I am SO happy to see I am not the ONLY woman who has guiltily read (thank God for EBAY!) and ordered these books on marriage.

I felt The Total Woman to be largely a ball of fluff. If you are interested enough in what your man thinks (or on this site, as we all are, from time to time) about the relationship's happiness to even read this book, you are probably more progressed than its advice can help you. It's basic, show-interest type advice. Well, DUH.

I too didn't like its obvious "we are all staying at home and have time to do this sort of thing" tone it took but I have to cut some slack because it was written in the 70's. Fascinating Womanhood, which I also own BTW, has much more detailed advice....about as useless too. The Surrendered Wife was the best reading, but even in that book there are parts that just DO NOT APPLY in many marriages, mine included. Hubby WANTS me to work and prefers I run the money, I have an investment banking background and advanced post grad work! It would be financial and social suicide if I quit working in light of how far along I can bring our family (we have kids too). I ran some of the ideas by him and he nearly fell over with disbelief!

Eh, it may have worked in 1970 to stay home, but men these days, dominant ones included, want a woman who can help pull her weight around the marketplace as well as the house. BTW, I do not do more than half the housework nor am I expected too. My husband and I both agree that when one person can make a lot more than the other by training, etc, it is stupid to relegate the other into the housekeeping role by gender. And yes, we manage to have a HOH relationship where the roles are clearly defined.

Maybe in a perfect world if he were a dentist (like Mrs. Andelin's husband is!) I could stay home but if you are married to a working man in a two-income high tax county like ours in the big city, you better adjust your expectations accordingly if you want to stay married at all...

Statistics show there are like 105 to 110 available women to 100 available men and it sharply drops down worse for women after age 30. So ladies, you can be replaced! I wouldn't use most of the advice I read honestly to keep a husband in the under 40 crowd. Men don't like dead weight. I would like to see an updated book addressing balancing the new financial realities vs. our supposedly outdated value systems...THAT would be helpful!

This is exactly what women were told to do in the past, Louise. Make yourself over to be what you think he will like. It's transparent and silly and it does make it seem as if men want nothing but a decorative parrot to repeat their own words and interests back at them.

It wouldn't hurt you women to take an interest in a Man's interests. If you ask me, your all a bunch of man-hating feminists that wouldn't know how to look after a Man if youre life depended on it.

Thank you for your refreshingly different point of view...

Nonsensical though it is.

There's nothing wrong with taking seriously a man's interests and trying to find out a bit about them, but sometimes they just aren't compatible with ours. And a man with a brain will know when her eyes are glazing over as he waxes eloquent about something in which she has no interest. The solution of course is to talk about things you are both interested in.

But in books like this, women are being told that if the man likes football, she's supposed to turn herself into an authority on football. If he's into motorcycles she should learn to fix them. Etc. This is ridiculous, as if women had no prior lives, thoughts, interests or hobbies before the sacred Person with a Penis came along to fill their minds. And yet, the advice used to be pushed at us, at teenage girls especially.

Yes, it was, Louise, maybe not as much in the UK, I can't say as to that. But here is a clear example: Seventeen used to run a little photo feature on some hot "hunk of the month." Included in the facts about him (height, weight, city of residence, occupation or school, hobbies) was "what kind of girl interests me." The subtle message was, if you want this guy to like you, go out and study up how to become the type he says he likes. If he's scholarly, wear granny glasses and carry a book. If he's a hippie, bell bottom pants and love beads are required. And so on.

I think rather than follow Marabel Morgan's smarmy and outdated advice, if two people want to keep things interesting and have lots to talk about, join an organization together and work together on a project that serves humanity. Surprise, you'll both know exactly what the other is talking about and you'll never run out of material. Plus, the world benefits!

I thought the most hostile thing in this discussion was the assertion than housewives are dead weight and we won't be able to keep our husbands.

I have not read either of the books mentioned, The Surrendered Wife or The Total Woman, by Marabel Morgan. I did read a large part of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, by Laura Schlessinger, standing in a book store while my wife was shopping elsewhere. (The fact that she was shopping may explain why I was able to read more than half the book, but that is another matter lol) As a man and a husband I certainly would not want my wife to make herself into something that she wasn't in order to gain my approval. There is a lot to say for genuine expressions of love. These books may be well intended, but as already said by the respondents, their husbands do not want them to be something they are not or to do things for them because some book tells them they should.

