What do you think?
Rate this book
The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands
The #1 National Bestseller In her most provocative book yet, America's top radio talk show host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, urgently reminds women that to take proper care of their husbands is to ensure themselves the happiness and satisfaction they deserve in marriage. Women want to be in love, get married and live happily ever after, yet countless women call Dr. Laura, unhappy in their marriages and seemingly at a loss to understand the incredible power they have over their men to create the kind of home life they yearn for. In the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands , Dr. Laura provides real-life examples and real-life solutions on how to wield that power to attain all the sexual pleasure, intimacy, love, joy, and peace desired in life. Dr. Laura's simple principles have changed the lives of millions. Now they can change yours.
300 pages, Paperback
First published December 30, 2003
1585 people are currently reading
10755 people want to read
About the author
Laura Schlessinger
64 books253 followersLaura Catherine Schlessinger (born January 16, 1947) is an American talk radio host, socially conservative commentator and author. Her radio program consists mainly of her responses to callers' requests for personal advice and has occasionally featured her short monologues on social and political topics. Her website says that her show "preaches, teaches, and nags about morals, values and ethics".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,225 reviews
March 5, 2011
My ex-husband brought this book home from work, for "no reason". I read it....right before the divorce.
January 22, 2008
After re-reading this a second time, I lowered my rating from three to two stars and edited this review. This book does have some very valuable reminders, but if you want to learn and apply the same useful tidibits without having to endure the verbal beating of women as a group, without being subject to a double standard, and without being left with the impression that the woman is what’s wrong with every marriage conflict that has ever occurred since 1960, then read For Women Only instead.
My mind played a tug-of-war when I read this book. Half of the time I said, “Yes, you need to hear that and you need to do that!” The other half of the time I said, “So, if I become a Stepford Wife who never ‘burdens’ my husband with my needs, is very careful never to criticize him in any way or ask him to do anything around the house, and who is always willing to have sex at absolutely any moment, all my problems will be solved, and if I don’t, I deserve to be cheated on or abandoned”? I think this tug-of-war resulted from a mixture of good points with bad points, from her one-way emphasis (on women’s faults only), and from her failure to acknowledge that at least *sometimes* it’s okay for a wife to be upset about…something….anything…her husband does (or doesn’t do). The book itself was rather disorganized, more specific on WHAT to do than HOW to do it, and consisting primarily of quotes form her talk show discussions coupled with e-mails she received.
Though there is certainly truth in this book, it is harshly communicated and Dr. Laura’s broad brush sometimes ends up obscuring it. Maybe the average reader would be more inclined to see herself in the actions decried and to reform if Dr. Laura did not seem to be saying that the woman is solely to blame any time a man forgets her birthday, refuses to mow the lawn, or has an affair. Perhaps she’s not really claiming men can do no wrong, and it’s simply that the wrong men do doesn’t happen to be the subject of this particular book. Unfortunately, because she never acknowledges at any point that a woman ever has a valid reason to be upset with her husband for anything, she generally leaves the impression that men can do no wrong and that women are to blame for *every* marriage problem. It would also have been less unnerving a book if she had ommitted phrases such as, "Remember, without him you are a sorry excuse for a person."
Dr. Laura (rightly) decries the double standard women often apply in their expectations towards men, but then she institutes a kind of double standard of her own. Allow me to elaborate with examples. If a woman takes a vacation without the kids and husband for some R&R, that’s ridiculous and selfish; but if the husband leaves the kids and wife for a hunting trip, he’s taking a well deserved break and she’s a nag if she complains about it. If a man doesn’t find his wife attractive, he’s probably justified in feeling that way, and she had better lose some weight, shave her legs, put on something sexy, and stop being a frump. If a woman tells her husband she finds his beard unattractive and asks him to shave it, however, she’s being emotionally abusive. Women shouldn’t expect men to guess what they want without a direct statement; but women should be able to realize men are hurt even when those men don’t express their feelings. Women shouldn’t expect their husbands to "show interest, agree, and remain uncritical" when they are talking because that’s expecting them to behave like women; but women should be expected to be ready to have sex at any moment, even though that’s rather expecting them to behave like men. Wives shouldn’t “feel that doing the laundry, cooking dinner, or taking care of the kids” is an “adequate” way of expressing love because “they’re things she’d be doing even if she were not married!” On the other hand, a woman is just plain wrong if she “challenge[s:] a husband when he says that his way of showing love is by going to work and earning money.” Wouldn’t he ALSO be doing those things even if he wasn’t married? Yes, concedes Dr. Laura, he would, but it’s different, don’t you see, because he would not be doing them with “the same commitment, intent, sacrifice, and depth of passion.” (And she would? Even if she were single? She’d be folding his underwear and picking up his socks and cleaning up the hair he left in the sink with the same depth of passion?) It’s okay for a husband who’s in a band to accept a gig on Valentine’s Day without so much as consulting his wife, but it’s dead wrong for a stay-at-home mom to go out to dinner with her mom on an ordinary day of the week instead of being home to serve a hot meal for her husband. It’s selfish and wrong for a woman to work when she doesn’t need the money and could be home with the kids; but if a man *volunteers* to take on *extra* shifts at work for money the family doesn’t actually need, it’s the woman who is being the selfish one if she asks him not to volunteer and to spend more time with the family instead.
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with all of Dr. Laura’s criticisms of women, it’s just that I don’t understand why the same standards don’t apply to men. What’s good for the goose, it seems, is way too much to ask of the gander.
Now, I do give the book an “okay” (two star) rating (rather than a “didn’t like it” one star rating) because as harsh as it is, there are truths in it that people don’t often relate in our post-feminist world. In our world, the pendulum has swung a long way in the other direction, so that now many women fail to offer their husbands the very same respect, sacrifice, lack of criticism, and positive reinforcement they themselves expect as a matter of course. We women have been conditioned to believe that to "stroke an ego" or to "make an effort to get in the mood" is somehow subservient rather than loving. The book is really a wake up call to self-examine and to become fully aware of how you are treating your mate. Even for the good, respectful marriage, having this sort of inner-reflection can make things even better. As defensive as this sometimes made me feel, I find it does stick with me as a necessary (if unpleasant) reminder to check my words and actions. She slaps women upside the head and says, “Look how you’re treating your man. Treat him better.” There aren’t a lot of people telling women that these days.
As an aside, the problem I have with a lot of these books that generalize about male/female differences is that they assume my needs are of a particular nature because I am a woman, when, really, I’d rather like many of these things they say a man needs – ego-stroking, even more compliments about my accomplishments than my body, more personal space, etc. She also generalizes and assumes all men everywhere are doing all of the outdoor and car related chores and women are selfishly overlooking this contribution; it doesn’t seem to occur to her that it’s possible that, even as a woman, I always take my own car in for repairs, that I usually trim the bushes, and that, before I asked my husband to get a lawn service, I frequently mowed the lawn. (She also seems to assume I want a lot of jewelry and that I'd be willing to exchange sex for it.)
Finally, a caveat about Dr. Laura's sex advice: i.e., have it whenever he wants it, whether you initially want to or not. Of course it’s good advice for a woman to be more often willing (and to try to get in the mood more often). However, what she fails to emphasize (and what IS emphasized in the other book I recommended) is that for men, more frequent sex will be unfulfilling if it is not coupled with the sense that they are desired by and really pleasing their wives. At one point, Dr. Laura even equates a woman having sex when she doesn’t want to with a husband going to work even on days he doesn’t want to. Few men want to feel their wives are agreeing to sex in the same spirit with which they agree to slug through a bad day at work.
