I'm going to say no on the white feather campaign.

First of all, the idea of it came from a man, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald. Women went along with it, but it wasn't their creation.

Secondly, war time. Facing invasion. I think the general consensus was fighting was a forgone conclusion, it was either going to be in Europe or on British soil. That means the entire population was backed into a corner of where they didn't necessarily want to be. So is it fair to say that White Feather was a function of women wanting to subdue men as a means of controlling them or a campaign to galvanize the entire country for war? Cause you could make the same argument about the Rosie the Riveter campaign being an attempt to subdue women into supressed wages and jobs they didn't want because men had abandoned them.

Lastly, even if you did say YES, that's suppression. Okay, fair enough. It's arguably, but let's go with that. Again, it's a temporary situation because of a special circumstance. Not an overall belief or desire of all women, in general, wanting to subdue all men, in general. If there's a guy out in public ranting and raving, I might want him subdued, at least temporarily, because he might be a danger to himself or others. It does not follow that I want the guy kept under a constant state of control, or all men because of this one guy who's wound up. It also does not follow that the "subduing" I want be violent, aggressive, or harmful to the man. The subduing could just as easily be medical care, calming, food, empathy, or any other form of help or care.

As for not knowing your wife, that's correct, I don't. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and specilate that your wife is not representative of all women either, because she probably didn't roll off a factory floor somewhere and isn't part of some hive mind you gentlemen keep attempting to reduce us to.

I am curious now as to what you did or refuse to do that makes her think subduing you is now the best play for her. Do tell.