Dude, you were answering the question "funny or repugnant". Your answer was 'not repugnant'.
Sorry for being dense, but I still don't see what that has to do with the Atrios post.
Linking to that article and calling it funny, rather than repugnant, comes off as saying that you agree with the premise of the article. "Yeah, on some level all men want to professionally sabotage their wives. Nothing says status like turning a once-powerful woman into a domestic servant. It's funny because it's true!"
As I sit here writing briefs until three in the fucking morning to pay my mortgage, permit me to not be entertained by the presumption that I'm depriving my husband of the emotional satisfaction he'd get out of seeing me wax the floors.
"Yeah, on some level all men want to professionally sabotage their wives. Nothing says status like turning a once-powerful woman into a domestic servant. It's funny because it's true!"
I don't take that to be the premise. The joke, to take one example, in Lewis saying that he got his wife to give up her career is the presumption that that would have been within his power; it's funny precisely because it wasn't in his power, and he's pretending that it was. The lack of power / delusion of power gap is the funny.
The other joke running through the piece is that this is what it might sound like if men really did want what Lewis describes, and the funny is how absurd it sounds.
In furtherance of my plan to become a kept man, I'd like to find a woman who would take it as an ego boost if I didn't work.
The joke, to take one example, in Lewis saying that he got his wife to give up her career is the presumption that that would have been within his power; it's funny precisely because it wasn't in his power, and he's pretending that it was.
Do you think that it's self-evident that a husband doesn't have the power within a marriage to strongly affect his wife's employment decisions (and vice versa, it's just that the manner in which it is used tends to be different). I don't -- married people have a great deal of power over each other.
The other joke running through the piece is that this is what it might sound like if men really did want what Lewis describes, and the funny is how absurd it sounds.
Think about the broad population reading Lewis's piece -- you're sure all of them are laughing becuase it's absurd that a man would want any such thing, and not because they think that that's what men do want? Lewis is writing this for the "it's funny because it's true" crowd, and you're laughing right along with them. Your reasons for laughing may be impeccable, but Lewis's piece isn't.
It's like telling a racist joke, and then mocking anyone who gets pissed off for being PC. No, we do not live in a world where we can take as an axiom that no one is really racist.
Ben-
Date law students. They'll make plenty, and the hours they're going to work make the idea of a full-time homemaker very attractive. (Or, actually, you have a girlfriend, don't you? Encourage her to go to law school. Nothing says status like a philosopher at home baking you cookies.)
Audience matters a lot, you're absolutely right about that. But, and now I'm just musing, what's the message of the piece to people who do secretly harbor fantasies of control? Isn't the message: you're a fool, and what you want is absurd?
Given that as a matter of fact, Lewis has what he says he wants? Soren is at home, not working. I believe the message is "foolish like a fox".
I'm currently reading Bobos in Paradise, and the question I want answered is "where do you go to develop the self-aware quasi-satirical tone that both David Brooks and Michael Lewis have, the tone that makes you think they're kidding all the way until the end of the piece, when there's no payoff? Or am I confusing style for substance: is Lewis, in fact, the ur-Bobo?
I can't believe you mention Lewis and Brooks together. Brooks is pure bullshit hackery, and Lewis is hilarious.
While ruminating, ogged, thunk on this characterization of Lewis: ""His 1994 essay "The Sheer Force of Female Beauty" turned on how it hurt his feelings when other men stared at the ass of his then-wife, referred to almost solely as "the Bloomingdale model" - wonder why they got divorced."
Lewis isn't Brooks, he's Wolfe, down to the southern WASPY roots.
Ugh, forgive me for not taking Suck's word on what Lewis's piece "turned on."
That 1994 Lewis essay was funnier. It also prompted someone to ask Leon Wiseltier at a party "I have a 3,000 page article on my wife's ass. Might the New republic be interested?"
On "shutting your wife down." I tend to agree with LB that Lewis is not all joke here. He's accurately describing one aspect of our current status culture, and he's not, in fact, condemning it.
Let's imagine an essay "how to manipulate your husband into taking a better job." I can imagine such an essay being very funny. It would also (accurately) describe a social fact: there are women who want their husbands to have better jobs not because they care about them and want them to be happy, but because they want more status and money for themselves. Would one be wrong in finding such an article both funny *and* repulsive? Not really. So too here.
I loved Lewis's I See France series on Slate. Those were genuinely funny, in an e-vil way. This, while funny, was more evil without the dash, or much less dash. It gave me a bit of a chill.
