Surrendered Wives

[Colette]

With her bestselling book 'Surrendered Wives' anti-feminist heroine Laura Doyle claims to have found the secret to a successful and enduring marriage, and happiness for women who choose to 'surrender' power and control to their man.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Doyle believes that the high divorce rate in Western marriages is caused by women, who are effectively ruining their marriages by being too assertive, too selfish, too critical, and by not 'keeping their mouth shut' often enough and trusting their man to fulfill his anointed role as leader of the family.

What's your opinion of the 'surrendered wife' movement? Is Doyle a misguided opportunist; preying on the misery and confusion of women in failing marriages? Or has she found the answer we're all searching for, by winding the clock back on the role of women in marriage?

[athenian200]

I think she has a misunderstanding of human nature.

Her book may work for some women, the ones with giving personalities who really didn't have a want or need for control in the first place, but were conditioned to think that there was something wrong or missing if they didn't. That is due to their personalities, not their femininity. There are men with the very same personal qualities who've lived miserable lives trying to cope with a leadership role they didn't really want. Some people are truly happier when they let themselves be told what to do, although I honestly don't think all people are like that, or that it's a gender-specific thing.

I definitely think it would be a mistake to hold this up as an ideal for women, though. It's based on the misunderstanding that all women are alike in nature in a particular way that makes them different from all men, simply because of their body, and assume this automatically extends to their minds and hearts.

I also think that seeing the high divorce rate as an issue is an example of flawed notion about relationships, that having them last is more important than their being emotionally fulfilling. It's not reasonable to expect them to last forever, or to demand people stay in them when they're no longer happy together. A loveless marriage should end in divorce, I think it's ridiculous to stay with someone just because of a contract. The divorce rate may have been lower in the past, but is it not possible that they often just suffered more from having to stay together, afraid to divorce?

So many traditional ideas are just being defended from fear of change, it's not reasonable or fair to people who don't feel the same way. It just puts pressure on them to conform.

[jesse]

Laura Doyle's surrendered wife is nothing new if you think about it. This "movement" suggests that women should go back to their roles when men were men and they took charge of everything.

A repackaged blast from the past with slick marketing and made to seem a respectable path. Out of curiosity I listened to the free mp3 sample of a seminar. Doyle makes it seem as if surrendering does not mean you become a door mat for the husband and so on. This might work for some types of people and if they want to live this way, let them be. It is not, however, a one-size-fits-all solution to bad marriages and women in general.

Men and women are responsible for bad marriages, it cannot simply be one-sided.

[Colette]

Laura Doyle's surrendered wife is nothing new if you think about it. This "movement" suggests that women should go back to their roles when men were men and they took charge of everything.

Yes, although her 'obedience' principles are focused on women's role in the home (allowing, it seems, for a woman to continue her dominant role in a career context).

Doyle makes it seem as if surrendering does not mean you become a door mat for the husband and so on. This might work for some types of people and if they want to live this way, let them be.

The underlying assumption she makes is that the 'male side of the bargain' is to honour his wife's choice to submit, by acting and making decisions in a way that benefits the family unit as a whole, not just his own selfish interests. Is this realistic (especially if the man isn't privy to the new role his wife is assuming)? Doyle advocates that the decision to surrender not be disclosed to the husband.

Men and women are responsible for bad marriages, it cannot simply be one-sided.[/QUOTE]

Well true in theory, but the remedy may be for one side to compromise in a way that makes the marriage more successful. I suspect that for the 'surrender' remedy to work for the woman, she needs on some level (rightly or wrongly) to accept that she carries the major burden of responsibility for the failure of the marriage. Most adherents to this method seem to be women who feel that their attempts to control and dominate their spouse, or their nagging, criticism and selfishness, have resulted in a situation where divorce is inevitable.

Husbands of surrendered wives describe feeling 'empowered'. I'm interested in whether married men commonly feel disempowered within their marriage, and whether (if they were honest) they would like to see their wives surrendering all or a degree of control. The assumption many critics make is that a man can't respect a woman who surrenders control, but is this really the case?

[Monte314]

My wife and I have surrendered to each other.

[Danisty]

I think it could work for some women. Some women prefer a more traditional relationship and I guess this book would tell them how to achieve that. It also is really going to depend on the husband. I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't like this and I'm sure a lot of men would also abuse this. Just going by what's on that page:

Give up unnecessary control and responsibilityThis could be good for women who try to micromanage everything, but I'm afraid some women will give up necessary control and responsibility.

Express their needs while also respecting their husband's choicesI don't see any problem with this as long as she's being respected too.

Resist the temptation to criticize, belittle or dismiss their husbandsCriticizing can be important, but I agree that people shouldn't belittle or dismiss their partners. I think that's a two-way street though.

Trust their husbands in every aspect of marriage - from sexual to financial...and more.Ridiculous. These things have to go both ways. Whoever has the best financial skills should be in charge of the money. If I left it up to my husband, we'd have overdraft fees every month. I wonder how this author expects military marriages to work? With my husband deployed, I'm in charge of everything here. I have a power of attorney to handle anything that comes up and this is totally necessary. I've had to use the POA several times in the last 6 months.

[Uytuun]

Well, I haven't read her book, but from what you say, her starting point is the keeping intact of the marriage (and thus society as we knew it a couple of decades ago), not the happiness of the people involved. To me, that's a premise that's quite illogical and biassed, but I can see how this isn't a bad trade-off for people that need the security (social, financial) that comes with marriage. I've said it elsewhere, but it seems like society is going into the norms and values direction again, so I'm not suprised that this kind of "theory" pops up again.

Not for me, though.

