the manipulations are effective. There is also the reverse manipulation that comes with us men pretending to be fooled (or made fools of), that we couldn't possibly understand exactly what is going on. There are many times that I suppose men allow the manipulation to continue because well...it's all part of the dance.

Recently my wife was trying a bit of this on me when I called her on it. Knowing that I knew what she was doing and named it she broke out into fits of laughter. Most of the time, though, I chuckle silently.

It does not seem to be charitable to either manipulate a husband, or be confrontational with him. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why should wives do things to their husbands that they should not do to their friends?

Both ideas seem to view marriage as two opposing forces, not as two people trying to work together.

Hi Marjorie,

Great article. I find myself conflicted in very much the same way in regards to my husband. This article reminds me of the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" where the women conspire to get the father to agree to something. Upon fulfilling their objective, they explain to the younger woman, "The man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck".

Sometimes I think feminists have us all turned around regarding women's roles in relationships. I have also found (like you) that my husband and I, as male and female, have different roles in the dance we call marriage.

My mom always got men to do things that she wanted (especially my dad, who loved her until the day he died), and like your mother-in-law, everyone was always the happier because she definitely tried not to ask for things that were not out of line. I am not saying that she sometimes did not abuse her powers, but we all come from a fallen nature.

I am not saying that I understand the relationship "dance" as much or more than anyone else. I know, however, sometimes men appreciate having some of the decision making burden taken off of them by being "fooled by feminine wiles", especially if the decision is not a hill to die on.

Hey guys, what do you say about the relationship "dance"?

I see this in my beloved and in my daughter and myself in your husbands response. Thank you!

On the other hand, I remember a friend (Flinty Old Vermonter) of my Father who, prior to telling him a joke averred; "This is the sort of joke you can't tell to your Wife unless you know her really well."

Very frequently women can "manage" men, but of course, both parties have to get something out of the deal. Maybe you have to be nice to an idiot brother in law, provided you get "credit"
for your efforts.

Austin, Your observatioin touches upon the interesting comment of BakerStreetRider above. I am proposing that New Feminism ushers us away from the theory of marriage as deal-making - in which male domination became a cornerstone of radical feminism theory - toward a theory of marriage derived from complementarity and original design. Under the latter, the interaction is not a power play or contest but behavior, even wily behavior, undertaken in love and in trust. Does that make sense?

"Obedience is more like a dance, than a drill...especially between a man and a woman, where the roles are always changing."

We are told, and I believe that a healthy Catholic marriage is a miniature version of the relationship that should exist between Christ and his Church.

The way Marjorie is talking about "managing her man," is the same way that many in the Church are treating Christ -- which is why the American Catholic Church is sadly on the side of the road today.

I think you are wise, Krystyna

I would like to understand this Krystyna, and John's agreement. Tell me more. Marriage occurs between two fallen people; Christ is not, never was, "fallen". So you have a perfect person on one side of the relationship - ever loving, ever patient, ever divine.

While we can aspire within marriage to perfection, it's rarely (ever?) attainable. I am not, as noted, altogether comfortable with behaviors that smack of "manipulation" - but I am as susceptible, and willing, as my husband, to entrust myself to my spouse. My husband has surely used his masculinity to move me directions I would not otherwise have gone. And I am grateful.

Can you and/or John expound? Thank you.

I like the way you put this. When we acknowledge that our husbands are the heads of our families, we approach them differently than we would if we viewed them simply as someone to manipulate into doing what we want. We don't assume a "You are all wise, and I am the dirt beneath your feet" attitude. As long as we use our power--our "feminine wiles"--for good (rather than evil or selfish purposes), say if a husband wants to use the tax return for a big screen, flat-panel TV, and his wife would rather spend the money differently, she can use her gentle art of persuasion to sway him in the direction of a more responsible use of the money (of course, the tables could easily be turned, if he has the better idea, and she wants to put the money toward a pretty new car that they don't need). Ultimately, two heads are better than one (we hope), and putting ourselves at our husband's disposal (and his putting himself at ours) doesn't prevent our using our gentle arts--in the service of love--to influence the head of the household's final decision.

