Interesting take on Liars, which I enjoyed (as I gritted my teeth at the tragedy of Jane's plight and how frequently she tried to believe in the misanthropic John). I'd like to believe that most men are not as awful as him. Even if some are, I wonder if the predicament of modern marriage (the dissipation of romance in the face of unrelenting non-romantic demands, the crushing lack of time for self-discovery and renewal) is a function less of traditional gender roles (and their deviant offshoots in the manosphere) and more an existential economic reality. Unless you're very wealthy, there's just not enough time (or energy) to live a "good life." Or maybe that's a delusion -- the "good life" -- that strivers (and especially time-starved writers) use as motivation to keep going? The top of the Sisyphean hill. I don't know the answer, but I appreciate your essay for its thoughtful insights and reminding me of Liars, which was an enjoyable hate-read. -)
Thank you so much! Appreciate it! Definitely too much to do and too few hours in the day contributes to these problems. I think Manguso’s ire is directed at men who make women confront that reality alone.
As someone who reads, writes, and thinks about gender a LOT, I appreciate your note about class difference. What’s the old joke…? Everyone in the U.S. thinks they are middle class. Hardly!! I can’t even imagine a life that would allow me to stay home with my kids if I choose. We are societally much closer to older rural communities when everyone worked in order to survive than we are to the false 1950’s stereotype of Father Knows Best. Instead, Father Works Hard and yet Mother must work hard as well to achieve even the palest reflection of the American Dream. Whoever ends up folding clothes and doing carpool duty is additionally exhausted. In the meantime, the vast majority of American money is in the hands of, like, 5 people.
I liked your article and agreed with so much of what you wrote. I was in an extremely abusive marriage for over 6 years in my early 30s, then left him because he didn’t want kids and am now in a loving marriage for 32 years with a man I admire and respect. It turned out my husband had a daughter so that solved having kids for me and we’re very clear on what we each do in our home. I had a problem with your disdain of maga men, though. All the men I know who are involved in maga are respectful, hard working men with a true enthusiasm for our country. The liberal men I know tend to not be very masculine, are somewhat narcissistic and very self involved. Just my experience.
Thanks so much! I wasn’t trying to draw a distinction between MAGA voting men and liberal men (for sure, those don’t come off well in the book, either!) I was trying to draw a contrast between the version of masculinity valorized by the MAGA influencers and podcasters and officials (which I think is often facilely “masculinity” and neo-pagan in ways that make it an easy scapegoat for liberals) and the version of masculinity valorized by traditionalists pre-MAGA (which I think is laudable, and evinced by many MAGA voters). We may have to agree to disagree, but that’s the line I was drawing in order to take issue with Filopovic’s conclusion that the latter men are bad, too (I don’t think they are !)
We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve had many experiences with the men I described. I have had a father, 2 step fathers, 3 brothers, 2 step brothers, a lot of boyfriends, many male friends, gay & straight, and 2 husbands. Many of those have been close relationships. Of course I have opinions about their behaviors towards me. Are my opinions colored by my interactions? Yes. Whose wouldn’t be? But if it makes you feel better to call me judgmental & biased, yay you.
It's possible that your experience may have more to do with where you live, and whether these men were in the majority or minority of their surrounding culture.
That’s certainly one perspective however I grew up in and live in Southern California. I went to 11 different schools. I’ve lived in conservative neighborhoods, liberal neighborhoods, gay neighborhoods, upper class neighborhoods, middle class neighborhoods, lower middle class & gang neighborhoods (Riverside, West Covina, San Marino, Studio City, IslaVista, Goleta, West Hollywood, Hollywood, West LA, Santa Monica, North Redondo Beach, Long Beach, South Lake Tahoe, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Morro Bay). I also lived in Northern Nevada a hour from Carson City- extremely rural (we were on well water & septic tanks) & in Mexico for 3 years in a little town near Manzanillo. Personally I’d say I’ve lived in or next to almost every kind of neighborhood you can imagine 😊
Is the author seriously suggesting that the ability to keep your pantry organized is an inherently feminine ability because of evolution? What about all the women that are terrible at organizing pantries? This argument is like saying that since most people who are under 5'4" are women, people who are 5'7" are inherently masculine. Obviously a ridiculous statement.
When we make the argument that men and women are "naturally suited" for their roles and THEN assign masculinity and femininity to a bunch of random tasks and personal qualities that are clearly culture-bound (and not even consistently gendered within our own culture) it doesn't serve the argument. Men and women exist on an overlapping spectrum for most traits. You should believe this whether you hold traditional or progressive values, because it is true.
(Full disclosure: I am a woman in a traditional marriage who believes in both God and evolution, and who cannot keep her pantry organized to save her life!)
As for the main point of the essay, I agree with it. Marrying someone selfish and awful will make you miserable. Traditional ethics are a useful framework for discerning whether someone has a moral compass, whether they are honorable and trustworthy and kind. Having an ethic that celebrates selfishness is a way to train men to be jerks.
