Are there any surrendered wives on MN? Anyone who has decided to take a subordinate role?

[petrifiedperson]

NOT intended to be a nasty bunfight, I am just genuinely interested in other people's choices and have never actually met anyone who chooses to live like this.

[BartletForTeamGB]

Cogito, don't be daft. That is very odd thinking!

I've been trying to think of an example of where DH and I have disagreed to give as an example. Really it is just caring for the other and their opinion. If DH and I were debating over the sofa discussion (assuming these are identical sofas, both fit in the room etc - we're just deciding colour), it wouldn't be someone forcing their decision on the other. Perhaps it would go:

Me: I really think the blue is better. With DS, it will hide the stains better.
DH: I prefer the red. It goes better in the room with the chair.
Me: Well, we need to decide one or the other.
DH: Okay then, shall we go for blue? I know you care more about these things than I do.
Me: Are you sure? Thanks, great. We'll have the blue. Perhaps we will get the cushions in red.

(Gosh, wasn't that banal?!)

Then when it comes home, when I realise that red would have gone better, I shouldn't start saying, "Well, you should have stuck with blue. This is your fault," and DH shouldn't say, "I told you so."

It is a decision that we have agreed upon, caring about the other's opinion. It doesn't mean that we have to ignore our own.

I think garlic puts it nicely when she says, "You get this semantic discussion a lot on christian forums, Cogito. The ideal is, I think, that both partners give up their superego in favour of being a couple. The "submission" is a defeat of selfishness, not of the whole personality."

I'd disagree with "The fact that the man has to be the default winner, in cases of dispute, gets up my nose immensely. In practice, when a couple really can manage a relationship this well, they quickly learn that each partner has their own areas of wisdom so the other should 'submit' to their expertise."

Of course we have our own areas of expertise and that is recognised in how we work out our marriage and decision making. I am a doctor and a scientist. I know about that sort of stuff. I am also much better at interior design and cooking than DH (so really I would just make the sofa decision unless he really hated it). I make those decisions. DH is a geek - he makes all the technology decisions in the house, but he will listen to me and take my thoughts into consideration about what (say) computer to get.

(The only difference to that is whether DS needs to go to a doctor. I am also cautious that doctors can fall into the trap of being too complacent or too nervous about their own children, so DH tends to make the decision about whether we need to take DS to the doctor as the more 'normal' parent!)

DH is not the "default winner". That shows that you have to have a winner, rather than the caring mutual submission of putting the other first so that the couple or family is the winner.

Cogito is right though when she says, "If no-one submits walking through the doorway, both try to go through together and get stuck..." Of course, that is why submission in marriage (in any relationship to some extent) is important. There has to be some way of deciding what happens. This isn't about "winning" though.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Submission is not important. Cooperation is important. In a disagreement or negotiation situation reaching a compromise means everyone is happy with the outcome. If one person has 'submitted' in order to get the agreement then they have demeaned themselves to keep the peace .... big difference.

[BartletForTeamGB]

They have not "demeaned" themselves! There is no difference. It is not beneath my dignity!

We submit to other people all the time. My boss thinks we should do something. I don't and I say why I don't. We sometimes come to a joint decision and sometimes I just need to do what she says.

[Flosshilde]

DH is a surrendered husband. His favourite phrase is 'give me a choice of one'.

Then again I have spectacularly good taste and he would decorate the house in 'pensioner' style, so this just avoids us being the laughing stock of our friends.

Joking aside, we have an equal-ish relationship. My mother doesn't think so but that's more that I have made choices that she wouldn't have, rather than I have given into my husband on those matters. I decided I would go back to work, full time, after maternity. DH decided he would go freelance. Both these decisions were discussed between us but ultimately the person who was doing it got the casting vote.

[SarryB]

Lovely post Bartlet - I'm reading this thread with interest.

Personally, I couldn't surrender 100% to what OH wanted, just because it's what would make him happy. I am certainly not 'under' him - in fact I don't work, but he does, and all his wages go into my account, as he just can't be trusted with money!! We make pretty much a joint decision on everything, whether it be where to go on holiday, or what kettle to buy.

