PDA

View Full Version : Now I Know Why I'm Not Married



regdog
12-27-2008, 09:20 PM
Well I suppose this explains a lot. Seriously, I hope they were kidding, but I don't think so. I couldn't imagine being serious about this tripe.



The Good Wife's Guide
From Housekeeping Monthly, 13 May, 1955.



Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.

Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a dustcloth over the tables.

During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.

Be happy to see him.

Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him. Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

Don't greet him with complaints and problems.

Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.

Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.

Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.

Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

A good wife always knows her place.

Yeshanu
12-27-2008, 09:22 PM
Be a little gay

See, I followed this advice, and now I'm single. :D

Beach Bunny
12-27-2008, 09:24 PM
Nope. It's serious. It screwed up my mother's generation. Then, my generation rebelled in the 60's and 70's. You're welcome. :)

brokenfingers
12-27-2008, 09:28 PM
What?

What's wrong with it?

regdog
12-27-2008, 09:29 PM
Nope. It's serious. It screwed up my mother's generation. Then, my generation rebelled in the 60's and 70's. You're welcome. :)

I know they were serious, that what is so sad, pathetic, funny, impossible to believe, etc etc etc

Yeshanu
12-27-2008, 09:31 PM
I think we should write the rebuttal piece, but I'm thinking it's a few years too late. :(

And Beach Bunny's right--it did screw up our mother's generation a bit, at least for those who took it seriously.

I remember that once I was visiting my parents with my family, and my mother said, "Ruth, why don't you get Bill a cup of tea?"

I answered, "Bill hasn't asked for a cup of tea, and if he really wants one, he's perfectly capable of getting one himself."

And my family was by no means perfectly traditional--my mother worked, first part-time, and when we got older, full-time. And my dad did most of the cooking. What I took away from them was not the gender-roll thing, but the idea that serving someone was a way of loving them. My dad does little things for my mother, just as she'll do little things for him, especially to ease their way after a stressful time.

But in the example above, Bill and I had been under exactly the same stressors, and he didn't want any tea to begin with. I really have no idea where that statement of my mother's came from...

Fraulein
12-27-2008, 09:32 PM
What?

What's wrong with it?It's just a stupid formula and the least bit personal.

brokenfingers
12-27-2008, 09:34 PM
Is it the grammar? It's the grammar, isn't it.

I didn't see any typos.

Karen Duvall
12-27-2008, 09:39 PM
Someone ripped a page out of the Stepford Wives' manual.

rhymegirl
12-27-2008, 09:50 PM
Oh that was the funniest thing I've ever read. I have tears streaming down my face.

Mr Flibble
12-27-2008, 09:51 PM
If I behaved like that my hubby would think I'd been possessed by Doris Day or something.

He may agree with the 'lie him down in the bedroom' part though :D

however this:
Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. would be cause for a frying pan round the back of his head in this house.

Don
12-27-2008, 09:55 PM
I grew up in a house very similar to that. My mom, now 88, worked part-time after we had all started school, but would have been content to stay at home. They both had friends and interests of her own, but they were always a couple, and when dad passed away after 60 years of marriage it took a long time for her to get past it. She was no more trapped in her role as home-maker than dad was in his as bread-winner.

Sure, there were some limitations to that lifestyle, but are we really richer for all our stuff, our transient lifestyles, the impermanance of our relationships? Even within the defined role models they BOTH had to live up to, I can't say they were any less happy or less fulfilled than people today are, and I could make a hell of a case that they were a lot happier than we'll ever imagine being.

Yes, some good changes have come to pass, but a lot has been lost in the transition.

Susie
12-27-2008, 10:02 PM
That is absolutely incredible and absolutely whacked out. :D

Pat~
12-27-2008, 10:02 PM
I'd never read this before, but follow this piece of advice religiously--at all times of the day, in fact. (You never know when he might come home early):


Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum.

Guess I just have good instincts. ;)

Ol' Fashioned Girl
12-27-2008, 10:02 PM
You think that's bad? I've got an ooooooooold book titled 'Queen of the Home' from the late 1800s. It'll really get your blood up.

willfulone
12-27-2008, 10:03 PM
Don (blink, blink) I agree with you.

astonwest
12-27-2008, 10:11 PM
I'm certain if back in 1955, they read an article from a similar magazine printed in 2008, they'd feel the same about that one.

:)

Don
12-27-2008, 10:17 PM
Thanks, Christine. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and laugh this off. It's much harder to actually place the pluses and minuses on a scale and declare that people have happier, more fulfilled lives than they did 50 years ago.

I certainly can't say I've had a happier, more fulfilled life than my parents. I've had more money, and more stuff, indeed. Have I had the rich, full relationships that were the cornerstone of their lives? Nope, can't say that I have. Everybody's so concerned they'll miss out on something better, nobody's willing to sit on the front porch, hold hands, and watch the crazy world go by anymore. There's always something better just over the horizon.

Perhaps the lessons they learned in the 30s are lessons that will be relearned in the 00s and 10s this time around, when people learn once again that those few people closest to you are the only really important things in the world.

Pat~
12-27-2008, 10:38 PM
You think that's bad? I've got an ooooooooold book titled 'Queen of the Home' from the late 1800s. It'll really get your blood up.

I have a wonderful book entitled The Woman Beautiful, or Maidenhood, Marriage & Maternity (also 1800's) chock full of helpful advice about humours, dram-drinking husbands, the evils of coquettery, and how to avoid producing children of bilious temperament.

One of my favorite parts includes a remedy for baldness from John Wesley (who I otherwise have great affection for ;)):


It would thus be seen that the principle generally adopted, by both the professional man and the quack, in the treatment of loss of the hair and baldness, is essentially that of stimulation or excitation of the scalp. The celebrated Rev. John Wesley acted on it in his recommendation to rub the part morning and evening with a raw onion, until it becomes red, and then to apply a little honey. This is certainly good advice, as independent of the stimulus thus given to the skin and the circulation, the surface of the scalp is rendered more absorbent, and more sensitive to the action of medicaments.

As a mechanical aid in furtherance of other treatment, the use of a nightcap so contrived as to contract and lift, as it were, the relaxed scalp into its former dimensions and position, without injurious pressure on the head, may also be employed.

I think when the time comes, I'll go for the nightcap rather than the onion. :e2drunk:

robeiae
12-27-2008, 10:45 PM
The Cleaver family always seemed happy to me...

Beach Bunny
12-27-2008, 11:14 PM
I grew up in a house very similar to that. My mom, now 88, worked part-time after we had all started school, but would have been content to stay at home. They both had friends and interests of her own, but they were always a couple, and when dad passed away after 60 years of marriage it took a long time for her to get past it. She was no more trapped in her role as home-maker than dad was in his as bread-winner.

Sure, there were some limitations to that lifestyle, but are we really richer for all our stuff, our transient lifestyles, the impermanance of our relationships? Even within the defined role models they BOTH had to live up to, I can't say they were any less happy or less fulfilled than people today are, and I could make a hell of a case that they were a lot happier than we'll ever imagine being.

Yes, some good changes have come to pass, but a lot has been lost in the transition.


Thanks, Christine. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and laugh this off. It's much harder to actually place the pluses and minuses on a scale and declare that people have happier, more fulfilled lives than they did 50 years ago.

I certainly can't say I've had a happier, more fulfilled life than my parents. I've had more money, and more stuff, indeed. Have I had the rich, full relationships that were the cornerstone of their lives? Nope, can't say that I have. Everybody's so concerned they'll miss out on something better, nobody's willing to sit on the front porch, hold hands, and watch the crazy world go by anymore. There's always something better just over the horizon.

