Is your husband misbehaving? Train him like a zoo animal! After watching exotic animal trainers, Amy Sutherland, writing for the New York Times, figured out that she could use the same kind of training techniques on her husband.
The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don’t. After all, you don’t get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband.
Sutherland’s piece is engagingly written, and her approach seems to have improved her marriage. Yet while reading it, I had to wonder: What’s with the comparison of husbands with animals? Would the NYTimes have published the same article if it was written by a husband about his wife?
Men are animals?
There is a strange double standard in our society, where it is considered OK to publicly depict men in animalistic or dehumanized manners, while it is considered sexist and misogynistic to portray women in similar ways. In Why Men Are The Way They Are, Warren Farrell observed that men were often portrayed or compared with animals in advertisements, and greeting cards, and self-help or relationship books. Yet he never noticed women being dehumanized in this manner, at least not in the mainstream media. That was in 1985, and it’s the same today. Farrell considers these animalistic representations of men, and the double standard that only allows men to be represented as animals, to be evidence of “misandry” (hatred and sexism towards men, analogous to misogyny; I will give the concept of misandry a fuller explanation in the future).
Is it inherently problematic to compare people to animals? Is it inherently sexist to compare men or women to animals? I think that’s really up for debate. What is problematic is the double standard. Contemporary portrayals of men as animals, or comparisons of men with animals, solidify this double standard.
The ethics of psychological techniques
Another question I was pondering while reading the article is how ethical it is to use psychological principles, such as reinforcement, in relationships. I’ve heard a couple common perspectives on this issue. The first is that using psychological principles is evil and manipulative always. I think this perspective is naive: You are going to end up reinforcing various behaviors in the other person no matter what. So why not try to reinforce the behaviors that will make the relationship more harmonious? Intentionally using psychology or sociology in relationships isn’t inherently unethical; it depends on your goals and how you carry them out.
The second perspective I’ve often seen is that using psychological principles is OK when done by women, but manipulation and objectification when done by men. Again, we have a double standard: it’s acceptable for women to learn how to sexually attract men and gain the upper hand in relationships, but it’s “sinister” and “pathetic” for a man to try to do the reverse.
Training your husband
What I found interesting about Sutherland’s article is that her goal of training him presupposes that it is his behavior that needs to change. She writes:
After two years of exotic animal training, my marriage is far smoother, my husband much easier to love. I used to take his faults personally; his dirty clothes on the floor were an affront, a symbol of how he didn’t care enough about me.
But what about her faults? What has she been doing to make herself easier to love?
I dissected my own behavior, considered how my actions might inadvertently fuel his.
But did she consider how her actions could be part of the problem in the first place, and not just for contributing to his behavior?
Of course, it’s possible that all the problems in their marriage were due to him. It’s also possible that some of her own expectations for his behavior could need to be re-thought, or that her behavior needed changing also. What is lacking from her article is introspection. True, at the end she mentions how he starts using psychological training on her also, though it didn’t seem to be something she expected (or regarded as necessary). Unfortunately, her article perpetuates the cultural bias that women are morally superior in relationships and that it’s mainly men who need to change. Women get to hold up the hoops and it’s men who must jump through them.
Clearly much of this sort of nonsense is more along the lines of humour then reality. Like the way people like to ‘play’ with animals in nature pretending they are like domestic dogs and cats similar to Steve Irwin. Men everywhere, even here in the west, still possess most of their age-old lethal arsenal and can still devastate their wives’ lives pretty much on a whim.
I’m sure Paul McCartney’s wife as well as Jennifer’s Anston, Brad Pitt’s wife had similar thoughts just before getting hit with the divorce papers. It’s one of those delusional conceits people like to continue believing about our society.
Even feminists for some reason like to attribute so much out there to grrrrrl power then really exists.
