Category: Marriage

The Surrendered Wife Phenomena

Everywhere I turn I seem to run into another profile or interview with Laura Doyle, the author of The Surrendered Wife. I haven’t read the book, but Doyle is kind enough to post the first chapter on her web site.

After describing the problems she initially confronted in her marriage, Doyle writes what she learned from talking to other women about her marital difficulties.

One friend told me she let her husband handle all of the finances, and what a relief that was for her. Another one told me she tried never to criticize her husband, no matter how much he seemed to deserve it. I decided I would experiment with doing things differently in my marriage and hoped that it wasn’t too late for us. I desperately wanted to save the relationship, and I also hoped to save my self-respect, which was fading with each episode of anger and frustration I unleashed on John.

Fortunately, the steps of surrendering helped me with both marital tranquility and self-respect. Today I call myself a surrendered wife because that’s what’s helped me have the marriage I’ve always dreamed of. The same thing will happen to you if you follow the principles in this book.

And what does a surrendered wife do? Let her husband be in charge. More precisely she seems to be advocating that women should aim for an almost child-like trust in their husbands. How does this manifest itself in every day life?

For instance, I thought I was merely making helpful suggestions when I told my husband that he should ask for a raise. When I urgently exclaimed that we should have turned right instead of left while riding in a friend’s car who knew perfectly well how to get to our destination, I reasoned that I was trying to save time and avoid traffic. When I tried to convince my brother that he really should get some therapy, I justified butting into his life as wanting “to be there for him.”

All of these justifications were merely elaborate covers for my inability to trust others. If I had trusted that my husband was earning as much money as he could, I wouldn’t have emasculated him by implying that I found him lacking ambition. If I had trusted my friend to get us to our destination in a reasonable time, I wouldn’t have barked out orders about where to turn, leaving a cold frost on the inside of the car. If I had trusted my brother to make his own way in the world, he would’ve felt more inclined to continue to share the emotional milestones of his life with me.

…

Today I try to relinquish control as much as I can and allow myself to be vulnerable. Unfortunately, I still don’t do this perfectly, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Just making intimacy my priority rather than control by practicing the principles described in this book, has transformed my marriage into a passionate, romantic union.

To be fair to Doyle, she is explicit that women should immediately leave or seek help if they are involved in relationships with men who are abusive, unfaithful, have substance abuse problems, etc. At the same time I can’t help but think that her advice is horrible regardless of whether her advice is taken by men or women.

Her financial advice is extremely wrongheaded. Somebody who feels emasculated and unable to participate in a relationship because his partner suggest he might want to ask for a raise or consider the possibility that his wife might be better at managing the finances sounds like a real control freak (one of Doyle’s core ideas is that men should always handle the finances and that they don’t feel in control if they don’t).

The same thing goes for the bizarre example of Doyle attempting to correct her friend, who while driving made a right turn when he should have made a left. According to a Time magazine profile, in her book Doyle recommends never telling a husband, for example, that he just missed the correct exit even “if he keeps going in the wrong direction … past the state line.” That’s just bizarre.

What strikes me most about Doyle’s advice is that she seems to think that in order to have a healthy, productive relationship a man must be convinced that a woman blindly worships him and always thinks he’s right. Forcing that sort of relationship strikes me as not only demeaning to both parties, but also psychologically unhealthy. People need others to act as a sort of “reality check” and saying that a wife should simply act as a mirror for her husband’s views misses the point of why people enter relationships. Certainly people try to avoid relationships with nagging, disagreeable people, but the alternative of marrying a sycophant seems unappealing as well.

The thing that really amazes me is that such simplistic pop advice is so popular. The Surrendered wife has been selling like crazy, cracking the Top 10 best sellers on Amazon.Com and Simon and Schuster upped the print run of her book to 100,000 which is an extremely high figure for a non-fiction book. That’s a little scary.

Sources:

Wives surrender all to cult of obedience. John Harlow, The Sunday Times (UK), January 7, 2001.

I Surrender, Dear. Tamala M. Edwards, Time Magazine, January 22, 2001.

Taking No-Fault Divorce a Bit Too Far

In November 1995, David and Christine Alexander decided to get a divorce and David helped Christine move her things out of the couple’s home in Canada. In the middle of the moving process, Christine Alexander pulled out a handgun and shot her husband point blank in the face once and then repeatedly bashed him on the head. David Alexander survived.

Christine says she’s not sure why she tried to kill her husband, but it definitely wasn’t for self-defense. She was convicted of attempted murder in 1997 and paroled in 1999. Since her husband was fortunate enough to survive, she is now suing him in divorce court to obtain part ownership of the former couple’s house as well as temporary financial support.

And she’ll probably get it. Canada has a strict “no fault” divorce law that precludes any testimony about a married couple’s prior behavior, possibly including details about a murder attempt. According to family lawyer Philip Epstein, “Her conduct isn’t admissible under the Divorce Act. Technically speaking, the fact that she shot him in the face doesn’t bar her from a support case.”

If she wins such support, it would likely be the first time in Canadian history that a victim of a murder attempt was forced to compensate his attacker. That’s taking the principle behind no fault divorce a bit too far.

