281 Comments »

1. My blood pressure is rising just from reading this post. I don’t remember why I read it, but I did when I was engaged, and I have my doubts that a bigger piece of trash has ever been written. The existence of this book makes me, a bibliophile, want to turn to book burnings and press destruction. I am so deeply ashamed that it’s obvious a Mormon wrote the book, that it’s yet another piece of evidence in the mind of the public that we’re just like the FLDS church, just without the polygamy and living in compounds.

   I hate this book so, so, so much. I hate that it exists. I hate that the book portrays that women should be infantilized in order to be attractive. I hate that it believes that a woman’s life is not only worth less than a man’s, but that it should revolve around a man’s. You haven’t seen the half of it yet. The book recommends tidying yourself up, meeting your husband at the door, and telling him nothing but cheerful, meaningless things even if you’ve had the most hellish day of your existence, because your man has been in the big, bad world and his problems are soooo much greater and more important than yours.

   The whole “system” is based on manipulations rather than honest communication. It’s belittling to women, in that they are considered to be no good in anything outside the home, and it’s belittling to men, who can’t be expected to treat their partners right without being manipulated into it like recalcitrant children.

   I’ll stop now before I start foaming at the mouth, but oh, how I hate this book. I think reading it is what made it dawn on me that I just might be a feminist.

   Comment by Firebyrd — February 13, 2010 @ 1:53 am

2. My mom threw this book in the trash the same day she got it as a gift at her wedding reception.

   Comment by Susan — February 13, 2010 @ 1:54 am

3. It was 1969. She’s still married to my dad.

   Comment by Susan — February 13, 2010 @ 1:54 am

4. I’m seriously shaking in anger now. I’m celebrating my ninth anniversary this year, and the thought of a book I read once, in the 9-10 years ago range, still makes me this angry. That should give you an idea of how horrifying it is.

   Comment by Firebyrd — February 13, 2010 @ 1:55 am

5. I guess we have to recognize that this for some odd, inexplicable reason works for some women, but WOW does it not work for me! Throw it out along with The Act of Marraige…two poplular wedding gifts that do nothing but take away the power of SELF in women.

   Comment by Susan — February 13, 2010 @ 1:59 am

6. Sorry to dredge up bad memories, Firebyrd.

   Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 2:00 am

7. You need a new book club. Now. Right. Now. I’m feeling ill just thinking that any woman would even consider this drivel worth the time it takes to read.

   Susan, I also recieved the book in 1972 as a bridal shower gift. Obviously I didn’t read it because eleven years later I was divorced.

   Comment by numi — February 13, 2010 @ 2:04 am

8. My husband’s been getting a good laugh over my mocking renditions of the principles in the book at least, Stephanie.

   Comment by Firebyrd — February 13, 2010 @ 2:05 am

9. Eris and I saw an old copy of it recently at the DI. I can’t believe that this crap was reprinted three years ago. What the…..

   Comment by numi — February 13, 2010 @ 2:07 am

10. In no way or form do I endorse this book book for successful marriages.

    Comment by Susan — February 13, 2010 @ 2:19 am

11. I actually find the book kind of hilarious. (Not that I don’t totally get Firebyrd’s reaction.) But it’s like a self-parody. Those passages you quoted are priceless. You couldn’t make this stuff up. But if your book club is treating it as a serious guide to anything at all–eep! (What’s the plan for next month–The Surrendered Wife?)

    Comment by Lynnette — February 13, 2010 @ 2:43 am

12. I read Escape, Carolyn Jessup’s autobiographical account of escaping the FLDS, and she talks about how high-school aged FLDS girls read that book so they could become the favorite wife when they got married into polygamous families.

    Comment by Theolina — February 13, 2010 @ 2:51 am

13. But what does “soft” even mean?

    This is what stood out to me the most from your post. A book will not define that for you; what matters is what soft means to him. … just as you can have a discussion with him about what love means to you.

    I would say chuck the book and skip your next book club gathering. This doesn’t sound like reading it (or especially not discussing it) is going to be a productive exercise for you or for your marriage.

    That said I think you could probably have some productive discussions w/ your friends in a different context with different content, but it seems to me like all this is going to do is get you riled up and get them more concerned that you are riled up — all the while not being able to really talk about your thoughts and feelings at this point in your life. I think it could just get a weird cycle going about something that probably shouldn’t have been recommended in the first place. Besides, if you are going to need a supply of brown paper bags to discuss it, is it worth your time and energy to read it?

    There is nothing that says you have to accept this book to be a good person, so I say don’t torture yourself. (If we are going to use a food analogy, I’m thinking something along the lines of severe food allergy going on with you and this book.)

    Just my two cents.

    Comment by m&m — February 13, 2010 @ 2:51 am

14. Gag…. HOLY SH*T!!!! Stuff like that is still SOLD?!?!?!

    I think it would be interesting to call a womens shelter and have one of their workers come talk to your book group about how women become victims because of drivel like that….

    I’m going to go upchuck my dinner now… thank you….

    Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 2:53 am

15. Someone in my book club 13 years ago picked it so that we could make fun of it. Problem was that I actually found about 10 percent of it was good stuff.
    The one thing I remember being applicable was complimenting him on his masculine qualities. It is something I can obviously improve on since my husband just a few minutes ago was showing off a masculine quality and asking me to compliment him on it.
    I also think there is nothing wrong with pointing out that it is good to find ways to treat your husband like you would a new guy if you were suddenly single again and then you fell in love. That IS what I try to do in my marriage and while I think most of the book is ridiculous, I do NOT think that idea is ridiculous at all.
    Anyway, I remember our book discussion was very interesting. Again, much of the book is messed up (especially the dishonesty) but it is definitely interesting to think about.
    We are fooling ourselves if we think that our husband was not attracted to us for our femaleness. I am a woman. What does that mean to me? What does that mean to him? Those specifics might vary as society changes, but still there is something about me being female that attracts my husband so there is something to be said in the idea that calling attention to it attracts men. (I assume that is why our society ends up with women getting breast enhancement surgery, shaving, using makeup, etc.) I’m good at math so I’m never going to ask for help with numbers, but I don’t want to fix the closet doors so I’m going to ask him to do it and I’m going to think he is awesome because he can do it and he will probably love it.

    Comment by jks — February 13, 2010 @ 2:57 am

16. Ummm Steph, I say read it and go to book club. Either that or call the lone single sister in the group and tell her you think the author is full of it and that you would recommend her chucking her book too. This way she doesn’t think you think this way and just “couldn’t make it” to book club.

    I think going to book club would probably be interesting depending on the women. You may be pleasantly surprised and find that ALL of the women think it was full of crap.

    Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 2:59 am

17. Ok and what is with separating married and single in the book club anyways??? What is someone is truly struggling with being single? Isn’t’ that potentially really harmful? How insulting for her.

    Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 3:03 am

18. But jks, what does fixing closet doors have to do with maleness?
    I mean, you even pointed out that you are good at math which is often seen as a ‘male’ quality. So why not just compliment your husband on his qualities and what he is good at regardless of whether they are ‘male’ or ‘female’ qualities?

    Comment by Theolina — February 13, 2010 @ 3:04 am

19. The idea that books like this even existed creeps me out. If I were in that book club, I’d use the opportunity to educate all those women about feminism, and how important it was to battle historical dreck like the ideas in that book, and how important it still is today to educate and enlighten women caught in any society whose ideals can still be likened to the book in any way.

    Nothing makes it clearer to me that feminism is vital and important and critical for women today than to see something like book come out of the past and slap us in the face to wake us up.

    Comment by Tatiana — February 13, 2010 @ 3:08 am

20. FWIW, as a background note….
    A friend of mine at one point found a series of booklets online, in the Harvard Press archives. The original publisher was listed as “The Psychology Press,
    University City, Saint Loius”. The title says: “Fascinating
    Womanhood or The Art of Attracting Men”. The subtitle says: “A
    Practical Course of Lessons in The Underlying Principles By Which
    Women Attract Men– Leading To The Proposal and Culminating In
    Marriage.” And then– “In Eight Parts”.The date listed was 1922.
    My understanding is that much of Helen Andelin’s FW was copied word for word from these pamphlets.
    Regardless of whether the ideas are from the ’20s or the ’50s…..personally, I just can’t bring myself to take it seriously. The manipulation, and the requirement to be so completely un-true to myself, playing dumb, being less than i am, so that my husband can feel big and smart and powerful. Good grief. I would wish that by the time we’re adults, people could abandon the idea that in order to feel good about one’s self, one has to feel better than someone else.

    Comment by Carrie — February 13, 2010 @ 3:09 am

21. My husband isn’t attracted to me because of my “femaleness.” He’s attracted to me because of the whole package, which has almost nothing to do with society’s definition of femininity, let alone this book’s. In fact, one of his sisters remarked after meeting me the first time that I was “suffering a femininity crisis.” This book has nothing to do with emphasizing or being who you are, and I don’t see how that could possibly be good for a relationship.

    I think it’s too full of poison for any of it to be considered good, particularly given how it can warp the young, who so often seem to be the recipients of it.

    Comment by Firebyrd — February 13, 2010 @ 3:35 am

22. Helen Andelin died last year, and reading her obituary plunged me back to the 1960s. I read her books with a mixture of stupefaction, hilarity and disbelief at the poignant devotion some fellow Mormons brought to her advice. Her obvious sincerity deepened the unintended humor lurking in the pages of Fascinating Womanhood and The Fascinating Girl. Another book, Man of Steel and Velvet was attributed to her husband, but said to have been ghost-written by Helen. While her work could be regarded as an anomaly of 1950s culture, it’s strange and interesting that the books have been reprinted and have apparently found a new, younger audience. While these things were playing on my mind last June in the wake of her death, I wrote a poem that I’m passing on for whatever you may wish to make of it.

    FASCINATION
    Helen Berry Andelin (1920-2009)

    Saw your obit, Helen,
    and the way the Tribune

    tells it, you weren’t
    that much farther out

    than Dr. Laura, although
    the aura ’round your planet

    may have shown (shone)
    the way for Doctor Gray

    to spin the war
    between the sexes

    as some visceral
    chick from Venus,

    who hides her smarts
    and plays it dumb

    to charm the macho
    guy from Mars

    who’s insecure
    about his penis.

    But just between
    us, Helen, you

    were the first to tell
    it blunt and straight—

    to teach your sisters
    how to fascinate,

    manipulate a male.
    Your books insisted

    it was fun and easy.
    Use your tiny fists

    to beat his manly chest.
    Stamp your tiny feet

    and cry. Not any guy,
    not Charlton Heston

    could resist. The twist
    in Fascinating Girl

    was helplessness. In a mess,
    don’t flaunt independence.

    Never try to climb a fence.
    Male ego of the boy you’re

    with will take offense.
    Feign a pebble

    in your shoe—
    he’ll carry you.

    Helen, how good
    you were to tutor

    teens in secrets of true
    womanhood. How could

    you know the dentist
    you would marry

    would buy your deal,
    become the Man of Steel

    and Velvet? And fascinating,
    Helen. Your books still sell.

    Comment by Paul Swenson — February 13, 2010 @ 3:59 am

23. Hey all, I’m female because I have two X chromosomes. Also because I’m shaped like a woman, you know, i need those bra thingies, plus I have a rear, like a woman’s rear. i was given that book by an aunt when I was 16, read the whole thing, and am still scarred.

    Every single thing about me except my shape is wrong wrong wrong wrong according to ms. Andelin. I was already depressed as a teenager, that book didn’t quite make me suicidal, but it was a near thing. When I got older, I was shocked to discover that I actually was attractive; (It was a serious shock–I was convinced that I’d be an old maid) that the occasional actual human male liked smart capable women that don’t treat them like, what? sex-driven puppets?

    I still bear the scars.

    I remember talking to my mother, in shock, about the book, and having her tell me that women followed the rules to stay married. The despair and pain in the response has never left me. (My father was not like that, fwiw.)

    When i went to BYU (difficult to imagine a worse fit) I dated a string of men (I may not be a beauty,but to put it in the vernacular i have a rack-ette–oK, I have to buy my bras as specialty stores) what an astonishing set of poor poor deluded kids who thought that women should actually act like those “Fascinating women,”

    To make a long story short, how does one say this politely, the whole book can be summarized–tease the boys prior to marriagte, then withhold sex after marriage until you get what you want. Again my experience–second hand. The ugly details will be supressed. It seems to work, for low values of the word ‘work.’

    Not for me. I managed to marry a guy that seemed to read a different copy with the genders reversed. Whatever, we all make our own mistakes.

    Comment by djinn — February 13, 2010 @ 4:10 am

24. Paul Swenson? Mary’s brother? Your poem cleaves the line betwixt satire and sorrow perfectly. thanks.

    Comment by djinn — February 13, 2010 @ 4:15 am

25. djinn:

    If you mean May Swenson, yes I am her brother. Thanks for your kind comment.

    Comment by Paul Swenson — February 13, 2010 @ 4:41 am

26. #5 Susan ~ I read The Act of Marriage prior to getting married and I have to confess, I was not much of a feminist at the time and did not read it with feminist eyes. What was so bad about its portrayal of women?

    A couple of years ago, I read one called What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Sex: A Guide For Christian Men. It was written by three Fuller Seminary graduates, and so (I think) more on the side of progressive evangelical thought. I don’t recall it setting off any feminist alarms for me, and it actually turned out to be a good read for women even though it’s intended audience is men.

    Stephanie ~ I love the post, and I don’t think I’ve ever said this, but I love you for having the courage to honestly share your struggles with the world. Thank you. Please keep blogging.

    Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — February 13, 2010 @ 6:47 am

27. What Firebyrd and djinn and so many others said. I couldn’t have said it better myself. That book deceived, misled, and patronized an entire generation of women. I can’t believe it’s still in print, and that women are still reading it. There’s something so wrong with its adoption for ANY book group that I don’t know where to start.

    Comment by jeans — February 13, 2010 @ 7:17 am

28. Okay, I’ve read the post but not all the comments, but I must say that this is EXACTLY what my ex-husband wanted of me — and I couldn’t match up, plus, I was a size 10 and he wanted a size 4. So, he left.
    In the decade without him, I’ve come to realize that a woman can indeed be all that this book says she can. Oh yes, she can give and give and give, just like the (female) tree in The Giving Tree. And, like the tree, she can get used up and chopped down by men. Yup, a woman can either spend her whole life being what a man (or a series of men) want (s), or she can be herself and expect a man to learn to compromise as well if a relationship is going to work.
    I do everything I can to teach ALL my students that women are NOT here just to please men. But it’s pretty tough when we still have the church teaching exactly the opposite all the time.

    Comment by A Paperback Writer — February 13, 2010 @ 7:20 am

29. Stephanie, is your book club reading this as something that might actually apply to your lives, or as a historical study illustrating why we should thank God for feminism? From your post, it sounds like maybe the former, which is frightening. One day someone left some excerpts from this book on my boss’s desk as a joke (he’s a very feminist man in his late 40s). We had a good laugh reading them together, but then we actually felt a little bad for laughing at this advice, which was apparently written in all seriousness and believed by thousands of women. It felt a little like laughing at a bear in the zoo who has gotten his nose stuck in a bottle and can’t get it off.

    Comment by Sofia — February 13, 2010 @ 7:45 am

30. If it is any consolation, Stephanie, this book is likely to make most women sympathetic to feminist ideals. Feel free to point out that the “preside, protect, provide” triad comes from it.

    Comment by John C. — February 13, 2010 @ 7:56 am

31. I read it when I was a teenager and believed it!! My mom told me that she had a friend who got married from using the tips, so I spent months wearing feminine colors and doing eye tricks.

    Now it’s funny to read. My grandma’s house actually has 2 copies

    Comment by Jill — February 13, 2010 @ 8:18 am

32. I am seriously wondering why your book club is reading this, too.

    As for why the book sells, well, as some say, “the masses are asses.” there’s a large far christian right out there that eats this stuff up. oh, and the FLDS, too, apparently.

    are you in too much relationship pain to be able read this objectively, I wonder? it doesn’t sound helpful to you personally.

    and, if your husband likes “soft” women and you are “hard” - why is that your problem?!!!! and why are you the one who should change?

    Comment by venus — February 13, 2010 @ 8:27 am

33. Oh how I was hoping you were going to say the part where this book was an actual book club pick was a big, not very funny joke. Darn.

    Comment by Other Bridget — February 13, 2010 @ 8:39 am

34. Stephanie, thanks for posting the excerpts and sharing your personal insights. I’d heard of this book but never read any of it before now. It’s…horrifying. Truly. The idea of having to date or be married to the self-esteem wreck of a woman who lives the lessons in these books is a turn off, to say the least. One of the things that surprised me about the lds church as a convert was that I EXPECTED the women to be docile and stupid like the book describes, and was pleased to find vibrant and smart women. (Stereotypes if Mormons by non-lds, I know. )

    Comment by Bro. Jones — February 13, 2010 @ 8:57 am

35. I had the same thought as no. 30. Every women’s book group in the Church should read FW; it will drive them right into the arms of FMH! (Our local women’s church book group would never read it, partly because it’s so ridiculous but mostly because they have a rule against reading Church books.)