Still, all of this well intended advice does point to something that must resonate with both women and men. Why else would anyone take the time to read such books? The boss wrote:

I am all for women cherishing and focusing on their men

Having said this, I am curious to know in a practical way what that really means. How does a woman cherish her man? Although The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, by Laura Schlessinger, lacks real depth, it does make a valid point. I know of many men who would love it if their wives would on a regular basis treat them to a home cooked meal, a back massage, or a great night of sex. They don't feel cherished. Dr. Laura's simple (simplistic?) thesis is that if wives did these kind of things more often their hubands would be more attentive to her needs and desires which would make for a happier marriage.

It's so much easier to just generalize about a subject like marriage and put everything in a pretty, new, shiny labeled container. This is not, however, how this should work. As a young working woman who likes her work AND likes to cook homecooked meals whose husband loves her and WANTS HER TO WORK, I find the concept of books like this ridiculous. If somebody doesn't have the common sense to know that listening to her husband is important, they're just idiots. ("Know" doesn't always translate into "do" of course, which can result in marriage problems.) But generalizing that the key to a happy marriage is following some sort of rules outside of the common sense respect and affection you should show your partner, as determined by paying attention to individual preferences for touch, etc. Not ALL men want SAHM/SAHW who devote their existence to domestic responsibilities and spending time making themselves a clone of them, only with lipstick, a fit feminine physique and that just right "adventurous" evening-greeting-lingerie-outfit. Every marriage situation is different and must be treated like this.

These women are being surprisingly tolerant of some horrid sexist books! The reason I cannot read _The Total Woman_ for more than a paragraph or so is that it is not a harmless book. Women to this day are told they have to be attractive to be valuable, that their sex appeal and youth define them. Women are pitted against each other to find a man in order to survive, if not monetarily, at least socially. The reason I find _Total Woman_ so troubling is that even men such as my husband find her message wonderful and wish I would comply!

Whatever happened to Marabel Morgan? Did her husband swap her in for a woman who looked better in a negligee?

My advice: Marry a liberal man who will view you as an equal. He may cheat on you, but at least you can have a reasonable conversation, and work out differences with the assumption that you both have a brain.

A Taken In Hand reader said:

My advice: Marry a liberal man who will view you as an equal. He may cheat on you, but at least you can have a reasonable conversation, and work out differences with the assumption that you both have a brain.

I'd rather be single than do the above. There is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL I find sexually or romantically appealing about a politically liberal, "egalitarian" man. NOTHING.

I totally agree that to suggest that women act stupid is highly offensive, but personally I am, without trying, technically incompetent, and my husband would never trust me to do anything of a practical fixing-it nature around the house (I can just about manage to unscrew the battery compartments in my sons' toys, that's about as far as it goes for me). I'm not sure whether he considers me stupid or not, I've never been entirely certain. I sometimes wonder if he would prefer someone more capable and efficient than I am, but as he still frequently remarks how lucky he is to have got me to marry him, I suppose whatever other qualities I have that he likes make up for my lack of efficiency on the home front.

I have always admired the way my husband can fix absolutley anything, and build absolutely anything. since we recently moved house, for instance, he has been kept busy building shelves to accomodate my vast collection of books, and large numbers of useless objects that I have accumulated over the years. I rate this more highly than saying 'I love you', but actually my husband has always said that quite a lot. I've never said it as often as he does, but these days I make more of an effort to say it, and to be more openly demonstrative. It is still something of an effort, since expressing affection is not something I do easily except to the children, but it comes more easily with practice.

I read Total Woman back in the early to mid 70s when it first came out. In my opinion, it was Total Tripe then and it's Total Tripe now.

That said, I think the book is more about fear than anything. That was a time of free love and old school women seemed to be searching for a way to keep their husbands from straying, cheating, and ultimately abandoning them.