However, I have met many, many men, on every part of the socio-political spectrum, who claimed to believe this or that grand ethical statement (egalitarianism, feminism, honor, providing, servant leadership, headship--whatever conservative or progressive buzzword you like), but were still selfish and awful in their intimate relationships!
The author is in a good marriage simply because her husband is not a jerk. I am very happy for her. Unfortunately, there are men out there who claim to believe the exact same things as her husband, yet are also jerks, so there's really no shortcuts or universal prescriptions. Marriage is built between two specific and unique individuals, neither of whom can be reduced to their biological sex or theoretical value system.
100% agree with you! Overlapping bell curves. Not the same bell curve. So, on average, yep, women care more about how things are organized. To a person? Nope! Nothing is. But on average. And yes, there are 100% guys who say the same stuff as my husband but turn out to be jerks. But you’ll up your odds of not marrying a jerk by not considering guys who are SELF-EVIDENTLY jerks but call themselves feminists (ie, the guy in the book, clearly, BEFORE the protagonist married him!) My point isn’t that my value system will ensure you don’t marry a jerk. My point is that the protagonist/author’s total lack of any coherent, mature value system will increase the odds of that, because your selection is on false criteria.
Totally agree. I just get super bothered when people are like "women are like ___ and men are like ___ because of evolution!" That kind of categorization creates a lot of shame and distress for the men and women who are naturally on the other side of the bell curve--who are also part of evolution and/or God's creation!
At age 43, I wish I hadn't had the life experience of knowing soooo many self-evident jerks in both my conservative and progressive circles! Gah! So many divorces and miserable marriages!
When I met my husband, he never would have called himself a feminist (seems pretentious for a man in any era) but he sincerely supported his female friends in their creative endeavors, and read books and listened to music by both women and men. He also had a lot of close long-time female and male friends who adored him, so in my mind that was the best sign of someone who is capable of maintaining a good relationship. And (as you explain very well) marriage and parenting is a harrowing ordeal even with a good partner.
Anyways, thank you for taking my comments in good spirit. There isn't a lot of room for nuance these days but I'm here for it. :-)
Yes, absolutely! Men and women are different on average, not to a person. Liberals like to deny the former, or say it’s all social construction. Conservatives like to deny the latter, or say it’s all reverse social engineering. Doesn’t make for good convos. I wrote a piece critiquing the other side you may find interfering: https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-lives-of-the-feminists/
Are we though? Are women more likely to keep things organized? It is an interesting opinion, but when I think of institutions dominated by men—the military, the political arena, and others, it seems that men are more likely to be organized. The most extreme and terrible example might be fascist dictatorships—men marching perfectly in line to impose hyper-organization and regulation on the citizenry. I think you’d enjoy Klaus Theweleit’s book, “Male Fantasies,” about proto-fascists in Germany before WWII, and how threat propaganda relied on idealizing the clean cut, organized man vs. the messy, menstruating woman closer to untamed nature than to civilized organization.
Thank you! I will check that out! I think that while men are more likely to be hierarchical and militaristic in macro ways, women are more likely to be organized in domestic, micro ways for the simple reason that women are on average more conscientious than men. Not to a person, of course! I know many organized men and sloppy women! But on average.
Good review--thanks for sharing. Aside from the main points, the Sarah Manguso quote: "My life became archetypal, a drag show of nuclear familyhood"--isn't that a mixed-up, thought? Is it an archetypal or is it camp? Put another way, if it's a drag show marriage it can't be an archetypal marriage. I don't think it can be both. It seems like a first draft that needs a little editing to make its point sensibly.
This was very thoughtful and well done. I especially liked this, "First, we wives bring on a lot of this “mental load” ourselves by virtue of our own higher domestic standards. " In my marriage (we divorced) my wife could never relax, take a break. That was my perception. Another perception, was a couple friend that had more than twice as many children as we did, and just 'gave up' on keeping the house tidy at all times. They wisely realized that with five children the house was never going to be tidy. Also, they drafted the children into clean up brigades.
In my marriage, I was as happy as I thought it was realistic to be, with everything that 'we' had to do. My marriage ended because of my wife's treatment of our adopted son. A whole other matter.
But I believe I did my best, as your husband seems to do. And despite how the marriage turned out, I have no regrets or guilt.
Also, I believe that modern feminism is largely to blame for the dwindling number of marriages.
One more thing, I don't think taking a shot at President Trump was needed at all for this review and article on marriage. Seems to be pandering to a certain programmed, IMO, mindset. Yeah, he's had multiple marriages as I have, but seems to have a good one now with Melania. You should have left him out of this.
Very interesting piece. Readers might also be interested in Emily Gould’s piece in The Cut from last year that reviews Liars as well as other contemporary “divorce novels.” She has a similar take as this piece, but from a more left wing, secular viewpoint. Her point is that all these novels are telling her husbands suck, but then she looks at her own husband and thinks, you know what, he’s actually a pretty good guy. This comes in the midst of a mental breakdown when she’s thinking about leaving her husband:
Excellent, intelligent, and fair essay/review, in my opinion. I would take issue with only one part, when Grace Matthew quotes an exchange in Anne of Green Gables between two characters debating the worthiness of a possible husband: "...Anne complains: 'He certainly isn’t the wild, dashing young man Diana used to want to marry. Fred is . . . extremely good.' Marilla replies, 'That is exactly what he should be. Would you want to marry a wicked man?'" Grace Matthew then calls the following response by Anne "bemusing yet alarming:" “'Well, I wouldn’t marry anyone who was really wicked, but I think I’d like it if he could be wicked, and wouldn’t.”' Grace Matthew then comments, "Marilla concludes their conversation with the only reply any right-thinking adult could offer: 'You’ll have more sense someday, I hope.'" Personally, I see Anne's point. I mean, how good or faithful is a spouse, if there is no temptation or possibily to be wicked, by which I mean to be, for example, unfaithful? It's sort of like praising a man's pacific nature, his aversion to all violence, etc., when actually he's afraid of it. A man who fights and overcomes the urge to cheat when he has regular possibilities with attractive women has more value than a man who doesn't cheat because he can't. A man who declines to punch some jerk, while knowing the punch will land, has more value than a man who declines to punch because he doesn't know how and fears retaliation.
Thanks so much! You have to see the scene in context. It’s a Christian framework - taken as a premise that everyone is tempted to be wicked. Anne, in her immaturity, wants someone who lives on the edge, full of restless melancholy. Not a good marriage prospect. 😂
Yes, I probably have to read the scene in context. But to be clear, I see, was raised, and write from a Christian framework. Yes, we are all tempted to be wicked, but I'm suggesting that some are tempted more frequently, or to graver and more consequential wickedness than others, and still others are capable of more resistance. I didn't want to risk simplifying what Anne was saying. 🙂
Ah, the old blame women for setting household and social management standards too high!
I had to laugh, as I thought of all the messy and disorganised women I know, and all the willfully incompetent men I've known.
As for traditional masculinity, for at least 50 years it has come with a working partner. Only briefly, and only for a small segment of society, did women not need to have paid employment.
A strong start with a really lazy deus ex machina. What a load of bollocks. It’s all “postmodern relativism’s” fault. Whatever that is, and however understood by this author, since I can’t tell. Apparently it’s just formless emptiness leaving voids in our eternal souls. Which are not actually formless, and which will return to their universal original shapes if we just stop worshiping the void. Or something. I throw up my hands.
I’m a husband, father of two, and an Australian living in Milan. I’ve always been fully involved — cooking, cleaning, school runs, bedtime stories, sports, the lot. I read pieces like this and honestly find myself a little baffled, and more than a little sorry, for the women stuck with these tired, outdated models of men. I don’t understand what kind of blokes they end up with, and in America? Seriously? There are so many honest good men, husbands, fathers… Maybe it’s the culture they’re in, where the bar for husbands is set so low you could trip over it. From where I stand, marriage is meant to be a partnership, from day one we shared everything. I have no interest in a book like Liars. Write about good husbands.
If you don't read about people you don't "understand," and you believe that one of the projects of the modern literary novel is to nurture and cultivate empathy, how will you deepen your sense of the world? It seems a little limiting to reject a novel bc you don't "relate" to the characters. No one would ever read Madame Bovary or Ulysses or any number of other books about flawed people if that was their strategy imho.
sorry i don’t go in for the fashionable jibes like ‘mansplaining’ and honestly had to just look it up on wiki to fully appreciate your insult… as for the culture.. it cuts across all borders and ethnicities, its the culture of the fucking arse head, i hate them and how they treat women and i have seen many, from varied backgrounds, colours and creeds as they say. and yes i am superior to them, me and my ubermensch bro’s… parading it though i don’t do much of.
As you wrote the following statement, you told us who you are, what you do not know, and have not the inclination to learn: "I don't understand what kind of blokes they end up with..."
You parade your sense of superiority, as you are, "...a little baffled by..." and, "...sorry, for the women stuck with these tired, outdated models of men."
One more thing, sir, cultures are, a prioi, ethnic. Clearly you assumed "they" were not part of yours, as you pondered..."Maybe it's the culture they're in..."
Of course masculinity itself is not toxic, and most men are kind, sensitive, and humble. However, it’s vital to acknowledge that we are currently living under the patriarchy and have been for a very long time, which means that men are allowed behaviors that women are not (by social construct and modeling, and not overtly, which is the challenge!), including actions towards women in public and private that render women second or less-than in many ways. Women have fewer options than men do, physically, psychologically, professionally, and otherwise. Thus, we continue to see novels that question marriage and motherhood, whether such things are inherently “honorable,” and give voice to women’s frustrations. May these stories, novels, and voices prevail until the patriarchy cracks apart, liberating all. Women don’t need to work themselves honorably to the bone, complaining little. Men can learn to relax in the backseat. There is much-needed truth in these stories.