My mind played a tug-of-war when I read this book. Half of the time I said, “Yes, you need to hear that and you need to do that!” The other half of the time I said, “So, if I become a Stepford Wife who never ‘burdens’ my husband with my needs, is very careful never to criticize him in any way or ask him to do anything around the house, and who is always willing to have sex at absolutely any moment, all my problems will be solved, and if I don’t, I deserve to be cheated on or abandoned”? I think this tug-of-war resulted from a mixture of good points with bad points, from her one-way emphasis (on women’s faults only), and from her failure to acknowledge that at least *sometimes* it’s okay for a wife to be upset about…something….anything…her husband does (or doesn’t do). The book itself was rather disorganized, more specific on WHAT to do than HOW to do it, and consisting primarily of quotes form her talk show discussions coupled with e-mails she received.
Though there is certainly truth in this book, it is harshly communicated and Dr. Laura’s broad brush sometimes ends up obscuring it. Maybe the average reader would be more inclined to see herself in the actions decried and to reform if Dr. Laura did not seem to be saying that the woman is solely to blame any time a man forgets her birthday, refuses to mow the lawn, or has an affair. Perhaps she’s not really claiming men can do no wrong, and it’s simply that the wrong men do doesn’t happen to be the subject of this particular book. Unfortunately, because she never acknowledges at any point that a woman ever has a valid reason to be upset with her husband for anything, she generally leaves the impression that men can do no wrong and that women are to blame for *every* marriage problem. It would also have been less unnerving a book if she had ommitted phrases such as, "Remember, without him you are a sorry excuse for a person."
Dr. Laura (rightly) decries the double standard women often apply in their expectations towards men, but then she institutes a kind of double standard of her own. Allow me to elaborate with examples. If a woman takes a vacation without the kids and husband for some R&R, that’s ridiculous and selfish; but if the husband leaves the kids and wife for a hunting trip, he’s taking a well deserved break and she’s a nag if she complains about it. If a man doesn’t find his wife attractive, he’s probably justified in feeling that way, and she had better lose some weight, shave her legs, put on something sexy, and stop being a frump. If a woman tells her husband she finds his beard unattractive and asks him to shave it, however, she’s being emotionally abusive. Women shouldn’t expect men to guess what they want without a direct statement; but women should be able to realize men are hurt even when those men don’t express their feelings. Women shouldn’t expect their husbands to "show interest, agree, and remain uncritical" when they are talking because that’s expecting them to behave like women; but women should be expected to be ready to have sex at any moment, even though that’s rather expecting them to behave like men. Wives shouldn’t “feel that doing the laundry, cooking dinner, or taking care of the kids” is an “adequate” way of expressing love because “they’re things she’d be doing even if she were not married!” On the other hand, a woman is just plain wrong if she “challenge[s:] a husband when he says that his way of showing love is by going to work and earning money.” Wouldn’t he ALSO be doing those things even if he wasn’t married? Yes, concedes Dr. Laura, he would, but it’s different, don’t you see, because he would not be doing them with “the same commitment, intent, sacrifice, and depth of passion.” (And she would? Even if she were single? She’d be folding his underwear and picking up his socks and cleaning up the hair he left in the sink with the same depth of passion?) It’s okay for a husband who’s in a band to accept a gig on Valentine’s Day without so much as consulting his wife, but it’s dead wrong for a stay-at-home mom to go out to dinner with her mom on an ordinary day of the week instead of being home to serve a hot meal for her husband. It’s selfish and wrong for a woman to work when she doesn’t need the money and could be home with the kids; but if a man *volunteers* to take on *extra* shifts at work for money the family doesn’t actually need, it’s the woman who is being the selfish one if she asks him not to volunteer and to spend more time with the family instead.
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with all of Dr. Laura’s criticisms of women, it’s just that I don’t understand why the same standards don’t apply to men. What’s good for the goose, it seems, is way too much to ask of the gander.
Now, I do give the book an “okay” (two star) rating (rather than a “didn’t like it” one star rating) because as harsh as it is, there are truths in it that people don’t often relate in our post-feminist world. In our world, the pendulum has swung a long way in the other direction, so that now many women fail to offer their husbands the very same respect, sacrifice, lack of criticism, and positive reinforcement they themselves expect as a matter of course. We women have been conditioned to believe that to "stroke an ego" or to "make an effort to get in the mood" is somehow subservient rather than loving. The book is really a wake up call to self-examine and to become fully aware of how you are treating your mate. Even for the good, respectful marriage, having this sort of inner-reflection can make things even better. As defensive as this sometimes made me feel, I find it does stick with me as a necessary (if unpleasant) reminder to check my words and actions. She slaps women upside the head and says, “Look how you’re treating your man. Treat him better.” There aren’t a lot of people telling women that these days.
As an aside, the problem I have with a lot of these books that generalize about male/female differences is that they assume my needs are of a particular nature because I am a woman, when, really, I’d rather like many of these things they say a man needs – ego-stroking, even more compliments about my accomplishments than my body, more personal space, etc. She also generalizes and assumes all men everywhere are doing all of the outdoor and car related chores and women are selfishly overlooking this contribution; it doesn’t seem to occur to her that it’s possible that, even as a woman, I always take my own car in for repairs, that I usually trim the bushes, and that, before I asked my husband to get a lawn service, I frequently mowed the lawn. (She also seems to assume I want a lot of jewelry and that I'd be willing to exchange sex for it.)
Finally, a caveat about Dr. Laura's sex advice: i.e., have it whenever he wants it, whether you initially want to or not. Of course it’s good advice for a woman to be more often willing (and to try to get in the mood more often). However, what she fails to emphasize (and what IS emphasized in the other book I recommended) is that for men, more frequent sex will be unfulfilling if it is not coupled with the sense that they are desired by and really pleasing their wives. At one point, Dr. Laura even equates a woman having sex when she doesn’t want to with a husband going to work even on days he doesn’t want to. Few men want to feel their wives are agreeing to sex in the same spirit with which they agree to slug through a bad day at work.
February 28, 2020
I really liked the no-nonsense approach to this book. Throughout the book, I kept thinking of other names she could've titled this book. Here are a few:
*Stop being selfish you lousy wench
*You are not the center of the universe
*Duh, he's your husband. Not a doormat
*First you were Bridezilla, now you are Wifezilla
*You're not very likable. Your husband must be a saint
*Get a real life, soon please
*Change now or be single soon
*Are you mean or just stupid?
*Stop being selfish you lousy wench
*You are not the center of the universe
*Duh, he's your husband. Not a doormat
*First you were Bridezilla, now you are Wifezilla
*You're not very likable. Your husband must be a saint
*Get a real life, soon please
*Change now or be single soon
*Are you mean or just stupid?
December 4, 2013
The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands is based on the premise that men are simple and rather stupid. The thesis then, on that basis, is "give him direct communication, respect, appreciation, food, and good lovin', and he'll do just about anything you wish--foolish or not."
Dr. Laura Schlessinger demeans men throughout the book, constantly noting that a man is "inexorably dependent upon the approval, appreciation, and acceptance" of the woman. That may be true, but his self-worth is and should be based on more than that.
The book also blames women for every marital ill--real or imagined. Woman are even blamed when men have affairs, view pornography, neglect their responsibilities at home, or abandon their families.
I do have to admit that the book, and therefore Dr. Laura, does have some good points about the damaging effects of the feminist movement. Also, some of the advice about husbands is well taken, if taken and used in small doses.
However, I lost all regard for the book in the chapter on marital sex. Dr. Laura argued that a wife should "be expected to have sex when [she doesn't] want to just because he wants to." This is because the wife expects "him to go to work and earn money to support the family even on days he didn't feel like it." Wow. Dr. Laura also noted that housekeeping and childrearing are not personal enough to repay a husband for his hard work. However, she ignores the corollary: that working and protecting are not personal enough to repay a wife for her work.
In short, this book is overly simplistic, narrowly constructed, and over-rated.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger demeans men throughout the book, constantly noting that a man is "inexorably dependent upon the approval, appreciation, and acceptance" of the woman. That may be true, but his self-worth is and should be based on more than that.
The book also blames women for every marital ill--real or imagined. Woman are even blamed when men have affairs, view pornography, neglect their responsibilities at home, or abandon their families.