    Comment by Kevin Barney — February 13, 2010 @ 9:27 am

36. I am not joking even a little bit when I say that “Fascinating Womanhood” embodies everything that is wrong with the world, particularly the Mormon world.

    I want to go to every used bookstore in America, buy every copy they have, and then burn them. I hate that book more than I can express.

    Comment by Liz — February 13, 2010 @ 9:35 am

37. Does God want or expect people to engage in church service to the extent that it causes them to neglect their marital relationship?

    Comment by StillConfused — February 13, 2010 @ 9:54 am

38. I wonder if books like this keep getting reprinted because people are looking for an easy solution to their problems.

    My problem with this sort of “easy solution” is that it puts everything on the wife. If I do this and this and that, my husband will love me.

    We had a RS Activity night, this week, where we had a speaker from the ward, who was a marriage and family therapist, and he talked about communication- and scripts- Ideas that we bring into our marriages, and how those scripts can cause problems when they don’t match up. Then we had a panel discussion, with couples married 40 years, 19 years, and 11 years. The husband from the younger couple said that he went into marriage thinking his life wouldn’t change- he’d get to keep living the way he had, he’d just have this great wife to add to it. He soon discovered it didn’t work that way, and I think the book misses that- both partners have to change and adjust- it can’t be just the wife.

    I don’t think I could read the book, it would make me too mad.

    Our book club book was Women of Virtue. We had the author come speak to us, and while she said some nice things, that I agreed with, I was really turned off by her idea that “there was no tree of neutral in the garden of eden- we have to draw a line in the sand- things are black and white- etc…” (I didn’t read that book either)

    My thought was that pretending life is black and white would be a lot more comfortable than having to live with shades of gray, but then where is the learning?

    Back to the topic though- The marriage therapist speaker at our activity also talked about how no marriage is free of problems. One of the commenters mentioned a study done by John Gottman that found over the course of most marriages, couples fight over the same things- over and over again- and it’s not what they fight about, but how they fight that predicts whether they will stay married. I think there are always going to be hard times in marriages, and sometimes the best we can do is to hang in there until it gets better. (Not to say, we shouldn’t sit down and do our best to figure out if we can make things better sooner…)

    Sorry that was long.

    Comment by Alliegator — February 13, 2010 @ 9:55 am

39. It seems there is a lot to disagree with in that book and I would probably fill the book with postits of my snarky commentary. The only thing that I might like is maybe recognizing that in some ways it is my responsibility to make things work, but I don’t need a book to tell me that and I would hope the book would point out how responsible the other half of my relationship is as well.
    thanks for pointing out a book I don’t need to waste my time on

    Comment by britt — February 13, 2010 @ 10:44 am

40. Thanks for the comments. This is my ward book club. An interesting point here is that all of the books we have read for over a year have been written by apostles. This is the first one that is not.

    Great poem, Paul Swenson. Thanks for sharing it.

    Thank you, Jack, for your kind words. When DH first got called into the Bishopric, I looked everywhere for something to read to help me adapt. I found nothing (except an article about how the wife of a Bishop should be - “perfect”). I decided that I am just going to be honest about my life and feelings. Hopefully it will help someone else who is struggling to at least know they are not alone. Or maybe even effect some type of change? Is anyone in “high places” reading this?

    m&m, thank you for your concern. I think I can handle reading it. I already talked to DH last night about the book. He was equally as appalled as I was about the passages I quoted. And he’s equally as unhappy with our schedule and the effect it’s having on our marriage as I am. I think that as long as we keep communicating, I can get through the book (maybe the conversations with my husband based on the book will even be productive). Plus, I really want to be there to hear what everyone things about it (and to provide a counterbalance - particularly for my single friend).

    StillConfused, I agree. It seems to be a badge of honor around here, but I don’t feel it is right.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 10:48 am

41. Oh, my. Your book club is reading this SERIOUSLY?? It is awesome as satire (excellent for dramatic readings), but I find it hard (by which I mean horrifying and excruciatingly painful) to imagine that it could be discussed without irony ca. 2010.

    Comment by Kristine — February 13, 2010 @ 10:48 am

42. StillConfused (37):

    Does God want or expect people to engage in church service to the extent that it causes them to neglect their marital relationship?

    Thanks for injecting some common sense into the discussion. That’s the question that was going through my mind as I read the original post: your marriage is under strain because you hardly see each other, and yet you never miss your Church meetings?

    The Church exists for families, not the other way around. I have been gone a lot in my marriage due to work, and there are a lot of times when, due to Church and nap schedules, Church hours are really the only time my wife and I really have to connect. There are times when you actually do have to choose between spending time at Church or spending critical time with your spouse, and there is no way Church wins that contest with me. I’m certain that much of my ward thinks I’m inactive, but I don’t care what people think.

    A Paperback Writer (28),

    plus, I was a size 10 and he wanted a size 4. So, he left.

    why did he marry you if you were 6 sizes bigger than what he wanted?

    Comment by Dan Ellsworth — February 13, 2010 @ 10:54 am

43. Here’s a post I wrote two years ago that puts FW into a little bit of perspective for you.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — February 13, 2010 @ 11:03 am

44. I know women who have recommended both this and The Surrendered Wife to me because it made their marriages so much better!

    Every time I hear that, I think to myself, “I’m glad I’m not in the kind of marriage that one of those books would improve.” I’ll keep killing spiders myself instead of pretending they freak me out and stroking my husband’s ego, thank you very much. I always wonder what sort of husband needs his male ego stroked.

    I could never figure out why we should want to encourage male ego/pride. If our goal is to be Christlike, pride is one of the last things we should be encouraging in ourselves and our spouse. I just don’t get it.

    Comment by TopHat — February 13, 2010 @ 11:06 am

45. Does your husband ever speak to you harshly, criticize you unduly, treat you unfairly, neglect you, impose on you, or in any way mistreat you? The important thing is not what he does but how you react. . . No man likes an ugly temper, nor does he want a woman he can walk on, or one who will retreat into her shell and feel sorry for herself . . . Some men even admire little spitfires, women who are adorably independent and saucy, whom they can’t put down with even the most degrading remark.

    f

    Was this book, perchance, written in the 50’s?

    If I were you, I’d either not read it, or I’d read it as an exercize in ironic humor and go to book club with that in mind. Now THAT would be a redeeming discussion–a few laughter-induced endorphins, perhaps a humorous discussion with the husband, too.

    Comment by sare — February 13, 2010 @ 11:06 am

46. just reread the post and realized you’d written the date of publication.

    You know… after my somewhat flippant comment, I thought I should add my serious thoughts, which are these: in the Terry-Warner-bonds-that-make-us-free-ish sense I’d agree with some of this (the mindset that you can only control what YOU do, and so if you want to change your relationship, YOU need to change rather than wait for someone else to do so). But I see so many potentially awful results of the doctrine preached in this particular book. There’s a fine line between taking responsibility for your own actions in a relationship and blaming yourself for everything that goes wrong in a relationship. And it’s not that hard to cross, particularly in situations where emotional abuse is involved. This really could be a very harmful book.

    Comment by sare — February 13, 2010 @ 11:12 am

47. Stephanie, I love having the opportunity to hear your thoughts on this book. You’ve become one of my favorite people on fMh, and I look forward to Part 2.

    But I want to say just one thing, even though it’s not really about this book. Recognizing that I have very little information, just what you’ve posted here, I was seriously disturbed by what you related of this conversation with your husband. It rang all sorts of bells in my head. It sounds like a blatant manipulation. He shares a conversation with his coworker about what sort of woman he likes and of course you’re going to ask what sort of woman you are. He tells you that you’re not the kind of woman he likes, and that’s not a set-up? That’s not a sneaky message he’s trying to send to you? That’s not a way to take you down a notch?

    I want to give your husband the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t want to believe that he could be so underhanded and cruel to you.

    Comment by Chandelle — February 13, 2010 @ 11:15 am

48. There are two things about this book I like…one part has you analyze yourself and your strengths and weakness-I do not like their concept of what is a strength or weakness. I think it is a good idea to consider what your husband married you for-what was he looking for (if it is size 4 type stuff that is really his problem). I would take their concepts and figure out what my idea of an ideal ME would look like (hint use much of this book as a foil for what you may really want).

    It is true that a woman trying to be her best is more attractive to a man.

    I prefer to interpret soft as soft hearted-people can take the weak approach if they want.

    I prefer to take childlike as humble and in teh manner the scriptures refer-not the childish way it is frequently interpreted in the book

    um…huh two things I like about the book…it is true that the only person you can change in your relationship is you. that the book goes on then on how to manipulate your man I have nothing good to say about…but it is true that you are the only person you can change-so focus on that.

    I have found if I am doing things that inspire me, interest me, develop me as a person, I need less from my spouse-I am making sure my needs get met. It changes the nature of the relationship from him meeting my needs to us connecting on a different level.

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 11:16 am

49. One thing I really would like to know is if there is any truth to these ideas at all. Are there things that men want that we as feminists balk at but that would actually strengthen our marriages - even egalitarian marriages?

    chandelle, I thought about that, too, and hesitated to put that in. DH tells me the funny things his co-worker says nearly every day, so it isn’t out of context. On the one hand, maybe he was subconcsciously trying to instigate a conversation. On the other hand, he’s been embarassed about it ever since. I don’t think manipulation or cruelty was his intent. Thank you for caring, though.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 11:29 am

50. I keep hearing references to this book (mostly in the realms of being horrified that it exists) and I’ll admit that part of me wants to read it so I can be angry about all that is wrong with it. But then, I don’t really need anything more to get angry about right now, so maybe I’ll hold off.

    I think that while this type of thing might be fun to read and talk about why its wrong, it scares me to hear of teens reading the FG version because so many are just so vulnerable–looking for a way to be loved and yes, they might buy into it and that sets them up to be walked all over in every relationship, to be abused, mistreated, and at the very least, miss out on a lot of opportunity for personal growth and development in this life.

    And as far as being childlike–I do not think in any way that the PLAN for us in this life is to act like children. I hate those implications for both sexes, including all the comments about how men are just big boys and need to be coddled and have their toys, etc. . . We all need to grow up–and yes, its hard being the adult, but in a marriage, if you are both adults about it, I think it works out a lot better, and has the potential to be something so much more amazing than just a caregiver-type relationship.

    Comment by Kim — February 13, 2010 @ 11:33 am

51. The thing that always makes me laugh about FW is how subversive it is, and how completely unaware it is of its own subversiveness. It’s all about how to exercise one’s own power, get what one wants, and thus undermine the patriarchy. These are not particularly dignified or direct ways of exercising power–they’re manipulative and degrading in the extreme–but I’m sure for many women at many times, manipulation and self-abasement was all that was available.

    Still, it kills me every time that FW and its advocate can never seem to see the conflict between the FW approach and patriarchy. If you really believe in patriarchy–if you really think DH knows best and you should do what he says (or obey him, or hearken to him, or whatever euphemism you prefer)–what on earth are you doing sneaking around behind his back trying to manipulate and undermine him?

    Comment by ZD Eve — February 13, 2010 @ 11:38 am

52. Stephanie the book mostly presents princi;es of manipulation. There are more and less effective ways to manipulate people.

    As far as things our husbands may want that don’t align with general feminism-I would decide that individually with your husband-choosing to do something to better your relations and that doesn’t belittle you, may in fact LOOK like its not feminist, BUT a woman’s choice thoughtfully made isn’t fundamentally against feminism. IMO feminism is against a women being pressured into a choice, not in considering your husbands love language in determinig your actions or some such—- but then I’m not your most feminist person here

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 11:42 am

53. This is absolutely crazy.

    I think the Church’s requirements for callings has done far more to destroy marriages and families (even though they may technically stay together) than people realize.

    Comment by Mike S — February 13, 2010 @ 11:47 am

54. My memories of the book, from rather long ago, are that it is one long lesson in manipulation, It disrespects women, for teaching them the whole “I’m weak, hellllp me, you big strong man’ and disrespects men equally for expecting them to fall for it.

    This is a terrible way to treat anyone. Be yourself. Of course, if I batted my lashes and acted all helpless (except for my basic clumsiness which doesn’t seem to be what the author is after) those around me would burst into giggles or look on with shock,

    Short version. The book says something other than “be who you really are,” Who you are will emerge. Trust me. Plus, my pioneer ancestors were tough old broads who got their families through hard times. This book-this idea of feminism-is an insult to their memories.

    And I am very sorry, Paul Swenson, for misspelling your revered sister’s first name.

    Comment by djinn — February 13, 2010 @ 11:53 am

55. #47 I thought that same thing but it probably not as bad as it sounds. Maybe he really just didn’t even think of what he was saying. It really is so arbitrary because who can really be soft or hard all the time? When I ask him questions similar to that he always gives the smart answer, “you” I only have one type and that’s you. So at least her Husband is honest.

    Comment by cz — February 13, 2010 @ 11:55 am

56. I found this book in my Grandma’s house right before I graduated from BYU and went on my mission. I thought it would be fun to see what constituted a good marriage in the 1950s. I started reading it during a two day road trip back home. My dad looked over at me and said “throw that garbage out the window. Your mother and I didn’t raise you to be like that.”

    Thank you Dad, for teaching me that there are men who love a woman with a career, who love a woman with gumption, who love a woman that they can’t tame.

    Thank you Mom, for being that woman.

    Comment by Anne — February 13, 2010 @ 11:56 am

57. As to why people like this book-people really do want other people to do what they want. To some extent this makes them feel like they are relating well with people…

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

58. I really like the book The Peacgiver for marriage http://www.ldsmag.com/books/040430peacegiver.html .

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

59. Mike S (53):

    See my comment # 42 above. The Church does not have “requirements” for callings. There are callings that demand a lot of time, but it’s not like we are somehow powerless to say no to what is asked of us, even when it harms our marriage and family life. Any time I have to choose between Church or critically important time to connect with my spouse, there is no question that the Church is going to need to find someone else to fill my spot.
    It’s common to hear “…but the Church should never force us to choose between these loyalties!…” Please. Spare me the drama. One of my greatest days in the Gospel was when I decided there will be no more guilt trips when I choose family time over Church time.

    Comment by Dan Ellsworth — February 13, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

60. I have found if I am doing things that inspire me, interest me, develop me as a person, I need less from my spouse-I am making sure my needs get met.

    britt-the hammy, I’ve thought about this. This is what people usually tell me about adjusting to DH being gone. “Just find your own interests, and then you’ll be happy”. Yes, there is a place for my own interests, but my own interests don’t replace my relationship with DH. I want to spend time with him. I like him. I didn’t get married to lose my former interests and have to gain more. That seems to be the pattern that I feel pushed to. And I know what is on the other end of that. How many couples get 20 years out with an empty nest and look at each other and ask, “Who are you?” I don’t want that.

    Dan Ellsworth, (and StillConfused) you actually cut to the chase of the message I was trying to convey (in what I was hoping was a more entertaining, accessible way). I think church callings can eat us and our marriages and families up if we allow them to. That’s not the message coming out of Salt Lake, but it is what happens on the ground a lot. My three friends who want to read the book have husbands in bigger callings than mine, and two have 7 kids. We are all trying to adjust. Is this book really the answer?

    DH and I are learning as we go. In January we were in basketball season and had scheduled practices on Mondays and Fridays so they wouldn’t interfere with all the church stuff we have going on on Tues-Thurs. We’ve learned that this makes us miserable. So, for soccer season, we are scheduling practices on Tues and Thurs, so sometimes he’ll miss church stuff and sometimes he’ll miss practice, but we’ll still have our Mondays and Fridays at home as a family. Because obviously we can’t survive without them! And I don’t think there is any shame in that, although some people around here do. I am not sure the flak we’ll take, but I am determined to be both faithful in our callings and happy in our marriage. It is kind of frustrating that I feel like a “bad Mormon” for trying to preserve my marriage.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

61. Stephanie…time with your husband will take time to work out….I really do understand. My husband is in the bishopric and he is generally at work from 6am until 6+pm (with games and tournaments added on to that).

    I like the sports compromise. It’s going to take thinking about what has to sacrfiice, how much time and when you most need it. It may mean less meetings on his part.

    Why I suggest developing your own interests is because that helps me resent his time away less-it doesn’t change the time I need with him-but it does change how I feel when he does need to be gone. I don’t know if htat makes sense-it is part of what makes me soft -I see soft as soft hearted and non resentful as a part of that.

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

62. Even worse than this book being recently reprinted is the fact that new books like this are being written. Several months ago my mother bought for each of her daughters and DiLs a recent book by John Bytheway,
    Behind Every Good Man

    . When Luv got hers, I seethed–that some contemporary guy in the Church would write such crap, that the Church would publish it, or that my Mom would disseminate it to my sisters and wife.

    (My Mom was subsequently upset when she found out that I griped about the book on FB, so I guess we’re even…)

    The title itself really bugs me. That old idiom perpetuates the old message that the woman’s role is supportive, that she is subordinate to the husband. I read the whole book, and it gives much the same message as that of the book you mention: success in marriage depends on you (the wife) being “soft” and submissive and building your husband up, and you will find happiness if you will only do what you can to help your husband find happiness. Such harmful messages to women!

