Housekeeping Monthly 13May1955 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dd3953 · 08-26-2006, 10:33 PM

a friend of mine sent this picture to me in an eMail.

of course, she was a little pissed after reading it & so were some other female friends of mine.
i know that the reasoning for the behaviors can easily make someone mad, but the behaviors themselves, i happen to agree with. work is hard, & sometimes people get stuck with jobs they don't like so a long day at work can be a draining thing.
i can see myself being the housekeeper's idea of a good wife, my only reason being love.

i was wondering with there are people out there that still believe in the ideas that Housekeeping was trying to instill. are there still folks out there that behave in this manner, even if there are like myself & have different ideas motivating them.

what do you think about the ideas?
what do you think about the behaviors?
what do you think about the change in both?

p.s. i don't know if this is the "right" place to post this, but i couldn't think of anywhere else to put it.

analog · 08-26-2006, 11:58 PM

from Snopes.com...

Quote:

The question here is whether the piece quoted above really came from a home economics textbook. Is it real, or is it yet another of those "look how far we've come" fabrications? We know the graphic reproduced above (supposedly from the 13 May 1955 edition of a magazine called Housekeeping Monthly) is a fabrication: It didn't first appeal until well after the "How to Be a Good Wife" list had begun circulating via e-mail, and it's clearly a mock-up produced by adding the text of the e-mail around an image taken from a 1957 cover of John Bull magazine. (The image itself even bears an "Advertising Archives" legend along its side, indicating its source.) As for the text itself, nobody has turned up the infamous textbook that supposedly included these ten steps.

Note: I didn't search it to debunk it, this is a really old, widely-circulated piece of internet lore.

While it may not be real, it definitely paints a fairly accurate picture of the attitudes of the past with regard to "a woman's duties".

I think making people do anything based on preset "roles" is wrong- especially when it obviously places one person as a subservient of the other. The ideas themselves aren't bad, but should be done out of sincerity and not obligation- and by either the woman OR the man. Example: There's nothing wrong with WANTING to have a good meal prepared for your partner when they return home (regardless of sexes), but the old ideas were that it was expected- indeed, required.

I'm glad that we have greater equality now, and such ideas are no longer "the norm", by any means.

maleficent · 08-27-2006, 04:36 AM

In 50 years... imagine what the rules of today would be written like? I'm not sure it's really any better... at least 50 years ago, people seemed to have a little more concern for their spouse.

This is basically yhe generation thatmy mother grew up in... She was NOT the little woman who fetched my father's slippers and handed him a drink when he got home from work (was my job to be bartender

My mother managed to have a pretty success career as professor of english literature at an ivy league university while still running a household and raising three kids.

jth · 08-27-2006, 06:07 AM

Obviously it's an older way of looking at marrage/gender roles. I don't think that it's the items to do on the list that is offensive per say but the manner in which it was said. Especially things like "a good wife knows her role" and "his topics are more important" sort of thing. I know personally that a completely submissive woman is a turn off to yours truley. Of course, no one wants to come home to a mess, children misbehaving and a boat load of complaints or troubles after a long day at the office. People need to unwind after work, that's just the way it is. I know that if I was married and had a few kids and after a long day I came home and started getting hit with questions about bills, with the kids running around like maniacs and the house in a squallar I would probably question what's been going on... that is if the Wife was a house wife.... I dunno. My Mother was a house wife and she was pretty good at it I like to think, and I know she probably wanted to rip my head off as well as everyone else's head off from time to time. I think it's got to be one of the hardest jobs out there. That mentality seems to trivialize it to me. Of course, that was in '55. I wonder what would happen if that subject was revisited in todays what the article would say.

Ustwo · 08-27-2006, 06:32 AM

Its pretty obviously fake as it was never really 'like' this at all.

1955 wasn't long ago. My grandparents were the couple with young kids at the time this was published, their young kids being my parents. Seeing how my grandparents have lived their lives I can say without hesitation their relationships with each other are not a whole hell of a lot different then most these days.

I suppose such a list would be a comfort to the childless wife, working overtime, and putting off having a family that things are 'better' now.

genuinegirly · 08-27-2006, 01:27 PM

I received that same e-mail from a friend.
If I were a woman in this era, this particular article wouldn't have encouraged me. The wording is a bit too blatant. "You have no right to question him". Yeah. that would bother me.