[Jakalwarrior]

And I just thought it was because Western civilization is raised on selfishness and shallow aesthetics.

Anyway... people should just do whatever makes them happiest in a relationship. What other purpose is there for them?

[Danisty]

To me, that's a premise that's quite illogical and biassed, but I can see how this isn't a bad trade-off for people that need the security (social, financial) that comes with marriage.It would be better for people to ensure their financial independence just in case anyway. There's never a guarantee. You could be a completely devoted spouse and follow all the instructions in this book to your own detriment and still get left to fend for yourself after decades of sacrifice. That goes for men and women.

[zibber]

Obviously, you'll never have another fight again, as long as you question nothing and take any crap thrown your way! It's brilliant!

Seriously, though, why should the woman surrender power and not the man? There's no logical answer to that. The fact of the matter is that equality is the most fair option.

[Uytuun]

It would be better for people to ensure their financial independence just in case anyway. There's never a guarantee. You could be a completely devoted spouse and follow all the instructions in this book to your own detriment and still get left to fend for yourself after decades of sacrifice. That goes for men and women.
Perhaps some people find it scarier to face their relationship from a pragmatical point of view than to live it as an ideal of total commitment, love and blind trust and the risk is worth it for them? Or they don't even see the risk and are to lazy to look after their own financial affairs? The problem is that even if you want to, you cannot turn back time and the threat of divorce will continue to loom over even the most Doyle-like marriages in a way that it never would have in earlier times, therefore making it impossible to fully execute her ideas which in turn makes it impossible to ever attain a Doyle-like marriage...vicious circle. Aaaaaargh.

Mkay, but that said, I'm all for financial independence. /me pets her contingency thinking

Seriously, though, why should the woman surrender power and not the man? There's no logical answer to that.

Nature AND nurture.

[md21017md]

I've never read the book, but it sounds like her concept is to go back to traditional roles of the 40's when the man worked and the woman stayed home and cared for the house and kids?

That may have worked then, but we live in different times. I think even then,, women had more say than the stereo type suggests.

My wife and I have surrendered to each other.

I think this is a key point as well as some other points made about he who is better at something do it.

My soon to be ex could never grasp this. She wanted to micromanage every aspect of our relationship. She had a vision of how something should be, for example how I should play with the kids, cut the grass or what ever. It had to be exactly like she envisioned, when she wanted it. At times, her vision of reality was just not possible. This is the main reason we are in the midst of a divorce.

It's a strange concept, I can't figue the change, but it does seem like a lot of women, once the "I do's are said" seem to think they own thier husband and now have carte blanche to order him around as they see fit. This concept rarely occurs in the dating stage of the game, probably because most women know the guy will walk.

[Rohsiph]

I was under the impression that the majority of marriages, even though many end in divorce, were already based on a kind of "surrendering"--namely, surrendering as accepting a relationship with someone who is "good enough" instead of "the best possible."

That is, I observe so many people who appear to be in relationships where the potential of both partners is entirely askew. People with incredible talents "settle down" instead of waiting to come in to contact with someone with equal talents whom they get along with.

Life-time commitment is already a surrender, regardless of whether both parties can reasonably expect it to be fulfilled or not, as there's always the possibility one or the other will meet in the future someone he/she is more compatible with than his/her current partner. Asking just one side to further surrender is preposterous. I note I haven't looked into the book beyond this thread, but the idea seems to insist that women will naturally & more often fail to compel higher personal standards from within themselves than will men.

It comes off to me as yearning for simpler times, except that I'm skeptical that "simple" times have ever existed for any original thinker (or "feeler" if the terms are inexclusive, for that matter).

[Freak87]

this is very biblical. the Bible talks about a woman respecting the husband and the husband loving his wife. I have seen marriages where the woman takes control and it isn't pretty or desired by either side! I think this should not be blamed on the woman- it is the result of both the husband and wife failing to submit to the perfect design that God created for a successful marriage.

I have talked about this before, if anyone's seen that Brady reality show, it just struck me, they were in a fight and he was shouting "You don't respect me!" and she just couldn't hear him. she wants to be equal. the man, is supposed to be the leader according to the Bible and the wife is the support, help-mate. I find this a very hard thing to do but very rewarding in marriage. I have seen instances of it and it's wonderful

it doesn't mean the woman is less. a lot of people have trouble accepting this command. it only means woman fills a different role than a man does. i also agree with Monte when he says women and man both submit to each-other. I agree with that. there is also a verse which supports that.

[stasis]

What's your opinion of the 'surrendered wife' movement? Is Doyle a misguided opportunist; preying on the misery and confusion of women in failing marriages? Or has she found the answer we're all searching for, by winding the clock back on the role of women in marriage?
Due to the myriad context-specific and environmentally fleeting societal factors which culminate in the sociology of any given era, and therefore in the values of that era, I don't think the 'cultural clock' can ever be rewound in such a manner and that, therefore, the virtues social conservatives want to resurrect by doing so smell a lot more like necromantic ideation than the reclamation of a golden age.

As I've insufficient insight into the character of the author to conclude that she's a "misguided opportunist" who is preying upon one thing or another, I'll just say that anti-feminism in general is something that usually rubs me the wrong way. It is traditional in the west (and elsewhere) for the male role to revolve around symbolizing and/or exerting control over externalities; I would argue that by extending these externalities to other people by social default (without ethical predicate), to women in a marriage, for example, the masculine role would aesthetically demean the universality of the concept of human rights and thereby risk eroding the cultural establishment of those rights. Particularly during periods of strong social duress, such as war. In doing so it ceases in my opinion to be a civilized role. So I oppose it.

[thod]

I always thought the classic model was the woman rules the home, the man rules everything outside the home.

