The Bastard on the Couch: 27 Men Try Really Hard to Explain Their Feelings About Love, Loss, Fatherhood, and Freedom
by Daniel Jones
A Gloom of One's Own
A review by Sandra Tsing Loh
Full disclosure: I was asked to submit material for The
Bitch in the House, a 2002 essay collection on female domestic rage. But Ideclined,
because in my house I felt I was already too bitchy. An old new mother (I had
my first of two babies at thirty-eight), I was then battling my musician husband -- both
of us as grim as Survivor finalists yanking on the last scrawny chicken leg -- over
the matter of time, ever shrinking time. How to steal yet more time to type away
madly into the night about how angry I was that I never had enough time? Not that
I wasn't on edge (in two years I hadn't slept through the night); not that I didn't
have material. Indeed, the record shows I'd already penned several furious missives
to my husband at 3:00 a.m. (one was sixteen pages long) that -- here's the catch -- I
do not remember writing. In short, immortalizing my rage in hardcover? It didn't
seem the best choice for my family, my loved ones, my body, my self.
Now, of course, I'm slapping my forehead with a Homer Simpson "Doh!,"
because The Bitch in the House went on to become not just a lively, thought-provoking,
well-edited book but also a New York Times best seller. So what can one
say but "Hats off" to its editor, Cathi Hanauer, a fellow frantic
working mother who still found time to elegantly plumb the rage -- but also
the contradictions, vulnerabilities, and foibles -- of hard-driven post-feminist
women. Hats off also to her husband, Daniel Jones, who has now compiled the
knowingly titled The Bastard on the Couch, a men's answer to The Bitch
in the House. Hanauer and Jones: they're probably team-editing, even as
we speak, an extraordinary third volume, full of fresh, provocative writing
that will keenly trace my ambivalent feelings about smart, engaging New York
couples like themselves (never mind that a despairing squint into their bios
reveals Massachusetts), who even with small children continue to be ferociously
effective.
But until that book comes out, let non-contributing me slink to my sagging
Los Angeles futon with a sixteen-ounce mug of lukewarm coffee and recap for
you the report, as I see it, from the front lines of the gender wars encapsulated
by these two volumes. "The Bitch in the House" is Hanauer's catchphrase
for an ambitious professional woman like herself, who struggles through what
Peggy Orenstein, the author of Flux
(2000), calls a "half-changed world." The good news is that after
feminism, women are no longer expected to ape a 1950s-era June Cleaver -- or,
more literarily, a nineteenth-century Angel in the House. Penned in 1854
by a fantastically unenlightened Victorian named Coventry Patmore (in his portrait
Patmore bears a striking resemblance to a high-collared Victorian poodle), The
Angel in the House, an ode to Patmore's perfect wife, Emily, offered such
a repressive -- and potent -- female ideal that it drove Virginia Woolf to groan
in her essays,
She was utterly unselfish. She excelled in the difficult arts of family life.
She sacrificed herself daily. If there was chicken, she took the leg; if there
was a draft she sat in it -- in short she was so constituted that she never
had a mind or a wish of her own, but preferred to sympathize always with the
minds and wishes of others.
From this Woolf famously concluded, in A
Room of One's Own, that succeeding as a woman writer required -- aside from
an annual income of £500 sterling and one's own inviolable space -- no
less than killing one's inner self-effacing, overly family-needs-focused Angel
in the House.
Of course the question today, Hanauer observes, is that if we modern women
have everything (careers, money, family, and all the choices that go therewith),
why are so many of us -- particularly the most privileged among us, she's
clear about saying -- so full of rage? (Or, to track the metaphor here, now
that we've killed the Angel in the House, why is the person who remains so often
the Bitch?)
In furious e-mails zigzagging late into the night, Hanauer's female colleagues
cited a familiar list of stresses:
Too much to do in too few hours. Not enough help from society and, sometimes,
spouses. Invasion of technology into our lives, further accelerating our already
fragmented time. Financial responsibility combined with the responsibility
and inherent desires of motherhood. The wish, regardless of financial responsibility,
to have a fulfilling career, for which we've prepared all our lives. Pressure
to look not only flawless but younger than we actually are. Lack of
role models in our lives for what we're trying to do
The ideas and
belief
that we should have it all, do it all, be it all, and be Happy.
