In which I'm reminded that some ladies still live in the stone age

[batskeets]

Okay, seriously. What in blue blazes is this? I'm not sure if it's the author's fault, or the quotes that were used, or something else entirely, but that article makes me feel pretty outraged.

Don't get me wrong, if a woman wants to do the housewife thing, that's cool. If she's making a conscious choice to be a homemaker, because she *wants* to, then hey, more power to her. I wouldn't argue with it.

With the aforementioned article, however, it almost sounds like the pod people came and sucked out her brain. It sounds as though her existence completely revolves around her husband, and that there's no aspect of her life that isn't dictated by her husband. Maybe she's the type of person who really doesn't want to think about what to do with herself all day, but I have a hard time believing that a situation like that is fulfilling.

I'm of the belief that a husband and wife? Are PARTNERS. They're supposed to cooperate, and work together, and talk about their problems! If one person has to surrender their dreams, their wants, the things that make them happy, what kind of relationship is that? You're with each other for what should be the rest of your life, and you'll need to support each other to make it that far. That means supporting each other in your endeavors as you move through life. Or, in the instance that one of you feels that you can't give that support, at least being willing to rationally talk about the reasons why.

Having someone manage the finances and give you pocket money? That's something a parent does! Doing everything another person tells you? Maybe that works in grade school or the Army. Devoting intense discussions to how you can make your husband feel more powerful and dominant? If he really needs that much attention paid to his masculine ego, then he probably has bigger problems than a kowtowing housewife can fix.

Why does "femininity" still seem to go hand-in-hand with subservience? If I have to give up a bit of my "feminine" side in order to have a say in what happens in MY LIFE, that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.

Comments

book relating to the article

[gmendel.livejournal.com]

I checked out the website for the book that article was talking about. It has a sample chapter that's pretty weird - talks about how the author's marriage was (sounds like she was a real bitch, read it and tell me if you disagree), and apparently her solution was just to decide her husband was right in everything. Also, apparently another very important thing is to let the husband handle all the finances.

Um... I'm pretty sure there's a solution somewhere between those two extremes. What if, for example, your husband is kind of stupid? Has a gambling problem? Is it a terribly good idea to let him be the autocrat in the relationship? Is an equal relatiojship totally impossible?

I think this book is trying to turn really crappy marriages into slightly less crappy marriages. I'm not sure it's going to work. Maybe the greater goal is to sell copies of the book and build up a buzz for these "seminars" mentioned on the website (I imagine said seminars are incredibly expensive).

Re: book relating to the article

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the link to the book:

http://www.surrenderedwife.com/surrendered_wife_books_surrendered_wife.html

I sort of skimmed it, but a lot of it is just about avoiding being controlling. That's okay, but I don't think it's the same thing as deciding the other person is in charge.

There's some mixed messages here.

Re: book relating to the article

[gmendel.livejournal.com]

oops - that was me.

[divadrummer.livejournal.com]

It works for some people. I am definitely not one of those people. But there are plenty of people - male, female, doesn't matter, really - who get carried through life. And plenty of people hanging around willing to do the carrying. It strikes me more of an arrangement than a marriage, but then again, lots of marriages are. Business agreements are a lot more straightforward for a poor, sensitive, hurty little brain than relationships.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

This doesn't sound any more screwed up than any of the master/slave couples out there. It might be as screwed up, but not more.

If this article is true, it's entirely possible she likes things the way they are now.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

I see nothing in the article that suggests such an implication, only that these specific people have chosen these roles and enjoy them, and the page about the book is fairly clear about why the book is specifically aimed at women: it was written for women, by a woman, and its readers can only choose to change themselves, not other people.

Time to cash in!

[gmendel.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess it's time for me to announce the publication of my OWN pop psychology relationship book,

"Lobotomize Your Way To A Happy Marriage!"

Re: Time to cash in!

