"Heather's Compromise", male responsibility, and "romantics"

This is not going to be a short entry. Feel free to scroll on through.

Megan, who runs the fine Quiet Here blog, drew my attention to this article that appeared in the Claremont Institute's online journal: Heather's Compromise: How Young Women Make Their Way in a World of Wimps and Barbarians. It's by Terrance Moore, a former Marine lieutenant who is now principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado. I read the article last week, but have been reflecting on it ever since, unpacking it in my head. There's a lot here that I applaud, but there is plenty that troubles me as well.

The beginning is fierce:

Today, many young women are suffering from the aftermath of the sexual revolution and the extreme demands of the radical feminist agenda. These movements have made it far more difficult for them to find honorable men to love them. As the authors of the immensely popular The Rules contend, "many women we know find it easier to relocate to another state, switch careers, or run a marathon than to get the right man to marry them!" The truth is there are fewer "right men" around these days—in part because of the ways women themselves have compromised their natural modesty and the inmost promptings of their hearts. Though women can command higher salaries, they have ceased to be able to command men.

Ouch. The traditional feminist within me got annoyed. The notion that bad male behavior is to be attributed to the feminist movement (rather than to men themselves) is offensive, and inaccurate. The whole bit about an idealized past where women could actually "command" men is also ahistorical (unless Jane Austen constitutes one's familiarity with history). But I gritted my teeth, read on, and to my chagrin, Lt. Moore started to make a bit more sense:

Most young women are incapable of brazen sexual abandonment. They long for stability and permanence and love in their lives. But they begin receiving the attentions of young males at an early age, long before they intend to marry. So they enter into a half-way covenant between marriage, the longed-for ultimate source of stability and love, and the worrisome condition of the unattached female. To be unattached and female in our society is a difficult undertaking, psychologically, socially, and, at times, physically. Psychologically, the unattached woman often wonders whether she can get a man. Her self-confidence is not helped by her friends reassuring her that she will get a man "some day" or that she will "have lots of men." Unattached males, on the other hand, are always assumed to be playing the field. Women by their very nature have more difficulty being alone or unnoticed. They want to be loved, or at least complimented. The best male compliment to a female that we currently have in this society is the invitation to a date or to a kind of ongoing date.

Of course, some young women are in fact capable of exactly what Lt. Moore insists that they aren't! (Though it is more than a bit risible to have me, a man, debating the libidos of adolescent women with another man!) But I think there is at least a grain of truth in his assessment of just how difficult it is to be an unattached woman in our society; we all know otherwise exceptionally bright and confident young women who are deeply anxious about the absence of a "relationship" from their lives.

We move on to the title of the essay:

In relationships we come to understand Heather's Compromise in its purest form. The pattern begins somewhat like this. Heather is a 16-year-old girl, a sophomore in high school. All her friends began dating even in middle school, but Heather was a late developer and was not asked out very often. Now she is developing, and boys are beginning to notice her. She is pleased by the attention. Finally, the cute guys in the school are noticing her rather than her best friend. One of the boys is in her chemistry class. He's "a pretty nice and cool guy," so she goes out with him. Her parents are pleased that Heather is now dating just like all the other girls. Pretty soon Heather and her boyfriend are a serious item. No one else would dare ask Heather out. He introduces her to all his friends, and she quickly becomes "popular." Admittedly, she does not always like the way he acts around his friends, but it's different when they're alone. He makes Heather laugh on their dates. He can also be romantic. On her birthday her boyfriend puts a card and a flower in her locker. After about three months, right around Christmas, he uses the word. One night while saying good night on her front porch and kissing her (her parents are already asleep), he says, "You know I love you." Heather is thrilled. His words give her butterflies in the hollow of her stomach. She can hardly get to sleep that night. A week later his parents go out of town on a skiing trip. Though he normally takes these trips, he stays behind this time to work on his chemistry project. Heather goes over to his house without telling her parents that the two will be entirely alone. They get pretty serious that night. They do not go all the way, though. Throughout the spring, they try increasingly to be alone together. He takes Heather to Junior Prom, of course, and that night they do go all the way. Heather does not feel completely right about it at first. But he loves her. He assures her that he will still respect her even after they've had sex. All her friends had sex "a long time ago." Why should Heather be any different?

