So the discussion is spirited (if inclined to the anti-feminist ad hominem) below yesterday’s post on marriage and feminism. One anti-feminist does ask a question that deserves a better answer than I’ve given so far:
You’re in a “passionately feminist marriage”? What does that even mean?
I gave my “row boat” description yesterday, and I’ve written before about the central importance of Ephesians 5:21 and the appealing notion of “mutual submission.” I’m aware, of course, that different people have different visions of what equality looks like. Many who do like the comfort of strict gender roles insist that their marriages also reflect equality, arguing that “equality doesn’t equal sameness.” I’ve seen some of those marriages, seen how they thrive, and I don’t disagree that they can be wonderful. And as we’ve discussed recently around here, it’s possible to have healthy, loving marriages in which BDSM plays an important role. That’s not my vision of domestic bliss, but there’s certainly more than one path to marital happiness.
But what do I mean when I say my marriage is “passionately feminist”? In the eyes of the anti-feminists, that may conjure up an image of a timid and fearful Hugo, walking on eggshells around his domineering wife, asking her permission for everything. Anti-feminists tend to think that any man who embraces real egalitarianism has essentially been emasculated, and has surrendered his capacity for action to his wife. Or perhaps they imagine that we have a little dry erase board in the kitchen, on which we keep track of how much time each of us has spent on domestic duties, in order to ensure that each of us is putting in precisely the same amount of effort as the other. And God only knows what the anti-feminists imagine about our bedroom. Perhaps they imagine my wife is some sort of dominatrix, or that our sexual behavior precludes penis-in-vagina intercourse, as that would indicate our acceptance of the “hegemony of the phallus.” Jeepers, the mind boggles at the possibilities!
So if none of that silliness is true, what is explicitly feminist about this marriage? For me, feminism is both a political ideology and a guideline for private praxis. (Similarly, my Christian faith gives me a “public theology” and a private moral code.) As my beloved brother says, we’re all called to “match our language and our lives”. Fighting for justice and inclusion in the world while being a domineering jerk at home is to have missed the point entirely. Obviously, my wife and I have a private life that is not open for public inspection. But even in our most intimate moments, even in the sacred space of our bedroom, we’re called to act in a way that is congruent with our values.
In the comments below yesterday’s post, some anti-feminist voices speculate that a “feminist husband” wouldn’t stand up to his wife. YiddisheMama implies that I’ve never spent a night on the couch after a heated argument, assuming that I’m some sort of “yes man” who is frantically eager to assuage my wife’s anger whenever it flares. Guess what, folks? We fight in our marriage. (Not physically, mind you.) Sometimes voices get raised. Sometimes we say things we regret. Sometimes, but not often, one of us (and it varies which one) sleeps on the day bed in another room. When we fight, we do so not out of hostility or out of deep resentment but because, if only for a short while, we’ve reached an area of serious disagreement over what the best course of action ought to be for our shared life. What makes this relationship work (in the five years we’ve been together) is not the absence of conflict; what makes it work is that we’re mutually committed to using healthy tools to resolve conflict when it arises — as it inevitably will, even in the best of marriages.
Our marriage is feminist because we practice mutual responsibility for each other. My job is not to “protect” my “dainty and fragile” wife from a cruel external world. She’s not on a pedestal, and she’s not going to break if she’s exposed to the ugliness of the world. Her job is not to protect her “well-meaning but clueless” husband from the emotional complexity of women’s “inner world.” The fact that my wife has a uterus doesn’t mean she isn’t capable of strong and decisive action; the fact that I have a Y chromosome doesn’t mean I can’t be emotionally insightful and nurturing. In this marriage, at least, we take turns handling the “emotion work”, providing reassurance. We each take on the role of Inspirer and Primary Care-Giver as circumstances dictate. Illness and exhaustion take their toll from time to time, and it’s absurd to imagine that in an egalitarian relationship, there is no room for the handing off of roles.
Another classic anti-feminist bromide: egalitarianism isn’t sexy. YiddisheMama wrote, in what surely was more than a small slap at my wife as well as at me:
Normal women want to WORK WITH men like you. We do NOT want to sleep with them.
(Future such attacks on my wife will get you banned, by the way. My family and friends are not fair game on this blog.)
Where sex is concerned, I accept the “diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks” view. But there’s a common misconception that “heterosexual feminist sex” leaves little room for role play and excitement. Newsflash, folks: feminists have sex like a lot of other people do. Sometimes men are on top, sometimes women are on top, sometimes — oh heck, you get the point. I don’t know about YiddisheMama, but one sure-fire way to kill passion in a marriage in my view is to fall prey to any kind of routine. Permit me to be vulgar in the service of making a point: sometimes, it’s nice to have someone you love and trust push you up against a wall and “do” ya. And other times, that same person may need “to be done.” (Let me recommend, tangentially, David Schnarch’s magnificent Passionate Marriage – he talks a lot about this “doing and being done” thing, and it’s the best sex book I know for heterosexual monogamous couples.) Bottom line (pun intended), feminists have sex just like everybody else does: imperfectly and exuberantly.
My wife and I spend a lot of time out in the world. Yesterday, we were both gone from the home for some fifteen hours. We work out, we go to our respective jobs, we volunteer. (We’re both believers that you’ve got to tithe time as well as money.) We’re both extroverts (ENFP and ESTP respectively), and we both spend our days connecting and doing and leading and listening and problem-solving. At the end of the day, we come home to a place that is our sanctuary and our refuge. We take turns, even when we’re tired, washing up and folding laundry. We talk. We go to bed.
Our bedroom is a sacred space, and I mean that literally. Our bed is for sleeping and for sex only. We don’t read in bed. We don’t argue in bed. If we need to argue, we take it outside the bedroom. When we have children — and I’m saying this now and Lord help me if I take it back — they will never spend time in our bed, even if they wail for the privilege. Dogs, when we get around to adopting ‘em, will not be in the bed. I am flexible on many issues, but not on this one. That bed, where we make love together and fall asleep together — and perhaps most importantly of all, dream together is the power plant for our marriage and our lives. I am a better feminist in the outside world, a better Christian, a better teacher, a better friend, a better mentor, a better man because each night I come home and I am spiritually and psychically “recharged” by my marriage. I do the same thing for my wife. She also is out in the world, doing deals and solving crises and handling investments. She is better at what she does because of where she comes home to go to bed — in both senses of the phrase.
Mutual commitment. Mutual responsibility. Flexible, even interchangeable roles. Mutual submission. Mutual accountability. Mutual vision. Mutual dreams, and a sacred shared space in which to dream those dreams. That’s what a feminist marriage means to me.
Thanks for fleshing out the picture of your passionately feminist marriage. Seems it’s not as controversial today as yesterday, or everybody’s worn out from the
But there are other ways to do the marriage, equally in the submission thing that Jesus models, equally passionate, equally feminist. Sometimes ours is less a “row boat” and more a “canoe” in which one is more the power paddler while the other more the rudder controller (but we switch anytime we want). Or, on the really fun days, it’s a “tandem kayak down the white water rapids of the Colorado River with both of us powering on but absolutely yielding control to a higher and deeper power.” Did I say that was fun? Actually, it’s terrifying, as in terrifically humbling.
That was an incredible and beautifully written description of your marriage.
I used to be quite domineering in relationships. From my family dynamic, I internalized my father’s aggression and controlling attitude along with my mother’s sense of responsability. Feminism is actually what has made me reassess how I relate to my partner and strive for a more egalitarian relationship. Feminism is what has helped me change (and is helping me change, because I am still working on it) from a domineering, controlling girlfriend to a partner.
I also want to reaffirm that, in my experience, sex with a feminist or between feminists does not mean that the woman necessarily dominates. It means that I participate and I “work” just as much as my partner (generally in taking turns). It means that sometimes he seduces me and sometimes I seduce him. It means we enjoy various positions and talk to each other about which ones we like and which ones we don’t like. Because the sex rarely gets boring and because if one of us is stressed out and “not in the mood” a little seduction goes a long way, it means that we both have very healthy sex drives.