And if we're not, by God, something is wrong.
But let's get back to the men -- what's wrong with the men. Never mind the
whipsaw effects of society, technology, and culture. At home the mystery for
progressive-minded women continues to be "Why, even when we make a point
of marrying Coventry Patmore's polar opposite (that card-carrying post-feminist
good guy who cheerfully agrees to do 50 percent of the housework), is the result
still a war zone of bitterness, chaos, and strife?" Mundanely enough, as
most of the fifty-three embedded journalists in Bitch and Bastard
testify, the problem is often that even the most well-intentioned men and women
seem all but biologically unable to agree on what 50 percent of the labor actually
is. This is a problem above and beyond, say, the eternal conflict between those
who soak their dishes overnight and those who'd sooner jump off a cliff than
wake up to a dirty kitchen (never mind the Talmudic debate in our household
over knife points up or down in the dishwasher). Bountiful anecdotal evidence
describes a dashing-off-to-work wife giving her lazy Bastard what she considers
half a to-do list, whereas by the husband's calculation the "half"
the Bitch gave him represents what's needed times four (a gender imbalance perhaps
most hilariously described by the happily shirking, CNN-watching Christopher
Russell in "My List of Chores").
Which is not to say that the men don't admire (sort of) the ridiculously high
standards the women cleave to. In "Why My Kids Like Me," Steven Rinehart
comments on how low he has set his own bar: "I mostly practice my parenting
out of my wife's earshot, similar to the way I practiced trombone in junior
high." He continues,
Just about every one of [the women] could use a personal assistant to help
them run their lives, and you can't really say that about the men, even the
ones who, like me, bust their asses with a forty-plus-hour workweek, do most
of the cooking, and have forsaken the Dagwood Sunday-morning nap on the couch
as a quaint custom in the same league as whittling. We don't need assistants;
when push comes to shove, we just become the weak link. Our wives can fume
and fret about the details; we buy the kids junk food and take them to Adam
Sandler movies. Someone has to stop and smell the rose-scented Hello Kitty
lip gloss and ogle the ninety-five-dollar Yu-Gi-Oh cards behind the glass
of the display case, and we're just the guys to do it.
Indeed, to hear them tell it, the Bastards don't just stop to smell the lip
gloss; they play guitar, drink gin, chop wood, listen to the blues, and wax
poetic about lovable dogs they have known (lovable, underachieving dogs). Compared
with their frantic, trying-to-have-it-all wives (several of the essayists are
husbands of contributing Bitches), the Bastards swing more yin than yang, defiantly
celebrating the couch (see Ron Carlson's lovely essay, "Men in Houses"),
the overall vibe becoming by the end, yes, just a little bit groovy, just a
little bit shaggy-haired, just a little bit Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Driving obediently to the supermarket,
to-do lists in hand, the Bastards meditate -- hard -- on the difficult but necessary
art of surrendering power (Fred Leebron's "I Am Man, Hear Me Bleat,"
Manny Howard's "Embracing the Little Steering Wheel"). From a metaphorical
-- or sometimes not so metaphorical -- cabin in the woods they contemplate,
with some awe and no little affection, the brilliant urban women they've known,
both wives and exes. Never mind that these women come across largely as type-A
control freaks who, given a minute, would rather read a book than have sex (as
in Sean Elder's "The Lock Box").
Of course, Bitch's essayists include a heavy sampling of women from
the top echelons of publishing: the executive editors of both Elle and
Glamour contributed, as did highly placed staffers at Random House, W.
W. Norton, the New York Times, and Vanity Fair. This is one reason
the writing is so consistently revealing and fine. Consider the lyrical ending
to the then Glamour chief Kristin van Ogtrop's "Attila the Honey
I'm Home."
I will never be able to share the surprise [my kids] feel when they find
a cicada in the grass, because stopping to marvel at the cicada means I will
miss my morning train
I will long for a time when I will never yell
at my kids just because I am late
Because before I know it, my boys
will be grown
Four little feet jumping on the bed will be a distant
memory. And things like cicadas will have lost their magic, and my children
will be gone for good.
However, cutting back at work is never considered an option -- even if the
work schedule requires leaving home at 5:30 a.m. and getting back after seven
at night. (In an eerie, fascinating comment on our times, Van Ogtrop is now
the managing editor of Real Simple magazine.) God may strike me dead
(particularly if God is a she), but by the end of Bitch and Bastard
I had the nagging feeling that if these books are any indication, today's post-feminist
women could learn a thing or two from today's post-feminist men, not the other
way around. I mean, in Bitch, "Deadlines, deadlines, deadlines!"
is the ever present and unquestioned backbeat that drives much of the domestic
conflict, scattering husbands, children, and pets. With New York women this
extraordinarily industrious (I picture rumpled Jil Sander jackets, feverish
typing, a massive digital clock ticking down the seconds), it seems like eons
ago (well, the 1970s) that the female Manhattanite Fran Lebowitz lay around
her apartment and penned her immortal -- and, come to think of it, not all that
rageful -- "My Day: An Introduction of Sorts" (sample entry: "3:40
p.m. I consider getting out of bed. I reject the notion as being unduly vigorous.
I read and smoke a bit more").
Of course, I realize it's fine for me -- the Bitch on the Futon -- to carp
away long after the fact from my remote post in California; amazingly disciplined
editrix supermom or no, Hanauer was limited to publishing the essays of writers
who actually wrote them. (Listen to me, shrilling faintly in the background:
"But who will speak for the women too lazy to write?") So,
having in effect missed my deadline by several years now, but having at least
slept a few nights, let me add my own small footnote to the Bitch in the
House discussion. In her "Memoirs of an Ex-Bride," Daphne Merkin,
while describing her disappointment in the institution of marriage, writes,
"Oh, I imagine once upon a time I had an honest-to-goodness Marriage Fantasy,
just as I had a Wedding Fantasy, in which I featured as a tiny-waisted Barbie
doll-bride, standing on top of a lacy white cake: true love anointed in a swirl
of buttercream frosting and candied violets." Yes, after the wedding comes
marriage and then babies and then motherhood -- easy as that. Such rosy ideals
of femalehood are a sham, post-feminist women agree; they do little to prepare
us for the hours, the tedium, and the exhaustion, not to mention the wave of
useless men.
But what I'd like to know is, aren't there women out there who've ever been
disappointed by work? Just as Merkin had her Wedding Fantasy, I have always
secretly nurtured an Overnight Success Fantasy, which typically involves winning
a MacArthur genius grant at age twenty-five (that would have been seventeen
years ago now), my version of Woolf's fortuitous £500 a year. Not stopping
with a simple room of my own, in my fantasy I, too, see a frosted cake with
candied violets: on top is a perfect, tiny-waisted doll who looks suspiciously
like Amy Tan clutching a Barbie-size National Book Award. Fawning critics surround
her in a sugary clamshell, fringed by manicured rose beds bulging with dollars,
and perhaps a camera crew from some admiring PBS documentary!
I compare that with what the freelance writer's life really feels like to me,
at forty-two: less creamy cake top and more skanky roadhouse, where a haggard,
friendless, not-so-tiny-waisted woman in a too tight pleather skirt is constantly
jilted by a series of faithless lovers and left showering in the motel. I could
open my address book and show you the trail of phone numbers -- oh, look, here's
the number of a powerful Condι Nast editor who actually contributed an
essay to Bitch! She complains of child-care problems! Housework problems!
Perhaps that's what was irritating her when she brutally killed my piece! As
a post-feminist working mother parsing the chaos midway through the dark forest
of her life, I realize that work has felt less the thing that continually built
my self-esteem than that which continually called it into question. For me,
not family but work has been the uncontrollable emotional seesaw: one day you're
as swollen as a tick with your genius, the next day you're humiliated by the
spectacle of your ludicrous flailings. When you do publish a book, what you
thought would be your fabulous coming-out party feels instead like being shot
by firing squad over and over again.
It could just be my generation of women, our mouths open in a neurotic howl
of Who is my self? What is my identity? Me me me! Who who who? Why why why?
-- what I like to call sharp attacks of keening Po Bronsonalia. But Virginia
Woolf, the patron saint of modern literary women (and, of course, another woman
in publishing), wasn't much calmer. Although she lived -- lucky her -- before
the age of instant Amazon.com ratings and the once ever hovering million-dollar
lottery ticket of Oprah's Book Club, when you read Woolf's diaries, you see
her, too, fretting about her career's grinding mechanics: the rising and falling
book sales, the eternal pounding-out of income from her articles, the wavering
esteem of olde frostykins T. S. Eliot, the irritating rejections (even from
-- yes, and thanks a lot -- the Atlantic). Woolf devours every new review,
feels subsequent triumph or defeat, and loathes herself for being so vulnerable.
(I couldn't help noticing that the back of my edition of her diaries is topped,
without irony, by a large, buoyant quotation: "I get courage by reading
Virginia Woolf's A
Writer's Diary. You must read this diary. -- Sylvia Plath.")
In one of Woolf's last diary entries, three weeks before she put a stone in
her pocket and disappeared into the River Ouse, the thing she was most looking
forward to was cooking dinner.
Which is to say that for me, at this point in my life, the Woolf-as-artist
legacy is complex. Since the 1960s Woolf has been the you-go girl for aspiring
women writers ("A Room of One's Own" has long been a popular name
for feminist bookstores). And yet, in a very unfeminist way, work did not positively
build up her self-esteem or even make her life worth living. Woolf clearly felt
the misery of writing as much as the joy -- and for documenting that reality,
too, we owe her.
I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't write, of course. It's just that work,
along with wifehood, motherhood, and all the rest, should be a Barbie we occasionally
take down off her glittering pedestal and smash. By the way, have you noticed
how women writers (Woolf, several of the Bitches, yours truly) -- when ostensibly
speaking for and about independent working women -- often end up talking almost
exclusively about women writers
that is, about themselves? As if the
truest form of female expression, professionally speaking (if not in general),
were a solitary self-consciousness put to page? One of the legacies of Woolf's
"Room" -- which by now hums as large and powerfully enigmatic as the
2001: A Space Odyssey monolith -- is, I think, that we women tend to
regard the activity of our writing with a hushed-voice reverence I'm not sure
it always deserves. How refreshing if we occasionally gestured at a sheaf of
papers, cackled broadly, and said, "Look at what I wrote yesterday! Well,
that was crap! Obviously I should have just
sat down and folded the laundry!"
Two thirds of the books on the shelves of any given Barnes & Noble end up
in the wood chipper anyway. Is it really such a great loss to cut back on the
writing for a few years and just
get those kids into kindergarten? After
all, not all prose is deathless; some of it is terminally ill.
And thus endeth my manifesto: "A Couch of One's Own."
(P.S. I don't mean to imply that male writers can't quit too, if family responsibilities
call. I'm thinking of those who write vague, NPR-type essays involving childhood
memories of going with one's mournful, alcoholic father to wordlessly watch
unwinnable baseball games played out by the dad's favorite losing team. I say
any man uses the Cubs ever again as a metaphor for futility and it's straight
to diaper-genie duty with him.)
In this already too frantic era, particularly for creatively inclined women
trying to run on twelve different treadmills at once, it is perhaps best not
to try to live up to the modernist (in more ways than one) Woolf but, rather,
to slow down to the pace of Ellen Gilchrist. (Idea for a new women's button:
Instead of "You GO, Girl!," "You STOP, Girl!") In her soothing
"The Middle Way," near the end of Bitch, Gilchrist sounds a
rare note of tranquillity. Bearing an unimpeachable mixture of age, achievement,
and contentment, she writes, with endearing deprecation,
One of the reasons I am happy now is that I did the work I had always dreamed
of doing. But I didn't start doing it seriously and professionally until I
was forty years old. I have always loved books and always thought of myself
as a writer but didn't have an overwhelming desire to write and publish things
until my children were almost grown. I had published things off and on during
my life and I enjoyed the process but I had no sustained desire to be a writer.
It was just something I knew I could do if I wanted to. I was busy falling
in love and getting married to three different men (I married the father of
my children twice), and having babies and buying clothes and getting my hair
fixed and running in the park and playing tennis. During those years my desire
for literature was satisfied by reading. If there was something that needed
writing, like the minutes for a PTA meeting or a play for my husband's law
firm's dinner party, I wrote it and everyone liked it but I didn't want to
keep on writing. To tell the truth, I was forty years old before I had enough
experience to be a writer. I barely knew what I thought, much less what anything
meant.
In contrast, in the same section, is Vivian Gornick's extraordinary "What
Independence Has Come to Mean to Me." After decades of fighting on the
front lines of feminism Gornick at sixty-five stands holding a coffee cup and
staring out the window at the same New York street she has lived on for twenty-five
years
alone. In pondering this solitude she startlingly writes,
The reality was that I was alone not because of my politics but because I
did not know how to live in a decent way with another human being. In the
name of equality I tormented every man who'd ever loved me until he left me:
I called them on everything, never let anything go, held them up to accountability
in ways that wearied us both. There was, of course, more than a grain of truth
in everything I said, but those grains, no matter how numerous, need not have
become the sandpile that crushed the life out of love.
"Love": the demon word, the lie, the myth, the enslaver, promising
so much and delivering so little. "Just once I'd like to walk into
the house and dinner is made!" railed a fortysomething friend of
mine recently. She and her husband, child-free, both get home at seven. The
deus ex machina that saves her from being a Bitch at such moments comes in the
form of a small Thai man who delivers takeout. For two-career parents the solution
is more complicated. In "The Myth of Co-Parenting," Hope Edelman writes
that when her supposedly co-parenting husband suggested they hire a nanny, she
shouted, "I don't need a nanny, I need a husband!"
The point being that as the forces of free enterprise drive up both men's and
women's work hours, leaving no one at home, gone is the invisible hand that
used to gas up the car, pair the socks, restock the fridge. Domestic help can
be hired, but something deeper than the service this represents has been lost:
the magical sensation of being cared for, of feeling comfort at the hearth and
in the family, of having one's quotidian life -- yes, are you ready? -- touched
by an angel. Because any way you slice it, there is a hole where Mother used
to be. Under the rage lies sadness. But of course, those Bastards argue, it
doesn't have to be this way. Instead of the now worrisomely capitalistic Having
It All, we can Make Do With Less. That way one partner can stay home (perhaps
in a sign of the times, the only writer of the fifty-three who describes currently
living as a full-time nurturer is a man: Rob Jackson, in "My Life as a
Housewife"). Alternatively, as Rob Spillman suggests in "Ward and
June R Us" (you've got to love those optimistic, solution-oriented men),
why not trade off who plays Ward and who plays June week by week? This eliminates
snarling over territorial control (and for me, happily, would mean knife points
down in the dishwasher all week long) and ensures that by day's end someone's
going to have dinner on the table.
The fact is, someone has to be June Cleaver some of the time. Otherwise we've
got an unloved nation of Wards. And for what? As Kevin Canty writes, in "The
Dog in Me,"
We have been approaching this idea of who does what and where we all fit
in terms of ideology and emotion, in terms of feminism and equality and injury
and lovingness. I wonder, though, if it would not be better approached in
terms of political economy. What I'm getting at is, how did we get priced
out of the market for our own lives?
Many of us had cars and trips
and nice clothes and spending money in high school and college. Not only do
we want the same things for our children, but the prospect of living worse
in midlife than we did in high school seems completely strange and unacceptable.
Maybe it's as simple as that: maybe it's not our lives we can't afford but
our aspirations, the things we were brought up to believe we could get from
life.
Of course, trying to reach connubial consensus on where "lives" let
off and mere "aspirations" begin will make determining the fifty-fifty
chore split seem as easy as saying an insincere "Yes, dear" before
hitting the couch for a little CNN. And yet if all this marital disagreement
and deceit seems to make for an unbelievably poor existence, consider as an
alternative Vivian Gornick's cautionary vision of total independence: a pristine
pile of sandy regret, on which she sits alone. Perhaps the final word should
go to Woolf, whose biographical axiom was "There are some stories which
have to be retold by each generation."
Sandra Tsing
Loh is a writer and a performer whose radio commentaries appear regularly on
American Public Media's Marketplace. She can also be heard on KPCC-FM,
in Pasadena, California.
Special Atlantic Monthly
subscription price for Powell's shoppers subscribe today for only $19.95.
Atlantic Monthly places you at the leading edge of contemporary issues plus the very best in fiction, poetry, travel, food and humor. Subscribe today and get 8 issues of the magazine delivered to you for only $19.95 that's a savings of over $19 off the newsstand price.
To order at this special
Powell's price click here.
|
|