, a film which I knew Angus would like and was not disappointed (it had no special effects, not very many characters, dysfunctional families, and a suitably depressing story line. He did have a problem with the electrocution scene-this is a hazard of watching films with a man who knows everything there is to know about electricity. It makes watching
with him absolutely impossible.) After the film ended there was a documentary I wanted to see called
, a show whose premise it was that married women felt the best thing for their marriages was to completely and totally submit to their husbands' wishes, desires, and dictates.
Yes really.
I wanted to watch this.
So on the show went. Angus watched it with me, and to be honest, I found myself conflicted in a few areas.
The documentary basically followed 5 couples, half in the UK, the other half in America. There was of course the typical stereotypes one would associate with submissive wives-one couple had a Thai bride and in typical stereotype fashion, the retiree husband had the face not even a mother could love, he nattered on and on about how English women didn't even know how to microwave anymore, let alone cook for a man (which made me wonder aloud if HE knew how to microwave), and how happy he is with a submissive wife. Said submissive wife genuinely, honestly seemed pleased to take care of the man in the house, and she made it clear that her upbringing dictated that the woman's role was to care for the man.
Honestly, I didn't have a problem with this. It's not my culture (ok, actually the Asian culture is half my culture, but you know what I mean), and if it floats the Thai Wife's boat to serve her husband, then rock on.
Similarly, there was the stereotypical couple of what I call The Hardcore Christians. The day started off at 530 with a Bible reading and the Little Mrs. making breakfast and lunch for the hubby. Then the Little Mrs. spent the day cleaning and working from a list of things the Man of the House gave her to do. Seriously. He leaves her with a list of things to do every day and she has to cross them off (it includes baking bread. By hand. Because Wonder Bread is clearly not something the Lord would approve of, I assume). As she goes through her day, she constantly explains that she loves doing these things for the Man of the House as it's a way to praise and honor him, and then would quote various Bible passages to back up why it's so important to praise and honor a dweeby husband.
Now, I also didn't really think too much about them. To me they simply registered high on the Fundie meter. But as I watched them, it got more disturbing. The Little Mrs. would clean so fastidiously it smacked of OCD with a dose of paranoia on the side. When she started scrubbing a bathroom sink so amazingly clean that I would've licked pudding out of it before she scrubbed it, I figured - Someone's got issues. While scrubbing the bathtub, she explained that her scrubbing the bathtub "Praises and serves her husband, as well as makes him a better attorney." I'm not sure how Scrubbing Bubble makes someone a better lawyer, but then maybe there's something about it on the bar exam that I don't know about, perhaps a Mr. Clean secret handshake. As she continuously instructed their one year-old daughter that "you must respect and obey the man", and "we must praise and honor the Father", I got a little confused as to which father she was talking about, but when they started making a fruit pizza to "praise and honor the father" that I figured they were talking about the Man of the House because I just don't see God as a fruit pizza kind of being. And then, of course, when the kid would put a tinned mandarin orange chunk on the wrong way, the Little Mrs. would rush to fix it. I guess you can't be praised and honored if the mandarin's facing the wrong way.
Still, I figured-their life, not mine.
The documentary came quickly to the crux of the issue-apparently there's a new movement that started in America and is now reaching out to torture the rest of the world called "Surrendered Wives". This premise is based on a book of the same name (and although I was handling all of this well, when I searched for this book on Amazon.com it threw up a search that was so repugnant to me I felt the need to bleach the inside of my monitor.)
The book was written by a woman whose marriage was reaching critical mass, and she figured out the way to save it was to check her ego at the door and allow her husband to take control. Control...of everything. Finances, sex life, decision making, child rearing, you name it. The one with the dick makes the decisions.
I do get that desperate times mean desperate measures. When I realized my former marriage was in dire straights I did about the worst thing possible-I agreed to start trying for a baby (because that always works, that whole "let's have a baby and save our marriage!" idea. Worst. Fucking. Idea. Ever.) When you find that things aren't going well, the truth is you may often be willing to go radical, I accept that.
But maybe some things are a step too far.
The documentary was very fair (I felt) and showed two women going through the process of being a Surrendered Wife. These women were the other side of submissive, and in fact two of them were the biggest nags I had ever seen in my life. Their husbands couldn't do anything right, ever, and the way they let their husbands know how uselss they thought they were was thoroughly disrespectful. I don't mean this in a "you must praise and honor him" kind of way either, I mean in a "how can you talk to anyone in that way and not be the featured corpse in a CSI episode yet?" type. If I were these women's husbands, I'd have left by now. Fuckit, if I were one of these women's friends and they talked to me like that I'd have bailed on them, too.
Anyway. One woman's "acquiescence" meant that her marriage got a lot better and her partner stopped looking like he wanted to kill himself. And I honestly didn't see that she had capitulated anything, she just stopped talking to him like he was a 5 year-old, which surely is going to make for an ok marriage. If she just became a human being in how she interacted with him, how does that make her a "Surrendered Wife"? iS she "liberated of control" simply because you don't want to drown her every time she opens her mouth?
The other woman, though, had clearly begun her indoctrination. She and her husband Chip -
-had two kids, and Chipster, he had ideas about how to raise them. These ideas included letting his 3 year-old fly around on the back of a full size quad bike, and since the kid's feet didn't even reach the bottom of the seat, the kid just laid flat out on the back of the thing. Seriously. The kid was laying on the seat. I shuddered each time they showed it. Chip also bought his 6 year-old a dirt bike, but, seeing as I'm not a mom I'm not qualified to comment, I just had to wonder if a 6 year-old should be on a bike with an engine? Without a helmet? And no training? I'm just wondering. Anyway, Chip's Mrs. just kept closing her eyes and hoping it would work out ok because, you know, that's what a Surrendered Wife does.
She also allowed him to pick out her clothes, makeup, and do her hair for a date. On the date, he ordered her food for her. She didn't seem to enjoy it, but I was bouncing up and down on the couch at this point. "Wouldn't that be great fun!" I squealed. "You could do all that, then when we get back to the house, you could have your way with me! I'd be like your sex slave! And then the week after, we could change roles, and I'll dictate what you wear and eat and then you have to repeatedly satisfy me sexually in whatever way I specify! What a fantastic idea! Let's do it!"
Clearly, I'm falling astray from the Surrendered Wife path here, but I still like the idea.
The last couple on the documentary finally reached my Step Too Far. Prior to this I could see that some obedient wives were there for cultural or religious reasons, one woman claimed to be Surrendered Wife but actually, she just stopped acting like a real bitch, and for one woman being a Surrendered Wife to Chip meant that they'd be doing Darwin a favor and helping out with that pesky thing called Natural Selection. But the last couple was a couple that not only stands against everything I believe in, they bordered on dangerous.
A Scottish woman and her American husband, living in North Carolina, adopted the Surrendered Wife routine a few years ago when their marriage was in trouble (this is a common theme in all the women's stories, with the exception of the Thai woman and the religious Little Mrs.) She became a Surrendered Wife, and her husband very kindly explained that he makes all the decisions as she's incapable of it. If they're going to dinner and he recommends a restaurant and she says she doesn't fancy it, it's as he says: "We go there anyway. I'm in charge."
He says her biggest problem is "knowing when to keep her mouth shut", which he demonstrated by physically taking her lips and holding them closed, a nice visual aid for viewers who maybe couldn't connect the words "mouth" and "shut".
But what really got me steaming was when he explained that when it came to sex, he was in charge. And if she said no, well, silly her, she didn't really mean it. No matter how often she says it, you know, he's in charge, his wife is like all women in that they act like they don't want it but they really do, and he's going to do it anyway.
Which in my mind, makes him less a husband in charge and more a rapist who should be jailed.
And throughout all this, she just nodded.
So hey. Channel 5 was able to push my buttons after all.
I get that sometimes keeping your mouth shut makes life easier at home. I do it sometimes, I don't always offer my opinion because I know it'll flash Angus up. But he says he does the same thing. So maybe it's not about "letting the man be the one in charge", it's more "gee, how about a little peace and quiet around here?" and you get along in peace as you both pick your battles. If you're going to be courteous to your spouse in how you talk to him, does that make you a Surrendered Wife, or does that just make you an amiable person? I like to cook for Angus and ensure he's happy, it doesn't mean I'm going to walk around praising and honoring him, nor will I freak out about perfect fruit line-up on the fruit pizza (also because he's not getting a fruit pizza, it sounds absolutely foul). But the thing is, my boy likes to cook for me, too. We divide the cooking 50-50. Does that mean he's not in control? I like to have a clean house, but not necessarily because I want to "please Angus" as much as it's just a relief to have a clean house. It doesn't mean I always succeed (the house needs vacuuming pretty badly and I've been using the guest bed as a dumping ground for the clean folded laundry. I keep hoping Harry Potter will show up and wave his wand and put the clothes away, but the little bastard still hasn't shown up.) It doesn't mean that because I do more indoor housework that I'm "surrendered"-Angus does more outdoor work, it's just what both of us prefer to do in terms of home maintenance.
The book way overshot the middle ground. You don't have to spend the day nagging, but nor do you have to roll over and let the man make all the decisions. I'm not a guy or anything (trust me, I've checked), but isn't the idea that you'd be making every single decision a little exhausting? Isn't the whole idea of a partnership that you have two captains piloting the boat?
I dunno.
I do know that I'm going to make lunch for both of us.
But I'm also going to nag Angus (day 5 in a row) if he'll please change the cat litter. Seriously. Maggie will go on strike soon.
There goes my Surrendered Wife title then.
-H.
1
Wish they would air that show over here (I only have basic cable, not satellite). I probably would have drawn similar conclusions, including, that last man you mentioned in the show needs his nuts smashed with a mallet. HARD.
Oh yeah, and sometimes just keeping the peace is best, and the thought of fruit pizza makes me want to vomit explosively.
One idea I've always bought into, even if it sometimes tends to fall apart in practice, is to treat your wife like a queen and she'll treat you like a king. Besides, I've always been submissive to good cooking.
And yes Angus, some people name their kids here Chip. I even went to school with a couple. And there are far worse names that some people name their kids.
Rock on, Helen (and hope the Lemonheads are doing well).
Posted by: diamond dave at May 08, 2007 10:40 AM (VXEan)
2
Yes I have heard of this too. There is even a website called, taken in hand, I believe. Not my cup of tea but, hey whatever lol. I don't think I could have sat through that show without doing a LOT of jumping up and down!
And hey, you really do have to have Angus change that cat litter now! If I remember correctly, you shouldn't do that while pregnant! WOO Hoo!
Posted by: justme at May 08, 2007 10:44 AM (jlidS)
3
Yes Angus, my cousin-in-law (Is this even a word?) is named Chip.
As the man of the house, it is my solemn duty to make any important decisions that come up. My wife takes care of the minor day-to-day things. She decides what movies we watch, where we'll go to dinner, what kind of car we'll buy, and other minor stuff.
So far, there haven't been any major decisions for me to make...
Posted by: ~Easy at May 08, 2007 11:44 AM (vL8BC)
4
I find this whole thing kinda troubling too, especially the last guy. Not that a bit of play-discipline can't be a whole lotta fun.
But I had to share something that I had an intruigued 'tee-hee' about a while ago, and that is: christian domestic discipline. Now I had all sorts of nightmarish ideas about what this would be, and probably most of them are still true in practice, but the bit that made me giggle was the erotic fiction around it. The main author seems to publish here: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/ and please don't take that as me advocating it or anything like that. But I was totally struck by the way this particular lifestyle that people were advocating was being advocated through erotica that seems to bear a fair similarity to 'sex on a stick' erotic romance novels, or the softer edge of BDSM stuff. Spanking seems to play a major role. It weirded me out, mostly because erotica and... well, eroticism, really... isn't really something I'd have thought that the 'fundie' edge of christianity would be into. Not that I think that Fundies can't be erotic, just that I'd not have thought it was something they'd see as proper to encourage. That'll show me! I have to say, though, that the whole blurring between 'fun' discipline and 'punishment' discipline gives me more than the occassional twinge.
And yes, the ice storm is awesome. I haven't seen it in so long, but it's just one of those perfectly (alright, in a nod to Angus, almost perfectly) put together movies. Cast, photography, writing, story, it all works. Have to get it out again!
Posted by: Sauvage at May 08, 2007 12:30 PM (rG4u9)
5
The little Mrs. has a blog and a website. It is called Biblical Womanhood (sorry, don't know the URL) and if you click on Crystal's Blog you get her.
She seems to be very sweet, but these Fundies scare the crap out of me!
Posted by: Marie at May 08, 2007 12:30 PM (fUxc6)
6
Based on my limited relationship experience, there's definitely a certain amount of "role defining" involved when you first get together with someone (as in living with them and working together in the home). But that doesn't mean it's set in stone and can't over lap. I have learned to be better about not making a big deal about every little thing as time has gone by much to my husband's happiness. Surprisingly, he's also gotten better about getting most of those little things done.
I will say, I'm happy I'm not the only one that has to nag about getting the kitty litter done
Posted by: Minawolf at May 08, 2007 12:33 PM (svbR5)
7
fruit pizza is yummy. the crust is not typical pizza crust, it is more like sugar cookie dough. the filling, or sauce if you will, is a sweet cream cheese mixture. you could even throw some raspberry or strawberry filling on top of the cream cheese. then fruit on top. so... sugar cookie, cream cheese, fruit... all together? good.
as to the submissive wife thing. obviously, these are extreme examples. and just because someone wants to abide by 1 Corinthians 7 in their marriage does not make them a "Fundie", which is such a derogatory term. I am a Christian, and I believe in 1 Cor 7, which does state that women should submit to their husbands. so if it comes down to it, and we simply cannot agree on something, we go with what Frank wants. but you'd better believe i'm gonna do my best to persuade him (usually in a nice, Christian way, but sometimes it doesn't work out that way) to go with what i want. 1 Corinthians 7 also states that husbands are to love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church. and Christ loved the church so much that He lay down His life for it. so any husband who is also following the same passages that a submissive wife (who is basing her submissiveness on Paul's teachings in 1 Cor 7) is following is going to be loving and protective and is going to honor his wife, not screw around, and even be willing to die for her. none of this "you do what i say because i have a penis, and i treat you like crap" nonsense.
the documentary you watched obviously is yet another media tool to try to paint Christians in a bad light. and yes, some "Christians" do NOT get it, and in fact, my ex wanted me to be the perfect little submissive wife while he catted around. and i left him. my 2nd and final husband is completely different. he gets it. i'm proud to be a Christian and proud to (try to) be a submissive wife. not because some book that i bought on Amazon told me to surrender my vagina or anything, but because the New Testament tells me to be submissive and tells my husband to be wonderful to me and provide for me in return. i'm cool with that.
Posted by: sarahk at May 08, 2007 12:37 PM (QLpkT)
8
Sarahk-I actually have to (respectfully) disagree with you on a few points-
1) sorry if the term Fundie offends you. I understand that for Christians it's an offensive term, but to the rest of the world, it's ok. Like the term "expat" pisses me off, but it's a popular term based on an abbreviated word anyway.
2) Surprisingly for Channel 5, the show was actually very fair (I thought) to Christians and unbiased one way or another-Christian or not, submissive or not. I had interpreted the Chipsters' family as Christian, too, and neither of them were mocked because of being Christian. But I truly believe that Crystal (you're right, Marie, that was her name) was a bit over the edge. I'm not kidding when I say that the cleaning, it was fanatical. You could be religious, non-religious, but there was something amiss there.
3) I had a hard time with the scene in which she gets up at 530 to make her husband breakfast. He insists on a fruit smoothie, so she gets out the goods to make it. He stands there and watches, he doesn't even hand her fruit. Then? He doesn't drink it. I'm not having a go at religion, but seriously-that's out of order.
4) I just can't get behind the submissive wife part. That was the whole premise of the show, Christian couples aside, and I personally just don't see how that can be rewarding-all the women involved said that it took work to be that submissive. If they're having to work so hard at being so submissive, how can the marriage be real, if they're not being true to themselves?
Posted by: Helen at May 08, 2007 01:13 PM (CCyzl)
9
This is just wrong... on so many levels. What happened to loving and respecting your mate and trying to equally share the responsibilities and decisions? I mean, really... is it that hard to figure out? Ugh. I could never be a "surrendered" wife and to be honest...I wouldn't want a "surrendered" husband, either.
Posted by: sue at May 08, 2007 01:29 PM (WbfZD)
10
That whole idea makes me sick to my stomach. They are forgetting a Bible verse that says we are helpmates to each other. We are not supposed to be slaves to a husband's every whim, especially when some of them are not smart enough to make their own decisions, let alone make them for a wife as well.
Posted by: kenju at May 08, 2007 01:46 PM (DBvE5)
11
It's such a cliche, but my husband and I are partners. In every sense of the word. I won't pretend to understand anyone being submissive to anyone else, man OR woman.
And tell Angus that it's "Chip," as in "Chip off the ole Block" -- at least that's my understanding of the compulsion to name your child "french fry." It must be a HORRIBLE name if you don't even want to go the "Junior" route, hey?
xoxo
Posted by: Margi at May 08, 2007 03:15 PM (fIlF/)
12
Well said SarahK. In our house, we generally compromise; but when it comes down to something that can't be agreed upon (i.e. do we send our kids to public school or private school? you can't do both) I have the final say. What do you do if no one has the final say? How many times have we come to an impasse in the last 15 years? Once, and that was just last month. We HAD to sell her SUV and get something cheaper, and she submitted. I didn't like making the decision, but it had to be made.
At this rate, I'll make this kind of decision 3 or 4 times in our marriage. That's not a bad deal to get a man who loves you as he loves himself and as Christ loved the church.
That's a whole lot of lovin'.
Hearing about the guy who "micro-manages" his wife is a bit disturbing. I'm pretty sure that's not how Christ loved the church, so it's probably a poor application of the Biblical principle. Not every Christian implements every part of Christianity perfectly, so even if lawyer-man is a Christian, he might be off a little (ok, a LOT) in how he's treating his wife.
I think "submitting within a marriage" has gotten a bad wrap. We submit to stuff all day long (in many cases willingly) and are ok with it. We submit to our boss, the ref in a soccer game, the police, the gov't, to the rules of a blog,... and we don't mind. Sometimes it's hard, but we do it. If a woman goes into a marriage knowing she should submit, it may be hard at times; but just like a soccer game, 99% of it can be pure joy.
Posted by: Solomon at May 08, 2007 03:26 PM (al5Ou)
13
And here I am again, with a comment about something totally trivial contained in this post that has nothing to do with the bigger issues at hand.
I saw on telly this week that they are holding some kind of contest to be a dead body on an episode of CSI. How cool is that?
Posted by: amy t. at May 08, 2007 03:36 PM (3dOTd)
14
Fundies creep me out. (Sorry fundies reading this; hey, look at it this way; my non-fundie self probably creeps you out too.
)
OMG, I cannot believe all this is happening from that book.
I actually read that book years ago not long after it was published and I thought it was great. I wasn't quite the nagging horrible shrew as some of the women she talked about in her book or on this show you watched, but I definitely wanted to run Dan and everything about Dan, much to his annoyance; from what he wore to how he drove to how he spoke, etc.
And it was started to affect our brand-new marriage in a very negative way.
Years of being Wife/Mommy and running my own business had made me really controlling when we moved in together. Although I believed I was "helping" him, you see. Fixing him, making him "better".
Men *hate* that. Just as I would hate it if Dan would've treated me that way. Looking back, I would've popped him one if he had treated me the way I was daily treating him.
But honestly, from what I remember of the book (and it's been like 7 or 8 years) the message wasn't to "surrender" to my *husband*, per se, but surrender my need to *control*.
Not just him, either, but everything in my life.
I was trying to control everything around me and it was exhausting.
So I stopped. I stopped telling him what to do, I stopped telling him how to dress, I just...stopped.
I also used the biggest message in that book, which was to learn to say, "You know what, Hubby? I can't DO everything babe. I need some help. I need YOUR help."
I mean, that is the theme she pounds on over and over again.
Ask for help.
Don't do everything yourself.
The result was, once I got off Dan's back, he did exactly what she said would happen. He started pitching in more, he started pampering me more.
PAMPERING ME! Not the other way around.
How this message, which the book says again and again, has turned into women scrubbing tubs and praising their husbands while their husbands sit around on their fat asses being praised and putting toothpaste on his toothbrush lest he break a sweat cleaning his teeth...I don't get that at ALL.
That is the opposite of what Ms. Doyle wrote about.
I ended up being much more pampered. Which is exactly what she said would happen if I let go of trying to do everything.
PAMPERED! Not being a slave for the guy, geez.
All THAT being said, a LOT of women, including sexually submissive women, can't stand that book either. They pick at the author's tone, they pick at her examples, etc., etc.
This mystifies me. I thought it was a very heartfelt little book that spoke to women like me who have trouble letting go of trying to run everything.
Certainly not about turning yourself into a doormat.
We have the best of both worlds; I stay off Dan's back and Dan treats me like a queen. I cannot relate to this TV show or this "movement" from that book at all. Makes no sense.
Maybe I should drag it out and re-read it again. Did she write another book and call it by the same title or something? *puzzled*
Posted by: The other Amber at May 08, 2007 03:45 PM (zQE5D)
15
On one hand, yeah, I can see the point of shutting your yap and saying that you trust your husband's judgement. But letting him pick your clothes and do your hair is a tad bit extreme....
I suppose it works for some people, but definitely not for me. DH and I are equal partners in this dealy. Each gets a say, and so far (we've been together 12 1/2 years) we haven't had to make a decision where we couldn't come to a compromise or consensus eventually.
I think though, that what REALLY pushes my buttons about this is that it is just another form of abuse. Abusive spouses try to control their partners mentally and physically. And that is EXACTLY what these husbands are doing when they INSIST on a surrendered wife. Sure, the wife submits, but then again, so does the woman hiding her cuts and bruises. And here they are glorifying it on TV..... Ugh.
Posted by: caltechgirl at May 08, 2007 03:47 PM (r0kgl)
16
To be clear, I'm not implying that abuse victims like being hurt, or that they want abuse by saying that they "submit" to it, FAR FROM IT. Just that they put up with it for whatever reason.
