Here’s one I haven’t discussed.
Not unexpectedly, most of the photographs on my desk are of my wife and me, including a formal wedding portrait. Time and again, students and colleagues come in, look at the pictures, and say “Your wife is beautiful” (or something similar). And after a long time, I’ve grown very comfortable saying “thank you.”
Years ago, I was at a wedding (remarkably, it was one of the few in which I wasn’t involved as either groom or minister) with an ex-girlfriend of mine. I introduced my date to some friends, and one of them, an older woman, blurted out, “Hugo, she’s very pretty.” She said this right in front of my date as if she wasn’t there, and I said “thank you.” When my date got me alone, she punched me firmly in the arm and asked “Why did you say ‘thank you’? Are my looks your accomplishment to be praised? Some feminist you are!”
Ouch. There’s no question that within a great many different social circles, it is considered customary to offer praise of a woman’s looks to her husband, boyfriend, or father. It often doesn’t seem to matter whether the praise is entirely justified, either. Ever since I started dating, I noticed that it seemed standard protocol to make a remark about the perceived prettiness of the woman in my life. I note that with my fourth wife, I get the remarks more frequently because she is truly striking, but by now I know enough to know that this particular compliment is almost a cultural universal.
I understand why a visitor to my office might remark that my wife “looks lovely.” They can’t tell from looking at her picture that she’s brilliant, that she’s got an absolutely brutal left hook that can floor most men, that she has hundreds of phone, account and credit card numbers memorized in her head (it’s part of her job). They can’t tell that she’s a great salsa dancer or that she is a marvelous cook or passionate about Gabriel Garcia Marquez. They can tell that she’s lovely, and so that’s what they remark upon.
But saying “thank you” to a compliment paid to your wife or girlfriend about her looks is at least somewhat problematic. The friend at the wedding who praised my date’s prettiness directed that praise at me, and there seemed to be an implication then — as there often is now when folks comment on my wife’s pictures — that I am to be credited with having succeeded at something by “landing” a “hot” woman. One of the things that feminists work very hard to reject is the notion that women’s looks are currency for men to measure their own status. The phrase “trophy wife” or “arm charm” resonates painfully. Ask women whose husbands or boyfriends have dumped them because they couldn’t provide sufficient “hotness” to boost the ego of their male partners. Using women’s attractiveness to measure a man’s status is as disastrous as it is (still, sadly) ubiquitious.
On the other hand, I can’t give everyone who compliments my wife’s looks a lecture. Most of the time these days, especially since she and I have been married, I do say “thank you”. I say it not because I believe that my ego has just been boosted, but because I take very seriously the idea that my wife and I are joined together. We have become a team, a union of flesh and spirit. Her triumphs are my triumphs, my triumphs are hers. A compliment to either of us is a compliment to both, an insult to either is an insult to both. That doesn’t mean I need to fight all of her battles for her. That doesn’t mean that we don’t retain a considerable degree of autonomy even within marriage. It means that in terms of how the outside world perceives us, we are a unified front, standing shoulder to shoulder. (This unity, however, does not impose an obligation on my wife to look a certain way; if she gains a huge amount of weight, for example, I am not entitled to use the “but we’re a team” card to badger her into looking good for my benefit.)
On the other hand, I’m very reluctant to praise the looks of a male friend’s wife or girlfriend, at least until after I’ve gotten to know her much better. When shown a photograph that requires a compliment, I usually say something (fashionista that I am) about clothing or accessories. “What a great suit”, somehow, seems far less sexist than “She’s a knock-out.” Perhaps that’s not a distinction everyone sees as meaningful, but it works for me.
Please share your thoughts.
UPDATE: I’m bumping this up from the comments, because when I wrote this post, I gave the impression that I only say “thank you” when someone compliments my wife’s looks. What I almost always add afterwards is “I think so, too.”
And of course, perhaps the most feminist response would be the “I think so, too” without the “thank you.” But sometimes etiquette and ideology conflict and etiquette wins; I was raised to thank everything that moved.
You touch on a very deep area for men. At a very basic level, we have what I think is an instinctual desire for beautiful woman. But overlayed on that is something else entirely - a competitive side to us that makes us judge ourselves, and judge other men, by the beauty of the women we win.
And such competition does us terrible damage, because we pursue the outwardly beautiful rather than someone who offers far more in terms of pleasure, intimacy and happiness. I think some men never get free of this trap. They chase a series of trophies and always wind up deeply disappointed.
It’s quite ironic actually. It seems to be about sex, but it really isn’t. Sex is about touching, not seeing. Our eyes mislead us.
You could always say something like “I’ll be sure to pass along the compliment” or “I’ll let her know you said so,” thereby making clear that you assume that, had your wife been present, the compliment would have been directed to her. That way you are not claiming ownership of her loveliness, but still acknowledging that a compliment has been paid.
Just a thought.
By just saying, “Thank you,” you’re copping out a bit, Hugo. You could at least acknowledge her personhood by saying something like, “What a nice thing to say, you really should tell her,” or, I’m sure she would appreciate that.”
I do frequently add those in. I’m sorry to imply that my saying “thank you” was ALL that I said, as it isn’t — it’s my first (but not sole) response.
Most of the people who make the compliment are folks who will never meet my wife, of course.
I often say, after the thank you: “I think so too.”
Two things:
1) Although I generally get the notion that as a married couple, you stand as one. Still, I don’t see how you justibiably take credit for your wife’s looks any more than you are to be credited for her phenomenal memory or left hook. Those are personal traits. If someone said, “you two make a lovely couple,” that’s a different story.
2) What of compliments about one’s children? People frequently tell me that my daughter is beautiful right in front of her, as if she’s not there. I’m uncomfortable saying “thank you” because I don’t feel like the compliment is directed at me. But what to say? Sometimes I’ll say, “Yep, she’s a keeper” or “And she’s funny, too” or something stupid like that, just so I don’t have to say “thank you.”
This has happened since she was very young, and I’ve always sort of worried that it sends the signal to her that the first thing people notice about her is her looks, and that therefore that is the thing she should most care about. I think that’s one reason I try to dismiss the compliment altogether.
I think “I think so too” is much less of an acknowledgement of her personhood than “I’ll let her know you said so” or “I’m sure she would appreciate the compliment.” It leaves more room for accepting that it’s your accomplishment to “have” her rather than accepting a compliment in her stead.
Also, your girl at the wedding could have thanked the woman herself, even if the compliment was directed to you. I completely understand the need to acknowledge a compliment - even if you don’t necessarily believe it to be so - and “thank you” is an easy way to do so. However, fake compliments that you have to either accept with a thank you or call out and make a big deal out of are not an unusal tactic for passive agressive people to use. It’s a similar sort of situation, though in this case I don’t think people are purposefully putting you in a position to choose between your feminist ideas and the “polite answer.”
Emily, trust me, if I tell someone “I’ll let her know you said so” or “I’m sure she would appreciate the compliment”, I’m likely to be lying. These compliments are pretty frequent, and no, my wife isn’t necessarily delighted to hear that some random colleague thinks she’s pretty. I don’t go home and say, “Darlin’, guess how many people complimented your picture?”
Dishonesty is a no-go here, which is why the “I think so, too” works well for me.
I prefer my partner’s response: “What’s ‘pretty?’”
I think we should, in general, respond to complements graciously,in the spirit they are offered, and I think Hugo has it about right. If we want to start confront attitudes that reflect objectification and competition, I think we’d do better to react to the negative side - the smirks and cruel jokes over lack of attractiveness - when they are offered.
>The friend at the wedding who praised my date’s prettiness directed that praise at me, and there seemed to be an implication then — as there often is now when folks comment on my wife’s pictures — that I am to be credited with having succeeded at something by “landing” a “hot” woman.
What you did was to succeed at something that most men strive for, but fail to accomplish. You married a beautiful woman. Therefore you receive compliments for accomplishing that. Similar to how parents receive compliments on having a beautiful daughter.
On the topic of why men seek out beautiful women:
“Physical appearance, as voluminous research has shown, provides a wealth of cues to a woman’s health, fertility, and reproductive value. Contrary to long-held beliefs among social scientists, standards of beauty are not arbitrary or infinitely culturally variable. Evolutionary psychology provides a powerful theory for the evolution of standards of female beauty—whatever observable cues are linked with fertility (immediate probability of conception) or reproductive value (future reproductive potential) will evolve to become part what humans find attractive in females. These include cues to youth, such as full lips, smooth skin, lustrous hair, and a low ratio of hips to waist (WHR). They also include cues to health, such as clear skin, absence of sores, white teeth, and symmetrical features. Beauty, in short, is in the “psychological adaptations of the beholder,” and men value physical appearance because of the wealth of information it provides about a woman’s youth, health, and hence reproductive capacity.
Men universally wanted mates who were younger than themselves, confirming the hypothesis that men desire this powerful fertility cue. This proved to be the strongest sex difference in the 37 culture study. …” From The Evolution of Human Mating by David M. Buss
What about a simple, “Yes, yes she is!”
Fred, please be joking.
A woman’s “fertility” (ps–NOT linked to any of the features quoted–when was this “study” done?) must *first* and *foremost* consult her WANT to have children–not some physical feature. Even if such features *were* linked to fertility it still has nothing to do with the woman’s desire to reproduce–and then what does it matter?
That quote is blatant misogyny.
Dear Hugo,
This is something I like to call ‘a good problem’.
Love,
Funt
““Physical appearance, as voluminous research has shown, provides a wealth of cues to a woman’s health, fertility, and reproductive value. Contrary to long-held beliefs among social scientists, standards of beauty are not arbitrary or infinitely culturally variable. Evolutionary psychology provides…”
BARF. Come on, Fred. Surely you’re old enough to know better. You can be very healthy and very young and unable to reproduce. You can be in your 40’s, getting your period once every three or four months, and conceive (oh yes, I have a couple of friends who are “menopause babies”). Besides which, standards of attractiveness vary from culture to culture, and change through the generations.
When are we going to get past this junk science?
Personally, I consider it an affront to the man, as if he would be either incapable of attracting or undeserving of a “pretty” partner, or that he should consider himself lucky to have found someone “pretty” who is wiiling to condescend to spend time with him.
Chad, either way you slice it, the situation winds up being all about the man. The woman, although she is the person being talked about, is entirely excluded from the discussion.
That’s the problem.
“When are we going to get past this junk science?”
We can get past it when we understand it. The study is talking about “cues” that favored some inherited behavior tendencies. Only a tiny percentage of men that have ever lived have been gynecologists. Before society and culture evolved to the point where mating choices could rely on accurate and complete medical information, males that made choices based on these slightly predictive cues had a slight reproductive advantage that accumulated over time.
“The study is talking about “cues” that favored some inherited behavior tendencies.”
Exactly. CUES, not facts - cues that are interpreted according to the sexual and cultural mores of the ’scientists’ doing the study. Sorry, no go.
And, uh, ‘inherited’ behavior tendencies? Behavioral tendencies are also influenced by the cultural norms of the group being studied, particularly when you’re studying sexual behavior. Evo psych is the scientific equivalent of evaluating and elephant by only looking at its tail. When the big picture goes out the window, it’s easier to push an agenda. That’s why it’s called junk science.
Folks, can we get this back on topic NOW? If I’d had had the chance I would have definitely deleted the second part of Fred’s post for thread drift. Don’t feed the trolls, people.
On the other hand, I can’t give everyone who compliments my wife’s looks a lecture.
You don’t have to give a lecture — but saying “I would say thank you, but I had nothing to do with it” with a chuckle gets the point across in a socially acceptable way.
Hugo,
I apologize. I did not realize that my comments were off topic and that I was acting the troll. My purpose of the second part of my post was to help explain the reasoning of my comment in the first part of my post.
If you don’t want me to comment on your blog anymore, let me know and I will follow your wishes.
- Fred
Funny thing is: When I sent our wedding pictures to my family in Germany who couldn’t attend, the first comment I got back is “Wow, he’s so handsome!” And that is notwithstanding the fact that my now husband has a PhD, is an associate dean at a larger university, and an accomplished scholar. You can see pretty or handsome. You can’t see smart. I believe that people want to say nice things–sometimes, they just don’t know how to phrase them.
Of course, you want to know my reaction now, right? I said, “yeah, we picked that suit and the tie out together.”
But I do like the “I think so, too” suggestion of earlier in this comment thread.
Evolutionary psychology provides a powerful theory for the evolution of standards of female beauty—whatever observable cues are linked with fertility (immediate probability of conception) or reproductive value (future reproductive potential) will evolve to become part what humans find attractive in females.
Yes, and all this is why there are no people who are considered unattractive in the world. We’ve selected them out over millions of years. Right. And of course, everyone knows that people who are deemed as unattractive never, ever get married or have children. Ever! And this is why things that are negatively linked with fertility, like having zero body fat and tiny hips, are attractive to some men.
Yes.
It certainly seems strange that they would make this comment to you when she’s standing right there. It would seem a bit less problematic if they would say such a thing to you when she wasn’t there; otherwise, why wouldn’t they just compliment her directly? I think a good response would be to feign surprise and say, “Er…oh! Well, why don’t you just tell HER?”
Hugo, you should have known that at some point if you posted something like this, some believer in evo psych was due to raise that “science”’s ugly head…
I think your recognition of what is going on here is very sharp…I’m not sure what I would say, if I were a man, if it were me and my wife were standing there. It would make me feel quite awkward.
What I am curious about is whether, perhaps consciously, you were inspired to write on this topic by the comment I posted earlier in reply to your post on Dennis Kucinich. Namely, that while a lot of the admiration for him as a presidential candidate seems to stem from his stance on various issues, it has been considerably enhanced, as has his whole status for that matter, by the fact that he is now married to a woman most people find not only pretty, but strikingly beautiful, i.e., drop-dead gorgeous. And they are at least as impressed by his ability to have won this woman, who is both more conventionally attractive than he is and considerably younger, for his wife as they are by anything that comes out of his mouth. Suddenly, it’s as if each of his opinions and ideas is further gilded by the fact that it is the opinion or idea of a man who was able to win for himself this caliber of woman…
Although in the case of Elizabeth Kucinich an argument can be made for the woman being intelligent and accomplished in her own right, this appears to be but icing on the cake for some Dennis Kucinich admirers. Chances are he’d be able to bask in her reflected glow even if she were a high school graduate who worked as a bagger at the local supermarket. The currency of youth and beauty still trumps the currency of intelligence and achievement…but when you consider that Elizabeth Kucinich combines them all, you’re talking about Dennis benefiting from some very serious positive “arm-candy effect.”
Can that effect boost him all the way to the White House? Maybe not. But it has succeeded in making him a highly popular “progressive thinking-man’s candidate” (with the emphasis on “man” in this case)…and I can’t help but feel that part of this is because men look at him and see a message: “Guys, you can be as short and homely and aging as all get-out, but if you have the right ideals and the right ideas, you can STILL have a hot woman on your arm. Just look at me.”
I’m not meaning to pick on Mr. and Mrs. K. to the exclusion of everyone else who might be used as an example. It’s just that I see men who are progressive thinkers in every other aspect of their lives still buying into the envy of other men’s “arm candy,” and acquiring or wishing to acquire “arm candy” for themselves, and sometimes it’s enough to make me despair that we’ve only come as far as this.
Actually, Debra, I was inspired by a series of comments about my wife’s picture.
But as for the Kucinich thing, I do think it adds to his cachet in the eyes of some, but that doesn’t mean he chose Elizabeth for that reason. And it’s an old and tired thing that shows up sometimes on the left, this habit of suggesting that the right politics can get you laid by hot chicks. The ugliest of all anti-draft slogans in the ’60s was, of course, the vile “girls say yes to guys who say no.”
i’ve always seen the “you’re pretty” as a default compliment when meeting people. so what? would you rather they go, “dude-you smell”? it’s an appropriate comment, you don’t know anything about this person other than what you can see-so why not say they look pretty? besides, that line relaxes people and gives them more confidence and allows you to get to know them better.
but hugo’s right if said compliment is meant to praise a man’s “fishing” skills. that’s bad, very bad. naughty sexists!
Aside from the “your girlfriends so pretty” stuff, my boyfriend’s female co-workers like to say stuff like “your girlfriend was looking so thin last night”. I usually make a grossed out face when he tells me they said that stuff but frankly both of us are really confused about how to deal with it. They are all thinner than me so it sort of does a job on my head especially when I have to hang out with them all at these monthly formal dinner things.