About That Funny Story…
October 3rd, 2006 | by Craig |So, what did you think? Was it funny at all?
Were you at all offended that the man saw his wife as an animal to be trained? That instead of seeing her as a person, he considered her an object to be molded to his own desires?
Yes? No?
Whatver you thought, take a couple of minutes and read the original and tell me what you think.
9 Responses to “About That Funny Story…”
By Dani on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Well, actually, he didn’t really think that Craig. At the very end, she uses the techniques on him. And so, that changes the whole tenor of the piece as he realizes he’s just a a little bundle of Skinnerian behaviors, too.
I will, say, that reading his version vs. the original, that I thought they were both being idiots (before I got to the end, that is), but for different reasons. When I read the first article, I thought he was just out to jerk people’s chains by writing an article that would have been straight out of the 19th century. A few white men really did believe those kinds of things about blacks, and to some extent, women. There were numerous (poorly done) scientific treatises devoted to showing how inferior they were. The most eloquent exposition of this trend was written by Dr. Gould in his series of articles from the ’70’s written for Natural History Magazine and compiled in the bestelling-book “Ever Since Darwin,”
The woman’s article is almost as offensive, because she thinks it’s okay to belittle men. Hang around a bunch of college professors, or liberal lefties from the Northwest, and you get the same presumption of idiocy about conservatives or libertarians. They just assume EVERYONE with any sense at all shares their viewpoints.
However (before I read it to the end), I would have accused her more of ignorance than the guy, who was deliberately trying to rattle someone’s chain. In my viewpoint.
I am old enough that when I was younger, people said right in front of me, that women don’t become doctors, or if they do, they should be pediatricians. I once had a woman tell me I was taking a man’s spot in medical school, and that was bad because he would be supporting a family. My medical school OB/GYN department chair refused to accept admit ANY married women “because they would have babies on us.” How ironic. He eventually noticed all the good candidates his attitude was losing him. By then I had moved to another residency program. When’s the last time a salesman seriously asked you if your wife approved of your purchase? This happened to me here, at the Subaru dealership and Holliday furniture, respectively. I just left my card and walked out in both cases, hoping someone would learn a lesson. Had I been a feminazi, I could have done a lot worse. Interestingly, the saleswoman at Gene Rockman, who got my business, said “Oh yeah, everybody knows Holliday won’t hire women sales staff.”
This is not to say that people can’t joke around, after all, that was my main line of defense and offense all those years as usually the only woman in the surgeon’s lounge. Essentially calling someone a sexist dumbass in a friendly way is a whole lot more effective than getting one’s panties in a twist and complaining to HR about harassment. But, I was in a position of authority, too, which made it easier. And- here is the key- you have to know your audience, and they have to know you. The fact that I regularly called a former partner a Godless liberal atheist, with affection, is an example of that.
Also, women & minorities have got to get a grip. Things were way crappier in the past. Elizabeth Cady Stanton would roll over in her grave to see what some women are griping about now. These whiners trivialize the real wrongs that have, and do occasionally, still go on.
Stepping down from the soapbox, now.
By Dani on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
And yes, I know Godless atheist is redundant, but I also used to call him a Godless liberal communist, or how ever many right-wing insults I could pile on, because it sounded better.
By Amber on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
For about three seconds I was insulted. Then, it occured to me: people do things they are rewarded for. Pretty simple. Do I think we’re animals? No, I don’t. I don’t think the author does either. This is simply a creative way of saying, “hey, here’s a way for everyone to get what they want!” It could just as easily be argued that the spouse being “trained” is actually the one doing the training. A relationship between people as well as between people and animals is made up of the same components — how is this mutually beneficial for both of us? Whether it’s a dog biscuit of a happy marriage, it’s all about what we each get out of it. It’s not good, bad, or otherwise, it just “is.”
By Dani on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
You’re right, Amber.
The problem arises in what constitutes a reward. For some, honor, heaven or just being in the news is a reward. That’s when things can go seriously wrong.
By Craig on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, ladies, for taking the time to read and comment.
I don’t know that I was trying to prove a particular point. I think Dani hits it best saying that they’re both idiots.
Seeing your spouse as someone you have to “train” to behave the way you want misses (in my mind) the point of marriage entirely.
I just hope they don’t have kids. Shock collars probably won’t be too far off!
By Red Marilyn on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Isn’t this just a humorous account of conflict avoidance? Sounds good to me.
By Amber on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
You’re right Dani, unfortunately that’s a problem I don’t think anyone can solve.
Craig, I see your point, however, I think that you and I are looking at the word “train” differently. If the Spousal Unit asked you to do something that you didn’t wanna do like, let’s see, hand wash the delicate laundry; but you did anyway, and then she made you your favorite dinner and then the next week you did it again, is that trining? Yeah, kind of. Is it demeaning? Nah, not really. Everyone gets something they want. It’s an unspoken compromise.
By Craig on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Of course it’s training, in a way.
But in a marriage, your motivation shouldn’t be to get rewarded, or to avoid punishment. You should do something because you want to ease your spouse’s burden.
“Training” implies a master/learner relationship, which is where I get stuck.
There are rewarding ways you can show your appreciation to each other for changing the oil, or washing the unmentionables, which does reinforce the good behavior. But you do it because you love each other, not because you want to train them to behave the way you want.
By Laura on Oct 13, 2006 | Reply
“You should do something because you want to ease your spouse’s burden.” I agree totally. But was that the relationship this woman was in? It seems she’d told him she didn’t like to be crowded at the kitchen, but he continued to do it. She’d asked him to put his dirty clothes in the laundry (as, presumably, his mother had done before her), and still he would not.
If you have communicated your needs and wishes to the other party, and they are ignored, what are your options? They tried counselling; no help there. She could have left him and the marriage, but she wanted to stay.
I think she used these techniques as a last resort, and that in a very real sense they saved her marriage. That she didn’t resent it when she found him doing it to her shows that she didn’t see it as demeaning.