> It’s frankly pretty offensive that the author considers men who keep their promises to their wives (e.g. who promise to be home by a certain time and then won’t break that promise for their poker buddies) to be only half persons. It seems to discount the personhood of the wives, or not recognize that the marriage relationship is one between two “persons” who negotiate with each-other.
It's not necessarily that. Have you ever met a person who uses "Oh, my [X] won't let me do that" to get out of social situations? I think that's a better interpretation of what the writer means; it's not where they're keeping a promise to their spouse, but one where they use their spouse to deflect decision making. They make the choice, but claim it's their spouse's decision, to prevent having to explain their decision.
"They make the choice, but claim it's their spouse's decision, to prevent having to explain their decision."
Children are another excellent example, I'd have to put up with an enormous level of extra B.S. in my life if I didn't have kids. "Oh you scheduled an all weekend teambuilding event on the other side of the state? soooo sorry I can't go, who would watch my kids all weekend?" "Whoops the company picnic is on Saturday, thats just too bad we have a soccer game" "I'd love to stay late to attend the diversity committee meeting but I have to pick up my kids at the library minecraft club meeting" "Oh the team is drinking until they vomit and then seeing who gets a drunk driving ticket? Wow that really sounds like fun, but the kids have a scouts meeting tonight and I'm the treasurer and in the leadership committee so I'll just see you guys tomorrow...". Back when I was single and childless I had to participate in all those idiotic primate dominance rituals, but having kids is a get out of jail free card preventing people from screwing around with my private life to prove they're superior enough to me to get away with it. Screw those bastards.
I suspect the business types know exactly whats going on and just don't want to make a scene.
> Children are another excellent example, I'd have to put up with an enormous level of extra B.S. in my life if I didn't have kids.
Heh, very true. And the great thing is, it isn't even a lie—parents really do have better things to do. Not just because the things you have to do as a parent are always that wonderful, but also because the things other people want you to do are often really terrible.
That’s different from keeping a promise to his wife, but it’s also different from being “whipped” (i.e. under the complete control of his wife). That’s just lying to his friends and blaming his wife for it. (Which is also pretty dysfunctional, but clearly not what the essay’s author was talking about.)
I think it’s pretty weird that the only real discussions of gender relations in this essay are (a) husband and wife can be naked with each other, when they wouldn’t go naked in public, and (b) this cheap throwaway stereotype about the controlling wife not letting the hapless guy have fun with his buddies.
The essay would be stronger with the section about the “whipped” guy removed altogether.
It’s not weird to not discuss gender issues in an article not about gender issues.
> The essay would be stronger with the section about the “whipped” guy removed altogether.
I agree — these kinds of examples very much serve as triggers for people with gender-related issues or other axes to grind, and are therefore not very effective as examples.
> That’s different from keeping a promise to his wife, but it’s also different from being “whipped” (i.e. under the complete control of his wife). That’s just lying to his friends and blaming his wife for it.
You may be right. I know more of the "deflecting my decisions" people than the "whipped" people, so I had assumed the author meant the former. But you're probably right that he didn't.
> The essay would be stronger with the section about the “whipped” guy removed altogether.
Agreed. It was out of place, and at best a sitcom stereotype, rather than how real people interact.
It's not necessarily that. Have you ever met a person who uses "Oh, my [X] won't let me do that" to get out of social situations? I think that's a better interpretation of what the writer means; it's not where they're keeping a promise to their spouse, but one where they use their spouse to deflect decision making. They make the choice, but claim it's their spouse's decision, to prevent having to explain their decision.