Perhaps the lessons they learned in the 30s are lessons that will be relearned in the 00s and 10s this time around, when people learn once again that those few people closest to you are the only really important things in the world.

See, it really needs to be about choice.

My mother was not a happy camper. She hates cooking and cleaning the house. She doesn't like children, yet she had four. When I asked her why she had four children when she didn't like them, she said, "That's what you were supposed to do. Get married and have children." Yeah, I'm really feeling the love here.

And this run around and take care of the males in the house simply because they are male has really messed my brothers up. They can't take care of themselves. They have to have a woman to take care of them. That's not good for them.

It's one thing to do something for someone because you want to do it, it's another to do it because you feel like you have to do it. The first is a gift. The second is a burden. Being around someone who acts like every little thing they do for you is a burden gets old real quick.

It really has to be about choice. Women who want careers should be able to pursue one without barriers simply because they are women. Women who want to be homemakers should be able to do that.

The same goes for men. There are some men who prefer staying home and taking care of the house and kids. They should feel comfortable doing that without feeling like they are emasculated.

Ken
12-27-2008, 11:19 PM
...the 50's was a cool time period from an intellectual standpoint, but the way women were treated was sickening: like mindless idiots on par with pets :-(

vixey
12-27-2008, 11:28 PM
When I asked her why she had four children when she didn't like them, she said, "That's what you were supposed to do. Get married and have children." Yeah, I'm really feeling the love here.

My mother told me that if she could do it all over again, she'd never have children.

Yeah...talk about feel the love.

And she was one of those who believed (and still does) everything that's written in this article. In her manipulative, subtle way she tried to instill those same beliefs in me. And I've fought against it my whole life. I'm wondering just now how much of this permeated my marriage.

Don
12-27-2008, 11:32 PM
See, it really needs to be about choice.

Absolutely. There are people of both sexes who are good homemakers, and others who hate it. All options should be on the table.

That's not what happened, though. "Just a housewife" became an insult. Keeping up with the Jones became more important than actually being a family. The Cleavers, as rob mentioned, went from icons to objects of derision in a single decade. It strikes me as a major case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One thing my mother said to me in my rebellious youth has stuck with me. "If you're going to tear something down, be sure what you plan to replace it with is actually better."

I'm not at all convinced that's what happened.

Don
12-27-2008, 11:33 PM
...the 50's was a cool time period from an intellectual standpoint, but the way women were treated was sickening: like mindless idiots on par with pets :-(
Not at all like men are treated today, of course. Seen any commercials or sit-coms lately? The pendulum went way too far.

Ali B
12-27-2008, 11:38 PM
There's nothing wrong with that article as long as my husband treats me the same way in return. ;)

Perks
12-27-2008, 11:41 PM
There's a lot of wisdom hidden in that pile of shit, though. Kindness and thoughtfulness - from both parties - foster a spirit of cooperation like nothing else. Honest to god, common decency would be a marked improvement for some of the couples I know. You didn't get married to have a receptacle for the dregs of your mood, did you?

I cannot understand people who are more polite and pleasant to strangers on the street than they are to their own nuclear families. Yes, I offer to make my husband a drink while he's settling in after a day at work, but not because I'm a kiss ass. I also try to have the house hassles under control by evening family time. He's my friend. I picked him. I'd like him to be as happy as possible as often as possible in the basic home-y ways. And he does the same for me.

And still, that article pissed me off no end. Lol!

Perks
12-27-2008, 11:43 PM
Not at all like men are treated today, of course. Seen any commercials or sit-coms lately? The pendulum went way too far.Yes, sadly, that can be quite true.

Except for Peyton Manning commercials. They're always good.

Ken
12-27-2008, 11:45 PM
...don't watch TV and haven't seen a sitcom in centuries except one time several years ago when a friend kept pestering me to watch this "terrific" show called "Friends." Not my cup of tea, man. In fact, I really couldn't even get where the characters were coming from with most of the stuff they were saying to one another. Felt like I was watching life on another planet. Just me, though. I'm a bit out of it when it comes to modern life, as a result of reading classics from the 19th century and whatnot.

Beach Bunny
12-27-2008, 11:53 PM
Absolutely. There are people of both sexes who are good homemakers, and others who hate it. All options should be on the table.

That's not what happened, though. "Just a housewife" became an insult. Keeping up with the Jones became more important than actually being a family. The Cleavers, as rob mentioned, went from icons to objects of derision in a single decade. It strikes me as a major case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One thing my mother said to me in my rebellious youth has stuck with me. "If you're going to tear something down, be sure what you plan to replace it with is actually better."

I'm not at all convinced that's what happened.

Ah, that's just it. We are in transition from the 50's suppression of women to choice. When the pendulum is stuck so far to one side it has to be given a good swift kick or two to get it moving. It will swing to the other side for a bit, then settle down in the middle. I think we are coming into the settling down in the middle part.

And something that I realized by looking at my ex-husband's family and others that are like it, the fifties ideal where women did ALL of the child rearing robbed many of the men in my generation of nurturing from their fathers. Yes, Dad may have played with the kids, but did he do any of the caretaking? If he needed to, could he take care of the kids? When my son was little, I had no qualms about leaving him in my Dad's sole care. I knew he could and would take care of him. I never left my son in his other grandfather's sole care, ie no one else around to change a diaper or handle an injury. He didn't know what to do. And yes, my son was robbed of time with his grandfather because of it. I know my son's father was robbed of male nurturing. And I would never leave my son in two of my brother's care. If your brain is functioning and you're not paralyzed from the neck down, you can take care of a child. That helplessness when it comes to taking care of kids is bull. If your dad wasn't like that, then you were lucky. Children need fathers who can take care of them just as much as they need mothers.

Siddow
12-27-2008, 11:59 PM
You really want your independent feminazi brains fried? Go read what the Bible says about how to be a wife.

Boys, be sure to read the husband parts.

It's fantastic.

NeuroFizz
12-28-2008, 12:06 AM
The article is absurd based on contemporary societal mores. No doubt about it. But it was written in the 1950s, not yesterday. It was probably a pretty accurate account of how one group of people thought it should be back then. Keep in mind we are reading the list but we are not seeing how people in the 1950s reacted to that list, so we are not getting the full story. I suspect some people back then thought it was pretty crappy as well--I know my Mom wasn't like that list even though she was a traditional stay-at-home Mom of that time period and our family life was happy. My guess is that 50 years in the future, people reading a 2007 list of suggestions for either male or female roles in the family dynamic will probably generate the same disgust and/or laughter.

I will say the list is entertaining. And it is useful for anyone writing fiction about that time period. Having those expectations imposed on an independent woman is the kind of instant conflict fiction feeds upon.

dpaterso
12-28-2008, 12:34 AM
I changed the year to 2008 and printed it off, my other half is reading it now, and when she's finished, she better put a gay ribbon in her hair and get started on cooking my damn dinner.

-Derek

regdog
12-28-2008, 12:36 AM
I changed the year to 2008 and printed it off, my other half is reading it now, and when she's finished, she better put a gay ribbon in her hair and get started on cooking my damn dinner.

-Derek

How about posting a picture of the black and blue you're going to get?

Mr Flibble
12-28-2008, 12:36 AM
*sends telepathic message to Derek's other half to wait for him to fall asleep and strangle him with the ribbon*

dpaterso
12-28-2008, 12:41 AM
Don't be hatin' on me, I just want to know what it's like to have a meal made for me, that's all. I just want to feel the experience. Even if it's just the once.

-Derek

regdog
12-28-2008, 12:44 AM
Don't be hatin' on me, I just want to know what it's like to have a meal made for me, that's all. I just want to feel the experience. Even if it's just the once.