    And I’m sick of this idea that women should be “soft” or “pink” without any sort of explanation of what those terms mean. My wife likes to build things: does that make her “hard?” I’m not much of an outdoors person, and in many ways have something of a stereotypically poetic temperament (sensitive, moody/depressive, anxiety, etc). Does that make me “soft,” and therefore effeminate/unmanly? The emphasis on “soft” and “pink” does nothing but validate restrictive and harmful stereotypes.

    In a very limited sense, the advice is right. Marriage works well when the wife is focused on the needs of her husband, and it is good for her to be “soft.” But marriage also works best when the husband is focused on the needs of his wife. And don’t women also want their husbands to be “soft”? (no snarky, lurid responses please–I’m looking at you, Jack!). Men should be humble, gentle, forgiving, kind, understanding, empathetic–aren’t those “soft” traits?

    If the traits and advice are equally applicable to both sexes, we do absolutely no good by focusing the message about those traits to one sex! Lets stop segregating the message, and share it as a broad message to all people in the marriage, not just to women.

    Comment by Derek — February 13, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

63. britt, that makes sense. I’ve been thinking about soft as soft-hearted, too. After I read the President Eyring talk, I thought, “My heart is hard. I need a soft heart”, so I read the two talks from conference about softening our hearts. Here and here. I made a list of things I felt prompted to do to soften my heart (including helping DH find time to fit in temple service, which seemed a little like an oxymoron since I want more time with him). Anyways, we talked about it last night and are going to talk more on our date tonight. I’m really not too concerned about DH and I in the long-term. We’ll work things out. But, I am concerned about these kinds of issues in general. I think they impact a lot of couples.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

64. Great points, Derek.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

65. Fascinating indeed–if you mean it in the creepy, makes-your-skin-crawl & makes-you-feel-sick-to-your-stomach way.

    Come join my book club, where we just read “A Room of One’s Own” and I led a discussion of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave feminism with a bunch of dear, sweet, politically conservative sisters from church & we had a spirited chat about all sorts of surprisingly liberal concepts (I’m not sure they realized what they were getting themselves into at the time, but they all seemed to enjoy it.)

    Hang in there with the church calling stuff–but don’t be afraid to talk to your husband (and even your bishop) about the stress that it is putting on your marriage & family. Accommodations can & should be made. Dh & I have spent most of the last 4 years as RS president, YM president, and counselors in the RS and YM. Several of these simultaneously. And the oldest of our four kids is not quite 10 years old. It has been challenging and stressful and overwhelming at times, but it has prompted us to communicate our needs to each other very clearly.

    Comment by bekah — February 13, 2010 @ 12:53 pm

66. chandelle, I just wanted to say again how much I appreciated your comment. I didn’t mean to dismiss it so handily. Like I said, I had the same concern. There may even be the tiniest bit of truth to it. But, I decided that DH really didn’t mean harm to me, so we can use it for what it is worth and move on.

    Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

67. re: 61&63

    Exactly what I mean. Yes, wives should be soft-hearted and non-resentful. But so should husbands. So why specifically address women about being soft?

    Comment by Derek — February 13, 2010 @ 1:00 pm

68. Derek, with all due respect I prefer, because I’m a woman and we are generally talking to women here-talking about what women need to do. There is absolutely a need for men to be soft-God is pretty clear about that.

    As far as the YW presidency saying YW need to be soft…well aren’t YW their stewardship? They are talking to YW because of that. The YM presidencies spend time talking to YM-it’s focused and specific.

    It’s pretty pointles for us to leave stephanie alone and spend the whole thread talking about what her husband should be doing…

    men and women are different, but not in their need to become like Christ .

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

69. Then how are we different? How is the need of women to be “soft” different from the need of men to be like Christ–different enough to justify books specifically aimed at emphasizing the need for women to be “soft” for their husbands?

    Comment by Derek — February 13, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

70. I thought of an antidote - Why Men Love Bitches: from doormat to dreamgirl by Sherry Argov. I’ve read it. My twenty-something year old daughter read it, passed it to all of her friends and doesn’t want to give it back. I recommend it.

    Comment by venus — February 13, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

71. I just think that married people sometimes don’t treat each other as well as they would a new boyfriend/girlfriend if they got divorced and started dating again.
    I just read that article about the couple who has been married for 85 years or whatever. Their secret is that they each care more about the other person’s happiness than their own.
    So that is my problem when feminism criticizes women for caring about their husband’s happiness and trying to be a good wife. I don’t believe a 50-50 marriage is the best way. We pretty much go for a 75%-75% marriage and that works best.
    I really get that if one person is giving 100% and one person only 10% that it is a very unhappy marriage. But since that isn’t what I am going for, and that isn’t the result I am getting, I am going to keep being the best wife I can.
    However, please keep in mind that I do not think a good wife accepts poor behavior by a husband, mistreatment, etc. or is dishonest or manipulative.
    So while I think that 90% of that book is wrong, I do not like seeing the whole idea that a wife never try to please a husband as wrong.

    Comment by jks — February 13, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

72. Fascinating Womanhood is kind of a stupid book, but I tried the techniques in Total woman, I think that’s the title, and they worked.

    I didn’t actually “like” it or feel like it made me a whole new person, but it was really sad how Bill warmed to my appreciation and compliments.

    Comment by annegb — February 13, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

73. Haven’t gotten through all the comments yet, but I wanted to chime in with another book I’ve read that seems similar.

    Anyone ever heard of The Power of a Praying Wife? I had a friend with a near-abusive marriage who just CLUNG to that book as if it would save her.

    The principles of the book were sound - we should strive to act like the Savior, and treat our spouse as he would, Except it turned really ugly - you should submit to sex whenever he wants it to fulfill his needs. You should respond to anger and aggression with more love and patience. You shouldn’t ever expect him to pray for you, or to treat you as you deserve to be treated (wouldn’t that be so un-Christlike?), you should just pray that you can treat him well.

    It’s all about submission, submission, submission. And losing yourself entirely in the pursuit of his happiness. And the most dangerous thing is that it’s couched in all these truths about turning the other cheek, believing the best about people, etc.

    My friend thought this book would save her marriage. I thought her husband just needed a swift, strong kick in the ass.

    Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 13, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

74. btw, Britt… .love the addendum to your name.

    Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 13, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

75. This book played a role in my joining the church in the 1970s. I was reading it, and a guy saw it on my desk at work. He said the book made him sad because it was so manipulative–at it’s core, a lot of it is about how to get your husband to be this way or do this.

    He said that his wife was his best friend, and he thought being honest and best friends was a far better way to operate in marriage. I was very impressed. He baptized me some months later.

    they describe it as the feminine backlash to feminism.

    As a non-feminist myself, I don’t find that to be particularly true. It presents one philosophy. There are others that are also a backlash against feminism, but don’t agree with the FW approach either.

    Comment by Naismith — February 13, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

76. Oh, and I whole-heartedly second the recommendation for the “The Peacegiver” for relationship help. That is a beautiful, wise book. Love it.

    Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 13, 2010 @ 2:03 pm

77. Derek, will you pretty please post a review for the Bytheway book on the Deseret Book website? The few that are on there are so sickly sweet, i want to die.

    Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 13, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

78. #41 My thoughts exactly.

    Stephanie, thank you for shariing this. I admire your willingness to give this book the benefit of the doubt, but it is not worth your consideration.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Derek that both men and women ought to be “soft” in their marriages and that dividing this advice based on gender is foolish.

    Also, Stephanie, who cares if want men want generally? What matters is who you want to be and respecting who your husband wants to be. There has to be room in a marriage for people to evolve and grow. Life might toughen us up a bit, but it sounds like you need to have some toughness — you are raising five children, have a husband in the bishopric and a demanding calling. If you were too soft, you might dissovle. I think there is a happy medium between softness and hardness that has nothing to do with gender essentialism and everything to do with mutual kindness and respect.

    Comment by Heidi — February 13, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

79. True story - when I was in Young Women the YW president was Helen B. Andelin’s daughter. Her daughters were my best friends and I dated her son. So I saw the principles of the book played out in real life, and a few times there were Fascinating Womanhood workshops at the chapel. I always loved the book for entertainment value (but I never would say this to any of them, they took it quite seriously.) For the most part their marriage seemed surprisingly egalitarian - they ran a business together and homeschooled their kids. But I do remember on a few occasions being shocked by interactions I witnessed - on one occasion the dad told the mom to “shut up and stop being so stupid.” She just apologized and said she would try to do better - definitely a childlike response! And when dad said no to anything (asking if they could go to the movies, or come over to my house) that was it. There was NO questioning, from mom or the kids.

    Sadly, I do think the principles in the book work. For some reason it’s acceptable in our culture for women to be downright mean to their husbands. Just watch a few minutes of a sitcom like “Everybody Loves Raymond.” I think a lot of men are starved for attention and appreciation. Not because of some huge difference between men and women, but because every human being wants to feel loved, accepted and needed. But you shouldn’t have to squelch who you really are (become artificially “soft”) and resort to manipulation to make your husband feel good. Just basic niceness and common courtesy should do it, although no one is selling millions of books based on that idea.

    My favorite part from FW explains that you should never try to win an intellectual argument with your husband 1) because it’s not feminine to engage a man on that level and 2) he is naturally smarter than you so you have no hope of winning anyway. AHHH!!!

    ZD Eve, I completely agree with you about how unintentionally subversive FW is! The whole premise is that men are so strong and decisive and manly and superior to women … but somehow they are so weak that without a woman’s strokes they will crumble into weak little babies.

    Comment by Chelsea — February 13, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

80. Confucius say wife who put husband in doghouse will soon find him in the cathouse.

    Comment by Winifred — February 13, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

81. #78 Yikes, should have done a better job editing my comment. I mean sharing and “who cares what men want generally”

    Comment by Heidi — February 13, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

82. #79

    But I do remember on a few occasions being shocked by interactions I witnessed - on one occasion the dad told the mom to “shut up and stop being so stupid.” She just apologized and said she would try to do better - definitely a childlike response! And when dad said no to anything (asking if they could go to the movies, or come over to my house) that was it. There was NO questioning, from mom or the kids.

    This is horrifying to me and I would never want my husband to talk to me that way. However, I think it also makes it clear that this woman was writing from her time and experience.

    Comment by Heidi — February 13, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

83. Has anyone read The Passionate Marriage? That’s a good one about real intimacy and being open with each other. I think FW women probably can’t have true intimacy if they are being “fake” just to please their husbands.
    One thing I like about that book (I think it was that one) is that if you are reading the book in order to “fix” the other person to just stop right now. It’s a little graphic sexually just to warn you.

    Comment by jks — February 13, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

84. Heidi, Just to clarify, I was talking about Helen Andelin’s daughter and her husband, not Andelin herself. For all I know, her marriage was always blissful and respectful. (I doubt it, but you never know.) I do think that if nothing else, she was sincere in her beliefs and she lived them - aside from that pesky successful career as a writer and lecturer, which took her away from her home and allowed her to earn much, much more money than her husband. On a side note, he wrote his own marriage book geared toward men, it’s called “Man of Steel and Velvet” (gag!) I gave it to my DH as a Christmas gift the first year we were married, he thought it was a hoot.

    Comment by Chelsea — February 13, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

85. Chelsea — sorry, I confused the two. And, your point about Andelin’s career is well-taken.

    Comment by Heidi — February 13, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

86. re: 51&79

    ZD Eve, I completely agree with you about how unintentionally subversive FW is!

    I noticed the same thing about Behind Every Good Man. While it overtly supports traditional patriarchy, it also indirectly supports the “Homer Simpson” husband model: Men are too stupid to handle their responsibilities on their own, so you (the wife) need to baby him and manipulate him into being a good husband, father, and leader. Like most aspects of sexism. it is as indirectly harmful to men as it is directly harmful to women–or just plain harmful to the relationship between the sexes.

    She just apologized and said she would try to do better - definitely a childlike response!

    Yep, a lot of traditional gender concepts and relationship infantilize women. A book I recently read about Victorian era sexuality and relationships between the sexes (When Passion Reigned) discusses that. It’s very sad.

    For some reason it’s acceptable in our culture for women to be downright mean to their husbands.

    I think it’s a backlash to traditional patriarchy. It goes too far, but it’s understandable.

    On the subject of “hard” vs. “soft,” I do think that women should have some softness. Not just in extreme situations like the one Hammie pointed out, but in general life. Luv was raised to be extremely “soft.” It wasn’t necessarily a Patriarchy issue–her mother ruled the roost. But her mother never allowed for any dissention, any backtalk. So my wife grew up in a culture of docility, of automatic obedience. I didn’t realize the extent of this until after we were married. I was very frustrated: I didn’t want an obedient child: I needed a partner, someone who could disagree with me and help me see other sides of issues, someone who could point out bad ideas and who could come up with better ideas herself–someone who could tell me “Derek, you’re being an ass!” when I deserved it. Fortunately, Luv grew to be able to be more “hard,” more assertive, more demanding on occasion, and more opinionated. I love that she has learned to embrace the “hard” in her.

    Comment by Derek — February 13, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

87. Just to clarify,

    britt in earlier comments is not the same britt that comments here all the time. She is using Britt-the hammy.

    and now we have too hams on this board.

    Comment by mfranti — February 13, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

88. m&m, thank you for your concern. I think I can handle reading it.

    Sorry if I sounded patronizing. I do think, though, that the book is at such an extreme that it could make for hard discussion and reading. I don’t think it’s the answer to what “feminism” might be missing.

    Comment by m&m — February 13, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

89. Compliment him on his male traits? What? Like his penis?

    Earning money, being educated and intellectual, watching football, killing spiders and fixing things have nothing to do with being male. Likewise, the color pink, caring about children, cooking, cleaning, and being submissive in bed have nothing to do with being female.

    If gender really is eternal, and therefore all members of a gender share some fundamental thing in common, I think that whatever that thing is is unknown to us. The fact that there are variations in gender roles and preferences (to the point that a book needs to come out to correct anomalies) is living proof of that.

    Comment by AllieKay — February 13, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

90. No. 72, the only technique I can recall from The Total Woman, which I read decades ago, is that you’re supposed to try wrapping yourself up, naked, in plastic wrap and greet your husband at the door that way. I think it’s a safe bet that that will make an impression on him!

    Comment by Kevin Barney — February 13, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

91. Naismith and Anne,

    Thanks for your comments.

    Comment by Matt W. — February 13, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

92. 71.I just think that married people sometimes don’t treat each other as well as they would a new boyfriend/girlfriend if they got divorced and started dating again.
    I just read that article about the couple who has been married for 85 years or whatever. Their secret is that they each care more about the other person’s happiness than their own.

    I’ve read about that couple too, they also said the secret of their marriage was to have “a little argument every day.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1187810/Britains-longest-married-couple-celebrate-81st-anniversary.html

    The longest married US couple sleep in separate bedrooms. My point is not that a positive outlook isn’t important, but when I read about these couples, I get a sense that in addition to their optimisim, they are not afraid of conflict and give each other space.

    Comment by Heidi — February 13, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

93. AllieKay (89)
    

    Compliment him on his male traits? What? Like his penis?

    That’s not what Andelin says, but I think that would probably work pretty well too.

    Comment by Chelsea — February 13, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

94. ..so many directions i could go with that last comment but i wont.

    Comment by mfranti — February 13, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

95. Oh great. I get rid of Natalie K to avoid confusion, and now another Hammy pops us. I just can’t win!

    Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 13, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

96. mfranti-thanks for clarifying…there is another britt, that has commented a few times…so to differentiate here it is…Natalie I’m glad you like it.

    Derek, I never said men shouldn’t be soft. I think they should. Culturally we talk about a man “going soft” as a guy who actually cares-can no longer kill without a conscience (or soemthing of the kind). GREAT! Go soft! In this particular situation stephanie was talking about women and wives-so they should be soft. By saying that I don’t mean men shoudln’t be soft-that’s rediculous. So if I’m ever talking to a friend and say. “you shouldn’t steal” do I unintentionally mean that everyone else should? Please.

    women are different than men. I don’t know what the spiritual differences are, but the physical differences are many-they just make us different-not one better than the other. Here is one I heard about yesterday-the size difference in the corpus callosum (the connective tissue between the halves of the brain that helps communicate between the hemispheres http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632882 ) some scientists have theorized that it accounts for the greater ability of women to multitask and talk about their emotions better (involving both sides of the brain). This doesn’t mean on a individual basis, this one man will be such a way and this one woman will be such a way-but when we talk about generalities, it would be naive at best to not consider differences that do exist.

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

97. I’ll change-you keep the hammie-what shall i call me?

    Comment by britt--the hammy — February 13, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

98. Don’t touch books that attempt to define you.Not ever.

    Stuff like this degrades and depresses.Don’t buy it,or buy into it.

    Stephanie,your life is too good and too hard for it to carry the burden of another generation’s crap,because that is what this book is.

    Sorry if this causes offense sisters,but I personally never touch anything published by Deseret,I have too much respect for my body.

    And I’m guessing from what I know of you here Stephanie,you are pretty fascinating as you are.

    Stuff like this makes it clear to me what my daughters hate about church.I’m generally prepared to overlook it because I have a testimony,but for those who don’t,it can destroy their willingness to concentrate on what’s good.You are going to have to do some pretty heavy duty support for your unpartnered sister,who doesn’t even get to be a woman without a man.

    Shred it.

