A return to submissive wives?

Boston.com ^ | 2 February 2004 | Cathy Young

[realpatriot71]

In the toilet? I'm nearly out of paper.

I was wondering when the first woman "indignatary" would show up. Treat a man nice, and he'll treat you nice. Must be too difficult to fathom?

[longtermmemmory]

it is called manners. Try dealing with women lawyers. You would believe they were raised in the monkey cage at the zoo.

[Blzbba]

"Before leveling the charge of hypocricy at anyone, you'd do well to learn what the term means."


From www.dictionary.com:

hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.


Given the number of times I've personally heard her berate working mothers, and given the undeniable fact that she herself is one, I think this falls squarely under the definitions above.


Hopefully, YOU've learned what 'hypocrisy' means from this informative post.

[longtermmemmory]

It does not make what she wrote any less true. Even a broken clock is right sometimes.

[Woahhs]

So, what's the problem?

Your taste in "points."

If the point you commend was excellent, popcorn represents fine dining.

[Blzbba]

"It does not make what she wrote any less true."


True, but that doesn't make her any less of a hypocrite.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

The "liberation" of the female was in fact no liberation at all.

[Woahhs]

functionally illiterate

adj : having reading and writing skills insufficient for ordinary practical needs
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Given the number of times I've personally heard her berate working mothers, and given the undeniable fact that she herself is one, I think this falls squarely under the definitions above.

Then you would be wrong. Try looking up "Conservative" and tell me if you think that definition is gospel too.

[N3WBI3]

My wife and I were talking about this the other day (not this book but its topic). We were talking about a woman we knew who was having difficulty in their marriage and they did not understand why.

The Bible sums it up very well, wifes submit to and respect your husbands (our needs). Husbands Love your wife (their needs). My wife is quite happy to work part time and take full care of the house (or work no time when we have kids), I am happy to provide for my wife because she gives me a peaceful home..

[realpatriot71]

it is called manners. Try dealing with women lawyers. You would believe they were raised in the monkey cage at the zoo

I can only imagine :-)

[Blzbba]

"functionally illiterate

adj : having reading and writing skills insufficient for ordinary practical needs
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University"


At least you're aware of your shortcomings, given your refusal to acknowledge the definition of 'hypocrite' and how it fits Dr. Laura to a 'T'. This must apply to you, as my post was quite clear, contained no typos, and made its point succinctly. Also, I'm interested to see a dictionary that has definitions for phrases. Fascinating.


pa·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal (--kl)
adj.

1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy).
2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.


Usage: Woahhs's latest response in this thread was pathetic and lacked relevancy to the topic.

[Blzbba]

"Then you would be wrong. Try looking up "Conservative" and tell me if you think that definition is gospel too."


No, I would be right. Doc. Laura is a hypocrite, according to the purest definitions of the word. I'd normally continue by hurling an insult back at you, but those tactics are usually reserved for people who've lost the argument.

Like you, in this case.

[Woahhs]

What is truly pathetic is your inability to broaden your understanding by insisting you already understand. Your charge of hypocricy falls as flat as your charge of pornography, and for the same reason: lack of attention to detail. Dr. Laura never denounced mothers for working, but for not being available for the children when they're not in school. Her schedule was wrapped around Derrek's while he was growing up.

Does that mean she never had any kind of appointment that took her away from the home? I doubt it, but atypical appointments do not invalidate the standard she espouses anymore than the general principle that children are better off with two parents than one is invalidated by the existence of an abusive mother or father. And surprise! A single mother or father can still subscribe to the two parent model without being hypocritical!

So you see, your misunderstanding of "hypocrisy" comes from an obvious ignorance of it's correct application.

BTW...if you are interested in seeing a dictionary that has phrases, stop buying the pocket versions and try the comprehensive or collegiate variety. Failing that, try looking at the last line of my definition, starting with the word "source."

[angcat]

I would think she was a severe mental case and her problem was not the post partum depression. Actually someone should have give that couple some birth control if she was so mentally ill. Rusty should have prevented that mental case from having so many children, it is his fault just as much as it is hers.

[Woahhs]

If I understand correctly, Mrs. Yates physician actually advised against their having children, because of her precarious mental condition.

Apparently, Mr. Yates knew better than her doctor...

I don't often side with feminists, but in this case I have to agree he is guilty of gross child endangerment, and should be prosecuted for same.

[MissAmericanPie]

He should love em and leave em. I've seen pleanty and heard pleanty from the guys I work with. Todays young women are nasty, nuts, and nothing anyone with good sense wants to mess with.

They are spoiled, self centered, they don't clean house, they don't cook, they marry a plumber and expect him to provide a mansion and six cars, they have endless hoops they expect a poor sap to jump through just to get along with them, they are nags, hags, n bags, not to mentions thieves and deceivers. Then they walk off with half your stuff they didn't take care of in the first place, and you get to do it all over again with another snake in the grass.

At least that's what the guys at work, guy friends, and guy relatives say, and I believe them, cause I have been in some of these pig sties they are forced to live in, and met some of these snakes they are married to, and they are everything they are said to be.