Sounds familiar so far, though individual circumstances vary enormously. Heather goes on to sleep with the boy, they break up, and according to Moore, a pattern is set:

These break-ups take an enormous toll on the happiness of young women. Especially when sex is involved, young women can feel these failed attempts at love as "losing pieces of yourself." They no longer feel whole. Erotic encounters, like any repeated activity, are habit-forming. If you have broken up several times before, what will stop you from doing the same thing once you are married? Relationship gurus assert that dating helps you find the right mate and that living with someone teaches you how to live with someone. It is more statistically accurate to say that the cycle of dating and breaking-up is good practice for divorce. In our society, with all the emphasis placed upon youth and individuality and fun, marriages more often imitate relationships than relationships prefigure marriage. The obvious outcome of Heather's Compromise is that Heather loses more often than she wins, if ever she wins. Occasionally, a young woman will, after several tumultuous relationships, find a decent man, marry him, and live happily ever after. That happiness appears to be the result of Fortune, as fickle a deity as Eros, rather than any planning or attributes of character on her part. More often she ends up emotionally drained, jaded, confused.

Okay, now good Principal Moore and I are (almost) on the same page. Though again, I think he over-generalizes and even demeans women's erotic potential, the basic analysis rings true, especially the bit which I placed in bold.

But all of these changes impacted men as well, and here he still makes some sense:

The sexual revolution, nonetheless, has had deleterious effects on men as well. In previous ages, the system of courtship and marriage required on the part of young people both sexual restraint and a strong sense of the future. Young men had to "clean up their act" before they could become truly eligible bachelors. In order to gain a young lady's approval and ultimately her hand, a man had to do several things. He had to master his sex drive. He had to prove his devotion to her, usually over a long period of time. He had to pass inspection before her discerning parents. He had to become financially stable so that he could support his wife and the children they would have. In short, he had to become a man of means, a man of parts, and a man of character. The exacting demands of courtship discouraged males from becoming wimps or barbarians.

I like the bits about mastering sex drive and exercising self-control. But Moore once again idealizes the past. Historically, the number of men who could support a wife and child through their own efforts alone (without the financial help of their wives and families) has been remarkably small. To tie male self-esteem too closely into being a "man of means" (are you humming the theme from Diffrent Strokes right now?) has been disastrous. Much bad male behavior (alcoholism in particular) has historically been tied to despair at NOT being able to provide for their families (thanks to the economy, not personal failing). Still, courtship has its definite pluses.

And here comes Moore's most disappointing conclusion:

We will never re-establish the happier relations between the sexes until (a new) group of young women, the "romantics", make their preferences known and become models for others. The romantics are those few young women who are disappointed in the young men they meet these days and unwilling to compromise their hopes just to have boyfriends for the moment. They believe that the ultimate source of romantic happiness is marriage to a good man.

In other words, men will not change their behavior as long as women continue to offer them no incentive to do so. As a man, I am deeply and profoundly troubled by such a low impression of men! One of the more disturbing trends in conservative anti-feminist thought in recent years has been the resurgence of the "all men are dogs" thesis (these days, it is usually backed up by bad socio-biology). The chief affect of this thesis is to "liberate" men from personal responsibility. In Moore's world, men are somehow simultaneously strong enough to head the household, but weak enough to be easily manipulated by women. And if men refuse to accept commitments, it is because women have not forced them to do so.

What's missing from all of this is the most basic of all points about young men: Young men learn their sexual and romantic behavior from other men, not from women. It is fathers and other older males who send the clearest and most enduring message about what it means to be a man, not other women. If we do live in a culture of "wimps" and "barbarians", it is due less to the achievements of the feminist movement but to a culture in which most men grow up with no one other than their peers and their television heroes to serve as masculine role models. Blaming women for male failings is an old game. Lt. Moore makes some fine -- and not inaccurate -- observations about the psyches of the young in our society. But his remedy, while part of a long and often seductive tradition, tragically misses the mark.

Comments

[Elizabeth]

I agree, Hugo. From the passages you've provided, this author's analysis seems overly idealized. The character of males is not up to females, no matter how great an idea that may seem. If males were raised differently in our society, that would have a more positive effect than some "romantic" female holding out. I'm sorry, but these passages just seem to over-simplify the issues.