This sounds very much like a pre-feminist trope to me. For centuries women who had practically no legal or political power have been encouraged, by one another and by men too, to take consolation from the notion that, though men had the ostensible upper hand, it was women, with their “cunning wiles” and keener pyschological insight, who were really the puppet masters. Other consolatory offerings have been: that producing large numbers of offspring is a creative task which, unrealized, could not be sufficiently compensated by the most impressive career; that women, by abstaining from the rough and tumble of politics and the professions can keep their souls immaculate in a way their menfolk cannot; that the exercise of reason is a poor substitute for feminine intuition. Getting women to buy all that has been an important factor in keeping them politically and socially weak, and I would expect feminists to have nothing to do with them. I know some of them do, in fact, embrace such ideas: but they’re the kind of feminist I can’t stand.
The proper way for two rational beings to come to mutually satisfactory terms is for them to state their postitions as fairly as possible and to *explicitly* negotiate. The trouble with the kind of manipulation mentioned in the aticle is that, because the woman practising it cannot afford to be entirely honest, she is perforce vulnerable to manipulation on the part of her male partner: if you legitimize negotiation through psychological pressure and insinuation, you expose yourself to them. That appears to be what has happened to Sutherland herself.
Tom I agree but I’m sure you’ve seen many situations today spun by feminists to be ‘empowering’ for women.
The perfect example is the latest NY Times article that everyone in the blogsphere is talkimg about which commented that not only are women spending more time alone these days because we’re marrying later and divorcing after a few years time, but that women are less likely to get married again after a divorce…
It’s clearly a negative for women but of course many feminists are now trying to spin it to be a positive claiming marriages are better now because we can get divorced more easily. Maybe that’s true but there’s sure no evidence for it yet.
This manipulation of men business is a similar tactic from the other side, in my opinion. Trying to act like women can balance off mens’ economic and other strengths by our wiles…
Additionally women are compared to animals all the time. I think that can be good however. Mothers are frequently compared to mother bears and such…so not all animal comparisons are negative. I have heard women called cows also….negatively.
NYMOM
Well, I somehow doubt that it is to be found minuted in the “Protocols of the Elders of the Patriarchy”, but I take your point that it was frequently to men’s advantage that half the population should be kept from competing with them, as a consequence of its having been persuaded that some illusory “influence” (the kind that can never be translated into political and social action) was more worth than having, say, the right to vote or to a university education.
But the truth of the matter is that lots of women seem to be into this “feminine wiles” stuff too. There was that book, “The Rules” which came out, what, ten years ago or more? and which made it a golden rule for young women that they were to treat their male sexual partners as, basically, chumps who were to be subtly inveigled and trained and domesticated until they had become suitable husband material. You probably know how many girls – potentially strong, independent girls – still swear by it. And though I doubt that any feminists would expressly approve of such things, it’s remarkable how many still find it difficult to flat-out sexually negotiate with men. It just doesn’t seem right to them: romance should be all about mood music and half-caught glimpses and significant looks; and it’s the role of men to make proposals and propositions – which might be accepted or rejected but never unambiguously sought. The idea of women being sexually forthright (as much opposed to sexual incontinence as it is to prudery) seems as alien to most feminist as it does to most non feminist women. And I think, for their sake, that it’s a great shame, because a relationship which begins with the one side taking the active and open role and the other taking the passive and stealthy one, is likely to continue in the same way, and to the detriment of the latter party.
Tom when I said the other side I meant the right wing Christian Womens’ Auxiliary vs. feminists, not men. There’s no advantage to men in pushing this, most of them see right through the behavior and think its a joke actually.
It’s women who use it because until fairly recently, they’ve always been in a weak position so this is like the consulation prize. Kind of like that play “A funny thing happened on the way to the forum”. Where a roman slave trying to manipulate his master goes through all these gyrations and finally is successful…that’s why I say now that I see feminists using it, I know their influence is waning.
When you can’t call em as you see em, then something’s wrong and feminism has been spinning a lot of bad news recently…
The popularity of The Rules clearly shows that in spite of what feminist say women are still more concerned about marrying then men are. Which of course puts them in a weaker position then men. Especially now that the timeline for marriage has been pushed back so far, women are definitely in a worse position if their husbands want children. So all the wiles in the world and cosmetics and surgery, exercise, grrrl power etc., cannot change that unmutable biological fact.
‘Feminine wiles’ is simply another name for the social power that women have and men do not.