If the men of the village want something to happen, then it will happen. The women get to vote, as always, by telling their man which way to vote or no sex for you. The thing is, the man sees that the other men will use violence and over rules his wife to keep the family safe.

Another interesting piece of research I once saw was dominant and inferior monkeys, When a monkeys status went up so did its sex drive. Thought to be an adaptation to protect inferior monkeys since they wouldn't get any anyhow. So by making her man feel like a dominant monkey, she in turn, gets more orgasms.

[Danisty]

this is very biblical. the Bible talks about a woman respecting the husband and the husband loving his wife. I have seen marriages where the woman takes control and it isn't pretty or desired by either side! I think this should not be blamed on the woman- it is the result of both the husband and wife failing to submit to the perfect design that God created for a successful marriage.

I have talked about this before, if anyone's seen that Brady reality show, it just struck me, they were in a fight and he was shouting "You don't respect me!" and she just couldn't hear him. she wants to be equal. the man, is supposed to be the leader according to the Bible and the wife is the support, help-mate. I find this a very hard thing to do but very rewarding in marriage. I have seen instances of it and it's wonderful

it doesn't mean the woman is less. a lot of people have trouble accepting this command. it only means woman fills a different role than a man does. i also agree with Monte when he says women and man both submit to each-other. I agree with that. there is also a verse which supports that.If that's the ideal marriage for you, great. Find someone who wants the same thing you want. That is not the ideal marriage for everyone. People who don't care about your bible (and even people who do, but read it differently) have no use for a religious law like this. I find it less than compelling. I'm sure many people have successful marriages of this type, but I believe it's more by chance than by any kind of divine plan. What do you say to all the people who've come before and tried this kind of marriage and were downright miserable? I'm not just talking about women either. I've known many men who ended up marrying a woman who wanted this traditional kind of role and they found it stressful and unpleasant. Even back in the 40s when this kind of marriage was common, there were miserable people who just stayed married because it was their only option. It's easy to romanticize the past.

[Monte314]

this is very biblical. the Bible talks about a woman respecting the husband and the husband loving his wife. I have seen marriages where the woman takes control and it isn't pretty or desired by either side! I think this should not be blamed on the woman- it is the result of both the husband and wife failing to submit to the perfect design that God created for a successful marriage.

I have talked about this before, if anyone's seen that Brady reality show, it just struck me, they were in a fight and he was shouting "You don't respect me!" and she just couldn't hear him. she wants to be equal. the man, is supposed to be the leader according to the Bible and the wife is the support, help-mate. I find this a very hard thing to do but very rewarding in marriage. I have seen instances of it and it's wonderful

it doesn't mean the woman is less. a lot of people have trouble accepting this command. it only means woman fills a different role than a man does. i also agree with Monte when he says women and man both submit to each-other. I agree with that. there is also a verse which supports that.

Freak87 is correct, of course.

And thod touched on an important point when he talked about a division of authority inside and outside the home. In Proverbs 31, we see a description of the submitted woman, who nonetheless rules her house, engages in commerce, and generally displays all the qualities of effective leadership. Yet, it is her husband who evaluates and praises her labor.

One of the more interesting words that is used (a single time) in the New Testament to describe the wife is "oikodespoteo" (sorry, that's the best I can do without a Greek font), which literally means "ruler of the house".

I wrote a position paper on the role of women in the church and the home for our church leadership team, in which I addressed these issues in some detail from a Biblical perspective. It is too long to post here. But it should be noted that there are cogent arguments that can be made from the Bible for and against this perspective. (I tend to be on the more conservative side with Freak87 myself.)

[stasis]

Even back in the 40s when this kind of marriage was common, there were miserable people who just stayed married because it was their only option.
I believe the murder-suicide rate for married couples was higher.

[Freak87]

If that's the ideal marriage for you, great. Find someone who wants the same thing you want. That is not the ideal marriage for everyone. People who don't care about your bible (and even people who do, but read it differently) have no use for a religious law like this. I find it less than compelling. I'm sure many people have successful marriages of this type, but I believe it's more by chance than by any kind of divine plan. What do you say to all the people who've come before and tried this kind of marriage and were downright miserable? I'm not just talking about women either. I've known many men who ended up marrying a woman who wanted this traditional kind of role and they found it stressful and unpleasant. Even back in the 40s when this kind of marriage was common, there were miserable people who just stayed married because it was their only option. It's easy to romanticize the past.


I'm not romanticizing the past- I'm trying to share what I think a successful form of marriage is. only to help. if I thought people were miserable in consequence to this, I would not share it. What I'm talking about isn't necessarily a 1950's marriage or by any means traditional. I think it's actually rare. This is where the man is the leader and the woman follows the man. All I am saying is that this is what the biblical principle is and I think it works because of my own experience and I think it works. from two marriages in my family that I've seen a lot of I've seen it both ways, and one is pretty, and one is not. and about divorce, which you seem to be commenting on in your last line- I do not condone divorce because I think it's unhealthy, except for the case of marital unfaithfulness.

if people before have tried this "kind of marriage" and are "downright miserable" I would say they weren't really following God's pattern. I know when I don't follow God's ways, I am miserable. I also wanted to note that I am not claiming that other people agree with me or feel this way, or want to do this, but i feel if they did in their heart, and praised God, they would find peace. or claiming to think people agree with me that this is the right way. just wanted to make myself clear because of past posts for you Danisty :)





Freak87 added to this post, 2 minutes and 51 seconds later...



And thod touched on an important point when he talked about a division of authority inside and outside the home. In Proverbs 31, we see a description of the submitted woman, who nonetheless rules her house, engages in commerce, and generally displays all the qualities of effective leadership. Yet, it is her husband who evaluates and praises her labor.