Now, for those of you who say that such stereotypes of the 1950s are innacurate and not worth circulating... yeah. You need to realize that your families are not necessarily the norm.

Or maybe the life of my grandmothers was just a bit beyond normal. GrandmaI was married to a man who was emotionally and physically abusive, yet he was respected by his peers. She never appeared outside of her home with visible bruises. She was a good little wife. She did her best to create a loving home environment for their children, never spoke up to her husband, idolized him completely, never considered divorce. She loved him too much, he just had "a few little flaws" that she was willing to work through. My mother didn't know that her mother had a personality or opinions until Grandpa died. GrandmaI was just a slave, even in the eyes of her children.

Here's something of interest that was published May 2000 by a mainstream Mormon church publication (James E. Faust, “Womanhood: The Highest Place of Honor,” Ensign, May 2000, page 95):

Quote:

Unfortunately, we see some very poor role models of womanhood in today’s society. We see women boxers and wrestlers as we flip through the television channels trying to find something uplifting. I believe the women of our time need to be strong, but not in that sense. In my opinion, these activities demean the nobility of womanhood.

What, pray tell, is this crap about the nobility of womanhood? Why is there something wrong with women boxers and wrestlers?

Here's another memorable quote from the same article:

Quote:

I wonder if you sisters fully understand the greatness of your gifts and talents and how all of you can achieve the “highest place of honor” in the Church and in the world. One of your unique, precious, and sublime gifts is your femininity, with its natural grace, goodness, and divinity. Femininity is not just lipstick, stylish hairdos, and trendy clothes. It is the divine adornment of humanity. It finds expression in your qualities of your capacity to love, your spirituality, delicacy, radiance, sensitivity, creativity, charm, graciousness, gentleness, dignity, and quiet strength. It is manifest differently in each girl or woman, but each of you possesses it. Femininity is part of your inner beauty.

Ummmm so only women have the capacity to love, be gentle, be dignified, be sensitive, creative... ? I've met plenty of men with these great characteristics.

So really... my entire point here is that there are parts of our society that still wholeheartedly accept gender stereotypes and attempt to mold young folks' personalities around them. There is no reason to assume that the gender issues of the 1950's are no more than a myth. They're still out there. Going strong.

And dang it - I don't understand why.

dd3953 · 08-27-2006, 02:53 PM

i don't really care if the picture itself is fake. i just want to know what y'all think about what it says. because those were the ideas hold by a lot of people at (& before) that time. & i am sure there are still a few out there.

SecretMethod70 · 08-27-2006, 03:00 PM

You're right, genuinegirly, to an extent. My family, like ustwo's and maleficent's, is and was nothing like the one described in this image. However, there is a bit of truth in everything. The image above points a picture of a subservient wife to a dominant husband. I think that, on the surface, a lot of marriages, especially from that particular period, may seem like they fit that description. I know that, on the surface, my mother's parents may seem to fit that description. However, I also know that my mother's parents relationship only seems that way. In reality, they are equals and they have utmost respect for one another. My grandmother has had the same hairstyle ever since I remember, all because my grandfather likes it that way. This is not because she is subservient to him, it's simply because she chooses to do something that is, relatively, no big deal that she knows he will like. The reality of most situations like that, from what I've observed, is a lot like a BDSM relationship. The submissive is the one with the real power, although it seems as though it is the other way around.

What is so right about what you say, genuinegirly, is that "there are parts of our society that still wholeheartedly accept gender stereotypes and attempt to mold young folks' personalities around them" and that "They're still out there. Going strong." With this, you hit the nail on the head. Right now, there are parts of our society which embrace such mindsets, and I suspect it was much the same way in the 50's. This is not an issue of time, but of demographic. The demographics which embraced these mindsets then still do so today. It has not gone away, but it is more convenient and comforting for us to blame such ideas of a woman's role on a time period than on a social group or groups.

genuinegirly · 08-27-2006, 03:35 PM

SecretMethod70, your words are so much clearer than my own. Yes, it is easier to blame it all on a time period.