To be honest, he has actually helped me give up a little bit of control, and I can understand why some women would find it 'freeing'. In my last relationship, I was seriously taken advantage of (apparently, I did actually have MUG written on my forehead), and suffered EA, and occasional PA. This led to me being very controlling, I had to make sure everything was perfect etc. If I was going on holiday with my ex, I would have to plan everything down to a tee, just to make sure he was kept entertained.

With my OH now, the first holiday we took, I let him decide where we went. We ended up travelling all over, spending a couple of nights in each place, and it was so fantastic not to have to make decisions, I certainly felt free.

[amillionyears]

I know of men that are submissive.
In one spectacular case,people couldnt decide why a particular young man put up with it.
Then his pushy long term gf left him.His world fell apart.
We all discovered he just couldnt cope on his own.He fell out with people he had been friends with,decided to jack his job in,didnt know what to do,in short went into a very big spin.
Dont know what he is doing now,but can almost guarantee that he is with another woman who is gleefully bossing him around and organising his life for him.

[garlicnutty]

Thanks for your reply, Bartlet. I regret using the words 'winner' and 'should' in the paragraph you criticised. All the religious folk I've discussed this with do dictate that, in the case of an impasse, the man's decision is final. Well-balanced couples tend to allow the 'final word' to the partner best qualified for the issue (like you with science & sofas!). But the "submit to husband" rule is often unwisely invoked - and, sadly, abused. I wouldn't normally bang on about this so much but I happen to be very annoyed with a christian relationship counsellor atm.

[puds11]

I was subservient but only because i was in an abusive relationship and was scared.

Now we have split up and would never consider being subservient again.

I will clean when and where i want. I shall talk to whoever i want, i will go out with whoever i want and shall have complete control. God save the man who tries to stop me.

[garlicnutty]

You know, amillion, there's a very strong argument for control freaks to find submissive partners! Sure, it'd be better if everyone in the world was well-balanced, independent, assertive and co-operative. Until then, we may as well admit our faults and look for partners with complementary faults ...

[nickeldaisical]

I agree with what garlicnutty said.

Putting a title on to a philosophy creates a barrier that unhappy people feel they have to cross in order to feel happy.

rather than sitting down with their partner (or themselves) and saying "what's wrong with our relationship?", they're asking a book that doesn't know their circumstances.
so of course it makes sense, it is common sense.

But you need to apply it to your own life.

I need DH to do stuff for me all the time. If I were to trust him to make the best decisions for our life, I would still be sitting here with no hot drink.

I think this SW is a con: the woman not only has to hope to God that her H will take control, but she also has to hope that he'll get it right.
But she still has to do everything practical in the house. She can't just wait for him to tell her, because nothing would ever get done! He wouldn't sit down at the end of each day and say "this is what you need to do tomorrow", he'll just work on the assumption that she knows what needs to be done.
If you ask most men who think they're the boss of the house what needs to e done in housework each day, they wouldn't know where to start!

The man and woman have to be equal in order for them both to know what needs to be done. and if they're going to be equal in that, then they might as well be equal in doing them too.

[perfectstorm]

I asked him why not in a sweet little voice (propper girly voice). He was all "I want a partner not a doormat" and "go down that route I'm off".

My husband once said he'd never be interested in a woman who wasn't a feminist because he wouldn't want to spend so much time with someone stupid. To his mind, a woman who isn't aware of and bothered by sexism lacks brains.

[perfectstorm]

And we don't "submit". We discuss and compromise. No way no how are either of us in charge, or even leading. We work as a team.

[perfectstorm]

We submit to other people all the time. My boss thinks we should do something. I don't and I say why I don't. We sometimes come to a joint decision and sometimes I just need to do what she says.

Bartlet, no offence but the big clue in that statement is the word "boss".

[MamaMary]

Mutual submission in marriage: I guess it's about trying to make each other happy. As you get to know each other more, you know what's important to each other and you will change your behaviour accordingly.

I know that it's important for DH to get exercise and let off steam that way, so I don't object when he pays money to take part in triathlons and he trains for them and spends all day Saturday doing them, even though if I got MY way he would stay at home and do jobs around the house. He knows it's important for me to have my own space, so often on a Saturday he will take DD off to the park and let me read for an hour.

That's how I see 'submitting to each other' but others will call it compromise. It's about not getting your way all the time.

To submit to someone is certainly not to demean yourself - whoever said that was totally wrong. Again, I believe the Bible and others may not, but Christians believe the ultimate act of submission was Jesus' death on the cross - and they certainly don't believe he was demeaning himself.