I do have to admit that the book, and therefore Dr. Laura, does have some good points about the damaging effects of the feminist movement. Also, some of the advice about husbands is well taken, if taken and used in small doses.
However, I lost all regard for the book in the chapter on marital sex. Dr. Laura argued that a wife should "be expected to have sex when [she doesn't] want to just because he wants to." This is because the wife expects "him to go to work and earn money to support the family even on days he didn't feel like it." Wow. Dr. Laura also noted that housekeeping and childrearing are not personal enough to repay a husband for his hard work. However, she ignores the corollary: that working and protecting are not personal enough to repay a wife for her work.
In short, this book is overly simplistic, narrowly constructed, and over-rated.
August 24, 2007
I was given this book as a "gift" as I am getting married next month. I am actually somewhat offended by the person who gave it to me! Dr. Laura's basic points are good (respect your partner, communicate clearly, don't nag, etc.), but her methods are enough to make me cringe. This is 180 pages of her telling women to quit their jobs (because nature intends for you to raise kids, not work!) and skirt their own needs (in most cases) for the sake of pleasing their husbands. I'm all for stay-at-home-moms, but only if that did that as a CHOICE...not because "nature" intends for them to do that. My fiance read part of it and agrees, it's deplorable. This was painful to read.
August 2, 2008
My sister-in-law recommended this book to me, and I recommend it to all wives in turn. Dr. Laura gives it to you straight and undiluted. Although sometimes painful to swallow (like a strong medicine rather than a poison), I have learned so much about how I can make my marriage stronger and be a better support to my husband thereby strengthening my family.
Her values coincide with my own beliefs on both a personal and spiritual level. For instance, Dr. Laura asserts that there are innate differences between men and women that should be respected and celebrated. This echos what I believe as stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World that, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
Dr. Laura also really attacks the widespread societal beliefs that denigrate the nurturing roles of wife and mother, as well as demean the protector and provider roles that men play. Again, The Family: A Proclamation to the World explains my corresponding beliefs best when it states, "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
I am so thankful that there are people like Dr. Laura who stand up for moral truth even when the world may disagree.
Her values coincide with my own beliefs on both a personal and spiritual level. For instance, Dr. Laura asserts that there are innate differences between men and women that should be respected and celebrated. This echos what I believe as stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World that, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
Dr. Laura also really attacks the widespread societal beliefs that denigrate the nurturing roles of wife and mother, as well as demean the protector and provider roles that men play. Again, The Family: A Proclamation to the World explains my corresponding beliefs best when it states, "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
I am so thankful that there are people like Dr. Laura who stand up for moral truth even when the world may disagree.
June 11, 2008
Wanna save some money??
Here's the book in a nutshell - become a Stepford wife.
In other words buy yourself some valium so that you will become numb emotionally and then cater to your husband's every need, wish, and desire no matter how difficult, inconvenient, or self-sacrificing it might become in order for you to do so. Make sure you constantly stroke his ego, ask him to do all the little things that would be faster or easier for you to do yourself and don't nag or complain at all (even if he leaves his dirty socks or dishes in the living room for the 3000th time). If you follow this plan to the letter Dr. Laura guarantees your husband will treat you like a goddess and you will ultimately be ecstatically happy - a drug addict or an alcoholic perhaps but an ecstatically happy one.
Here's the book in a nutshell - become a Stepford wife.
In other words buy yourself some valium so that you will become numb emotionally and then cater to your husband's every need, wish, and desire no matter how difficult, inconvenient, or self-sacrificing it might become in order for you to do so. Make sure you constantly stroke his ego, ask him to do all the little things that would be faster or easier for you to do yourself and don't nag or complain at all (even if he leaves his dirty socks or dishes in the living room for the 3000th time). If you follow this plan to the letter Dr. Laura guarantees your husband will treat you like a goddess and you will ultimately be ecstatically happy - a drug addict or an alcoholic perhaps but an ecstatically happy one.
April 10, 2008
I really enjoyed this book. It is not often you come across a New York time Best seller that promotes the value of marriage and the important role we have as husband and wife in a marriage. She really talks about how society has become so feminisitic and men suffer because of it. She talks about how women want equal rights as men; however, they still want men to be the same that they always have been. She talks about how in relationships we on certain levels think our husbands our responsible for our emotional well being and that they should be off all day "slaying the dragon" ( she calls it) then we expect them to come home and take over what we do. She talks about the different roles we have and how giving of ourselves and serving will make our marriage and us as women happy. She really does say in the book to have a nice hot dinner ready for your husband when he gets home at the end of the day. She says some women find this demeaning and refuse.....but she also points out that we expect our husbands to go out to work every day and provide most the family income. If we are expecting them to be gone working all day to provide for our family....shouldn't we wrap our arms around them at the end of the day and say welcome home, I apreciate all you do....here is a meal so you can know I much I love you and are great full for how your provide for our family. I loved what she had to say on about this and always feel that I can improve...and when it comes to my family I know that this is the most important job and role that I have so I am willing to read anything that will make my home a place where my husband wants to be...because at the end of the day, he is my best friend and eternal companion.
February 29, 2008
I read this for a book club and it was very different from what I had expected. I was put-off by the title and felt it was condescending toward men. I quickly discovered that it was very different than my impression from the title. I found Dr. Laura to be extremely harsh and found it difficult to get through each page. Ever several pages, there seemed to be one sentence that I completely, 100% agreed with. But her delivery of the message is so abrasive. I felt like she was trying to teach women to respect their husbands while at the same time disrespecting others. To me, that is an entirely contradictory method of conveying a message. I also felt like she often times contradicted herself. She was very critical of the feminist movement which I felt was lost on me because I don't feel as if my generation was as surrounded in those messages as my mother's generation. As a funny aside - she attributes a quote to Gloria Steinem which is actually attributed to another author, Inrina Dunn. I just thought it was funny that she criticized someone for a direct quote when it wasn't even the correct person. Finally, I do think that there are people who will benefit from this book but I think she consistently misses out on addressing sincerity in your actions. You can't just pretend to be interested in what your husband says. You have to sincerely develop an interest in what your husband says. I think if a two people in a troubled marriage were to follow her advice - it doesn't mean everything would be fixed. Of course, any help she gives to people is a positive thing. I however, found her presentation of ideas to be distasteful.
July 28, 2009
I hid this book from my husband so he wouldn't know I was reading it. Then I threw it out to destroy the evidence that I fell for the hype.
I found this book horribly insulting and demeaning toward men. Why do we have to insult men every time we talk about them? Feed 'em like clockwork and bang 'em -- that's all they want. Okay now, we all like food and sex, but ALL human beings have more sophisticated needs, Doc.
I find this type of sexism -- that men are nothing more than animals (and women can, by channeling June Cleaver, manipulate them into bowing to their every whim by providing them with hot meals at 5:03PM and sex at 7:40PM) approach -- offensive and a gross over simplification.
If you think Dr. Laura pseudo-wisdom is the End All Be All, you'll love this drivel. The tone is far more shrill than her radio show and her examples never fail to demean those she depicts. It would be interesting to find someone whose marriage was "saved" by this silly approach..... Heh. There's no great relationship revelation here, just plain old common sense. Those who have a big A-HA moment reading this should call Dr. Laura and tell her so. You'll probably find yourself an example in her next book.
I found this book horribly insulting and demeaning toward men. Why do we have to insult men every time we talk about them? Feed 'em like clockwork and bang 'em -- that's all they want. Okay now, we all like food and sex, but ALL human beings have more sophisticated needs, Doc.
I find this type of sexism -- that men are nothing more than animals (and women can, by channeling June Cleaver, manipulate them into bowing to their every whim by providing them with hot meals at 5:03PM and sex at 7:40PM) approach -- offensive and a gross over simplification.