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

Sure. Could be the next big fad. Celebs going around with Louis Vuitton bandages on their head and stupid people joking about being lobotomized without realizing that they're making fools of themselves instead of excusing their failures. We could probably get the trepanning kooks in on this one, too. And the body mod people.. because really, once you've drilled a hole in your skull suitable for getting at the prefrontal lobe, you might as well stick a piece of jewelry in there to show everyone how 1993-alternative you are.

[dakania.livejournal.com]

Boy [pun intended], I can't wait to show the world that my femininity is equivalent to the surrendering of my right to make my own decisions!

*massive eye roll*

[lillilah]

I agree with the comment that this sounds similar to master/slave roles. For people who don't live in a world where they can acknowledge their submissive/dominant side, perhaps this is what happens. I've also personally wondered if some (or more than some) housewives suffer from mental health problems and take subservient roles because they can't cope. (Besides, if this woman home schools three kids, cooks, cleans and deals with all the domestic stuff, she probably doesn't have time to deal with finances anyway. The subtext of the article (it seems to me) is that this woman gave the power to her husband rather than that he took it. Being told that you are going to be in charge and that you "get" to make all the decisions still seems a bit to me like the person doing the giving is the one in control.)

[koualecia.livejournal.com]

I actually have a best friend who graduated in my class and she said from day one, "I never want to go to college. I just want to get married, have babies, and be a housewife with a man that will love and take care of me." And it horrified me.

Right now, she's engaged to be married, hasn't gone to school since, and it wouldn't surprise me if she has attempted to get a bun in the oven going.

That being said, I'm glad that she's happy and that she's doing what she says she wants, but it makes me afraid for her well-being. She has no self-esteem, is always falling for the wrong kind of guys, I've never even MET this guy, and she is the girl that will most likely end up being abused, taken advantage of, and ending up being a single welfare mommy. I hope this guy takes good care of her and that she really is happy this way (and good for her if she is, more power to her) but I just don't get it. I can't ever imagine just centering a world entirely around homemaking. If it makes people happy, good, but that's definitely not for me.

I believe in the philosophy that the partners in the relationship need to share the pants. My boyfriend and I try to trade off. He'll pay for some meals, I'll tip, I'll pay for meals, he'll tip, we'll do something he wants to do, we'll do something I want to do. So on and so forth. It's all about give and take.

And on the other side of the island, I also don't agree with women taking all of the power and having the submissive boyfriend and calling it "being feminist." That's bullshit to me.

So in short, I agree! That article annoyed me, too.

[wednesday]

OH. Surrendered Wife stuff.

Fringe. Xplo's nailed it. SW and similar arrangements enjoy an odd sort of fringe status amongst het D/s community types.

For real fun, you want the folks who springboard from this philosophy to wife spanking as behavioral control (as opposed to wife spanking as admitted fetish act). And by fun I mean GAH.

[xplo-eristotle.livejournal.com]

It offers a nice contrast to the male chastity stuff.

"My penis belongs to Her. She keeps it locked up, She keeps the key, and She decides when to use it. This gives me more motivation to serve Her. It's so much more fulfilling than a normal relationship!"

Brrrr. >_<

[wednesday]

Bleh; femdom's a whole 'nother wax ball.

[arabella-jin.livejournal.com]

There was a documnetary on BBC about the book and it's followers which came with a warning of "do not watch if you suffer from high blood pressure". I'm not making this up.
What surprises me is how the writer of this "bible" is a surrender wife and yet has time to give interviews, run seminars, plug the book, etc. I mean should she be at home washing her husbands dirty football socks? Another way to make money and stupid people believe her.

I'll never forget one husband who woke up his wife at 5 am cause he felt like having a smoothie for breakfast, so she made him one even though she was up all night with a crying baby...and then saying that they have sex ONLY when he wants to cause he's the man of the house. Indeed, my blood pressure sky rocketed.
Emily Pankhurst, was rolling in her grave.