Source:

Victim is sued for support. Martin Patriquin, The Toronto Star, January 23, 2001.

Covenant Marriage and Pre-nuptial Agreements

Instead of scattered covenant marriages in a handful of states, why not allow people to enter into legally binding pre-nuptial agreements.

A few years ago the idea of covenant marriage was all the rage, but some people are finding out the idea might not have been the panacea they hoped for.

In a covenant marriage there are strict, legally enforceable limits on the circumstances under which either partner can obtain a divorce. Convenant marriages are currently available only in a handful of states.

In Louisiana, for example, a covenant marriage can be dissolved only if a spouse is convicted of a felony or sentenced to prison or death; if a spouse is physically or sexually abusive; or if a spouse is habitually intemperate. That’s it. Couples wanting to get married under the covenant law are required to undergo pre-marriage counseling and go through a long counseling session before divorce even if one of the above conditions applies.

The idea was that making it more difficult for couples to divorce each other would ensure that people would be more likely to work hard to preserve a faltering marriage. An alternative view might be that a marriage so troubled that it requires such strong legal intervention might not be the most desirable marriage to begin with.

So far, though, no covenant marriage in Louisiana has ended in divorce, although there are some pending.

A University of Virginia study of 700 couples entering into covenant marriages found that for the most part it is the woman who tends to be the dominant partner, while in traditional marriages the man is the dominant partner. This fits nicely with speculation by those who pushed covenant marriage that women would use it to gain the protections that marriage had traditionally afforded prior to the rise of no fault divorce.

The biggest problem with covenant marriage, however, is that it only offers one option. Either couples enter a standard no fault marriage, or they enter an extremely Draconian covenant marriage. A better solution would be to allow couples to craft whatever agreement they want prior to marriage and give that the force of law.

Thanks to the Michael Douglas/Catherine Zeta-Jones marriage, pre-nuptial agreements are back in the news. The rumored pre-nuptial agreement between Douglas and Zeta-Jones is an excellent example of using contract law to solve difficult problems.

Douglas, who is much wealthier than his new wife, didn’t want to lose a good deal of his wealth in a divorce settlement if their marriage turned out to be a short one. Zeta-Jones, on the other hand, was apparently concerned about Douglas’ notorious womanizing and concerned about their daughter. According to rumors, the solution the couple arrived at was a clause in the pre-nuptial agreement giving her a small one time payment (well, small by Hollywood standards) in the event of a divorce. If, however, Zeta-Jones can prove that Douglas cheated, then the whole of his assets are exposed to a traditional divorce settlement.

Whereas the options of a standard or covenant marriage wouldn’t have satisfied either party’s concern, by explicitly contracting the terms of their marriage complete with penalties for early withdrawal, they’ve crafted a mutually agreeable way of addressing their respective concerns.

Unfortunately pre-nuptial agreements still tend to exist in a quasi-legal area in the United States, where it’s not always certain that such an agreement will be upheld by a court.

Australia recently amended its laws to explicitly give pre-nuptial agreements the force of law provided that some minimal requirements are met. Specifically, each party must obtain independent legal advice on the agreement before signing. As long as they meet the requirements, if the couple gets divorced they bypass traditional Family Court and instead the property settlement agreed to in the pre-nuptial agreement is enforced.

The United States would do well to follow suit and make it clear that pre-nuptial agreements can be enforced in this country provided they meet some minimal standards.

Sources:

No-cheating clauses in pre-nuptials. Bruce Butler, The Sunday Times (Australia), December 31, 2000.

‘God hates divorce’. Siobhan Roberts, National post, December 30, 2000.

Did Harvard Reject Book Because of Its Pro-Marriage Viewpoint?

Stanley Kurtz wrote an interesting summary of the controversy surrounding Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher’s book, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. The book was originally scheduled to be published by Harvard University Press, but at the very last moment Harvard dumped the book and it went on to be published by Doubleday.

What gives? The book passed vetting by Harvard’s normal review process but got killed by the press’ Board of Synics which claimed Waite and Gallagher hadn’t adequately backed up their claims with enough evidence.

I haven’t read The Case for Marriage, but according to Kurtz the evidentiary problems are the sorts that are endemic to any book in the social sciences in that it establishes a lot of interesting correlations that don’t necessarily establish causation. For example, statistical studies and polls demonstrate two conclusions about married people: they tend to have higher incomes and they report having better sex lives than single people.

This certainly debunks claims to the contrary by feminists that marriage harms income and/or isn’t very sexy, but does it prove that marriage causes better sex and higher incomes? Of course not — it could simply be that people with higher potential incomes who are better lovers are more likely to get married. But that sort of objection is inherent with any study of social trends.

What irks Kurtz, however, is that at the same time Harvard rejected The Case for Marriage for its supposed lack of evidence and too strong of tone, it has had no problem publishing four books by Catharine MacKinnon which make grotesque claims that MacKinnon never even tries to back up with evidence.

