majority of people who are affirmatively looking for equality across the board? I don’t see a lot of women looking for men who are physically the same size as they are, as one hopefully non-controversial example. I don’t see a lot of partnerships with that characteristic, despite the very very large overlap of body sizes between men and women. Most cis couples I see have a larger male with a smaller female.
Is there data indicating this is wrong?
(Edit function appears to be down.)
I do recognize that not every relationship is about domination or superiority or mastery or whatever, and even those that are are not JUST about that. The above comment kind of elides all difference into that lens and I didn’t mean to do that.
Decnavda, it might sicken you, but from my perspective nearly everyone takes that deal in an economic sense. Everybody with a job, for example. I find it puzzling, but to jump to ‘sickening’ would leave me in a permanent state of alienation from every one of my fellow humans who has a different tolerance for risk and a different utility function for independence. That seems counterproductive. Should I say you people are all sickening sheep, regardless of how ‘natural’ it is for you to seek your mythical security by herding together with your fellow cowards? Or should I note that people are different, and that some people get some psychic benefit from a perception of security and hierarchy (however delusional) and that I shall just let them be who they are?
The first might be “right” (if assholish) but I don’t see that viewpoint leading me to making converts, or being happier surrounded by all you koolaid-drinking security fetishists.
My first reaction is to goggle in amazement at how alien this idea seems to me. My more considered reaction is to recommend that you get a pet rather than a partner.
Robert, you’re conflating “not exactly equal” with “dependent on”. Mr. Mythago and I are certainly unequal in height, but unless the world suddenly becomes devoid of stepladders and sturdy kitchen chairs, that’s not an inequality that makes me dependent on him.
Hector, you’re doing that thing where you confuse “what turns my crank” with “the best, most sensible plan for everyone”. There are serious drawbacks (for both partners) in a relationship where one person is wholly financially dependent on the other. Those drawbacks may, for you and your hypothetical spouse, may be very much offset by your personal happiness in such an arrangement, and if so, good on ya. But it is a bit silly to claim that something is ‘common sense’ purely because it meshes with your fantasy of an ideal relationship.
“When I think about what I would want from a relationship or a marriage, I definitely am looking for ‘someone dependent on me’, more than I’m looking for a ‘comrade’. Which is part of the reason I’d be uncomfortable dating/marrying someone who was on an equal level in terms of income, education, etc.”
Basically, you aren’t looking for a partner, you are looking for somebody that you can feel superior over. That’s… sad. But it does perfectly illustrate the author’s point that men are far more interested in remaining the dominant sex and having social inferiors, than they are in human equality and justice.
Ashley, I don’t know if I would say if most men, or men in general are more interested in superiority than partnerships. I will concede that some men (like Hector) do, and there are plenty of women who are also interested in that sort of arrangement. Personally, I can’t fathom it. But, essentially, the “trophy wife” arrangement is one form, right? I have no idea how commonly men desire that over true partnerships, but hopefully far less than they did when the author was first writing (thanks Richard for posting, it was a great read!). I wonder if there is any survey data that might give us an idea of the prevelence of of one type of arrangement over another.
I can only speak from my own experience when I say that most of the men I know are interested in partnerships. I grew up in an extremely patriarchal household. My mother was subversive in many ways to my father’s dominance, but it was by no means an equal partnership and both of my parents were miserable. I’ve been with my spouse 11 years and we have a true partnership. Our relationship is far more satisfying for both of us than my parent’s arrangement was. I think even men who initially seek out a dominant/submissive relationship eventually feel resentful… But I have no data to support that, just a gut feeling.
Hector:
I have a question for you. If by “that just sounds like common sense” you mean that it is common sense that people in power will resist giving that power up, I agree with you; and so I am wondering if you have ever reflected on why you care so much about having a significant other who is dependent on you, as opposed to one who is a comrade–by which Dell meant an equal partner; and when I ask “why,” I am asking for something a good deal deeper than “this is my personal preference” or “this is the way I’ve been (we’ve been) taught by society.” I’m asking whether you can articulate what you personally–both in terms of what I will call your relationship with yourself and your relationship with others–get out of that arrangement and why you are so attached to it.
Also, I have to say that it’s a little surprising to me that you can’t tell from the post that I do agree with Dell.