    Comment by wayfarer — February 13, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

99. Stephanie, are these really your friends? I’ve never had people in the ward try to “save” me for being a feminist. I just got called as the Activity Days leader and told the PP I was excited to build up some little feminists and she was excited that I said that. Look at this question, especially the end where it tells you to use missionary tactics to teach FW.

    Here is a question from Andelin’s website Q&A.

    Do Men Really Want Women of Angelic, Moral Character?

    I believe deeply in what you have said, “It is deeply within the nature of men, regardless of their own personal worth, to treasure only women of angelic character.” However, in this day when women have been persuaded by feminism that they should have casual sex the same way (unprincipled) men do, it is difficult to discuss this point with other women. I am really unsure of how to point out the premise that men really want women of high character.

    I believe that “Goodness strikes a cord in all men. Even those who don’t live in accordance with high principles, deep down inside know they are true.” But, I have no basis or examples to convince women of this. I believe feminism has been all too successful and few have the spiritual insight to see the errors. Have you found an often insurmountable resistance to the premise that men want women of angelic, chaste, moral character?

    Dear Friend,

    Don’t give up on feminists. Most of them don’t know any better. They just believe what they have been taught. We have even had some make a complete turn around in our FW classes.

    The best way to approach them is by the strength of your own conviction. That which comes form the heart reaches the heart. Truth, if spoken with conviction, has a penetrating effect.

    The best way to reach those “in the dark” is to form a study groups to review these ideas. Tell them you want to present these ideas “for their consideration.” After teaching them say, “Try them. See for yourself if these teachings are true.” In this way they “prove it to themselves.”

    Comment by merkat — February 13, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

100. I picked this book up at DI the last time I was in Utah, and I still haven’t cracked the cover - knowing full well it’s going to make me crazy and then laugh hysterically. Pun intended.

     I wanted to own it as an anthropological relic, and for 99 cents, it was worth it.

     Stephanie, maybe you should suggest that next month you all read The Feminine Mystique. I think if they’re so nervous about feminism that they’d subject you all to this, they might not fully understand what feminism entails.

     Comment by Reese Dixon — February 13, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

101. I would love to be at your book club Stephanie, I think this is a fascinating subject. I wonder what has got these women to the point that they buy into to this? I don’t assume they are reading it as a joke because previous book club choices were not of the comic nature. Will you say what you think, or listen quietly to the discussion? I always hate to give my opinion when I know I am with a room full of people who see things differently.

     Comment by kandi and salt — February 13, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

102. Reese,

     Do you think one book can really capture “what feminism entails”, though? There have been discussions here and elsewhere that show that feminism can mean so many things to so many people that, imo, it’s hard to pin it down. I think it’s also hard to help people who think *everything* about feminism is bad (which, btw, I don’t) realize that some of our blessings of being able to vote, get an education, have the choice to have a job, etc. are, in fact, “feminist” ideals.

     Why I think the Fascinating Womanhood book is problematic is because it is extreme on one end, which can often produce extreme reactions that can swing too far to the other end. For example, it’s very hard to have discussions about principles that are tied to Mormonism if they are dismissed as being “Fascinating Womanhood”-like ideas. That’s a cop-out. On the flip side, it’s too easy to dismiss valuable ideals in feminism because some have demonized feminism to the extreme. That, too, is a cop-out.

     In short, extremes (and stereotypes) often inhibit meaningful discussion, imo.

     Reading books like these could be interesting in the context of considering the history and tensions of feminism, but I don’t get the sense that that is what is going on in Stephanie’s book group.

     Comment by m&m — February 13, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

103. Stephanie, I know you and I haven’t agreed on much in the past, but I just want to say thanks for the post and great job! Looking forward to Part 2!

     I disagree with those who say shred it or don’t read it. Real, positive change in society comes through understanding how and why it got to be so negative in the first place. So read it, try to understand it, and defy it. Once you do, your experience may inspire another woman do the same.

     Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — February 13, 2010 @ 5:33 pm

104. I don’t have the time to read all the comments, so please forgive me if this has already been addressed or noted, or if you have already read it, but, in case you haven’t, a foundational, classic and highly-respected (as well as definitely moderate) book is Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. You’ll notice as you read its description of 1950s femininity that it sounds strangely familiar.

     Anyway, I think that will clear up a lot. Especially in regard to purposeful, institutionalized infantilization of women in order to make them better “women.”

     Comment by Chris — February 13, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

105. What a rollercoaster of emotions reading the OP and comments.
     I hesitate to comment because I can’t really think of anything nice to say Firstly, the book is rubbish.
     Stephanie, these ‘friends’ sound misinformed at best. Maybe their interventionist intentions are pure but it sounds like they just want to tell you that you’re wrong. And you’re not. (Fwiw-I loathe church book clubs. I find them stifling.)

     Was I the only one who felt like your husband’s co-worker was coming onto him? I hope I’m reading that totally wrong. Why would she be disappointed if he liked soft women when she self-identified as hard? And, did your husband ask you if you liked hard or soft women or were your preferences even taken into consideration?

     What sounds like constant conflict with church responsibilities makes me sad. How draining. It’s unfortunate that anyone would call into question your commitment level if you decided to take a step back. I try to bring up this topic (ie people’s callings taking away too much family time) as frequently as possible in very non-threatening ways in church settings. There are enough programs and activities to drive one crazy. If you don’t choose wisely, it’s very easy to drown. I don’t think there’s nearly enough emphasis on what the families of people in certain callings sacrifice. Hopefully people will think twice about the four calls they’re making to the RS Pres in one day.

     Stephanie, I hope that you do soon find some ways to reconnect with your spouse in meaningful ways. Good luck!!

     Comment by Lupita — February 13, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

106. “And, did your husband ask you if you liked hard or soft women or were your preferences even taken into consideration”

     LOL–uh, need to self edit better. That would be whether you liked hard or soft MEN. If you did actually prefer soft women, boy, that would be a whole ‘nother post!

     Comment by Lupita — February 13, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

107. Re #90 HOLY FRIED GREEN TOMATOES!

     Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

108. Been away on an early celebratory night… read the words “Fascinating Womanhood” and nearly hurled my lunch. Run away from this book! The title should be “How Molly Gets Her Groove On”.

     Apologies to anyone out there named Molly…

     Comment by Kathy — February 13, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

109. I think that what is most damaging about this book is it’s assumption that if you are not loved well or indeed are abused,then it is your fault.I find that an assumption to which it is dangerous to give house room,and perpetuates abuse.To study this as an academic text is one thing,to look at it in the context of a church book group is quite another.It’s a kind of emotional pornography where women are required to emotionally mutilate themselves in order to survive-since being ‘loved’ is the only way in which they and their children can be economically provided for.Quite apart from the fact that by buying the book we are enriching those who are perpetuating what I view as abuse.It certainly is a striking example of women identifying with their oppressors.

     This degrades women-and men.

     Comment by wayfarer — February 13, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

110. Re 90 - it would sure make an impression on my kids, too.

     Lupita, yes, you’re onto something. I think there’s an element of that going on. To be candid, all the women who work with my husband like him because he’s just a great guy. But a few have liked him a little more than that. And FWIW, I like “soft” men (like my husband). He’s humble and sweet. I AM the hard one in our relationship.

     Thank you Heidi and wayfarer for your kind comments.

     Re my friends. Yes, they are good friends. I honestly don’t think they know what this book is about. I bet that they have just heard about it from other people (obviously good things if they want to read it), but I can’t really imagine any of them taking this stuff seriously in their own marriages. They are all strong women.

     I am going to tell the one in charge that I started reading it and am finding it to be very destructive. Every other book we have read up to this point has been uplifting and spiritual and gospel-centered. This book is poison. I am into chapter 2 now (where it just said that men don’t like women who are intellectual), and I think this could be very damaging to my single friend who just joined the church to discuss this book like it is some sort of authoritative analysis of relationships.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 6:32 pm

111. m&m - of course not. I would never begin to suggest such a thing. But the Feminist Mystique is an excellent, relatively non-threatening, place to start.

     I think that only the most extreme FW types would take much objection to the Feminist Mystique (I’m sure others may take exception to certain elements without dismissing the entirety of the book), which makes it an excellent palate cleanser to people who feel that feminism is wholly negative.

     Comment by Reese Dixon — February 13, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

112. Stephanie, I totally heart you. Just so you know.

     My husband is in the Navy and I see all the time how hard church callings are on marriages and it frustrates me to no end. My husband was called to the bishopric right after getting back from Iraq, 3 weeks after we moved into a new ward. It was incredible terrible timing and even though I know that we were strengthened beyond ourselves to be able to handle it at all, it was damaging for our relationship. The bishop asked us to teach a Strengthening Marriage class and at that point, honestly, we couldn’t have done it because we were struggling so much ourselves. Thankfully, no one signed up to take it. My husband is wonderful, incredibly supportive and loving, but time together is absolutely necessary for a strong marriage, especially with the stress of kids and careers. When we haven’t been able to have that, we have had a harder time getting along. We moved 8 months after we got there and got the chance to reconnect and get happy again, but seriously, that was such a low point.

     Military guys are great leaders and always get called to bishopric or other time consuming callings and it is always at the expense of their family. These are mostly young guys with young families who have already had to spend a lot of time away from their families on deployments and then they come back and have to spend all their time at church. It feels so wrong. My dad was bishop with 7 little kids while going to school and being busy at work and we never saw him. My parents are still dealing with the repercussions of that in their marriage several years later. It just seems so wrong. I know somebody has to do it, but can’t it be those who are older and retired and have more time to spread around to commitments?

     Anyway, I feel your pain and my heart totally goes out to you. I’ve never read the book, but it’s making steam come out of my ears. And yeah, I totally agree with you about wanting to spend time together so that when you are retired, you aren’t living with a stranger. Best of luck to you and your hubby. You guys sound like awesome people.

     Comment by jen — February 13, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

113. I think my uncle gave me an excerpt from this in college as a joke, but I was so horrified by it I cried for hours trying to reconcile my sense of self with what this woman thought the perfect woman should be like. Needless to say, I got over it, found a man who loves me for who I am, and in fact have found that my “unfeminine” qualities (good at finances, strong physically, stubborn, etc) have helped me tremendously in the actual work of being a mom & wife.

     There is no such thing as the “perfect woman”. Each woman (and man, for that matter) can, through Christ, find her own way to be a more perfect version of herself.

     My suggestion is to mark passages that you like/dislike and share them honestly. Ask your husband what he thinks; maybe you can wring something positive out of this book if you’re going to read it anyway.

     Comment by Andrea — February 13, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

114. re: 96

     Derek, I never said men shouldn’t be soft.

     And I never said you did. I said that if we (society, as represented by the books we publish and the speeches given by our cultural and religious leaders as well as our personal advice) emphasize the need for women to cultivate those attributes which we characterize “soft” and “pink” as a trait to be emphasized among women, we reinforce cultural stereotypes.

     Regarding the differences, it would be prejudicial to assume that there are some sort of spiritual differences, differences related to being “soft” or “pink,” without any corroborating evidence, and especially without ever defining exactly what is meant by those terms.

     re: 99

     Merkat, those quotes just about made me nauseous. I admire that you had the fortitude to be able to read through them.

     re: 109

     I am into chapter 2 now (where it just said that men don’t like women who are intellectual)

     More infantilization. Yes, poison does seem an apt description of the book.

     Comment by Derek — February 13, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

115. women are different than men

     Each individual is different- there’s no need to split it into sexes. I don’t fall into many of the generalizations made about women and dh doesn’t fall into many of the generalizations made about men.

     One thing I really would like to know is if there is any truth to these ideas at all.

     Sure, Stephanie, I’m sure there is. Just as there were some truthful observations on the other thread that discussed the anti-feminist argument as presented by Molly Seawell. In the 50’s, for the dependent wife whose career prospects were limited or even non-existant, keeping her husband happy and blissfully manipulated was her job because she had so few other options. Catering to the breadwinner was a matter of survival and in that context FW is probably sage advice for staying married. Currently, the behavior encouraged by FW would just be called passive-aggressive, and it’s not considered a good way to conduct oneself.

     The really great thing is that as each generation of men and women progresses, neither of them are particularly interested in such a one-sided relationship. Of course, there are the outliers who stubbornly cling to the way of the past and prefer not to stretch themselves in any way…so, I guess the book will continue to be published in a few more waves.

     I do think it’s important to read things like this- yes, it’s unpleasant but it serves as a marker for how far we’ve come. We need to read historical accounts of racism, sexism, war, genocide…all these things. If nothing else, I come away from it with a better understanding of what led people to collude in these things, all the better to avoid it in the future. Like it or not, we are products of our generations and their constructs. If I don’t open my eyes really wide and take a look at it, I have no idea how to improve the view.

     Comment by Kimberly — February 13, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

116. These are mostly young guys with young families who have already had to spend a lot of time away from their families on deployments and then they come back and have to spend all their time at church. It feels so wrong.

     That’s a fair observation. It’s like the woman with 5 kids under 8 who gets called to the Primary Presidency. It doesn’t sound too inspired to me.

     Comment by Kimberly — February 13, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

117. Stephanie, I know you’re strong enough to go to the book club meeting… and maybe even read more of the book. You could be the lone voice of reason helping to put a voice to and validate what everyone else might already be thinking. Please go and fill us all in… did everyone else love the book? Did anyone’s life and marriage change overnight? Did anyone vomit??? Please let us know.

     Comment by Ahhh... — February 13, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

118. I had to skip to my comment box before reading through all of the hundred plus posts first. I might burst!

     It is bad enough that this book was written and published 5 times. What’s worse is that LDS women that I personally know actually believe this garbage!!! And ya know what? They are so unhappy in their lives and can’t figure out why.

     *gag*

     I hate this book and everything it stands for.

     Comment by NotAntiJustInquisitive — February 13, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

119. I read this a couple years ago, along with a similar book called “The Total Woman”, and a lot of websites and info on being more submissive, feminine, ladylike, etc.

     My husband enjoyed some of the fawning and attention for the first couple days, then it really disturbed him. He pretty much told me to knock it off because I was freaking him out, and if he wanted a “Stepford Wife”, he’d have married one. So, in a way, the books did help my marriage, by forcing the discussion and making it clear that he liked me just the way I was, not when I tried to fit some retro housewife stereotype.

     Comment by Raine — February 13, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

120. My RS bookclub did read The Feminine Mystique and found it pretty much consistent with gospel teachings.

     But feminists I know (outside the church) say that it is dated and archaic, so I am not sure it is really that representative of current feminist thinking.

     Comment by Naismith — February 13, 2010 @ 9:00 pm

121. Dan, #42,
     I was not a size 10 when we married, only when he left. (Really, I’m sure you could’ve figured that one out for yourself.)

     Comment by A Paperback Writer — February 13, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

122. Re: 118: Maybe the saddest part of this entire FW/Total Woman trend is the manipulativeness that underlies the attention and fawning. I’m not a believer in fawing–I can’t stand being fawned over, and I’m temperamentally incapable of fawning over other people–but basic human decency, kindness, courtesy, consideration, and affection are vital to any relationship and to any marriage.

     What could be sadder than for a husband to realize that his wife’s attention and affection and concern is all just a ploy to get something out of him?

     It’s downright cruel, and totally inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

     Comment by ZD Eve — February 13, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

123. I think that only the most extreme FW types would take much objection to the Feminist Mystique (I’m sure others may take exception to certain elements without dismissing the entirety of the book), which makes it an excellent palate cleanser to people who feel that feminism is wholly negative.

     I guess my whole concern has been that if they are sharing FW to “cure” then anything “feminist” might be seen as a threat, just as FW can be seen as a threat by some. Does that make sense? There’s a potential pendulum effect either way.

     But now after reading Stephanie’s comment about the fact that they may not have known what they were getting into (rather than being just reactionary and thinking that FW was THE “cure”), you may be right. I do think that it could be good to have different perspectives to balance out the discussion and perspectives. A good book group can be a place for such explorative discussion.

     Comment by m&m — February 13, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

124. I thought I saw a copy of Fascinating Girl on our bookshelf, and wanted to skim through it for this post. But, when I asked my wife where it was, she said she hated it, & threw it out!!

     I think Light His Fire would be a much better investment. If I read FW/FG, I would do it with a lot of grains of salt, like I did reading Prophecy: Key To The Future, or No Man Knows My History

     Husband’s role - Provide the money, Manage the money, Concern, Worry.
     Wife’s role: Be thrifty, Cooperate with his plans, Provide peaceful home life.

     Yeah, right. My Father never told my Mother how much money was in the checking account, to the point us kids were short on clothes at times, yet he had no problems with things like paying for Flying lessons for himself. He also had many Investments, all well hidden, so that my Mother probably didn’t get a fair divorce settlement.

     And, what of the women whose husbands die, or become incapacitated, to say nothing of being divorced? So, those women wind up running the financial show, with no previous experience.

     #90: Kevin, I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that! #107 as well!!

     Re 90 - it would sure make an impression on my kids, too.

     With a couple teen sons, they would be *totally* grossed out. As it was, I had to tell one of my sons he’d be embarrassed If I told him why I was laughing, while reading this.

     I noticed these books are crossed linked to The Surrendered Wife, which also got beat up by reviewers.

     FW may help a very few people, but I think most couples would have worse problems by using those techniques. Childlike anger?

     I honestly don’t think they know what this book is about.

