The Stepford Wives Organization

A place for conservative women to discuss true women's liberation, the role of women in healing America, the truth about feminism and more...
User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:30 pm

I stumbled upon this web site the other day: The Stepford Wives Organization.

It's a private group of wives located in Conneticut, who have taken The Stepford Wives book as their ideal standard. Essentially, they take the following scriptures quite literally, by treating their husbands as their kings, lords, masters and teachers:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
They have a blog and FAQ page on their web site, as well. Here is what they have written on their homepage:
-----Quotation Begins-----
Stepford Wives Organization celebrates the male as head-of-our-household, and the traditional family unit. We believe the traditional family is still a good, sound idea that can be brought into this modern day and age alongside new living arrangements.

Stepford Wives Organization is a website that supports the idea of the homemaking wife who is not only the cheery domestic goddess, but a fantastic dresser, neat as a pin, a lady with good manners, and a gracious, well-behaved, obedient wife who always puts her man first.

Stepford Wives Organization supports and promotes the Stay-At-Home-Mother.

Stepford Wives Organization celebrates the good housekeeping days of the 1950s.

Stepford Wives Organization also believes in the freedom for anyone and everyone to pursue their dreams. We never have a cross word to say about other people's decisions to lead their lives. If we have an opinion- which is seldom- we speak quietly to our husbands in the privacy of our homes. If we have an opinion on the matter, it would be our husband's opinion.

Stepford Wives Organization believes that we should strive and spend all our free time to look pretty, since women at Stepford are meant to be seen, not heard. We keep silent and speak only when we are complimenting and admiring our husbands.

Stepford Wives Organization doesn't understand the Feminist movement and women's choice to stray outside the home into the harsh professional world of men, but we do support the women who have jobs outside their homes, IF they have been told to do so by their husbands and given the permission.

Stepford Wives Organization believes that as women, we should regard and revere our husband's decisions as the final, penultimate authority in our lives. Our husbands are our fashion advisors: they decide what we wear. They are our food critics: they tell us what we cook well and what we should and should not cook. They are our political advisors: they decide how we should vote. They are our intellectual guides: they tell us what and how we should think.

Stepford Wives Organization believes that as a women, we should accomodate our husbands by allowing them full access privileges to our physical assets. We never think about physical pleasure for ourselves: we save our states of arousal for our husbands and refrain from any self-attention when our husbands are absent or present. We believe that each day, we should preserve our purity for our husbands to possess on their whim. Our husbands, as men, have sole access to our bodies. We have been taught from a long tradition that we, as wives, have no rights to expect or ask for physical gratification.

Stepford Wives Organization believes in deferring to our men and letting them make all the decisions that affect us and our households.

Stepford Wives Organization believes our men are always right, and we gals are, as Pope Gregory I once said "slow in understanding and our unstable and naive minds render us by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in our husbands. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood."

Stepford Wives Organization is in no way associated with any fetish, transgender, deviant or alternative lifestyle groups. We do NOT support any fetish, transgender, gay, deviant or alternative groups. We do NOT support roleplaying, fantasy, or bdSM play. We promote traditional family values and a positive attitude towards marriage. Stepford women believe in a clean way of life that promotes a healthy environment for marriage and children.

Stepford Wives Organization believes our men are No.1. They are our protector, our knights, and, in Helen B. Andelin's words, "The kingpin around which all other activities of our lives revolve."
-----Quotation Ends-----
Have these women gone too far, or are they just applying these and other scriptures as they were intended to be applied?

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Michelle » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:43 pm

duplicate
Last edited by Michelle on Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Michelle
captain of 100
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Michelle » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:44 pm

Is it a joke?

Some I would agree with:traditional family, stay at home mom. Most parts seem like hyperbole to start a fight/discussion?

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:00 pm

Michelle wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:44 pm
Is it a joke?

Some I would agree with:traditional family, stay at home mom. Most parts seem like hyperbole to start a fight/discussion?
No, it's no joke. I also thought at first it might be satire, but it turns out it's for real. Here's what the first FAQ they wrote says:
-----Quotation Begins-----
1. “You Expect Me To Do WHAT? Are You Out of Your Effin Mind? Is This Site A Joke?”
For the most part, we practice what we preach. We take the role of the traditional wife very seriously. We can’t say we succeed 100% of the time. Sometimes the will slips a little or tempers may get tested. It’s only human. Remember that we come from a broad range of backgrounds and this site is simply a place for us to share our notes on our notion of the perfect housewife with you. The Stepford Wives Organization does not tell women and wives how to live and conduct themselves; we merely show you how WE live and conduct ourselves…according to our husband’s wishes, of course.

Think in terms of Haute Couture (high fashion in French). You know, all those models you see parading next season’s in look on the runway. Most of us understand that only a handful of wives married to Arabic oil sheikhs are going to be able to shelf out 6 thousands dollars for a dress (all the time while denouncing the West as “shaitan” of course). For the rest of us, we wait until that design trickles down to Prèt-à-porté (Ready To Wear in French) at the department store where we can easily purchase and alter according to our body types. So it is with our Stepford Wives Organization website: we share our outlines with you, the sewing pattern to assemble the perfect housewife. You may not be able to make the perfect cut, but you’ll have the destination points marked out.

We realize we come off to many visitors as 110% over-the-top Über Hausfraus, super devoted to our husbands, super obedient to his whims and fancies. We also understand this is not for everyone. But we do know that in this day and age of the raging, brusque, male-crushing era of gurl power, simply walking away with a third of what the Stepford Wives Organization say and do….even if you only achieve a fraction of that third….you are already way ahead of today’s woman in feminine meekness, girlish charm, and wifely submission.

Feminism and the Woman’s Rights Movement have inadvertently made our jobs much easier. (Thanks sisters!) The liberated woman today has become so coarse, brusque, insulting, and unyielding to her guy, we’ve noticed that even the slightest trace of feminine acquiescence to our men, the slightest hint of “giving way” and yielding to men, whether it be decision-making, an absence of sarcasm, a cheery concession to whip up a nice little warm meal, any tiny way to say “thank you. I appreciate you.” – evokes a surprising level of gratitude in our stronger half. Feminism and today’s women may have trained men to expect so little from us, but it’s also soften many men into hollow semblances of what we once knew them to be. For those women who complain that men aren’t what they used to be, they only have to look in the mirror to discover the cause. We find that if we hold up our part in the traditional role – in whatever amount we can manage – it slowly awakens in our men to ascend back to the role they once took charge of so well.
-----Quotation Ends-----

Jonesy
captain of 100
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Jonesy » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:27 pm

I still have to think about this some more, but these are my off-the-cuff thoughts. I have more to say, but I’ll leave at this for now.

I showed my wife and asked what her initial response to this was. She said, “And this is different from what’s going on in this house how?” Cracked me up. I love my wife. We had a good discussion about it and one that I want to continue. I’m curious to find the complimentary spin on this for the husband.

But you know, the more I look into this, the more I’m in favor. My perspective is that it really puts the husband in a position to own up and take responsibility/accountability of his family’s temporal and spiritual salvation in all ways possible. I liked the tone on the website. It’s a breath of fresh air as opposed to the new generation feminism creeping in society, which is extremely repulsive and unattractive. No self-respecting man would marry one of them.

We have different views in certain areas, of course. I think I’m a very liberal husband to my wife, and I wouldn’t and don’t hold her to some of those high expectations. And I think that is the whole key to it all on the woman’s side. She gets to decide who to marry, and hopefully she’s blessed to find a righteous husband. I’m grateful to have had my wife pointed out to me by the Spirit. Anyways, if my wife did more fully meet these high expectations, I would reciprocate and compliment that action respectfully (or maybe just willingly regardless). She has always naturally inspired me to seek to be better. I think if a woman does put her husband’s desires above her own, I would make sure I would meet her desires. I don’t see that as counterproductive. Maybe it’s the natural way it is supposed to be.

I’ve told my wife before that I don’t think we’re a very compatible match, but I think we’re a very complimentary match. We each have complimentary talents that we use to everyone’s benefit. We fill roles we are each naturally good at, most being in conformity to conservative gender roles. She asked me about woman special forces, and I told her I think it’s a joke. I think it’s selfish to seek something that least benefits society and her God-given instinctive nature. I think it would be a disservice to herself and a wasteful endeavor. But then again, if the husband is good with that, then go for it.

One thing about my wife is that she is very intelligent. I do like to council with her and seek her opinion on things. But if I’m to take accountability for my family, it really presses me to seek God’s will and council; and of course she still retains her rights in her respective stewardship.

To be honest, those types of women can get whatever they want from their husbands; but because they sacrifice above themselves, they surely are goddesses in my eyes. My wife certainly is, and I desire to reciprocate.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
captain of 100
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:55 am
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby BeNotDeceived » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:46 pm

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ignored. Second, it is skewed all out of proportion. Third, it stagnates due to complacency, opposing interests, and lack of funding.

Jonesy
captain of 100
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Jonesy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:39 pm

For the women, how do you interpret these scriptures? Do the men have the final say in things?
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.(Ephesians 5:22)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
How do you think that applies here?
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile--(D&C 121)

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

There are two lines of authority

Postby LDS Anarchist » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:30 pm

Jonesy,
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. (1 Peter 3:1-2)
The Spanish language version is as follows:
Asimismo vosotras, mujeres, estad sujetas a vuestros maridos, para que también los que no creen en la palabra sean ganados sin palabra por la conducta de sus esposas, al observar vuestra conducta casta y respetuosa. (1 Pedro 3:1-2)
Translated from the Spanish into English (by me), it reads:
"Likewise, you wives, be subject to your husbands, so that also those who do not believe in the word may be won without the word by the conduct of their wives, upon observing your chaste and respectful conduct."
The Spanish version is, in my opinion, a more correct translation.

The reason why I bring this up is because these scriptures have no bearing, whatsoever, upon the priesthood. The commandment for wives to submit to their husbands applies equally to non-Mormon husbands, who, of course, have no priesthood.

In other words, there are two lines of authority. One line is constantly brought up and discussed in church: the priesthood line. But there is another line which is more ancient than the priesthood line: the kingly line. Thus, we get scriptures such as this:
They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—they are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. (D&C 76:55-57)
The scripture you quoted:
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; that he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121:41-44)
contains constraints upon only the priestly line, not the kingly line. In other words, the context of this part of the section (from verse 34 to 45) is a discussion of the priesthood. So, the "no power or influence" that is being spoken of is "priesthood power and priesthood influence." Priesthood power or priesthood influence cannot nor ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, meaning merely possessing the priesthood and having a high sounding title, but by persuasion, etc. But there is more power and influence in the world than just the priesthood, and some of those powers and influences use more than just persuasion, etc. (Some of those powers utilize, for example, force of arms. Police power and influence, for example, uses force of arms, and does so legitimately authorized.) And another of those non-priesthood powers is the kingly power. Therefore, the kingly line of power and influence does not operate in the same way as the priestly line. Whereas the priesthood line cannot maintain any power or influence by virtue of merely being a priest, the kingly power and influence is maintained merely by being a king. God is our Father, and He is King. As our Father and our King, He is to be obeyed. Not because He is kind, or gentle or all-knowing, etc., but merely because He is our Father and our King. Thus, the kingly line of authority operates differently than the priestly line. God's priesthood has nothing to do with our obligation to obey Him, either. He created us as His children and He has a right to our obedience as our Creator. Our earthly father and mother also have a right to be obeyed, as they have brought us into this earthly existence. It doesn't matter that one's father and mother have no priesthood; all children are still commanded by God to "honor your father and mother." These and other commandments deal with the kingly line of authority, and have nothing, whatsoever, to do with priesthood.

User avatar
Sarah
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:16 am

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Sarah » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:06 pm

Jonesy wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:27 pm
Anyways, if my wife did more fully meet these high expectations, I would reciprocate and compliment that action respectfully (or maybe just willingly regardless). She has always naturally inspired me to seek to be better. I think if a woman does put her husband’s desires above her own, I would make sure I would meet her desires. I don’t see that as counterproductive. Maybe it’s the natural way it is supposed to be.
Yup, that is how it is supposed to work. How else can a man learn to become like God and learn this principle, if a woman doesn't obey and take the role of follower.

"And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant"

"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

"But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."

"But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister."

Problem comes when men do not reciprocate, or are not liberal as you mentioned was your tendency, and have an attitude of entitlement for this kind of treatment. If they never learned to serve their mother for example, but were spoiled and took her for granted, they will treat their wives the same way.

User avatar
Yahtzee
captain of 100
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Yahtzee » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:14 pm

This is interesting to read as I have a stronger personality than my husband, but we still follow a surprising amount of this. Definitely not all.
I take issue with some of it. I won't tell anyone how their marriage should work, but some of this is too far. We're gonna just assume that no woman who follows this is in an abusive relationship and it's just what they prefer.
Stepford Wives Organization believes that we should strive and spend all our free time to look pretty, since women at Stepford are meant to be seen, not heard. We keep silent and speak only when we are complimenting and admiring our husbands.
Vanity? This is not the Lord's way. The scriptures have choice words for women who care so much for their looks. Also, the scriptures urge women to be industrious with their free time. Nope. Can't agree with this at all.
Stepford Wives Organization believes that as women, we should regard and revere our husband's decisions as the final, penultimate authority in our lives. Our husbands are our fashion advisors: they decide what we wear. They are our food critics: they tell us what we cook well and what we should and should not cook. They are our political advisors: they decide how we should vote. They are our intellectual guides: they tell us what and how we should think.
My husband always asks me who we're voting for as he had neither the time nor inclination to research. Also, he married me for my ability to intellectually challenge him. This sounds like a really boring marriage. But I'm terrible at fashion, so yes, telling me what to wear works for us. I think we're an exception with that though.
Stepford Wives Organization believes our men are always right, and we gals are, as Pope Gregory I once said "slow in understanding and our unstable and naive minds render us by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in our husbands. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood."
I wasn't offended until I read this. How incredibly dehumanizing.
Disney is the opiate of the masses.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8829
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Fiannan » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:07 am

Stepford Wives Organization believes our men are always right, and we gals are, as Pope Gregory I once said "slow in understanding and our unstable and naive minds render us by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in our husbands. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood."


Image
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Joel » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:55 am

Maybe it is just a way to practice their dominance and submission kinks just overlaid with religious overtones so they don't feel guilty about their kinks. Could be that these people have just conditioned their behavior and worldview to the degree where the reward circuit in their brains is engaged and it feels rewarding and good, like feeling the spirit.


Before the photoshop job :)

Jonesy
captain of 100
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Jonesy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:32 pm

Sarah wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:06 pm
Jonesy wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:27 pm
Anyways, if my wife did more fully meet these high expectations, I would reciprocate and compliment that action respectfully (or maybe just willingly regardless). She has always naturally inspired me to seek to be better. I think if a woman does put her husband’s desires above her own, I would make sure I would meet her desires. I don’t see that as counterproductive. Maybe it’s the natural way it is supposed to be.
Yup, that is how it is supposed to work. How else can a man learn to become like God and learn this principle, if a woman doesn't obey and take the role of follower.

"And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant"

"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

"But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."

"But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister."

Problem comes when men do not reciprocate, or are not liberal as you mentioned was your tendency, and have an attitude of entitlement for this kind of treatment. If they never learned to serve their mother for example, but were spoiled and took her for granted, they will treat their wives the same way.
That’s a good point. What about obeying the husband just because it’s not only a commandment, but also a covenant for the wife? How far does she go to be submissive and obedient to the husband?

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

The Relationship Debate

Postby LDS Anarchist » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:56 pm

The following two articles were lifted from the Stepford Wives Organization website. The first article was written by Carolyn Snowden of the Stepford Wives Organization. The counterpoint article was written by a professional career woman named Bidisha, a broadcaster and writer who specializes in arts, culture, and social affairs, including gender, sexuality, and race. Both articles were published back-to-back as part of a relationship debate in the November 2012 issue of the Emirate Women magazine.

Image

Okay, so here is Carolyn's article:
-----Quotation Begins-----
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, the taste of cake – homemade cake – is quickly becoming a distant memory.

Though it is unfair to impose the evolution of a Western woman’s place in marriage, the present multicultural space that is the internet has set standards whereby countries pushing for developed façades find they have little choice but to adopt. If they refuse, they are labeled through ethnocentric eyes as backward and archaic.

The point of departure from the traditional Western housewife begins post-World War II, after women have returned -from the workforce where they filled vacancies traditionally held by then enlisted men– to what was once domestic satisfaction, now discontent. The push to be liberated from the home was credited to Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique (1963), a book that documented the housewife’s dissatisfaction with her domestic sphere.

Helen B. Andelin supposedly penned Fascinating Womanhood (1963) as a rebuttal to Freidan’s call to get out of the house. Andelin advised wives instead, to hone their feminine charms, pamper their husbands like kings, and stay happy as grateful homemakers.

Friedan’s marriage ended in divorce after 22 years.

Andelin’s spanned almost 60 years from her wedding day until her husband’s death.

It is important to note that the Women’s Liberation Movement, feminists and conscientious groups around the world continue to work for career choices to be available to women, but the distinction has to be made that being a wife is a career choice. It’s a full time job. Women are finding out that holding two jobs – one in the workplace, one at home is a near impossible feat, resulting in stress, a newfound discontent, and often, divorce. Instead of doing one thing well, two things are dispatched with mediocrity. It’s a half-baked cake.

The modern working wife – not the modern working single woman- is a specter of only 50 some years, set against the traditional wife of thousands of years, beginning from primitive times in the cave through various periods leading up to today’s homemaker. Sure, Hellenistic women had unconventional freedom, but look what Grecian men came to be known for? In the old days, wives – not women – were considered chattel property; women were traditionally seen as inferior, untrustworthy decision makers, thanks in part to the reputation left by Eve. Throughout all this however, a remarkable agreement was borne out of this disparity.

The traditional wife works to create a haven of peace and tranquility to which her husband can retire after a day’s work. The traditional wife will listen attentively to her husband describe his workday, including how he had to listen attentively to his boss’s ideas for restructuring. The traditional wife takes instruction from her husband much as he takes instruction from his boss out in the workforce. The traditional wife holds her tongue when her thoughts contradict her husband’s, just as he holds his when his thoughts contradict his boss’s. The traditional wife works hard to please her husband and satisfy his wishes much as he works hard to please his boss and satisfy his wishes.

Modern women will demand: “why can’t my husband take the role of the traditional wife and listen to my problems when I come home from work?” Let’s be honest. No woman would respect a stay-at-home husband while she slots away to pay the bills. It’s the difference of the sexes from time immemorial. The asymmetry of gender roles is the mystery that makes sex steamy and being a man or a woman mysterious. That’s why men are expected by women to keep working and fulfilling their traditional roles as breadwinner while women demand liberation to chase their dreams.

The modern husband, on the other hand, has been dulled by the constant grind of politically correct cries to the extent that he is led to believe he can do without the traditional wife. He returns to an empty home, bears constant contention from an equal, who has been seduced away from the achievement of a union, to the achievement of the self. The problem is that once he realizes that he can get by with so little, he really stands nothing to gain from staying married. As a reformed bachelor, he can return to an empty home, meet no resistance to his wishes, live free of deprecating remarks. If he wants sex, he can opt for one night stands, or call a prostitute.

This, is the true realm of a man’s world. Where it is still socially stigmatizing for women to experience anonymous sex, it is the oldest profession in a male domain. That is why books like Marabel Morgan’s The Total Woman (1973) to the recent Seks Islam Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia (2011) by Hatijah Aam, urges women to acquire and excel in both homemaking and the lascivious skills of women for hire.

The modern marriage faces the ever-looming threat of internet porn. These days, men can actually stray without leaving the home. Studies have shown that men who watch pornography are more likely to have extramarital affairs. It is up to the attentive wife to reduce her chances of being cheated upon. She does this by giving in to her husband’s carnal desires. Even if she can’t stop his online participation, she can at least fulfill his fantasies and keep his imagination from wandering. The absentee wife by contrast, exhausted from a day’s work, or even still at work overtime, will have no such opportunity to keep her marriage from disintegrating.

Fundamental Muslims and Christians alike, anachronistic sects like the Amish and Fundamental Mormons, the newly formed Obedient Wives Club, and the Stepford Wives Organization have always supported the traditional wife, her submission to her husband’s wishes and her desire to please and gratify him. Contrary to popular modern opinion which champions the self, the partnership of one who works to provide for a home with another who works to furnish that home, is the most proactive approach to improving the chances of making a marriage last. Not only does she create an environment where a man feels comfortable, needed, appreciated, revered, and ultimately recharged to face another day of work among strangers, she also provides all the perks he would get if he were a single man on the prowl. In other words, she gives him no reason whatsoever to stray from the home. It’s a tall order to fill, a far cry from the scoffing frowns she is met with when she meekly announces she is just a housewife.

The truth is, there are no foolproof approach to keeping a marriage intact. One can follow all the rules, take all the necessary precautions, and still end up single again. Between the chaos of modern relationships and the increasingly trigger-happy tendency to divorce, a diligent woman in the profession of maintaining a happy, sound marriage will fortify her marriage by reducing interferences to her career goal.
-----Quotation Ends-----
And here is Bidisha's rebuttal:
-----Quotation Begins-----
There is no person more boring, or bored, than a stay-at-home wife. I would recommend such a role only for women who have small brains, small hopes, small potential and small personalities. But I know no such women. What I do know is that 5,000 years of inequality, machismo, conditioning, intimidation and oppression have resulted in this strange, stunted creature – the surrendered wife – who finds some kind of sick nobility in grovelling to a man. The wretch believes that her highest virtue lies in giving the greatest attention to the smallest things: the dustpan, the oven, the crib, the sink – and the contents of her husband’s underpants.

The surrendered wife deserves our sympathy. Without realising it, she has been subjected to a deep cultural, social and political lobotomy, internalised the propaganda that says she is naturally destined for wife-work according to her innate capacities, and has emerged competent but wholly unrebellious. She is good at organising the home, judicious with her children’s upbringing, efficient about the family’s comings and goings, savagely chic when entertaining. But she is dependent for her survival – and that makes her submissive. If she doesn’t please her lord and master, she has nothing to fall back on. In order to survive, she must turn herself into a giver in the bedroom, a maid on the landing, a cook in the kitchen, a nanny in the nursery, a secretary at the desk, a housekeeper in the pantry and a hostess in the lounge. No matter what reflected status she may gain from her husband, at the core of it she herself is merely a geisha: there to serve. She exists to be exploited for her sexual, social and physical labour but, as a dependent subordinate with no power of her own, she can be bullied, hurt, disparaged or replaced whenever her owner chooses.

When a woman’s scope is reduced to the four walls of her home, her soul shrinks accordingly. Her frustration, boredom and bitterness are sublimated into obsession with petty surface details, extreme self-objectification, obsessive shopping and the bullying of staff. Because she is isolated, she doesn’t have the resources to fight the source of her oppression – that is, her husband and the entire macho ethos that keeps her in her place – and so she transfers her rage onto other women, satisfying her insecurity by making small-minded, insecure, sniping judgements. She begins to police other women’s behaviour, perhaps even her own daughters’ behaviour, punishing them if they do not conform. This is understandable and it’s what oppressed groups have always done. It is easier to lash out laterally than face the reality of oppression; easy to submit to misogynist ‘tradition’, hard to fight such entrenched views, especially when they are backed up by the threat of violence.

I believe women deserve much more than a life of service. That is not a life, it is merely an existence in which all of our resources are used up for others’ benefit. That said, the hardest and most profound free work we do – bringing up children, caring for elderly relatives, keeping communities together peacefully – should be acknowledged, honoured and credited instead of being assumed, expected, unpaid, undervalued and taken advantage of.

Instead of women judging each other, or themselves, they should judge men. We deserve to go into the world to fulfil our potential without being leered at, opposed, judged, sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, followed or abused. We deserve to be treated equally as minds and personalities, not as objects. A woman has a basic human right to be seen as a person in her own right, an individual, and not a man’s wife, someone’s daughter, someone’s mother, someone’s sister or someone’s neighbour, with all the labour and duties that entails. And when we come home unmolested from our studies, our work or visiting friends and family, we will do precisely half of the work required, and the man should do the other half. Since a man makes half a baby, he should do half the childcare. Since he makes half the dirt, he should do half the cleaning. And since he eats half the food, he should do half of all the kitchen work.

Men have killed each other in great wars, put other men on the moon, created vast architectural structures and tiny electronic circuits, and constructed complex governments in which men help other men achieve wealth, status and power. Women have done so too, of course, but their names are erased from history and their contribution ignored, belittled, downgraded or sidelined. Men have developed intricate religions, laws and courts in which, year after year, men who abuse women walk free using a variety of excuses. Are you telling me that Man, this great and complex creation, in all his genius and abusiveness and hypocrisy, is not capable of wiping a baby’s bottom?

Being a surrendered wife is dull, repetitive, unjust, unfulfilling and submissive. Obedient women don’t make history, they merely clean it and furnish it for men to inhabit, and are not credited afterwards. Never forget that surrender is the very last resort of heroes, warriors and adventurers. It is easy to be a slave because you know what your fate is: to be a slave forever. But that is no life. Women are too interesting to be hidden from the world, too intelligent to be barred from contributing in full, too witty to be silenced in public, too dynamic to be held back from the outside world and too strong to be denied.
-----Quotation Ends-----
So, who wins the debate?

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:59 pm

A search today on Google News finds that The Stepford Wives has recently been in discussion:

The Stepford Wives: Inside the making of the 1975 feminist horror classic | Katharine Ross, Paula Prentiss, Nanette Newman, and Tina Louise look back at the chilling satire about free-thinking women transformed into docile housewives | DEVAN COGGAN@DEVANCOGGAN | Entertainment Weekly | POSTED ON OCTOBER 23, 2017 AT 12:13PM EDT

The Legacy of The Stepford Wives | by Princess Weekes | The Mary Sue | 8:25 am, October 24th, 2017

STEPFORD WIVES Modern women reveal why they love pandering to their husbands — unlike Louise Redknapp | Being a Stepford Wife has drawn a lot of controversy recently after Louise Redknapp said staying at home and looking after the kids made her lose herself in her marriage | By Georgette Culley and Louisa Gregson | The Sun UK | 24th October 2017, 8:47 pm | Updated: 24th October 2017, 8:47 pm

The Stepford Wives – of Amherst | Cumberland News Now | Published: Oct. 20, 2017, 10:06 a.m.

Excerpt from the last article:
We found our restaurant and sat outside on the patio. A man walked by with his dog, looked up at us and with a big smile said 'lovely day, isn't? 'Well, that's it!', I exclaim to Wanda and Susan 'where are we? Stepford?!'. Then the friendly waitress came out to take our order.

The entire day was like that. People chatted, smiled, thanked us for coming into their business. It was weird! It was strange! It was.....wonderful!
Lol.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Rensai » Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:01 pm

Women, know your limits:


Be like:



But seriously, that stepford wives stuff goes way too far, it looks like a big knee-jerk reaction to the rampant over the top feminism we have today. The answer to the extremes of feminism isn't to go extreme in the other direction.

God is both male and female, both are perfect, both are greatly intelligent and work together as a team. A woman fully embracing all points of that stepford wives guide would stunt her progression by failing to learn to think and act on her own.

The family, a proclamation to the world is much better guidance. In particular, my wife and I like this section:
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.
We are a team, we are partners, however, if I, as the man, bear final responsibility to "provide the necessities of life and protection for their families" then in cases where we can't come to agreement, I have to have the final decision, otherwise, I can't be held responsible for that. Likewise, my wife has to have the final say on things regarding "the nurture of their children." If I had my way on everything, then she could not be held responsible for anything and I would be practicing unrighteous dominion. That would not be fair or right. Of course, we only resort to this method in rare cases of a disagreement we cannot resolve; in most cases, we strive to come to a consensus. By working, talking things out, and planning our lives together, we both think and grow and ensure we're making the best decisions we can for our family. I would hate to have a wife who refused to use her brain out of some misguided attempt to defer to me in all things.

One last comment. I don't trust those bible verses, those sound like they came from men, not God. The book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and does not contain anything like that.
I know nothing and I can prove it.

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

The planned obsolescence of women

Postby LDS Anarchist » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:06 pm

There are a few reasons why this web site (The Stepford Wives Organization) caught my eye.

One was that this isn't just feminism-lite, but full-blown anti-feminism. It is completely opposite. Diametrically opposed. And it's coming from women, not men. Such a radical reaction to feminism seems to me to be right on time, in the scheme of things.

Another reason is that these women don't just do what the scriptures state, but go above and beyond that by inserting a 1950's ideal into it. The 1950's seems to be seen by them as the epitome as the feminine ideal. That is interesting to me because the MGTOW's also take that same view. The MGTOW's are men, while the Stepfords are women, yet both say that the 1950's idealized woman is the epitome of femininity.

A third reason is because there are two factors that have been steadily marching towards and leading to the obsolescence of women: technological progress and feminism. This one-two punch can only inevitably lead to the obsolescence of women. I've have been teaching such privately for years. Men make machines to make their lives easier, but the instant they started making machines to make woman's lives easier, they began the march towards making women obsolete. I once had a conversation with a robotics engineer about where our technology is today. (And this was years ago, btw.) And he basically said that all you have to do is have a sequence, and an automaton can be made to perform it.

So, take, for example, the washing machine. Women historically have done all the washing of the clothes, by hand, even. Men don't do that because the women do it. If a man has to do it, given that he doesn't want to do it, he will instead just invent a machine to do it for him. This is the nature of men. We create machines to do the work we don't want to do. The washing machine was created to make women's work easier for them, not to eliminate it altogether, but it could have just as easily been made to do away with humans being involved in washing clothes. In other words, the sequence was interrupted, allowing a woman to sort the clothes first, so that there would still be a need for human involvement, but any engineer can make a washing machine in which you just throw the clothes in and it sorts all the clothes, and cleans them as they should be, without any more input. No buttons to push, no dials to turn, no detergent to measure, etc. It does everything for you.

Such machines were never made because if you did that, you would make women obsolete in that area.

Now, the same can be said for just about every other machine that has been made to make a woman's work easier. All of these machines can be made with additional sequences which take the woman completely out of the picture. The technology to do such things has been available for years. But men are reluctant to do this because then women won't have anything to do. They won't feel they are contributing anything. Also, then what is the need for a woman if machines can do all the work she can do? She is supposed to be a help-meet, after all.

But women also supply sex, which men want, so they can't be obsoleted, right? Wrong. Now we've got sexbots that can supply men with sex, and can be programmed to never talk back, etc. Everything is in place to make a woman obsolete. But none of that is a danger as long as men still like women and want women around, right?

And that brings us to the next factor: feminism. Feminism has made women undesirable to men. So undesirable that now there are herbivore men in Japan and MGTOW's all over the place. Will the trend continue on? Time will tell. But this double whammy of women no longer being desirable, due to third wave feminism, and the advent of the technology that can realistically do away with the need for women, plus the marriage laws which have created such a huge risk for men that many men are simply walking away from marriage because if they enter it and the marriage sours, they can lose everything: their money, their kids, their possessions and even their freedom, all of this is like a perfect storm in which men must, logically, turn in the direction of technology: the substitute women machines.

But these Stepford Wives seem to have figured out how to make themselves non-obsolete, because the way they are acting and treating their men is actually superior to any machines. In other words, if a man has a choice between all the sex robots and machines that can be substitute women and one of these Stepford Wives, a man will choose a Stepford Wife. So, these women have insured themselves against this planned and coming obsolescence.

Now, here are a couple of articles on just what I'm talking about, but without the second factor of feminism thrown in:

The Real Goal Of Sexbots And Artificial Reproduction Is Making Women Obsolete
All of these marvelous advancements in femme-engineering can only mean one thing: it’s time to admit that the planned obsolescence of the female on Earth is nearly complete. - The Federalist - 12/07/2016

Are Women Necessary? - By NATALIE ANGIERNOV. 11, 2003 | The New York Times

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:40 pm

Rensai wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:01 pm
One last comment. I don't trust those bible verses, those sound like they came from men, not God. The book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and does not contain anything like that.
Each book of scripture is different, containing information that the other books do not possess. The Book of Mormon doesn't contain anything like what is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, either, but we still are to obey the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of those passages is nearly unchanged of how they read in the Bible. The JST states that "the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings," but doesn't say that those epistles of Paul and Peter or those specific parts of their epistles are not inspired writings, but, in fact, treats them as inspired. In other words, there are a few, slight corrections to the passages made by Joseph Smith, such as changing "conversation" to "conduct." So, Joseph Smith obviously thought this stuff was inspired and holy writ, worthy to correct, unlike the Song of Solomon, which he just passed over, because it was of men. Also, no general authority from the time of Joseph Smith to now has ever stated that those passages came from men, but they have always been treated as the word of God. Given that all the latter-day saints are bound by their covenants to obey the canonized scriptures, at the last day, when we are brought before God to be judged of our works, those words will condemn us if we haven't conformed our lives to them.
Last edited by LDS Anarchist on Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 100
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby passionflower » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:25 pm

LDS Anarchist wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:40 pm
Rensai wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:01 pm
One last comment. I don't trust those bible verses, those sound like they came from men, not God. The book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and does not contain anything like that.
Each book of scripture is different, containing information that the other books do not possess. The Book of Mormon doesn't contain anything like what is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, either, but we still are to obey the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of those passages is nearly unchanged of how they read in the Bible. The JST states that "the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings," but doesn't say that those epistles of Paul and Peter or those specific parts of their epistles are not inspired writings, but, in fact, treats them as inspired. In other words, there are a few, slight corrections to the passages made by Joseph Smith, such as changing "conversation" to "conduct." So, Joseph Smith obviously thought this stuff was inspired and holy writ, worthy to correct, unlike the Song of Solomon, which he just passed over, because it was of men. Also, no general authority from the time of Joseph Smith to now has ever stated that those passages came from men, but they have always been treated as the word of God. Given that all the latter-day saints are bound by their covenants to obey the canonized scriptures, at the last day, when we are brought before God to be judged of our works, those words will condemn us if we haven't conformed out lives to them.
I have finished reading the History of the Church as compiled by BH Roberts and, though I could not find it right now, I know there was a story in there where Joseph Smith backs up these verses up there that were written by Paul. At the same time he says that you will know a church is false if a woman is leading it, or if women are set over men who have to defer or be subservient to them.

I don't know if that will mean anything to Rensai, though.

When I worked in the temple we had a rule that no female temple ordinance worker could ever correct or criticize one of the male ordinance workers. It didn't matter how much the guy fouled up, we could NOT correct him. We could correct another female ordinance worker, and the brethren could correct female ordinance workers, but we could not correct the brethren. There is definately a higher order of things, and it was an order, going on in the temple than what goes on in the public church that is abroad in the world.

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:16 pm

passionflower wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:25 pm
I have finished reading the History of the Church as compiled by BH Roberts and, though I could not find it right now, I know there was a story in there where Joseph Smith backs up these verses up there that were written by Paul. At the same time he says that you will know a church is false if a woman is leading it, or if women are set over men who have to defer or be subservient to them.

I don't know if that will mean anything to Rensai, though.

When I worked in the temple we had a rule that no female temple ordinance worker could ever correct or criticize one of the male ordinance workers. It didn't matter how much the guy fouled up, we could NOT correct him. We could correct another female ordinance worker, and the brethren could correct female ordinance workers, but we could not correct the brethren. There is definately a higher order of things, and it was an order, going on in the temple than what goes on in the public church that is abroad in the world.
I've never read the History of the Church. That quote of Joseph Smith might mean something to the Mr. Snuffleupaguses. Don't they need seven women to vote for a man in order for him to be ordained to the priesthood or something? I'm not sure if that applies to their situation, but it might. Of course, they would just wiggle their way out of it, anyway. Perhaps they'd just say that the History of the Church is unreliable, or something.

User avatar
tribrac
captain of 100
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:26 am
Location: The land northward

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby tribrac » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:54 pm

Joseph Smith backs up these verses up there that were written by Paul. At the same time he says that you will know a church is false if a woman is leading it, or if women are set over men who have to defer or be subservient to them.
So, uh Primary? The random and awkwardly out of place guy at Girls Camp. Cub Scouts.
Never dismiss a generous thought.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8829
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby Fiannan » Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:04 am

Well maybe your dream of the perfect mate can be a reality soon thanks to new implants just down the road:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... years.html

Convince your mate to go in and have one of these implants. Then slip the doctor some money and have them erase all his/her memories and replace them with new ones. Yes, your spouse will cease to exist as they were, but you will have a replacement similar to putting a new hard-drive in a computer.

Welcome to the future...or the ancient past.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

User avatar
LDS Anarchist
captain of 100
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stepford Wives Organization

Postby LDS Anarchist » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:21 pm

Checking out The Stepford Wives Organization blog, I found this post on voting: “We Don’t Vote Unless We Are Told To”

They don't vote unless their husbands tell them to vote, and then they only vote for what their husbands vote for.

Then, yesterday, I came across this video by Karen Straughan, which caught my eye because she was responding to a video by a man whose handle is "maleChauvinist pig." Her video is entitled, "Answers to maleChauvinist pig."

As I listened to the video, the topic of voting was brought up by Mr. pig, asking if she (Karen) would be willing to give up the right to vote. Karen's response was that she was perfectly okay with giving up that right. (She also said a lot of other things about this topic.) She didn't just diss third wave feminism, but also the first and second waves, too. It's a very interesting take. Here's the vid:


Return to “Sisters in Zion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests