DOUTHAT ON LOVE.
Ross Douthat is the author of a book arguing that marriage-promotion -- even among the very poor and the very young -- should be a major goal of national social policy. He has an aversion to birth control and abortion. He has even written about his own efforts to stay sexually chaste. So it is surprising that Douthat now writes, "Our meritocrats could stand to leaven their careerism with a little more romantic excess."
What's responsible for Douthat's change of heart? Like me, he is currently reading Cristina Nehring's A Vindication of Love: Reclaiming Romance for the Twenty-First Century, which uses the lives of literary greats to argue that foolish love -- passion, sex, and even obsession -- fuels genius and productivity. Nehring believes that today's college-educated professionals have sanitized love through feminism and "companionate marriages," focusing too much on child-rearing and real estate acquisition, and not enough on sex. This line of argument offers Douthat an opportunity to engage in one of his favorite pastimes: attacking the culture of affluent liberals. "The same overclass that was once most invested in erotic experimentation ended up building the sturdiest walls against the passions it unleashed," he clucks.
But make no mistake -- the likely appeal of Nehring's work, for Douthat, lies in its negative assessment of feminism as an anti-romantic killjoy. This is a major flaw in Nehring's book; she treats feminism, as an ideology, as if it ceased to exist in the 1980s during the internecine wars over the acceptability of pornography and heterosexual relationships. In fact, feminism is a dynamic movement that has continued to evolve over the last two decades. Many feminists call themselves "sex-positive." Some sex workers identify as feminist and even strive to create feminism-friendly pornography. Some feminists are anti-marriage altogether. Others advocate open relationships because they are inherently skeptical of sexual monogamy.
Yet Douthat buys, hook, line, and sinker, into Nehring's reductive analysis of feminism as anti-sex. One possible solution to dull marriages, he suggests, is less equity between marriage partners. He's not talking about the kind of sexual power-play that Nehring adores. Rather, he suggests that highly educated men are "ideal soulmates" for less-educated women, who could benefit from the economic stability such men offer as husbands and fathers. The problem is that many highly educated men want to marry women who share their intellectual interests. And what single moms need -- more than a rich husband who may or may not make them and their kids happy -- are social supports such as decent jobs, health care, child care, and schools.
Those topics aren't sexy, though. I get that.
--Dana Goldstein
Photo by Susan Etheridge for The New York Times
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (6)
I have no doubt that staying chaste is not difficult at all for Douthat.
Posted by: Buford P. Stinkleberry | June 29, 2009 4:14 PM
I don't trust men who think that nothing is less erotic than stimulating conversation between equals. They're just saying that they can't hold their own.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | June 29, 2009 4:57 PM
To believe your own hang up, to believe that what is a turn off for you in your private bedroom is a turn off for all men - that is genius."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Actually, I may not have remembered that 100% correctly.
Posted by: V.O.R. | June 29, 2009 5:10 PM
Thanks for the picture. Too bad the nickname "Doughy Pantload" is already taken. It would certainly fit here.
Posted by: Lee Gibson | June 29, 2009 5:21 PM
I don't trust men who think that nothing is less erotic than stimulating conversation between equals.
I think the problem here is somewhat different. This, to me, looks like one of those data-less "trend" stories similar to the ones that Susan Faludi effectively debunked in "Backlash".
It's entirely possible that one product of the way urban professionals structure every aspect of their life is less time for sponteneity and romance. But there's no EVIDENCE of that-- just some assertions that this is going on coupled with a couple of high profile anecdotes (Sandra Tsing Loh, Mark Sanford) which may or may not have anything to do with the issue. Feminists should be familiar with this sort of thing-- this is how every "biological clock" story has been written in the history of humanity.
There's a certain type of person (Douthat included) who would LIKE it to be true that the lifestyles of urban sophisticates force romance and sponteneity out of their lives. But that doesn't mean it is actually happening.
(In any rate, even if it were happening, it strikes me that there are a lot of aspects of CONSERVATIVISM, from the insistence that unhappy couples stay together and raise the kids to the refusal to fund daycare or mandate vacation time, things which might give some couples some more "together time" to spark up the romance.)
Posted by: Dilan Esper | June 29, 2009 6:27 PM
he suggests that highly educated men are "ideal soulmates" for less-educated women, who could benefit from the economic stability such men offer as husbands and fathers
Hmmm...Douchehat seems to be concerned about men maintaining their sense of romance, I'm not getting much in the way of romantic benefits here for women.
What is so ironic is to see the ads for "sexy Arab women" alongside this post - men wanting the "exotic" in a woman without understanding the vast majority of these exotic women are looking for economic stability, not some romantic dream.
Posted by: CParis | June 30, 2009 12:37 PM