You also make a good point later about the ideal vs. the reality. With Christ and the Church, the Church need never doubt Christ's perfect wisdom and love in guiding her. Unfortunately, in a marriage between two fallen humans, neither is perfect, and, while the husband is still the head of the family, he needs for his wife to be the heart of the family and to use her God-given "wiles" to influence his decision for the ultimate good of the family. Obviously, husband and wife will not always disagree (just as they will probably not always agree about everything), but when they do, both need to bring what they have to the table. The husband needs to remain open to his wife's (gentle, loving) influence, and the wife needs to remain mindful of her husband's position as head of the family and final decision-maker (for the good of the family).

My husband and I have had many disagreements over our first eight years together, and I have learned that the best thing to do, particularly when he plants his feet in a way that could be detrimental to the family, is to put myself completely at his disposal and season every word I speak with him with unspoken prayers (partly that I'll be able to persuade him to listen and partly that I'll be ready to accept and make the best of his final decision, as though it came from God Himself--unless it's obviously a sin, which it hasn't ever been, thank goodness). I'm not saying I do a great job at this yet. I'm still a work in progress, but I'm learning as I go.

Dear Mrs. Campbell,

It is difficult to expound upon this when it seems like there are other things more foundational that would need to be established first.

There are many mysterious things that you have touched upon in a relationship between a man and a woman as husband and wife in this article. At least partly, I think you have treated something mysterious as though you have enough insight to address it as a whole, and you do damage to the mystery. Your articulation of something you don't understand enough to articulate well provokes resentment in men in general, whatever particular cases may be brought up as exceptions.

The very thing that your husband has told you he doesn't want to have knowledge of, you have displayed instead for the whole world to see. I don't understand why you did this.

I think I know better now why JPII is so difficult to understand when speaking on the relationships between men and women, and often comes across as esoteric and intangible. He is being circumspect with his subject, and usually is so delicate that in the end he hardly even touches it. Compared to JPII you have manhandled the subject.

At first I thought well I do prefer the direct confrontational approach when a woman interacts with her husband. But if you ever watched The War of the Roses, you change your mind.

John,

"Your articulation of something you don't understand enough to articulate well provokes resentment in men in general, whatever particular cases may be brought up as exceptions."

This is not true. She might upset you, but you are not the universal man. Other men understand her points and are not upset with them. Indeed, it is refreshing to see these issues raised.

Marjorie,

I'm happy to respond.

To understand what it means to have Christ and the Church in our marriage, we need to "experience" it for ourselves. For that to happen we need "interior life."

A person with interior life has "power," not of this world. When that power is exercised with humility and a Spirit of service, good things happen -- enabling conversion, faithfulness and fruitfulness. This is especially true in difficult times, when the Cross is heavy.

Happy (early) Saint Francis Day!

Mr. Karlson,

I don't presume to speak for you or for any particular man. It may have been better for me to say I think that Mrs. Campbell provokes resentment in men in general, but I assumed that, because it was I that wrote it, people who read it would understand that I think it. On the other hand, what I said is not a demonstrable fact, and it looks like I clumsily spoke as though it is.

I will try to say it better: I am quite certain that the vast majority of husbands are repulsed by the idea of being managed by their wives. It is my firm belief that if they are being managed by their wives and aren't repulsed by it, they ought to be.

I can only assume Mrs. Campbell speaks of managing men, and her husband in particular, because that is what she means. However, the idea of management is entirely inadequate and inappropriate when speaking of the relationship, even an imperfect relationship, between husband and wife. The idea falls gravely short in describing both a wife's relationship to her husband, and a husband's relationship to his wife.

I don't understand some of the views and ideas of marriage that the author and many commenters here seem to hold.

My wife and I are best friends who are partners in every sense. We compliment each other in certain ways, and also have many similarities. We have weaknesses and faults and battles of the wills at times, but to think of "managing" each other or knowingly manipulating one another for some end, that is a strange concept to me, at least strange in a marriage like mine. (My wife agrees.)

I'm coming to see that there are many different kinds of Catholic marriages, but that most of us assume our marriage is like everyone else's. There may be some commonalities, but I this is definitely not the case. I can't imagine making family decisions without the full participation of my wife, or holding things back from one another. (We've been married almost 10 years.) These "head" and "heart" roles spoken about by someone above seem like concepts to make people in rigid marital roles or tough marriages feel better.