Women often don't get equal pay in this day and age, but in the 1970s, the battle for equal pay was still in it's infancy. Single women who worked could hardly make ends meet. Divorced woman (Heaven forefend!) with children were not only regarded suspiciously and often with hostility by other women (boldly by men), but had to completely change their lifestyles. Often, they'd go from having a nice house of their own to a cheap apartment. In those days, women whose husbands were mid-life crisis age often didn't work or know how to drive a car. So they were especially vulnerable.

Anyone who's been acquainted with or involved with a man who decides he wants to stray should know that his wife can never do anything to dissuade him. He will find fault with everything she does until he finds the justification he needs to leave her or at least stray. And it doesn't matter how perfect she is. That kind of man is impossible to please. The harder she tries to please him, the more contempt he'll feel for her.

The need to be 'taken in hand' or controlled or dominated or put in a place is a puzzling concept. A woman's place is where SHE chooses it to be. Not where an authoritarian man thinks it should be.

If her choice is on her knees at his feet or at the receiving end of a cat-o-nine tails, so be it. As long as it's HER CHOICE

I disagree with you about 'showing interest'. Showing interest is not rocket science (knowing all the hard and intricate details) or loving everybody's hobby, it is a positive attitude that says 'I will like to know what makes this important to you'. Remember, body language is always loud and clear. When you have the right attitude, you become teachable. You can learn a lot and start enjoying some 'dumb' things

You're right Louise, men are not fooled for a second and we would be fools to behave as if they were. My hubby loves a programme called "This Old House with Steve and Norm", which is strictly for DIY enthusiasts. I look on with amazement/bewilderment that anyone could be so enticed with the pleasures of carpetry tools and we turn our differences into a shared joke.

He took me to watch "Chicago" for my amusement only, stating that an evening of "song, dance and jazz hands guff" was not his cup of tea. Indeed, 15 minutes after the "All that Jazz" number and I received a dig in the ribs saying "This is crap!" quite matter-of-factly but with the true genius of sarcasm.

As for fishing, I'd be the one more inclined to get up at 4am, because without working and childcare guidelines, we'd live at opposite ends of the day, and meet up somewhere in the middle. No way could the uninterested party feign fascination with conviction, as you shrewdly point out.

I have just read this thread and am quite humored by all of Louise's comments and find it sad that some women just seem to not realize their own worth.

Really, to suggest that a woman go out of her way to reduce herself to a servant for a man with a wandering eye is just (for me anyway) total bunk! And yes, I do think that the harder a woman tries to please a man who is prone to cheating is just breeding contempt towards her own self.

If a man has it in him to cheat then nothing that a woman sacrifices is going to stop him! But what is very interesting is that if she knows her worth and decides that he is below her standards and sets forth to seek out a man more worthy of her, that this is more apt to keep a cheater on his toes than becoming some imbecile stumbling all over herself to please him. I actually had an experience with a fiance who decided that he wanted to be with another woman who waited on him hand and foot because he liked how it felt. I responded by packing his bags and replacing him with someone who was more caring of my needs and wants and not so focused on himself. When I started dating someone else he showed up at my home in a jealous rage and I had to call the police. He tried for two years to get me back--to no avail!

And what of a man in love cooking dinner for his woman? Or cleaning the house as a surprise for her? Or running a bubble bath and bathing her? Or whatever may make her feel loved and cherished. Do some women really not get that they also are deserving of being loved like this too? Some of the most romantic, cherished, tender moments for me are not only when I am doing for my husband but also when I am on the recieving end of him taking care of me.

I understand why an intelligent woman with a lot of interests of her own doesn't want to spend too much time and effort on learning something she doesn't find particularly interesting, or on ironing socks for that matter.

What I meant was not that it is never a good idea to become interested in one's husband's interests, but that feigning an interest – and spending a lot of time doing what it takes to feign that interest – is unlikely to be good either for the woman or for her husband. It might be that she naturally becomes interested in something that her husband is passionate about. It might also be that in supporting him in his interests, something that once was uninteresting to her becomes interesting. But to spend hours memorising the names of the rugby players and teams when that is of no interest whatsoever to you, I think, may not be the best use of your time. Especially if you have many, many socks to iron. ;-)

But I definitely don't understand your attitude towards male control (or power, or authority, or whatever you prefer to call it). It looks so contradictory, at least from my point of view.