If you think Dr. Laura pseudo-wisdom is the End All Be All, you'll love this drivel. The tone is far more shrill than her radio show and her examples never fail to demean those she depicts. It would be interesting to find someone whose marriage was "saved" by this silly approach..... Heh. There's no great relationship revelation here, just plain old common sense. Those who have a big A-HA moment reading this should call Dr. Laura and tell her so. You'll probably find yourself an example in her next book.
December 16, 2008
This book has really opened my eyes to my bad habits and mean behaviors towards my very loyal, loving and respectful husband. Dr. Laura is not for everyone, and some more liberal in their approach and beliefs about dating are often offended. I also find her hard to listen to on the radio at times because she is so straight to the point and candid, and at times "jerky" in how she talks to her listeners. Be that as it may, she has pegged the female community. She has pegged me. Since I have begun my read, I am being kinder and more appreciative towards Joel and as a result feel happier and more thankful for all the "dragons he slays and lays at my feet" daily. Today he went to buy two fans to make our house cooler. He called to ask me if what he had purchased was correct. Instead of getting all control freaky about doing this without me I bit my tongue and said "Thank you so much! I can't wait to have a breeze in our house, allbeit a warm breeze, but a breeze nonetheless." I could hear him smile on the phone and say, "I just want a happy wife." Wow, that felt so much better than my bitchy behavior of. . . let's call it . . . yesteryear.
June 6, 2023
Lol. This book made me a borderline misogynist (jokes, jokes). But really. It’s good, it’s true, and it gets bonus points because it makes the feminists mad. Feminism is cancer and will rot you straight to the core. Men are now truly the oppressed class and ladies— we would all do well to be a little sweeter, keep our mouths shut a little more, and don’t get married if it’s not to absolutely love, adore, and live for your husband. It really is that simple.
This is a secular book that I can wholeheartedly recommend to all Christian women.
This is a secular book that I can wholeheartedly recommend to all Christian women.
May 12, 2008
Dr. Laura is a very harsh woman. With that being said...I loved this book. What can be more important than a happy home? I understand that many woman feel that Dr. Laura has joined forces with the men, but if you take what she offers....we, as women, will be happier. We will get what we desire from our husbands...their love and concern. I don't see her as a traitor, but as a woman wanting to make our lives easier and our marriages more successful. How rude! By the way...why is it so painful for us to not make marriage a game of control? Why is it so hard to admit that we love our husbands more than ourselves, and admit that in general...men are terrific! I have never understood men-haters. I love a good man! I love to be rescued. I love a pair of nice strong arms sweeping me away:)!
January 2, 2008
I really found this book to be helpful. There is a lot of popular opinion out there about the roles of a man vs. a woman in a marriage, many of them promoting entitlement and selfishness in women. What is refreshing about this book is that Dr. Laura doesn't coddle her readers...she calls women to the carpet for their role in the deterioration of the quality and excitement of their marriages.
The best thing about this book, however, is the way she helps explain the power that women have over their own destinies...their ability to get the results they crave from their husbands with simple and easily implementable tweaks to their actions and words and attitudes when they interact with their spouse. I found it to be very fair, logical, and practical...and the results were IMMEDIATE! It really made a huge difference in my marriage, which at the time was only experiencing light growing pains. But it really has helped me create good habits in the way that I interact with my husband, and consequently, the way he interacts with me.
If you think your marriage could use a little boost, or if you would just like to learn about the way a male mind works and relates to his wife, I would highly recommend this book.
The best thing about this book, however, is the way she helps explain the power that women have over their own destinies...their ability to get the results they crave from their husbands with simple and easily implementable tweaks to their actions and words and attitudes when they interact with their spouse. I found it to be very fair, logical, and practical...and the results were IMMEDIATE! It really made a huge difference in my marriage, which at the time was only experiencing light growing pains. But it really has helped me create good habits in the way that I interact with my husband, and consequently, the way he interacts with me.
If you think your marriage could use a little boost, or if you would just like to learn about the way a male mind works and relates to his wife, I would highly recommend this book.
July 8, 2008
I loved this book! It changed my life. I have a much better attitude about my marriage and my husband and all that he does for me. I highly recommend this book to everyone.
February 11, 2008
If there is a rating less than one star this book deserves it. I found almost nothing in this book that was helpful. I found a lot of Dr. Laura being condescending, unsympathetic and self-righteous. The examples in the book are so extreme and seem to represent the freaks of the world and not regular people who just want to improve their regular marriage. If you want help with your relationship read "The 5 Love Languages" or something else. This book is a waste of time.
January 22, 2008
alright. i just finished this last night, and i'm still a little conflicted as to what i thought about it. if i could i'd probably give it 2 1/2 stars, but i'll admit that i had a definite bias going into reading the book because i can't stand dr. laura.
that being said, i can genuinely say that there were a few good points brought up in the book. namely that wives ought to treat their husbands with the love, honor, and respect they deserve. i also agree with her basic assumption that men and women are different and that their methods of communicating are different as well.
while reading it, i definitely swung back and forth on a pendulum between being absolutely outraged and aggravated with what she suggests (like for instance that is is a women's OBLIGATION to not be tired for her husband at the end of the day) and then on the other side totally agreeing with the points she makes (such as the idea that men are not nearly as complicated as women and that most of the time what they say is exactly what they mean. and that one of the most important things to a man is being able to make his wife happy). i have to say that the book ended with me more on the positive side than the negative side, but overall i don't know if i learned anything groundbreaking in here. it was useful, however, in making me reflect on my own behaviors and attitudes and doing a "self-check" of whether or not i am being selfish in my relationship with my husband.
i'll end by saying that i thought the book was fine enough but i liked "the five love languages" better as a marriage self-help book because of the implication in it that both spouses are responsible for making sure that the other is feeling loved, appreciated and cared for. okay, the end.
that being said, i can genuinely say that there were a few good points brought up in the book. namely that wives ought to treat their husbands with the love, honor, and respect they deserve. i also agree with her basic assumption that men and women are different and that their methods of communicating are different as well.
while reading it, i definitely swung back and forth on a pendulum between being absolutely outraged and aggravated with what she suggests (like for instance that is is a women's OBLIGATION to not be tired for her husband at the end of the day) and then on the other side totally agreeing with the points she makes (such as the idea that men are not nearly as complicated as women and that most of the time what they say is exactly what they mean. and that one of the most important things to a man is being able to make his wife happy). i have to say that the book ended with me more on the positive side than the negative side, but overall i don't know if i learned anything groundbreaking in here. it was useful, however, in making me reflect on my own behaviors and attitudes and doing a "self-check" of whether or not i am being selfish in my relationship with my husband.
i'll end by saying that i thought the book was fine enough but i liked "the five love languages" better as a marriage self-help book because of the implication in it that both spouses are responsible for making sure that the other is feeling loved, appreciated and cared for. okay, the end.
December 27, 2007
OK, I know how this title sounds. Trust me, when a friend passed it on to me, I almost burned it on the spot along with my bra collection. But once I started skimming it, I sort of liked it and ended up reading the whole thing on a plane ride home from California (hey, one can only read Skymall so many times). The author's argument is based on the somewhat iffy logic that men are like dogs: eager to please, but not so much if you are mean to them. This book could be titled "Stop Being Such a Bitch." Mostly, it made me realize that I'm on the really low end of the crazy scale as far as wives go. Apparently, there are women out there who actually freak out over an incorrectly-loaded dishwasher or toothpaste squeezed from the middle of the tube. I say if he's loading the dishwasher and brushing his teeth, good for him. But I do think there's some pretty wise stuff in here that is not nearly as sexist as the title sounds. I would recommend at least a skimming of this to all my married friends. At the very least, the tone is funny and it's heavy enough to throw if you get into an arugent about the toilet seat.
July 10, 2009
I tried, I really, really tried...but I can't finish it. I just can't. I think Dr. Laura is not only a "reformed feminist" but really a man in a woman's body. I stopped reading when I got to the chapter on "Sex," and one of the quotes from a "male listener/husband" was something along the lines of "We need sex. Once a day should do it." Really, just once? Shocking.