One of the more interesting words that is used (a single time) in the New Testament to describe the wife is "oikodespoteo" (sorry, that's the best I can do without a Greek font), which literally means "ruler of the house".

WOW. what GREAT reference! I know a great marriage takes submitting to God, submitting to one another and the wife embracing her role as help-mate but also "ruler of the house." she still has value, worth and a specific role which is special and unique from the husbands and which fits perfectly with the husbands role. God's way is the best way!

[Danisty]

Oh, I can think of better reasons for divorce than infidelity (although that is an absolute deal-breaker for my marriage for both of us...we're huge on monogamy...probably the only thing you and I will agree on. :)) For instance, abuse of either the spouse or children. Why should people in that situation stay married?

[Freak87]

1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

it sounds like death and sexual immorality are the only reasons the bond of marriage is able to be broken. maybe a restraining order for safety would be allowed, but not divorce.

[Follow]

Interesting topic. I think for better or worse, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, there is some degree of truth to what the author is saying. Back when we had lower divorce rates it was because one partner was made to compromise, or as this topic puts it, surrender to the other. There will always be one side who compromises more than the other in a successful relationship, it can't ever be exactly even. I don't necessarily think that this role is taken on only by men or by women though, in some cases the woman is the dominant party while the man is the one compromising. Certainly, it's more common for the man to be the dominant as a term of social ritual, but I've seen many marriages where the woman "wears the pants" as the saying goes.

It might be a fault of both parties in the higher divorce rates, but what I think is that it's more of a period of discovery. Women are now encouraged to "take back" their power rather than assumed to stay in the position of compromise as they were back then. People are either naturally dominant or submissive to some degree and it requires that those tendencies are accommodated by both sides of the relationship. I think the improper assumption here is that (all) women are unhappy in a role of submission. It's as erroneous to think that as it is to think all men are unhappy in a similar role.

The message in today's society is that there is something wrong with submissive behavior, that all people should be dominant and not allow themselves to be dominated in any way. I think that message causes unhappiness in many people who assume roles that are not in line with their natural tendencies just to avoid ridicule by others who see them in a role they don't approve of. Why should a negative name such as "surrender" be tagged onto the role of human interaction?

I could go on with this including proof you can see in people's approach to government and other things, but I'll leave it at this for now. I don't think "surrender" done by either party in a relationship is a negative, and I do believe that it's a failure of interpersonal relationships that neither party feels fulfilled being the submissive partner anymore.

[Eric86]

1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

it sounds like death and sexual immorality are the only reasons the bond of marriage is able to be broken. maybe a restraining order for safety would be allowed, but not divorce.
heh.....if you've had to deal with my mom's situation, you'd be saying otherwise. She's married to someone who is bipolar/manic depressive/possibly schizophrenic/hugely egotistical/completely illogical/etc. He's treated everyone, especially my side of the family, like complete shit (he's treated his kids like shit too, but they're brainwashed into believing that he doesn't, and forget the things that he does to them). He's physically abused my mom several times, what with choking her (and leaving large internal bruises), slamming her into walls, flipping her backwards off chairs while she was pregnant with my little sister (which could've killed one or both of them), but the emotional and psychological abuse he's put us through is far worse. He should rightfully be in jail, at least, but mom did not go to a doctor to be examined after those incidents to obtain proof, so it will never happen.

I honestly hope you would not want to stay in a situation like that....it is pure torture.


You also need to take into consideration the commandments on how husbands should treat their wives, which he is obviously not following.

[Colette]

this is very biblical. the Bible talks about a woman respecting the husband and the husband loving his wife. I have seen marriages where the woman takes control and it isn't pretty or desired by either side! I think this should not be blamed on the woman- it is the result of both the husband and wife failing to submit to the perfect design that God created for a successful marriage.

Why is it not 'pretty' for the husband to submit? It seems to me that marriages do often fail because of an inherent power struggle that cannot be resolved, but apart from your view that a husband submitting is not 'biblical', what in your view makes it "ugly" as you describe? I suspect it's to do with society regarding men as having been neutered in some sense if they defer to their wives, but why should a need to control *necessarily* be associated with masculinity or the retention of it?

The man, is supposed to be the leader according to the Bible and the wife is the support, help-mate. I find this a very hard thing to do but very rewarding in marriage. I have seen instances of it and it's wonderful

Who's it wonderful for though? The woman who has to brush her needs aside continually, and bite her tongue when she disagrees with something? Isn't she just making a compromise that she feels is essential to preserve a marriage with a man who's not capable of feeling happy within a marriage unless he feels in control?

i also agree with Monte when he says women and man both submit to each-other. I agree with that. there is also a verse which supports that.

In what way is the man submitting to the woman? In what way is he considering or respecting her needs or views?

[Eric86]

As long as a married couple puts each other's needs before their own, then it's all good. That's what I think, anyways.

[Saint]

Oh, I can think of better reasons for divorce than infidelity (although that is an absolute deal-breaker for my marriage for both of us...we're huge on monogamy...probably the only thing you and I will agree on. :)) For instance, abuse of either the spouse or children. Why should people in that situation stay married?

Or how about "We are not in love anymore."

(or similar sentiment)


Freak87, Why do you care what the Bible thinks of marriage?

[Eric86]

She's a Christian.

[Seppuku Savant]

Or how about "We are not in love anymore."

(or similar sentiment)

I don't think people in that situation should stay together anymore. Regardless of children being involved or not.

Some women want that type of relationship. Some men are looking for that kind of woman. As long as people are open and honest about what they want, I don't see the harm in it.