-Derek

Not hating, just wondering what your other half will hit you with when she reads your post after she reads that article.

:Hug2:Here's a hug for never getting a home cooked meal.

Mr Flibble
12-28-2008, 12:46 AM
Don't be hatin' on me, I just want to know what it's like to have a meal made for me, that's all. I just want to feel the experience. Even if it's just the once.

-Derek

You've cooked for yourself even as a baby? :D

Poor Derek. I'll post you some leftovers, k?

brad_b
12-28-2008, 12:46 AM
From a different perspctive, I'm now in middle age and have yet to marry, so from that point of view, I can't relate. Coming from a family with three boys, 0 girls, we all learned at a young age to cook and clean; caring for myself is a way of life. To me the OP only makes sense if it applies to both husband and wife. It's easy for me to talk of equality having not been down that road, but it seems logical. Relationships should be about giving on both sides, not taking or expecting to be catered to.

The points Don make are true, today's society has turned selfish and self-centered for the most part and we've lost the ability to put others first. I've been involved in neighborhood groups and helping others for several years now. Before I broadened my horizons, I spent a lot of time at home with the attitude I wouldn't bother folks and they wouldn't bother me - talk about a selfish attitude. By taking an active part in my local neighborhood and sitting on the executive board of the umbrella group that coordinates all the neighborhoods in the city, I've learned that serving and helping others is vastly rewarding. I felt it wasn't my nature, I like solitude and have many interests and talents I enjoy, but the benefits of giving far outweigh whatever I might have lost by living a solitary existence. Perhaps someday I'll find that one woman who will fit like a glove, until then I'll do what I can to help in my little section of the world.

I think I wandered off course there. The point is, it's the giving of yourself to one you love and others that keeps love alive and makes the world a better place. Okay, I'm off the soapbox, thanks for listening.

scarletpeaches
12-28-2008, 12:53 AM
Giving of myself, yes.

Losing myself, no.

dpaterso
12-28-2008, 12:58 AM
You've cooked for yourself even as a baby? :D
Well OK, let's narrow it down, by a partner willing to cook and serve dinner just to please me. Not gonna happen now, she's too set in her ways. And likes my cooking 'way too much.


Poor Derek. I'll post you some leftovers, k?
No! Mercy! We've had a knackering cold all week, we didn't even defrost the turkey for Christmas, we're mainlining on cough bottle and Vicks. Food, gag, hack hack.

-Derek

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 01:15 AM
Giving of myself, yes.

Losing myself, no.
Yes.

Knowing how to do that is part of the problem. As a group, women are trying to figure out how to be in a relationship and not lose who they are as an individual. Some women already know how to do it, some don't. Some of us are still trying to figure it out. :Shrug:

Corpus Thomisticum
12-28-2008, 01:16 AM
Social mores change all the time, and they will continue changing. Keep in mind that while by today's standards this may seem insulting, stifling or submissive, by the standards of the previous generation the 1950s American housewife was an amazingly liberated woman. For one thing, while she faced considerable social resistance in terms of equality or equal treatment, she faced no real legal restrictions. The 20th century was the first time in history that men and women were, for all practical purposes, equal before the law: both could own land or businesses, both could marry and divorce, both were treated the same before courts, both could vote in political elections as well as hold political office, both could attain a higher education, both could drive/operate a vehicle, the law made no distinction (by gender) in terms of inheritance rights, and etc. Again, socially women were still often treated as inferior -- paid less than men for the same job, barred from many leadership positions, restricted in education, many critical women's issues like domestic violence and even women's healthcare were largely disregarded, etc.etc. etc. -- but still, by the measure of most of the previous millennia, a woman in the 1950s U.S. was leading an amazingly empowered life.

I'm not advocating the social mores of the 1950s, only pointing out that it's all relative. Your grandchildren may someday be shocked out how you live today, and at what you accept as normal.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2008, 01:28 AM
Be happy to see him.



You know what? This is good advice, period, for BOTH involved.

Because if you aren't happy to see him/her then why the fuck are you married?

If I get home and you're not happy to see me, I'll get a dog.

If you get home and I'm not happy to see you, you do that same.

robeiae
12-28-2008, 01:32 AM
You know what, since I'm a stay-at-home parent, I believe I'm gonna take this list and make it my New Year's resolution to follow it for a while and see what happens.

I'll let you all know how it turns out.

Provrb1810meggy
12-28-2008, 01:46 AM
While this probably does reflect 1950's views, I'm not so sure if this was written in the 1950's. Check out http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp for more info.

Don
12-28-2008, 02:21 AM
I think I wandered off course there. The point is, it's the giving of yourself to one you love and others that keeps love alive and makes the world a better place. Okay, I'm off the soapbox, thanks for listening.
No, you really didn't wander off course there at all. You simply expanded on the concept to include those a bit lower of the scale of importance than direct family members; those in your community. You did a great job with it, too.

I think what got me so revved about this is that the 60s and 70s didn't expand our interaction, it threw it out the window. Instead of half the population spending hours away from their family and their communities, we blew up the concept of family and decided career and things were more important. How different things might have been if the work week had been cut in half, and each parent spent 20 hours away from home. Funny how that option never really reached the table.

The big winners in the battle for equality weren't women, it was corporations that got more consuming units and the governments who could step in and take over things communities used to have time for, taxing us for the service, so eventually we all had to work just to keep paying someone else to do things we should be doing instead of earning and consuming. FedGov and corporations profited, but we as individuals and as communities lost more than we gained.

I also think we've lost a lot by knowing more about Brittany and Madonna than we know about our next-door neighbors, the elderly couple across the street, and the newlyweds that moved in behind us.

vixey
12-28-2008, 02:25 AM
Giving of myself, yes.

Losing myself, no.

Quoted for truth.

And (my fault) I lost myself along the way. Now, I'm working to get Her back. :D

robeiae
12-28-2008, 02:37 AM
The big winners in the battle for equality weren't women, it was corporations that got more consuming units and the governments who could step in and take over things communities used to have time for, taxing us for the service, so eventually we all had to work just to keep paying someone else to do things we should be doing instead of earning and consuming. FedGov and corporations profited, but we as individuals and as communities lost more than we gained.
You're a ****ing ray of sunshine, Don. You know that?

Don
12-28-2008, 02:40 AM
You're a ****ing ray of sunshine, Don. You know that?
Thanks, rob. That's quite a compliment coming from you. :) Was there something in the post you disagreed with, or did you just want to give me a gold star for thinking outside the box?

robeiae
12-28-2008, 02:46 AM
Yes. Gold star. That was it...

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2008, 02:47 AM
Me personally, I didn't agree with anything. But I'm not a pessimist who thinks corporations are out to destroy family and communities out of pure profit motives.

Don
12-28-2008, 02:57 AM
Me personally, I didn't agree with anything. But I'm not a pessimist who thinks corporations are out to destroy family and communities out of pure profit motives.
Nor did I say that. I'm not much for conspiracies. However, I'm a big believer in unintended consequences.

robeiae
12-28-2008, 02:57 AM
However, I'm a big believer in unintended consequences.
Let's not bring babies into this...

vixey
12-28-2008, 02:58 AM
unintended consequences.

The definition of Marriage? :D

Ol' Fashioned Girl
12-28-2008, 03:15 AM
How about posting a picture of the black and blue you're going to get?

If he's able...

C.bronco
12-28-2008, 03:36 AM
Well I suppose this explains a lot. Seriously, I hope they were kidding, but I don't think so. I couldn't imagine being serious about this tripe.




The Good Wife's Guide

From Housekeeping Monthly, 13 May, 1955.





Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed. Or, if you are tired from work, alert him to the Hot-Pockets TM in the freezer.


Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. This will make him second guess oogling the hot girl at work.


Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your ]generous gestures[/[/COLOR]S] duties is to provide it.


Clear away the clutter because you are freakin' tired of stepping on the dirty laundry he left two feet from the hamper. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives and hide your valuables. Run a dustcloth over the tables, unless you are collecting dust samples for scientific pusposes.


During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction, and he may fall alseep on the couch so you can watch the show you really wanted to see.


Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet. Better yet, take the kids to the Olive Garden and leave him a Hungry Man or some Cheerios.
Be happy to see him (optional).


Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him. Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important to him than yours.


Don't greet him with complaints and problems, unless you feel it is necessary.


Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as [S]minor compared to what he might have gone through at work a blessing because you will finally have some peace and quiet.


Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him to prepare for himself.


Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes or car keys for a joy-ride while he rests. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.


Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity; leave all that for discussions with your lawyer or therapist. Remember, he is the master of the house, unless your name is also on the mortgage, and as such may not always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have a right to question him.



A good wife always knows her place, which is working as the glue that holds the family and household together. Keep a glue-gun handy for emergencies.


Regdog posted the unproof-read version. I fixed it.

Disa
12-28-2008, 03:42 AM
I think this article's been circulating around the internet for a couple a years. Anyway, all I can say is I only know one woman who has this frameof mind and she's 65 now, she even told me she didn 't vote the way she wanted to in the last election for fear of what her mother would say? She's all about how things look to other people. I cannot relate to most of her principles in life.

All my grandmothers worked outside the home. All my aunts and my mother worked outside the home. The women in our family weren't raised to be taken care of or to do for others who were capable of doing for themselves. There's something to be said for women who are very nurturing and giving because they want to be, not because it's expected and they think they have to be.

I did have one grandmother who always cooked and cleaned, even though she also had a job-one time my grandfather said to her, "Mah-gret, bring me a drink." To which she replied," Get it yourself, shit ass". I was about 8 and it cracked me up. She was always cooking and cleaning and he was always lying in his reclining chair after work. I was glad to hear her tell him to get it himself.

I've raised my daughter to do as much for herself as possible at appropriate ages and her dad has set a good example for her by being the chief cook and grocery shopper. Hopefully she sees that a relationship is about equality and respect, and she feels empowered to take care of herself and find a partner who will take care of himself, too.

Samantha's_Song
12-28-2008, 04:22 AM
Dang, my hubby likened me to Doris Day before I was even going out with him! He was soon to find out that I was more like Calamity Jane than the goody-two-shoes little housewife.
Btw, he washes up, vacuums and does the food shopping amongst other things... see, I am a great little wife, I have him trained very well! :D


If I behaved like that my hubby would think I'd been possessed by Doris Day or something.

He may agree with the 'lie him down in the bedroom' part though :D

however this: would be cause for a frying pan round the back of his head in this house.

brokenfingers
12-28-2008, 04:37 AM
Well, I still don't understand the fuss.

I've printed it out and added as an addendum to my 10 page Marriage Consideration Contract.

Captshady
12-28-2008, 04:39 AM
Regdog posted the unproof-read version. I fixed it.

Keep it, and file it away. Then, some time in the future, when you're trying to drink the pain of your divorce away, wondering why it happened, you'll have a list of specifics.

Phoebe H
12-28-2008, 04:46 AM
The big winners in the battle for equality weren't women, it was corporations that got more consuming units and the governments who could step in and take over things communities used to have time for, taxing us for the service, so eventually we all had to work just to keep paying someone else to do things we should be doing instead of earning and consuming. FedGov and corporations profited, but we as individuals and as communities lost more than we gained.

I agree with this last bit completely.

One of the things that happened was that we monetized much of the work that had previously been done by women for free. Child care, elder care, food prep. Because money was changing hands, this was now part of the economy, so it made our GDP expand, even though our society was not actually getting richer. We were just trading more pieces of paper back and forth.

In my opinion, one of the main reasons that our economy is in the shape that it is today is because we convinced ourselves that we could understand things by looking at metrics, when so many of them are approximations of approximations of approximations and so bear very little resemblance to truth.

Captshady
12-28-2008, 04:49 AM
It took no time to go from women wanting to work, and women HAVING TO work ... in the marketplace of course. Having been a "house husband" or whatever term you want to use, and having been a system's analyst, I can say that in my experience, the true "work" was not in the latter.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2008, 06:35 AM
:Wha:

Oy is right.

astonwest
12-28-2008, 06:36 AM
I've had more money, and more stuff, indeed.
Actually, even though you probably make far more on a sheer dollar standpoint, the buying power of that money is likely far less (http://www.buyupside.com/calculators/purchasepowerjan08.htm). As an example, through the link above, a $35K salary today equates to being able to live the same life as a salary of just over $4K in 1950.

But I'd venture to say the comparison between consumer goods in 1950 (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50sother.html) and 2008 is far worse...


Except for Peyton Manning commercials. They're always good.
So, as long as you make millions of dollars, you don't have to be portrayed as a dimwit... :D

Jimmyboy1
12-28-2008, 07:15 AM
Oh, just for the less-inclined, Augusta Evans was probably the South's most famous Civil War era female author. The title shown, "St. Elmo," was banned from possession among the Union troops.
Why? Because it portrayed the South as only Augusta could: she humanized the enemy. More than that, she romanticized them. Her writing, to be blunt, was/is...heavenly.

A.E. was a very strong woman, to say the least. She had passions which far exceed most, in miriad ways.

Engaged to marry a man, yet broke it off because he was a Yankee. Wrote strong opinions when it was not fashionable for a woman to have such. Worked as a volunteer in hospitals, tending to her beloved Southern troops. Was buried in a cemetery, alongside same.

Married after the war. Extremely successful author.

Her politics were, quite frankly, true.

True is a hard word.

August Evans was a strong woman. Personally, I love strong women.

The clincher is: they must be female.

C.bronco
12-28-2008, 07:21 AM
Keep it, and file it away. Then, some time in the future, when you're trying to drink the pain of your divorce away, wondering why it happened, you'll have a list of specifics.
LOL!
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows....

My notes are referenced from my own life, which may not be yours. (I hope not; I have enough people living in my house!) I do believe that there can be wedded bliss, and I've seen good marriages where both partners are loving and supportive of eachother. Sadly, it is not universal.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2008, 07:22 AM
Sadly, it is not universal.
No shit.

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 07:32 AM
No shit.
ditto.

C.bronco
12-28-2008, 07:33 AM
No shit.
:D

Jimmyboy1
12-28-2008, 07:34 AM
back to Cuba...

C.bronco
12-28-2008, 07:36 AM
Oh, I love Cuban sandwiches! It takes a long time to roast a pork butt.

Did I mention that I love you all?

Jimmyboy1
12-28-2008, 07:44 AM
Somehow, my deleted(censored) post and Cuban cigars has a common thread...
Hmmm...

Jimmyboy1
12-28-2008, 07:44 AM
"have"...sorry.

Rolling Thunder
12-28-2008, 07:53 AM
Somehow, my deleted(censored) post and Cuban cigars has a common thread...
Hmmm...

We've been through this before, James. Closing this, for now.

Silver King
12-28-2008, 08:49 AM
After a short respite, we'll restart this discussion should anyone care to share their feelings. :)

maestrowork
12-28-2008, 09:50 AM
My mother does not follow any of these "rules" and my parents have been married for fifty years.

If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, and tastes like bullshit, it is bullshit.