     OK, I was also worried they wanted to “deprogram” you from feminism.

     …it just said that men don’t like women who are intellectual.

     Give me a break!!

     Comment by Mike H. — February 13, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

125. No pop on the keyboard Mike H…. can’t blame that in any way, shape, or form on me… nu uh, no way.

     I love that movie… I think that most men would have the same reaction to their wives in ceran wrap at the doorway… “Have you lost your MIND?!?!?!”

     

     Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

126. Holy crap…. my husband has never seen it… going to have to remedy that soon….

     Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

127. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

     That book scares the crap out of me.

     Comment by jddaughter — February 13, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

128. Re 123 - The exact conversation I had with my friends went like this:

     Me: (talking about my to-do list) And I promised my friend Quimby from Australia that I would read a book about feminism.

     Friend #1: (looking at me a little puzzled) I’ve been wanting to read this book called Fascinating Woman. It was supposed to have been written to counteract feminism.

     Friend #2: Yeah, I’ve been wanting to read that, too!

     Me: Okay, that sounds interesting.

     Friend #3 wasn’t there, but she’s the one who put the booklist together, and this is exactly what she emailed me about it: Sister Andelin made two different books:
     Fascination Girl and Fascinating Womanhood. The girl applies more to the single woman or young woman and the Womanhood applies to married women.
     The books are both out of print. [Friend 2] got the copy for like 50 cents plus like 2 dollars shipping on either amazon or ebay. She would probably let you borrow the copy. [Friend 1] also has a copy and is going to try to make the book club. This is a book [Friend 1], [Friend 2] and I have wanted to sit down and discuss for a while. I have the Fascinating Girl copy and am loaning that to [Single Sister].

     So, there you go. I tried to call all of them today and noone answered their phone. I am pretty positive I remember Friend #3 telling me that she had already read the book. But, I am hoping I have a faulty memory on that one. She’s out of town.

     DH and I have been talking about it all night. He’s pretty much as horrified as I am. He HTs my single friend. Supposedly the Bishop pre-approves all of our books (I know this because most of my suggestions for book club have been turned down because Friend #3 doesn’t think they’ll get Bishop’s approval). So, DH is going to ask him about it in the morning and give him our feedback. I really, really want to talk to my friends. I can’t imagine that they buy into this stuff, but the email basically says they all already had copies of the book. I am hoping they haven’t read them yet.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

129. I hope if they have read some of it between the time it was decided as part of the book club reading list and now that it has occurred to them how dysfunctional it all sounds.

     Comment by April — February 13, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

130. Supposedly the Bishop pre-approves all of our books

     [ dead silence here]

     Comment by mfranti — February 13, 2010 @ 11:59 pm

131. Ok, I’m just going to ask it…

     Do you think the Bishop has read it?

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 12:03 am

132. I think an interesting way to approach feminism would be studying a biography of Eliza R. Snow, or the lives of the Relief Soceity presidents..these are amazing women, who have really lived their lives-and not always “conventionally”. They are fascinating and the stark contrast between that and bat your eyelashes would be so beautiful.

     Comment by britt--the hammy — February 14, 2010 @ 12:03 am

133. Um. Can I silently echo mfranti?

     Can you say, micromanaging? That’s the best real-life of infantilizing women we could have come up with here.

     “Sure ladies, you go have fun reading with each other. I’ll make sure you’re only reading things that won’t trouble your pretty little heads.”

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 12:05 am

134. the bishop is supposed to pre-approve each book. but like a bishop has any time to do it. that is why i do not participate any more in church book clubs. not to mention that when you read about any kind of sexual encounter some crazy person thinks its p0rn and goes and tells the bishop the book club is reading a book with p0rn in it. sigh.

     stephanie, i look forward to hearing the updates on this. you are braver than i am. i could never ever in a million years read this book.

     Comment by Terina — February 14, 2010 @ 12:10 am

135. It is possible that the book club approached him to approve of things, trying to stay away from anything that might be seen as risque etc. While I see it as way overboard I can see that for some people that would be a big concern. But really? Does the bishop have time to read all the books they are reading? Could he just have approved it because he really couldn’t be bothered to read it?

     I was part of a book club that was mostly ward members that unintentionally killed itself by limiting itself to young adult books only for the express purpose of avoiding “pornographic” scenes and language… Let it be said, I was not for the limitation.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 12:11 am

136. I might also mention that the catalyst for the limitation was the book “The Time Travelers Wife” …. really?

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 12:13 am

137. DH and I were talking about that, too. No, the Bishop is NOT a micromanager. I am pretty sure that he has no clue about all of this. DH said, “I bet he has never even seen a list. It probably goes to the RS President who just approves it”. I don’t think the Bishop is the one being a stickler about approving books. I think it might just be Friend #3. That’s why I said, “Supposedly”.

     Also, the Bishop’s wife is Friend #2.

     I am so interested in sorting all of this out. You have to know the Bishop and his wife. They are soooooooooo NOT the FW kind of couple! And he is not at all authoritative in the way he conducts our ward.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 12:15 am

138. britt-the hammy. I did read two books about the RS Presidents. Good stuff!

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 12:16 am

139. oh I would LOVE for the Bishop to disapprove of FW!!

     Comment by britt--the hammy — February 14, 2010 @ 12:17 am

140. Oh man, I LOVED Time Traveler’s Wife. Most recent addition to my favorites list, in fact. I was really discouraged to see a very orthodox friend recently give it only 2 stars on goodreads, because it was “racy and inappropriate.” Sigh.

     The only book I’ve ever regretted reading was “Lolita”, and that is just a whole nother beast.

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 12:22 am

141. Although now it’s getting kind of funny. If I get this book banned from book club by having DH talk to the Bishop about it, am I just then supporting the patriarchy? Am I then encouraging micromanaging of book club because us women can’t handle it ourselves? I really just want to talk to Friend #3 and find out why she put this crazy book on the list, but DH just told me she is out of town. The curiosity is killing me. I can’t wait until she gets back. I’m way too interested to hear how DH’s conversation with the Bishop about it goes tomorrow.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 12:23 am

142. I think I missed a comment somewhere. April, what is comment #135 referring to? I want to see “Time Travelers Wife” as soon as it comes out on DVD.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 12:24 am

143. It was referring to Stephanie’s #128 and the mentioning of the “supposed” approval by the bishop of all books. I was saying it wasn’t necessarily micromanaging… that possibly the ladies asked him to approve of it all for them.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 12:28 am

144. grrr sorry Steph! not paying attention to who is asking questions lol

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 12:31 am

145. Oh my, I listened to Time Traveler’s Wife on my commute to school and I almost had to pull over because I was crying so hard for the last third of the book.

     Comment by jen — February 14, 2010 @ 12:35 am

146. Steph, great post.

     Derek, great comment in 62… thanks for providing evidence that the dynamic in FW is NOT what men are looking for.

     Comment by Enna — February 14, 2010 @ 12:58 am

147. I would feel so lonely if my wife subscribed to the principles of Fascinating Womanhood.

     We both spent some hilarious evenings during our undergrad doing dramatic readings with friends from FW. It shocks me greatly that ANYONE actually approaches this trash earnestly. I hope your book club will find it as absurd as we did even as kids.
     My wife’s awesome aunt received a copy for her wedding and responded by saying, “I’m not a whore.” Love.

     FWIW, I just want to clarify that FW is NOT a church book. It is not published my the church nor has it ever been part of the church’s curriculum. It was initially self published and is now published by Random House. Yes, the author is a member, but in my mind it no more represents church idealogy than the writings and rantings of Glenn Beck.

     Comment by Brian — February 14, 2010 @ 1:25 am

148. sorry….
     published BY the church
     and represents church IDEOLOGY.
     stupid not proofreading.

     Comment by Brian — February 14, 2010 @ 1:28 am

149. I’m afraid I would have no interest in a book club in which the members felt that the selections should be approved by any religious leader.

     Comment by Derek — February 14, 2010 @ 1:30 am

150. #148: One of my wife’s old roommates years ago said when she was in Germany, a YW Teacher in the Ward there told the YW that they should only read books written by LDS Leaders! That roomie is a real smart cookie, and questioned that one on the spot!

     Comment by Mike H. — February 14, 2010 @ 1:42 am

151. Helen Andelin wrote a book on child-rearing. I think it was her best work. It had more nuance.

     Some of her ideas are useful. Her prioritization for housework really works, frex (serve regular meals on time). But it’s a bit of a poison pill, even if you’re reading the book to glean the useful from it, just dipping your brain in that worldview can curdle it.

     Comment by Johnna — February 14, 2010 @ 1:56 am

152. I agree with you there Derek, if nothing else it’s spells B.O.R.I.N.G. to me. What is the point of reading books that everyone agrees on? No fun discussion happening there.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 1:57 am

153. I think it’s just bizarre to think of anyone but the actual book club members having any say at all in the books that are read, whether it’s a RS president or bishop (however great they are). Grown women aren’t able to choose what they read?

     Comment by Lupita — February 14, 2010 @ 2:07 am

154. # 128 Uh-oh, Steph. Here is the problem; you still believe you will be attending a book group but the truth is you’re going to an intervention.
     Stay strong, sister.
     

     Comment by cwc — February 14, 2010 @ 2:11 am

155. Our RS book group also has to get all books approved by the bishop, it is a stake policy. Of course no one wants to ask their bishop to do that so what ends up happening is that people start their own unofficial groups separate from RS.

     Comment by Chelsea — February 14, 2010 @ 9:52 am

156. So I’ve been a lurker on this site for over a month. (Haven’t posted any comments only because April beats me to everything I’ve had to say and she does it so eloquently. You rock, April!)

     Stephanie, I think it would be great if you brought Proverbs 31 to your church book club to see how the Fascinating Woman measures up (I mean, utterly fails to measure up) to scriptural standards of the Virtuous Woman. VW is a strong, smart, benevolent, multitasking working mother who loves God and capably manages her household (as well as her own real estate!) She is utterly trusted (and, it follows, loved) by her husband. She’s a total fMh. Far cry from the pathetic, manipulative, dumb-playing mess of FW. I just think it would make for an interesting discussion.

     Comment by alys's wonderland — February 14, 2010 @ 10:53 am

157. We sort of have a RS book club- it’s met once, and I doubt it will meet again any time soon- the exact problem being no one really wants to read the kind of books that they all feel is appropriate for a church sponsored activity.

     Comment by Alliegator — February 14, 2010 @ 10:57 am

158. […] for those pesky non-white/het/male folks who just won’t disappear! Stephanie starts with an open-minded approach to “Fascinating Womanhood”, and, well, just go read it — it’s amazing! […]

     Pingback by Sunday in Outer Blogness: Fantastic Stories Edition! | Main Street Plaza — February 14, 2010 @ 11:58 am

159. the forthcoming issue of Bitch Magazine has a feature on Fascinating Womanhood and its strangely enduring popularity. Shameless self-promotion, I know, since I wrote the article, but I hope it contributes to conversations about this book, particularly among Mormon women.

     Comment by Holly Welker — February 14, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

160. The Total Woman does suggest a lot of sex. I know that makes Bill less irritable and more relaxed. I’ve never been one to use sex that way, but I’m just noting it, that’s all.

     But, I did realize how little I compliment or thank him. Actually I read it about 20 years ago and it was a nice week in our marriage LOL.

     The thing about Total Woman that bothered me is that it suggests that the man should make all decisions and the woman should defer. It’s not as bad or schmaltzy as Fascinating Womanhood, but almost.

     I loved The Peacegiver, as well. Really a mind-blowing book, although very hard to implement.

     Comment by annegb — February 14, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

161. “Compliment him on his male traits? What? Like his penis?”

     Yes. Try it. My husband seems to appreciate those kinds of compliments.

     Comment by jks — February 14, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

162. Passionate Marriage:
     David Schnarch (Author)
     Am I the only one who has read this book? I recommend it and would love to discuss it. (It is a little graphic so if that bothers you). It isn’t just about sex, it is about emotional intimacy and marriage.

     Comment by jks — February 14, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

163. Okay, so here are some more details: This bookclub was started by Friend #3 for the express purpose of fellowshipping a smart single woman who loves to read and was investigating the church. From the start, all the books were chosen for the purpose of teaching her about the gospel and helping to strengthen her testimony. She was baptized a few months ago and is the single friend I keep referring to. That is one reason why I am finding all of this so horrifying.

     Just like Alliegator’s book club, ours is not well-attended. Some months it is just Friend #3 and the single sister. I only attended twice last year and am planning to attend a few times this year. I only attend when I am interested in the book.

     Friend #1 and Friend #2 have never attended book club before. Friend #1 isn’t even in our ward. The three of them just wanted to read and discuss this book.

     I found out today that the Bishop and RS president both had no clue. They didn’t really approve the list. Both said, “Aren’t all the books by General Authorities?” I don’t think that this idea of having the books approved by the Bishop actually originated from the Bishop himself.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

164. Re 156 …. Me?! Eloquent? With all my massive typo-ness! You always know when I’m too eager to get something out… the faster I type the more of a mess it is! Thanks.

     and I LOVE that proverb!!! Makes my heart happy.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

165. Stephanie…. SO GLAD that both the Bishop and the RS president were clueless. While I don’t know what this means for the trust between you and the friend that said that everything was run by the bishop first I am happy that they weren’t advocating this nonsense.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

166. Hate so say it, someone in the group sounds like they either have control issues or have struggles with prudishness… maybe both. Not admirable traits in most cases. :S

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

167. I talked to Friend #1. She has read half the book and believes in the principles. She said that this is the Christlike way to be a wife. I said it bothered me that the book says men don’t want women who are intelligent. She said that men want women who are intelligent but just not more intelligent or accomplished than they are . . .

     So, I don’t really want to say more than that. This is one of my good friends and has been for many years. Her husband and I had a falling out a couple of years ago after I didn’t let him walk all over me when I served under him in my calling. Our relationship has been a little strained since then, but I do respect her. It sure makes a lot of things more clear now though.

     So, anyways, yeah, Friend #1 is all for it. This actually lifts a big weight off my chest. This may sound silly, but I have kind of used this friend as a measuring stick for righteousness. She accomplishes more than me (in her realm of domestic goddess and ultimate supportive wife), and I have consistently come up short. I almost wanted to laugh out loud today when I realized, “I don’t want to be that!” Why have I been measuring myself against a standard I don’t want?

     The other great thing is that DH and I are having a great conversation about all of this. He doesn’t want a wife like that either. In fact, he wants to read the book just because he can’t believe it is for real.

     I told my friend that I am going to read it with an open mind and discuss it. It should be interesting.

     Also, Friend #2 has read about 20 pages and said it didn’t really bother her.

     Friend #3 wasn’t at church, but another friend who is in the bookclub said that she read the book and uses the principles in her marriage. Who would have known?

     All of this is like the Twilight Zone to me.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

168. Oh holy cow…. PLEASE go and make sure new single sister isn’t permanently scarred. PLEASE.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

169. So I think I know why I have been lonely for the past few years now . . .

     and I said out loud that I am a feminist to three other friends at church today, and they all basically said, “Me too”. (although the definition of “feminist” may vary)

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

170. I don’t mind leaving the book in as our book club reading as long as it is made super clear to everyone that this book is NOT the gospel. It is just someone’s opinion. Friend #1 didn’t look too convinced when I told her that. I think that she may think that this is the gospel . . .

     Either that or I am going to get this book removed from the “official” book club list and just get together with my friends to discuss it at a different time. If I’m still invited. Because I was pretty vocal about finding the book disturbing . . .

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

171. My mother was no feminist but when my sister gave it to her in 1960 something she used to put under the broken leg of the couch so it sit level. On the other hand my sister loved it.

     Comment by Claudia — February 14, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

172. Let me try that again. When my sister gave my mother this book in the 1960s she used the book to prop up the couch where one of the legs was broken. She thought that was all it was good for. On the other hand my sister loved it.

     Comment by Claudia — February 14, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

173. Just wait until you get to the section on ‘childlike anger’ when she tells women to stomp their feet and then appeal to the masculinity of their husbands by saying, “You obstinate brute! You hairy beast!” Hah! This stuff is too good for words.

     In all seriousness, I can see how this stuff could put a band-aid on a rocky marriage. I can imagine lots of men wanting their wives to squeeze their muscles and tell them how strong and manly they are. The problem is that it’s all based on pretense. It’s not about truly coming to know each other and plumbing the depths of each others minds and spirits. It’s about a woman creating herself into a fantasy of helpless femininity in order to make a man feel powerful and masculine.

     Note some of the testimonials.. one woman recounts how she followed the advice about commenting on her husbands’ muscles and she was rewarded with a dishwasher and a new table and chairs. That seemed to make her happy, but being remunerated with household appliances for false complements isn’t my idea of an ideal marriage.

     Comment by Caroline — February 14, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

174. Staphanie, the book is poison. Read it only with antidotes at hand.
     My Mom was all into FW in 1965, and I read it at age 11 thinking it was gospel truth. She got me FG for Christmas. Mom lives by it still btw. My Dad always told me to shut up, that women’s brains should be like icebergs-90% below the surface at all times. My aunt snuck me a copy of Feminine Mystique and tried to counteract their awful teaching. This aunt was in Helen Andelin’s wards and did not like her at all. My aunt told me that HBA went to Salt Lake and pitched her book as RS curriculum and David O McKay turned her down flat. This may be apocryphal, but I am inclined to believe it. I don’t think Deseret is the publisher either. There have been several threads over the years here that have mentioned it as horror lit.
     If your friends really do want to “enlighten” you, make sure you go to your book club well armed better and more current info.