I read a great article recently (no idea where) that mental load is often mis attributed kin-work. The work of tying people together, making a home, and making sure social capital is doled out and saved. It was a great way to balance what is mental
Load and what is a women’s nature and special strength in kinwork! Thanks for this sharp write up!!
Wow, that is a really interesting point, and a very helpful framework for parsing traditional women's work! Thank you for mentioning this.
That being said, there are definitely men out there who have a knack for tying people together, keeping in touch with people and helping them feel included. But in a man, this is called "leadership skills". If a man has these abilities we encourage him to use them to grow his business, sales, or ministry outside of the home. But it's really the same quality, isn't it? Some men have it, some women have it. (And some women have to work hard to learn it or fake it, because it's generally more expected of them.)
What a strange piece. I didn't really expect to read, in 2025, someone unironically advising that if only women appreciated their husbands more, and those silly little girls had better judgement in choosing a man, everything would be fine. "Tocquevillian virtues as most usefully manifested by males," what a ridiculous and insulting thing to say.
It's so strange to me the way that the fans of "traditional" marriage & gender roles-- husband as responsible breadwinner, wife as nurturing domestic laborer-- always tack on on this bizarre, defensive evo-psych nonsense about the natural roles of the sexes. It's apparently not enough to say "the patriarchal trade-off works for me, let me tell you about its appeal," you've always got to make it compulsory by claiming its The Only Natural Way For Humans To Be. Absolutely ridiculous.
But for what it’s worth, if my take seems regressive to you, you’re living in a tiny bubble. Ascendant on the right and now very much in the mainstream is the view that my calling the tasks of household management annoying and my rejection of a “tradwife” framework in which traditionally feminine labor is a source of bliss is considered having drunk the feminist coolaid. 🤷♀️
Also, neither stated nor implied: “husband as responsible breadwinner, wife as nurturing domestic laborer.”
Ask my sons who’s more nurturing, mom or dad. That’s got, uh, nothing to do with who restocks the pantry. I know ideological presuppositions make things simple, but real life can be more complicated than that. 😂
I'm talking about the historical culture that exists outside of your household, the one that feminism developed in response to. You kind of just seem annoyed that feminists don't want to live the way that you do and don't really understand where they are coming from, which to me just seems like sloppy writing, not a serious political or ideological position. But this seems to consistently be the conservative way-- propose that you have figured out The Correct Way To Live, since it has worked out so well for you, and that the problems of people who won't or can't live that way are effectively their own fault. Nothing new under the sun.
2) I have no interest in how women live; I worked full time for most of my marriage and expected to indefinitely. I’m making the empirical observation that norms come from somewhere. And it isn’t the mind of a mustache-twisting patriarch. Wrote about that here: https://lawliberty.org/forum/the-infantile-simone-de-beauvoir/
You are welcome to misstate and misunderstand what I’m saying because it doesn’t fit neatly into your ideological lens or the one you perceive to be its opposite. I think it’s more interesting to engage reality and nuance than to defy both in deference to some theoretical framework that is fundamentally not pluralistic, be it feminist or antifeminist. But that’s just me.
It's very telling that you lecture me about both-sides-ing while I have myself written many essays that the problem of male power is not a conspiracy driven by men's evil hearts. All I see here is that you're a fan of Camille Paglia and have additional shit to talk about trans people, on top of shit-talking de Beauvoir-- again this absurdist bioessentialism that insultingly presumes women and men are built for certain things and never should they take up one another's jobs. Absolutely unserious.
No I’m not lecturing you about both sides-ing. Some things have two sides; some don’t. I’m remarking that the correct way to consider these questions is through a pluralistic framework that encompasses the realities of trade-offs and priorities as not disconnected from the rest of the human experience. I believe the word for it is “reason.” Nowhere did I say anything about men and women not being able to do one another’s jobs. That’s a straw man. Absolutely, I take Camille Paglia seriously. Along with many thinkers who disagree with her. Because that’s how thinking works.
Typically if you have good ideas you talk about your ideas rather than repeatedly whinging that your opponent doesn't know how to think. It's unclear to me why you and your ilk think that Bell Jar-style bioessentialism will ever be compelling, or why you think griping at me about being partisan is a good defense when I point out how deeply stupid it is to base any argument about psychology or politics on it. Best of luck with your writing.
Who does what chores, earns the most or is the more organized is irrelevant. Bottom line is more often than not it is the woman, enculturated towards doing the emotional labor, who is required to hold the thing together. Jerks wear many cloaks with pretty labels that can fool even the most enlightened among us.
Interesting take on Liars, which I enjoyed (as I gritted my teeth at the tragedy of Jane's plight and how frequently she tried to believe in the misanthropic John). I'd like to believe that most men are not as awful as him. Even if some are, I wonder if the predicament of modern marriage (the dissipation of romance in the face of unrelenting non-romantic demands, the crushing lack of time for self-discovery and renewal) is a function less of traditional gender roles (and their deviant offshoots in the manosphere) and more an existential economic reality. Unless you're very wealthy, there's just not enough time (or energy) to live a "good life." Or maybe that's a delusion -- the "good life" -- that strivers (and especially time-starved writers) use as motivation to keep going? The top of the Sisyphean hill. I don't know the answer, but I appreciate your essay for its thoughtful insights and reminding me of Liars, which was an enjoyable hate-read. -)
Thank you so much! Appreciate it! Definitely too much to do and too few hours in the day contributes to these problems. I think Manguso’s ire is directed at men who make women confront that reality alone.