Has feminism actually freed men? The stuff Dell predicted has happened. But I don’t see that his world of independent women has made men particularly free. If a guy did what Dell recommended and quit his job and left an independent woman to fend for herself, he’d be billed for alimony and child support based on imputed income and thrown in debtors prison. I thought his idea of how women entering the workplace would strike a blow against capitalism was particularly quaint.
alex, the fact that child support requires actual children is only one example of how ridiculous your comment is.
Debtors prison?
Jake, keep in mind that alex apparently thinks there would have been less spousal support in an era where men were properly thought ‘slaves’ to the financial needs of the household.
You don’t realise that Dell says that the entry of women into the workforce will result in guys being free to quit their jobs to write poetry without worrying about supporting their dependent children, do you?
Well, OK. If that’s what you want in a relationship, then I am sure there are women out there who also want that.
However, you have the choice to have that sort of relationship. You could choose otherwise. You could decide to seek an egalitarian relationship, and these days, it is becoming more and more acceptable to be in a relationship where you are dependent on a woman.
That is the freedom we’re talking about here.
By rejecting that freedom, you are making your preference, your choice, mandatory for everyone. You have no way of knowing whether the woman you spend your life with is dependent on you because she wants that sort of relationship, or because she has no choice. Presumably, you would with her because you love her. Do you really want her to resent you because she was not free to choose this type of relationship?
Freedom allows you to find people who are free to choose you, the way you are. And it allows you to choose people the way they are, and not the way they must be in order to survive. This allows for more authentic relationships between men and women, be they egalitarian or imbalanced.
Isn’t that better for everyone, overall? I guess you would lose the sense of self-worth and power you may have from having your choices validated and normalized, of being part of the oppressing in-group. But what does that say about you that you choose shallow validation from society over the happiness, freedom, and authenticity of the people around you?
alex, you’re mixing up a lot of ranting and I genuinely don’t know what point you’re trying to make. I sort of get the impression that you are saying that the treatment stay-at-home parents and division of support and property ought to depend on the spouse’s role in the family and not on gender, which, you know, I hope nobody finds controversial.
Alex,
You need to read more carefully. What Dell says will allow women to have children without taking a man’s freedom away is “a social insurance for motherhood, which will enable women to have children without taking away a man’s freedom from him.” In other words, some kind of government financed child care. I do not want this thread to turn into a debate about whether such a thing would be a good idea or not; I’m just pointing out that Dell did not think the simple fact of women’s entering the workplace would be enough. I also think you need to keep in mind that Dell–he’s writing for a socialist magazine after all–is talking about what he understood to be an economic slavery. He is not–and I realize that I here have the advantage of having read the entire article–suggesting that men, freed from those economic bonds, would (or ought to) help to conceive children and then leave them, willy nilly, to the care of their mothers and the government.
I also think, in taking entirely seriously his example of a man dropping everything to write poetry, that you are missing the tongue-in-cheek tone of his piece. As to whether or not the women’s movement has freed men, that depends on what you mean by freedom. It does seem to me that at least some men have more valid, affirmed, legitimized choices to live their lives in ways that go against traditional gender norms than we used to. Granted that who has access to these choices will be shaped by any number of factors, including race, class, culture-of-origin, sexual orientation, and whether one is cis or trans, but that does not mean the choices, for those who can access them, are not real and do not represent real change from what life for men was like in Dell’s time.
Yeah, the economic slavery he is talking about is having to work in order to support dependants. He felt women working would overturn this and leave workers free to strike blow against capitalism, and pursue their own pleasure in the world. I have the benefit of 100 years on hindsight, but still ha ha ha….
Also in defence of Hector the “I want a wife I can control through their economic dependence on me” reading makes him sound like a shit. But the other reading is “I want to earn a surplus over what I need to survive, and gift it to someone I love” which you might not agree with; but doesn’t come from a bad place. And is to some degree more self sacrificing than Dell’s “you look out for yourself, I will look out for myself” vision of economic independence.
alex, if someone is dependent on you, it’s not a “gift”. Hector’s been quite clear about what he wants in a relationship. I don’t know why you’re trying to handwave that.
Re: However, you have the choice to have that sort of relationship. You could choose otherwise. You could decide to seek an egalitarian relationship, and these days, it is becoming more and more acceptable to be in a relationship where you are dependent on a woman.