Oh, an that's another thing. Dr. Laura's use of condescending statements like "shocking" or "unbelievable" after talking about some ridiculous thing some woman has done to wrong her man made me insane.
The final straw was when she was discussing the decline of the feminine mystique and criticized women for using the toilet in front of their spouses. Now, I don't know if she was making a distinction between #1 and #2, but anyone with kids knows there is no such thing as a closed door in a bathroom. I mean, REALLY? Using the toilet? That is what is causing the decline of marriages and making men all over the world feel disregarded and under appreciated? Good Lord. I'll stop using the toilet in front of my spouse when he stops telling our son to pull his finger. 'nuff said.
Oh, an that's another thing. Dr. Laura's use of condescending statements like "shocking" or "unbelievable" after talking about some ridiculous thing some woman has done to wrong her man made me insane.
The final straw was when she was discussing the decline of the feminine mystique and criticized women for using the toilet in front of their spouses. Now, I don't know if she was making a distinction between #1 and #2, but anyone with kids knows there is no such thing as a closed door in a bathroom. I mean, REALLY? Using the toilet? That is what is causing the decline of marriages and making men all over the world feel disregarded and under appreciated? Good Lord. I'll stop using the toilet in front of my spouse when he stops telling our son to pull his finger. 'nuff said.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 23, 2011
Dr.Laura Re-enforces Dangerous Sexist Common Gender Myths And Irrational Woman Hatred!
I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity.
They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.
They also show that surveys show that boys are overwhelimingly prefered over girls,(sadly nothing has changed and shirts like the recent JC Penny for young girls,I'm Too Pretty To Do My Homework So My Brother Does It For Me and other sexist anti-female ads,pornography,etc do too) like these both reflect and contribute to this injustice.They also explain that when people guess if a pregnant woman is having a girl or a boy,and they list a whole bunch of false unproven old wives tales,that assign all negative characteristics to a woman if they think she's having a girl,and the imagined girls or given all of the negative characteristics.
For example they say that author Elana Belotti(1977) explained these examples, The man and woman each take hold of one end of a wishbone and pull it apart.If the longest part comes away in the man's hand,the baby will be a boy. If you suddenly ask a pregnant woman what she has in her hand and she looks at her right hand first ,she will have a boy;if she looks at her left hand it will be a girl.If the mother's belly is bigger on the right-hand side a boy will be born,and also if her right breast is bigger than her left,or if her right foot is more restless.
If a woman is placid during pregnancy she will have a boy,but if she is bad-tempered or cries a lot,she will have a girl.If her complexion is rosy she's going to have a son;if she is pale a daughter. If her looks improve,she's expecting a boy;if they worsen,a girl.If the fetal heartbeat is fast,it is a boy;if it is slow it is a girl.If the fetus has started to move by the fortieth day it will be a boy and the birth will be easy,but if it doesn't move until the ninetieth day it will be a girl.( Belotti 1977,pp.22-23)
Dr.Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Matthews then say, now rate each of the characteristics above as positive or negative. A woman expecting a girl is pale,her looks deteriorate,she is cross and ill-tempered,and she gets the short end of the wishbone,all negative characteristics. They then say,furthermore ,a girl is symbolized by the left-the left hand,the left side of the belly,the left foot,the left breast. They say,left connotes evil,a bad omen,or sinister,again the girls have all of the negative characteristics. They then say,that sex-role stereotypes about activity also characterize Belotti's recipes:boys are believed to be active from the very beginning and girls have slower heartbeats and begin to move around later.They then say,the message although contradictory(girls cause more trouble even though they are more passive) is clear in that it reflects the sex-role stereotype that boys "do" while girls "are" and the belief that boys are more desirable than girls.
I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that's due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.
I know that many scientists know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different enviornments too and Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen told this to me too when I spoke to her 12 years ago.And women's and men's brains are more alike than different.
Below is a speach by Christian Scholar and Psychology Professor Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen Of Eastern College.
Trinity 2007
Opposite Sexes or Neighboring Sexes?
C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and
the Psychology of Gender
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen
Gender and Modern Social Science
C. S. Lewis was no fan of the emerging social sciences. He saw practitioners of the social sciences mainly as lackeys of technologically-minded natural scientists, bent on reducing individual freedom and moral accountability to mere epiphenomena of natural processes (See Lewis 1943 and 1970 b). And not surprisingly (given his passion for gender-essentialist archetypes), aside from a qualified appreciation
of some aspects of Freudian psychoanalysis (See Lewis 1952 (Book III, Chapter 4) and 1969). “Carl Jung was the only philosopher [sic] of the Viennese school for whose work [Lewis] had much respect” (Sayer 102).
But the social sciences concerned with the psychology of gender have since shown that Sayers was right, and Lewis and Jung were wrong: women and men are not opposite sexes but neighboring sexes—and very close neighbors indeed. There are, it turns out, virtually no large, consistent sex differences in any psychological traits and behaviors, even when we consider the usual stereotypical suspects: that men are more aggressive, or just, or rational than women, and women are more empathic, verbal, or nurturing than men. When differences are found, they are always average—not absolute—differences. And in virtually all cases the small, average—and often decreasing—difference between the sexes is greatly exceeded by the amount of variability on that trait within members of each sex. Most of the “bell curves” for women and men (showing the distribution of a given psychological trait or behavior) overlap almost completely. So it is naïve at best (and deceptive at worst) to make even average—let alone absolute—pronouncements about essential archetypes in either sex when there is much more variability within than between the sexes on all the trait and behavior measures for which we have abundant data.
This criticism applies as much to C. S. Lewis and Carl Jung as it does to their currently most visible descendent, John Gray, who continues to claim (with no systematic empirical warrant) that men are from Mars and women are from Venus (Gray 1992).
And what about Lewis’s claims about the overriding masculinity of God? Even the late Carl Henry (a theologian with impeccable credentials as a conservative evangelical) noted a quarter of a century ago that:
Masculine and feminine elements are excluded from both the Old Testament and New Testament doctrine of deity. The God of the Bible is a sexless God. When Scripture speaks of God as “he” the pronoun is primarily personal (generic) rather than masculine (specific); it emphasizes God’s personal nature—and, in turn, that of the Father, Son and Spirit as Trinitarian distinctions in contrast to impersonal entities... Biblical religion is quite uninterested in any discussion of God’s masculinity or femininity... Scripture does not depict God either as ontologically
masculine or feminine. (Henry 1982, 159–60)
However well-intentioned, attempts to read a kind of mystical gendering into God—whether stereotypically masculine, feminine, or both—reflect not so much careful biblical theology as “the long arm of Paganism” (Martin 11). For it is pagan worldviews, the Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna reminds us, that are “unable to conceive of any primal creative force other than in terms of sex... [In Paganism] the sex element existed before the cosmos came into being and all the gods themselves were creatures of sex. On the other hand, the Creator in Genesis is uniquely without any female counterpart, and the very association of sex with God is utterly alien to the religion of the Bible” (Sarna 76).
And if the God of creation does not privilege maleness or stereotypical masculinity, neither did the Lord of redemption. Sayers’s response to the cultural assumption that women were human-not-quite-human has become rightly famous:
Perhaps it is no wonder that women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind or no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is not act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel which borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about women’s nature. (Sayers 1975, 46)
It is quite likely that Lewis’s changing views on gender owed something to the intellectual and Christian ties that he forged with Dorothy L. Sayers. And indeed, in 1955—two years before her death, Lewis confessed to Sayers that he had only “dimly realised that the old-fashioned way... of talking to all young women was v[ery] like an adult way of talking to young boys. It explains,” he wrote, “not only why some women grew up vapid, but also why others grew us (if we may coin the word) viricidal [i.e., wanting to kill men]” (Lewis 2007, 676; Lewis’s emphasis). The Lewis who in his younger years so adamantly had defended the doctrine of gender essentialism was beginning to acknowledge the extent to which gendered behavior is socially conditioned. In another letter that same year, he expressed a concern to Sayers that some of the first illustrations for the Narnia Chronicles were a bit too effeminate. “I don’t like either the ultra feminine or the ultra masculine,” he added. “I prefer people” (Lewis 2007, 639; Lewis’s emphasis).
