Does anyone fancy going a bit Stepford with me?

[BEAUTlFUL]

I regret that title now! but will carry on regardless...

Basically, I have recently read a marriage book called "Fascinating Womanhood" by helen Andelin, written in the 1960's, and am starting to practise it in my marriage. It involves a lot of work, but good work, IYKWIM, accepting DH, admiring him, appreciating his efforts, listening to him, being a "domestic goddess", taking over childcare completely, settling him with a drink when he comes home, etc.

I'm LOVING it and actually weirdly feel a lot happier and more confident since I started it! I know it's not going to be popular with many of you, but is there anyone out there who fancies trying it out?

We could do it like a sort of bookclub, and follow the assignments every week. It promises to make your DH absolutely gaga in love again, v attentive, romantic, etc.

But more than that, it really teaches you acceptance, so if they're not being perfect, it really doesn't get to you as much. Or at all.

I know it'll get scoffed at, but I don't care really!

Anyone? It's hard work, but I'm convinced it's worth it as after just 3 weeks, DH and I feel so much closer, he is saying ILY all the time, we are laughing again, holding hands in bed, etc.

Even my mum has noticed. We went there for lunch and afterwards Mum rang up and said, "What's with you two? Your DH looks so happy and confident, and your body-language together was so 'united'!"

Hmmm. Yes, I know what you mean about the "childlike anger". I haven't managed to do that yet, but then, he hasn't made me angry.

at Googling suffragettes.

I read the book 3 weeks ago, and I have been away this week, finishing my book. (Susie, yes, I have a job, I've had 5 books published, this will be my 6th.) So I haven't really taken this very far -- all I've really done is try to accept DH as he is, find his good qualities from that list, listen to him talk about his work & clean.

All that has been fabulous The trouble is, I'm the kind of lazy, restless type that needs to read a self-help book and get allcarried-away before I'd do anything other than lie around moaning. Maybe that's why I've gone all born-again -- the bits I've done have had positive results, but I'm not really that far in.

Most marriages would benefit from both parties treating the other nicely and with respect. I am appalled at how some women and men treat each other. If something works for you do it but it needs a mutuality about it.

"Or, beat your fists on your husband's chest."

Doesn't that constitute domestic violence? Imagine the uproar if hubby turned round and behaved like that?

I can understand wanting to improve relations and take the stress out of day to day life but there must be more constructive, mutually beneficial ways of achieving it.

Dittany -- No, I don't think that women should be submissive and men dominant but I also don't think that fighting for 50% of everything works well either. With anyone. Often, as soon as you let someone else take charge, they stop arguing so much or jostling for position/feelings of importance, and start behaving much more respectfully towards you naturally. With really c*ntish people obviously not, but with DH it has seemed to.

TBH, the best thing that has come out of this book, for me, is:

a) The lesson that I should concentrate more on what I'm giving than what I'm getting, which -- far from being doormatty like I expected, was actually liberating and quite freeing, oddly;
b) The feeling of responsibility towards the house/domestic stuff, which has made me instantly lose all feelings of resentment in that area. Poof! they vanished (and he started doing more housey stuff, which, again, I hadn't expected);
c) Being made to look only at DH's good side.

I could have got all those things elsewhere, probably, but I got them from this book so I was definitely blinkered about all that bothersome other stuff, like the underlying sexism & raging misogyny.

Maybe I'm just a bit fick?

If a woman is submissive or a man is I don't see any problem with them them being how they are made in marriage. Most peoplel aren't but some are. It's the one size fits all that is morally wrong - telling all women in rural pakistan, the US conservative CHristian mid west etc that they have to obey their husbands is as wrong as forcing things the other way.

why is fighting about something the only alternative to being submissive

you know I think you're missing the fact that there is a middle ground here-

it's called communication

Agree CatIsSleepy - why is it that so many posters think that if you aren't being aggressive you must be being submissive. Of course there is a middle ground - negotiation and compromise.

still think your passive agressive beautiful. intresting how your position has shifted slightly, in responce to the backlash perhaps?.

Beautiful, I wasn't going to post again here but I am horrified by the stuff Dittany has brought up in her posts - there is no dignity whatsoever in "behaving in a childlike manner" to win your point - utterly reprehensible! and so devious!

as for beating your fists on his manly chest, bugger that for a game of soldiers, for sure that is assault!

Urgh, I used to know a girl who was larger than average in all directions - she used to affect the most atrocious girly lisp (we found out how affected it was when she got drunk and all trace of it disappeared) and who "never understood politics or anything serious like that" and who seemed hellbent on giving the impression that she was the most twee airhead bimbo imaginable (which she wasn't).
It was revolting to witness!

If you hadn't got to that section in the book when you started this post, then I think you should at least be a little ashamed that you have taken on a cause without the full background information.
I have no problem at all with you doing what works for you and am glad you have improved your marital situation, but it is very poor show to try and suck others into this charade.

Anna8888 on Thu 27-Nov-08 12:30:50
"Agree CatIsSleepy - why is it that so many posters think that if you aren't being aggressive you must be being submissive."

I don't think that's what most of us think, Anna. On the contrary I think most of us have been trying to poke fun at the idea that a relationship is ideally divided into agressive/submissive, manly/childlike, strong/clinging.

Because we do believe in communication, we believe in treating each other as adults, we believe in mutual support, in each partner wanting to be strong for the other. At least those are the things that have worked for me for 25 years. Not pouting or clinging or regressing into babyhood. I imagine we have the same view of this, Anna.

It is not that we think a good relationship should be based on nagging or putting the other person down. But in a relationship based on the mutual respect of equals, that doesn't need to happen.

I think all of us want and need to be "babied" (cared for) from time to time. I don't think being a strong adult all the time is something to aspire to.

Actually I'm not sure it OK to want to be babied. Find it queasy TBH.

Anna8888 on Thu 27-Nov-08 15:01:48
"I think all of us want and need to be "babied" (cared for) from time to time."

Yes, we all do. Men and women. In a good relationship we should be able to take our turn to be cared for, according to our needs at the time.

But this isn't actually what the book preaches. It tells us that women should act weak and helpless in order to make men feel pride in their manly strength.

If by "babied" we understand being comforted and helped in time of need, surely that is a universal need, rather than a feminine one? But when it comes to "cooing" and pouting and calling a man a great hairy brute, so he can feel himself more manly- yeah, queasy is probably the word that springs to mind. And almost certainly the word that would spring to dh's mind.

dsrplus8, of course my position has shifted slightly! I am reading what you all think. I am v willing to admit that I might have, um, slightly misjudged my marriage book. I don't see the point of defending it till I'm blue in the face when lots of you are v eloquently pointing out that it's hideously sexist.

I'm not a staunch believer in anything. Hopelessly easily swayed. I'm like that bloke on The Fast Show who watches everyone else arguing, changing his mind every 5 seconds.

That's a wholly different problem, and one upon which I'll being dwelling as soon as.. Oooh, something shiny.

I admire you for listening to what has been said Beautiful.
Just because she had SOME relationship advice you found useful does not mean you should buy into her philosophy whole heartedly.

You are a very good-humoured and well-balanced person from the evidence of this thread. It is only the book I'm pitching into, not you.

Are there any good marriage books out there? Like I said, my brain has a Play-Doh-esque malleability, so what should I be reading?

Thanks Cory! My friends would LOL at well-balanced though, I'm sure!

I mean this nicely -Why don't you just get a job instead? It is likely to do more for your self esteem than all this introspection.

I've got a job! I write books. I'm finishing my 5th one now (dsrplus8 is secretly convinced it's about marriage advice, I suspect, but it's thankfully not) and then taking a break to start writing fiction next year. I've got a young baby, so I'm mainly SAH.

God, I wish I had more of a spine. I'd love to be standing here like the Joan of Arc of misogynistic marriage guides, fighting you all off effortlessly with wise rejoinders, but look at me. I'm a puddle.