the surrendered wife

[nailak]

has anybody read or heard of this book? www.surrenderedwife.com/ what is the feminist view on it?

She's an utter nut job.

I think to discuss her views in a feminist context is to validate them and really I'd rather move on to something more interesting.

she describes herself as a femenist; #"I am a feminist and a surrendered wife advocate and I don't think either one is extreme. I don't think by giving women choices you can ever go too far in that direction. I think women need to be able to choose whether they want to work full-time, part-time, have a family, have no family, get married, not get married and any combination therein. I don't think that surrendering is extreme at all - it is really a kind of spiritual concept of just recognising your own limitations and recognising that there are certain things that you can't change and maybe that is good.#"

but also says men and women are equal but different, which is incompatible with feminism?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1251091.stm

Anyone who goes on about choice that much doesn't really understand feminism.
It's obviously bollocks though, surrendering to someone else's will is not the action of a self-determining adult and it is highly contemptuous of men.

My BF gave it to me as a joke wedding present. It was treated with all the respect it deserved i.e. laughed hysterically and took the piss for weeks afterwards.

"joke" is the correct way to respond to this bollocks

So according to the article you linked, some of her ideas are:
"women are happiest when they obey their husbands at all times"
"Women striving to be the equal of men is the root of all unhappiness and the disintegration of marriages"
"women should submit to sex whenever their husbands wish, and should not demand satisfaction for themselves"

Sorry, i don't see how those are compatible with feminism.

bollocks
I have seen a tv documentary about this a few years back. very sad viewing.

Arrant nonsense, IMO.

"recognising that there are certain things that you can't change and maybe that is good" - erm, right

Someone on MN actually did this. I hope she won't mind me saying (although unlikely she's reading!). The consensus was that she was mad to do it but deep interest as to what the result would be. The result was that the relationship ended (which I suspect was the right result for her).

So there you have it

Ayone know where that thread can be found?

Because the question that interests me here is: why do some women want to do this?

i dont think there is anythin about surrenderin to dh/ps will, more like surrenderin your own control, so you dont have to be inchare of everythin an a superwomen and its ok to let your dh take out the trash and if he doesnt do it just leave it until he does.....

that way a man who is used to havin no responsibility and burdenin his wife with everythin will take some responsibility for his own home?

So according to the article you linked, some of her ideas are:
"women are happiest when they obey their husbands at all times"
"Women striving to be the equal of men is the root of all unhappiness and the disintegration of marriages"
"women should submit to sex whenever their husbands wish, and should not demand satisfaction for themselves"

Sorry, i don't see how those are compatible with feminism.

damn right HeavyHeidi, not to mention that this would probably drive most men (myself included) round the bend!! Funnily enough I think a lot of men actually want a companion who's on an equally footing, and not a Stepford wife!

thankfully, that lady's relationship ended soon after

I dread to think how "surrendering" yourself to a crap husband could possibly end up

madness

if I ever suggested this to DH he would laugh his head off, then ask me if I had a lobotomy over lunchtime

thanks, Dittany

hey, if only I could sort everything out

Thanks for posting the link.

What is, though, the appeal of this? Even if you postulate a kindly and solvent husband, and see selflessness as a positive quality, why to this extreme? Is it a form of nostalgia for infancy where all-powerful figures care for you?

Is it a form of nostalgia for infancy where all-powerful figures care for you?

it could be couldn't it. I do think women are socialized into this to a certain extent (fairy stories, prince charming, happy ending etc). Royal wedding propaganda= perfect example.

But it's pretty easy to see why a book like this got such an enormous platform (lots of publicity, talks, promotions etc) when it's basically shit. That's the patriarchy pulling out all the stops to get women back in line.

Urgh

Just thinking.

Beautiful did it as she was unhappy in her relationship and her DH was distant and uncommunicative, and she thought this might be a way of making them closer/improving the relationship.

I imagine quite a few women try it for that reason - they don't want to lose their relationship and they feel it's worth a try? Of course the real problem is that the man is crap / they are incompatible.

Just a thought.

Of course this stuff is popular in some more extreme religious groups as well.

B's Dh had already checked out of their relationship, so no amount of "surrendering", prostrating yourself and otherwise game-playing would make a blind bit of difference, tbh

''Of course this stuff is popular in some more extreme religious groups as well.''

You'd hope that but in actual fact it's fairly mainstream in some parts of the world and becoming more popular in the UK as the non-denom evangelical churches grow. My old church was starting to promote this sort of thing, and is the reason I left it actually.

I always thought it funny that even though it was 'male headship' that was promoted, the burden of responsibility for the success of the marriage was placed firmly and squarely on the shoulders of the woman.

Damn straight MrIC. My OH has commented in the past that some of the women in my village that we see on the school run are quite Stepford-ish and asked if their husbands ever get confused when they are in a group as they all look, act and dress the same way while expressing the exact same views as each other and their husbands. When i asked him if he would rather i was more Stepford-ish and after he picked himself up off the floor and stopped laughing, he replied that he would rather have a partner and someone interesting to talk to, who had a personality and quirks of their own rather than a carbon copy of everyone else who was mimicking their husband.

I honestly don't understand how the husbands can deal with a wife who doesn't think for herself, but rather copies his every viewpoint and action. Surely that wouldn't be so much having sex with a partner but masturbation or at best, sleeping with your clone

Isn't all this surrendered wife stuff a way of avoiding any responsibility/having to think in a relationship - ie behaving like a child that needs looking after rather than a grown up who thinks for themselves. All very bizzare.

Isn't there a fundamental flaw in the idea behind the book? She's trying to get her husband to be more loving and romantic, so she deliberately "surrenders" herself. Isn't that just another form of controlling him? She acts in a certain way to get a certain reaction from him. It's quite manipulative.

Does that make sense?