CLARK COLEMAN WRITES:

I think the best things that can come out of this whole interesting discussion about a reader who praised his wife in terms that were uncomplimentary to men are:

1) Men can realize that women do need verbal appreciation. Men who are blessed with wives who are traditional mothers should especially express their appreciation, as their wives do not get a lot of that from the surrounding culture.

2) Just as cutting someone else down is not a good way to make yourself feel better (a lesson we try to teach our children at a young age), putting yourself down is not a necessary or desirable component of a compliment paid to another. A man should praise his wife for all that she means to his life, which can be praise that is entirely focused on her attributes and her contribution to their family, without describing himself negatively. I think that almost any woman would say she thrives on the praise and appreciation, not the self-deprecation. Yes, self-deprecation is a valuable aspect of humor, and of humility, but Randy went way over the top in this respect.

3) If a man does feel the need to throw in some self-deprecation, fine, but deprecation of all males is not the same as self-deprecation.

I think you read Randy’s remarks and picked out the elements of praise and appreciation that you liked, while passing over (on your first reading) the problems, because the rarity of praise for the traditional wife was what caught your eye. I understand completely. However, even as a man who has no use for the various men’s movements, my first reaction was negative as I read all these statements about how Randy cannot help his kids with the homework, etc. I can help my kids with the homework, and do so when needed, much more often than my wife does. If he cannot, my condolences to him. That was my reaction, and I think that a lot of male readers had stronger reactions than that.

I believe you said that, if Randy’s remarks were not acceptable in public, then they were not acceptable in private. I agree, in the sense that I don’t really think that it helps the culture as a whole for men to deprecate all other men in private. Even though it is “private,” it is repeated by so many men to so many women that it is part of the general relationship the sexes have with each other. Picture the situation if, “in private,” we deprecated all white people, all Catholics, all Protestants, all fill-in-the-blank people. It is not a good behavior.

Laura writes:

I agree with everything you say. I did not take seriously Randy’s comments about the inabilities and immaturity of men, and should have. In the one parenthetical comment I initially offered, I joked that he implied men were not mature until they were elderly. Bear in mind that, despite everything I have written, I will be skewered for posting this for a long time. Here is what a commenter wrote at The Spearhead men’s site this weekend:

I hope none of you will want to crucify me for derailing the thread with such a long comment, but I feel this is an important message. With all the strife between different factions of the manosphere and attempts at self policing, I want offer up a truly worthy target. Somebody needs to publish a hit piece on The Thinking Housewife. Now maybe I’m the only one here stupid, idealistic and trusting to be surprised and disappointed by this latest display of fanatical white knightism. Call me pathetic for feeling this way (and you’d probably be right) but I truly wanted to believe that Laura was “a friend a men”. Shame on me.

The hit pieces have already been written. I have already been attacked at The Spearhead for having false consciousness and being a “female supremacist.” This commenter here is “surprised and disappointed” despite the copious space I devoted – and the many hours of work – to the objections of those who found Randy’s comments unacceptable.

Randy’s statements, though good-hearted and well-intentioned, were offensive in the sense you mention. There are so many negative things to say about women today, and I have said my share of them. I was eager to post something positive. I hope more conservative men will come forward and match Randy’s praise of traditional women without going overboard. We need our defenders among men.

    — Comments–

Randy B. writes:

For the absolutists, I was not tearing myself down, I was poking fun at myself and men in general, because we (just like women) can make some goofy mistakes. In my specific case I did mature late, and I have witnessed many other men who have matured late. In some cases it worked out well and in others it was too late with too little effort.

Rest assured, I am competitive amongst what passes for real men today, but I am not going to bore you with specifics.

Laura writes:

The maturity issue is a complicated one. Obviously older men marry younger women for a variety of reasons.

My husband is ten years older than I am.

“Do you think women are more mature than men?” I asked him, apropos of this discussion.

“Oh, definitely,” he said,  without looking up from his newspaper.

“What do you mean?” I said.

“Well, women have more of a sense of the future,” he said.

“Do you realize you are a female supremacist?” I said.

“Besides,” I said,“There are plenty of ditzy women who never mature.”

“It’s true,”  he said. “There are many exceptions.”

John E. writes: 

You said: 

Bear in mind that, despite everything I have written, I will be skewered for posting this for a long time. 

As I see it, you have never been skewered on the Spearhead or any other MRA blog. They cannot skewer what they cannot reach, and it will remain so, as long as your arguments remain tempered with sound reason and charity as they have in the past. I admit that it is disconcerting to read those words on the Spearhead, but it no longer surprises me. They often present legitimate grievances, and then obscure their legitimacy with as great a jadedness as is ever found in feminism. There is certainly a nihilism present there, if not blatantly in the articles, then certainly in the comments allowed. It is a nihilism that justifies my own hatred because I have been hated, and it is brazenly irrational and destructive, not even covertly so.

Laura writes:

Thank you. Maybe “skewered” is the wrong word. Roasted and then made into a broth might be more like it.

