4 ms·

Excellent article. This paragraph strikes me as a bit odd though: > When you aren't your own master, the rest of the personhood contract breaks down. This is t

by rolux 12y ago

Excellent article. This paragraph strikes me as a bit odd though: > When you aren't your own master, the rest of the personhood contract breaks down. This is true, but to a lesser extent, among e.g. husbands who are "whipped" by their wives. A group of men who want to stay out late playing poker can't reason with their whipped buddy; all of their reasons fall on deaf ears. And thus he loses a bit of personhood within that community. Wouldn't the more obvious example be wives who are "whipped" by their husbands? And wouldn't that example be better at explaining why in most societies, women feel like they're only half a person?

jamesrom 12y ago
Perhaps the author was writing that taking into mind the audience and what they might more easily relate to.
jacobolus 12y ago
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. Or perhaps the author doesn’t himself feel that way, but still finds it unremarkable that this community of poker buddies does (i.e. it’s not worth mentioning how dysfunctional this situation is). He’s so casual about totally dismissing the obligations of a husband to his wife, when any other arbitrary external obligation would have presumably had similar concrete effects. (For example, if the man had to leave to visit his sick parent, help a work colleague, see an old friend in town for the day, or even if he just needed some time alone, would he still be considered a half person?)
- mcphage 12y ago
  > 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.
  - jacobolus 12y ago
    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.
    - teddyh 12y ago
      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.
    - mcphage 12y ago
      > 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.
  - VLM 12y ago
    "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.
- defen 12y ago
  I think you might be projecting here, or something. He doesn't say that they're a "half person" - he says "he loses a bit of personhood within that community". My interpretation is that the situation he's describing isn't one where there's a specific promise to the wife for a particular situation - more like, your buddy who's never allowed to stay out past 10 because his wife is needy, manipulative, insecure, or some other negative personality trait. The perception is that he's giving up his autonomy for "no good reason", unlike the alternative examples you listed.
  - rolux 12y ago
    Yes. My objection though was that in reality, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the wife, not the husband, who gives up her autonomy for "no good reason".
    - defen 12y ago
      That's probably true.
- teddyh 12y ago
  In the concept in being a “whipped husband”, there is not necessarily any component of that husband having made any promise to his wife. Being “whipped” is simply that a person has abandoned all the right to make decisions for themselves, and has deferred all decision-making power to the other party. All this talk about making and breaking promises is all you talking. I suspect that you are projecting.
dkokelley 12y ago
The author doesn't delve too deeply into gender specific consequences of personhood as it is described here, and I think the article is better for it. It's unfortunate that this paragraph was included as an exception, because I think it distracts from the author's point. The point I got was that when people concede agency for their behavior to another (e.g. work, spouse, political/social organizations), they lose personhood. There were better examples for the author to use.
philwelch 12y ago
I appreciate that you're confused by examples that depart from the feminist narrative, but tendentious narratives are not all there is to the world.

by rolux 12y ago

jamesrom 12y ago

Perhaps the author was writing that taking into mind the audience and what they might more easily relate to.

jacobolus 12y ago

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. Or perhaps the author doesn’t himself feel that way, but still finds it unremarkable that this community of poker buddies does (i.e. it’s not worth mentioning how dysfunctional this situation is). He’s so casual about totally dismissing the obligations of a husband to his wife, when any other arbitrary external obligation would have presumably had similar concrete effects. (For example, if the man had to leave to visit his sick parent, help a work colleague, see an old friend in town for the day, or even if he just needed some time alone, would he still be considered a half person?)

mcphage 12y ago
> 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.
- jacobolus 12y ago
  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.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    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.
  - mcphage 12y ago
    > 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.
- VLM 12y ago
  "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.
defen 12y ago
I think you might be projecting here, or something. He doesn't say that they're a "half person" - he says "he loses a bit of personhood within that community". My interpretation is that the situation he's describing isn't one where there's a specific promise to the wife for a particular situation - more like, your buddy who's never allowed to stay out past 10 because his wife is needy, manipulative, insecure, or some other negative personality trait. The perception is that he's giving up his autonomy for "no good reason", unlike the alternative examples you listed.
- rolux 12y ago
  Yes. My objection though was that in reality, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the wife, not the husband, who gives up her autonomy for "no good reason".
  - defen 12y ago
    That's probably true.
teddyh 12y ago
In the concept in being a “whipped husband”, there is not necessarily any component of that husband having made any promise to his wife. Being “whipped” is simply that a person has abandoned all the right to make decisions for themselves, and has deferred all decision-making power to the other party. All this talk about making and breaking promises is all you talking. I suspect that you are projecting.

dkokelley 12y ago

The author doesn't delve too deeply into gender specific consequences of personhood as it is described here, and I think the article is better for it. It's unfortunate that this paragraph was included as an exception, because I think it distracts from the author's point. The point I got was that when people concede agency for their behavior to another (e.g. work, spouse, political/social organizations), they lose personhood. There were better examples for the author to use.

philwelch 12y ago

I appreciate that you're confused by examples that depart from the feminist narrative, but tendentious narratives are not all there is to the world.