     Comment by Karen — February 14, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

175. I have a remarkably revolutionary thought…how about treating your spouse/partner as a human being, with their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, trials, and hurts? How about lifting one another’s burdens? How about being a good friend to your spouse? How about being a good lover, a relationship where both your needs are met and neither one is abused or coerced into sex. How about being the soft place to fall for each other. How about treating each other with respect? How about being each other’s best friend? How about courtesy and open, honest communication? How about being loyal to each other and putting one another first? I don’t know, but my husband and I have been practicing that kind of relationship for the last 11 1/2 years and we are really happy. How insulting that there is a belief out there that men have to be “manipulated” into loving us. I don’t want to have to manipulate anyone into loving me.

     I have a friend who has this kind of marriage, and she is NOT happy. She pretends like she is and her life is perfect, but she constantly complains to me that her husband just wants a Stepford wife. I never complain because really, my husband doesn’t give me much to complain about. And when he does, I address my concerns to him with honesty and respect. She can never tell him anything is wrong because he holds the priesthood, is therefore always right in his mind, and there is no room for dissent.

     Last night the hubs and I actually were able to escape for a date and we talked about why we married each other. The LDS girls he dated before were manipulative like this, acted dumber than they were, constantly stroking his ego, and he couldn’t stand it. He was immediately attracted to me because I am smart, and wasn’t afraid to show it, I am passionate, I don’t let people walk all over me, I am talented, I am capable, I am driven, and I am funny (his words per our conversation). He doesn’t need me to pretend to be some weakling so he feels stronger. He loves me for all my good attributes as well as for my weaknesses. And I love him for the same reasons. The reason I married him was because he was an LDS man who didn’t expect me to be an Andelin robot.

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 7:33 pm

176. High-five, Risa.

     Comment by Chandelle — February 14, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

177. I love that comment Risa. That is the kind of marriage my husband and I are trying to create. He claims he knew he was going to marry me when we were out on a date and I insisted on paying for dinner. In his 4 years of dating at BYU, no other girl had ever even offered. He is always respectful of my opinions and choices (even though we often disagree - he is very conservative and from the perspective of most church members I would be considered a flaming liberal) and I am so grateful for that. Thank heavens for men who don’t want to be married to a robot!

     Comment by Chelsea — February 14, 2010 @ 8:07 pm

178. I completely agree with your words Risa, in #175.

     Buuuuuut… I think that that approach really only works for people who desire becoming self-actualised adults. I’m not sure all women (and men) fall into that category. I think there are women who want to remain child-like, dependent, infantile to avoid the difficult task of psychologically growing up.

     Fascinating Women = Cinderella Complex on steroids

     Stephanie, if any friend of mine seriously suggested that I read that book I would very seriously re-evaluate that friendship.

     Comment by barmy stoat — February 14, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

179. “Compliment him on his male traits? What? Like his penis?”

     Yes. Try it. My husband seems to appreciate those kinds of compliments.

     My husband

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

180. woops…. hit the wrong button…. to continue

     My husband LOVES those compliments. Seriously. It’s a great idea.

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

181. #180 - Of course! Each one of us wants to feel sexy and desirable. I don’t mind getting compliments on my rack, especially now after 3 children! If my husband only complimented me on my mind and my sense of humor, I would be, okay, but how about how I fill out this sweater? I highly doubt there is person out there who doesn’t like compliments. Even if they are about their winkies.

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

182. ..dancing dangerously on the precipice of TMI.

     Comment by mfranti — February 14, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

183. Sorry, I’ll keep the rack and winkies talk to myself

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

184. hehe

     Comment by mfranti — February 14, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

185. What?! Risa! I love winkies and rack talk!

     You know, we really haven’t had an anonymous sex thread in QUITE some time….

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

186. I found a review of Men of Steel and Velet.
     Yeah.
     The steel refers to being manly and masculine and being a man.
     The velvet refers to building women up and making them feel special and useful.

     http://www.takeninhand.com/book.review.man.of.steel.and.velvet.by.aubrey.andelin

     This is a quote that was included in a review of Amazon, “What incentive does such a man have to protect and cherish a woman who knows nothing about being a woman? Now is the time for men to help women realize who they are and to protect them from themselves.”
     So in his view it is job of husband to teach a women how to be a women.
     http://www.amazon.com/Man-Steel-Velvet-Aubrey-Andelin/product-reviews/0911094032/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

     Comment by StarieNite — February 14, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

187. StarieNite…. I think I’m going to have nightmares about your description of that book.

     I’m terrified at the thought of ever having a daughter. Heaven help us all.

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

188. Risa… THAT is exactly how my marriage is!!!

     I have friends who ask me how Hubby and I have such stability in our marriage… My answer is always: Love, Trust, And Respect. Not always in that order, but all of them are ALWAYS there. Without any one of them after a while our marriage would fail. THIS is how a marriage SHOULD run… not on manipulation and fake happiness.

     So glad I married the guy I did. Wouldn’t trade him for the world.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

189. re 186. GAHHHHH just reading through the side bar on the one… it looks to me like a website on how to be an abuser. SCARY.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

190. I’m trying to withhold comments on FW (and, oh boy, is there a lot to comment on!) until I finish it, but I just had to say something about that Steel and Velvet review. Here are the things that women “want” from men:

     1. To be loved and cherished
     2. A master to rule over her
     3. A voice in matters which concern her
     4. Sympathy when she suffers
     5. Appreciation
     6. A feeling that her domestic work is important work.
     7. Personal freedoms. Time to do things. Right to go places.

     That is downright frightening. A couple of them are okay. I do want to be loved and appreciated. But, “A master to rule over her”? No wonder our society is so messed up if men keep thinking we women are looking for masters to rule over us. A voice in matters “which concern her”? Screw what happens in the rest of the world. It doesn’t “concern me”.

     #6 particularly irks me. A feeling that “her” domestic work is important. Of course it’s not important. And of course it’s “her” work. But, she just needs to feel like it is important, poor deluded soul.

     And, yes, I complain all the time about a lack of time to do things and go places. But, I don’t need the “right” to do it from my husband. I am not looking for him to grant me my freedom.

     It’s those somewhat subtle phrasings that make my skin crawl.

     And the scariest thing is when that is called God’s will.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

191. And THIS would be why many non-members view the LDS women as “Stepford Wives”… it’s because many of them are.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

192. The sad thing is that I thought I could deny that April, but I don’t think I can.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

193. I didn’t really check the source of the review before I posted it, but looking back I do find it interesting. This is a website for people that want a relationship with one partner with the “power” usually the male, but not thru the principles that either book proscribes.
     These people are saying that this type of relationship is not for everyone and FW/Men of steel/velvet is not the way to go about it. That that kind of relationship relies on ultimate trust and that requires real true honesty and that can’t happen with the steps the books ask.

     Comment by StarieNite — February 14, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

194. …being remunerated with household appliances for false complements isn’t my idea of an ideal marriage.

     Oh my. What a perverted “reward” system, and it’s hard to even call it that! Maybe some men are still have the idea the wives should be washing laundry by taking it down to the creek & pounding it with rocks, or churning butter by hand, etc.

     And, it’s not just the LDS with the “Stepford Wives” syndrome. In the 1990’s the Southern Baptist Convention pass a resolution in their Conference calling for women to “submit gracefully to their Husbands”.

     #175: Risa, I think you hit it right on.

     Comment by Mike H. — February 14, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

195. Good grief!
     
     http://www.takeninhand.com/when.rape.is.a.gift

     Comment by barmy stoat — February 14, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

196. Re 195 - I think I’m too ill to read any more of this tonight.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

197. Barmy - that is the scariest freaking thing I’ve ever read!

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

198. re 195 … that’s it. These books are the recipe for abuse. Plane and simple.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

199. plain*

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 10:27 pm

200. #195 - Okay, I don’t know what’s scarier…the actual piece written or the comments following.

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

201. Barmy, why?! Why?!

     I don’t think I can even finish it.

     I think this thread has turned me into a book-burner. I have cold chills.

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 14, 2010 @ 10:39 pm

202. I didn’t even get to the comments… I just closed the window after reading enough to the jist of it. It made me want to punch my computer screen too much.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 10:47 pm

203. “to get the jist of it” ugh typos are my BANE!!!!!

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

204. #195: That link needs a thread of it’s own, even if it’s a $%#^ topic!

     Comment by Mike H. — February 14, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

205. I mean, I know some people like bondage, but that is NOT the same as rape… holy shit.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 11:14 pm

206. Sorry, cursing… bleeding into type… not good, need to go to bed, too pissed off to speak properly or to type properly either apparently.

     Comment by April — February 14, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

207. April, it’s okay to be truly pissed off by something so offensive that you swear. I think that article calls for swearing! And lots of it.

     Comment by Risa — February 14, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

208. Yeah I found article just a minute before you posted. Yikes.

     Comment by StarieNite — February 15, 2010 @ 12:05 am

209. Risa lol I curse quite a bit actually. Mostly in private to my husband though. Usually people are quite shocked when he tells them that I swear more than he does… sometimes “crap” and “heck” just don’t cut it…

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 12:30 am

210. Barmy, I almost threw up reading that link. That’s the sort of thing I read in Rousseau’s “The Education of Man” in my Feminism class this semester, but that book was written 300 years ago! He said that if a woman really wanted to resist a man’s advances, that God has given her the power to do it, but that most of the time women put up a fight to make the man feel more manly when he overcomes her and has sex with her anyway. I would never have thought that people still…bleh. Words fail me.

     Stephanie, I think you should read FW. I think you should call that single sister and talk with her about it before your group meets. Get some research done, and get a good argument against it put together before you go. I thought the suggestion about getting an expert to come in and talk about abuse was a great idea. If that group is challenging your belief system, you’ve got the right to meet the challenge. Maybe you’ll change someone’s mind while you’re at it. Perhaps you should suggest the next reading, in response! It would only be fair, right?

     Bell Hooks’ Feminism is for Everybody is simple, short, straightforward, and applicable to the average person.

     Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is longer and wordier, but would provide some very good counter-arguments to FW. It discusses the disgust that a man can develop for a wife that acts like a dependent idiot all the time. I could just grab you direct quotes, if you’re interested, since it is hard to wade through.

     John Stuart Mills’ The subjection of Women has similar arguments, plus he talks about how damaging it is for a male to be raised believing he is superior just by nature of being a male. That’s in the last chapter, here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Subjection_of_Women#CHAPTER_IV paragraphs 3 and 4. Anyone who thinks that making a man feel strong by acting weak is appropriate needs to read that! Have those women thought about what they’re teaching their children when they act that way?

     I bet if you looked hard enough you could even find some General Authority quotes on the subject.

     Seriously, they threw the gloves down. You should accept their challenge. In a sisterly, loving way, of course.

     Comment by ifrit — February 15, 2010 @ 12:33 am

211. Here’s a link–it’s Bitch Magazine, so if that is too harsh for your tastes, skip it. But it’s a good article.

     http://bitchmagazine.org/article/forever-your-girl

     Comment by linkin — February 15, 2010 @ 12:50 am

212. Hey, do any of you all have my (mom’s old) copy of FW? I’m pretty sure I loaned it to someone, since I don’t seem to have it anymore, but I can’t at all remember who it was. I haven’t read it all the way through, just snippets was all I could take, but I kinda want to have my mom’s copy for some twisted sentimental reason.

     Great discussion, I wish I could be a fly on the wall at Stephanie’s book club.

     Comment by fMhLisa — February 15, 2010 @ 12:58 am

213. A will again restate the advice to take an abuse expert with you to book club. The things that lead the way and enable abuse to a) happen and b) continue are in abundance in that book. Submission is what abuse is about, control is what abuse is about, control is what rape is about, and being able to point at religion and say it condones it is even more poisonous. My grandfather was the eldest son of a polygamist who had 6 wifes, I will tell you RIGHT NOW, every ONE of those wives was abused… in the name of religion… thank heavens my grandpa’s mother left him, even though it meant trying to survive with her six children with no education and very little work available. She was incredibly strong even if she had bad taste in men.

     If anyone has read Shattered Dreams: My life as a Polygamist’s Wife… that is my great aunt… wow was the family EVER jacked up… still is actually.

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 12:58 am

214. In fact… I might suggest that book as an example of how religious beliefs can warp into unrighteous dominion in lightning speed.

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 1:05 am

215. I grew up in a small Mormon town. In high school my Senior English teacher was a member of the church (as was most faculty and admin). She conducted afternoon classes teaching us Senior girls from FW. Later, my mother in law taught classes using FW. My husband thought the scriptures should be quad combination….and FW. I showed him otherwise!

     Comment by Linda — February 15, 2010 @ 1:18 am

216. This is crazy. I’d never heard of this book til folks on here started talking about it. And I grew up in all parts of Utah. How is it so ubiquitous?

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 15, 2010 @ 3:04 am

217. I never heard of it before either, Hammie. My mother was a feminist and probably sheltered me from such atrocities

     Comment by Risa — February 15, 2010 @ 3:30 am

218. Good post, and I think you’re doing it already, but take the advice in a book with an important caveat: that virtually the same book can/should/is(?) written for men saying complementary things that men should do.

     I think we all tend to react negatively when we hear that we “should” be doing something that we either aren’t doing, or aren’t doing well, and feel on some instinctive level that maybe we should be doing.

     So, while I’m not endorsing a book I’ve never read except for the excerpts here, I’d just say it’s one side of the coin and doesn’t represent the complete picture or have the answer for every situation. If it helps in one or two areas, it’s good for that. Don’t expect it or ANY other book to be complete a solution to guide your life — obviously.

     Comment by chris — February 15, 2010 @ 4:00 am

219. April, I don’t swear, but that 195 link almost demands it! It sounds to me like the problem is some women have issues with sex (possibly having been taught it was dirty shameful-whatever) and can’t let themselves be sexual, can’t let themselves really enjoy sex-so the solution she takess is INSTEAD of dealing with the issue, helping the women see sex as beautiful and wonderful-to instead

     seriously disgusting. with women like that who needs patriarchy

     Comment by britt--the hammy — February 15, 2010 @ 4:34 am

220. Okay…..I finally read the 195 link. Supposedly it was written by a woman — but did anyone else get the creepy feeling that it was written by a man, pretending to be a woman? And that the testimonials from happy wives were also written by a man? There’s no way of ever knowing for sure — and there are most likely women who are very much into that kind of lifestyle — but so much of it, including some of the comments, seemed to be written in an eerily similar voice.

     On the other hand, maybe all people into this way of life just start sounding alike? Maybe it’s the exact opposite of what Dostoyevsky said — “All unhappy families are alike; each happy family is happy in its own way?”

     Comment by L. — February 15, 2010 @ 7:54 am

221. If that group is challenging your belief system, you’ve got the right to meet the challenge.

     Steph, I think this is a great idea. I was blindsided by an intervention last year, when some (former) friends felt like my prop 8 views were calling my temple worthiness into question. I wish I had been able to have some prepared thoughts - I got too emotional (okay, angry) to be able to rationally discuss it. It might be worth doing a little prep, if you think you can make a difference…

     Comment by Enna — February 15, 2010 @ 9:27 am

222. I can see the headlines now

     MORMON BISHOP APPROVES FASCINATION WOMAN AS BOOK CLUB CHOICE, TO THE DELIGHT OF THE WOMEN IN HIS WARD

     Stephanie, seriously, I send you love and support. I would look at finding another local group of women to hang out with periodically, books or not.

     Comment by venus — February 15, 2010 @ 9:44 am

223. I think a lot of the women who are curious about a book like FW aren’t really looking for a way to be subversive or manipulative, or to get shiny new appliances or whatever. And I don’t think most women are interested in suddenly becoming subservient. I think it’s because they are feeling like something has changed in their relationship with their husband– something is missing or things just aren’t the same. And they are looking for answers and they run across FW, and it promises to put the spark back or fix whatever is wrong with the marriage. And maybe they feel like they are willing to try anything if it would help.

     I have two close family members who’s husbands had affairs recently. They were both just totally blindsided– they knew that things weren’t the greatest lately and that the communication in their marriages wasn’t really happening like it should– but they just had no idea. They are both trying to work things out and stay together, but the pain is just so incredible and devastating. Sometimes I think I would try anything to avoid that kind of pain.

     But just as the “submit and be childlike” message of FW isn’t the answer, neither is calling Mormon women “Stepford wives” when they may just be doing the best they can to improve their marriages within their current level of understanding.

     Maybe every book group should read FW. Not to learn to follow what it teaches, although I would hope that there might be at least a few useful relationship ideas scattered around in a book that continues to be reprinted over so many years, but for the discussions that could happen. I think the feminists could help the traditionalists open their eyes to a few things, and vice versa.

     Comment by justa sister — February 15, 2010 @ 10:29 am

224. Justa sister, I think you are right. I’m about halfway through the book. I have a lot of thoughts, but I am saving them for Part 2 (if I can condense that much).