BenPanced
12-28-2008, 10:01 AM
Snopes figures this might be a hoax. (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp)

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 10:02 AM
Social mores change all the time, and they will continue changing. Keep in mind that while by today's standards this may seem insulting, stifling or submissive, by the standards of the previous generation the 1950s American housewife was an amazingly liberated woman. For one thing, while she faced considerable social resistance in terms of equality or equal treatment, she faced no real legal restrictions. The 20th century was the first time in history that men and women were, for all practical purposes, equal before the law: both could own land or businesses, both could marry and divorce, both were treated the same before courts, both could vote in political elections as well as hold political office, both could attain a higher education, both could drive/operate a vehicle, the law made no distinction (by gender) in terms of inheritance rights, and etc. Again, socially women were still often treated as inferior -- paid less than men for the same job, barred from many leadership positions, restricted in education, many critical women's issues like domestic violence and even women's healthcare were largely disregarded, etc.etc. etc. -- but still, by the measure of most of the previous millennia, a woman in the 1950s U.S. was leading an amazingly empowered life.

I'm not advocating the social mores of the 1950s, only pointing out that it's all relative. Your grandchildren may someday be shocked out how you live today, and at what you accept as normal.

No, actually the fifties were not more liberated than the forties. They were more restrictive. During World War II women went to work in the factories. They were needed as the men were off at war. Women became empowered. They learned that they could do the jobs that men could do. The war ended, the men returned to work, the women went back home, couples got married, and we had the baby boom. Some of those women were happier when they were allowed to work in the factories and other jobs. That was taken away from them and they began to ask "Why?" This upswelled into the Women's movement of the sixties and seventies.

In the fifties women had three career paths available to them: nurse, secretary, or teacher. And that was only until they got married, then they stayed home and screwed up their children. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) ) If they went to college it was to get their "MRS" degree. A joke that was still prevalent on campus in 1980. One you don't hear today. And yes, there were quite a few times when I had to tell a man, no, I am not here to get my MRS degree. I'm here because I want a career.

One of my former bosses was one of three women in her class in Medical school. She helped break down the door which kept women out of medical school, vet school, law school, etc. By the eighties, the percentage of women in professional schools was about 25%. Now it is more or less even. Which is where it should be.

The reverse can be said of nursing school. It used to be that only women attended nursing school. Now men are becoming nurses because of the few brave men who went before them and said "No, I want to be a nurse. It doesn't make me less of a man to want to be a nurse."

I remember my Aunt fighting to get a credit card issued to her in her name, not her husband's name, her name. In the fifties, a woman couldn't do that. Now it is not an issue.

If you step back and look at the role of women in society for the past two thousand years, what you will see is a gradual chipping away of rights and freedoms. For example, in the Dark Ages, women in Celtic societies could become tribal leaders. Then sometime in the seventh century or thereabouts the church decreed that women could NOT be tribal leaders. This chipping away continued until we got to the Victorian age. Probably one of the most restrictive times to be a women in European history. Women have been fighting to get our rights and freedoms restored since then. We're almost there.

It is now time for men and women to discuss how we're going to make this work and stop bashing each other on the head. It's no longer necessary. Most of the men in power got the message.

*climbs down off soapbox*

Silver King, thanks for opening the thread back up. :)

willfulone
12-28-2008, 10:04 AM
My mother does not follow any of these "rules" and my parents have been married for fifty years.

If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, and tastes like bullshit, it is bullshit.


Today's bullshit was yesterday's fertilizer.

Christine

willfulone
12-28-2008, 10:07 AM
Snopes figures this might be a hoax. (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp)

If it IS a hoax, it has been around for a long time.

I believe there was an article similar to this in Good Housekeeping many years ago. Literally IN the magazine. I will try to find a source to cite.

Someone I used to know had a copy of the article and gave it as a gag gift one year. Over a 2 decades ago now was when the gift was given - as a wedding present no less...

Christine

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 10:18 AM
For anyone interested in seeing what it was like for women in the fifties, rent the movie "Mona Lisa Smile" with Julia Roberts. It's pretty accurate and representative of the times. Some women were content and wanted that kind of life. Some didn't. Some accepted it. Other's didn't.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
12-28-2008, 04:20 PM
I first decided I didn't want to be my mother's kind of woman when Mom, Dad, and I were sitting at the table having dinner one evening in the early '60s and for some reason he wanted another fork. He said to Mom, "Gimme a fork."

Now... the forks were in the sideboard right behind him. All he had to do was turn slightly in his chair, open the drawer, and get one out. Did he? No.

And without comment, my mother got up and walked to Dad's end of the table, got the fork from the drawer and handed it to him.

I love my Dad. When he was alive, he and I were best buds. But... but...

Darzian
12-28-2008, 04:57 PM
I'd like to add that many of these 'rules' are followed in places like India. I think the main reason for this is the traditional role of women as housekeepers etc.... in these parts of the world, as well as heavy dependency on the husband, and possibly a lack of education.

The current generation is bringing about changes, though.

lakotagirl
12-28-2008, 05:51 PM
With the execption of the line about being late for dinner, this advice is how I make our life happy.

For the first seven years of our marriage, I worked a 7 day swing shift. I worked my ass off and made a lot of money. Life was "catch as catch can". I broke every "rule" here. I volunteered for overtime and fought to work holidays (triple time).

In 7 years we were able to buy property and build a house (with our own four hands). I quit my job and started living my life to these "rules".

My life is heaven.

One might think that following these rules would turn you into a door mat. Quite the opposite. He treats me like a queen. Before making any major decision (even at work) he will run it by me and ask if I agree.

If I start a sentence with "I'd like to..." he stops what he is doing and listens. And usually says "Let's do it." (He knows that if he says he doesn't want to, I'll do it without him.)

If he finishes the newspaper, I will jump up and put it away for him. In return, he often does the same for me. I wish I could explain what a great feeling that is.

As silly as all these rules sound, they are the basis of my life. And, he appreciates it.

If he didn't have a place to come home to that was clean, welcoming, and where he knew he he was "king", our life might not be so happy.

We seldom argue and we NEVER fight. Twice in the last 17 years. Another plus with that point is - if he sees that I am starting to get a little hot under the collar, he always backs up and reconsiders what he was arguing about.










A good wife always knows her place.




My place is "The queen of our house."

Mr Flibble
12-28-2008, 06:21 PM
A lot depends on the guy though. If you've got a good guy, he won't ever enforce those rules, so why have them? If you haven't got a good guy, he'll use it as an excuse to ride roughshod all over you.

My first marriage ended because I was young, stupid and kinda followed those rules. And the guy thought he could do anything he damn well pleased, like running up thousands of pounds of debt, staying out till all hours etc because he was 'in charge'. I was not allowed to do things I wanted to do, unless he wanted me to do them too. I once went out for the afternoon on my own, had a pint on the way back and all hell broke loose, even though he did the same all the time.

Right up to the point that my 21st birthday 'surprise' was something that he knew damn well that I loathed, but he was going to enjoy it so that should make me happy right? Because that was all that mattered right? Wrong; I was fed up with it all being about him. I lobbed my shoe at him, narrowly missing his forehead ( shame) and embedded the stiletto heel in the wall.

Last time I let myself be subjugated.

Marriage is never about the wants of one person. It is about the wants of both people.

lakotagirl
12-28-2008, 06:43 PM
You are so right, IdiotsRUs. It can't work without a good man.

My first husband would have failed miserably living this life. He would not have appreciated any of my efforts. He would have taken, taken, taken and expected more, more, more.

You needed to lob that shoe at him - you needed to hit him with it. And move on.