And that social power trumps any other form of power, that’s why women use it.
Most men are confused about social power because they have no experience with exercising it and do not understand it’s purpose, nature or rules. Often they dismiss it as irrelevant or “weak”, even as it inexorably deconstructs every power they possess.
Thanks for the welcome, Hugh.
I was wondering, did you ever post at my earstwhile forum? I’m afraid I’m terrible at names.
Welcome, typhonblue.
“Feminine wiles’ is simply another name for the social power that women have and men do not.”
Female wiles is another names for the secondary traits women have developed in order to make their way in the world. They have learned to get their way through subterfuge as they have not had the power to directly confront men and demand the things they want, the way most men can do. Thus we have learned the arts of manipulating men in order to get something.
Even today in the west where women finally have power, generations of inbreeding telling us that developing our boobs will get us further in this world then our brians, has resulted in women continuing to exhibt these secondary traits. That’s the real story behind this fixation with Anna Nicole Smith. That a woman with no accomplishments whatsoever except a pretty face and a good boob job gets as much success and attention as a head of state.
So we’re cultivating the next generation of women to follow in her wake.
It’s why powerful women still dye their hair blonde and parade around in heels and short skirts well into their 40s, long past their sexuality peak. Ann Coulter and other supposedly ‘powerful women’ are not doing this for nothing.
And that social power trumps any other form of power, that’s why women use it.
It does not trump any other form of power. Women use it as it’s all they’ve had for centuries, so like many other evolutionary traits which have evolved, it’s now part of the total package. Military and then economic power trump all other form of power…
“Most men are confused about social power because they have no experience with exercising it and do not understand it’s purpose, nature or rules. Often they dismiss it as irrelevant or “weak”, even as it inexorably deconstructs every power they possess.”
Most men have had no need of it and yes, they are right. It is only a ‘power’ that the weak use, as the strong have no need of it.
This is baloney that women have so much power over men…Did Bridget Marks have so much power over her boyfriend John Aylsworth? I didn’t see any evidence of her ‘social powers’ there. What about Patricia Duff’s social power. After Ron Perlman took custody of a five year old from her? This woman used to be on the New York charity circuit all the time, in all the papers. Now you never hear of her since that happened.
So where is their famous social powers now, it’s non-existent…It’s in the minds of women like you, sadly deluded that women have this ‘social power’ over men to manipulate them. It’s total nonsense.
Or, perhaps, men have to do things for themselves because they have no social power. Further, no one has ever presented a decent argument that men in power benefit other men over women.
But, assuming that men in power benefit themselves, then why don’t women– who have had, as a group, complete physical control over almost every adult in the west during the time in those adult’s lives when the attitudes, behavior patterns and beliefs they will be beholden to for the rest of their lives are formed–use their power to benefit themselves?
Women have ‘control’ over children for a brief period of their lives before they start interacting with other members of their community. Outside influences, including their peers and teachers, then begin to have influence.
I think Freud pretty much covered all of this and I haven’t seen anyone come up with a better summation to this day. Fathers represent the larger society to children…
Men in power respresent democracy and giving other men a voice in their governance. At least here in the west that’s our origins, so you better get used to it.
“Women have ‘control’ over children for a brief period of their lives before they start interacting with other members of their community. Outside influences, including their peers and teachers, then begin to have influence.”
Oh yes. Of course their teachers are mostly women. And who influences their peers who influence them? Their mothers and teachers, of course. Who are women.
Mothers are still training their children up to and including the point where their child no longer needs their support, emotional or otherwise. Which, depending on the child, is anywhere from 13 to 45.
“Fathers represent the larger society to children…”
So what? Fathers in the west also only have women’s interests in mind for the most part. (Having been shaped by women.) So they’re introducing their children to how to mold the larger society into a support system for women.
[quote comment="2987"]“Women have ‘control’ over children for a brief period of their lives before they start interacting with other members of their community. Outside influences, including their peers and teachers, then begin to have influence.”
Oh yes. Of course their teachers are mostly women. And who influences their peers who influence them? Their mothers and teachers, of course. Who are women.