Just read the '94 piece. Funny. (It did make me cringe a little; he obviously does get a bit too much kick out of describing his wife's utter beauty.)
But of course he's describing something real; what I'm mulling is whether he's condemning it or not; that's not clear to me.
Would one be wrong in finding such an article both funny *and* repulsive? Not really. So too here.
You betcha; that's exactly it. I should say that the article is funny -- just because a joke is based on a repugnant idea doesn't automatically make it unfunny.
Look, it's the first thing I could find, but it roughly tallies with what I remember of the brouhaha at the time. (I don't know anything about Suck, but I'll "own" the characterization). I generally like Lewis, but I admit I was turned off by the piece in part because he wrote it.
That said, it's foolish to pretend paired people don't loath their partners for at least some small part of time, and that this loathing isn't expressed along the path of least resistance. I'd be stunned if we (inc. LB) all don't know at least one guy who has been emotionally beaten down by his wife's constant chants of "Why can't you be a better provider" and "You're failing your children". (I recently saw my guy recently, so I'm a bit depressed about this). Is Lewis writing to the angry male? Probably, but I think he's writing to a subset of them: those men in relationships where I wouldn't want to bet on who will be the eventual victor.
It pains me, after having this and this—I don't want to keep anyone from commenting, or even cause anyone to hesitate!—but that's a hyphen, not a dash. (In ac's comment.)
OMG! First on what w-lfs-n should do next, and now this. Am I turning into baa?
I can take it. I treat these things as a matter of style - if I'd written "hyphen" I'd lose the secondary sense of the word dash as style or panache. So I'm willing to live with the less correct version, in order for the added, um, dash.
But of course he's describing something real; what I'm mulling is whether he's condemning it or not; that's not clear to me.
Once you've gotten this far, I think the necessary conclusion is that Lewis is pandering to it, and trying to leave himself a "Hey, I was just kidding" out if called on it. Given this: "he's describing something real", the necessary corollary is that there are going to be a number of readers out there who approach the article with the attitude that 'Of course men want to shut their wives down -- it's natural'. Is such a reader going to have any reason to believe Lewis disagrees with or disapproves of him? No, he's going to read the piece and think: "Hey, funny guy, and he makes a lot of sense, too."
Something that addresses repugnant ideas in a way that a person who holds those ideas can reasonably take as unconditional support isn't mocking, he's pandering.
Now come on: "Lie. A Lot." can't be taken as anything but a send-up, can it?
But in a 'naughty little boy' way that doesn't condemn the ends, just kids about the means.
Ok ok, I'm coming around, but there's still a question of how much things like this: making light of something fraught, help or hurt. Not obvious to me that it's a net hurt--it can be a way to start talking honestly about the issue eg, "well, yes, I would like my wife to stay home...." Here again, audience matters a lot. For some men, it's just obvious that the wife should stay home, other men have submitted to a regime of women working, but are uncomfortable, and this could be a way to have a conversation...
The problem with the Lewis article is that it is truthful. He isn't really joking around. He did all the things he talks about in the article. Tabatha Soren's career is fucked. If I were Soren, I would be pissed.
Lewis may want a divorce, but be too chickenshit to ask for one because they have kids. So he is just going to act like an asshole until Soren divorces him.
There are definately weird power relations that go on in a marriage. These power relations shift as the marriage goes on. The veil over these power relations can be a good or bad thing, but the stripping of this veil in public usually means divorce.
Lewis may want a divorce, but be too chickenshit to ask for one because they have kids. So he is just going to act like an asshole until Soren divorces him.
Oy vey. If I made it seem like there isn't some truth to what Lewis says, I take it back. Of course there is; it's an uncomfortable situation, where social norms and expectations are in flux, actions have many possible meanings, motives are called into question, etc. That's all just another way of saying "funny."
I didn't say it wasn't funny, but I wouldn't laugh with Soren in the room.
I'm not making any net/net claims. Probably many (but not all) men would be better off recognizing that there's a large part of them that wants their wife at home. Probably many (but not all women) would be better off recognizing that they want their husband making money and earning high status. Merely noting this would be (I think) uncontroversial.
One issue that grates is agency: "shuting your wife down" vs. "wanting a wife who shut herself down." Those are two different things.
Another is the sense of tacit endorsement: that it's simply OK to want a shutdown wife or a status warrior husband. Well, I guess it can be OK to want this, but it's not uncomplicated kind of wanting, not least because it messes with one's spouse's life.
I would like to think Lewis recognizes this, and that what is meant as a light touch merely comes off as glib/smug.
I wouldn't laugh with Soren in the room.
That seems presumptuous. It could be funny to her in proportion to how much she finds it absurd.
From another recent Lewis column.
After dinner, we head off to the local park. There we run into a good friend of Tabitha's, along with her dreaded husband. This is the problem with letting your wife go off and make friends of her own: Their husbands become your problem.
Again, funny, and in same way. No?
Hey, you know what's not a laughing matter? Conundrums. It's conundrums. Believe it or not, the word's origins are unknown, so it isn't eligible for the second diclension. Looks like an anas and quacks like an anas, but it isn't Latin.
Another is the sense of tacit endorsement: that it's simply OK to want a shutdown wife or a status warrior husband.
This is my issue. Every bit of tacit encouragement that this pattern is acceptable or standand encourages the men I work with to think I can't be counted on, and that I'm going to quit one of these days. This is the kind of stuff that plays into the whole Larry Summers/where are the female scientists brouhaha -- people in positions of organizational power are less likely to invest a lot in upcoming women, because they know the women are likely to be under personal pressure to drop out.
I'd like to see the desire for a shut-down wife recognized as, uncomplicatedly, a bad thing*. (And equally so with the pressure on men to produce-produce-produce at the cost of their leisure, health, and relationships with family.) To the extent that Lewis is endorsing this desire and supporting those who hold it, I disagree with him and wish he wouldn't. It directly screws with my life.
*There are legitimate questions about how best to raise children, etc., to which one answer is that one parent should be at home. In that case I still think it's generally a bad idea for either parent not to work, but I'm not all that dogmatic about it. All I want to strongly condemn here is the position that a non-working wife is in itself something naturally to be desired.
I think we're all missing the larger point: Ogged hates chicks...err, women...err, womyn... and if the exes are reading this, the list of particulars on the potentials should be directed to my newly real e-mail address.
(How do you do strikethrough here?)
And font size adjustments? I tried to shrink my footnote above with < font size=-2 > -- nothing happened. Admittedly, my HTML is no great shakes, but I think that's what usually works.
This is way off topic. What, I think, makes Lewis' peice both objectionable and honest is that he focuses on status not merely what's 'good for the kids.'
That said, where childcare is concerned, I do think there are desires for 'traditional gender roles' that cannot be written off as merely mistaken. It is simply true that many women would, ceteris paribus, rather that thieier main occupation was taking care of their children full time rather than employment outside the home. It is likewise true that many men would, ceteris paribus, rather have their main occupation be the office rather than child care. So for many people, a non-working wife (or a primary-earner husband) just is something they desire 'in themselves' -- or at least, they want to construct their lives around that model.
Yeah, I wanted to nod to that issue without engaging it -- what pisses me off about Lewis is the status thing. I can discuss the other until the cows come home (or, I suppose, until ogged can't hold out any longer), but it isn't the same thing we were talking about.
Ogged,
Lewis is pretty passive/aggressive. From the second lewis article:
>"Did you have a great Thanksgiving?" he asks brightly when I see him [the dreaded husband]. "Yes," I say. "It lasted 9 1/2 minutes."
>"It's my favorite holiday!" he says. As usual, I can't think of what to say next, and the conversation dies.
The dreaded husband won't be a problem after an LA times article. It isn't that Lewis isn't truthful or funny, it's that he uses a public forum to make points he is too scared to make in person.
Lizardbreath, if this text is smaller than normal, it was done through the use of the <small> tag.
Kriston, thanks for the answer re "conundrums".
What tag did you use given that it isn't smaller than normal?
I used the <small> tag, it just didn't work and I didn't bother previewing. The comments here strip out a lot of tags that might otherwise be useful.
Hmphf -- just more anti-reptilian chauvinism. Mammals can be so cruel.
Will someone please tell me to get lost and write these goddamn motions for protective orders? Whatever my feelings about social policy toward women in the workforce, my feelings about actually doing my job are distinctly mixed.
motions for protective orders?
That's like when you stash someone who's testifying for the state in a nunnery so the mob can't find them, right?
(I was going to start this comment with "COMES NOW LizardBreath", but this is the wrong thread for that.)
Man, what a bourgeois discussion. Still talking like a one-income household is a possibility. While I do think thnk baa's statement that most men have a desire for a stay-at-home wife is thought provoking, it remains, in large parts of this country, at the level of a thought excercise. While admitting audience is important, it's been ignored that for a good portion of his audience, Lewis is discussion a possibility they have no choice of actually actualizing. That the piece is purely theoretical to the audience does lend to the "humorousness" of it, though, to be honest, even if one assumes it's not reprhensible, I don't actually find it funny. It's rather stale.
