Id agree with her that its important women know what makes them happy...but the tone made me think that in her all encompasding opinion that men being the master is what women really want. How the hell does she know? If she's happy then great! But different thongs make different people happy.
hmm interesting.. I didnt read it as a bad thing at all. women and men are fundamentally different. I think that what she was actually saying was that for a partnership between a man and a woman to survive you should allow thise natural differences to occur rather than to fight against them.
I don't think anyone, male or female, should be 'submissive' at any time. Cooperative, flexible, considerate.... but never 'submissive'. As for 'women and men are fundamentally different'.... ... we're all created equal.
We're not fundamentally different at all. We're biologically different but that's where it ends. The rest of the 'fundamental differences' are largely artificial social/cultural/traditional constructs.
Ridiculous. It becomes a parent/child relationship which is not a marriage. Even parents respect that their children should have some autonomy and individuality. Surrendering to your husband in all things just removes your autonomy and free will. It would reduce or remove conflict, because there would be no room for disagreement.
Is it a 'Christian Right' thing? Always strikes me that organised religion in various guises has a sick obsession with coercing women into accepting 'surrender'. How long did it take us to get 'obey' out of the buggering marriage vows!!?
I'm not sure about complete submission, but I think a lot of women are happy in/would like to have far more traditional women's roles than current feminist thinking will allow them to admit to.
For example, I know a lot of feminist women striving to be successful in careers for appearances sake when what they'd really like is to be SAHM. Not all WOHM by any means, but a good proportion of them.
As with everything, if it's right for her, then it's right.
"I think a lot of women are happy in/would like to have far more traditional women's roles than current feminist thinking will allow them to admit to. "
WTF? We're living in an age where the TV is full of programmes about baking, crafts and sewing, WAG is seen as a legitimate and enviable career choice and people are moaning like crazy that the High Income Child Benefit Charge is 'forcing women back to work'. Feminist thinking is struggling to get air-time, frankly.
Being a SAHM or having a more 'traditional' role is not the same as abdicating all responsibility and switching your brain off so that your husband can make all the decisions for you, which seems to be what the surrendered wife thing involves.
You can be a SAHM and still be a completely equal partner in the relationship (if your OH is a normal, reasonable person, that is, rather than a controlling/misogynistic/dictatorial type).
I don't think it's a question of women being submissive. If you get two people who are both dominant characters then sparks quite often fly. That's not to say the relationship can't work. It can. But there has to be give and take. Not one person being submissive and the other dominant. But if people want to be submissive that's up to them. But it wouldn't suit me.
But I disagree with this feminist idea that all women want to work ever longer hours and have careers and get to 'the top' . They don't. Like maybe a lot of men don't either. They want a life balance.
Vivienne - can you show me a feminist who says all women want to work long hours and get to the top? As far as I am aware, feminism is about equal rights/treatment/opportunities so that people of both genders can make their own choices about work/life balance. Feminist-influenced places like Scandinavia lead the way in family-friendly working policies so that both parents can easily combine work and spending time with their families.