Mothers are still training their children up to and including the point where their child no longer needs their support, emotional or otherwise. Which, depending on the child, is anywhere from 13 to 45.
“Fathers represent the larger society to children…”
So what? Fathers in the west also only have women’s interests in mind for the most part. (Having been shaped by women.) So they’re introducing their children to how to mold the larger society into a support system for women.[/quote]
NYMOM said:
Let’s go back even farther: what is military and economic power and why do they exist? Militaries and economies are the consequence of intra-male coalitional struggle over status and resources. Why would males be doing that? They do it, consciously or unconsciously, to compete over women, because women select for males with higher status and resources and have been doing so throughout history.
Males have to compete over women harder than women have to compete over men, because women are pickier. This is well explained by the theory of sexual selection.
One way of looking at this is that women started out with a more powerful sexuality than men, and men developed other sources of power (economic, political, military) in order to compensate, which often involved control over women and their sexuality.
“Women have ‘control’ over children for a brief period of their lives before they start interacting with other members of their community. Outside influences, including their peers and teachers, then begin to have influence.
Oh yes. Of course their teachers are mostly women. And who influences their peers who influence them? Their mothers and teachers, of course. Who are women.”
Well even that’s only true for a brief period in our history. Teachers used to be all men. But that changed over the years, I believe mostly due to men’s own personal decisions…better pay in other jobs. However that can swing back again and it is changing. Additionally most college professors are men…
“Mothers are still training their children up to and including the point where their child no longer needs their support, emotional or otherwise. Which, depending on the child, is anywhere from 13 to 45.”
Children here from around 13 or so pay little attention to any authority figures. Their peers become more significant in thier lives then parents or teachers. Which probably explains the chaos that goes on in many schools today.
“Fathers represent the larger society to children…
So what? Fathers in the west also only have women’s interests in mind for the most part. (Having been shaped by women.) So they’re introducing their children to how to mold the larger society into a support system for women.”
I hate to say this but men in Islamic society appear to be far more fixated on women and fighting off our influence then men in the west do…What a waste of time to design your whole society around ways to minimize womens’ influence. Why don’t we just ship them a few cases of beer, some snacks, a big screen TV and the complete CD set of Monday Night Football reruns from the last decade. It worked for men here in the US. That’s for sure.
[quote]I hate to say this but men in Islamic society appear to be far more fixated on women and fighting off our influence then men in the west do…What a waste of time to design your whole society around ways to minimize womens’ influence. Why don’t we just ship them a few cases of beer, some snacks, a big screen TV and the complete CD set of Monday Night Football reruns from the last decade. It worked for men here in the US. That’s for sure.[/quote]
I can’t add anything to this. It’s just perfect.
[quote comment="2994"]NYMOM said:
Let’s go back even farther: what is military and economic power and why do they exist? Militaries and economies are the consequence of intra-male coalitional struggle over status and resources. Why would males be doing that? They do it, consciously or unconsciously, to compete over women, because women select for males with higher status and resources and have been doing so throughout history.
Males have to compete over women harder than women have to compete over men, because women are pickier. This is well explained by the theory of sexual selection.
One way of looking at this is that women started out with a more powerful sexuality than men, and men developed other sources of power (economic, political, military) in order to compensate, which often involved control over women and their sexuality.[/quote]
This is possible and probable…
Excellent argument Hugh.
[quote comment="2996"]“Women have ‘control’ over children for a brief period of their lives before they start interacting with other members of their community. Outside influences, including their peers and teachers, then begin to have influence..[/quote]
Mmmmm, no. No man totally dominates another human being the way women (mostly) dominate young children, both boys and girls. The experience of absolute total power and control over another human being is primarily a female experience. Thus, the feminist whining about powerlessness is simply whining. Because women choose to (do not have to, but choose to) live in their emotional realm, they will react emotionally and express their emotional feelings about circumstances. Such emotion-based responses are neither intended to be nor are factually correct. It simply feels good to talk about a particular situation. It is not an accurate analysis of the factual circumstances, balancing all cases on all sides.
[quote comment="2918"]Welcome, typhonblue.”
[/quote]
Well, mainly most men are confused about social power because they fundamentally want and long for a decent, fair, honest, and equal relationship with a woman companion. Men fundamentally do not want to live their lives full of dishonesty and games. Men grow up believing that that pretty girl is made of “sugar and spice and everything nice” and is sweet and innocent and angelic and good.
Longing for a positive, wonderful relationship with a sweet woman who will be his friend, a man is totally blindsided by the dishonest and self-centered games of women… because the man simply does not want to live that way. For most men, they would rather live alone than fight fire with fire and match a woman game for game. For men, such a way of living is a total contradiction of what they are looking for in a woman.
To win at such games is to lose, because that is not the kind of relationship a man is hoping for. For a man to master the game is to lose the prize.
A man hopes for a relationship with a woman that will be a refuge from the world, the one place where he does not have to fight or compete or be on his guard. If a man has to match a woman’s manipulations inside a relationship,then the relationship is no longer worth having.
Well, Jack, normally I’d welcome a new guest to our blog, but in the light of your misogynistic comment above, I’m not feeling particularly welcoming. Our policies permit the expression of such views, but you will not find a sympathetic audience for them here.
Jack Stone said:
The majority of times that I have been hurt by a woman was not because of female dishonesty and games, but because I did not understand female-typical preferences and psychology. Many men brought up in our society have been brainwashed into thinking that there are no significant differences between how men and women work. This is false. Yes, the behavior and tendencies of some women (and some men) are problematic, but most of the time, I think the only reason that certain female behaviors and tendencies are hurtful to men is that men are not told that they exist, are taken by surprise by them, or do not understand the psychology behind them (same thing when women are hurt by male-typical behaviors.
See also this article (Hat tip.)
I really hate the way “behavioural management” is used as a replacement for ethical consciousness and more mindful training in schools. The people who are “managed” this way grow up to have very little going on in terms of treating other people ethically. There is a general lack of human decency at large.
Our society likes quick fixes with a “Who cares” attitude about future ramifications. See Ritalin and other such drugs. And don’t forget North America is the society of 24/7 quick entertainment.
I think the best we can do is to stop this quick fix society from spreading. That is why I am even slightly sympathetic with Zim president Mugabe’s anti western stance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....leash.html
“Train your husband like a dog.”
You know what, suddenly I’m entirely willing to give all the male-dominance stuff I see on spearhead and other mra sites a permanent pass.
This is nothing new. Five years ago the BBC ran a prime time TV show called “Bring Your Husband to Heel” in which women were taught how to use dog-training techniques on their husbands, and were filmed doing so without their husbands’ knowledge. It was taken to the broadcasting standards authorities who managed to rule it wasn’t sexist!
Most of the defences of it argue that it’s more effective than nagging – which seems to take it entirely for granted that a wife is entitled to her husband’s obedience, and the only question is how to ensure it most effectively.
The saddest thing is, many of the subject husbands said their wives were nicer to them when they were treating them like dogs than before. More positive feedback. It seems the wives in question could only be nice to the men they supposedly loved as a ploy to ensure their obedience, and not, say, because they actually liked them.
Patrick Brown:
Thanks for the heads up. A quick search turned up some information and commentry on the program, as well as the OfCom decision.
OfCom didn’t rule that it wasn’t sexist, only that it was not in breach of the code. There reasoning appears to be that a certain amount of sexism is permissable.
I’ve not seen the program, but I would imagine that it was pretty much standard relationship-management techniques dressed up as dog-training. In other words, it was the presentation, rather than the methods per se which were objectionable. (This is similar to HughRistik’s point that the language of PUAs is more objectionable than their techniques.)
That would be consistent with my “standard relationship-management techniques dressed up as dog-training” hypothesis.
HughRistik makes a similar, but more general point in his post at top, when he wonders whether “her actions could be part of the problem in the first place”.
Remember all this the next time you hear a feminist fuming and fulminating about the connotations of the term “cougar”.
Calling humans by the names of animals – if feminists and society in general really valued motherhood half as much as they claim, the term “cow” would be a badge of honor.