[iuniperus]

Doyle believes that the high divorce rate in Western marriages is caused by women, who are effectively ruining their marriages by being too assertive, too selfish, too critical, and by not 'keeping their mouth shut' often enough and trusting their man to fulfill his anointed role as leader of the family.


This is entirely false. Doyle is an idiot. The reason for high divorce in Western culture is because it is no longer purely a patriarchal society. Therefore woman demand equality and no longer put up with belittlement and abuse from the opposite sex.

It sure is easy for woman to say this type of thing in this day and age when they haven’t had to go through the oppression women before us did. Sheesh.

[Antares]

this is very biblical. the Bible talks about a woman respecting the husband and the husband loving his wife. I have seen marriages where the woman takes control and it isn't pretty or desired by either side! I think this should not be blamed on the woman- it is the result of both the husband and wife failing to submit to the perfect design that God created for a successful marriage.

I have talked about this before, if anyone's seen that Brady reality show, it just struck me, they were in a fight and he was shouting "You don't respect me!" and she just couldn't hear him. she wants to be equal. the man, is supposed to be the leader according to the Bible and the wife is the support, help-mate. I find this a very hard thing to do but very rewarding in marriage. I have seen instances of it and it's wonderful

it doesn't mean the woman is less. a lot of people have trouble accepting this command. it only means woman fills a different role than a man does. i also agree with Monte when he says women and man both submit to each-other. I agree with that. there is also a verse which supports that.

Screw that. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't be what traditionally is the 'man's role' and let my husband dominate me. If I decide to have a child, before I can afford a nanny, I'm going to put it off. I'm not giving up my career for the child and fulfilling 'gender roles' as assigned by the Bible or anything else. Also, in a Biblical sense, a woman IS inferior. If you took the marriage philosophy from the Bible, you might as well adopt all of it. Say, why should I respect tradition? Unless it can prove its worthiness while being impartial, there is absolutely no reason to respect it. It's equal or nothing. Try controlling me and I'm out. Freedom is the love of my life, and that love is far stronger than I can love any man. If Mao was any good, it'd be that he raised the status of women in China. He once said: "Women hold up half the sky." Even if I hate him for everything else, I'm grateful for this.

This is entirely false. Doyle is an idiot. The reason for high divorce in Western culture is because it is no longer purely a patriarchal society. Therefore woman demand equality and no longer put up with belittlement and abuse from the opposite sex.

It sure is easy for woman to say this type of thing in this day and age when they haven’t had to go through the oppression women before us did. Sheesh.

Well, even in nature, male is the dominant sex. I can see this is the frustration for many independent women, therefore demanding divorce when tradition gets in the way and they feel slighted.

[Brutananadilewski]

I'd say that Doyle is off her rocker.

The reason that we have such high divorce rates is that our society idolizes marriage, and places pressures on its members to get married and have 2.5 kids. Our extraverted sensate western culture also romanticizes "love," as evidenced in the Hollywoodized fairy tale moments of romantic bliss, where a woman finds a man who "makes her feel special," when what she needs is to learn how to make herself feel special . Since these pressures are so very salient, people end up entering marriage on whims, without understanding what a lifetime together actually means. Eventually they stop deluding themselves and realize that they never thought it through at all on the day they said "I do."

Doyle's argument is a cop-out. It ignores the emotional wants and needs of of the partners and places prescribed roles for maintaining commitment. But what is a commitment worth if the people involved don't necessarily want it? Besides, I fail to see why a high divorce rate means anything worthwhile anyway, but then again, I just don't see monogamy as possible; you're only a faithful as your options.

[Freak87]

Screw that. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't be what traditionally is the 'man's role' and let my husband dominate me. If I decide to have a child, before I can afford a nanny, I'm going to put it off. I'm not giving up my career for the child and fulfilling 'gender roles' as assigned by the Bible or anything else. Also, in a Biblical sense, a woman IS inferior. If you took the marriage philosophy from the Bible, you might as well adopt all of it. Say, why should I respect tradition? Unless it can prove its worthiness while being impartial, there is absolutely no reason to respect it. It's equal or nothing. Try controlling me and I'm out. Freedom is the love of my life, and that love is far stronger than I can love any man.

this is FREAK87 :)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church."

[iuniperus]

Screw that. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't be what traditionally is the 'man's role' and let my husband dominate me. If I decide to have a child, before I can afford a nanny, I'm going to put it off. I'm not giving up my career for the child and fulfilling 'gender roles' as assigned by the Bible or anything else. Also, in a Biblical sense, a woman IS inferior. If you took the marriage philosophy from the Bible, you might as well adopt all of it. Say, why should I respect tradition? Unless it can prove its worthiness while being impartial, there is absolutely no reason to respect it. It's equal or nothing. Try controlling me and I'm out. Freedom is the love of my life, and that love is far stronger than I can love any man. If Mao was any good, it'd be that he raised the status of women in China. He once said: "Women hold up half the sky." Even if I hate him for everything else, I'm grateful for this.



Well, even in nature, male is the dominant sex. I can see this is the frustration for many independent women, therefore demanding divorce when tradition gets in the way and they feel slighted.
The problem is that in some forms of "tradition," men are enabled and sometimes even encouraged to be oppressive and even downright abusive to women. I think Western women just like to run their mouths when they have no idea what they’re talking about. If they’ve ever experienced what their ancestors or women in other cultures have, I can guarantee they would be singing a different tune.

I, for one, am proud to be a feminist. I demand a relationship of equality with my male partner, not one with special privileges or set of rules.





CuriousINFP added to this post, 2 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Also, I totally agree with your first paragraph. Well said. You're a wise woman for someone so young. Keep that pride and ambition going strong.