     Comment by Stephanie — February 15, 2010 @ 10:40 am

225. I guess my stance is this: If suicide isn’t the answer to depression, giving up ones individual worth is not the answer to marital problems.

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 10:47 am

226. #223- I didn’t call my friend a Stepford wife, she called herself that. Because her husband expects that when he comes home from work that the house is immaculately clean, the laundry is done, their 5 children are all clean and well behaved with homework done so he doesn’t have to bother with it, dinner is hot and ready on the table, and she has to keep herself trim and fit or face ridicule. He has told her that anything having to do with the house or kids is her responsibility. He won’t even take care of the kids when she’s sick and refused to even help with housework when she was pregnant and having preterm labor. Oh, and he also gets sex on demand.

     If THAT’S traditional marriage, I have nothing to learn from it except how not to be a doormat, IMO.

     Comment by Risa — February 15, 2010 @ 10:59 am

227. High 5 on that, April!

     Comment by Risa — February 15, 2010 @ 11:01 am

228. Ooh, I had another idea. If your book club doesn’t want to read straight-up feminist literature, they should try Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. I suggest it with some reserve– not because it isn’t a great book that contradicts everything FW teaches with Emma Smith’s Sheer awesomeness, because it does that very well. But it also addresses Joseph Smith’s humanity, both as a person and as a Church leader, and for people who aren’t prepared to read about a prophet making mistakes it could be very tough. Otherwise, it would be a great way to sneak in a strong woman and some feminist principles without scaring people away right off.

     Comment by ifrit — February 15, 2010 @ 11:10 am

229. #226 Risa
     Sorry to not be more clear. I wasn’t responding to your comment in particular. And I’m not in favor of Stepford wives, no matter who is doing the name calling. But I am in favor of trying to be understanding of my sisters, no matter their circumstances.

     Comment by justa sister — February 15, 2010 @ 11:10 am

230. So the thing that justa sister said that I agree with is that this could be the last saving grace for some marriages on their way out.

     The book has a list of men’s faults that you should overlook. In all honesty, my husband has none of them. I thought, “Wow, I chose well!” And he doesn’t want a wife who does a lot of the things that the book suggests (in fact, there is one thing the book suggests that my mom did, and it is a big reason why my dad didn’t want to be married to her anymore - he wanted a more equal partner, my mom wanted to be a FW wife. Either that or she didn’t know better).

     But, I can think of two guys I dated who were like this and would have wanted a wife like this. I shudder to think that I even dated them or may have considered marrying them. But, if I had, and our marriage was on the rocks, the stuff in this book might have helped because of the kind of men they were.

     I wouldn’t want a marriage like that, I wouldn’t want a husband like that. But, some people have husbands like that who won’t change. So, the choice may be to leave him or be the kind of wife he wants. Tough choices. But, I can see how a book like this could help some of those marriages.

     (And, believe it or not, I’ve found a few nuggets of truth I am going to incorporate. Kind of like wading through poo to find the gems)

     Comment by Stephanie — February 15, 2010 @ 11:18 am

231. Well, I didn’t mean to imply that I think FW is the answer to anything. I don’t think that. I didn’t think I said that. Just that some women might be drawn to it in desperation thinking that it might be. I’m trying to understand the motivation behind those who like the book.

     But I also don’t agree with some commenters that those women– who might happen be in a marriage with one of “those” men– can’t possibly have anything to say about marriage that is worth listening to.

     Comment by justa sister — February 15, 2010 @ 11:40 am

232. #229 - I am understanding of my sisters. Which is why I never say anything to my friend, or other friends, who I think are being marginalized in their marriages. They chose this life, they consistently choose it, so who am I to say anything? I just notice that those friends are constantly complaining and I am not.

     Comment by Risa — February 15, 2010 @ 11:45 am

233. Okay, sorry justa sister. I hear what you are saying. Comment 230 is my opinion on the book. Half of it is testimonials (I bought the 2007 edition) about marriages that were about to fail and were saved by the book. Many women say they only read FW and the Bible.

     Just that some women might be drawn to it in desperation thinking that it might be.

     This is a lot of what I was trying to get at with my OP. My marriage has a bit of strain (which I’ve identified as not enough time spent together). I’m looking for some answers. This book was presented, and I thought, “Maybe I can find my answers in here!” I think it would be devastating to me if I took the whole book at face value. But, that’s what it is presented as. The testimonials talk about doing “all of FW”.

     There are principles in the book that are useful, but most all of them need to be reciprocated. There are other marriage books that talk about the same principles without couching it in terms of man’s role vs. woman’s role. I think this book in particular would appeal to men who want a traditional marriage and a traditional wife.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 15, 2010 @ 11:51 am

234. There are principles in the book that are useful, but most all of them need to be reciprocated.

     Exactly my point, Stephanie. You can’t really call it a marriage or a partnership if the wife is the one doing all the changing, all the compromising, and all the work while the husband sits back getting his ego stroked, is never argued with, the house and kids are taken care of, and he gets sex whenever he wants.

     Comment by Risa — February 15, 2010 @ 11:55 am

235. Stephanie, my husband has served as a bishop. I hear ya. I really liked what you said way back in comment 60. I think you are on the right track. I’m looking forward to your thoughts in part 2.

     Comment by justa sister — February 15, 2010 @ 11:55 am

236. Thanks, justa sister.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 15, 2010 @ 11:59 am

237. I’ve never complimented Bill on his private male parts. I meant compliment him on things like, geez, I don’t know, stuff you’d compliment your friends on—nice stuff. I compliment his cooking or how he handled an upset grandchild. I say thank you. It’s really sad how he responds to simple niceties I show my friends all the time.

     Comment by annegb — February 15, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

238. It’s always interesting how we tend to take for granted those that surround us on an everyday level. We need to treat all people that we love and care about (and even some that we don’t really care for) with compliments on things we see as admirable.

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

239. I own a copy of FW myself, just as a reminder of a very different point of view (and one I strongly disagree with).

     So many great comments here already.

     But I was interested in the thoughts about the woman (in FW) who was not married to a member of “her” church. She had tried and tried to convert her husband, to no avail. But then she invited the (male) missionaries over, and her husband listened to them. I can’t remember the husband’s exact comment from FW (maybe I will break out my copy) but it had something to do with talking with other men about spiritual/intellectual matters (instead of one’s wife/partner).

     Comment by aerin — February 15, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

240. Oooooooooh I’ve been waiting for a post on FW since I started reading this blog. I read The Fascinating Girl as a teenager about ten years ago and it provided hours of read-aloud entertainment for me and my friends, since it is essentially the most comedically dreadful book ever written. My favourite excerpt is in the chapter on “where to meet men” - i.e. college - and says something along the lines of “while it is never intimated that you should neglect your studies while at college, you will never get anywhere by becoming a ‘bookworm’ or a ’scholarly student’ and losing sight of your true purpose in attending college - finding a suitable mate.”

     I keep it on my bookshelf next to Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique which I read in my early twenties. It has been referenced above, and it is true that it’s kind of a feminist relic, fairly outdated. But as a 21st century LDS girl, it BLEW MY MIND and helped me sort out some major decisions about life and career that had been complicated by some of the rhetoric I was exposed to in the YW and YSA programs. I think it’s so interesting that both books were published in the same year and prescribe such diametrically opposed paths for womankind. I think most women today (even LDS women) would agree that the FW paradigm is a recipe for depression, misery and total self-abnegation. Most of the once-controversial ideas in Freidan’s (i.e. women having educations/jobs/interests that extend beyond housewifery) we take for granted as being fundamental to basic mental health.

     Somewhere in the mix is a blockbuster PhD project waiting to happen.

     Comment by JaneW — February 15, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

241. Every once in a while one of my “PLU” friends from church will say something that indicates an agreement with FW/FG ideas, and it knocks me for a loop. So many questions… how are we friends? how can we have so much in common, and then this?

     …as an aside, this is one of the reasons I just do not participate in RS book clubs.

     Comment by The Ginger — February 15, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

242. Just went and bought The Feminine Mystique because I’m lame and have never read it….

     Comment by April — February 15, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

243. @ #220: Actually, it is Tolstoy who begins Anna Karenina with the line, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

     Other than that I have nothing to add to the discussion that has been handled quite well, with the exception of the link to the rape fantasy site. I coulda lived a perfectly useful and productive life without ever knowing about that.

     Comment by Mommie Dearest — February 15, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

244. Our bookclub is for two wards a but I have made it clear that our bookclub is NOT a part of RS or the ward and we are not subject to the bishop or RS approving anything.
     Since we invite ward members and we are all LDS we keep it to what we want to read.
     As for FW, I would not be thrilled if someone told us we “couldn’t” read it. Why can’t we read something and disagree with it? When we read it long ago in my old bookclub we had a great discussion on what people thought was useful and what was completely wrong.

     Comment by jks — February 16, 2010 @ 12:10 am

245. Haven’t read all the comments, but I wanted to add that I first encountered this book on my mission from an investigator who loved it and loaned it to me and my companion. Barf-O-Rama. I was hopping mad for days (my comp. thought I was hilarious, but sympathized). Count me in as one of those who wanted to burn the book, but I was ethically-bound to return it, more’s the pity.

     Comment by Artemis — February 16, 2010 @ 12:19 am

246. What do you suggest to a woman who is married to someone who is from another time or another culture. Perhaps a woman who married very young to an older man who can’t adjust to her no longer being a naive, inexperienced child.
     I think many women used to be married to men who couldn’t change their ideas about women being inferior in some ways.
     Some women are still in these types of situations.
     If a woman is married to a man that she loves and who is a good husband in many ways, and who has come a long way from his sexist culture (helps with the kids, does housework) yet cannot change in other ways to treat her as an equal in some areas. No amount of talking or action can change his views (some that he doesn’t even realize he has).
     Anyway, I have seen this scenario.
     I think the FW speaks to this woman and gives her a way to understand how to deal with problems and speak his language in his world. She might find this makes her happier or less happy. Who knows.
     I think that FW is an interesting coping mechanism for those who are stuck in a marriage with those kinds of limitations.
     Marriage is a complicated thing. How many of us have ever had a discussion with our husband and told them what was what and yet, he doesn’t really see it our way?
     What if you are in a marriage where he will see that he sometimes treats you like a child, or that he is making decisions for you.
     Sure, if it is really bad you leave him. But what if it is only a little bad. You don’t break up your family for that. You find a way to deal with it. You find out what does work. For some women FW might be it.
     There should be fewer and fewer American women in a FW type of situation, but there aren’t zero.
     (Just to clarify, I disagree with 90% of the book. However, I still think there are a couple of things that some people attack that shouldn’t be attacked).

     Comment by jks — February 16, 2010 @ 12:28 am

247. I want to thank FMH for always giving me something to read when I’m too hyped up from my late night run to sleep.

     One thought I had is how hard it is when you want to share your viewpoint that you believe so much in with someone else to no avail. To me it would be really hard to handle if I found out that one of my close friends had read this book and adhered to it. I would want to change that in her, but as with your friend, I might not be able to. At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if your friend is staying up late at night talking with her husband about this as well and being frustrated that you don’t see things the same way.

     It reminds me of a movie I watched recently, Friends With Money, throughout the movie all of the friends are constantly criticizing the others and their relationships. At the end of the movie they all leave separately from a dinner party and each husband tells his wife as they drive home “you were the prettiest one there”. It cracked me up because it is so true to life, we tend to think that what we have is the best and sometimes pity others even if they don’t want or need it.

     That’s all, nothing really earth shattering and I’m not sure if I’m making any sense.

     That book is truly sad to me, it does make me grateful that the things that DH loved about me from the beginning were my independence and smarts (and my rockin bod of course;) so that I never had to diminish those to make him feel better.

     Comment by Cecile — February 16, 2010 @ 12:48 am

248. jks - I’ve actually wondered that about the author herself. Did she come up with this stuff because it was what she needed to survive her marriage? Just judging from the book he wrote, he sounds like a total - insert very bad words here - kind of guy.
     Actually, I bet he was a good husband in many ways and a good provider too. But I don’t understand how their marriage worked with him knowing about the advice she gave and yet having those tactics work on him. I mean, wouldn’t he know he was being played when she “accidentally” messes up a household repair so he has to fix her mistake”, or other such nonsense she advocates? How could he trust that her compliments were sincere? Or wonder what other way she was manipulating him? I don’t get how a marriage like this works. When you know you are being manipulated?

     Comment by Bewitched — February 16, 2010 @ 1:09 am

249. I meant to add that I said I’d bet he was a good husband because most likely he fulfilled traditional father/husband roles. Provider, presider,etc. And since she was able to write books and be successful, he clearly didn’t demand she do nothing outside of the kitchen and bedroom. So my guess is he fell into the “little bad” category and she came up with ways to deal with it.

     Who knows, I’m just rambling. I might have to read the book after all.

     Comment by Bewitched — February 16, 2010 @ 1:20 am

250. Imo, you should be praying about it and considering asking to be released “for personal reasons”. Your work in church is great, but your family comes first.

     And if it were me, I would talk to my husband. How your feeling isn’t your fault. He probably knows how you feel, or if he doesn’t, he should know.

     And now I feel like putting that book down on my list with “Mormon Doctrine” as satire novels

     Comment by Julia — February 16, 2010 @ 2:53 am

251. After a number years of going to Targets for the wedding registry (I won’t get started on that) - I have come up with the fullproof wedding gift. We give a hardback copy of “The Joy of Sex” …. plenty of pictures and don’t skip the oral chapter.

     My bff has four daughters and by daughter number 3, I had resolved to be a smarter friend at wedding time. And this is where I started. I love all four of her daughters as though they were my own - I want them to love being married and good, satisfying sex is critical. And yes, when my own daughters marry, I’ll toss of copy of this into the honeymoon suitcase. Good icebreaker, eh?

     We were talking about books and time, yes?

     Bring on the diet coke.

     Comment by Mary Magdalene — February 16, 2010 @ 4:22 am

252. jks #246 - yes, I really agree with you. It’s so funny as I am reading this book to remember past boyfriends and how I treated them. In all honesty, if I had married anyone before my husband (except for a handful), I would likely have ended up in a marriage where this book would have been helpful. So, as I am reading it, I think, “Wow, that could be me” or “Oh, now I get why [boyfriend] said that” or whatever. It makes me 10 times more grateful I married DH (because I didn’t want a marriage like that), but at the same time, it hits so close to home. It could be me.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 9:12 am

253. jks #244 - the problem is that this book club IS the RS sponsored book club. Lists of the books are handed out in RS, and it is announced every week. The books are “supposedly” approved by the Bishop. My concern is that Sister So-and-so sitting in the back who rarely comes to church will pick up a list and think, “That sounds interesting” and start to read FW and think that this is what we Mormons believe and will never want to come back. Know what I mean?

     At this point, I definitely want to discuss the book with some other people (including my friends) who have read it. I just don’t want anyone to think that this book and its content are endorsed by the church.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 10:04 am

254. #246 - I was trying to come up with some sort of common ground, but I just can’t. I can’t justify this book being worthwhile on any level. With all due respect to some of the other posters (and Stephanie’s book club), but I just can’t.

     I agree it’s worthwhile to read this book, to see where people have come from. And where some cultures are (thinking of “A Thousand Splendid Suns”.

     But I can’t find any justification for women manipulating their husbands and acting like children to get what they want. To simply focus on their appearance and not admit their true feelings or their intellect.

     I believe it does a disservice to the women, their husbands and the children who see that type of relationship and think it’s okay.

     I don’t think it’s ever appropriate for a husband to say “well, she’s just too stupid to see it that way” to his wife (#79) ever, but in public? I’m aghast. And I can’t agree with any book or philosphy that promotes that way of thinking.

     The only thing that could justify it is to try to convince a battered wife to stay in her abusive marriage to keep the family together. I can’t agree with that either. (Not that anyone was suggesting that).

     Typically, I don’t have such strong opinions about various books and philosophies, but with this one, I do.

     Comment by aerin — February 16, 2010 @ 10:17 am

255. I think Dr. Oz’ recent show is scarier, if for no other reason than it’s more subtle.

     The message is similar, however: women are responsible for their spouse’s behavior.

     Comment by SilverRain — February 16, 2010 @ 11:19 am

256. Mary Magdalene, I think that could very well be the most important chapter.

     Way to go, giving a great gift that very, very few LDS couples would be brave enough to put on their registry!

     Comment by Hammie (formerly Natalie K.) — February 16, 2010 @ 11:49 am

257. One of my fav songs from back in early ‘73 was a blue grass piece named: CUSTOM MADE WOMAN’S BLUES by Alice Gerrard

     “Well I tried to be the kind of woman you wanted me to be
     And it’s not your fault that I tried to be what I thought you wanted to see Smilin’ face shinnin’ hair clothes that I thought you’d like me to wear. Made to please and not to tease it’s the custom made woman blues.

     Yes I tried to be the kind of woman you wanted me to be
     And I tried to see life your way and say all the things you’d like me to say. Lovin’ look,s gentle hands all guaranteed to keep a’ holda’ your man. Made to please and not to tease it’s the custom made woman blues.

     And now you say you’re tired of me and all of those things I thought you wanted me to be. Is it true you want some one who knows how to think and do on her own ? Lord it’s hard to realize the lessons I learned so was young were nothing but lies.

     Made to please and not to tease it’s the custom made woman blues.”

     Comment by Betty Jo — February 16, 2010 @ 11:52 am

258. Oh . . . do you know I’ve known about this book since I was fourteen or fifteen, and nobody ever thought to mention to me that the author was Mormon.

     Oh my gosh. How humiliating.

     Did she really think this is a celestial model of marriage (yes, because I just read the first chapter on Amazon, and it’s entitled “Celestial love”)? Did she really think Heavenly Mother feigns weakness or incompetence, or that Heavenly Father needs to feel that Heavenly Mother is weak before He can feel strong and masculine? Did she really find so little dignity in her eternal potential and responsibilities as a disciple of Christ?

     I’m sort of dying of shame by association. Ack.

     Comment by AnnaKaye — February 16, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

259. That song is way too true, Betty Jo.

     Aerin, your comment made me think of a girl I VT. She is turning 19 next month, was homeschooled and has no negree (plans to take the GED at some point). She does not work, does not have a license or car (her family is very poor, using church assistance). Last month the message was on self-reliance. So, we talked about her plans. She plans to get her GED, work to earn money, take a few classes and then try to get into Ricks. I asked her when she would like to start at Rick’s. She said, “In about 5 years, if I don’t get married first”. Oh.

     The other thing about this girl is that she has no domestic skills - doesn’t cook or clean. She said that she “eats sandwiches for lunch because mom is at work”. Oh.

     I am racking my brain and trying LOTS of things to help this girl see the light. I am scared to death for her and her future. She gets stars in her eyes when she talks about marriage - she totally views herself as a princess waiting for prince charming to sweep her off her feet.

     I don’t really see marriage in her near future (I hope not!), but if she does get married, I see it being a very unequal relationship. She has no clue what marriage entails. She’s just waiting for her fairy tale prince to come rescue her. And when her husband comes home and wants dinner and a clean house, she’s not going to know how to do it. How would you help her then? She’s already in a very “traditional” marriage with a man who wants her a certain way, and she’s just not that way. Would it be better to hand her a copy of this book that tells her to be a domestic Goddess or a copy of a feminist book or what? With people who already have this mindset, what can you do to help their marriage (if they are looking for help?)

     Sad thing is, I visit taught another girl before her who is a little more prepared for the world (she works at Walmart and moved out of her parent’s house), but her parents are pushing her to get married to a good Mormon boy and start having babies (and she’s a cute girl - findng a boy to snag is not turning out to be too hard). The YW Pres after me and I are both working hard on her, but I don’t know that we’ll prevail. I’m worried about her and her future, too.

     What do you do?

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

260. Stephanie, i would encourage either girl to read about amazing women..either Mormon women or otherwise. Women who have really lived-mothers or not. They both sound like they need a sense of purpose and mission in their lives-of course the best way to accomplish that might be you reading about books that relaly inspire you and sharing what was so inspiring…

     good luck

     Comment by britt--the hammy — February 16, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

261. I agree with britt in #260 AND…Stephanie, remember that you are only her visiting teacher. You can’t change or undo any of the things that she has learned or not learned through her life. You can’t control her future, unfortunately (the future of either yw). I hope that your assistance will help her, and be a good example for her.

     And it is sad she is where she is, an adult without marketable skills and not even able to care for herself (make her own meals, etc.) I don’t think FW is a good fit for her, but again, because I don’t think it’s a good fit for anyone.

     It sounds like some courses at a community college might be a good idea to help her. But she will need to make the decision to change, and to ask for help. She’ll probably keep doing what’s she’s doing until it stops working. Or until life turns out to be different than she expected.

     Learning how to cook, clean and make basic repairs (sewing, gardening and home repair) are good for anyone - not just teenage women. Good luck!

     Comment by aerin — February 16, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

262. aerin, I agree that I wouldn’t actually propose FW as a solution for anyone, but I can see how a girl like this one I VT would seek it out at some point. In all honesty, I was telling DH last night that this book seems written for people who got married when they were young and immature and didn’t develop healthy relationship patterns and are finding themselves in a crisis. Anyways, I just get what jks is saying in #246. I don’t endorse FW or think it’s a good solution, but I can see how some women would find it helpful.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

263. What do you suggest to a woman who is married to someone who is from another time or another culture. Perhaps a woman who married very young to an older man who can’t adjust to her no longer being a naive, inexperienced child

     a really good therapist and a backup plan that includes an experienced divorce lawyer.

     Comment by mfranti — February 16, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

264. In 262, Stephanie wrote,
     

     I don’t endorse FW or think it’s a good solution, but I can see how some women would find it helpful.

     Only helpful in a manner similar to valium, alcohol, compulsive shopping or any other mind-numbing, reality avoiding, behaviour would be.

     The more I think about it, this notion of becoming a bobble-headed fascinating woman is right up there with daily visits with Dr Jack Daniels as massively dysfunctional ways to cope with problems. Sick.

     Comment by barmy stoat — February 16, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

265. Perhaps I should have said, “I don’t endorse FW or think it’s a good solution, but I can see how some women in dysfunctional situations would find it helpful”.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

266. Again, I’m not endorsing FW - just expressing understanding for why it continues to be published and used

     Comment by Stephanie — February 16, 2010 @ 3:59 pm

267. Silly me, I thought what April said in #107 was an exclamation, not a movie citation!

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marabel_Morgan

     Comment by Mike H. — February 16, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

268. Haven’t read all the comments.

     To me this is related to co-dependent behavior. If I just do XYZ, then my spouse will do ABC. If I am just nicer/more organized/more attractive/smarter/better with money/etc then my spouse won’t drink/look at porn/play video games compulsively/ignore me/make cutting comments or what have you. Here it is just if I am “softer” or more “childlike” my husband will love me better.

     The specific behaviors FW proposes are of course awful and not very appealing to most of us on this list. But that strategy (if I do X then I make my husband do Y) is HUGELY seductive–I think Stefanie is right on is seeing that many women do find it compelling. I don’t feel any draw towards the FW strategies–but I have my own list of things that fool me into thinking that if I were only XYZ then I will get ABC. Being organized/smart/sexy etc may all be good things in and of themselves, but they never work to make someone else give us what we need. Not for drinking, not for better loving.

     How do we get what we need? I think we have to ask and to set our own boundaries. My guess is that Stefanie, you and your husband could make a lot of progress by brainstorming and by you making really concrete requests. (Like, please don’t coach that softball team next year. I need more time with you.) My guess is that dressing in a pretty pinafore and being all childlike will not get you that. But I know I avoid making specific requests because it is actually emotionally harder and riskier than thinking I can somehow MAKE it happen.

     Comment by cms — February 16, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

269. ROFL… ya, I made my husband watch it with me that night… I think he may have some question as to my sanity. I realized that Kathy Bates actually just dressed up in cellophane in a day dream… but it was still funny as snot.

     Comment by April — February 16, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

270. Hi all. This is my first post and I’m late to the discussion. Sorry.

     I was raised in a egalitarian LDS family. My mom purposefully raised me to be strong and smart. I never saw her bat her eyes or play poor little woman with the big, strong husband. My father was “soft” and kind.

     But even so, I remember my mom setting her emotional needs aside to take care of my dad’s. This didn’t make my dad happy. And somehow, even though I consider myself to be a feminist, I find myself doing the same thing. It drives my husband crazy. He married me because he likes strong women. He wants to know what I think and how I feel. I often don’t share, though, because I’m worried about what he thinks and how he feels. It’s bizarre.

     Somehow, somewhere I’ve learned to suppress myself and my needs for the benefit of others. I’m concerned that this trait is so culturally ingrained in us that despite the best intentions of good parents we women grow up with this false idea that we have to shove our real needs aside to take care of others.

     Even though FW hasn’t been on my radar, I think the principles it teaches have been a reality in my life. I wonder if the general anger that is expressed here demonstrates that I’m not not the only woman who feels that, at least on some frightening subconscious level, I’m expected to act like the FW wife. Heck, just the fact that women in Stephanie’s ward want to read the book proves that there are those who judge us against this “ideal.”

     My dad

     Comment by Rosebud — February 16, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

271. #263 - LOL….my thoughts exactly.

     Comment by Risa — February 17, 2010 @ 1:22 am

272. In all honesty, I was telling DH last night that this book seems written for people who got married when they were young and immature and didn’t develop healthy relationship patterns and are finding themselves in a crisis.

     I think you hit the nail on the head here Stephanie.

     Comment by Chelsea — February 17, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

273. BTW - my mom said that she tried the apron, too. It didn’t work.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 18, 2010 @ 9:25 am

274. re: 265

     Perhaps I should have said, “I don’t endorse FW or think it’s a good solution, but I can see how some women in dysfunctional situations would find it helpful”.

     Personally, I think the advice of FW would be even worse for dysfunctional relationships, adding another layer of dysfunction. Resolving dysfunction requires becoming more emotionally honest, not just covering up the dysfunction.

     The more I think about it, the more the FW perspective seems a Satanic counterfeit of true marital love and sacrifice, in which both partners equally develop an unconditional concern for the needs of the other.

     Comment by Derek — February 18, 2010 @ 10:23 am

275. Really interesting point, Derek, particularly since this seems to have been the LDS “norm” several decades ago.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 18, 2010 @ 10:29 am

276. Here is what my mom said about the post/book:

     I thought it was funny and sad that I had tried using an apron.

     That book is aggravating. It was presented to me as almost “gospel”

     I think there are better books to spend ones time on.

     Being kind and soft spoken is basically what I believe the gospel comes down to and is the gospel in action. Seeking the spirit will naturally bring these attributes. Because that is how the spirit treats you and thus makes you feel.

     Kindness is inspired actions. The spirit will tell you how to act. The trick is to listen to its soft voice.

     Seek that soft voice and you will voice softly.

     She’s a wise woman, my mom. I should listen to her more often.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 18, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

277. Just a quick update - the single woman in my book club started reading it and is horrified. Friend #3 told her that I am, too. I feel like I have a purpose in the book club now. It should be an interesting discussion next month.

     Comment by Stephanie — February 21, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

278. I’m so glad she knows you are horrified too… at least she can find some comfort it that.

     Comment by April — February 21, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

279. So I hardly ever post either, but I wanted to respond to Rosebud. I was also unaware of this book, but I totally see how much of the culture I grew up in (basically, American small town, and not LDS) reinforces a lot of the notions people have mentioned. My boyfriend gets super annoyed with me not being assertive and putting my own feelings aside/not telling him if something he does annoys or hurts me, just as Rosebud said her husband does, and it’s so hard to get out of that mindset. FW sounds like it takes it to an extreme, but I think some of the “put your self, feelings, and needs aside” in favor of your boyfriend or husbands needs has been drummed into most women growing up in this culture…

     Comment by epi — February 21, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

280. where is part 2? give me part 2, i want it!

     Comment by emma — March 4, 2010 @ 7:15 am

281. A friend gave me this book. I am big into Bible study (KJV) This book, although it uses many scriptures is not biblical. It has some good points that I got from the Bible 27 years ago when I got married about treating your husband with respect but this book is very deceptive and legalistic and I can’t see how women would want to fit into a mold that is not real. My Husband has great love and respect for me because of my mind and because he knows that I can take care of myself. On the other hand I appreciate him genuinly for his love for truth, his support, and his desire for the Lord. I have been married a long time and I have everything the book offers and so much more already!

     Comment by notamormon — May 16, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

• Information
  • Introduction & Contact Info
  • Comment Policy
  • Newbie? Introduce Yourself
  • fMh bloggers
  • Submit a Guest Post
  • Need Advice? "Ask fMh"
  • T-shirts Cafepress or Zazzle
  • fMh Facebook group            
  • Help us pay our server fees:
  
• Search
  • 
    

• Recent Comments (IE click link twice)
  • sare: Gone With Grace
  • jenica: Archive Sunday - I'm
  • michelle: my husswiffy work, am
  • Alliegator: Gone With Grace
  • mindy: Gone With Grace
  • JC: my husswiffy work, am
  • wistfulblue: Gone With Grace
  • fMhLisa: Gone With Grace
  • HeidiAnn: Gone With Grace
  • RoseM: Gone With Grace
  • Crystal: Gone With Grace
  • Mary B: my husswiffy work, am
  • Emily U: my husswiffy work, am
  • Mary B: Gone With Grace
  • Hillary: Gone With Grace
  • Jenne: Gone With Grace
  • Sunshine: my husswiffy work, am
  • Amy: my husswiffy work, am
  • Gretchen: Dear fMh: Missions, Sexism,
  • ErinAnn: Gone With Grace
• Do Good
  • Join fMh's Kiva microloan team
  • Join Team fMh at Kiva
• Sideblog
  • - Why We Don’t Need More Women In Tech… Yet
  • - Too Few Women in Tech? Stop Telling People How They Should Feel About It.
  • - BeliefNet: Mormon women talk about priesthood, temples, jobs & kids
  • - NYT: Delusions of Gender
  • - National Go Topless Day (For Gender Equality)
  • - What My Mother Taught Me (Vada’s Reflections on Pres. Benson’s Talk)
  • - Celebrating women’s suffrage
  • - SLC Trib: Exponent II restarts the presses
  • - SLC Trib: Mormon Feminism, It’s Back
  • - Patheos: Future of Mormonism
  
  
  • more » | feed »
• Facebook Blog Network
  Blog Networks

  Blog:

  feminist Mormon housewives

  Topics:

  feminism, Mormon, LDS

  Join my network
• FMH Book Group
  "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -----Sep 1st-----
  
• Special Guest Discussion
  
  • Women & Authority:
  • Re-emerging Mormon Feminism
  • Discussion Lead By: Lula and Stephanieeeeeee
  • Now Reading:
  • Chapter Three
  • Discussion Date: Wednesday (usually)
  • Discussion Archives:
  • Introductory Material (2006)
  • Introductory Material (2010)
  • Ch. 1 (2006)
  • Ch. 1 (2010)
  • Ch. 2 (2006)
  • Ch. 2 (2010)
  • Ch. 3 (2006)
  • Ch. 3 (2010)
  • Ch. 4 (2006)
  • UP NEXT Ch. 4 (2010)
  • Ch. 5 (2006)
  • Ch. 6 (2006)
• Feminist Mormon Blogs

  A Liberal Mormon
  Beginnings New progressive site for YW leaders!
  By Common Consent
  Dave's Mormon Inquiry
  Doctors & Covenants
  Erin's LDS Women's History Blog
  Exponent II blog Am I not a woman and a sister?
  Hieing to Kolob
  Letters from a Broad
  Mama Nirvana
  Mind on Fire
  On Our Own
  PilgrimGirl
  Sunstone Blog
  The Faithful Dissident
  Zelophehad's Daughters
  




• Blogs by Mormon Women

  • Groups
  Mormon Mommy Wars
  Segullah Blog
  
  • Individuals
  Almost, But Not Entirely
  But I digress . . .
  Cchrissy's Tender Cargo Blog
  Dandelion Mama
  Enduring to the End
  Excelling at Mediocrity
  Gay Blanchard
  good times, noodle salad
  How I deal Faithful Gay Woman's Blog
  I hope you dance
  Keepapitchinin
  law blawg of theres petrey
  Lollygaggering
  Miss Jill in NYC
  Mom on a Wire
  Mrs. Everything
  Navel Gazing at it's Finest
  Neddy Palaver
  Posts of My House
  Reese Dixon
  Selo's Mini
  Tater Tot Casserole
  Tickle the Pear
  Watch out For Mama
  

• Official LDS sites
  LDS.org
  Mormon.org
  
• Random Links
  • (Because we're nice like that.)
  11 D
  Advice for New Feminists
  Black LDS.org
  Danithew
  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  EMSA
  Ethesis
  FHA site (Geoff's)
  Gospel Cougar
  Holla Back NYC
  Invisible Green Photography
  Kulturblog
  Latter-day Main Street
  Liberal Oasis
  Life On Gold Plates
  Morman Mentality
  Mormon Chic
  Mormon Matters
  Mormon Stories
  Mormon Women's Forum
  Mormons for the Environment
  New Cool Thang
  Our Thoughts
  Segullah
  Sunstone Magazine
  Tender Cargo Baby Store
  The Good Democrat
  The Red Brick Store
  Times & Seasons
  
• 
> > Archives
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004

• September 2010

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Aug
  		1	2	3	4	5
  6	7	8	9	10	11	12
  13	14	15	16	17	18	19
  20	21	22	23	24	25	26
  27	28	29	30

• Categories
  • Abortion/Contraception
  • Abuse
  • Best Posts
  • Body
  • Book Club
  • Career
  • Conversion
  • Day in the Life
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Faith
  • Father in Heaven
  • Feminism
  • Food
  • Jesus Christ
  • Just Life
  • Humor
  • Marriage
  • Mormon Culture
  • Mormon History
  • Mother in Heaven
  • Motherhood
  • Parenting
  • Patriarcy
  • Politics
  • Polygamy
  • Pop Culture
  • Prayer
  • Priesthood
  • Reconciling Questions
  • Sexuality
  • Social Issues
  • Spirituality
  • Temple
  • Womens History
  • Young Women
• Meta:
  • RSS 2.0
  • Comments RSS 2.0
  • WordPress
  • JS Quicktags
  • 
  • 

•