[FlyLow]

A return to submissive wives?
By Cathy Young, 2/2/2004

QUITE A FEW people would probably rail against Laura Schlessinger, the radio pop psychologist known for her diatribes against abortion, working mothers, and gay rights, even if she said that you should be kind to animals and brush your teeth regularly. When "Dr. Laura" writes a book which pins most of the blame for modern marital problems on selfish, overly demanding women, that's bound to ruffle feathers.

Schlessinger's new book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," is viewed by friend and foe alike as a "back to the good old days" treatise: for some, a rediscovery of the deep truths we've forgotten in the rush to women's liberation; for others, an attempt to roll back decades of women's progress.

Yet some of what Schlessinger says doesn't sound terribly radical. In the age of feminism, she argues, we have paid a lot of attention to women's complaints about men and criticized men for not meeting women's needs -- but we've forgotten that men too have needs and women too have faults. Somehow, we've even developed the notion that a woman who seeks to meet her husband's needs is subservient (but a husband who fails to meet his wife's needs is a pig).

"Most of the women who complain that they are not getting what they want from their husbands should stop and look at how disrespectful and disdainful they are of them," writes Schlessinger (who stresses that she isn't talking about abusers or womanizers but about basically decent, underappreciated husbands).

Schlessinger has a point, and to some extent her message can be read as one of equality: If you want your husband to treat you well, be nice to him, and don't forget that he has feelings too. Some of the callers mentioned in her book could definitely benefit from the advice to respect and appreciate their husbands more. One woman bristles at the suggestion that her husband should have input in decisions about purchases for the family. Another expects her husband to be "understanding" when, between kids, job, and all sorts of other activities, she has no time for sexual or emotional intimacy.

Alas, the sensible stuff here comes with a lot of baggage. Thus, reminders that marriage is a two-way street are intended mostly for wives who forget about their obligations: Schlessinger is emphatic about her belief that the happiness of the marriage depends on the wife, and if the husband is neglecting her it's probably her own fault.

There's also her irksome propensity to present grossly simplistic caricatures of the sexes as eternal verities. She is particularly fond of one male caller's comment, "Men are only interested in two things: If I'm not horny, make me a sandwich." Little deviance from traditional roles is tolerated: women cook and make a happy home, men are out in the workforce "slaying dragons"; a husband's demand that a wife give up her career to spend more time with him is treated as an expression of love.

What's more, Schlessinger's catalog of wifely sins ranges from wanting to take an extended vacation sans husband to failing to take an interest in his hobbies. And while she is certainly right that it's not "subjugation" to love a man or take pride in your marriage, must she approvingly cite a listener who writes, "Remember that without him, you are only a sorry excuse for a person"?

In this respect, Schlessinger's book is somewhat reminiscent of Laura Doyle's "The Surrendered Wife," another self-help book that made a splash a few years ago. Despite its cringe-worthy title, the book made some good points: for instance, that a lot of women confuse being empowered with controlling their husbands. (For instance, they expect their husbands to pitch in at home but get hypercritical if the husband doesn't do everything the way they think is right.)

Yet upon closer inspection, it turned out that Doyle's "surrendered wife" didn't just surrender control over her husband: She also let him take charge of decisions affecting them both, and graciously acquiesced when he tried to run her life.

Why does this retro advice resonate with so many women who can't be written off as doormats? Part of the problem is that feminism, these days, offers very little by way of an alternative. Too often (Schlessinger is right about that), it has promoted anger, rancor, and male-blaming instead of equal partnership. The majority of women do want loving relationships with men. If champions of gender equality have nothing meaningful to say on the subject, advocates of wifely submission will fill the vacuum.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.

---

As Archie Bunker would have said: "GEEEEEEEZE"

[CajunConservative]

I am sorry but where are you looking for these girls? I know a whole bunch of wonderful Godly modest young ladies. They are being brought up with conservative traditional values. It is important to teach your son what type of girl to avoid. Proverbs is a great book that gives good advice on what to look for and what to avoid.

[CajunConservative]

He should love em and leave em. I've seen pleanty and heard pleanty from the guys I work with. Todays young women are nasty, nuts, and nothing anyone with good sense wants to mess with.

If you are teaching your son that attitude, then he will be no better than those girls you call nuts and sluts.

[Miles Vorkosigan]

Two comments:

1. Women today often don't have any idea what men go through. Can you name one TV show that portrays men as they usually are--that is, workers in hard, physical, blue-collar jobs? Men are almost always shown on TV as desk jockeys--yet with all the bad habits associated (wrongly) with blue-collar workers. Since women get much of their worldview off of TV, they internalize the concept that men do very little work in or out of the home. Thus they feel as if they have a right to dictate to them. If TV would start showing men pounding nails, digging ditches, running machinery, and unloading furniture, instead of writing sports stories, women might stop putting themselves on a pedestal.

2. That much said, if you're going to be a male chauvinist, be the right kind of male chauvinist. I have no use for "pimp daddies" whose idea of masculinity is "slapping the ho's" and demanding that women work while they stay at home smoking pot. Just a few days ago, I heard a low-life downtown--mind you, not some young gang-banger, but a middle-aged man--saying he'd like to get an Asian women, so that he could get her to work while he stayed home.

Men like that are vile scum, and should be tarred and feathered. The way to be a real man is to be your lady's knight and shining armor; her protector.