Dorothy Sayers surely must have rejoiced to read this declaration. Many of Lewis’s later readers, including myself, wish that his shift on this issue had occurred earlier and found its way into his better-selling apologetic works and his novels for children and adults. But better late than never. And it would be better still if those who keep trying to turn C. S. Lewis into an icon for traditionalist views on gender essentialism and gender hierarchy would stop mining his earlier works for isolated proof-texts and instead read what he wrote at every stage of his life.
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen is Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
This essay originally was presented as the Tenth Annual Warren Rubel Lecture on Christianity and Higher Learning at Valparaiso University on 1 February 2007.
The Cresset
Bibliography
Evans, C. Stephen. Wisdom and Humanness in Psychology: Prospects for a Christian Approach. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
Gray, John. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
Hannay, Margaret. C. S. Lewis. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. V. Waco, Texas: Word, 1982.
Lewis, C. S. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.
_____. The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964.
_____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. I: 1905–1931. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2004a.
_____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: 1931–1949. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2004b.
_____. “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,”[1952] Reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed., Walter Hooper, 22–34. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
_____. “Priestesses in the Church?” [1948]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 234–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970a.
_____. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,”[1954]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 287–300. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970b.
_____. “Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism,”[1942]. Reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper, 286–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969.
_____. [N. W. Clerk, pseudo.] A Grief Observed. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
_____. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.
_____. Till We Have Faces. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956.
_____. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. London: Collins, 1955.
_____. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952.
_____. That Hideous Strength. London: John Lane the Bodley Head, 1945.
_____. The Abolition of Man. Oxford: Oxford University, 1943.
_____. A Preface to Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University, 1942.
The Cresset
_____. Perelandra. London: The Bodley Head, 1942.
Martin, Faith. “Mystical Masculinity: The New Question Facing Women,” Priscilla Papers, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 1998), 6–12.
Reynolds, Barbara. Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul. New York: St. Martins, 1993.
Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1966.
Sayer, George. Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.
Sayers, Dorothy L. “The Human-Not-Quite-Human,”[1946]. Reprinted in Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women
Human?, 37–47. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1975.
Sayers, Dorothy L. Gaudy Night. London: Victor Gollancz, 1935.
Sterk, Helen. “Gender and Relations and Narrative in a Reformed Church Setting.” In After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation, ed., Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, 184–221. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Copyright © 2007 Valparaiso University Press www.valpo.edu/cresset
Also, there is an ecellent thorough book,Myths Of Gender:Biological
Theories Of Women And Men by Brown University geneticist and biolgist Dr.Anne Fausto-Sterling that examines in great details these very claims and shows that for most of these gender differences claims,there is little or no evidence but a lot of sexist,woman-hating and racist prejudices by both women and men scientists and psychologists.
I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity.
They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.
They also show that surveys show that boys are overwhelimingly prefered over girls,(sadly nothing has changed and shirts like the recent JC Penny for young girls,I'm Too Pretty To Do My Homework So My Brother Does It For Me and other sexist anti-female ads,pornography,etc do too) like these both reflect and contribute to this injustice.They also explain that when people guess if a pregnant woman is having a girl or a boy,and they list a whole bunch of false unproven old wives tales,that assign all negative characteristics to a woman if they think she's having a girl,and the imagined girls or given all of the negative characteristics.
For example they say that author Elana Belotti(1977) explained these examples, The man and woman each take hold of one end of a wishbone and pull it apart.If the longest part comes away in the man's hand,the baby will be a boy. If you suddenly ask a pregnant woman what she has in her hand and she looks at her right hand first ,she will have a boy;if she looks at her left hand it will be a girl.If the mother's belly is bigger on the right-hand side a boy will be born,and also if her right breast is bigger than her left,or if her right foot is more restless.
If a woman is placid during pregnancy she will have a boy,but if she is bad-tempered or cries a lot,she will have a girl.If her complexion is rosy she's going to have a son;if she is pale a daughter. If her looks improve,she's expecting a boy;if they worsen,a girl.If the fetal heartbeat is fast,it is a boy;if it is slow it is a girl.If the fetus has started to move by the fortieth day it will be a boy and the birth will be easy,but if it doesn't move until the ninetieth day it will be a girl.( Belotti 1977,pp.22-23)
Dr.Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Matthews then say, now rate each of the characteristics above as positive or negative. A woman expecting a girl is pale,her looks deteriorate,she is cross and ill-tempered,and she gets the short end of the wishbone,all negative characteristics. They then say,furthermore ,a girl is symbolized by the left-the left hand,the left side of the belly,the left foot,the left breast. They say,left connotes evil,a bad omen,or sinister,again the girls have all of the negative characteristics. They then say,that sex-role stereotypes about activity also characterize Belotti's recipes:boys are believed to be active from the very beginning and girls have slower heartbeats and begin to move around later.They then say,the message although contradictory(girls cause more trouble even though they are more passive) is clear in that it reflects the sex-role stereotype that boys "do" while girls "are" and the belief that boys are more desirable than girls.
I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that's due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.
I know that many scientists know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different enviornments too and Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen told this to me too when I spoke to her 12 years ago.And women's and men's brains are more alike than different.
Below is a speach by Christian Scholar and Psychology Professor Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen Of Eastern College.
Trinity 2007
Opposite Sexes or Neighboring Sexes?
C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and
the Psychology of Gender
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen
Gender and Modern Social Science
C. S. Lewis was no fan of the emerging social sciences. He saw practitioners of the social sciences mainly as lackeys of technologically-minded natural scientists, bent on reducing individual freedom and moral accountability to mere epiphenomena of natural processes (See Lewis 1943 and 1970 b). And not surprisingly (given his passion for gender-essentialist archetypes), aside from a qualified appreciation
of some aspects of Freudian psychoanalysis (See Lewis 1952 (Book III, Chapter 4) and 1969). “Carl Jung was the only philosopher [sic] of the Viennese school for whose work [Lewis] had much respect” (Sayer 102).
But the social sciences concerned with the psychology of gender have since shown that Sayers was right, and Lewis and Jung were wrong: women and men are not opposite sexes but neighboring sexes—and very close neighbors indeed. There are, it turns out, virtually no large, consistent sex differences in any psychological traits and behaviors, even when we consider the usual stereotypical suspects: that men are more aggressive, or just, or rational than women, and women are more empathic, verbal, or nurturing than men. When differences are found, they are always average—not absolute—differences. And in virtually all cases the small, average—and often decreasing—difference between the sexes is greatly exceeded by the amount of variability on that trait within members of each sex. Most of the “bell curves” for women and men (showing the distribution of a given psychological trait or behavior) overlap almost completely. So it is naïve at best (and deceptive at worst) to make even average—let alone absolute—pronouncements about essential archetypes in either sex when there is much more variability within than between the sexes on all the trait and behavior measures for which we have abundant data.
This criticism applies as much to C. S. Lewis and Carl Jung as it does to their currently most visible descendent, John Gray, who continues to claim (with no systematic empirical warrant) that men are from Mars and women are from Venus (Gray 1992).