I did agree somewhat with the passage on unattached females. Our society still can't figure what to do with us. A bachelor seems to be more socially acceptable at this period of time than a single woman. I imagine it is better than it used to be, but it is still hard. Just the opinion of an "unattached" female. Now let's all go read "Bridget Jones' Diary".

[Kelly]

Sorry Hugo, but I feel that you are giving yourself and your sex too much credit. If the failings of men are to be corrected by the example of other men, then things will never change. In this regard I think it is the responsibility of women to demand what they deserve and not settle, even if it means never "finding" a man at all. (as totally depressing as that sounds). In that regard, for women of my age, there is no luxury of "compromise", it's all or naught.

[Hugo]

Well, Kelly, I agree we've done a lousy job so far! The key is to establish strong systems in the home and in the schools to provide a level of male-to-male support that has not previously existed. Should women put up with wimps and barbarians? No. But to believe that women can -- collectively -- alter male consciousness is demeaning to men.

[kelly]

Men have altered the female consciousness without cessation for ages, thus your state of demeantion, (yes, I made that word up but you know what I mean)in being altered by women is small in comparison. To that I say, get over it.

[candace]

I wasn't sure how to address this article, either. Something in it seemed right but something about it seemed really wrong. I mulled it over for two days before giving up and sticking with my one basic conclusion: I think part of the reason why women abandon that third choice for one of the first to is because male culture teaches them to be wimps and barbarians and we flat out give up.

I only recently discovered that men had emotions. I really bought into the idea that they think from below -- and all evidence reinforced it, both in behavior and in words, as even the kindest men I know still struggle to admit they have emotions, too, and that they care about women/relationships, not just getting laid.

Sometimes I wonder how different I'd be if I'd learned that lesson earlier.

[Hugo]

I think that is one of the areas where Moore falls down, Candace -- he fails to recognize how many women have tried for SO LONG to be "romantics", and then have, as you say, flat out given up.

His diagnosis of the problem is infinitely better than his prescribed remedy.

[John]

I think both are true. I think both women need to demand more than they are getting, and men need to be taught how to act like gentlemen, by other men. It's for this reason that some of my severest scoldings and (strictly metaphorical and verbal) lashings to my lads have been about how they treat women and girls. They need to be taught respect, even chivalry, something that I believe the sexual revolution abolished, pretty much. Likewise, the female leaders are attempting to teach the girls respect for themselves. It's an uphill row to hoe, But I think it's working.

[Jonathan Dresner]

I think generalization never works.

Seriously, though, Does Moore think that pre-20c courtship never involved broken hearts, never involved premarital sensual and sexual experiences? The whole piece is predicated on a romantic view of love and marriage that wasn't particularly common until the 19th century, ignoring the last few decades of social history research which has conclusively proven that the "victorian" era wasn't really as prudish or simple as the "moderns" made them out to be in the early 20th century.

[John]

Of course, you are right, Jonathan. But I think before the last 30 years, there were generally accepted rules of behaviour, even if they were more often honoured in breach than observance. I have read several feminist tomes lately (Notably "Possession", by A. S. Byatt) which are trying to re-negotiate the relationship between the sexes, and (mostly) failing.

[Jonathan Dresner]

John,

If you mean "accepted rules of behavior" for the slender group of humanity who were middle-class Anglo-Americans, sure. But a big part of the story of the 19th and 20th centuries is the displacement of majority rural societies (and their diverse traditions and relatively stable cultures) with majority urban societies (with diverse populations but middle-class values, but highly adaptive cultures). Every study I've read of rural society strongly suggests a much less romantic view of love and sex than we normally credit "traditional" societies, and much more social flexibility than their urban critics, reveling in their sophistication, credited them with.

Perhaps the reason these "renegotiations" are failing (and I think they are, on all sides of the political and gender divide) is that they don't actually represent anyone except themselves. Social patterns are based on millions of individual choices and habits, influenced by political and economic and religious shifts and not really subject to radical reshaping in the abstract. Perhaps you mean something else, though; I'm certainly not up on the latest theoretical "advances."

[Hugo]

Well, boys, good discussion. I think that the root of much of our unhappiness with the contemporary state of mating and dating lies in its radical individualism, and its notion that personal happiness is the primary yardstick by which a successful relationship can be judged.

[1247136152]

MMX6Ab rnhuatpe rgjhbfqr nsohjstx