IN THIS PREVIOUS entry, a feminist executive laid out her vision of the egalitarian dual-income marriage, stating that it is more romantic, fairer and less stressful than the traditional model of a working husband and homemaking wife. There is nothing new about what she says. It is now utterly mainstream. Many accept it and many others believe the traditional marriage is no longer economically possible. Of course, believing it is no longer possible, regardless of whether or not that is true, ensures that it is no longer possible.

Here, a reader responds to our feminist commenter’s specific points.

James P. writes:

Maggie Fox writes,

“I stand by my statement that power corrupts. I have personally experienced the temptations of power. How easy it is in a position of power to arrange matters to suit one’s own convenience! How easy it is to become arrogant, or give short shrift to people who need things from you!”

This is the tedious feminist view that everything is a function of power relations. The idea that a man who is a sole provider has – or wants – a slave to exploit is simply weird. A normal man regards the women he loves as a treasure to be cherished, not as a resource to be utilized and arrogantly commanded. This is even more true if she is the mother of his children. And if he does want a female slave, how is it possible to obtain one in a world where no-fault divorce and restraining orders are readily obtainable? What does it say about women that a great many women at elite colleges want to be stay-at-home mothers? They are certainly smart enough to avoid being put in an unfavorable power position, if they so desire, yet apparently that’s exactly what they want. Perhaps they disagree with the view that such a relationship corrupts the husband and is bad for both parties.

“Indeed, if the world were entirely patriarchal, I think many men would fall into temptation not only in their roles as household leaders, but in their roles as leaders of society.”

In a patriarchal society, most men have no power at all. Men who worked in farms, factories, and offices before the 1960s were, in the vast majority of cases, totally subject to the will of other men. However much power they might have had as “household leaders”, they were not “leaders of society”, they were followers. Therefore any “temptation” they might have felt to exploit their supposed power was beside the point, because in reality they had no such power to exploit.

“It is easy for even the best-intentioned men to put women’s needs and concerns on the back burner (or remain blind to them) when there are no women or few women in the legislature, the courts, the corporations, etc.”

Yes, men never have wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, or female friends, so naturally men remain completely oblivious to the needs and concerns of women if there are no prominent women in the workplace.

When a man is solely responsible for meeting a woman’s actual needs, he will care more about her than if he is not. If a woman has her own income with which to meet her needs, then he will assume he doesn’t have to worry as much about her needs than if she has no income. In fact, the basis of the complaint here is not really about women’s needs, it is about their wants. In America in the 1950s, women’s needs were unquestionably met. Certain women, however, wanted more, and could not have cared less about the ultimate impact on the family or society so long as they got what they wanted.

“I agree wholeheartedly that marriage should not be a business, nor should it be adversarial. That’s precisely why I object to the traditional model of marriage. The quid pro quo of traditional marriage is inimical to trust and intimacy.”

This is absolutely wrong and flies in the face of thousands of years of experience in which people have experienced trust and intimacy in the context of traditional marriage. Where does she even get the idea that a traditional marriage involves a quid pro quo? A division of labor is not the same thing as a quid pro quo.

What is inimical to trust and intimacy is the knowledge that your partner can divorce you at any moment for no reason whatsoever, and – if you are a man – that your wife can take your house, your wealth, and your children with her when she leaves. These days, any man’s marriage and financial future teeters on the unstable foundation of female whims of the moment. That she has a job does not protect him at all from being blasted emotionally and financially if that is what her emotions lead her to do.

“Men, as sole providers for wife and children, face enormous pressure, which often causes them to resent their wives. Women have difficulty relaxing in their own homes as they struggle to care for everyone else, a situation which also breeds resentment.”

A man is under enormous pressure whether or not he is the sole provider (and likely he is the larger income if he is not the sole one, so he is not exempt from pressure in a two-income family). My suspicion is that women who work are more resentful than women who do not, since the former tend to imagine, wrongly, that they are doing most of the housework as well as holding a job.

I notice she says nothing about the needs of children in any of this. What they might need is apparently beside the point.

“Men, as the “leaders,” are hampered in sharing worries or uncertainty with their wives.”

A man will feel hampered sharing worries and uncertainty even if his wife has a job. And he is right to feel hampered. It is the man’s job to be strong!

“Women, in turn, fume over decisions imposed on them by their husbands, who generally have the final say.”

What is she talking about? I don’t know a single marriage in which the husband is the sole provider and “has the final say.” They discuss important decisions, tell each other their views, and reach a consensus. Ms. Fox is once again reacting against what she imagines a “traditional marriage” must be rather than observing the reality.

“Neither spouse truly understands or empathize with what the other is going through.”

Plenty of women in two-income households make exactly the same complaint – “my husband doesn’t understand me or know how I feel!” – so this isn’t very convincing.

“I don’t think the fact that women have difficulty leaving these marriages is an indication of their success.”

What difficulty? A woman can pull the plug just as easily on a marriage where the husband is the sole provider as on a marriage in which he isn’t. If women don’t leave these marriages, it’s because they don’t want to, i.e., the marriage is succeeding.

“While I would never claim my own marriage is perfect or wholly immune from strife, I think the two-income model is less likely to thwart romance.”

No, it is more likely to thwart romance, because both of you are exhausted by work and the commute instead of just one of you.

“From the outset, I was able to marry for love without worrying about my husband’s earning potential.”

Uh huh. I bet she married a starving artist, too.

“The pressure of supporting our family is alleviated by the fact that we each have the other as a safety net.”

The problem with this theory is that nowadays, most two-income families have no slack in the budget, and thus losing either income is a disaster. Pressure is not alleviated because they need both paychecks to pay the bills.

“We understand each other’s problems at work because we have both had similar experiences.”

I don’t bring my work problems home, I leave them at work.

“I have never resented our family decisions because I have always felt that I have equal power in decision-making. “

Every stay-at-home mother that I know of also has equal power in family decision-making. Heck, most of them have more than equal power. He has the paycheck but she calls the shots; so much for the power theory of marital relations.

“Certainly, I would never begrudge a woman’s choice to stay home, though I question how many would freely choose this if not for cultural and religious pressures. But I do object to ideologies which promote this as the way to go.”

It is abundantly clear that Ms. Fox is the prisoner of an ideology that maintains “women should work.” I question how many women would freely choose this if not for the pressure of this ideology as well as economic pressures. If we lived in a world where a man could be the sole family breadwinner, I think a lot of women would be just fine with that.

Her ideology also promotes a weird view of marriage and a weird view of men. The feminist view of marriage and of men is self-evidently destructive of marriage and of relationships between men and women.

Please follow and like us: