I don’t think we are viewing the submissive wife from the proper perspective. I have been a slave to my hobbies and career throughout my life. How well I do is what validates my existence more than anything else. I have to believe the differential spouse is doing the same thing.
I can sort of get behind that.
My first reaction to the OP would be that the description in the OP doesn’t have any bearing on reality. There are certainly people who are generally deferential to their spouse, but the idea of someone deferential to that extreme strikes me as more of a caricature - ironically, a caricature that robs the woman of agency. Even abusive relationships have conflict.
But there are times I’ve been deferential to my spouse because I believe is he doing great things. I moved to New Jersey for him, for God’s sake. I think I have a strong sense of self, but I’ve also always worshipped him a little bit. And particularly when he can’t be available or I’m not getting my way because of the demands of his job, I mostly accept it. When he responds to a crisis he could be literally saving a life, and what are my desires compared to that? I think that’s a calculus that a lot of people do when their partner has a huge impact on others - military spouses, surgeons, psychologists, ministers, politicians - people with important jobs.
Supporting someone through that is, in itself, a kind of work. And it can be a valid life’s work.
Still, even in my case, not a conflict-free vocation, because sometimes I resent it. Even this week we had a thing because he was asking me to make sacrifices for his job that I didn’t want to make - namely, to take on the vast majority of the childcare for an indefinite amount of time so that he can get caught up (we’re talking months, not days.) I was mad at first. I only found peace in the whole thing after I remembered my job is to support him and make it easier for him to carry the heavy load on his shoulders. He is, after all, doing a great thing.
I think it would be wrong to say I didn’t have agency there. There can be power in choosing to serve someone else.
I’m going to third (?) this. Personally, I wouldn’t want a subservient wife, and they’d sound boring to be around. But life sucks, it’s stressful, and if someone really just wants to check out and let someone parent them through adulthood, as long as it’s truly their choice, they’re not hurting anyone. Is it healthy? Probably not, but who am I to judge.
Throwing kids into the mix makes it a bit harder, but I don’t think it’s anything I would be concerned about.
I’m not a big fan of judging things in the context of the time, but the essay was written in 1973, which basically answers your question.
eta: That’s not to say the essay is misogynistic because of when it was written; this particular edition of the journal was titled “Women’s Liberation: Ethical, Social, and Political Issue.” I wasn’t alive, but I gather that the ERA had been sent to the states. People were debating the role of women in society.
Right, but my question is, would we answer the question differenty if it were a man deferring absolutely to a woman, or another man?
The problem I see is that this can be an unstable situation. If you build your life so you need another person, or any external factor, to function you’re leaving yourself vulnerable. That person could leave or die and then what are you going to do?
There are a lot of LDS in our neighborhood, and my daughter knew tons of them, even going to their dances in early high school. She also knew at least one guy who left the church. It was devastating, not because of money but because he lost his entire social support network. And they are hardly the worst.
By the end of high school her friends withdraw into LDS only cliques, preparing to go to one BYU or another and get married. The church knows what it is doing about keeping members loyal.
I wouldn’t answer the question any differently, no.
I think a lot of people are envisioning the traditional religious fundamentalist gender roles, but I’m sure we’ve all seen men who are deferential to their spouses.
The risks of such arrangements often do shake out differently. Religious cultures often reinforce women playing a subservient role. Women who defer to their spouses are less likely to be employed and more likely to be burdened with childcare, and it will be harder for them to exit the relationship if the situation becomes dangerous. We see this all the time at my agency. A huge part of what we do is give abused partners a framework for jumping the logistical hurdles and obtaining the skills needed to become independent from their abuser. If you don’t have a job, a car, or access to your vital records, it’s really quite difficult to leave a relationship. While our agency serves all genders, the number of cis men who come to shelter is extremely small. I couldn’t delineate all the factors here, but one of these is undoubtedly that it’s more unusual for a man to be economically and logistically dependent on a woman.
Thus to my mind the moral arguments are the same. The practical implications may be quite different (and, to your point, also different in gay relationships.)
I wouldn’t. I think it’s bad either way.
I wouldn’t. But I’d evaluate the psychology differently.
As noted, society has traditionally treated women as lesser beings. So a woman becoming a ‘deferential wife’ may be making the decision from all the thousands of years of cultural baggage.