You say, “It is a nihilism that justifies my own hatred because I have been hated…”

There is a serious strain of revenge in the men’s movement. No matter how much evil feminism has inspired, and it has indeed inspired evil both toward men and toward women, there is no justice in revenge or misogyny.

Randy B. writes:

Men in this argument are doing what the feminists do routinely; sacrificing and eating each other for the sake of tearing down the enemy (women from their perspective); it is nihilism’s direct reflection. I see it specifically as a sad statement of our combative and contentious separation of sexes. With this immature and uninformed emotional stance, it’s a miracle that we are able to perpetuate our species.

David writes:

I didn’t bother to follow the link to The Spearhead — I really don’t have the stomach for a website of that sort — but it makes me sad to see the way your posting Randy’s uniquely expressed appreciation for his wife was taken wildly out of proportion. It’s quite true that anyone who takes the time to read the content of your blog, particularly the links permanently posted on the right-hand side, will see that you are in fact a “friend of men” and, of course, a friend of women, as well. You do not deserve the “skewering” they’re giving you over at that website. Randy, too, has gotten enough trouble for his position. It is time to lay this subject to rest. We are not mortal enemies. We are, whatever our disagreements, children of God, and we share a common destiny. We should never let this fact leave our sight.

Any extended and serious discussion of the relationship between the sexes is bound to include, on both sides and for many reasons, the expression of anger, resentment, fear, and hurt. Accordingly the tone of discussion on these sorts of websites is self-indulgently negative, caustic, cynical, and even hateful, despite the fact that many of the participants in these discussions are openly Christian, and as Christians we worship Love. Although I don’t always agree with you, Mrs. Wood, I can say your website is in some respects a refreshing counterpoint to websites such as these. You always speak in a way that is civil, reasonable, fair, and balanced. Moreover, you do at least occasionally attempt to uplift the spirits of either women or men. As you stated, “There are so many negative things to say about women today, and I have said my share of them. I was eager to post something positive.”

Let’s indeed say something positive! Is there not an endless supply of negative things we can say about everything? It is not only women who can inspire our inner critic. Men can, our coworkers can, our jobs can, our finances can, our families can, the political environment can… if we want to be miserable, if we want to be unhappy, there is plenty of negativity upon which we can feed our minds. But I want to be happy. Don’t you? We are made for happiness. Does it make us happy to discuss, at length, all the ways the sexes have wronged each other over the centuries? Or to discuss the flaws and failures of others, as if our salvation was guaranteed?

We should express more humility, love, gratitude, appreciation, kindness, and forgiveness.

Besides all this, we must have peace. There is so much wrong in the world. For example, yesterday my friend’s daughter, who is a freshman in high school, told me about a very popular young lady, a classmate, who has anorexia. She eats nothing for lunch each day but a piece of lettuce and a cracker. She also leads a very promiscuous lifestyle. The girl pretends to embrace all of this – it’s cool to be thin, to eat very little, to sleep with guys – none of this bothers me, and if it bothers you you’re weak, you’re a loser. But of course she is dying inside, broken, starving for love, waiting for someone to care. The travesty is that no one protects her from any of this. Evil has its way with her, and that’s just the way it is.

And we can see these examples of predatory evil everywhere we turn. It abounds wherever we cast our gaze. But we must have peace. This world is not our destiny. Life is larger than what we see each day. It is larger than our problems and larger than our solutions. Ultimately, the answer is not traditionalism. It is not conservatism. It is Christ. Christ alone saves us. Christ alone answers our need for meaning. Christ gives us everything.

So let’s be kind to each other. All of us are human, male or female, conservative or liberal, and all of us are intended for a destiny beyond our comprehension. If we must speak of problems, let’s analyze them only to the extent that is truly useful and then we will think constructively of solutions. Our time is limited. Let’s not waste it with stupidity.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I get the feeling that Randy B. is kind of awestruck by his wife. I could be wrong. But, I found his comments very endearing. After all, there are men who write whole sonnets for the woman they love.

Sometimes jest and a joking mockery might be more useful – such as slightly making fun of Randy over-the-top infatuation of his wife and bringing it down to earth again. Randy seems not to be able to help himself. Let him have his indulgence, but gently mock it rather than diminish it. After all, we DO need men like Randy too.

N. writes:

The Song of Solomon is a book that husbands and wives should read. I know of Christian counselors who urge newly married men and women to do so, in fact. But no one suggests ever that they should read it to each other via a public address system in a crowded mall, or even loudly to each other in church. These tender, loving words are to be shared privately, to be heard only by the beloved husband or wife and God, Who delights in the righteousness of His creation. There is, in short, a time and a place for everything.

Randy B.’s note might well be received by his wife as a tender, graceful expression of his love. But the readers of a website, who know very little about him, are going to see it through the lens of their own lives and experiences. They cannot hope to understand or appreciate the full depth of what he is saying, because ultimately _it isn’t for them to read_. It arguably should have been a private communication.