[robin.]

Has anyone who thinks she's nuts actually listened to the free audio sample she has online?

The words "surrendering" or "submitting" to a man admittedly leave a bad taste in my mouth, but that's only because of the connotation that our society has given those words. When most people say them, they basically mean something very negative--ignoring one's own self worth and giving up all power in all areas of one's life. But this is not how Doyle (or the Bible) uses these words.

If you listen to that sample and read some of her site, you'll notice that she does NOT advocate a woman giving up her career, being a doormat, not voicing her opinions, and catering to her husband's every wish and desire. What she DOES advocate is learning to stop trying to control your husband's life. She points out that many women do this because they are, in a way, living vicariously through their husbands when they nag and try to direct him (by telling him what to eat, what to wear, when to do certain chores, how to behave at work etc). She believes that it is more fruitful to put all that energy into one's own life, and relinquish the control one tried to have over her husband and instead support him in what he does.

Her methods can seem disconcerting, because she essentially is telling women to change for their husbands, while not asking him anything in return or even telling him that she's trying to change for his benefit. But doing an act of service for someone without wanting something in exchange is really the definition of true, sacrificial, active love, and she points out that sowing that kind of love in someone's life really does spur change in the other person's actions. The issue that many women have is getting over their pride and taking the first step and being the first one in the relationship to submit.

I think that being a feminist and submitting to one's spouse are not mutually exclusive, especially since, in an ideal marriage (biblically speaking), both people will be submitted to each other, and neither will take advantage of the other's act of submission for their own gain. When both people act in each other's best interests, equality is inevitable.

And as a side note, anyone who has problems with how they think the Bible portrays the wife in an ideal marriage, please read Proverbs 31, as has already been suggested. No where does the Bible advocate a weak-willed, feeble wife with no power or career who keeps her mouth shut at all times, yet this is inexplicably the image that most people get when they imagine a "biblical wife." And if you really feel like expanding your horizons, check out some of the very cunning, strong women in the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Edit: I wrote 30, not 31..oops.

[Sara27]

Gender roles are changing and this leads to confusion. Women are suppose to be as strong as a man, yet we aren't given the same opportunities and then we are called "bitches". Men are suppose to be more sensitive, yet they are chastised if they don't provide or are too sensitive. Things are changing and we're all trying to figure out how to go about it.

Doyle shouldn't be writting a book. She's a woman. Why isn't she barefoot and pregnant? She's not showing us a very good example. Lead by example.

[Colette]

Well for those who are citing the Bible in support of the 'surrendered wife' concept, here's a question that intrigues me somewhat:

According to the Bible the wife is to 'submit to' and 'respect' her husband, and the husband is to 'love' his wife. Does this imply that he need not 'respect' her, or that love can somehow be achieved without respect? If so, what does it actually mean? Does it mean that he loved her because of what she can offer him, or do for him (not because of who she is as an individual and what her own needs are)?

To my mind, this type of 'love' is of the same variety one might have for a child or a pet, not an equal.

[robin.]

Well for those who are citing the Bible in support of the 'surrendered wife' concept, here's a question that intrigues me somewhat:

According to the Bible the wife is to 'submit to' and 'respect' her husband, and the husband is to 'love' his wife. Does this imply that he need not 'respect' her, or that love can somehow be achieved without respect? If so, what does it actually mean? Does it mean that he loved her because of what she can offer him, or do for him (not because of who she is as an individual and what her own needs are)?

To my mind, this type of 'love' is of the same variety one might have for a child or a pet, not an equal.Well, this is the definition of love, according to the Bible, and it's the kind of love we should show ALL people.:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." --1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that means that the man has to respect the woman. The "it is not self-seeking" bit best exemplifies this.

Also:

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." --Philippians 2:3-4

This verse, as well as the one from Corinthians, is how we should treat ALL people, even those we dislike. So how much more should this be practiced within a marriage?

and (in reference to a woman of noble character):

"Her husband has full confidence in her...Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, he praises her." --Proverbs 31

This sounds like respect to me.

Here is all of Proverbs 31...read starting from verse 10.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Fridays Child]

Being unfamiliar with her or her book, I took the time to go and check out the link to Laura Doyle's site and found a number of points worth considering.

Firstly, this is one clever woman: using a loaded word like "surrender" guaranteed the kind of publicity money can't buy. How many copies of "How to Have a Happier Marriage" would she have sold, I wonder?

Secondly, there is clear-cut advice to never submit to a spouse who is abusive to you or your children, or is addicted or unfaithful. She is aware that trust is essential to being able to surrender.

But it seems to me that the key issue to her proposal lies in a practical application of the Serenity Prayer, in self-recognition that the only person we can change (and therefore have power over) is....ourself.

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference."

Her position is that her unresolved fears of not getting what she needed turned her into a nagging controller and her marriage into a nightmare. Her solution, to deal with her own fears and damaging behaviours, is psychologically sound... although ideally that should have taken place long before marriage. I applaud her self-growth, however belated.

Does it sound like I am an advocate for her system? Well, let's examine a couple more things she says on that site. I cringed at her insistance that a Surrendered Wife "relies on him to handle household finances".... money-management skills not being gender based. She admits that her husband "is one of the good guys" and, while I am delighted for her in her good fortune on that score, I do have concerns over the possibly limited supply of such paragons. Faith is good; blind faith not so much.

In a marriage where both partners are committed to bringing the best of themselves to the union, trust can flourish. There is, however, no foundation in logic for declaring the male spouse to be automatically "leader". Surely personality and ability should be factors, not to mention situation.