Posted by: caltechgirl at May 08, 2007 03:50 PM (r0kgl)
17
Just wanted to edit something in Solomon's post:
If a man goes into a marriage knowing he should submit, it may be hard at times; but just like a soccer game, 99% of it can be pure joy.
Posted by: Jennifer at May 08, 2007 03:51 PM (atDyY)
18
Helen,
1) That's fine about the "Fundie" thing. I'm not one, but your post seemed to categorize all wives who are of the "religious right" and choose to submit to their husbands (count me in both categories unapologetically) as Fundamentalists, and I'm not a Fundamentalist. Completely different views on the book of Revelation and other things. But if you want to lump us all in like that, it's your blog, and I respect that.
2) Had I, as a Christian, been watching the documentary, I would probably have been livid. Just reading your descriptions of the couples, with or without your commentary and thoughts on them, it is obvious to me what your Channel 5 is doing. The conclusion is to be that there cannot possibly be a normal marriage based on the submissive principle Paul taught in the Bible? Or maybe it's all about that Amazon book, I don't know. Both of the "Christian" couples sounded ridiculous to me. They didn't actually show any normal submissive wives (Christian or no) with normal loving husbands, did they? I know a lot of women find "normal" and "submissive" completely antagonistic words, but they're not if that is what both parties want. It's what I want. It's what I've always wanted. My whole life, I wanted college and a career, but I always knew that as soon as I married, I would want to be a homemaker. I had the career and hated it. Now I'm a homemaker, and I LOVE doing it. I SUCK at it, but I LOVE it.
So many of the women I've been at church with for my entire life believe in submitting to their husbands, and while a few of their husbands are the kind of jerks you saw on the documentary, most of them are not. At least if they are, the women don't show it or talk about it. And after my first marriage, I have a blessing/curse of a sixth sense about it (that's how I know a few of the husbands ARE jerks). And it's the women my age who are embracing it and loving it, because the men our age are the ones who get the part about treating the women like queens. Most likely because we see how the grandfathers and fathers sometimes got it wrong and no one likes seeing mothers and grandmothers unhappy, so the women are all about educating the men about how to properly treat a submissive wife. At least that's how things go where I am. And I know it's not for everyone. I would never expect someone to adopt this way of life who didn't want it (takes the whole "free will" part out of it). But we want it, both of us, very much, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But the documentary didn't show anyone like that. It doesn't make for interesting TV, and it doesn't show that Christian women aren't all nutters, and Christian men aren't all giant egos with penises.
3) That
is out of order. The Bible didn't teach him to behave that way.
4) That's your prerogative. I grew up with my grandmothers' examples and working in the kitchen with them on summer breaks and working around the house with them. My grandmothers are the sweetest ladies I've ever met, and I don't think I've ever met women more fulfilled by what they do, which is take care of their husbands, themselves, their children when they were at home, and their homes. And I always wanted to be like them. And my grandfathers are so loving to them, at least everything I've ever seen. My grandmothers' eyes sparkle all the time. So yeah, I always dreamt of being a housewife. And a singer. Stupid American Idol told me no.
Posted by: sarahk at May 08, 2007 04:06 PM (QLpkT)
19
Okay, comment hog Amber again here.
I just had to find that book again, so I dug it out just now. Just by flipping through it, I immediately found this in Chapter 14, entitled: "Set Limits by saying I Can't":
"If your husband (or anyone else) asks you to do something that will make you resentful, overtired, lose your dignity, or interfere with your self-care, practice saying, "I can't". Until you recognize your own limits and start to honor them, peace and harmony will elude you. Also, you'll never get to see how much your husband wants to help you until you admit that you need help."
This is was the running theme of this book. Notice the "self-care" mentioned; that is another huge theme of the book; learning to protect yourself and your feelings and not overdo it or let anyone pressure you into doing something you don't want to do.
Okay, well I feel better now. I thought for a moment I'd read the wrong book, lol!
Posted by: The other Amber at May 08, 2007 04:33 PM (zQE5D)
20
You tell Angus to can it about guys named Chip. In his country, people call their daughters Myfanwy. And what the fuck is that? Can I buy a fucking vowel or two?!
Posted by: Ms. Pants at May 08, 2007 05:29 PM (+p4Zf)
21
Jennifer,
Does your boss at work submit to you? A good manager listens to his employees' ideas and considers their feelings and will actually put their welfare over his. My manager does all those. Sometimes the employees' ideas are better, and the mgr needs to be wise and implement them. But he doesn't submit to them. When mgr & employee disagree, we do what the mgr says...unless he tells us to do something unethical. As The Other Amber said, there are times to say no.