Does that also mean that you can’t sleep or have sex anywhere BESIDES your bed?
I wouldn’t normally ask someone that, even if I’ve known them as long as you, but I think you’ve opened the floor.
Does the power of the dining room table get diluted if it’s used for dining and occasionally other stuff?
Does the power of the bed get diluted if that’s not the exclusive spot for aforementioned activities?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I completely agree about how a couple’s bedroom should be a sacred and guarded place. In fact, I wrote about that in my final paper for Humanities 1. I got that idea from a Christian purity book — the only one I kept after I donated the rest. It’s called “Authentic Beauty” by Leslie Ludy. My parents have their problems, but one thing they always insisted upon was that we are not allowed to have TVs in our bedroom. When I get married, there will be no TVs or computers or any work-related things in our bedroom.
FuntFuntFunt — there is a difference between dining room tables and beds. I can eat next to nearly everyone, but I will only sleep with my spouse. Beds are sort of a metaphor for marriage. If you have good boundaries with your bed and protect your bedroom from outside influences like work, anger and even children, it is likely that your marriage will be healthy and happy.
I’ve never heard anyone say before that their bed or bedroom is off limits to their child. My daughter is only two but already I have wonderful memories of snuggling with her and my husband early in the mornings. We did co-sleep for almost nine months but even after that, I’d be so tired in the morning when she woke up early I’d just want to get back into bed and always brought her along with me. Also, nursing was so much easier when I was comfy in my own bed. Lots of us have “I’ll never do X or Y when I have my own kids” principles - I know I did about some things I’ve changed my mind on. When she has nightmares or is sick, I want her to be able to feel safe between us for a night if necessary. Just my own thoughts, but don’t feel bad if you change your mind someday… (or not… again just offering my experience.)
Mermade, you missed the insinuation about what ‘other stuff’ might take place on the dining room table but that’s okay.
Yes, my sister and her husband and two year old all sleep together(and there’s another on the way) and they all seem to like it. While they have a happy marriage, I don’t think they have much sex these days, which may or may not tie in.
Jennifer is right about the parenting lines in the sand that get crossed once you actually have a child. I absolutely do not like sleeping with my kids. I enjoy the alone time with the husband, even if we are both just sleeping, and I don’t sleep well with a child in the bed anyway. But, it is definitely easier and more practical to just let them be in there sometimes, especially with breastfeeding and when they are very small. These days, my youngest is two and he’ll come into our bed sometimes in the very early mornings because it’s either that or one of us has to actually get up at 6:30 am on a Saturday. This way, we can at least doze for an hour or so until the older son (five) wakes up and they can play together or watch cartoons for a little while. I’m very much looking forward to the time in the not too distant future when that stops and he can be downstairs by himself, but for now it just makes life a bit easier.
Hugo, I wish you and your wife every happiness in your marriage. And I notice and applaud your writing that you have one vision of a feminist marriage, and that many others exist. That openness to alternatives, for me, represents the best of feminist thought, and a far cry from rigid prescriptions.
Hugo, all the substantive parts of these posts are brilliant.
On the children in bed thing: there is a huge difference between the family bed, which works for some people but I wouldn’t consider for a second, and children spending any time in your bed. I assume given your vegan, exercise, etc. principles that your wife hopes to breastfeed, which frequently takes half the night in the early months. It will be a huge burden to her if you insist that she sit up in a rocker, as my SIL did, rather than bring the child into bed to nurse and tuck it back in the crib in its own room when it’s done. Also we have found that letting them in to snuggle a bit some mornings is quite a joy, and won’t make them think they can come in to sleep if you are firm about that–but that is a matter of personal taste.
BTW, your job as long as she’s breastfeeding, which takes six to eight hours a day for the first several months or longer, is to change all diapers when you’re home and especially to balance the nighttime drain on her by getting up and getting the baby, changing it, bringing it to her in bed and delivering it back to the crib. That’s the best advice we got before our first daughter was born. You’ll still get way more sleep than she will and her resentment level will be way down. (Every parenting magazine talks about the difference in desire between new moms and new dads, and ignores the obvious cause of the unjust distribution of labor in most families. A male friend in a passionately feminist marriage like my own once quipped about one of those articles “if he were doing his fair share, he’d be too tired to get it up too.”)