A guy making that decision is probably looking at it selfishly (And not paying full attention!). “Wait, what? I get to have all my expenses covered, and all I have to do is have sex with my wife whenever she wants? And pretend to like her friends? Hell yea! Sign me up!”
Guys can always get jobs. If they get dumped, they’ll get by. While F-M domestic abuse does happen, chances are it won’t. So men who choose to become “deferential spouses” don’t have the same future hindrances women do.
Hell, I’m not even financially dependent on my spouse and the logistics and challenges would be a nightmare were I ever to lose him. When two people have very enmeshed lives, personally, structurally and economically, it can be very difficult to break away. Even in the best case scenario.
In the event of his early demise, he has life insurance and we have a trust. But I doubt everyone has that safety net.
I’d generally take the OP question from the vantage of practical reality over philosophy (though that’s basically utilitarianism so…).
My general fear would be that the deferential partner fails to build the mental muscles necessary to live and survive by themselves. The world simply isn’t so nice that as soon as partner 1 kicks off, so does partner 2 at the same moment. Pretty often, the deferential partner is female (in our current culture) and, most often, younger and at the same time likely to live to a longer overall lifespan. You’re basically guaranteeing that you’re dumping someone with the survivalship skills of a Dodo Bird into solo-survivorship at the part of their life where they’re least capable of adapting to a new situation.
For many, the only solution is to find a new partner who can take the place of their previous, as fast as possible. Under that pressure, and a smaller selection pool, they’re more liable to end up with someone who will take advantage of them.
There’s also the risk that the truism, “power corrupts”, is true. The dominant partner, knowing that they can pretty well do anything is liable to pretty well do anything.
In general, I’d see the situation to be like prostitution. On a whiteboard, there’s nothing wrong with someone wanting to serve others - as a spouse or physical partner. If that’s what makes them live their life to the fullest then, to some extent, all the power to them. The problems come in that 1) how many of them are really that sort of person, and 2) how many of the partners are going to refrain from taking advantage of it.
Ultimately, we can’t look in the head of someone who says that she wants to serve others. We have no way to factually differentiate between someone who truly is that person and a person who was raised in an abusive household and doesn’t recognize that there are other options, or who suffers from such anxiety that they can’t make decisions for themselves and can’t resist doing what they’re told to do even as they hate it (and could potentially be cured and find a better path through therapy and medication), or other equally likely options.
Just because we can imagine it and write it out on a whiteboard and think, “Well, why shouldn’t there be cows that like to be slaughtered and eaten?” Being able to imagine and ask the question doesn’t make it the most likely reality.
Again, this isn’t to say that there can’t be people who want to be subservient, partners who can’t control the other person fairly and passionately, etc. I’d just be hesitant in recommending the situation given the risks. I’d want every subservient partner to ensure that they’re able to step up and lead on the day that it came to it.
The crucial question to me is whether the sub can leave the Dom at any point. If they can–if they have the emotional and logistical and material means to get the fuck out of Dodgy City whenever they need to, and if the Dom will support them or at least not interfere–then their agency is maintained. They are making a decision, moment by moment, to stay in this kinky power exchange relationship. It ain’t my kink, but it doesn’t have to be.
If, however, the Dom is able and willing to make it difficult for them to leave the relationship, or if society will make it difficult, then it stops being consensual kink play and becomes something much more sinister.
I’m being a little silly by calling it kink play, but only a little. The healthiest option for this situation, IMO, is that it’s a kink mutually agreed on by both members of the couple. If it’s something that a woman was raised into and that if she didn’t acquiesce to would result in social approbrium, it’s gross as hell.
I see nothing wrong with an individual deciding that their role in life is to do their best to make their partner happy. Nothing immoral in it, or unethical.
Being the object of that and being happy about it? That is more morally and ethically problematic.
The Giving Tree was free to feel happiness when it could make The Boy happy; The Boy was a self centered jerk.
Who needs whom in this scenario? Seems like the man is dependent on her for basic functionality - unable to pick out his own clothes, feed himself … he is a virtual infant.
If he was gone she’d probably be fine. Might find another partner to serve that role or not but she manages her own ADLs at least. He needs some to change his diapers by the sound of it.
I agree it can be a bad situation from either end of the relationship.
Frankly, if the person is happy with their chosen lifestyle, philosophers should mind their own fucking business.
But you see, the real danger today is not philosophers trying to argue people out of a subservient to spouse lifestyle. The real danger is bible-addled fundies trying to argue people (particularly women) into this subservient lifestyle.