As someone who reads, writes, and thinks about gender a LOT, I appreciate your note about class difference. What’s the old joke…? Everyone in the U.S. thinks they are middle class. Hardly!! I can’t even imagine a life that would allow me to stay home with my kids if I choose. We are societally much closer to older rural communities when everyone worked in order to survive than we are to the false 1950’s stereotype of Father Knows Best. Instead, Father Works Hard and yet Mother must work hard as well to achieve even the palest reflection of the American Dream. Whoever ends up folding clothes and doing carpool duty is additionally exhausted. In the meantime, the vast majority of American money is in the hands of, like, 5 people.
I liked your article and agreed with so much of what you wrote. I was in an extremely abusive marriage for over 6 years in my early 30s, then left him because he didn’t want kids and am now in a loving marriage for 32 years with a man I admire and respect. It turned out my husband had a daughter so that solved having kids for me and we’re very clear on what we each do in our home. I had a problem with your disdain of maga men, though. All the men I know who are involved in maga are respectful, hard working men with a true enthusiasm for our country. The liberal men I know tend to not be very masculine, are somewhat narcissistic and very self involved. Just my experience.
Thanks so much! I wasn’t trying to draw a distinction between MAGA voting men and liberal men (for sure, those don’t come off well in the book, either!) I was trying to draw a contrast between the version of masculinity valorized by the MAGA influencers and podcasters and officials (which I think is often facilely “masculinity” and neo-pagan in ways that make it an easy scapegoat for liberals) and the version of masculinity valorized by traditionalists pre-MAGA (which I think is laudable, and evinced by many MAGA voters). We may have to agree to disagree, but that’s the line I was drawing in order to take issue with Filopovic’s conclusion that the latter men are bad, too (I don’t think they are !)
Your final sentences do not describe your experience.. They profer your judgements, your labels, and, ultimately, your biases.
We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve had many experiences with the men I described. I have had a father, 2 step fathers, 3 brothers, 2 step brothers, a lot of boyfriends, many male friends, gay & straight, and 2 husbands. Many of those have been close relationships. Of course I have opinions about their behaviors towards me. Are my opinions colored by my interactions? Yes. Whose wouldn’t be? But if it makes you feel better to call me judgmental & biased, yay you.
It's possible that your experience may have more to do with where you live, and whether these men were in the majority or minority of their surrounding culture.
That’s certainly one perspective however I grew up in and live in Southern California. I went to 11 different schools. I’ve lived in conservative neighborhoods, liberal neighborhoods, gay neighborhoods, upper class neighborhoods, middle class neighborhoods, lower middle class & gang neighborhoods (Riverside, West Covina, San Marino, Studio City, IslaVista, Goleta, West Hollywood, Hollywood, West LA, Santa Monica, North Redondo Beach, Long Beach, South Lake Tahoe, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Morro Bay). I also lived in Northern Nevada a hour from Carson City- extremely rural (we were on well water & septic tanks) & in Mexico for 3 years in a little town near Manzanillo. Personally I’d say I’ve lived in or next to almost every kind of neighborhood you can imagine 😊
Is the author seriously suggesting that the ability to keep your pantry organized is an inherently feminine ability because of evolution? What about all the women that are terrible at organizing pantries? This argument is like saying that since most people who are under 5'4" are women, people who are 5'7" are inherently masculine. Obviously a ridiculous statement.
When we make the argument that men and women are "naturally suited" for their roles and THEN assign masculinity and femininity to a bunch of random tasks and personal qualities that are clearly culture-bound (and not even consistently gendered within our own culture) it doesn't serve the argument. Men and women exist on an overlapping spectrum for most traits. You should believe this whether you hold traditional or progressive values, because it is true.
(Full disclosure: I am a woman in a traditional marriage who believes in both God and evolution, and who cannot keep her pantry organized to save her life!)
As for the main point of the essay, I agree with it. Marrying someone selfish and awful will make you miserable. Traditional ethics are a useful framework for discerning whether someone has a moral compass, whether they are honorable and trustworthy and kind. Having an ethic that celebrates selfishness is a way to train men to be jerks.
However, I have met many, many men, on every part of the socio-political spectrum, who claimed to believe this or that grand ethical statement (egalitarianism, feminism, honor, providing, servant leadership, headship--whatever conservative or progressive buzzword you like), but were still selfish and awful in their intimate relationships!
The author is in a good marriage simply because her husband is not a jerk. I am very happy for her. Unfortunately, there are men out there who claim to believe the exact same things as her husband, yet are also jerks, so there's really no shortcuts or universal prescriptions. Marriage is built between two specific and unique individuals, neither of whom can be reduced to their biological sex or theoretical value system.