While I do think thnk baa's statement that most men have a desire for a stay-at-home wife is thought provoking, it remains, in large parts of this country, at the level of a thought excercise. While admitting audience is important, it's been ignored that for a good portion of his audience, Lewis is discussion a possibility they have no choice of actually actualizing.
Okay, I'm out of here in a moment, but this isn't one-hundred percent true. There's a really pernicious pattern among some members of the can't-make-it-on-one-income middle class: Both partners buy into the shut-down wife, status-warrior husband pattern (or one does and talks the other into it). The wife takes some version of a really long maternity leave with the kids, and then when they get around school age, dips a toe back into the workforce because they really can't make it on just one income. But neither one wants to admit she's really working for the money, so she gets a part-time job, and not one on a career track. She makes enough that, with the husband's salary, they're getting by, but straining, and each one resents the other -- she resents him because he's not making enough to support her in the style to which she would like to become accustomed, and he resents her because she's neither pulling her weight economically (she can't possibly -- neither one of them is on board with her actually committing to a job), nor is she a totally available homemaker. Maximum bad decisions and resentment on all sides, all in the service of a fucked up gender-role ideology.
I know a couple of couples like this. In the end state, it's strongly tempting to sympathize more strongly with the men, because they end up working like dogs, but the ones I know were fully on board with wanting to shut down their wives' careers in the first place. People really lose sight of the fact that it's just not all that easy to get back on track when you've gotten off it.
It seems 25-30% of children in two parent families have mothers out of the labor market. source
People really lose sight of the fact that it's just not all that easy to get back on track when you've gotten off it.
I think that's in large part because, similar to an ogged comment on a different post, people structure their lives in ways that don't allow them to make the necessary committment. I know a number of women from my mother's generation who've taken a long time off of work (over a decade), got back in the market, and moved up pretty smartly. But it appears to mean substantially less family time, to the extent that all parties (husband, wife, and various children) are largely autonomous. Are these women unlikely to become CEOs of major corporations? Yeah, but let's be honest, the same's true for their husbands. (USA! USA! USA!).
Ok, I suppose I went overboard with saying it was a merely theoretical issue. That's not what I had in mind, but I realize it's what I wrote. Still, keeping in mind that "should my wife work or not" isn't a real question for most married men adds a new dimension on perceiving this husband-wife interaction which I think was missing from the discussion.
I'm reminded of an NPR piece, where they covered this one county in Texas. It was the only county in the US where the women, on average, made more than the men. The men were largely ranchers (cowboys), and the women ran the diners and schools. NPR interviewed a number of couples. Some guys admitted their wives made more, others felt the need to point out that, counting benefits and all, they pulled in a little more than their wives.
It's my feeling that here in the poorer South we've grown accustomed to two-income families. I absolutly agree with you that patriarchy is still here; men definatly want to make more money. But the notion of forcing your wife to stay at home isn't so prominent, because it's just not a possibility. And if it does get to be a possibility, we should reflect on the reasons why a husband might want to his wife to leave her job. After all, while Lewis is focused on high-powered, big money jobs, that's not reality for most people. We're talking middle-class, lower-middle class, and such jobs. Most of these jobs suck, and many ruin your body (and mind).
I think it's worth reflecting on that here in the rural South there's a long tradition that everyone in the family should work. The move from majority-rural to majority-urban population occured much later in the South, and Lewis is discussing a possibility that's only really faced by urban bourgeois. The memory of when stay-at-home mom was a necessary role that had to be filled isn't so far off down here. Nowadays, the necessary role of the wife has largely transformed from homemaker to wage-earner. The wives now have a necessary role which is not distinguishable from the men, but many men still want to distinguish it, for reasons of status and glory.
All to say that I think the real issue for feminists is equal pay, which is overcoming the patriarchial economic view of our grandfathers, which privledged one sort of production (male production) over another (female). This upper-class strategizing about status and whether their wives work at all is for the privledged minority. And all that does have to do with how I read the article. (Probably also with why I find it drab.)
Well, it was an expression of surprise.
Those are really good points Michael. I don't think the Lewis article itself (as opposed to the piece as a starting point) bears that kind of analysis, so if that's what you're thinking about, yeah, it ain't so funny.
We leftists can be humourless, sometimes.
My vote: in context, more repugnant than funny.
Maybe I'm just guilty for shutting down my wife's career.
jeez, first the veiled conceit thing, and now this? you guys are creeping me out.