At the risk of getting a bit off topic, I wanted to pick up on breastfeeding. My wife wanted very much to breastfeed our children, but for various reasons it wasn’t possible.
So I got to feed my children a lot. Some of the happiest moments of my life started when I dragged myself out of bed in the middle of the night, took my son or daughter in my arms, warmed up a bottle and fed them in a rocking chair. I love feeding infants, there’s just something about the way they look up and stare at you as you are feeding them. A pleasure not to be missed, and certainly worth all the yawns at work the next day.
Some excellent points on breastfeeding and beds, folks, thanks.
Hugo,
While I was being flippant, I really would like some real answer.
You’ve established that that the space is only there for certain activities.
Does it then stand to reason that the activities only belong in that space?
If you don’t want to answer that about your own marriage, fine, but do say more about that please.
I’m unsure how there can be genuine passion without feminism. I mean, if you think of your wife as mommy, maid, and semen receptacle, that sort of precludes the sort of deep passion that only equals can have.
That’s mostly a matter of semantics. If anyone who thinks men and women are equal is considered a “feminist,” we’re all feminists, and the word has no meaning. One might just as well define the word “pacifist” to include anyone who generally considers peace preferable to war, all other things being equal.
Maybe I’m bizarre, but the relationship you’re describing simply seems to be a healthy, stable relationship and doesn’t need the feminist label. It’s just two people sharing joy, passion, and responsibility. Perhaps this is just my understanding of what a healthy, stable relationship is, but it seems to be working out quite well for me thus far.
I thought the feminist label bizarre.
Folks, if you find it bizarre that the term “feminist” needs to be applied to a relationship wherein all the gender roles (save for giving birth) are entirely interchangeable, then that’s a sign of tremendous progress. It’s not just joy, passion, and responsibility — it’s a commitment to radical egalitarianism.
If that’s normal to y’all, then I say “hurrah” — and three cheers for the feminists who made that normalcy possible. Without feminism, no such marriages would be possible. Honor those who came before you who gave you the chance to live this way.
Whoa, Nelly. Equality is one thing, and sameness is quite another. Amanda used the word “feminism” to describe the common sense notion that men and women are equal, not the much shakier theory that they are the same. Big difference. The former might have warranted the “feminist” label a century ago, when the debate was over whether or not to extend the same legal rights and protections to women as to men, but that has nothing to do with the “feminism” of today, which takes equality for granted and argues for sameness instead, assuming that every differentiation between the sexes must constitute some form of oppression by one sex against the other. This mentality is precisely what alienates so many of us from the MRAs, as well. I have little doubt that it is also the reason there is so much crossover between the two groups; differentiations between the sexes abound, so once we jump to the conclusion that they’re all about oppression, the question of who is oppressing who is a relatively minor detail.
I really enjoyed the post. It’s nice seeing feminism being looked at from a Christian perspective. My comment got kind of long so I just posted it here.
(I subscribe to the ‘equality of status doesn’t equal sameness,’ mainly because of the Biblical discussion of the diversity within the body of Christ and how it’s necessary for the body to function. BUT I don’t think that is at all incoherent with modern feminism as it is rightly understood).
“…then that’s a sign of tremendous progress.” But is that necessarily the result of feminism? The philosophical foundations of egalitarianism for all humans were laid long before feminism. The further development and spread of these foundations happened long before feminism. Scientific and technological advances alone have narrowed gender roles far greater then feminist philosophy ever could. And there seems to be valid empirical data suggesting that political movements such as affirmative action for women and legislative efforts like ERAs, can I assume the feminist take credit for some of these developments, have possibly hinder a progression that already existed at greater rates.
I think marriage, given its development over time, has had the potential to be equal whether it was complementarian or egalitarian, however in the past, pragmatism or necessity dictated more of a complementarian approach. I not sure or at least convinced that the transition to an egalitarian marriage is largely the result of feminism.