100% agree with you! Overlapping bell curves. Not the same bell curve. So, on average, yep, women care more about how things are organized. To a person? Nope! Nothing is. But on average. And yes, there are 100% guys who say the same stuff as my husband but turn out to be jerks. But you’ll up your odds of not marrying a jerk by not considering guys who are SELF-EVIDENTLY jerks but call themselves feminists (ie, the guy in the book, clearly, BEFORE the protagonist married him!) My point isn’t that my value system will ensure you don’t marry a jerk. My point is that the protagonist/author’s total lack of any coherent, mature value system will increase the odds of that, because your selection is on false criteria.
Totally agree. I just get super bothered when people are like "women are like ___ and men are like ___ because of evolution!" That kind of categorization creates a lot of shame and distress for the men and women who are naturally on the other side of the bell curve--who are also part of evolution and/or God's creation!
At age 43, I wish I hadn't had the life experience of knowing soooo many self-evident jerks in both my conservative and progressive circles! Gah! So many divorces and miserable marriages!
When I met my husband, he never would have called himself a feminist (seems pretentious for a man in any era) but he sincerely supported his female friends in their creative endeavors, and read books and listened to music by both women and men. He also had a lot of close long-time female and male friends who adored him, so in my mind that was the best sign of someone who is capable of maintaining a good relationship. And (as you explain very well) marriage and parenting is a harrowing ordeal even with a good partner.
Anyways, thank you for taking my comments in good spirit. There isn't a lot of room for nuance these days but I'm here for it. :-)
Yes, absolutely! Men and women are different on average, not to a person. Liberals like to deny the former, or say it’s all social construction. Conservatives like to deny the latter, or say it’s all reverse social engineering. Doesn’t make for good convos. I wrote a piece critiquing the other side you may find interfering: https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-lives-of-the-feminists/
Thank you, I really appreciated reading that!
Thanks! And I meant interesting not interfering haha.
Are we though? Are women more likely to keep things organized? It is an interesting opinion, but when I think of institutions dominated by men—the military, the political arena, and others, it seems that men are more likely to be organized. The most extreme and terrible example might be fascist dictatorships—men marching perfectly in line to impose hyper-organization and regulation on the citizenry. I think you’d enjoy Klaus Theweleit’s book, “Male Fantasies,” about proto-fascists in Germany before WWII, and how threat propaganda relied on idealizing the clean cut, organized man vs. the messy, menstruating woman closer to untamed nature than to civilized organization.
Thank you! I will check that out! I think that while men are more likely to be hierarchical and militaristic in macro ways, women are more likely to be organized in domestic, micro ways for the simple reason that women are on average more conscientious than men. Not to a person, of course! I know many organized men and sloppy women! But on average.
Good review--thanks for sharing. Aside from the main points, the Sarah Manguso quote: "My life became archetypal, a drag show of nuclear familyhood"--isn't that a mixed-up, thought? Is it an archetypal or is it camp? Put another way, if it's a drag show marriage it can't be an archetypal marriage. I don't think it can be both. It seems like a first draft that needs a little editing to make its point sensibly.
Thank you so much!
This was very thoughtful and well done. I especially liked this, "First, we wives bring on a lot of this “mental load” ourselves by virtue of our own higher domestic standards. " In my marriage (we divorced) my wife could never relax, take a break. That was my perception. Another perception, was a couple friend that had more than twice as many children as we did, and just 'gave up' on keeping the house tidy at all times. They wisely realized that with five children the house was never going to be tidy. Also, they drafted the children into clean up brigades.
In my marriage, I was as happy as I thought it was realistic to be, with everything that 'we' had to do. My marriage ended because of my wife's treatment of our adopted son. A whole other matter.
But I believe I did my best, as your husband seems to do. And despite how the marriage turned out, I have no regrets or guilt.
Also, I believe that modern feminism is largely to blame for the dwindling number of marriages.
One more thing, I don't think taking a shot at President Trump was needed at all for this review and article on marriage. Seems to be pandering to a certain programmed, IMO, mindset. Yeah, he's had multiple marriages as I have, but seems to have a good one now with Melania. You should have left him out of this.
Thank you for your review!
Thank you so much! Appreciate the engagement!
This was fantastic
Brilliantly written piece
I really enjoyed the read and the alternative perspective to the norm
Thank you so much!
