Libertarian, history lover who thinks shepherd dogs are super cool. Has a computer science and business background. Working on new messages about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Women who are eager to be First Lady of the United States and take active roles in their husbands’ campaigns are inevitably thrown in the spot light. Ann Romney’s push back the other day against Hilary Rosen’s remark about her “never worked a day,” and her grotesque display of a burning desire for power and Ms. Rosen’s desperate attempt to save her own skin reminded me of what was said about another woman who, too, was eager to become First Lady during the last presidential race.
During a presidential campaign rally in 2008 organized by a local Democrat (I don’t remember the town or who organized that rally), then-candidate Obama quipped in a show of appreciation, “You know, Mr. so and so (the organizer) and I have one thing in common: we both marry up.” The crowd laughed and cheered to that “humorous” remark that apparently expressed the speaker’s humility and admiration for women. Then Obama went on to say how wonderful Michelle and the organizer’s wife both were. I disagreed with the crowd back then and I still disagree now. Rather than humility and admiration for women, a remark such as this actually is arrogant and disrespectful because it patronizes women. Imagine what it would sound like if a female candidate said something like that about her husband. I don’t think it would be far-fetched to say that, if then-candidate Hillary Clinton had said, “You know, by marrying Bill I married up,” people would most likely had thought Bill Clinton was a chauvinist pig and what a pathetic woman Hillary was. And this remark would have been all over the media and her campaign would have been over the following day. By the same token, when a man refers to his wife as “my boss,” “the higher power,” or “the better half,” he is perceived as a nice gentleman who respects his wife. And if a woman should use one of those terms to refer to her husband, people would think she needed to be liberated from her dominating husband.
True gender equality means that a person should be judged based on their merit, irrespective of sex. However, it is reasonable to believe that, when a man states that his wife is superior to himself, using words like “marry up,” boss, the higher power, the better half, he is assuming, and rightly so, that the statement will resonate with the listeners, male and female alike, in a general way. Furthermore, this statement implies that the wife is superior to the husband because she is a woman. Since the male speaker has inappropriately introduced gender into the picture, who is to say he is not actually thinking in his head that men are superior to women, so men can, out of generosity, laugh at this ironic remark?
Some may argue that, due to the ugly history of oppression of women at the hands of men, saying the wife is the boss, higher power or better half is humorous and respectful of women, whereas referring to the husband as one of those things would be adding insult to injury. To me, however, verbally elevating women above men is patronizing, and those men who patronize women, contrary to their words, must not think women are their equals.
Ann Romney, the woman in the Romney campaign who aspires to be First Lady, stresses, “Mitt Romney is a person that admires women and listens to them, and I am grateful that he listens to me.” At this point, I withhold judgment on Mitt Romney’s attitude toward gender equality; yet I find Mrs. Romney’s statement awkward because I cannot relate to it. While all our close friends know that I listen to my wife like no one else can, (albeit not 100 percent of the time), my wife, who has no reason to twist the fact, would tell you, “Eric Mao doesn’t admire or listen to all women, as he doesn’t admire or listen to all men, and I am annoyed by him not listening to me.”
As it has become clear that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president challenging Obama, the gap between these two men’s popularity among women voters has become a hot topic. As someone whose wife is a feminist, I see the media coverage and the ploys both campaigns are using to vie for women’s support are insulting to women’s intelligence. Moreover, what saddens me is that many key figures in both campaigns and the media are women.
You marry someone you admire - admiration is looking up to someone. Looking up to someone is the same as marrying up. When Ann Romney says that Mitt listens to women she is speaking in general and this is an age thing. Women her age went through the movement for women and know that there were always a percentage of men that dismissed women and she is saying that is not true about her husband. That is all she meant - I expect that her speech had more meaning for those of her generation and older not the younger generation. I can assure you that she did not mean to patronize women in any way. On another note I do not see how you can be a real feminist if you need the government to take care of you and do not look at yourself as an individual responsible for yourself - in my opinion liberals have traded the concept of needing a man for needing the government in place of a man. There is still that word "need" which is what I thought we broke away from.
I don't think you are looking at this correctly - When someone loves someone they always look up to them regardless of sex. It might be an age thing as I consider myself a feminist (but not the way libs look at it). I felt that I married up and my husband also feels the same way - I do not see the insult.