So you willingly submit to your manager 8 hours a day but won't submit to the man you love? That seems odd. As good as one's mgr might be, I presume her husband has her best interest at heart even more. If that's true, it would seem silly to willingly submit to a mgr but not a husband. A family isn't that much different than a business. It has goals and needs, and it needs someone to lead it to the goals and to fulfill the needs. A family w/o a leader is like a company w/o a president. Both can be successful for a time, but both are far better off when they have a leader who's consolidating effort and making sure all the members are happy and working towards the same goal(s).
The Other Amber pointed out that when she submitted to (or at least stopped nagging) her husband, he started treating her like a Queen. There's a saying in my Bible study group, "The best way to become a king is to make your wife a Queen."
Tru dat? Double True!!
Posted by: Solomon at May 08, 2007 05:41 PM (al5Ou)
22
You know, since I've been divorced twice and all I really don't think I qualify on "how to be a good wife" since the first a-hole left for another woman and the second a-hole TRIED to beat me and then left for his mommy. BUT, let me just say that if one partner has to submit to the other then really where the fuck is the partnership??? Yeah I don't get it.
My little sister is a "surrendered wife" and when she was explaining her ideals to me I had this deer caught in the headlights look on my face. My sister and her husband are fundie Christians. Six months after she had her first kid (who she was completely overwhelmed by) she got prego with the second one. When she told me about the second baby being on the way she said "it was in the Lord's Hands". Uh ok? Now she has two very high maintence kids, both in diapers and he's talking about having another one again soon.
A DICK-TA-TOR ship is not my idea of a marriage.
And listen if any man ever tried to pin my lips together I'd knock his damn teeth down his throat.
Posted by: Heidi at May 08, 2007 05:46 PM (uMHkg)
23
I'm stealing Heidi's "Dick-ta-tor" term.
Solomon-Jennifer has a point, but instead you feel the need to question why she's not submitting to the man of her dreams, yet you don't even know her? Now THAT seems odd. She could be Captain Submissive for all we know. She just wanted to point out that the street, she runs both ways.
Sarahk-about your point 4-I'll agree with that, actually. I'll admit I never grew up wanting to stay at home, but then I grew up with an "I am woman hear me roar" household. That said, my step-grandma has devoted her life to her kids and to this day takes care of my father and stepmother. And she enjoys it. And she's about the nicest person I've ever met. I think it was just the passing of the torch-over time as women saw that there were options when previously in many cultures there were none, they took them up.
Posted by: Helen at May 08, 2007 06:36 PM (CCyzl)
24
And -
So you willingly submit to your manager 8 hours a day but won't submit to the man you love?
I would if he paid me enough.
And gave me a better tax rate than I currently have.
Posted by: Helen at May 08, 2007 06:45 PM (CCyzl)
25
Helen,
I just give the super-model my entire paycheck and a couple of write offs.
You're right, she may be Capt Submissive; although given that "submission within a marriage" seems to be poorly thought of, it seemed reasonable to deduce she's not. Maybe Corp or Sgt Submissive; but I doubt Capt.
You say the street runs both ways, but where else does submission run both ways? Does your boss submit to you? Does his boss submit to him? Does the referee submit to the players? Does the Captain (not Capt Submissive : ) submit to the passengers? Does the FAA submit to the Capt? Any place we have a real, established hierarchy, the lower in the chain of command submit to the upper...never the upper to the lower.
THAT is the crux of the discussion. Christians believe there is an established hierarchy within the family. I've pointed out before, I'm no less a man than my boss even though I submit to him; we simply have different roles. My wife is no less a person if she submits to me; we simply have different roles. Even non-Christians acknowledge there's a hierarchy in the family; they just don't take it to the same level as Christians. Do parents submit to children? Not in any healthy family. We've all seen some that do, and it isn't pretty. So most will acknowledge that it's a one way street between: parents & children, president & vice pres, mgr & employee, and referee & player, but in the most important institution ever made, they won't acknowledge there should be a hierarchy.
That's why I started discussing the mgr/employee relationship, not because I didn't think she was submitting, but because the leader doesn't submit to those he's leading. I know this is wildly unpopular and probably chafes many people. But it seemed worth pointing out that we have an established hierarchy in every institution established among mankind except the most important one. Why is that?
Posted by: Solomon at May 08, 2007 08:09 PM (al5Ou)
26
It seems to me that some folks are having trouble with the terminology. And frankly, so do I. Submissive is NOT the same as surrendered. To submit to something doesn't make you buckle under. But I get the impression that a lot of folks in this tee vee show would love just that. Control freaks.