You're welcome
Very interesting piece. Readers might also be interested in Emily Gould’s piece in The Cut from last year that reviews Liars as well as other contemporary “divorce novels.” She has a similar take as this piece, but from a more left wing, secular viewpoint. Her point is that all these novels are telling her husbands suck, but then she looks at her own husband and thinks, you know what, he’s actually a pretty good guy. This comes in the midst of a mental breakdown when she’s thinking about leaving her husband:
https://www.thecut.com/article/marriage-divorce-should-i-leave-my-husband-emily-gould.html
Excellent, intelligent, and fair essay/review, in my opinion. I would take issue with only one part, when Grace Matthew quotes an exchange in Anne of Green Gables between two characters debating the worthiness of a possible husband: "...Anne complains: 'He certainly isn’t the wild, dashing young man Diana used to want to marry. Fred is . . . extremely good.' Marilla replies, 'That is exactly what he should be. Would you want to marry a wicked man?'" Grace Matthew then calls the following response by Anne "bemusing yet alarming:" “'Well, I wouldn’t marry anyone who was really wicked, but I think I’d like it if he could be wicked, and wouldn’t.”' Grace Matthew then comments, "Marilla concludes their conversation with the only reply any right-thinking adult could offer: 'You’ll have more sense someday, I hope.'" Personally, I see Anne's point. I mean, how good or faithful is a spouse, if there is no temptation or possibily to be wicked, by which I mean to be, for example, unfaithful? It's sort of like praising a man's pacific nature, his aversion to all violence, etc., when actually he's afraid of it. A man who fights and overcomes the urge to cheat when he has regular possibilities with attractive women has more value than a man who doesn't cheat because he can't. A man who declines to punch some jerk, while knowing the punch will land, has more value than a man who declines to punch because he doesn't know how and fears retaliation.
Thanks so much! You have to see the scene in context. It’s a Christian framework - taken as a premise that everyone is tempted to be wicked. Anne, in her immaturity, wants someone who lives on the edge, full of restless melancholy. Not a good marriage prospect. 😂
Yes, I probably have to read the scene in context. But to be clear, I see, was raised, and write from a Christian framework. Yes, we are all tempted to be wicked, but I'm suggesting that some are tempted more frequently, or to graver and more consequential wickedness than others, and still others are capable of more resistance. I didn't want to risk simplifying what Anne was saying. 🙂
What an excellent piece! A real pleasure to read!
Thank you so much!
Ah, the old blame women for setting household and social management standards too high!
I had to laugh, as I thought of all the messy and disorganised women I know, and all the willfully incompetent men I've known.
As for traditional masculinity, for at least 50 years it has come with a working partner. Only briefly, and only for a small segment of society, did women not need to have paid employment.
A strong start with a really lazy deus ex machina. What a load of bollocks. It’s all “postmodern relativism’s” fault. Whatever that is, and however understood by this author, since I can’t tell. Apparently it’s just formless emptiness leaving voids in our eternal souls. Which are not actually formless, and which will return to their universal original shapes if we just stop worshiping the void. Or something. I throw up my hands.
I’m a husband, father of two, and an Australian living in Milan. I’ve always been fully involved — cooking, cleaning, school runs, bedtime stories, sports, the lot. I read pieces like this and honestly find myself a little baffled, and more than a little sorry, for the women stuck with these tired, outdated models of men. I don’t understand what kind of blokes they end up with, and in America? Seriously? There are so many honest good men, husbands, fathers… Maybe it’s the culture they’re in, where the bar for husbands is set so low you could trip over it. From where I stand, marriage is meant to be a partnership, from day one we shared everything. I have no interest in a book like Liars. Write about good husbands.
valid point mate and i agree with you, and do read widely. just not Liars.
If you don't read about people you don't "understand," and you believe that one of the projects of the modern literary novel is to nurture and cultivate empathy, how will you deepen your sense of the world? It seems a little limiting to reject a novel bc you don't "relate" to the characters. No one would ever read Madame Bovary or Ulysses or any number of other books about flawed people if that was their strategy imho.
sorry i don’t go in for the fashionable jibes like ‘mansplaining’ and honestly had to just look it up on wiki to fully appreciate your insult… as for the culture.. it cuts across all borders and ethnicities, its the culture of the fucking arse head, i hate them and how they treat women and i have seen many, from varied backgrounds, colours and creeds as they say. and yes i am superior to them, me and my ubermensch bro’s… parading it though i don’t do much of.
Kudos on the expert mansplaining.
As you wrote the following statement, you told us who you are, what you do not know, and have not the inclination to learn: "I don't understand what kind of blokes they end up with..."
You parade your sense of superiority, as you are, "...a little baffled by..." and, "...sorry, for the women stuck with these tired, outdated models of men."
One more thing, sir, cultures are, a prioi, ethnic. Clearly you assumed "they" were not part of yours, as you pondered..."Maybe it's the culture they're in..."
Of course masculinity itself is not toxic, and most men are kind, sensitive, and humble. However, it’s vital to acknowledge that we are currently living under the patriarchy and have been for a very long time, which means that men are allowed behaviors that women are not (by social construct and modeling, and not overtly, which is the challenge!), including actions towards women in public and private that render women second or less-than in many ways. Women have fewer options than men do, physically, psychologically, professionally, and otherwise. Thus, we continue to see novels that question marriage and motherhood, whether such things are inherently “honorable,” and give voice to women’s frustrations. May these stories, novels, and voices prevail until the patriarchy cracks apart, liberating all. Women don’t need to work themselves honorably to the bone, complaining little. Men can learn to relax in the backseat. There is much-needed truth in these stories.
