This article was the topic of some discussion on Jane’s Guide oh, a couple of months ago. So in the interest of fairness, I took myself out and read what she had to say.
IMHO? One part Marabel Morgan, one part John Gray (whose work I personally abhor), one part pap. Mix well and try not to heave after you read it.
My problem isn’t necessarily with some of her messages; my problem is how they’re going to be interpreted. If she simply said “Be nice to your husband and treat him as if he were special,” I could understand that. (Which, flowery crap aside, is all Marabel Morgan was really saying.) If she simply said, “Try to communicate with and accommodate each other,” I could understand that; that’s basically John Gray’s message, and although his presentation annoys the heck out of me, the message is basically valid.
My main problem is not with her saying, “Don’t be bitchy.” If that were it, I could deal with the message and simply accept the fact that it was delivered in a manner that I personally found a bit schlocky, but which might appeal to others. What does bother me is that I really see the potential for a lot of her theories to be taken out of context and used for great harm, and one really couldn’t say that about the theories of Gray or Morgan.
One of the reasons women stay in abusive relationships as long as they do is a) the abuser takes care to isolate them as much as he can so that they lose a sense of perspective as to just how bad things are getting; and b) they don’t want to admit that they’ve screwed up so badly with their choice of husband. It sounds unbelievable, but it’s true. Therefore, while I’m glad Doyle puts in caveats that one shouldn’t surrender if one is in an abusive relationship, the fact is, I really wonder if they will be heeded.
Cranky, I fully agree with you that there are many women out there who don’t value the good men they have; I’m lucky enough to have a wonderful one now, and he certainly wasn’t treated right by his former wife. But the thing is, I don’t see the women who need this message taking heed of this message – or indeed, even seeing their behavior needs to be remedied. I do see abused women who are already in denial taking this message, saying to themselves, “But of course, my Charlie isn’t abusive!” and surrendering away, Doyle’s warnings aside.
Finally, if I really thought Doyle was acting out of a wish to help, that would be one thing…but I’m just cynical enough to wonder if she chose precisely the phrasing that she did, the way that she did, because she knew it would generate publicity (good or bad, doesn’t matter) and therefore, sell books, whereas, just saying, “The Non-Bitchy Wife” would generate less interest, less publicity, less furor, and therefore, less sales.
I don’t know if this is the case, and I don’t wish to condemn someone I don’t know…but does anyone else who’s read her stuff get that feeling, too? Or not?