Denise Eliza,
I don’t think I disagree. I certainly don’t think that everyone should be *required* to be in a complementarian type of relationship, and if they want to live their life differently then I’m not going to stand in their way. I should also point out that while I think the relationship model with complementary, dependent/provider roles is the best, it isn’t necessary that either of those two roles fall to only one sex. There are men out there who are perfectly happy being the ‘subordinate’ partner (younger, lower income, less educated, less mature/emotionally stable, whatever) and having their wife/girlfriend/etc. be the ‘superior’ partner. Maybe there are even men out there who would be happy promising to obey/submit to their wife in the wedding vows (I hope so). I’m totally fine with that, actually, and probably feel more comfortable with that relationship model than with the ‘equal partner’ model. I don’t think most people are going to be particularly satisfied with egalitarian relationships in the long run, and I think the divorce rate nowadays bears that out.
But I think in general you’re right, people should be able to choose the kind of relationship that they want, and that they feel called to.
Re: Ashley, I don’t know if I would say if most men, or men in general are more interested in superiority than partnerships.
Well, there are lots of different types of men and women out there, and we want different things. I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of men, in America nowadays, want ‘equal partnership’ type relationships. That’s the model that our culture portrays as the ideal, after all, especially among cultural liberal circles. It doesn’t particularly bother me to be in a minority, or for my views to be unpopular. I have unpopular views about plenty of other stuff (see the democracy discussion in the other thread) so I’m used to it.
Re: I will concede that some men (like Hector) do, and there are plenty of women who are also interested in that sort of arrangement.
Well, that’s good to hear. :)
Re: Personally, I can’t fathom it. But, essentially, the “trophy wife” arrangement is one form, right? I have no idea how commonly men desire that over true partnerships, but hopefully far less than they did when the author was first writing (thanks Richard for posting, it was a great read!). I wonder if there is any survey data that might give us an idea of the prevelence of of one type of arrangement over another.
I’m sure you can’t fathom it, and the feeling is mutual- I can’t really fathom why people would choose the ‘equal partnership’ model. But, I guess, it takes all sorts. I hope you find happiness in a ‘true partnership’ as you call it, though it would never work for me.
I used to have a view a lot more similar to yours, actually, which I picked up mostly by default, growing up in an *extremely* cultural liberal environment and with an atheist, hardcore feminist mother . I think the gay marriage debate in this country over the last ten years really helped me sort out my thoughts though, because it made me think a lot more deeply about my values and ideals about marriage and relationships.
I’d certainly like to see men liberated from the tyranny of having to protect and provide for women. That’s what equality should be offering.
What if that liberation from service makes men as a group unhappy? Or women? Or both?
I had a houseguest last night; she didn’t know where things were, and asked for a few things. I hopped up to get them. In doing so, I reflected on the fact that one of the few things I miss about marriage is the opportunity to do small favors for another person (and to have similar small favors bestowed). Built-in or purely cultural, I do not know, but to some extent there is pleasure and self-esteem to be derived from kindly service to people who need the service. (That need can be weak; my wife was perfectly capable of opening a car door for herself, but she did ‘need’ to know that her partner cared about her and such gestures demonstrated that caring to her. Or it can be fairly strong; my houseguest had no idea where the spare blankets were and “they’re in the cabinet, in the basement, the light switch is on the left” is not a hospitable response at 2 am, whereas “let me grab you one” is. The pleasure is much the same for those two; the need can be even stronger, “I am eight months pregnant, I move at 0.3 miles per hour or would if I knew what miles or hours were, and a cave bear is about to eat me. Fucking great. Oh wait. There’s Throg. Throg has spear. Holy shit! Go Throg! Damn. Thanks, Throg, you rock, or will in 20000 years when that is invented too. Ha! Now we eat YOU, bear!”)
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the desire to fill that protective role is partly cultural (“you have to do that to be a man! you want to be a man, don’t you?”) and partly biological. So we have total equality and nobody who isn’t physically totally incapacitated would react with anything but indignation to having a door opened or a blanket fetched or a wolf shot or a train body-checked for 0.0001 seconds, but people still have this vestigial desire to do for and to be done for.
Is that level of equality more important than happiness?
What if it makes both sexes miserable?
Interesting glimpse into the past here. Thank you for writing this up.