I am a wife and I disagree with this article. I think it would be very damaging to my marriage if I tried to manage my husband.
In my experience the only way to "manage my man" is to manage myself. If I examine my own conduct and attitudes regularly, if I make a genuine effort to really understand what my husband wants and needs and help him to get it whenever possible, if I understand his personality well enough to present my wants and needs in a way that comes across as loving, respectful, and reasonable to him, then he is usually very generous and eager to help. My two cents.

If this is not "managing" then I don't know what is! But I have no issue with it, to be honest. When I come to know my spouse, respect his rightful objectives and I adapt to present myself, input and needs in a way most likely to promote loving communication, that's "management" in a very Catholic way, fully consistent with New Feminism. Perhaps what some of you experience as a natural temperament - such as Steve's comment suggests - takes quite a bit of work and understanding and study for others of us. I have a very direct style - as does my husband. Learning how to have a "disagreement in love" meant learning how to have a loving disagreement - if that makes sense. And I do agree with Mrs. Wise that this sort of learning flows more easily, perhaps if it all, when both spouses have their own, rich relationship with Christ. It is that primary relationship that invites us and give us the grace to manage ourselves in love, for Him, for each other.

Thank you for all the great comments. I have found the discussion very interesting.

Mrs. Campbell -

The definitions that the dictionary gives for "management" use the words "dominate," "influence," "control," "handle," and "govern." I think that these words, too, describe what most of us think when we hear the words "manage" and "manipulate." If these aren't the concepts you wish to get across, then using other words would better suit your aim.

I think that Angelique's description is not at all "management." And when I read her comment, I felt that I completely agreed. I detest the thought of trying to "manage" or "manipulate" my husband, and I'm sure that he would resent it if I tried.

As a member of the 'rank-and-file', I know that I can exercise my 'right to strike', but it's always best for 'management' to recognize in advance when the 'laborer' is either 'underpaid' or subject to poor 'working conditions'. Treating the 'worker' fairly avoids a lot of unnecessary 'collective bargaining' and can prevent a 'work stoppage'.

Do not hire 'scabs'.

Remember that the blessed 'union boss' (the most chaste spouse), prays for all of us!

A couple of questions for thought.

1. For those women who choke on the word "manage", do you mind your spouse using carefully chosen words, plotted timing - perhaps a bouquet of flowers - before introducing a difficult/challenging topic/decision that he anticipates will offend, rankle or provoke you?

2. If we use the words "planned or directed guidance", does that soften the concept?

Please make sure you've read the article in full. Historically, the rejection of this female skill has come from, hands down, radical feminists. I am raising the question whether New Feminism does not call upon us to reclaim our charms, beauty, feminity in its full potential within Christian marriage where we are entrusted to each other, not to avoid disagreement or cottle contentment, but to find our oneness in Christ - to thoughtfully and purposefully led each other in the path of love and giving and faith.

Marjorie,

Rather than "new feminism," why not use the word "leadership?"

Regardless of our vocation or sex, as mature Catholics, we are all called to be leaders, which includes being both sheep and shepherd.

With "spiritual maturity," we can manage at the same time -- being in control and giving up control.

My husband has written and published a video-book ("vook" as they are now called) that addresses some of the points raised in this thread. It is called: "Help Me To Live."

If you are interested check out: http://stephenwisephotography.com

Many Blessings!

I take issue with the repeated use of the word Feminism - an ideology I began to reject from my late teens whenever I smelt the brimstone. Feminism in any form is incompatible with Catholicism.

Very possibly this is how women work - with patience, silence and all the wisdom of a serpent and the gentleness of a dove (so to speak).

Very possibly men know this - and are convinced not by the erudite nature of a brilliantly worded arguement but by the irrisitible influence of a good woman.

And why the heck not?

I do not think you know the history and divisions within feminism, and think only within the context of modern radical feminism, which is indeed wrong. However, feminism proper certainly has a place in the Catholic Church as St Edith Stein shows us.

I am thankful she is not my wife.