Now, you wrote: “If such words are objectionable here, if they are a sinful submission to women, they cannot be spoken  anywhere.” Without going in to the theological issue of sin
and submission, surely there are words that Randy B. and his wife might exchange that are not for the rest of us to hear, or read? Surely there are words that you and your  husband say to each other that are simply too private to post to the website where the whole world can see, in cold text shorn of all other context? And therefore, while it may be inappropriate for Randy B.’s words to be said on your website, do you see how it does not at all follow that they cannot be spoken anywhere? Indeed, that some of the most cherished words are likely to be those that can be spoken _only_ in the most private of situations, and never, ever be seen on a website?

Again, a time and a place for everything. The cold, ordered text of a website is not necessarily the best place for the “the verbal ornamentation that keeps marriage and relations between the sexes pleasant” as you so well state. I hope you can see this, not as a chastisement, but as a suggestion.

Laura writes:

I don’t know why readers “could not hope to understand” his note. He was saying his wife has made his life better and he used wild exaggeration, low humor and deprecation of all men to make his point. Understanding the depth of it was not the problem. I imagine the reason he did this had very much to do with the content of this site, which takes regular shots at women and makes some very serious and shocking generalizations about them, such as that they lack political judgment, hide selfishness behind sentimentality and are prone to narcissism. He was saying, in effect, “Even though I read this site, which makes shockingly negative generalizations about women, I still appreciate my wife.”

We have fully explored how he went too far. I never for a minute took him literally in all he said, but many people did. I meant that if his words were not true, and were insulting to men, they should not be spoken even in private. [CORRECTION: I’d have to go back and reread what I wrote to recall at this point exactly what I meant. But I’d rather move on to other things.] This is not a “cold, ordered” website, but a site about personal matters and relations between the sexes. The thoughts men have about what their wives do are absolutely relevant. If someone would please write a modern version of the Song of Songs, I will post it immediately.

N. writes:

The use of the term “cold, ordered website” has to do not with the content, but with the type of communications involved. Text is a narrow channel of communication, no matter how expressive or even florid it may be. Humans communicate as much nonverbally as verbally. Suppose that all participants in a discussion from your website were sitting around a room, or at table. We would hear words from each other but also tone of voice, as well as see gestures and posture. It is likely that we would all know when someone is joking vs. serious, or being sarcastic, teasing, sentimental, etc. from the combination of words AND tone of voice AND gesturse AND body postures, etc. This is a very ‘warm’ mode of communication.

Take that same group of people and put them all in different places on a group telephone call. Now we cannot see each other, so all the gestures and other body language are gone. It is not quite as obvious when someone is joking vs. serious, and so forth, but we still are likely to understand each other well enough, because of tone and inflection in speech. It is not as ‘warm’ as person to person, but because we put so much emotive content into our tone of voice, it is still ‘warmer’ than pure text.

The same discussion carried on only in ASCII text via email becomes much more difficult. It is a real challenge to try to add tone to a note like this, although some talented writers can do that. However it requires a lot of time and rewrites; few of us rewrite email. Because there’s no gesturing, no leaning forward or leaning away, no tone of voice, it is all too easy to misconstrue a casual remark as something serious, or dismiss a serious one as something flippant, and so forth.

That is what I mean by “cold” in terms of the web site. Text-only is a cold medium of communications. It is a narrow channel that carries much less information than person-to-person voice, and far, far less than face to face interaction.For example, consider the Song of Songs: would you rather have your husband read it to you one-to-one in a private place, over the telephone, or send you a copy in email?

Surely you can see the difference between the three modes of communication?

Laura writes:

Okay, I understand what you mean. And, honestly I don’t mean to be argumentative.

But you have to understand that many women are very sentimental. That’s just the way we are. Words of affirmation from men, not the repulsively phony gestures and words of Roissy but the sincerely expressed appreciation of a spouse or friend, are very important. I’d take a personal variation on the Song of Songs on a billboard. How it would be delivered would be secondary to that it is delivered (though I’d much prefer it in written form.) At the beginning of this discussion, one of the male commenters asked, “Why don’t women praise men in this way?”  Women should praise men, individual men and men as a group. They absolutely should. Part of the reason why women don’t do this as often is perhaps because men don’t need it as much.

Randy B. writes:

I find it confusing as to how my original post could be perceived as offensive as communication best kept in the privacy of the home. At no point did I include pillow talk, was there any sexual connotations, or other such detail that could have been offensive. 

I sit here scratching my bald melon.

Laura writes:

I think the point N. was making was, why broadcast praise for one’s wife?

Randy B. writes:

Then, consider me enlightened. That being the case, and assuming I accept the general community standard, is it then only approved to give my wife direct compliments in the dark and privacy of the coat closet? If that is the approved standard I am in big trouble, because I always compliment my wife at work, in front of my kids, at Softball games, at PJA gatherings, at the Skydive Club, the shooting range, when talking about how good the last prepared meal was, etc. No wonder she is so abusive and treats me like a dog (hey, at least I enjoy my humor), WAY too many compliments.

 Laura writes:

That being the case, and assuming I accept the general community standard, is it then only approved to give my wife direct compliments in the dark and privacy of the coat closet?

You are hereby banished to the coat closet whenever you intend to deprecate men in general.

By the way, I have never known a woman peeved by too many compliments from her husband.

Please follow and like us: