Anti-feminist backlash: keeping your mouth shut is a recipe for the dream marriage

A German woman named Laura Doyle has sparked controversy with her advice to women seeking happiness in marriage, suggesting they should suppress their opinions, relinquish control over finances, and be available for sex at any time. Her book The Surrendered Wife, originally published in 1999 under the title Einfach schlau sein, einfach Frau sein by Goldmann, advises women to subordinate themselves to their husbands. According to an article in the New York Times, which recently revisited Doyle’s work, this approach can lead to transformation in men, even those who are abusive or have substance abuse issues. The piece highlights how Doyle's philosophy aligns with certain conservative elements in American society that view feminism as a cause of societal decline. Doyle’s ideas are not new. In the 1970s, another best-selling author, Marabel Morgan, wrote Die totale Frau: Das Handbuch zum Frau-Sein, advising women to fulfill all of their husband’s desires, whether it was salad, sex, or sports. Like Doyle, Morgan had previously experienced an unhappy marriage and used her personal struggles to craft her message. Both authors suggest that submission can lead to marital harmony, though neither provides empirical evidence to support such claims. The New York Times article, written by Vivian Yee, explores why Doyle’s outdated advice continues to resonate. Yee notes that Doyle’s views are part of a broader ideological movement within parts of the American right that blame feminism for societal problems. However, Yee’s piece does more than simply analyze the cultural context, it interweaves her own experiences with relationships, including reflections on whether she was too harsh toward her ex-partner. This personal angle makes the article feel less like objective journalism and more like a subjective exploration of gender dynamics. Yee acknowledges that some women find success following Doyle’s advice. One example cited involves a woman who transferred financial control to her husband and filed for private insolvency. She chose not to complain, fearing it would harm the relationship. Other examples include a feminist who abandoned her doubts and remained married to a man who secretly filmed her. These stories imply that conflict resolution through compliance is possible, yet they fail to address the risks faced by many women in abusive or dependent relationships. Yee does not mention the numerous women trapped in financially unstable or violent marriages, nor those living in codependency with individuals struggling with addiction. The article concludes with Yee expressing satisfaction that the New York Times recognized Doyle as a “hetero-optimist.” This framing suggests that traditional gender roles, rather than being challenged, are presented as viable solutions to modern relationship challenges. Critics argue that such narratives ignore the complexities of contemporary family life and the systemic barriers many women face. Without data or interviews with those affected, the piece risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes while offering simplistic answers to complex social issues. The resurgence of interest in Doyle’s work reflects a broader shift in public discourse. Conservative and far-right groups, along with online communities like the Manosphere, have long promoted similar ideologies. Now, mainstream media platforms are beginning to engage with these perspectives, potentially normalizing them for wider audiences. This trend raises concerns about the influence of such ideas on public perception and policy. As discussions around gender equality continue to evolve, the role of media in shaping these conversations becomes increasingly critical.