[sudosteph]

It may not have been the most elegant invitation to discourse, but CaptainSwing is right that Chekhov was conveying a very sexist attitude there.

The problem isn't so much that his favorite traits in a partner coincide with stereotypes of an idealized woman, it's that he goes out of his way to say that clever women aren't worthy partners because they're liars. The rest of his letter shows that he clearly values intelligence for himself and other men, and he clearly holds himself up to a standard that avoids lying, but for women, he thinks intelligence will produce an untrustworthy mate. He acknowledges that he is clever and honest, but does not think a female partner can share those traits. That double-standard is a flaw in his thinking and his character. An extremely common flaw for men of his time period, but a flaw nonetheless.

Acknowledging an author's sexism doesn't make his work any less meaningful, it just gives another insight into the mind of the man who wrote it. It can provide context for analysis of other parts of his work and open up some questions into his beliefs. Was he emotionally hurt by clever women lying to him? Or did he just cut-and-dry accept patriarchic notions of women as lesser beings who can't achieve the same standards of intelligence and morality? If it's the latter, what other false notions did he accept and do those make themselves apparent in his works? If it's the former, are there any aspects of his work that delve further into the theme of trust violation in relationships?

[xherberta]

I read it a little differently. He cites "THE cleverness which...", implying that there's a particular form of cleverness that manifests in "continual lying."

I wonder whether the Russian word translated "cleverness" means straight intelligence as you are reading, or whether it might connote a sense of guile.

I'm also a little perplexed that people are taking the "motherhood" part as sexist.

What's wrong with aspiring to be a great mother? What's wrong with motherhood as a part of what strong and awesome women do, and a quality that you obviously would look for in a mate? Is there some kind of anti-mother backlash? If you're a mother, you're obviously in cahoots with the patriarchy? Is being a mother too embarrassing and lowly in today's culture? Why should it be that way? Let's take back motherhood as a noble and respectable thing!

While I'm at it, I'll put in a word for "freshness, elegance, and humanity." I wouldn't mind seeing these qualities held more in honor - in contrast to today's vapid culture that seems to encourage obsession with body shape while normalizing extreme inelegance (athleisure + tackiness) and inhumanity (permanently glued to phones, unable to converse.)

Note that even without any reference to men, the body-obsessed, tacky phone-addict is enjoying life less and attaining less satisfaction than if she were shooting for "freshness, elegance, and humanity." Would the female programmer or professor get less respect by having these qualities? If so, that IS a problem.

[sudosteph]

The sense of "guile" that we associate with cleverness is actually a pretty new subtlety. In older english it was basically equivalent to intelligent / skillful. (see http://www.websters1913.com/words/Clever ). I'm not sure when this was translated, or whether the russian meaning is different, but as it reads, intelligence is the most accurate meaning in that context. Unless the russian meaning is radically different, he's clearly stating intelligent women = liars, even if it's not comfortable to recognize that.

Agreed that motherhood is not the sexist part. If you as a man value children and fatherhood, then someone who values motherhood is the logical choice. There's nothing wrong with motherhood, and I think the vast majority of people do rightly view it as noble and respectable, as long as it's a choice at least.

I don't care at all about "freshness, elegance, humanity", and those traits do seem valued plenty as is. I've never seen someone get less respect in tech for exhibiting those values.

[idiot_stick]

>Was he emotionally hurt by clever women lying to him? Or did he just cut-and-dry accept patriarchic notions of women as lesser beings who can't achieve the same standards of intelligence and morality?

Or maybe it's neither. Maybe he didn't think twice about it, like most of us reading it, because it's beside the point.

>That double-standard is a flaw in his thinking and his character

Thankfully, HN has some glass-house residents eager to point out such character flaws, despite the content.

I'll reiterate: if you read something like the article, and your first thought is "this author might be sexist!" (emphasis on might), then you are not without your own debilitating flaws.

[sudosteph]

When did I say I was without flaws?

I'm just contributing to one aspect of discussion for the piece linked because it interests me. As is kind of the point of the comment section, yes? You are welcome to disagree with my points, but my interpretation of the work is no less valid as yours. Judging by the votes on my comments I'm not an outlier either.

At least I'm supporting my comments with context from the piece. You're just quoting me and saying (paraphrased of course) "you don't get the point", "I know what your first thought about this was", "you have debilitating flaws". I got the point, that wasn't my first thought (just the first thing I wanted to write about), and yeah, I've got flaws like everyone else here.