I always resist the one-size-fits-all theories, on general principles if nothing more. And I'm not even going to touch the whole Christian directives thing here. If it makes Doyle happier to exchange one set of rigidities for another...so be it. But I'll be passing on buying the book and I'll send the money to my local women's shelter instead.

Now excuse me while I go say The Serenity Prayer and count my blessings...

[thod]

Screw that. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't be what traditionally is the 'man's role' and let my husband dominate me.

What! We all know where this leads. Women will be allowed to drive cars, then they will want to the right to open bank accounts. If it isn't stopped they will wanting the right to vote too. Madness I say.

The sheep graze the fields, but so do the cattle. Are we then to say a sheep must be a cow? If the sheep claims is it a lion, does this make it so? No, I say, there is a place for everything and everything in its place. Learn to be content with that place.

/troll off

[zibber]

I just realized that a modified version of this book would be a great way to warm people up to the concept of the totalitarian state. I'm just saying.

[Beery Swine]

Talk about a submissive. If this world was any kind of fair we'd have the ability to transport people that make such claims a few hundred years into the past, if only for a couple of days, just to give'em a good taste of what their marriage prescription is like. Even better if the woman has short hair.

[44sunsets]

The reason that we have such high divorce rates is that our society idolizes marriage, and places pressures on its members to get married and have 2.5 kids.

The reason we have high divorce rates in the Western world is because... we can divorce. In the old days, you couldn't divorce, at least not without a lot of stigma and various other powerful deterrents.

Hell, in certain places you could get murdered for wanting a divorce.

In the old days, men didn't have to put a lot of effort into maintaining a marriage, because "women knew their place". Nowadays, it's completely different, at least in modern Western societies. Women in general are not as willing to put up with an unfulfilling or "loveless" marriage. I believe the stats are that around 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.

So what the author of this book proposes is one possible solution to the problem. However, it is not a fair and equitable one.

The other solution is for men to learn how to keep attraction and love alive in their marriages, and to actually make sure they are compatible with their mates before they marry. Too many men don't have a clue about attraction and pretty much stumble into a marriage by luck. It all goes downhill from there.

Ultimately both men and women need to be willing to work on their relationships, and not jump into serious life-long commitments like marriage quickly.

[Antares]

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." --1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

This is agape love; I can't see how it can happen without respect.

What! We all know where this leads. Women will be allowed to drive cars, then they will want to the right to open bank accounts. If it isn't stopped they will wanting the right to vote too. Madness I say.

The sheep graze the fields, but so do the cattle. Are we then to say a sheep must be a cow? If the sheep claims is it a lion, does this make it so? No, I say, there is a place for everything and everything in its place. Learn to be content with that place.

/troll off

What abomination. The next thing you'd notice is that women are no longer housewives! :scared:

this is FREAK87 :)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church."

Yes, I'm aware, thank you. Quoting the Bible won't help since I'm not a Christian.

[manger]

this is FREAK87 :)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church."

... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)

[wolf]

The reason we have high divorce rates in the Western world is because... we can divorce. In the old days, you couldn't divorce, at least not without a lot of stigma and various other powerful deterrents.

[snip]

I believe the stats are that around 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.
This is because there's no danger for the female. It's stacked in such a way that, no matter who starts it, the male is always penalized. They get all the benefits and none of the negatives.

The other solution is for men to learn how to keep attraction and love alive in their marriages, and to actually make sure they are compatible with their mates before they marry. Too many men don't have a clue about attraction and pretty much stumble into a marriage by luck. It all goes downhill from there.
Why do females blame everything on males? Because life isn't quite like a fairy tale doesn't mean he is doing (or did) anything wrong. Marriage is not perpetual attraction and lust (which is clearly your definition of "love"); if you base your relationship on these, it won't last. If all you're looking for is lust, don't ever get married.

You don't "keep" real love alive, because the only kind that fades out is lust, while the kind you want to base marriage on grows over time, as explained in so many of the Bible quotes above in this thread.

I blame this on the media and the stupidity of females (not all, just the majority that have been so easily confused by the media).

Also, with the recent confusion of gender roles, why aren't females expected to do these things for the male they marry? At the moment, females get all the benefits and none of the negatives for usurping male gender role activities.

[athenian200]

This is because there's no danger for the female. It's stacked in such a way that, no matter who starts it, the male is always penalized. They get all the benefits and none of the negatives.

I think you're describing the situation in extreme terms. It's definitely not "always" or "never." I believe that's an expression of frustration on your part.


Why do females blame everything on males? Because life isn't quite like a fairy tale doesn't mean he is doing (or did) anything wrong. Marriage is not perpetual attraction and lust (which is clearly your definition of "love"); if you base your relationship on these, it won't last. If all you're looking for is lust, don't ever get married.

You don't "keep" real love alive, because the only kind that fades out is lust, while the kind you want to base marriage on grows over time, as explained in so many of the Bible quotes above in this thread.

What is the basis for your belief that lust is the only kind of love that fades? I wouldn't agree with it. Certainly lust fades more quickly, but love can fade as well, and there are several reasons it could. For instance, the people could grow apart. People need to be able to identify on some level in order to relate, and if their personal growth paths begin to diverge too much, then the differences can push them apart, resulting in the erosion of their love. There could be violation of trust. Opening up to someone requires a certain degree of trust. Once that's betrayed, it may be hard to find it in your heart to open up to loving them again. Even if you loved them before, it will probably start to change.

As a counterpoint, I think it's a bit of a fantasy to say that love always lasts. Why is it so automatically correct and ideal that a marriage last, regardless of the circumstances and feelings involved, anyway? I don't even agree with the idea that a high divorce rate is a problem. You have to accept that people can change, and reach a point where they are no longer emotionally compatible. Surely you don't advocate staying together just for the sake of staying together, regardless of what's felt by either party?