I don’t think most people are going to be particularly satisfied with egalitarian relationships in the long run, and I think the divorce rate nowadays bears that out.
[looks at an entire bookshelf full of literature on marriage and couples which proves this utterly wrong]
[considers what might be gained from the intellectual exercise of, essentially, writing a term paper on the contemporary state of marriage research]
[looks at a stack of papers to be graded for students studying family therapy and sex therapy]
[rolls eyes, signs off of Intertubes]
ps – Hector, if you were really curious as to whether egalitarian relationships are a cause of marriage dissatisfaction, and in fact whether the divorce rate is rising or falling, a little research would do you some good. You could try Philip Cohen’s “Family Inequality” blog for starters, as he seems to have time and energy for public engagement with the literature that I can’t seem to make for myself.
Re: For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the desire to fill that protective role is partly cultural (“you have to do that to be a man! you want to be a man, don’t you?”) and partly biological.
I’m sure there is some cultural component, but the roots of differences between the sexes are, of course, biological. It comes down to eggs being expensive, sperm being cheap (and, correspondingly, men being generally stronger, more competitive, more risk taking etc.). That’s why women are *generally* going to gravitate to the ‘I want to be protected/provided for’ role, and men are *generally* going to gravitate to the ‘I want to be the protector/provider’. That’s *why* the Pauline ideal that men are supposed to protect/provide for women originated. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions. Some couples are going to prefer things the other way around, and that’s fine by me. I’ve got no objection to other people arranging their relationships in ways I might disapprove of.
Re: The pleasure is much the same for those two; the need can be even stronger, “I am eight months pregnant, I move at 0.3 miles per hour or would if I knew what miles or hours were, and a cave bear is about to eat me. Fucking great. Oh wait. There’s Throg. Throg has spear. Holy shit! Go Throg! Damn. Thanks, Throg, you rock, or will in 20000 years when that is invented too. Ha! Now we eat YOU, bear!”)
Right, you make a very good point here. Pregnancy is really at the heart of why women generally prefer to be protected/provided for, and men don’t: because women get pregnant, and men don’t. I believe that the complementarian model (and again, I don’t think it’s *always* going to be men in the dominant role, though probably more often than not) has been given to us by divine revelation, but I think that it’s also not difficult to see why it exists, given what we know now about evolution. Maybe behavioural ecology and the Bible lead us to some of the same conclusions.
Re:Is that level of equality more important than happiness? What if it makes both sexes miserable?
Well, no, of course it isn’t more important than happiness. I have difficulty seeing why some cultural liberals are so uncomfortable with the idea of unequal, imbalanced relationships (particularly when these are the same folks who are so tolerant of other relationship choices- gay marriage, childless marriages, religious mixed marriages, etc.). Of course, I don’t really live my life by the goal of ‘trying to make cultural liberals comfortable’, and I’m OK with the idea that my values are sometimes going to be unpopular. Fortunately, I doubt we are ever going to get to the state of perfect equality that you envision (because yes, it would tend to make people miserable).
Gee, I can’t imagine why anyone would be uncomfortable with relationships that are frequently controlling or abusive, or that imply very strongly that women are something less than full adult human beings.
Hector, the “Thog protect wo-man from bear” thing is such bad evolutionary theory I’m having a hard time believing even you believe it.
There is a wonderful Kurt Vonnegut story–the title escapes me at the moment–about the stupidity, and I use that term very consciously, of taking the idea of human equality literally. In the world of that story, for example, the better dancers are required to dance with weights attached to them to make their performances equal to those dancers who are not as talented. I don’t know a single “cultural liberal”–to use Hector’s term–who would subscribe to that reading of equality. Indeed, the idea that this is the kind of world cultural liberals somehow want, or that it is the kind of world that must, by definition, be the consequence of what cultural liberals value, is a convenient fiction that those whose values are more conservative tell themselves to avoid having to examine critically and deal with the (often oppressive) inequality of the social, economic, cultural, and political systems through which power is distributed and enforced.
To suggest that freeing men of the a priori gendered obligation to support women monetarily and otherwise simply because they are women somehow deprives individual men and women of the right to negotiate for themselves whatever distribution of (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) labor they want is to engage in precisely that kind of avoidance.
There is a perhaps much longer discussion to be had about Hector’s appeal to evolution, which strikes me as one of convenience and also a simplistic and reductive misreading of the science, but that is for another time.
Re: Hector, the “Thog protect wo-man from bear” thing is such bad evolutionary theory I’m having a hard time believing even you believe it.
Mythago,
I’m a newly minted biologist (just received my doctorate last month), although I study plants, not people. Speaking as a biologist (and one who’s been to plenty of behavioural ecology lectures), the Throg story strikes me as a dumbed-down and popularized version of what the facts tell us. But it’s no less true, in spite of being rather dumbed down and simplified. More generally, the more we learn about the physiological roots of behaviour, the more the influences on our behaviour seem to be due to genetics rather than ‘cultural conditioning’ or whatever. Not that either ‘determines’ our behaviour, of course, free will is a thing.
Which is another way of saying, if we have to have one consistent cultural message about gender roles that everyone can understand, “Thog protect wo-man from bear” is not a bad starting point.
Harrison Bergeron
Yes. It’s a silly and insulting strawman. One imagines in an earlier generation they’d be making the same argument about racial equality.
“Well, pardon me for believing in the rich variety of the races! Maybe I don’t want to force everyone to be exactly the same! And that’s why segregation is great…”
It’s quite the weird coincidence that evolutionary psychology seems to perpetually dictate the social mores of our grandparents’ generation as right and natural. It’s one of the reasons I have such fondness for Sex At Dawn – not because it’s right (because it’s not), but because it’s a great entry in the, “two can play that game,” realm. I mean, if we’re making up bullshit ‘just so’ stories, let’s be equal opportunity about it, right?
—Myca
Hector:
You seem to be choosing not to engage me, and that’s okay. I just want to point out that we don’t have to have this particular consistent cultural message about gender roles. We can choose a different one if we want to.
There is a wonderful Kurt Vonnegut story–the title escapes me at the moment–about the stupidity, and I use that term very consciously, of taking the idea of human equality literally.
Harrison Bergeron
Indeed, we don’t have to have one consistent cultural message about gender roles. I am not convinced that having one offers benefits to offset the many and obvious drawbacks.
—Myca
::threadjacks::
Did you know that Harrison Bergeron is actually a parody/satire of Ayn Rand-style anti-egalitarian writing?
Hi Richard Jeffrey Newman,
Re: You seem to be choosing not to engage me, and that’s okay
Not really. You asked me *one* direct question, I think, to which I didn’t answer. That wasn’t because I was intended to be rude, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. Rather, it was a very deep question, which requires a lot of thought and care to answer, because it goes to the core of my values, worldview and personal identity.
“…..and so I am wondering if you have ever reflected on why you care so much about having a significant other who is dependent on you, as opposed to one who is a comrade–by which Dell meant an equal partner; and when I ask “why,” I am asking for something a good deal deeper than “this is my personal preference” or “this is the way I’ve been (we’ve been) taught by society.” I’m asking whether you can articulate what you personally–both in terms of what I will call your relationship with yourself and your relationship with others–get out of that arrangement and why you are so attached to it.”
I have thought about it, a lot. As I said, I didn’t *always* hold to a complementary view of relationships: when I was younger and more foolish, I probably held a view much more similar to you, because that’s the milieu that I grew up in. Then I started to think for myself, and I realized how much more beautiful, inspiring, and romantic I found the older idea of relationships- which presupposes inequality, one person being the protector/provider/caregiver, the other the person being protected/provided for/taken care of. I’m sure there are people who are happy in an ‘equal partnership’ type of relationship, with someone who is close to being their equal in social status/income/education/age/background, etc.. It wouldn’t work for me, and I would feel vaguely selfish and immoral being in a relationship like that, but again, other people have the right to make choices of which I disapprove.
As to ‘what I would be getting out of that arrangement’, both in terms of how I relate to myself, and how I relate to other people, that’s again, a very deep question, and I’ll have to ask your permission to respond later at some length. If you want, I’ll respond here at the blog I co-write for. http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com.
Re: To suggest that freeing men of the a priori gendered obligation to support women monetarily and otherwise simply because they are women somehow deprives individual men and women of the right to negotiate for themselves whatever distribution of (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) labor they want is to engage in precisely that kind of avoidance.
I don’t think it’s avoidance. It’s true that cultural liberals do not (as far as I know) want to *outlaw* unequal/complementarian/Pauline/patriarchist relationships (take your pick, I’m not particular), but they do seem to want to shame them and criticize them. Which you, actually, have every right to do: you’re free to criticize relationships with power/status imbalances, just as other people are free to criticize gay marriages, Christian/Jewish relationships, or whatever else. But I think it would be best if we all acknowledged what we were doing.
Again, to flesh out my point a bit more: I’m more attached to the idea of distinct roles, with one person being the provider/protector and the other dependent, than I am to which particular gender fills which role. I’d be happy to separate the terms ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ from their traditional sex-linked roles, and to see men taking on the traditional ‘wifely’ role, and women the traditional ‘husband’ role. I also think, because of innate biological differences, relatively few women and men will want to: *most* women, on the whole, are going to prefer higher-status, dominant provider figures, and *most* men are going to prefer the opposite. But there are going to be plenty of people who don’t want that kind of relationship, who might be fine with an equal partnership or a role reversal. They should, also, be free to find whatever arrangement works for them, and I wouldn’t make a particular model mandatory.
Hector:
Thanks for responding. You wrote:
But this does not really explain why you prefer that kind of relationship. Why is it “more beautiful, inspiring, and romantic?” While I don’t want to put words in your mouth, I am finding it hard to imagine that the answer is not connected to your religious faith, but I would be curious to know–if I am right–what that connection looks like. I ask because you have in your comments so far on this blog gone to some pains to keep your religious beliefs out of your answers. I recognize that you’ve been doing this because you want to argue for/assert things that you think are valid independently of your religious tradition, but it does, for me, make it sound like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, wanting on the one hand to argue rationally for, say, the immorality of a pro-choice stand, while on the other hand holding that position from a perspective of faith, which is by definition inaccessible to reason.
You also wrote:
Well, no. What I think we want to criticize, or at least what I want to criticize, is a system that proposes those kinds of relationship as “the way things ought to be” and levels real, painful, oppressive, and even fatal consequences against those who do not follow that proposition. I won’t deny that there are individual “cultural liberals”–a term which I really don’t like, but which I will grant you for the sake of discussion–who do indeed criticize and shame people in relationships that do not fit an egalitarian model, just as they may criticize and shame people who follow traditional norms in all sorts of other ways, but it is not just unfair, it is a kind of willful obfuscation to generalize from those people to what all “cultural liberals” do/believe.
It’s worth noting that men don’t assume a provider/protector role entirely unconsciously and through genetic/cultural programming, either. The fact is, being forceful and aggressive, demonstrating physical power and a protective attitude toward women, often works. There are large numbers of women who respond positively to that (for a variety of genetic/cultural programming reasons of their own, of course)…. so of course, large numbers of men will try to adopt that role as a successful relationship strategy.
It would be too easy to simply say “men’s attitudes are the problem.” It’s a cultural (partly biological? I dunno) issue in which women are fully as culpable as men.
Pingback: Tuesday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Re: It’s worth noting that men don’t assume a provider/protector role entirely unconsciously and through genetic/cultural programming, either. The fact is, being forceful and aggressive, demonstrating physical power and a protective attitude toward women, often works. There are large numbers of women who respond positively to that (for a variety of genetic/cultural programming reasons of their own, of course)…. so of course, large numbers of men will try to adopt that role as a successful relationship strategy.
Copy Left,
Exactly. I don’t see it as a problem, of course: as you point out, there are plenty of women who want to fit into that role (being protected/provided for/attracted to physical power, etc.) and plenty of men who want to fit into the complementary role, so hopefully they can find each other out and be happy. I’m sure there are women who want more ‘equal partnership’ relationships, and would prefer to be with someone of similar age/income/education/social status/cultural background, etc., in which no one is ‘dependent’ or ‘superior’ to the other. I wouldn’t want to date them, but I hope they find relationships that make them happy.
Re: it is a kind of willful obfuscation to generalize from those people to what all “cultural liberals” do/believe.
Fair point. But there are examples of what I mean on this very thread. See for example, comments #2,#3, #6, #8 and #9, though I’m appreciative that Denise Eliza was much more tolerant in her response.
Hector:
So? I have been on blogs where my view has been the minority viewpoint and run into the analogous kinds of responses. It does come with the territory of having opinions, holding strong positions, etc. and so on, which doesn’t make it any less frustrating or infuriating, but it still does not excuse using those instances to paint with a broad and ultimately misrepresentative brush.
I won’t deny that there are individual “cultural liberals”–a term which I really don’t like, but which I will grant you for the sake of discussion–who do indeed criticize and shame people in relationships that do not fit an egalitarian model
Fair point. But there are examples of what I mean on this very thread.
RJN and Hector,
I think whether such relationships get criticized depends in part on the particulars. I don’t have a problem with someone saying, “I’d prefer to be the breadwinner and have my spouse be the homemaker”, but “I want to be lord of my household (which I take to mean, have most/all of the power in the relationship) and have my spouse be economically dependent on me in order to exert that power” is something a bit different. Wanting to be responsible for one thing (breadwinner) and let someone else be responsible for a different thing, with the side effect of the spouse being economically dependent, seems different to me from wanting the spouse to be economically dependent in order to exert power over your spouse. I think you won’t see nearly as much criticism of the former as of the latter. I think that most of the criticism on this thread is not of the idea of the spouses having different roles, but of one spouse controlling the other. I think you can have one spouse specialize in homemaking and another specialize in earning money (and in target practice and gun maintenance for protecting stuff), and have it still be an equal partnership, but Hector has made it clear that he does not want an equal partnership.
closetpuritan #43, yes, that’s it exactly. It’s the power and control that’s problematic.
Now, I do think that even in the first case, spouses who choose to be the homemaker need to be aware that they’re putting themselves in a risky position by staying out of the job market, because it will be harder for them to earn money later on if they need to. What if Breadwinner loses his job or takes a huge pay cut? Or divorces Homemaker? Or dies? Or becomes disabled by illness or injury? Or what if you thought was just a preference for things running a certain way *does* turn out to be a power thing, and you find yourself in an abusive relationship? In a lot of the conversation about how wonderful it is for moms to stay home with their kids, I see very little about the risks and tradeoffs.
That and, where Hector describes a certain type of relationship as simply a matter of preference, most people who view complementarian roles as superior and ordained by nature or God really do want them to be culturally enforced. Worse in some cases, that idea of how relationships are supposed to be colors lawmaking. (See for example discussions of equal pay where it’s argued that men need to make more because they have families to support.)
Bolding is mine, to indicate that it’s reciprocal. I see nothing unequal in the idea that helping the other person out when they need it (or just when it would make them happy) is part of the glue that holds a relationship together. I think that happens just as much, if not more, in an egalitarian relationship than a complementarian one.
For example, yesterday and the day before, I had pretty crappy days at work. My husband took care of dinner (which he often does) and made it a point to get things that I would particularly enjoy, to make my day better (sweet corn one day, homemade pizza the next). But those little favors aren’t in any way related to our “role” in the relationship. If he has rough days at work, I can do the same for him.
Personally, I feel like having a really rigid division of labor in a relationship provides *fewer* opportunities for those little favors. If one of us is the “homemaker,” then cooking dinner just becomes part of the “job” and there’s no longer anything special about making the other person a nice dinner to make their day better.
I also don’t think that real people’s actual skills, talents and interests necessarily map well to the homemaker/breadwinner division. My husband, for example, would make a fantastic househusband or stay-at-home-dad. He’s a great cook, he’s very nurturing, he can multitask and juggle multiple things without getting too stressed. But he makes more money than I do, and for me to do the “breadwinner” thing, I’d have to move into management, which I’d prefer not to do. He’s also really good at his job, and likes it. On the flip side, I could probably do a passable job of the homemaker gig, but I would *hate* being responsible for all the housework ever, and I would find it a real challenge to get a bunch of boring work done every day rather than mess around on the internet or sit back and read. I’m also *way* too much of a worrier to be comfortable having my job skills get rusty, and would need to be working at least part-time in something career-related for my own peace of mind.
Similarly, I think that “protector” role applies equally to both people in a relationship, depending on who needs protecting from what at the time. Protection isn’t just physical, but emotional and social as well, and modern people are much more likely to need someone to protect their time or their personal boundaries than they are to need someone to defend them from a bear.
Re: That and, where Hector describes a certain type of relationship as simply a matter of preference, most people who view complementarian roles as superior and ordained by nature or God really do want them to be culturally enforced.
I don’t think I ever said I regard it as a ‘matter of preference’.