Paul, please, please, take a history course. The right to vote for women, the end of coverture in marriage — all of these were won by women who made the feminist movement their central project, just as slavery was ended by the direct efforts of abolitionists.
Saying that feminism isn’t responsible for women’s equality is a bit like saying that the Civil War had no impact on the end of American slavery.
not the much shakier theory that they are the same.
Of course they’re not the same; even if men and women were, genetically and from birth, identical, the massive, coercive gendered upbringing foisted upon most of them would make it pretty inevitable that they would be very different groups as adults.
What attracts many of us to feminism is a rejection of the shaky theory that men and women are binary opposites, with virtually no overlap in their biology, behavior or abilities–practically might as well be separate species–and that a woman who is ‘like a man’ (or a man who is ‘like a woman’) is a freak, pervert or both.
Hugo, I love this description of a marriage and it is the kind to which I aspire. Now if only I could find the kind of man who could help me make it possible!
I know this is a thread drift Hugo so, of course, delete if you want.
Setorious:
The first of your points interested me: Something that is great about feminism is that it aims for both men and women to be freed from roles which are no longer necessary. Personally, I think we in the West spend way too much money on defence. We could easily pulverise the entire planet a few hundred times over, and I don’t think we’ll ever need to do that (once would surely be enough for anyone). As a humanitarian - which as you pointed out is the root of my feminism - I am against conscription for men or women, and I see this as a feminist stance. So rather than feminists march on DC and demand subscription of women I’d prefer to see us demand less expendature on war full stop and therefore less men dying. Armies should only be activated when absolutely necessary and should only stay as long as their presence is a force for good. And I agree, if it is absolutely necessary to fight to the death over an issue then both men and women should take responsibility. But, personally, I don’t think there is much we need to do that for.
We are coming out of the dark ages and finding new ways to live and surely now the deaths of men in conflict is on the large part an unnecessary tragedy. It is abhorent to me that young men are taught that it is masculine or brave to send themselves to possible death at the age of 19.
So let’s see, marriage can be a rowboat, a canoe, or a kayak.
Then masturbation is………a dinghy?
(That’s for not answering my previous question Hugo)
Amanda, interesting argument. So, either you are a feminist or you think of your wife as a “mommy, maid, and semen receptacle”. I had no idea that my choices to lead a more traditional lifestyle, along with my wife and four children, made me such a callous simpleton.
I also had no idea that contributing where I can to my family and household–which is a necessity-based rather an idealogically considered decision–made me a feminist. Someone has to keep the house clean, help out with homework, drive to swim practice, etc., and it is more than a one-person job. I am not sure that Gloria Steinem had much to do with my willingness to clean up the kitchen.
…even if men and women were, genetically and from birth, identical, the massive, coercive gendered upbringing foisted upon most of them would make it pretty inevitable that they would be very different groups as adults.
And the fact that women can get pregnant and men can not has no factor in this?
As a humanitarian - which as you pointed out is the root of my feminism - I am against conscription for men or women, and I see this as a feminist stance. So rather than feminists march on DC and demand subscription [I take it you mean “conscription”] of women I’d prefer to see us demand less expendature on war full stop and therefore less men dying.
The only problem is that we do have conscription for men. Now I am not going to waste anyone’s time by the old argument as to whose “fault” this is. But the reality is that men can be conscripted and women can not. So women do, in fact, have a privilege. The draft was a major factor to men in the USA from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
Even today, my university distributes a pamphlet from the Selective Service entitled “A Man’s Got to Do What a Man’s Got to Do”, i.e., sign up for conscription or else lose financial assistance and perhaps even going to jail. There are other penalties in the works.
Now supposing the government were to issue a pamphlet entitled, “A Woman’s Got to Do What a Woman’s Got to Do”, wherein women had to register for possible service as comfort girls. I think we might all be rightly indignant about this. The fact that draft registration is not much of an issue shows just how well society accepts the fact that men are expendible.
Stop the thread drift, people. Remember, acceptance of the basic tenets of feminism is a pre-condition for participating in the thread.