In fact MacKinnon pretty much concedes that there is no evidence for her claim that pornography causes violence against women and retreated in one of her books to the ridiculous position that “there is no evidence that pornography does not harm,” which is about a vacuous claim as anyone could hope to write (in fact, as Kurtz notes, MacKinnon actually argues that even controlled social experiments to find the effects of pornography are useless since most men are prone to rape and there is no way to get a control group).

Similarly, Kurtz notes that Harvard press’s Board of Synics was apparently offended by the pro-marriage sentiments of Waite and Gallagher, but had no problem publishing a book by MacKinnon in which she wrote that, “What in the liberal view looks like love and romance looks a lot like hatred and torture to the feminist” among other things.

In fact in the Harvard-published Only Words, MacKinnon actually agreed with the legal theory put forth by a serial rapist that he should be set free since he had no free will to choose to rape or not — pornography programmed him to rape and he had no choice in the matter. Given the heightened awareness at most college campuses about rape issues, it is stunning that Harvard Press found MacKinnon’s legalistic defense of rapists uncontroversial while Waite and Gallagher’s defense of monogamous marriage is simply too much for it to stomach.

Source:

What Harvard Finds Unfit to Print. Stanley Kurtz, The Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2000.

Marriage Isn’t A Recent Invention

Laurie Essig is a lesbian with a message — marriage, whether
between gay or heterosexual couples, is wrong. And Essig isn’t about to let
tiny details like historical facts get in the way (Same-sex marriage).

Essig’s argument against marriage is the typical radical feminist
view that was borrowed from Marxism — marriage is an inherently
oppressive social institution. “Although we like to pretend that marriage is
natural and universal,” Essig writes, “it is an institution founded in
historical, material and cultural conditions that ensured women’s
oppression…”

The logical fallacy here is jumping to the conclusion that any
social institution created by an oppressive culture must itself, by
definition, be oppressive. Taking this argument at its face value is what
leads some radical feminists to condemn things like science as inherently
oppressive to women.

But Essig really drops the ball when she bizarrely claims that
“Monogamous, heterosexual marriages were an invention of the Industrial
Revolution’s emerging middle-class.” This claim is so absurdly wrong that
it’s unbelievable the Salon editor’s let it pass.

Monogamous, heterosexual marriage didn’t exist until the Industrial
Revolution? That assertion would have come as a shock to the Romans,
the Hebrews, the Greeks and a whole host of other societies that
practiced monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Has Essig really never noticed the
numerous proscriptions against adultery in the Old Testament? Or read
any of the tedious Church writings on marriage in medieval Europe?

Even in cultures where monogamous marriage was not the rule, some
form of marriage institution is pretty much universal (anyone who
disagree is more than welcome to name a single culture that had absolutely no
marriage-like institution).

In fact, although clearly most Westerners today might not want some
of the sexist excesses of medieval or even Victorian marriage, marriage
survives as an institution precisely because it appeals to something
very deep in the human psyche. Essig finds this impulse to marriage
appalling.

What annoys me is that no one, not even queers, can imagine anything
other than marriage as a model for organizing our desires.

Essig does have a point that the state shouldn’t favor (nor
penalize) marriage over other forms of personal relationships. Someone who
wants to remain single shouldn’t be penalized for that decision (although
today it is married couples, not single individuals, who are penalized
by the tax code).

Other than that, though, Essig’s attack on marriage as a social
institution is historically inaccurate and absurd.

‘Alienation of Affection’ Lawsuits A Backward Relic

ABC News’ 20/20 show recently reported (Thief of Hearts) on a phenomenon that should have died at the end of the 19th century — the alienation of affection lawsuit. Alienation of affection is a common law legal remnant of a period when women were considered little more than property of their husbands. Since a wife was property, stealing a wife was theft, and hence alienation of affection allowed aggrieved men to sue a man who lured his wife into leaving him, thereby depriving him of his rightful property.

A lot has thankfully changed in the past 200 years, but unbelievably alienation of affection remains in the law codes of 9 states — and people are suing each other using it.

In the case 20/20 reported on, a man left his wife after 9 years of marriage after a woman he met at a business convention pursued him by writing him letters. The aggrieved ex-wife, Candie Vessel, sued her husband’s new flame, Cathy Nolen and won a half million dollar legal judgment from a Utah jury. In an infamous 1997 North Carolina alienation of affection lawsuit, a woman won $1 million from her ex-husband’s lover. And don’t think it’s just women using the law. In 1997 a North Carolina jury awarded Jacques Moryoussef $250,000 after he sued another man for alienation of affection after Moryoussef’s wife left him — part of that included a $50,000 award for acts of adultery committed by the other man with Moryoussef’s wife.

That these sorts of laws are still on the books anywhere in the United States is an outrage. They encapsulate a view of women, men, and marriage that deserved to die. It is ironic that some conservative elements in places like North Carolina and Utah have championed these laws as protecting traditional marriage, when in fact they champion a very bizarre view of self responsibility which holds external forces responsible for the philandering spouse who is, under this sort of law, a victim when he or she abandons his or her mate.

Alienation of affection laws should be repealed in every state where they are still in force.