"The Surrendered Wife" philosophy

Yeah, I know, to be fair she does state on her site that women should not practice her philosphy with someone who is abusive or had addictions.  But still, the basic premise is that the woman should submit to the man. Sorry, not for me ...

I'm not certain of the term "submit" being used, but I thought her views were to encourage consideration of the man's views.

This is a bit funny in a way, because anyone who knows me in real life knows I am a MAJOR feminist.  Big time.  But I am also a believer in evolutionary biology, and it is on that basis that I can suspend my feminist beliefs of what "should" be the case with what has actually been the case for a very looooonnggg time.

Also for the record, I have a hugely egalitarian husband.  He is a feminist's dream husband.  He gives me helpful opinions on fashion, etc. and he is usually right (more "right" than I am).  He is also a better cook than I am.  But I am a better organiser.  But he is better at seeing the big picture and taking lots of little facts and piecing them together into a holistic view.  We are a great team.  I am my best self with him and I never fake a sense of surrender.  I just try and hold myself back when my negative tapes from the past kick in.

LBA,  I am glad it helped you find more peace in your life.  I hope the relationship you have forged continues to flourish. 

Thanks.  I was curious if other people had similar experiences, but apparently not.  Now I know!   

Thanks.  I was curious if other people had similar experiences, but apparently not.  Now I know!   

I do agree with the basic premise, I just can't look past the rest. 

But then, when we looked at a new building for work the first thing I thought was: building in a graveyard, very small, meshed windows, good for zombie attacks.     So I clearly have my own issues.

Heh. From the sound of it, I probably live quite a bit by this philosophy. But I can't even swallow the name of it!

I do agree with the basic premise, I just can't look past the rest.  But then, when we looked at a new building for work the first thing I thought was: building in a graveyard, very small, meshed windows, good for zombie attacks.     So I clearly have my own issues.

Love it!    I think I would think the same re: the building (coz I'm a cynic).

I thought of an example of my husband choosing my clothing at a shop rather than out of my wardrobe.

We were in the States looking for interview suits for me back in Nov 2007 (as I was in between jobs at the time).  It was the first time I had been out of work since leaving university.  My mother complained that I didn't want to buy the suits she had selected for me to try on and she said "can't you just for once in your life buy something that I want you to buy?"  I actually had the guts to say that the decision wasn't about her, it was about me finding another job, and dressing the part to that end.  

My husband went in search of other options and not surprisingly (as he has better fashion sense than I do), he came up trumps.  Maybe the author has had a similar experience, which could explain her bias.  

But we are all biased, based on our own experience.

LipBalmAddict--you are playing with a stacked deck--the odds are in your favour!  You said your husband was hugely egalatarian, a feminist's dream, has an excellent sense of fashion and is a great cook, etc!  (by the way my hubby a lot like this, too!)

For those who have husbands that would choose to dress them as a dancer at the Moulin Rouge, is no where near a feminist's dream and is not egalatarian, living by this philosophy is going to be a huge challenge, if it works for them at all.

Hey I just took the relationship quiz on the website and I got a 94 (a 60 and up is an excellent score)!!  I guess I don't need to read the book...

I got a 92, and I sure don't think there's much about me that's surrendered.

I asked Mr. A what he'd pick out for me to wear and he said he didn't know.    But he also thinks the whole idea as I explained it behind this book is a little weird.

I don't think it's healthy to change oneself in order to "get" a man.

Any man for whom you feel you have to alter yourself in order to better attract their love, is not the "right" person for you in the first place. And any person who does not accept you exactly as you are is not worth being with.

I agree with sweetpeach on this one, I'd rather be alone than be with the wrong person or with someone for whom I have to contort my natural self.

I agree 100% with this. I was married for a long time and my ex-husband never accepted me fully for the person I am. He criticized and nagged me about everything, and was also very controlling and manipulative. The best decision I ever made was to divorce him and choose to live out my life being myself (alone or not). After such a difficult marriage where trust was broken many times, I didn't really think I'd be able to open up to anyone else again anyway. That's why I find it wonderful that during my time of self discovery and being true to who I am, I met my true soulmate who loves me for the person I am (and I him). I think that sometimes we try so hard to be 'perfect' for others , when it's just better to be natural and confident in our own skin.

I agree 100% with this. I was married for a long time and my ex-husband never accepted me fully for the person I am. He criticized and nagged me about everything, and was also very controlling and manipulative. The best decision I ever made was to divorce him and choose to live out my life being myself (alone or not). After such a difficult marriage where trust was broken many times, I didn't really think I'd be able to open up to anyone else again anyway. That's why I find it wonderful that during my time of self discovery and being true to who I am, I met my true soulmate who loves me for the person I am (and I him). I think that sometimes we try so hard to be 'perfect' for others , when it's just better to be natural and confident in our own skin.