And what about Lewis’s claims about the overriding masculinity of God? Even the late Carl Henry (a theologian with impeccable credentials as a conservative evangelical) noted a quarter of a century ago that:
Masculine and feminine elements are excluded from both the Old Testament and New Testament doctrine of deity. The God of the Bible is a sexless God. When Scripture speaks of God as “he” the pronoun is primarily personal (generic) rather than masculine (specific); it emphasizes God’s personal nature—and, in turn, that of the Father, Son and Spirit as Trinitarian distinctions in contrast to impersonal entities... Biblical religion is quite uninterested in any discussion of God’s masculinity or femininity... Scripture does not depict God either as ontologically
masculine or feminine. (Henry 1982, 159–60)
However well-intentioned, attempts to read a kind of mystical gendering into God—whether stereotypically masculine, feminine, or both—reflect not so much careful biblical theology as “the long arm of Paganism” (Martin 11). For it is pagan worldviews, the Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna reminds us, that are “unable to conceive of any primal creative force other than in terms of sex... [In Paganism] the sex element existed before the cosmos came into being and all the gods themselves were creatures of sex. On the other hand, the Creator in Genesis is uniquely without any female counterpart, and the very association of sex with God is utterly alien to the religion of the Bible” (Sarna 76).
And if the God of creation does not privilege maleness or stereotypical masculinity, neither did the Lord of redemption. Sayers’s response to the cultural assumption that women were human-not-quite-human has become rightly famous:
Perhaps it is no wonder that women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind or no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is not act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel which borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about women’s nature. (Sayers 1975, 46)
It is quite likely that Lewis’s changing views on gender owed something to the intellectual and Christian ties that he forged with Dorothy L. Sayers. And indeed, in 1955—two years before her death, Lewis confessed to Sayers that he had only “dimly realised that the old-fashioned way... of talking to all young women was v[ery] like an adult way of talking to young boys. It explains,” he wrote, “not only why some women grew up vapid, but also why others grew us (if we may coin the word) viricidal [i.e., wanting to kill men]” (Lewis 2007, 676; Lewis’s emphasis). The Lewis who in his younger years so adamantly had defended the doctrine of gender essentialism was beginning to acknowledge the extent to which gendered behavior is socially conditioned. In another letter that same year, he expressed a concern to Sayers that some of the first illustrations for the Narnia Chronicles were a bit too effeminate. “I don’t like either the ultra feminine or the ultra masculine,” he added. “I prefer people” (Lewis 2007, 639; Lewis’s emphasis).
Dorothy Sayers surely must have rejoiced to read this declaration. Many of Lewis’s later readers, including myself, wish that his shift on this issue had occurred earlier and found its way into his better-selling apologetic works and his novels for children and adults. But better late than never. And it would be better still if those who keep trying to turn C. S. Lewis into an icon for traditionalist views on gender essentialism and gender hierarchy would stop mining his earlier works for isolated proof-texts and instead read what he wrote at every stage of his life.
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen is Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
This essay originally was presented as the Tenth Annual Warren Rubel Lecture on Christianity and Higher Learning at Valparaiso University on 1 February 2007.
The Cresset
Bibliography
Evans, C. Stephen. Wisdom and Humanness in Psychology: Prospects for a Christian Approach. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
Gray, John. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
Hannay, Margaret. C. S. Lewis. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. V. Waco, Texas: Word, 1982.
Lewis, C. S. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.
_____. The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964.
_____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. I: 1905–1931. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2004a.
_____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: 1931–1949. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2004b.
_____. “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,”[1952] Reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed., Walter Hooper, 22–34. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
_____. “Priestesses in the Church?” [1948]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 234–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970a.
_____. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,”[1954]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 287–300. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970b.
_____. “Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism,”[1942]. Reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper, 286–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969.
_____. [N. W. Clerk, pseudo.] A Grief Observed. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
_____. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.
_____. Till We Have Faces. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956.
_____. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. London: Collins, 1955.
_____. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952.
_____. That Hideous Strength. London: John Lane the Bodley Head, 1945.
_____. The Abolition of Man. Oxford: Oxford University, 1943.
_____. A Preface to Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University, 1942.
The Cresset
_____. Perelandra. London: The Bodley Head, 1942.
Martin, Faith. “Mystical Masculinity: The New Question Facing Women,” Priscilla Papers, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 1998), 6–12.
Reynolds, Barbara. Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul. New York: St. Martins, 1993.
Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1966.
Sayer, George. Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.
Sayers, Dorothy L. “The Human-Not-Quite-Human,”[1946]. Reprinted in Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women
Human?, 37–47. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1975.
Sayers, Dorothy L. Gaudy Night. London: Victor Gollancz, 1935.
Sterk, Helen. “Gender and Relations and Narrative in a Reformed Church Setting.” In After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation, ed., Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, 184–221. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Copyright © 2007 Valparaiso University Press www.valpo.edu/cresset
Also, there is an ecellent thorough book,Myths Of Gender:Biological
Theories Of Women And Men by Brown University geneticist and biolgist Dr.Anne Fausto-Sterling that examines in great details these very claims and shows that for most of these gender differences claims,there is little or no evidence but a lot of sexist,woman-hating and racist prejudices by both women and men scientists and psychologists.
February 21, 2012
My mom gave me this book years ago and just by looking at the title I was a little offended. I was prepared to hate this book. I tend towards more feministic views of the world and thought this would be a book full of demeaning drivel. But, I decided to go into it with an open mind and give it a chance.
If you look at Schlessinger's REAL message here, it's not one of "submit to your husband and be a good little wifey." I think there are some great reminders of what makes a good wife and what will make your husband cringe at the very sight of you.
I think the majority of her tips and such were fair, and I think they could benefit wives as well when used from the husband's side. In other words, husbands could read this book as "The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives." There were a lot of simple points in this book that too many people ignore and I have to say there are a lot of things I took away from this book and use years later such as:
1. Don't nag.
2. Show appreciation for the things your husband does, even if it's simple (ie taking out the trash)
3. Compliment him.
4. Don't put him in down in front of others.
5. Put out once in a while (and show some enthusiasm).
6. Make him feel manly.
7. Accept him for who he is and don't try to change him.
8. Keep up your physical appearance.
Those are just a few of the key points that have stuck with me over the years and I've found that doing those things actually does help the relationship a ton. I don't have to nag my husband to do things for me because I ask him nicely without talking down to him and I acknowlege when he actually does something. This means, that he LIKES to help me! Imagine that! He knows he'll get praised for doing something instead of berated for doing it imperfectly.
Anyway my point is, it would be easy to take offense at this book. But if you take it in the spirit it was written and put your ego aside and really listen, there are some incredibly wise gems of info here. Schesslinger isn't trying to make you into a submissive doormat, she's showing you how to get your husband to adore you and make all the other men jealous of how awesome his wife is. And I must say it's worked for me!
If you look at Schlessinger's REAL message here, it's not one of "submit to your husband and be a good little wifey." I think there are some great reminders of what makes a good wife and what will make your husband cringe at the very sight of you.
I think the majority of her tips and such were fair, and I think they could benefit wives as well when used from the husband's side. In other words, husbands could read this book as "The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives." There were a lot of simple points in this book that too many people ignore and I have to say there are a lot of things I took away from this book and use years later such as:
1. Don't nag.
2. Show appreciation for the things your husband does, even if it's simple (ie taking out the trash)
3. Compliment him.
4. Don't put him in down in front of others.
5. Put out once in a while (and show some enthusiasm).
6. Make him feel manly.
7. Accept him for who he is and don't try to change him.
8. Keep up your physical appearance.
Those are just a few of the key points that have stuck with me over the years and I've found that doing those things actually does help the relationship a ton. I don't have to nag my husband to do things for me because I ask him nicely without talking down to him and I acknowlege when he actually does something. This means, that he LIKES to help me! Imagine that! He knows he'll get praised for doing something instead of berated for doing it imperfectly.
Anyway my point is, it would be easy to take offense at this book. But if you take it in the spirit it was written and put your ego aside and really listen, there are some incredibly wise gems of info here. Schesslinger isn't trying to make you into a submissive doormat, she's showing you how to get your husband to adore you and make all the other men jealous of how awesome his wife is. And I must say it's worked for me!