I read a great article recently (no idea where) that mental load is often mis attributed kin-work. The work of tying people together, making a home, and making sure social capital is doled out and saved. It was a great way to balance what is mental
Load and what is a women’s nature and special strength in kinwork! Thanks for this sharp write up!!
Wow, that is a really interesting point, and a very helpful framework for parsing traditional women's work! Thank you for mentioning this.
That being said, there are definitely men out there who have a knack for tying people together, keeping in touch with people and helping them feel included. But in a man, this is called "leadership skills". If a man has these abilities we encourage him to use them to grow his business, sales, or ministry outside of the home. But it's really the same quality, isn't it? Some men have it, some women have it. (And some women have to work hard to learn it or fake it, because it's generally more expected of them.)
Absolutely, great point!
What a strange piece. I didn't really expect to read, in 2025, someone unironically advising that if only women appreciated their husbands more, and those silly little girls had better judgement in choosing a man, everything would be fine. "Tocquevillian virtues as most usefully manifested by males," what a ridiculous and insulting thing to say.
It's so strange to me the way that the fans of "traditional" marriage & gender roles-- husband as responsible breadwinner, wife as nurturing domestic laborer-- always tack on on this bizarre, defensive evo-psych nonsense about the natural roles of the sexes. It's apparently not enough to say "the patriarchal trade-off works for me, let me tell you about its appeal," you've always got to make it compulsory by claiming its The Only Natural Way For Humans To Be. Absolutely ridiculous.
You should read Manguso’s novel. You’ll love it!
But for what it’s worth, if my take seems regressive to you, you’re living in a tiny bubble. Ascendant on the right and now very much in the mainstream is the view that my calling the tasks of household management annoying and my rejection of a “tradwife” framework in which traditionally feminine labor is a source of bliss is considered having drunk the feminist coolaid. 🤷♀️
Also, neither stated nor implied: “husband as responsible breadwinner, wife as nurturing domestic laborer.”
Ask my sons who’s more nurturing, mom or dad. That’s got, uh, nothing to do with who restocks the pantry. I know ideological presuppositions make things simple, but real life can be more complicated than that. 😂
I'm talking about the historical culture that exists outside of your household, the one that feminism developed in response to. You kind of just seem annoyed that feminists don't want to live the way that you do and don't really understand where they are coming from, which to me just seems like sloppy writing, not a serious political or ideological position. But this seems to consistently be the conservative way-- propose that you have figured out The Correct Way To Live, since it has worked out so well for you, and that the problems of people who won't or can't live that way are effectively their own fault. Nothing new under the sun.
(1) Historically, women were plenty responsible and not particularly nurturing by today’s standards. Wrote about that here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/07/19/trad-wife-tiktok-promotes-unrealistic-vision-marriage-family/70419993007/
2) I have no interest in how women live; I worked full time for most of my marriage and expected to indefinitely. I’m making the empirical observation that norms come from somewhere. And it isn’t the mind of a mustache-twisting patriarch. Wrote about that here: https://lawliberty.org/forum/the-infantile-simone-de-beauvoir/
3) I have zero brief for antifeminism and its prescription that all women should live a given way. Wrote about that here: https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-lives-of-the-feminists/
You are welcome to misstate and misunderstand what I’m saying because it doesn’t fit neatly into your ideological lens or the one you perceive to be its opposite. I think it’s more interesting to engage reality and nuance than to defy both in deference to some theoretical framework that is fundamentally not pluralistic, be it feminist or antifeminist. But that’s just me.
It's very telling that you lecture me about both-sides-ing while I have myself written many essays that the problem of male power is not a conspiracy driven by men's evil hearts. All I see here is that you're a fan of Camille Paglia and have additional shit to talk about trans people, on top of shit-talking de Beauvoir-- again this absurdist bioessentialism that insultingly presumes women and men are built for certain things and never should they take up one another's jobs. Absolutely unserious.
No I’m not lecturing you about both sides-ing. Some things have two sides; some don’t. I’m remarking that the correct way to consider these questions is through a pluralistic framework that encompasses the realities of trade-offs and priorities as not disconnected from the rest of the human experience. I believe the word for it is “reason.” Nowhere did I say anything about men and women not being able to do one another’s jobs. That’s a straw man. Absolutely, I take Camille Paglia seriously. Along with many thinkers who disagree with her. Because that’s how thinking works.
Typically if you have good ideas you talk about your ideas rather than repeatedly whinging that your opponent doesn't know how to think. It's unclear to me why you and your ilk think that Bell Jar-style bioessentialism will ever be compelling, or why you think griping at me about being partisan is a good defense when I point out how deeply stupid it is to base any argument about psychology or politics on it. Best of luck with your writing.
Who does what chores, earns the most or is the more organized is irrelevant. Bottom line is more often than not it is the woman, enculturated towards doing the emotional labor, who is required to hold the thing together. Jerks wear many cloaks with pretty labels that can fool even the most enlightened among us.