David, No problem. Also, good question! My wife is a liberal and proudly calls herself and her friends progressives. I am a libertarian and the only person in her cirle who is not a liberal. It's counter-intuitive, but that is not a problem at all. I joke a lot about politics with her and her friends when she is around. For example, she is PC, so I make un-PC jokes and comments to get a rise out of her or embarrass her for fun. Even when we occasionally get into a debate, it is brief because I don't believe I can persuade her and she doesn't like to debate. I feel I have to joke with her so I can lessen my urge to debate her. I guess I see her strengths and overlook this shortcoming, and she does the sam with me and, over time, we don't see this as an issue at all. In general, what's important to me is not whether someone has the same political views that I have, but rather whether that person's attitute toward politics is similar to mine. My attitude is that I don't take it seriously all the time, and I try not to get angry with people with opposite views; further, I'm curious about differing views, especially opposite ones. When I'm with someone with opposite views, I feel it is more important for me to learn where they are coming from. The best way to do that is let them talk and ask questions but not push too hard. I do that with my wife when she is in a mood to talk. I figure I can't know exactly what to refute in the book I'm planning to write if I don't hear from the liberals first hand. Moreover, my wife and I can mock conservatives Republicans together. There is one thing in politics we can agree on after all.
Eric, Sorry in advance for both a cross-post and a thread-hijack. You stated: "Mitt Romney and I have one thing in common: We both listen to women and our wives--at least Ann Romney claims he does." Question setup: My wife is Republican and I am Libertarian. However, I can live with her, since we are both socially moderate (of different degrees) and fiscally conservative. When we disagree, it is not over facts, but usually about the proper solution to a problem. Almost without exception, when a liberal talks or posts, their argument is always non-factual or contains one or more logical fallacies. In my opinion, they are not capable of presenting a logically defensible position (else they would stop being liberal). I'm curious, (even though it is none of my business) how is it possible to live with someone who is a liberal (without being one yourself)? I can see no true resolution to any political argument.
"There is good woman behind a succesful man". How many times we hear that frase in our lifetime?. We never hear it the other way around.and I see no reason why we shouldn't. Even if they stay home, like in my wife (R.I.P.) case, it was not easy for her to deal with a husband and five kids but she knew she had a man behind her. Today, women are a different breed of succesful human beings with their own ideas and goals. Why not patronize her if she wants to be First Lady?. Why not President? Why not stay behind her and help her realize their dreams? As civilized people, we still can hold the door open for her, be kind to her even if some male chauvinist does not agree. That has nothing to do with patronizing her. No matter how high she climbs the ladder of success, they always look for a man for support. Let be realistic, the game is over.
ROTFL indeed. Now that is humour. Not the kind of thing the kids are into these days, to be honest, but good old fashioned humour, I can't lie. Fucking Women, eh fellas?
Alvin, I told Sue about your comment and she noticed that I don't open the car door for her anymore.
Talking about men and women and patronizing and PC and what used to be called Gentlemanly Conduct (common courtesy), I'm suddenly reminded of the advertising for the new movie, "Think like a Man, Act like a Lady", based on Steve Harvey's book of the same title. In case you haven't seen it -- The guy picks up his date at the door, and heads for the car. He whips out his key-fob and "chirps" the lock. He says, "It's unlocked," and goes around to get in the driver's side. The woman stands there and says, "I don't get in a car if a gentleman doesn't open the door!" The guy peers out the window and says, "You serious?" She says, "Yes!" He drives off. OH that was a ROTFL moment! He comes back immediately and says, "Just kidding", but it's still funny.
Someone who is good at asking pointed questions asked why can't one treat others with kindness without being accused of patronizing. Yes, in general, they can. That said, regarding this particular subject, as James states, some men say those things about wives and women to be PC and to fit in the culture that is hyper-sensitive to male chauvanism due to history. I recognize not all men who say those kinds of things and who laugh and cheer when hearing them mean to patronize woman. The point of my article is the NATURE of these things said is patronization, so if you don't want to patronize women, don't say those things. Acturally, the original title was something along those lines. (I can't recall exactly.)
Excellent points, James! There is more to this topic than what I wrote and you covered it. About the hyper-sensitivity to male chauvanism, I think it is the part of political correctness imposed by feminazis.
Good points! It's strange, I've never noticed any women complain about such patronization. In fact, women often say the same things, and patronize themselves. Yet, clearly, when people say things like this, it can only be because they don't really believe it.... Not that they should believe it. Should men really believe their wives are their better halves? After all, Women aren't expected to believe their husbands are their better halves. While, I think it is patronizing and insencere, I don't blame the men for doing it. I think most men talk like this because they fear being ostricized in a society that is hyper-sensitive to male chauvanism. Most men just want to fit in, and will say whatever they think they're supposed to. Here's another common example of patronization of women: How many times have you heard that women are tougher than men because they can endure the pain of child birth, which men could never do. As if any man has ever had the opportunity.
Your commentary is wonderful. It is insightful, logical, and consistent..and sadly, that it rare. I had similar feelings about this whole thing.