October 13, 2007
This book sparked conroversy in my family. One half of us thought the book made good points and put the way we treated our men in to perspective. The other half of us thought that this approach was unrealistic. Overall, my feeling about the book really cross over to real life for me. Although, I am not willing to go as far as she recommends for some things...I am my father's stubborn daughter. I work in a dental office and my first few weeks were very difficult for me. The Doctors are really great and the job is not difficult but, when we were expected to fetch lunch and make it 'this way and that' I felt it crossed the line of employee vs. maid and cook. Then, one day I realized why...It's not because they need us to serve them(I am not actually sure they could do it themselves. Hee hee), They want to feel like we were caring for them. I know it sounds strange but after I got over the "I am not doing this and I am not your servant!" attitude. I found that serving in a non-servantish way but a "Hey, you are important to me." way then I was totally fine with it.
May 17, 2010
I remember reading this book when I first got married and really enjoying it. But now since I have been married for 5 years I decided to read it again and it did not disappoint! Now I know Dr. Laura can be harsh at times and while listening to her radio show, I agree that sometimes she doesn't listen to her callers, but this book has such truth to it! A great quote I got out of it was, "Maybe there is a part of the small boy that never leaves a grown man, I don't know. All I know is that the husband who has a wife who supports him and praises him for the positive things her does is the envy of all the other men who have to live with criticism, sarcasm, and constant reminders of their failures." I have been trying to put myself more in wife mode instead of mom mode and I have noticed a difference! My hubby is more loving, he will do things for me, there is positivity in our home and love. Great book and a good reminder of how amazing my husband is, even if her doesn't take the trash out all the time!
May 20, 2022
I intentionally chose to read a dated relationship book bc I thought it would be funny and probably cringy, and it was. There is A LOT in this book that will really piss off the current day reader, irregardless of gender identity.
However I do think Laura brings up a lot of important ideas surrounding the wife being more self reflective in the relationship. This was not about totally submitting to your husband and being a slave, but Laura does ask the average wife to really look at how she treats her significant other. What and how she asks for things and how she reciporcates respect and love. It's not fun to take an honest look at yourself and reflect on your possibly selfish actions, but it is certainly important when considering the feelings of your spouse. Some very useful advice here surrounded by some very cringy commentary.
However I do think Laura brings up a lot of important ideas surrounding the wife being more self reflective in the relationship. This was not about totally submitting to your husband and being a slave, but Laura does ask the average wife to really look at how she treats her significant other. What and how she asks for things and how she reciporcates respect and love. It's not fun to take an honest look at yourself and reflect on your possibly selfish actions, but it is certainly important when considering the feelings of your spouse. Some very useful advice here surrounded by some very cringy commentary.
July 25, 2008
I am almost ashamed to admit it, but I didn't think this book was that terrible. I had to skim some repetitive (and occasionally shrill) portions, but it had some good things to say. Upon reading it, I reflected on how I could be a better wife. I also recognized myself in some of the listener comments and felt convicted about times that I don't appreciate Sam for the wonderful man that he is. The author gets a bit of a bad rap for her purported hypocrisy, requiring things of women that she does not require of men. However, the intended audience of the book is women, so, of course, she would not be criticizing men or placing demands on them. That wouldn't make sense.
This being said, this book was annoying, at times. I'm not sure how she defines "feminism" exactly, but she really seems to hate whatever (extremely narrow) definition she attributes to it. I am certain we do not define it in the same manner, nor do I ascribe to it all marital, family, and societal problems. Every time I read one of her ridiculously frequent rants about problems caused by "feminism," my eyes would just roll back in my head.
My number one complaint about the book: Dr. Laura seems to suggest that the motivation for treating one's husband well in a marriage is to keep the poor sap from fleeing INTO THE ARMS OF ANOTHER WOMAN!!!!! It's as if she wants to blackmail wives into good behavior with the fear of adultery. This idea is rampant throughout the book. I believe that I should treat Sam well because he is a human being, and because I love him and respect him and he's my husband. In fact, I respect him so much that I expect him to honor his commitment of faithfulness to me, even if when I don't treat him well. GASP! Unlike the author, I don't believe that men are that pathetic, or that a motivation of fear really benefits a relationship.
This being said, this book was annoying, at times. I'm not sure how she defines "feminism" exactly, but she really seems to hate whatever (extremely narrow) definition she attributes to it. I am certain we do not define it in the same manner, nor do I ascribe to it all marital, family, and societal problems. Every time I read one of her ridiculously frequent rants about problems caused by "feminism," my eyes would just roll back in my head.
My number one complaint about the book: Dr. Laura seems to suggest that the motivation for treating one's husband well in a marriage is to keep the poor sap from fleeing INTO THE ARMS OF ANOTHER WOMAN!!!!! It's as if she wants to blackmail wives into good behavior with the fear of adultery. This idea is rampant throughout the book. I believe that I should treat Sam well because he is a human being, and because I love him and respect him and he's my husband. In fact, I respect him so much that I expect him to honor his commitment of faithfulness to me, even if when I don't treat him well. GASP! Unlike the author, I don't believe that men are that pathetic, or that a motivation of fear really benefits a relationship.
March 10, 2021
I am surprised by just how much I enjoyed this book. There were times when I was uncomfortable or felt like she implied that the man never had to improve but taking an honest step back I see that this book is very very important today. As someone who has grown up only seeing broken marriages, I really wish I had read this book before I even started dating my now husband. There are a lot of obvious truths that us women seem to be blind to. The author has a very direct, biting way of speaking but she makes her points made. I hope to return to this book for reminders. It has reminded me of just how incredible my husband is and really motivated me, with God's help, to work harder everyday to make our marriage thrive.
September 29, 2014
Ok, first of all I don't agree with everything in the book -- but after I read the book I had the best 6 weeks of my marriage, so take it for what it's worth. Also I like to give this book as a wedding gift. I wish I had read this book when I first got married -- it really helps with expectations and would have helped me to see things through her perspective.
March 29, 2008
I read this book because several friends recommended it to me (including my husband -- he thinks he's so funny). At first, I was totally enthralled. I really liked her interpretation of the downfalls of the feminist movement. It made me think. I could really see how my perspective on marriage and gender roles in general were affected by feminism. I declared that I would embrace my role as wife and mother and all that it entails!
After this new idea wore off (about 10 pages in), I began to just feel yelled-at. It was the same thing over and over and over again: "If you have a problem in your marriage, YOU (as the wife) should be the one to change it." It's good advice, but it gets old fast. Dr. Laura's listeners and their specific problems were the entertainment that kept me reading the book to the end. I will admit that I found myself acting more patiently and lovingly towards my husband. So I definitely think it was worth reading. Still, like most self-help books, it could have easily been consolidated to a brief summary in a few paragraphs without taking out crucial elements. Read the first chapter :).
After this new idea wore off (about 10 pages in), I began to just feel yelled-at. It was the same thing over and over and over again: "If you have a problem in your marriage, YOU (as the wife) should be the one to change it." It's good advice, but it gets old fast. Dr. Laura's listeners and their specific problems were the entertainment that kept me reading the book to the end. I will admit that I found myself acting more patiently and lovingly towards my husband. So I definitely think it was worth reading. Still, like most self-help books, it could have easily been consolidated to a brief summary in a few paragraphs without taking out crucial elements. Read the first chapter :).
June 4, 2015
It is, of course, important for each partner in a marriage to be loving, kind, honest and thoughtful to a spouse. Ms. Schlessinger writes that a healthy relationship must maintained by one partner, the wife, investing 100% of the energy to keep the relationship intact. This book harks back to the bad old days of The Total Woman (Marabel Morgan) when women were the sole caretakers of marriage, and man's ego was fragile and in constant need of stroking. This book demeans both men and women, and suggests that women behave manipulatively in order to get their needs met by weak, childlike men. This book has potential to harm women--and men who love them, as well.
May 20, 2008
LOved this book. It made me treat Adam better, which makes it a great book to me! I think it mostly just makes wives realize how much their husbands do for them, but we take for granted. I would recommend this book to ANY wife out there!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,225 reviews