I’ve been a card-carrying, bona fide female all my life and know what pisses me off most about books like this? That it thoroughly insults both men and women, equating marriage with manipulation, sex for goodies and a total lack of emotional honesty.
And then that tawdry chimera is touted as morally preferable and sanctified.
Grrrr. As noted earlier, the real villians in this piece are the opportunists who exploit the decent folks plugging away at making marriage work.
“Surrendered woman”, ha! If these losers are so into role playing why don’t they just cut out the piousness and go for it? At least “girl captured by pirates” or “hooker and john”, etc. have more honesty to them.
Ladies, what do you think of the conservative women in the media. Names such as Dr. Laura, Elaine Donnelly, Schlafly all of them advocate a woman’s traditional place is in the home yet they are in the public eye giving opinions on political topics. It is my contention conservative women in the traditional sense should not have let alone give political opinions especially not in public.
I think the author of this book is a few bricks short of a full load!! I can’t imagine a women wanting to live like this. Manipulating her husband to get what she wants and basically changing who she is to make him happy. That’s not what a marriage is about!
I’m proud of the fact that I’m strong and independant and can take care of myself. I’m glad my boyfriend understands my independance and respects me for being that way. I’m not too proud to ask him for help with certain things if I need to but I certainly don’t rely on him for everything!
That’s nothing but a reprint of the ideas in these really old books:
Total Woman – Marabel Morgan; Mass Market Paperback
The Electric Woman : Hope for Tired Mothers and Others – Marabel
Morgan; Paperback
The Electric Woman : Hope for Tired Mothers, Lovers, and Others –
Marabel Morgan; Paperback
This has been a point of debate for a very long time–at least since Catharine Beecher published A Treatise on Domestic Economy in 1841. This was one of the most influential works of the 19th century. In it, she stressed that a woman’s proper place/role was in the home. She thus would be able to influence and improve society both by her masterful child-rearing and also by providing her husband with a safe and harmonious domestic haven from the increasingly stressful and confusing outside world. Therefore, she would be helping her husband have a successful career by providing a place for him to escape the pressures of the developing industrial economy. She would also be constantly re-affirming his role as “head of household” at a time when more and more men were not able to go into business for themselves, and thus had to work as subordinate to others.
So, no, the Surrendered Wife is not really a re-hash of Marabel Morgan–it is a re-hash of the many re-hashes of Catharine Beecher.
As to the question of whether it is proper for a lady to be in the public eye…Beecher’s public explanation was that she felt her message was so crucial that she was willing to endure the resulting publicity.
Now, of course that was total horse-hockey because she loved being a famous best-selling author. She was the 19th century equivalent of a celebrity–and she became annoyed when she was not treated as such. [On a side-note, she was extra-annoyed when her little sister Harriet published the book that started the Civil War (to paraphrase Mr. Lincoln) and became way more famous that Catharine ever was]
Anyway, Dr. Laura, Phyllis Schlafly, and the rest are basically using the same justifications that Catharine Beecher did–and they are equally hypocritical. They feel that their message is just too important to keep to themselves.
Well, maybe Catharine Beecher is less of a hypocrite–after all, I don’t think that there are any naked pictures of HER plastered across the internet.
It’s already been done, Chef Troy – “Hermana Sam” by Paul King. One of those hot little items the spinster librarians kept under the counter 20 years ago.
This, Arnold, is probably a pet peeve of mine. I think it has less to do with women’s desire/ability to fight for equal rights–many people I know who refuse the label “feminist” believe in these things–and more to do with the popular conception of what a feminist is. She’s an ugly bra-burner who hates men, right? Therefore, women in their 20s and younger feel the need to distance themselves from that image. Much, much to the chagrin of feminists.
[/hijack]
LOL, it’s been almost a year exactly, and this subject has once again been raised.
The book still sucks, IMHO. And The Ryan called our situation exactly in his comment earlier (and a year ago) in this thread. Isn’t funny how these things work out… :shrug:
I am a woman. I believe in the equality of men and women. In my mind, I consider myself a feminist.
I am also pro-life. I oppose the Equal Rights Amendment and affirmative action. Furthermore, I oppose women’s studies programs and the shoddy intellectual skills they instill. I find them to have a fundamentally anti-intellectual bent that disturbs me. It’s as if they’re buying into all those 19th century stereotypes about how women are the emotional, feeling, nurturing ones, whereas men are the logical, cold, distant ones. I find none of this empowering to women.
Nevertheless, because I hold the beliefs I described in the previous paragraphs, Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, Phil Donahue, and Susan Faludi would not consider me a feminist. In the wider world, the word “feminist” now has a meaning I do not ally myself with.
In short, my philosophy is a lot more in line with “Who Stole Feminisim?” by Christina Hoff Sommers than it is with “Backlash,” by Susan Faludi. I consider myself a feminist in my mind and in my heart, but I do not use the term to describe myself anymore without a lot of explanation of what I mean when I use it.
Christina Hoff Sommers is an ultra conservative who believes men and women are totally dissimilar beings who belong in their own seperate spheres. She is a member of the American Enterprise Institute and speaks for the Independent Women’s Forum as does Lynn Cheney. CHS is one of the most despicable women of our time she will never ever defend a woman who goes beyond her traditional role, expect herself.
Holy guacamole, Batman! Whatta resurrection! This thread contains (I think) my second post ever. Wow. It’s sad to see how much I’ve degenerated in the past year.
Whereas I have stayed consistently crappy and lacking any worthwile content.
BTW, this thread contains flirtations between psycat and I that led up to us falling in love and her moving out here to CA from PA. I think we met in person, for the first time, just a week or two after this was originally posted. I know no one cares, but it was interesting to see our exchanges from (what seems like) so long ago. Kinda like digging those old love notes out of the closet, ya know?
OK, stop making those gagging sounds, you bastards!