Interesting.
Am I a radical feminist because I think I will leave the managing of my husband up to him?
Am I a radical feminist because I know that those things that are pleasing to my husband (beauty etc) can be used as a self serving tool?
I always saw manipulation as a mark of immaturity.
Now Judith had something hard to do and it involved saving her people. But I would never compare my marriage (or I hope not) to what she had to do.

I don't see the problem. I'd much rather have things presented to me in a pleasant way than a head on confrontation. If presented nicely, even if it is overly nice, and I allow it it appearntly wasn't something I felt that strongly about in the first place.

Reason playing off of Passions, Intellect vying with Emotions, etc. is much more interesting to me than turning things into a boardroom debate of pros and cons. It's like the dress scenario. By not bringing up the money right away, it takes his attention away from it and allows him to see how lovely the dress was and how happy his daughter is and suddenly when the price is brought up it seems like a bargain. That's helping him manage his intellect and passions in a way he wouldn't normally.

The key is as Mr Campbell responded: "as long as your objective is good"

Hi Everyone,

This article and the commentary continue to incite a lot of thought and prayerful introspection. I have pondered a few things and would like to share them.

When Eve brought the forbidden fruit to Adam, she used her feminine wiles to convince him to eat this fruit. He knew what it looked like and he was warned not to eat it by God, but he chose to listen to his woman when he knew she was sinning. He chose to "buy the lie" and be led to sin. This is a primary example of how a woman's persuasive nature and a man's willing nature can cause pain when BOTH of their hearts are in the wrong place (sin).

I think that when people comment negatively about this topic, they have been on the receiving end of a persuasive woman who used her God given talents for evil and not good. Because of their compliant and/or obedient nature, they were taken in, either with knowledge of the sin or without, and suffered greatly. This is where a woman's "management skill" is driven by the sin and is always wrong.

Conversely, when women use their God given persuasive skills to do good, and the man is not "fooled", as I know you guys are very smart, the woman's heart is allowing this skill to be used for good.

Marjorie, I understood what you meant, but maybe you should have elaborated more on our (the woman's) persuasive nature.

God made all of us women pretty persuasive. It's part of the XX makeup. This is what was shown so well in the Movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". The part of the conversation in the movie I forgot to write in my last commentary, in order to be brief, was the most important. The woman said, "The man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck. She points the head to what it needs to see".

If we are doing our job, we are helping our men to do their job in heading our families towards Christ, and we sometimes need to turn the head to see something so that the appropriate decision can be made.

Assuming you mean me, unRuptured, imagine how unbearable I was before I fell in love with Jesus Christ!



For those of you uncomfortable with my reference to feminism, I would like to refer you to paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae:

What was manipulative about the dress example? He could still have said, "Take it back." You did nothing to fool him or control his free will. It was not manipulative, just smart salesmanship.

Marjorie,

Starting with your choice of artwork, your post is as far from John Paul II's spirit and view of the "new feminism," as George Weigel's "pre-emptive" war strategy is from JPII's Gospel of Life.

Gosh, Mrs. Wise. It's hard to see how this is a dialogue. I really don't see what Mr. Weigel has to do with what "new feminism" is about, although I would enjoy his opinions, I'm sure. Nor do I understand what insidecatholic.com's art choice has to do with the content of New Feminism since, it appears to me, they selected a bold classical piece on the story of Judith. I'd never seen it before ...

That said, I do have something concrete and real to say about the "new feminism" as I am sure you do, too. Until we can express these points of view and dialogue, instead of trying to "mean girl" each other into being quiet, well, heck, not much will happen. Thank you for contributing here, but I encourage you to go with substance. I am open.

Marjorie,

Perhaps we can agree on one thing.

From what I see here, you seem to have more in common with George Weigel -- of recent times, than you do with John Paul II.

Marjorie has already made it clear that she doesn't see the connection between George Weigel's views and her article. So why don't you take a few moments and elaborate on why you think Marjorie has more in common with George Weigel than John Paul II? Or are you just determined to throw jabs without engaging in any real conversation?

It's really very simple, after being closely identified with John Paul II, George Weigel betrayed him by advocating very publicly and in very high places, for a pre-emptive "war of choice" in Iraq. Now he goes around the country getting paid to give talks, as though he was JP II' guy.

Marjorie has cited John Paul II's use of "new feminism" to support what seems to me to be a rather un-John Paul II like management strategy for women.

Both Weigel and Marjorie seem to be driven more by material power than the "real" power of the Holy Spirit.

We need to have interior life to really "get" John Paul II.

No one familiar with George Weigel's work would claim he and JPII are on the same page about everything. He's invited to give talks on the late pope because he happens to be one of the pope's major biographers. That he "betrayed" the pope in his support for the Iraq war is rather presumptuous, and up to the pope to decide, is it not?

Marjorie can speak in defense of her article, but I do think there are plenty of people with an interior life who don't "get" John Paul II. And just because you disagree with someone's understanding or application of the new feminism, doesn't mean you should assume they don't have an interior life.

Krystna-

Though I think I partly agree with you that Mrs. Campbell's article errs in any attempt to justify or promote "managing" men, I have to agree that your last couple of comments have detracted rather than added to the discussion. Perhaps you could explain what you think JPII's understanding of femininity really is, and how it differs from the understanding presented in this article.

I do not disagree with you, Mrs. Wise, that John Paul II had much to say about our relationships to Christ and the Church. I am focused here on an almost radical contribution he made both to us as Catholic women, but, importantly, to the world of women universally attempting to hash out fundamental questions about feminism and dignity and authentic living for all women. Mary Ann Glendon was one of the first official ambassadors of New Feminism and brought to a discussion dominated by radical feminists the "greatest novelty" - "the absence of the spirit of rebellion on the part of women and confrontation between the sexes." (Quoting Ted Lipien, Wojtyla's Women) This has been and continues to be a profound intellectual (as well as theological) contribution to what is often a very anger-driven dialogue. You perhaps mistake the connection between New Feminism - and the enthusiasm many of us have for its potential to change the landscape of how we think about women - and John Paul II's call for the New Evangelism as a "drive for material power." But, in fact, those of us working within the New Feminism perceive our efforts within the greater context of the New Evangelism. I hope this helps clarify.

My wife, Krystyna, is busy, but she wanted to respond to the comments directed her way. So here goes.

In his 1995 "Letter to Women," John Paul II called on the "genius" of womanhood to be brought to bear in helping to re-humanize society and bring about a "civilization of love."

Marjorie presents Mary Ann Glendon as an ambassador of "new feminism."

I've done some checking around but haven't come across any examples of Mary Ann Glendon speaking out, in public or private, against the horrors perpetrated by her country on the people of Iraq.

The good news is, there are women out there heeding JPII's message. Krystyna is one. Hopefully Marjorie and Zoe are too.

It appears Krystyna knows how to manage her man.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Stephen/Krystyna,

The problem I see with your recent comments is that you don't seem to think through what you're saying. Pope John Paul II knew Mary Ann Glendon very well. He invited her to sit on numerous advisory committees, and they had many personal conversations. She made significant contributions to his writings on women. All this was in addition to her role as ambassador. Because she has not publicly criticized the US's actions in Iraq doesn't mean she hasn't used her "feminine genius" or contributed to a "civilization of love."

The opportunities to build a civilization of love are all around us. No one can do it all. In addition to what has happened in Iraq, there are endless affronts to human dignity around the world... human trafficking at staggering numbers, mass rape and genocide in the Congo and Sudan, persecution in Burma, starvation in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, abortion in the west, forced sterilization and abortion in China, the ongoing crises in the Holy Land, oppression of women in parts of the Middle East, the list goes on and on...

Are you able to speak out on all these things? To change them all? Probably not. So I just don't understand your point. It sounds like you're just upset that more high-profile Catholics haven't spoken up against the Iraq war. And, frankly, I share that disappointment. I make no secret of the fact that I was against the Iraq war and I'm critical of U.S. foreign policy.

But building a civilization of love involves many efforts, and all kinds of work to create new systems and new ways of thinking and approaching problems. Each of us has our role to play. For all of us, it must start at home. I think we would be better off encouraging each other in the good we do, rather than only noticing what the other person may not be doing.

I have held off from commenting on this for a few days because such a personal-yet-universal topic demands mulling over. Having read the comments, I am further convinced that my position has merit.