I do think complementarian relationships are, generally, the best. I don’t think that it always has to be one person, or the other, in charge, though I think *more* women in general are going to want to be provided for, and *more* men are going to want to be the provider. I don’t have any issues though if some particular couple decides to reverse the roles. I *don’t* support egalitarian relationships, and I don’t think it’s merely a matter of preference: I think ultimately they aren’t what most people are going to find fulfilling or satisfying.
That said, I have no intention trying to ban people or shame people away from engaging in relationships that I might not wholeheartedly approve of. Other people are free to make choices I disagree with.
Also, I’m not really looking for a stay at home partner (though, I mean, who knows what the future will bring). I think my ideal situation would be someone who works, just makes less than I do.
Re: Protection isn’t just physical, but emotional and social as well,
Yea, when I say I want to be a ‘provider’ I’m talking about emotionally too- being a source of emotional stability, making someone feel good about themselves, making them feel secure, etc.. That’s why I was hesitant to comment when Kate mentioned trophy wives, because I’m really talking about being a provider emotionally as well as financially.
I *don’t* support egalitarian relationships, and I don’t think it’s merely a matter of preference: I think ultimately they aren’t what most people are going to find fulfilling or satisfying.
[checks back in]
[sees that Hector still hasn’t bothered to read any of the actual research on marriage satisfaction and success]
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
You know that saying about how you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason them into?
And you also probably know a lot of people who can’t understand the difference between, say, “I didn’t like this movie” and “this movie is objectively bad”.
Elusis,
Hector is just giving us truthiness. It’s a perfectly cromulent form of debate.
When I’m Queen of the Internet, people whose argument would not earn them a C or better for an 8th grade essay will be given commenting timeouts in which they cannot open their yaps again until they can demonstrate that they’ve actually read some factual source material.
Hi Eleusis,
Marriages are less likely to work if the woman earns more:
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/about/newsroom/news/2013/2013-02-18-bertrand
Money quote: “While close to 50 percent of wives and husbands report being very happily married, both spouses are 6 percentage points less likely to report a “very happy” marriage when the wife earns more. They’re 8 percentage points more likely to report marital troubles in the past year and 6 percentage points more likely to have discussed separating in the past year. A woman outearning her husband could even doom the marriage, as the researchers report this “increases the likelihood of divorce by 50 percent.”
High-IQ women are less likely to marry:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003137
http://home.uchicago.edu/~mgensowski/research/Terman/Terman.pdf
Women like men with traditional, ‘benevolent’ gender attitudes:
http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1795863
Women prefer high status males (as if we need proof, though?)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1715/2223.abstract?etoc
I think there’s ample reason to believe that relationships are *generally* going to work out best where the man is the dominant, provider/protector/caretaker figure, and the woman is the one provided/protected/cared for. Again, if you choose to arrange things differently, it’s your life to live. I think it’s worth being aware of what average tendencies are like though, so they can at least help guide us as we make our own choices.
Women prefer high-status males:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1715/2223.abstract?etoc
Couples with gendered division of housework have more sex:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/01/29/more-sex-for-married-couples-with-traditional-divisions-of-housework/
Women prefer men with traditional, benevolent gender attitudes:
http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1795863
High IQ lower’s a woman’s chances of marrying (and, probably, childbearing, though I’m sure you’re already aware of that so I won’t cite it), while high IQ correlates with increased marrying success for men. (I’d need to look up number of children as a function of IQ/education for men, as I’m not sure, but my guess is it wouldn’t much correlate).
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/29815376_Childhood_IQ_and_marriage_by_mid-life_the_Scottish_Mental_Survey_1932_and_the_Midspan_Studies
Couples where the woman outearns the man have lower marital satisfaction and higher divorce rates:
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/about/newsroom/news/2013/2013-02-18-bertrand
Other things being equal, *most* women want a dominant man with higher income/intelligence/social status than them. I.e. they want to be provided for/protected/well taken care of, not to be an ‘equal partner’ or whatever.
Shorter Hector: I don’t need to read research. I’ve got some carefully cherry-picked articles to show you, and who cares if they say what I think they do?
Anecdotally, I am always amused when single dudes tell me what women “really” want in a mate.
Mythago,
Where am I wrong about what the studies say?
You may be amused, but I’m afraid the facts are on my side.