[pointythings]

MM but the point in your marriage - and in any good marriage - is that the submission is mutual. You may be doing it because you believe in the Bible or you may, like me, be doing it because you believe in the fundamental equality of men and women but the outcome is the same. Both partners try to do the best for each other and not to be selfish. You let your DH do his triathlon training, he lets you have your 'me' time with a book. That's how it should be.

Problems arrive when one partner does all the giving and the other does all the taking.

[MamaMary]

Yes, pointythings, I was trying to illustrate mutual submission for those posters who have argued that submission is somehow a bad word. It's not.

I totally agree that it's wrong when one partner submits to the other and not vice versa.

[BartletForTeamGB]

"We submit to other people all the time. My boss thinks we should do something. I don't and I say why I don't. We sometimes come to a joint decision and sometimes I just need to do what she says.

Bartlet, no offence but the big clue in that statement is the word "boss"."

pointy, if you read my comment in context, you'll see it in response to me saying that submission is not the same as being demeaned. It clearly is not and I was giving an example of when we all submit to someone else without being demeaned.

[BartletForTeamGB]

garlic said, "Thanks for your reply, Bartlet. I regret using the words 'winner' and 'should' in the paragraph you criticised. All the religious folk I've discussed this with do dictate that, in the case of an impasse, the man's decision is final. Well-balanced couples tend to allow the 'final word' to the partner best qualified for the issue (like you with science & sofas!). But the "submit to husband" rule is often unwisely invoked - and, sadly, abused. I wouldn't normally bang on about this so much but I happen to be very annoyed with a christian relationship counsellor atm."

Yes, and I am with them. If there really, really ever was a decision that we just couldn't come to, I've agreed that it will be DH's decision. Now I can't think of any circumstance in which that has happened yet, and dear friends of mine who have been married much, much longer than us say they can think one time in their whole marriage where that was invoked, so it is not about just doing what he says, but coming to (hopefully) a joint decision in everything, submitting to one another in all things.

[IvanaHumpalot]

I watched a programme about this a long time ago. The (American) woman that sticks in my head was a young lady who had a young pre-school daughter. Her DH left her a list of things to do during the day and picked her clothes for the day for her. I know editing can leave a skewed perspective but all she kept saying was how she was 'honouring' her husband.

Oh look, I'm ironing his underpants - I'm honouring daddy.
Oh look, I'm cooking his dinner - I'm honouring daddy.

That's all the little girl heard. So sad.

Cynner - My friend (BAC) and very surrendered (I think) prays for me - a lot!

[perfectstorm]

pointy, if you read my comment in context, you'll see it in response to me saying that submission is not the same as being demeaned. It clearly is not and I was giving an example of when we all submit to someone else without being demeaned.

I did read the comment in context. You are missing the point, I'm afraid, in that we submit to our bosses without that being demeaning because our bosses are by definition, our superiors. You submit to the final authority of a superior, not an equal.

A marriage in which you are not an equal partner, but accept your spouse as your boss, is to my mind inherently demeaning. Fortunately, I'm married to someone who feels similarly.

[itsallinmyhead]

I wouldn't be able to, even if I wanted to. And I don't (want to).

[cece]

Once when we were driving to MIL house to stay we listened to a radio programme about submissive wives.

I decided to try it the next day without telling DH. He didn't notice a thing. However, MIL spent most of the day looking at me oddly everytime I submitted to him. By dinner time she snapped and asked me why I was behaving so oddly.

[dysfunctionalme]

I had a submissive husband which I rather enjoyed. Then he decided to "find himself" etc and it all went pear-shaped. Needless to say we are no longer married.

Now I feel that it is me who is submissive as I am the one who works, cares for the children, cooks, cleans etc. I mean there's nothing too shit hot about that, is there?

[BartletForTeamGB]

My partner is NOT my boss. We are equal but have different roles. I do not lose any dignity in this, but instead have a happy, harmonious and Biblically based marriage. Two people just can't be completely equal in everything. If one wants to do one thing and won't budge and the other wants to do another and won't budge, you reach an impasse.

[BadLad]

Her "I like the blue one"
Him "Right, let's get that one"

Anything to shorten the boredom of furniture shopping.