I am slightly mystified by this comment. What attitude are you referring to? And what did I say that gave you this impression?

On the one hand you write that you want to be controlled.

True.

On the other hand you write that you want to live your own life, to pursue your own interests, to do what you want to do.

Where did I say that? What exactly did I say? I have re-read my article and can't see quite where you got this idea.

My point was not that I want to do those things; the point I was attempting to make (evidently not very well!) was that it is a mistake – not necessarily good either for you or for your man – to drop everything in your life except your man and his interests. It is a mistake in part because he himself might not appreciate it – after all, he married you because you were interesting to him as you were, not with the hope that you might change into someone whose whole life revolves around him. It is also a mistake because it is risky psychologically. It might not be healthy for you.

My point was not that if you are the kind of person who never had any interests or life in the first place, you should force yourself to get a life and get some interests even if it kills you, and even if you are happy as you are, and your husband is happy with you exactly as you are. I am not saying that. Indeed, the most beautiful relationship I have ever seen is that of my grandparents, and my grandmother's life revolved around her husband and family, and she was the happiest person I have ever known. (OTOH, she did not do what Marabel Morgan suggested and try to learn things that my grandfather was interested in: he was an extremely bright intellectual; she wasn't.)

That is, you want to be free. How is it possible to be controlled and to be free at the same time?

Actually I wouldn't say I want to be free; if anything, I'd say I want to be unfree – at least, that is a feeling I enjoy. If I were living in a place where women had no freedom I would hate it and would try to escape. Nevertheless, in some sense I want to be unfree, to have no choice. So... again, I am not sure what makes you think I want something different.

How can you or your man (or anyone else for that matter) know that he controls you unless he hurts you, frustrates your intentions and desires, makes you do what you don't want to do or feel what you don't want to feel? Did I miss something?

Goodness! Yes you did miss something. No, it does not have to mean that he hurts you. See Does it have to hurt to be Taken In Hand? And since it is your intention and desire to be taken in hand, in what sense is the husband frustrating your intentions and desires. He is, on the contrary, giving you exactly what you want. If the woman does not want to be in a Taken In Hand relationship, it is not a Taken In Hand relationship but abuse. If you want to be controlled, taken in hand, unfree, etc., then the husband who does all that for you is not in any way doing the same to you as an abusive man is doing to his wife when he controls her, beats her, and so on. If you want it, your husband is not in fact taking away your freedom.

The book under discussion is not about any of this. It is telling women what they should do for their husbands and marriages. It is nothing to do with husbands being in control or taking their spouse in hand. My comments about the book were merely to question some (though by no means all) of its advice. The advice, as I said, fails to take into account the fact that men are individuals with individual preferences. If you do everything the writer advises with the wrong man, the results could be a disaster. While some couples may love things exactly the way the author advocates, many others (including the husbands) would hate what she suggests. My comments were not about my own preferences (well, unless you count the bit about ironing socks).

This is very interesting line of thought. I was given that book "Total Woman" by a foster mother who thought it could teach me how to catch a man. She told me that any woman could make any man happy as long as she followed that formula.

What did I know I was maybe 13 or 14, so I read the book and thought I would have a happy life find a man get married have babies and live the "perfect" life.

4 Divorces later the reality of the brainwashing wears off and I realize that I:

1. Don't have to settle for any man
2. Don't have to try to make him happy
3. Some men don't want to be happy they just want you to be unhappy.

So teach your daughters common sense and pray for a better batch of self help books!

> if anything, I'd say I want to be unfree – at least,
> that is a feeling I enjoy

Ok, the boss, let me try again.

You seem to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable about many things, from psychology to the details of Internet protocols and services. Probably, to achieve this one needs a lot of time to read and to think, a lot of freedom to put one's efforts into something one likes and to associate with people one is interested in. I find it hard to imagine how you can have this freedom, how you can have that amount of time and energy for your own pursuits if your life is controlled by someone else. Are not you afraid that being controlled would interfere with your personal growth? Do you enjoy just the FEELING of being controlled from time to time, while in reality you are rather independent person? Did I miss something?