I got so lucky in life. I have a husband who will go out and start my car while I am getting dressed so it will be nice and warm for me. If there is snow in the driveway, and he doesn't have time to plow before I have to leave for a meeting, he will back the car out of the driveway and make sure I won't have any problems.

With the last snowstorm, he offered to drive me to town and wait for me while I was in one of my silly meetings.

These rules work for me only because my husband is so special and understands the rules. (and he loves me very, very much).

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 06:53 PM
When there are equal parts of give and take in a relationship, then it works very well. I would love to have that kind of relationship with a man. I didn't have it with my ex-husband. I was responsible for almost EVERYTHING and I couldn't count on him to help me when I needed it. That's why his ass got kicked to the curb.

Lyra Jean
12-28-2008, 06:53 PM
Well I suppose this explains a lot. Seriously, I hope they were kidding, but I don't think so. I couldn't imagine being serious about this tripe.



The Good Wife's Guide
From Housekeeping Monthly, 13 May, 1955.




Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.
Not a problem. I need to eat too.


Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.
AKA don't let yourself go just because you are married. There is the hot chick at work. But then he better not let himself go either.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
I'd say it would be more stressful than boring.

Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a dustcloth over the tables.
I certainly don't want to be doing housework when he's home. I would want to spend time with him.

During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.
I live in Florida.

Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.
No arguments here.

Be happy to see him.
None here either.

Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him. Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.
I have no problem with letting him talk first. It's the idea that his topics of conversation are more important than mine.

Don't greet him with complaints and problems.
I agree with this.

Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.
Can we just remove this from the list now. If he's late at least call and he better call if he's not coming home. That dinner I prepared 15 minutes before he got home. Can I serve it to him cold or do I have to make a whole new dinner?

Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.
Only if I had nothing pressing that needed to be done.

Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.
Add this and I'm going to end up not leaving the bedroom either.

Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.
What happened to there's no such thing as stupid question. People question God so why can't a wife question her husband.

A good wife always knows her place.
Husbands are the heads of the house but the wife is the neck.




This list is probably one of the reasons why Aretha Franklin created the song "Respect"

I don't think anything on the list is really that bad except for the stuff that he's more important than you and that women have no right to question their husbands. The difference is wanting to do something like this and having to do it because it is felt there are no other options. If I was given this in a marriage contract I wouldn't sign it.

Siddow
12-28-2008, 06:54 PM
If you've got a good guy, he won't ever enforce those rules, so why have them?

It's not about the husband ENFORCING these types of rules. That never goes over well.

It's about a wife deciding how she will be in the marriage. I have a really good paper on what the Bible has to say about marriage and the roles of husbands and wives in it--if anyone wants to read it, pm me and I'll shoot it to you. It's way too long to post here. But the gist of it is for women to behave pretty much as this article states; reverence and submit to your husband. THAT is what gives the wife the power in the relationship. The wife is to respect and submit, but the husband is to love (an act of will) and basically bend to the wishes of the wife, do for her. See lakotagirl's post, and you'll see that it actually works.

As for the bad men Idiot speaks of, all the wife must do is duck while God smacks the jackhole upside the head with a 2x4. lol.

Did I make this too Christian? Because all I'm trying to say is that there is a basis for this type of marriage that goes way back, and for anyone who wants a better marriage, and what you're doing isn't working, then what's the harm in trying something like this?

Mr Flibble
12-28-2008, 07:04 PM
As for the bad men Idiot speaks of, all the wife must do is duck while God smacks the jackhole upside the head with a 2x4. lol.

I got fed up with waiting for him to show up :D


The wife is to respect and submit, but the husband is to love (an act of will) and basically bend to the wishes of the wife, do for her. See lakotagirl's post, and you'll see that it actually works.

Well this is probably just nitpicking on word use, but submit - noway nohow. Though I see where it's coming from, neither me or my husband submit to each other. Ever. We talk, we accept ( or not). It is not my husband's job to bend to my will any more than it is my job to submit to him.

But I got lucky second time round. We respect each other, we support and encourage each other in our respective goals. It is a completely equal relationship - as should be. If he really really didn't want me to do something, I probably wouldn't. Same the other way round.

Put it like this - If I was still married to Number One Arsewipe, I wouldn't be writing. But Number Two - doesn't mind, in fact loves the fact that I write - even if it means I may spend less time with him.

Samantha's_Song
12-28-2008, 07:09 PM
But there's one tiny wicked bit inside of you that just wishes your mum would have stuck it, prongs first, straight into the skin of his hand :D


I love my Dad. When he was alive, he and I were best buds. But... but...

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 07:12 PM
Siddow, that becomes a very slippery slope. I have witnessed too many people use the bible to justify physical abuse and that is wrong. If it works for you and your spouse in a loving way, then good for you. But, with such a high potential for misusing the words in the Bible, I could not in good consciousness recommend it in general.

The thing is, there are lots of self-help books and other relationship type books on the market which say pretty much the same things that are in the Bible, but without the religion.

My personal feeling is you should treat your spouse with kindness and consideration because it is the right thing to do. If someone needs God to tell them to do that, then there is a problem.

bethany
12-28-2008, 07:20 PM
my husband and I have a completely equal partnership. We even discussed and made a list of pros and cons before getting married (the discussion was over the timing, because I was still in college, but it was all a mutual decision).

He gets the kids up and takes them to school because I'm already at work. I cook dinner or pay for us to eat out because I get home earlier. He usually bathes and reads to the kids because that's during my writing time. I take care of all the money and bills, if he wants something expensive he runs it by me. We usually get it. I stay at home during the summer, and by August, I'm begging to go back to work.

I can't imagine a relationship working where one person was considered the boss. That's not how healthy friendships work, so why should anyone try a marriage that way?

I make a bit more money, but we both have jobs that make us happy, so that's what's important. We're both good parents, and our kids are lucky (both of us are from divorced parents).

lakotagirl
12-28-2008, 08:01 PM
Don't misunderstand how I describe our life as one of us being the boss. He's not the boss of me - and I'm not the boss of him.

But, by defining our roles:
His role is to go out and earn the money.
My role is to make sure that when he comes home, he is happy and content.

In return, he pays me back in spades. He respects my decisions - he asks for input on his decisions. Seventeen years after our wedding, he still thanks me for marrying him - and sometimes says it with tears in his eyes. Just last night we were playing 9 ball in the basement and he turns to me and says, "Do you remember how hard it was for me to talk you into getting married." (I didn't) But I appreciate that he remembers. It keeps him on his toes. And ensures that he keeps me happy.

If he ever TOLD me to do any of those things, I'd hit him over the head with a dust mop.

As Siddow said - if "what you're doing isn't working, then what's the harm in trying something like this?"

It takes two people to make it work. But, if one person tried it, they may get a good response from the other and it could grow from there.

I am no doormat. In fact, to give you an example of how well this works, here is something from last month:

I said "You know, I'd really like..." He perked right up.

"to rent a villa on a beach in Mexico for a week and have all my sisters meet me there for a week of luxury."

We are going in May. No husbands. Just sisters. The villa comes with a maid, a cook and a pool - even tho it is right on the beach.

No one is the "boss" in our relationship. But both of us try to make the other as happy as we possibly can. I follow all the "rules" listed in that article and it works very, very well for me.

If he came home and I didn't give a rat's ass - do you think he would give me all MY dreams?

If he came home and I expected him to take me out for supper - do you think that he would go out of his way to give me what I wanted?

If he came home and I said YOU start the fire in the fireplace - do you think he would rub my feet while we watched MY favorite movie?

No one is the boss. But those "rules" can make for a pretty fulfilling life if two people wanted a fulfilling life.

I really don't think our partnership is equal --> I KNOW that I am getting the best deal.

Just sayin...

aruna
12-28-2008, 08:07 PM
I'd like to add that many of these 'rules' are followed in places like India. I think the main reason for this is the traditional role of women as housekeepers etc.... in these parts of the world, as well as heavy dependency on the husband, and possibly a lack of education.

The current generation is bringing about changes, though.

In Hindu marriages the wife is called upon to see God in her husband.
And: the husband is called upon to see God in his wife.
In my view the list just shows the basis for a happy, loving relationship: but it has to work both ways. If the husband is an asshole, it doesn't work. There is nothing automatically subservient in making sure the person you love most is happy.

And for some women it would never work. They just aren't built that way. My bmother, for instance. She was always a fine woman but just not domestic. She left my father when I was three, because he didn't want her to work. I can't remember her ever cooking a meal for me as a child. Aunts and grandmothers did that.

I too am not domestic. I wish I had more of the qualities described in that article. I am far too edgy and domestically lazy.

My daughter will probably be just like that. She's 18 and in her last year of school, about to start university nect year, but the other day she told me that what she really wants to do is marry, have children and raise them. I'm still hoping she'll go to university first, though.

For the last three months she's been in a relationship with her first boyfriend. Yesterday she told me he treats her like a princess. But I am pretty sure that she treats him like a prince, and is not the least bit weakened by that. She's just naturally a loving, giving kind of person. I think she took so long to find a boyfriend because she was looking for someone worthy of such treatnment, and who can reciprocate. She's always known what she wanted.









It's about a wife deciding how she will be in the marriage. I have a really good paper on what the Bible has to say about marriage and the roles of husbands and wives in it--if anyone wants to read it, pm me and I'll shoot it to you.
As for the bad men Idiot speaks of, all the wife must do is duck while God smacks the jackhole upside the head with a 2x4. lol.
?

Corpus Thomisticum
12-28-2008, 08:07 PM
@Beach Bunny


No, actually the fifties were not more liberated than the forties. They were more restrictive. During World War II women went to work in the factories. They were needed as the men were off at war. Women became empowered. They learned that they could do the jobs that men could do. The war ended, the men returned to work, the women went back home, couples got married, and we had the baby boom. Some of those women were happier when they were allowed to work in the factories and other jobs. That was taken away from them and they began to ask "Why?" This upswelled into the Women's movement of the sixties and seventies.

In the fifties women had three career paths available to them: nurse, secretary, or teacher. And that was only until they got married, then they stayed home and screwed up their children. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) ) If they went to college it was to get their "MRS" degree. A joke that was still prevalent on campus in 1980. One you don't hear today. And yes, there were quite a few times when I had to tell a man, no, I am not here to get my MRS degree. I'm here because I want a career.

One of my former bosses was one of three women in her class in Medical school. She helped break down the door which kept women out of medical school, vet school, law school, etc. By the eighties, the percentage of women in professional schools was about 25%. Now it is more or less even. Which is where it should be.

The reverse can be said of nursing school. It used to be that only women attended nursing school. Now men are becoming nurses because of the few brave men who went before them and said "No, I want to be a nurse. It doesn't make me less of a man to want to be a nurse."

I remember my Aunt fighting to get a credit card issued to her in her name, not her husband's name, her name. In the fifties, a woman couldn't do that. Now it is not an issue.

If you step back and look at the role of women in society for the past two thousand years, what you will see is a gradual chipping away of rights and freedoms. For example, in the Dark Ages, women in Celtic societies could become tribal leaders. Then sometime in the seventh century or thereabouts the church decreed that women could NOT be tribal leaders. This chipping away continued until we got to the Victorian age. Probably one of the most restrictive times to be a women in European history. Women have been fighting to get our rights and freedoms restored since then. We're almost there.

It is now time for men and women to discuss how we're going to make this work and stop bashing each other on the head. It's no longer necessary. Most of the men in power got the message.

*climbs down off soapbox*

You're quite correct, and indeed the World Wars both played a large role in proving women were capable of much more than society allowed them in both Europe and the U.S. There was less disappointment in Europe and 'backlash' after the wars (for women) simply because there were far fewer returning men left to take over the industrial and managerial jobs women had taken on during the war. This is particularly true in my part of Europe, the east.

However, in my original post I wasn't thinking 'history' in terms of decades, I was thinking centuries, even millennia. I was thinking of the role of women in ancient Greece, Egypt, Song China, medieval Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Napoleonic France, colonial America, Qing/Manchu China, etc. If you take this longer view, then the 1950s -- and I wasn't just thinking American women -- were amazingly empowered compared to their historical peers.

As I mentioned in my original post, this didn't necessarily mean that their position in the 1950s was ideal, given popular social perceptions that still relegated most women to stereo-typical roles, but again, the hurdles (Western) women faced by the 1950s were social, and not legal hurdles. Still formidible, but a HUGE distance from their historical peers who had to face legal restrictions against (jumbling historical examples together here) enfranchisement (voting, holding political office), against property ownership or inheritance, against even leaving the house unattended, against taking an active part in business dealings, against divorce, etc. etc. etc. These were all things that societies (including European countries) at some point or other actually inserted into their legal codes that women could not do. With the granting of voting rights/enfranchisement after World War I throughout most of the West, the last of these legal restrictions had fallen away. If the 1950s saw a regression in social perceptions of women's roles (particularly in the U.S.) from the 1940s, they were still not a legal regression, and they were still a dramatically better time for women than the 1910s, the 1850s, the 1680s, the 1530s, 100 B.C., and etc, etc. etc. That was my point, the longer range.

Corpus Thomisticum
12-28-2008, 08:36 PM
BTW, I just re-read your post more thoroughly, and I wanted to take note of one thing you mentioned:


If you step back and look at the role of women in society for the past two thousand years, what you will see is a gradual chipping away of rights and freedoms. For example, in the Dark Ages, women in Celtic societies could become tribal leaders. Then sometime in the seventh century or thereabouts the church decreed that women could NOT be tribal leaders. This chipping away continued until we got to the Victorian age. Probably one of the most restrictive times to be a women in European history. Women have been fighting to get our rights and freedoms restored since then. We're almost there.

This is a common mis-perception, this view that the somehow there was a golden age deep in our past when women were equal in all things but only since have evil male-dominated societies restricted those rights. To begin with, the 'Dark Ages' in European history begin with the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire in c. A.D. 476, and lasts roughly until about A.D. 800 (though some stretch the Dark Ages to 1100 or 1200) when stable states began to appear again. This is a chaotic period of collapsing institutions where trade, food production, law, even writing essentially disappeared in Western Europe, to be replaced by endemic plagues, famine, warring and lots of death. This period was long after the 'golden age' era of the Celtic world. The Celtic world was in serious decline and retreat already centuries earlier in the last decades of the previous millennium when Julius Caesar wrote his Celtic Wars book glorifying himself and his role in suppressing the Celtic tribes of Gaul.

Secondly, A very skewed view of matriarchal societies has developed fairly recently (c. since the 1960s in the West) more as an ideological component of modern political desires rather than real history, but it equates these matriarchal societies with some distant golden age for women, where women were treated equally and peace reigned, at least until the men took over. The problem is that this just isn't true in either case. Even in societies like Boudica's 1st century Celtic Britain, where women had significant rights and could even become leaders, there were still serious restrictions on what average women in society could do as compared to men. As far as the peaceful bit goes, historically speaking, matriarchal societies tended to be even more violent than patriarchal ones, not just towards outsiders but also included constant civil wars, and had brutal punishments for native offenders. The Celts spent most of their history fighting one another, long before they had problems with outsiders like Romans or Saxons. The Scythians, who allowed women leading roles in combat, were probably one of the most violent societies ever in human history. The Iroquois Indians (whose councils were dominated by elderly women) were known and feared before White Men set foot in the Americas as a blood-thirsty conquerors; they had war-paths reaching as far south as modern South Carolina and as far west as Ohio, and showed no compunction about committing what we would call today ethnic cleansing or even genocide. The neighboring Algonquin Indian tribes of Southern Ontario and Quebec were very eager to enlist the support of Europeans when they first showed up as allies against their feared neighbors, the Iroquois.