I think the primary problem here was the difficulty in defining "wiles" and "managing" appropriately. Wily is a word with varied connotations, some positive, some negative, some incompetent cartoon coyotes. And while managing is seen as a valuable skill, I think the phrase "being managed" provokes a very negative gut reaction in most people. It seems that Mrs. Campbell's "feminine wiles" consist of Angelique's description-- "I understand his personality well enough to present my wants and needs in a way that comes across as loving, respectful, and reasonable to him" and she even said as much. But since that clarification is not in the original text, I think it is being overlooked and some (including the Wises) are understandably inferring a very different definition of "management" on Marjorie's part. Based on their assumption that "management" is something degrading or disrespectful towards men, they are correct that it is incompatible with JPII's new feminism. However, what Mrs. Campbell was actually talking about, as clarified by her conversation with Angelique (comments 19 and 20), seems consistent with the new feminism and JPII's teachings in general.

A careful reading of comments 19 and 20 would clear up much of the confusion, I think.

First, let me preface my comments with the obvious: The title of the article is certainly an attention getter!

Quoting the final two paragraphs:
A woman is strong because of her awareness of this entrusting. Thus the "perfect woman" (cf. Prv 31:10) becomes an irreplaceable support and source of spiritual strength for other people, who perceive the great energies of her spirit. These "perfect women" are owed much by their families, and sometimes by whole nations" (Mulieris Dignitatem, 30).

Being a perfect woman, I finally grasped, may well mean managing my man. I yet have much to learn from my mother-in-law.

It seems that the specific examples given from your marriage are more trivial and tongue in cheek. Certainly the BIG decisions and challenges would merit full and open conversation, discernment, and prayer by BOTH spouses as opposed to one spouse simply making the executive decision in the spirit of "managing her man" -- that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

The final two paragraphs are simply a non-sequitur. It is phrased in a "If...Then..." formula. It is easy to agree with the quote from Mulieris Dignitatem, but that does not necessarily mean that the final concluding statement is true.

Let us turn the tables: Perhaps an interesting follow up article would be on ways (from your perspective) that your husband needs to "Manage his woman" and how that would help him become a "Perfect Man". I think this would help round out the spirited discussion above since the word "Manage" carries connotations that many objected to. After all, what husband does not want to be the "Perfect Man"!

Regards,
Greg

What would be far more interesting, Greg, would be for you to write an article entitled "Managing Women". Men are not likely to relate to my perspective. But there is a discussion to be had among women about "being managed" - the corollary to the interesting range of male opinion here. As you can see, I invited comments on it #23 above ("1. For those women who choke on the word "manage", do you mind your spouse using carefully chosen words, plotted timing - perhaps a bouquet of flowers - before introducing a difficult/challenging topic/decision that he anticipates will offend, rankle or provoke you?"

But I've gotten no takers.

Why? ~my theory is that most women know their men "manage" them with a range of techniques AND that many women are often touched when their men take time to actually think through an approach that is "sensitive" and considerate, rather than storming through our china shops with their horns flailing, demanding obedience.

But, that's a subject for a different article.

"She'll be usin' her feminine wiles! I'm agin 'em." Grumpy.

Yet loving kindness won him over and the protective hero was brought out in him. Spare the manipulation but rather love and serve others, especially your spouse. If both do so then each will have greater happiness.

Thanks for this article.

There is a fuller sense of living life for a male when he succumbs to his wife's wishes on the domestic front. Why else would men end up sleeping in pink bedrooms with floral print pillowcases? There is a sense of comfort in having the feminine create your environment.

I do think there is a lot to this, and not just because of Western conditioning. It is a merry dance in which the masculine initiates a vision that will please the feminine. The feminine fills that vision with context and meaning, to which the masculine becomes the servant of action to the feminine's wishes in order to find his own joy in the feminine's happiness. This is a story of the Church and you only need to read the Gospels to see how much of a servant Jesus actually was to the Church to the point of non-voluntary gift of self in the case of the woman that had bled for 12 years or the miracle at Cana.

What does this mean for us in the Church? Well maybe men have to come up with a vision which will help women find fulfilment in the context of the Church and then listen to them as the women tell the men how to carry it out.