I blame this on the media and the stupidity of females (not all, just the majority that have been so easily confused by the media).

How exactly are they confused?

Also, with the recent confusion of gender roles, why aren't females expected to do these things for the male they marry? At the moment, females get all the benefits and none of the negatives for usurping male gender role activities.

Again, you're describing things in extreme terms. What exactly are you suggesting by pointing out your belief that females get all the benefits?

Please calm down, and try not to react so viscerally to things. You're reacting more strongly than is warranted by the discussion. There's no need to stir things up.

[manger]

Also, with the recent confusion of gender roles, why aren't females expected to do these things for the male they marry? At the moment, females get all the benefits and none of the negatives for usurping male gender role activities.

What are the negatives of taking on a male gender role?

[Colette]

What are the negatives of taking on a male gender role?

I wouldn't hold your breath for the rational response you're hoping for here. More likely that his response (if any is forthcoming) will be in the same vein of unsubstantiated rhetoric that is unhelpful to the advancement of this debate.

I don't think the reasons for the rising divorce rate can be distilled down to a simple formula, and I certainly don't accept Doyle's assumption that controlling women who 'don't know their place' are responsible for the upsurge. Intuitively it seems to me that a whole raft of factors contribute to the statistics - just a few off the top of my head would include increasing social acceptability of divorce, the social and economic emancipation of women making it easier for either party to leave the marriage, declining birth rates and easy availability of contraception, and a generalised kind of 'muddying of the waters' in terms of the agreements or expectations of what underpins a marriage (the basis of the marriage contract, in other words).

I'm not opposed to the principles behind the 'surrendered wife' programme, if that's what works for some couples, and if it does indeed create a genuinely happy and fulfilling relationship. I don't think there's any right or wrong ways of 'doing' a marriage - what works for both partners is, in the end, what is best. If a woman can undergo this training and transform herself into a 'good wife' without a sense of having lost her dignity and self-respect, then more power to her, I say. Perhaps there are some clear advantages in introducing a regime like this into a marriage which has become a battleground - it may help to create a set of 'givens' or assumptions, that save the couple having to negotiate (read: fight) over every individual issue, to get a resolution. If on the other hand the couple is using it as a band-aid to plaster over a fundamentally unhappy and unsuitable relationship, the idea becomes pathetic and futile.

Like many other posters on this thread, the lack of reciprocity in this concept bothers me considerably. The fact that the woman is the one who's expected to change, creates a strong suggestion or impression that she is the one to blame for the failure of the marriage. That seems at best naive, and at worst reactionary.

[Undead Bonzi]

*snifs at Doyles book*

I smell....guilt...and hellfire...ahhh; religion raises its head again. There is a reek coming off this book that is very very similar to the reek that rolls off of Intelligent Design. No! Of course its not religion! We never said it was religion or religious....it just happens to exactly mirror and support values that the Bible and Christians hold dear...right. Yay pseudoscience and pseudo psychology backed up by solid marketing schemes!

Basically the book boils down to a very obvious yet misguided point. If you never argue with or yell at your husband he will never divorce you! Brilliant! What keen insight it took to develop that thought! Of course for this to work out the husband must never be wrong or make the wrong decision...MORE keen and brilliant insight. Surely the penis is a shield against making the wrong decision. It is a comfort to know that appendage between my legs is a source of wisdom.

As to those who are quoting the Bible as if it will actually prove something to the non-believers...

To quote several parts of the Bible: "the"



That silly and unsubstantiated rant out of the way, the best point that has been raised so far is that this is not a one size fits all solution. It might work for some but certainly not for others. I worry about the damage this could do to women looking to fix an abusive relationship and take the advice of this book to heart. I know Doyle does not condone abusive relationships, but how often do you see a woman in an abusive relationship refuse to admit that it is abusive.

[Bandit]

I suppose that is a very real possibility..

If we stop to think, modern society and the "empowered woman" has essentially bucked the nature of things.. where the man was the hunter, gather etc.. and the woman served a more subservent role.... I imagine that there is still some of this instinctive behavior inside of us.. and modern society rubs this the wrong way..

If we step back and look at ASIA for instance, marriages there tend to last "till death do us part".. for the reason that basically women are a bit more submissive... In the grand scheme of things I suppose that all the strife arrises in the early and mid-life years.. as we are all essentially just looking for someone to be there when we grow old.. and when we get there it doesnt matter anymore..

[Antares]

If we step back and look at ASIA for instance, marriages there tend to last "till death do us part".. for the reason that basically women are a bit more submissive... In the grand scheme of things I suppose that all the strife arrises in the early and mid-life years.. as we are all essentially just looking for someone to be there when we grow old.. and when we get there it doesnt matter anymore..

Well, if you're including China as in Asia, then all I can say is, the divorce rate is growing.

[walfin]

My wife and I have surrendered to each other.

This is the most sensible post I've seen.

If we step back and look at ASIA for instance, marriages there tend to last "till death do us part".. for the reason that basically women are a bit more submissive... In the grand scheme of things I suppose that all the strife arrises in the early and mid-life years.. as we are all essentially just looking for someone to be there when we grow old.. and when we get there it doesnt matter anymore..

If you're including Singapore, then obviously it's a different story, since men are effectively the underclass there (thanks to discriminatory laws).

[wolf]

If you're including Singapore, then obviously it's a different story, since men are effectively the underclass there (thanks to discriminatory laws).
The same is true in the US. The worst thing you can be is a straight protestant white male, but just being male puts you at a disadvantage.

[Saint]

what do you mean being male puts one at a disadvantage in the US, wolf?