If your point is that at different times in history, there have been societies that have treated their women better or allowed them greater freedoms than the 'mainstream' societies of Europe (e.g., the Roman Empire compared to the British Celts in the 1st century A.D.) then yes, you're right. It would be a grave historical misconception, however, to believe that there was ever a time before the 20th century in any society where women and men were treated essentially the same before existing legal and social institutions.

Beach Bunny
12-28-2008, 09:12 PM
Corpus Thomisticum, I don't want to quote your whole post.



If your point is that at different times in history, there have been societies that have treated their women better or allowed them greater freedoms than the 'mainstream' societies of Europe (e.g., the Roman Empire compared to the British Celts in the 1st century A.D.) then yes, you're right.


Yes, that is what I was trying to say. :)

From your post, it appears that you are more knowledgeable than I am about European History. That was very informative. My knowledge is rather hit or miss. I read about what interests me at the time. But, what has struck me in my studies was the gradual eroding away of women's freedoms. A spiral down not a steady decline. And now we are spiraling back up. And that's a good thing. :)

Stlight
12-28-2008, 09:24 PM
According to Barbara Mertz, the archeologist, in her book Red Land Black Land, daily life in ancient Egypt, before the Roman influence, women were allowed to choose their husbands and divorce at will. Almost everyone men and women worked, but the scribes seemed to be men.

When I started college, Sears sent my husband, not me, a credit card. He’d dropped out of college. It was in his name only, but I was expected to co-sign. Sears may not be bright, but I wasn’t that stupid.

Yes, Barbara Mertz PhD, better known as Elizabeth Peters and Barbara Michaels, wrote a couple of really easy to read enjoyable books on ancient Egypt.

Mela
12-28-2008, 09:39 PM
As a joke, my friend got me a vintage cookbook from the 50s titled "Dishes Men Like."

"To please a man, what easier way than to season his food at home the way he likes it."

The book was published by Lee & Perrins, hence:

"Don't wait for your man to ask for the Worcestershire. Include it with the salt and pepper shakers when you set the table."

Siddow
12-28-2008, 09:48 PM
As a joke, my friend got me a vintage cookbook from the 50s titled "Dishes Men Like."



lol, when I met my husband, he had one cookbook:

Cooking with Beer

lol

Corpus Thomisticum
12-29-2008, 12:12 AM
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. :)

From your post, it appears that you are more knowledgeable than I am about European History. That was very informative. My knowledge is rather hit or miss. I read about what interests me at the time. But, what has struck me in my studies was the gradual eroding away of women's freedoms. A spiral down not a steady decline. And now we are spiraling back up. And that's a good thing. :)

I hope I didn't seem argumentative or offensive; that wasn't my intent. I am just always very cautious about History is used. A lot of people with strong beliefs often generate their own mythological histories to support their views, and I have a knee-jerk reaction to that. I'm not accusing you of having done so, rather that I was probably overly-sensitive in that regard.

I still say that on average and overall, women in the mid-20th century (in the West) lived better than ever before anywhere, but of course throughout history conditions for women have roller-coastered, so your point is well taken. For instance, in 17th and 18th century New England, where you had small, isolated but self-sufficient farming communities, people -- all people -- were a critical resource and so women enjoyed surprising power in local communities, even in churches and local government simply because in those small towns their contributions to the survival of the family was easily apparent. That all changed with the industrial revolution of the 19th century, however, which disrupted those communities and sucked people from farms into factories; New England women saw their roles and rights in society deteriorate steadily until the 20th century, when they effectively had to claw their way back.

I'm not sure who said it in this thread but I'd go with the statement that the guide (which provoked this thread) is a good guide for both partners today, in the sense that part of the job of being a husband or wife is to support your partner.

I'll shut up now. ;) :Ssh:

Corpus Thomisticum
12-29-2008, 12:13 AM
lol, when I met my husband, he had one cookbook:

Cooking with Beer

We just got a book like that for a friend of ours! He loves to cook experimentally. Great stuff. ;)

Beach Bunny
12-29-2008, 12:49 AM
I hope I didn't seem argumentative or offensive; that wasn't my intent.

No. You weren't offensive or argumentative. A teensy bit condescending. But, with a username like Beach Bunny and an avatar like that <-- I get it all the time. I confess I find amusement in running around giving the impression that I haven't a brain cell left in my head. And then wading into an intellectual debate in P&CE and expounding on some area of personal expertise. :) ... Actually, I used to get it all the time. The people who've been around for awhile have figured me out. It's only newbies who make that mistake now. ;)

NeuroFizz
12-29-2008, 05:29 AM
My personal feeling is you should treat your spouse with kindness and consideration because it is the right thing to do. If someone needs God to tell them to do that, then there is a problem.
Wise words. And even worse is when a God is used as justification to diverge from BB's statement.

2old2pb
12-29-2008, 05:30 AM
What is particularly disgusting about this article is the false promise that "catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction." My mind reels at the idea that this is the answer to all married women's woes. This article is nothing more than a shallow attempt at control. It is not a guide; it offers no advice, just rules. In relationships, rules are for children, principles are for adults. You have to put some work into figuring out your principles, I think they call that growing up.

Mac H.
12-29-2008, 08:04 AM
This article is nothing more than a shallow attempt at control. It is not a guide; it offers no advice, just rules
It is worth remembering that the 'article' is, most likely, a parody.

A parody that is incredibly close to the real truth, mind you, but it seems that nobody actually collected all those things together in a real article back then.

A quick search gives this book from 'Good Housekeeping', first written in 1938, and reprinted in 1949: The 'Good Housekeeping' Marriage Book (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20830/20830-8.txt)

Sure, it also has apparently sexist gems like:


Thoughts for Wives

1. Did my husband start for work this morning in a better frame of mind
for having married me, or would he have been happier as a single man or
married to someone else?
Remember, as you ask this question and apply your own answer, that we
are talking about business; hard, practical business where intentions do
not count. You may love your husband dearly, but if the results of your
love are not constructive, you must write the word FAILURE across the
record.

2. Do I always treat my job just as seriously as if I were working in
an office for a monthly salary?
Some wives feel that it makes no difference if they linger so long over
bridge or cocktails or shopping or whatever in the afternoon that they
are unable to prepare a suitable meal for their husbands in the evening.

3. Have I grown in poise and interests like the wives of my husband's
associates and superiors?
Wives who keep up with the procession are an asset; those who fail to
grow are a liability.

4. Can I talk in the same terms as his associates and their wives?
This indicates how carefully you have maintained your interest in the
source of your income, and how accustomed you are to expressing
yourself.

5. Do I dress and act like the wives of the business associates and
superiors of my husband?
You place a heavy handicap upon your effectiveness if your husband
cannot be proud of you in the inevitable comparisons with other wives in
his organization.
...However, it also has many, many gems of incredible equality.

eg:

You are still unfit for marriage unless you are willing to go more than halfway in adjusting your life to "his" or "hers."

It is probably still worth reading today. It also has a fascinating chapter by Eleanor Roosevelt on Women and careers.

Mac