To acquiesce is to accept. To surrender is to give up. And I'm sorry, but I'm FAR too head-strong for that. The deal with a partnership marriage is that I sometimes acquiesce, he sometimes submits. The Prophet Jagger once said: You can't always get what you want. But this Surrendered Wife stuff? This is not my cuppa. Not even a lil' bit.
And I'm with the previous poster: the first person (man or woman) to pinch my lips shut would be pulling back a bloody stump.
Posted by: Margi at May 08, 2007 08:22 PM (r6MCS)
27
Solomon Says:
"But it seemed worth pointing out that we have an established hierarchy in every institution established among mankind except the most important one. Why is that?"
Because to my way of thinking, it's not a one-way street, bud. Too much power on one side and the balance is lost. Ya dig?
Posted by: Margi at May 08, 2007 08:28 PM (r6MCS)
28
Some anthropologists have posited that humans develeped distinctive roles early in our evolution. Times change. Just as our appendix, which was probably necessary at one time but is now vestigial, so too is the concept of obedience and submission in women. Societally, we've evolved out of the need for such an arrangement. The past century was one of enormous change, proving that women were as capable as men in every endeavor. Not to say that the sexes are completely equal in every way, but I do believe that they deserve equal treatment, and an equal say in their lives. I shudder to think that all of the progess that women have made could be diminished (or even erased, look at Iran) should such a movement catch hold. Really, I think that it is motivated more by a desire for a quick relationship fix, rather than doing the work that a relationship of equals takes. It is diffcult (having been divorced once and currently in what was once a rocky marriage, believe me, I know). At one time, I was once like the suicidal-looking henpecked gentleman. But in time, and with a lot of work on both of our parts, we salvaged our relationship. It just takes persistence, patience, and no small amount of courage. Just my two pennies
Posted by: maolcolm at May 08, 2007 11:16 PM (BiRsy)
29
Seems another edit is in order (Solomon's comment):
So you willingly submit to your manager 8 hours a day but won't submit to the woman you love? That seems odd.
Posted by: Jennifer at May 08, 2007 11:56 PM (atDyY)
30
Maolcolm-
Really, I think that it is motivated more by a desire for a quick relationship fix, rather than doing the work that a relationship of equals takes.
Precisely.
Posted by: Helen at May 09, 2007 07:37 AM (CCyzl)
31
You know I got this show off the net and thought exactly what Helen said... Its the ususual incendiary stuff that Channel 5 does. I found the entire show very compelling but like Helen by the end I was sick of its idea, that there was something correct in a woman doing exactly what she is told. So after cogitating on this for a day or so I've come to the conclusion that this thing was right about the same way that the Atkins Diet is right. The line in Atkins is that you can eat all the protien that you want and loose weight. And within reason it worked! At first there was all sorts of fireworks about what a stupid approach to weightloss this is/was most of the facts seem to bore out that it did cause people to loose weight. And the reason wasn't magical properties of steak or eggs because people were starting to focus on something when they were eating. It turned out that they could eat all the protien they wanted but because they focused only on it they didn't consume as many calories and lost weight. Maybe if we start refining the role of husband AND wife in the relationship it could lead to happier marriages and fewer divorces.
This idea of a woman in the marriage relationship needs to be obedient grates on my nerves as it smacks of her being subservient. Perhaps it kind of gives some definition to what the roles of husband and wife should be. A marriage isn't without rules for both husband and wife. The part that was missing from this show, I think, was that they both should be obedient to God.
Opinions of the show:
1. If you think its tough being called a Fundie (which I kind of like as its easy to say) don't become a Mormon.
2. The guy having his wife make him a smoothie in the morning which he stands there watching. What a jerk. However she can go back to bed while he's off fighting the corporate fight.
3. I liked and disliked the woman scrubbing the guy's back in the tub. Is there something good about this? Is there something wrong with it? Maybe this is what feminism has injected into the society, that we must be suspicious of the motives of those we love. Scubbing my or your back is somehow a political statement that is given by the man to keep you down.
4. The Thai woman? Did they get married out of love for each other or was this some superior English guy rescuing her from a bad life in Thailand. Marriage is tough enough when this kind of thought involved.
5. I hated the guy who didn't want his wife to talk. I know people who never shut up, I wonder if they talk to themselves when there is nobody else around but I certianly wouldn't marry one of them.
Posted by: Drake Steel at May 10, 2007 07:32 AM (CiU4y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