Well said.

I think it's really hard to grab on to what's bothering me about it because a lot of advice it delivers is incredibly obvious. "Don't nag." "Don't sweat the small stuff." "Be considerate of his feelings." "Try to understand his point of view." This is all incredibly commonsense advice, that, granted, is probably worth a reminder.

For the most part, "The Surrendered Wife" is the ye olde generic marriage self-help book.

What bugs me about it are these things: its implication that men and women should play very specific roles within the relationship, natural inclination be damned. And (I'm I kinda surprised that men wouldn't get more POed about this.) that men can not, no matter how lovingly delivered, accept direct constructive criticism from their spouse. To use the most extreme example, that even something as non-fraught as "Honey, I think you're going the wrong way." delivered without the "God, you always seem to do that! Don't you read the map etc etc." chaser, still is injurious to the ego. That it somehow undermines his manliness or his self-perceived status in the household.

Well, there's also the implication that for women, there's no middle ground between a surrendered wife and a nagging, emasculating harpy, but that's besides the point.

So, even if you separate out all the submission stuff, there's still a great deal to be learned from this book: it gives lots of advice that would make your marriage stronger.*  But then again, so would lots of other marriage books, if they're worth anything, minus the patriarchal overtones.

*That is why, IMHO, when most people familiarize themselves initially with the concepts, it already seems that they are living in marriages like this.

I agree 100% with this. I was married for a long time and my ex-husband never accepted me fully for the person I am. He criticized and nagged me about everything, and was also very controlling and manipulative. The best decision I ever made was to divorce him and choose to live out my life being myself (alone or not). After such a difficult marriage where trust was broken many times, I didn't really think I'd be able to open up to anyone else again anyway. That's why I find it wonderful that during my time of self discovery and being true to who I am, I met my true soulmate who loves me for the person I am (and I him). I think that sometimes we try so hard to be 'perfect' for others , when it's just better to be natural and confident in our own skin.

I'm sorry to hear about what you went through.  It was alluded to earlier that the philosophy is not meant to be applied when there are issues in the relationship like the ones you described.  It is meant to be more of a "preventative" approach when things are or could otherwise be going well, not a curative one when the partner is exhibiting behaviour like that of your ex-husband.

The purpose is to help someone who is in a relationship like your *current* one to avoid repeating any destructive patterns that they may have learnt from unhealthy role models (in my case, from my parents) so that the patterns are not repeated and a relationship that has healthy potential not ruined by repeating the past. 

I was happy to read earlier about people who never needed reprogramming to achieve a happy and healthy partnership, good for them!  It's also nice when there is hope for the rest of us.

LipBalmAddict--you are playing with a stacked deck--the odds are in your favour!  You said your husband was hugely egalatarian, a feminist's dream, has an excellent sense of fashion and is a great cook, etc!  (by the way my hubby a lot like this, too!)

For those who have husbands that would choose to dress them as a dancer at the Moulin Rouge, is no where near a feminist's dream and is not egalatarian, living by this philosophy is going to be a huge challenge, if it works for them at all.

The deck might appear to be stacked, but I think you've struck one of the fundamental chords: the philosophy is meant to help people *keep* a relationship healthy that already had the potential to be, or for the woman to turn things around by empowering herself to change her own behaviour rather than attempting to control her husband, after her controlling behaviour has begun to cause damage, but before it's too late (the latter case being what happened with the author).

Not all of the author's suggestions are relevant to everyone, and the philosophy itself is obviously not for everyone - only for those who recognise that they could benefit from it.

I've only skimmed through this thread... but I have to say: I'd be happy for my husband to chose my clothes! He has great taste! We also had no problems chosing our childrens' names at all. He also cooks and cleans if needed AND handles the money. But there is no doubt in my mind we are a partnership. I do a lot of things he hates to do.

I was happy to read earlier about people who never needed reprogramming to achieve a happy and healthy partnership, good for them!  It's also nice when there is hope for the rest of us.

I'm always happy to hear that people have healthy, happy partnerships!!

I know that my unhealthy marriage was a direct result of my dysfunctional childhood and relationship with my mother (along with severe abandonment issues), and I needed quite a bit of counseling to sort all of that out. It wasn't until I realized my own worth and value that I was able to walk away from almost 20 years of a dysfunctional marriage. The only thing I regret now is that I wasted so many years trying hard to change a situation that was out of my control.

One of the greatest lessons I've learned is that trust is the foundation of it all, and without it there will be certain, eventual failure. A person must feel the trust and freedom to express themselves (of course within appropriate bounds) with their mate. It's so important to be friends before anything else, because the one thing about marriage which is certain is that it will be tested over and over with trials and difficulties.