Gilda · 08-27-2006, 04:11 PM

While the items listed probably don't reflect the reality of many families in the 50's, I wouldn't be surprised if they do reflect much of the idealized image of what a family should be from that time.

A good part of that list could apply to my parents' relationship, which is very traditional in terms of gender roles, but also functional for them as people.

A good part of that list also applies to my relationship with Grace when I'm on a break from teaching, but again, it's functional because that's a role I choose and one that fits how we want to live our lives. I am particularly enthusiastic about "being a little gay and a little more interesting" for her. I'm sure she'd be quite disappointed if I weren't.

The problem occurs when certain roles are expected of people, or they're even coerced into adopting behaviors merely because of superficial factors not related to them as an individual.

There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, so long as they are freely chosen and not chosen for someone by others or the larger society. Nor is there anything wrong with adopting non-traditional gender roles. Both should be treated as equally legitimate choices.

Gilda

Ustwo · 08-27-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, so long as they are freely chosen and not chosen for someone by others or the larger society. Nor is there anything wrong with adopting non-traditional gender roles. Both should be treated as equally legitimate choices.

Gilda

When I agree with Gilda on something sex related, it must be true

Val_1 · 08-28-2006, 05:37 PM

I believe this magazine "clipping" to be false as well. Although, some of the roles may be accurate "expectations" of the time, they just go too far and it becomes apparent that that it is a current exageration of past stereotypes. Don't complain if he stays out all night?!

Snopes covers it here: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp

Lady Sage · 08-28-2006, 08:37 PM

My mother grew up in this timeframe and that is exactly how she was taught to care for her husband. That is exactly how she waited on my father hand and foot never saying a word against him. Her mother even went so far as to tell her she always had to sleep facing my father just in case he had any.... "needs".

Until I showed her how women today lived. She nearly had a heart attack when I yelled at my father for asking her to make him popcorn the day he brought her home from quadruple bypass surgery. I promptly told my mother who was trying to manage to get off the couch to sit her *** down on that couch. I then told my father that last I checked his arms and legs werent broken but if I ever heard him ask anything of my mother again until she was recovered I would be more than happy to break all 4 limbs. I then took my father to the kitchen and showed him how to make microwave popcorn. To this day things have been different for my parents and far more liberating for my mother who is happier now than she hasd ever been in her life.

KungFuGuy · 08-28-2006, 09:54 PM

The sort of relationship the picture describes is from the 1950's. It's been exaggerated of course with the language, but we can't forgot the time period those gender roles came from.

Back in the 50's, it was common for the man to go out to work and for the woman to stay at home and keep things neat and tidy. Since the family unit was able to support itself on one income, this delegation of duties was seen as far and equitable. Not that the gender roles were EQUAL, they weren't. A woman doing the wage earning would have been looked down upon, but the delegation of duties between wage earner and housekeeper made sense.

Things like keepign the house clean and preparing meals seems pretty fair when one is not earning a wage to support things financially.

That brigns us to today. TODAY, it is practically impossible to support a family on one income. Therefore, it becomes NECESSARY for both husband and wife to be employed in order to financially pay for everything. With todays mindset, it's almost a little off putting when only one person in the marriage has a job. It's like the "housekeeper" is not pulling his or her weight financially, even if they are doing things like housekeeping and cooking. And it's even worse if its the husband.

Personally, I feel like economics have affected gender roles more than anything else. A fairly solid case could probably be made that the feminist movement started succeeding in the 70's when the economics of living started demanding a larger overall household income. That's a topic for a thesis though, not a single post.

I also second what GILDA said and USTWO quoted.

Ustwo · 08-28-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KungFuGuy

That brigns us to today. TODAY, it is practically impossible to support a family on one income.

This is not true at all. Look at the homes and lifestyle they led. The issue isn't being able to support a family on one income, the issue is that people expect to be living at a higher standard of living. I work out of a old post WWII suberb, much of my family grew up around there, and they were small, one story homes with a dank basement for storage. They raised full families in these homes and thought it was a good thing. Now no one wants to live in them now and the trend is to do knock downs and put up a more expensive home so it can sell.

Its the expectations that have changed and require two incomes to produce.

magictoy · 08-29-2006, 12:48 AM

I think the post is as authentic as this one. (Note the beer in the guy's hand.) Guys, there are lots of good tips here.

Quote:

Area husband pretends to give a shit

Lafayette, Ga. – Attempting to pacify his wife Jena's incessant desire for verbal interaction, area husband Chris Woodman pretended to give a shit Tuesday as his wife of six years initiated and dominated a series of prolonged dialogues regarding an array of unrelated, unimportant subjects.

According to Woodman, the thoroughly pointless conversation - which comprehensively detailed his wife's work day, lunch experience, plans for the evening and friend's relationship difficulties - took place in the living room of the couple's Lafayette home at approximately 6 p.m., shortly after Woodman began watching television in an effort to unwind from work.

"I love my wife, but Jesus, does she like to talk sometimes," said Woodman, 30, who works as a field technician for a local civil engineering firm. "I wanted to just come home [from work] and chill out for awhile, but Jena immediately launches into these long, boring stories about what happened at work and what's going on with a friend of hers and a bunch of other stuff. I just tried to act like I was paying attention and hoped it wouldn't go on too long."

Occasionally retorting with such all-purpose conversation perpetuators as "That's nice, honey" and "No kidding? Huh," Woodman pretended to give a shit about his wife's exhaustively detailed personal accounts until just after 6:45 p.m., when Jena was forced to interrupt the one-sided exchange to receive a telephone call from her longtime friend Nelly Smith.

"Saved by the bell, I guess you'd say," Woodman jokingly explained, adding that he used the brief interruption to exit the room and seek solace behind some cardboard boxes in the basement, where he remained for several hours.

Woodman acknowledged that although the lengthy, expendable conversation depleted a good amount of his after-work leisure time, the 45 minutes spent maintaining a convincing, give-a-shit veneer was not a complete waste.

"I was able to give some thought to a few things I hadn't had time for," said Woodman, who admitted to mentally drifting light-years away from his wife's inane banter. "While Jena was busy carrying on about God-knows-what, I was trying to figure out the significance of a couple of scenes from the movie Memento, which we had rented a few nights back. I think I've got most of [the plot] figured out now."

In addition to analyzing the storyline of the 2001 feature, Woodman mentally planned the couple's upcoming camping trip and also reminisced about his 1996 bachelor party weekend in Las Vegas - all the while remembering to nod, say "Yeah," and display other characteristics indicative of a person who is giving a shit.

Woodman said he often pretends to give a shit about what his wife says.

"Somebody - a guy - once told me that women tend to work things out in their heads by talking things out, so most of the time it isn't really necessary to listen to everything a woman says," said Woodman. "It's been my experience that the theory usually holds true. So I tend to just keep my mouth shut and let her talk herself out."

Added Woodman: "Besides, if something's really important to her, I'll pick up on it right away because she'll be yelling. Then it's time to get involved in what I'm sure she feels is an extremely important conversation."
After six years of marriage, Woodman said he feels that his willingness to pretend to give a shit about what his wife says is vital to the health of their relationship.

"If I didn't sit there in total silence, staring off into the distance but occasionally grunting out an 'Oh yeah?' or a "No kidding,' Jena would probably start to think we have a communication problem," said Woodman. "Sure, I could just walk out of the room when she starts barking out her meaningless ramblings, but that would be equivalent to just coming right out and saying that she's boring me."

"I pretend to give a shit because I care," Woodman added.

dd3953 · 08-29-2006, 09:42 AM

yeah, & i guess they are both fake. your's however is a lot funnier.
but again, that is not the point up for discussion.

kutulu · 08-29-2006, 10:19 AM

Ustwo is right. In a lot of cases it isn't absolutely necessary to have two wage earners. I make under 60k and we are able to do just fine. There are a lot of ways that people can piss away an extra $40k/year, which if the combined income is around 100k is really only like $20k. You don't need a big house, two $400/month car payments, cable tv, and high speed internet; each kid doesn't need it's own room; you can shop for clothes at discount stores; and you don't need to spend a ton of money to have others entertain you. Most of those things people do to impress other people.

Regarding the list, most of the stuff are things that couples should do for each other. If more people (that's both partners) followed most of those guidelines there would be a lot more happy relationships. The only thing that is offensive is the tone that it was written in but too many people can't get over the tone and things that are obviously put in to get a response to see that most of it is damn good advice.

It is really nice to come home to a clean house and be greeted with a smile and a beverage. It sucks to have drama thrown at you as soon as you get home, you have all night to take care of that. Make the first 20 minutes about greeting each other and the kids.

Jim Kata · 08-29-2006, 01:13 PM

nice...my friends parents have that in their kitchen. Her father actually highlighted certain parts. Good stuff.

KungFuGuy · 08-29-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its the expectations that have changed and require two incomes to produce.

point taken. i would still assert that economics plays a large role though.

dd3953 · 09-02-2006, 09:09 PM

yeah, i think that economics does play a role in the "stay at home mom" thing. but if there is a "stay at home mom" what is the expectations? cook, clean, take care of the kids (if you have some)? is there more or less to it than that?
what happens to that role if there is a "stay at home dad" or both people are working?
i understand that most people would like to discuss that with their partner about that but i can't help but think you've taken a little bit of time to think about it. so what do you say?

Jozrael · 09-27-2006, 03:54 PM

Sorry for the necro, but aye - wholeheartedly agree. However, I think that it's best for the children if someone stays home. If my relationship ever led to marriage (it's been three months, so while discussed, it's not as if I'm laying out wedding invites -anytime- soon. Many, many years before that), I would want one of us staying home. I have no problem with that one being me, I'd -love- to spend time with my kids, but A: she's already said that when she gets kids she's staying home with them, and B: to be fair, I probably have higher earning potential than her (just began an Electrical Engineering course, she wants to be a music teacher). I sorta envy the stay-at-home position, though. I'd love to be the nurturer.

My $.02

ShaniFaye · 09-27-2006, 04:15 PM

Has anyone ever watched Mona Lisa Smile? its pretty much a depcition on film of the "fabrication" in the OP

This is the way my mothers parents were...I've heard it many times. To an extent my own parents were that way until I was about 12

(not that Im saying this is the way it should be....it should be like it is in my house....Dave does all that for ME ahahahahaha)

If you havent taken the time to watch the above mentioned movie and you're interested in this you should....

Cynthetiq · 09-27-2006, 04:21 PM

Skogafoss has a book that does express the OP sentiment within it. It's a homemaker book from around that point in time. I was amazed when I stumbled upon it in her bookcase and she wants to keep it because she finds it funny.

So if the clipping is fake, the book I have isn't. I'll find it and post the name....

08-26-2006, 10:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	Housekeeping Monthly 13May1955 a friend of mine sent this picture to me in an eMail. of course, she was a little pissed after reading it & so were some other female friends of mine. i know that the reasoning for the behaviors can easily make someone mad, but the behaviors themselves, i happen to agree with. work is hard, & sometimes people get stuck with jobs they don't like so a long day at work can be a draining thing. i can see myself being the housekeeper's idea of a good wife, my only reason being love. i was wondering with there are people out there that still believe in the ideas that Housekeeping was trying to instill. are there still folks out there that behave in this manner, even if there are like myself & have different ideas motivating them. what do you think about the ideas? what do you think about the behaviors? what do you think about the change in both? p.s. i don't know if this is the "right" place to post this, but i couldn't think of anywhere else to put it. __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ] Last edited by dd3953; 08-26-2006 at 10:35 PM..

08-27-2006, 04:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	In 50 years... imagine what the rules of today would be written like? I'm not sure it's really any better... at least 50 years ago, people seemed to have a little more concern for their spouse. This is basically yhe generation thatmy mother grew up in... She was NOT the little woman who fetched my father's slippers and handed him a drink when he got home from work (was my job to be bartender My mother managed to have a pretty success career as professor of english literature at an ivy league university while still running a household and raising three kids. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-27-2006, 06:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
jth Insane Location: HRM	Obviously it's an older way of looking at marrage/gender roles. I don't think that it's the items to do on the list that is offensive per say but the manner in which it was said. Especially things like "a good wife knows her role" and "his topics are more important" sort of thing. I know personally that a completely submissive woman is a turn off to yours truley. Of course, no one wants to come home to a mess, children misbehaving and a boat load of complaints or troubles after a long day at the office. People need to unwind after work, that's just the way it is. I know that if I was married and had a few kids and after a long day I came home and started getting hit with questions about bills, with the kids running around like maniacs and the house in a squallar I would probably question what's been going on... that is if the Wife was a house wife.... I dunno. My Mother was a house wife and she was pretty good at it I like to think, and I know she probably wanted to rip my head off as well as everyone else's head off from time to time. I think it's got to be one of the hardest jobs out there. That mentality seems to trivialize it to me. Of course, that was in '55. I wonder what would happen if that subject was revisited in todays what the article would say. __________________ "A real leader faces the music, even if he doesn't like the tune." - unknown quote

08-27-2006, 06:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Its pretty obviously fake as it was never really 'like' this at all. 1955 wasn't long ago. My grandparents were the couple with young kids at the time this was published, their young kids being my parents. Seeing how my grandparents have lived their lives I can say without hesitation their relationships with each other are not a whole hell of a lot different then most these days. I suppose such a list would be a comfort to the childless wife, working overtime, and putting off having a family that things are 'better' now. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-27-2006, 02:53 PM	#7 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	i don't really care if the picture itself is fake. i just want to know what y'all think about what it says. because those were the ideas hold by a lot of people at (& before) that time. & i am sure there are still a few out there. __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

08-27-2006, 03:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	You're right, genuinegirly, to an extent. My family, like ustwo's and maleficent's, is and was nothing like the one described in this image. However, there is a bit of truth in everything. The image above points a picture of a subservient wife to a dominant husband. I think that, on the surface, a lot of marriages, especially from that particular period, may seem like they fit that description. I know that, on the surface, my mother's parents may seem to fit that description. However, I also know that my mother's parents relationship only seems that way. In reality, they are equals and they have utmost respect for one another. My grandmother has had the same hairstyle ever since I remember, all because my grandfather likes it that way. This is not because she is subservient to him, it's simply because she chooses to do something that is, relatively, no big deal that she knows he will like. The reality of most situations like that, from what I've observed, is a lot like a BDSM relationship. The submissive is the one with the real power, although it seems as though it is the other way around. What is so right about what you say, genuinegirly, is that "there are parts of our society that still wholeheartedly accept gender stereotypes and attempt to mold young folks' personalities around them" and that "They're still out there. Going strong." With this, you hit the nail on the head. Right now, there are parts of our society which embrace such mindsets, and I suspect it was much the same way in the 50's. This is not an issue of time, but of demographic. The demographics which embraced these mindsets then still do so today. It has not gone away, but it is more convenient and comforting for us to blame such ideas of a woman's role on a time period than on a social group or groups. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 08-28-2006 at 12:35 AM..

08-27-2006, 03:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	SecretMethod70, your words are so much clearer than my own. Yes, it is easier to blame it all on a time period. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

08-27-2006, 04:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	While the items listed probably don't reflect the reality of many families in the 50's, I wouldn't be surprised if they do reflect much of the idealized image of what a family should be from that time. A good part of that list could apply to my parents' relationship, which is very traditional in terms of gender roles, but also functional for them as people. A good part of that list also applies to my relationship with Grace when I'm on a break from teaching, but again, it's functional because that's a role I choose and one that fits how we want to live our lives. I am particularly enthusiastic about "being a little gay and a little more interesting" for her. I'm sure she'd be quite disappointed if I weren't. The problem occurs when certain roles are expected of people, or they're even coerced into adopting behaviors merely because of superficial factors not related to them as an individual. There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, so long as they are freely chosen and not chosen for someone by others or the larger society. Nor is there anything wrong with adopting non-traditional gender roles. Both should be treated as equally legitimate choices. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

08-28-2006, 05:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	I believe this magazine "clipping" to be false as well. Although, some of the roles may be accurate "expectations" of the time, they just go too far and it becomes apparent that that it is a current exageration of past stereotypes. Don't complain if he stays out all night?! Snopes covers it here: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

08-28-2006, 08:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	My mother grew up in this timeframe and that is exactly how she was taught to care for her husband. That is exactly how she waited on my father hand and foot never saying a word against him. Her mother even went so far as to tell her she always had to sleep facing my father just in case he had any.... "needs". Until I showed her how women today lived. She nearly had a heart attack when I yelled at my father for asking her to make him popcorn the day he brought her home from quadruple bypass surgery. I promptly told my mother who was trying to manage to get off the couch to sit her *** down on that couch. I then told my father that last I checked his arms and legs werent broken but if I ever heard him ask anything of my mother again until she was recovered I would be more than happy to break all 4 limbs. I then took my father to the kitchen and showed him how to make microwave popcorn. To this day things have been different for my parents and far more liberating for my mother who is happier now than she hasd ever been in her life.

08-28-2006, 09:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
KungFuGuy Insane	The sort of relationship the picture describes is from the 1950's. It's been exaggerated of course with the language, but we can't forgot the time period those gender roles came from. Back in the 50's, it was common for the man to go out to work and for the woman to stay at home and keep things neat and tidy. Since the family unit was able to support itself on one income, this delegation of duties was seen as far and equitable. Not that the gender roles were EQUAL, they weren't. A woman doing the wage earning would have been looked down upon, but the delegation of duties between wage earner and housekeeper made sense. Things like keepign the house clean and preparing meals seems pretty fair when one is not earning a wage to support things financially. That brigns us to today. TODAY, it is practically impossible to support a family on one income. Therefore, it becomes NECESSARY for both husband and wife to be employed in order to financially pay for everything. With todays mindset, it's almost a little off putting when only one person in the marriage has a job. It's like the "housekeeper" is not pulling his or her weight financially, even if they are doing things like housekeeping and cooking. And it's even worse if its the husband. Personally, I feel like economics have affected gender roles more than anything else. A fairly solid case could probably be made that the feminist movement started succeeding in the 70's when the economics of living started demanding a larger overall household income. That's a topic for a thesis though, not a single post. I also second what GILDA said and USTWO quoted.

08-29-2006, 09:42 AM	#17 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	yeah, & i guess they are both fake. your's however is a lot funnier. but again, that is not the point up for discussion. __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

08-29-2006, 10:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Ustwo is right. In a lot of cases it isn't absolutely necessary to have two wage earners. I make under 60k and we are able to do just fine. There are a lot of ways that people can piss away an extra $40k/year, which if the combined income is around 100k is really only like $20k. You don't need a big house, two $400/month car payments, cable tv, and high speed internet; each kid doesn't need it's own room; you can shop for clothes at discount stores; and you don't need to spend a ton of money to have others entertain you. Most of those things people do to impress other people. Regarding the list, most of the stuff are things that couples should do for each other. If more people (that's both partners) followed most of those guidelines there would be a lot more happy relationships. The only thing that is offensive is the tone that it was written in but too many people can't get over the tone and things that are obviously put in to get a response to see that most of it is damn good advice. It is really nice to come home to a clean house and be greeted with a smile and a beverage. It sucks to have drama thrown at you as soon as you get home, you have all night to take care of that. Make the first 20 minutes about greeting each other and the kids.

08-29-2006, 01:13 PM	#19 (permalink)
Jim Kata Swollen Member Location: Northern VA	nice...my friends parents have that in their kitchen. Her father actually highlighted certain parts. Good stuff.

09-02-2006, 09:09 PM	#21 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	yeah, i think that economics does play a role in the "stay at home mom" thing. but if there is a "stay at home mom" what is the expectations? cook, clean, take care of the kids (if you have some)? is there more or less to it than that? what happens to that role if there is a "stay at home dad" or both people are working? i understand that most people would like to discuss that with their partner about that but i can't help but think you've taken a little bit of time to think about it. so what do you say? __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

09-27-2006, 03:54 PM	#22 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Sorry for the necro, but aye - wholeheartedly agree. However, I think that it's best for the children if someone stays home. If my relationship ever led to marriage (it's been three months, so while discussed, it's not as if I'm laying out wedding invites -anytime- soon. Many, many years before that), I would want one of us staying home. I have no problem with that one being me, I'd -love- to spend time with my kids, but A: she's already said that when she gets kids she's staying home with them, and B: to be fair, I probably have higher earning potential than her (just began an Electrical Engineering course, she wants to be a music teacher). I sorta envy the stay-at-home position, though. I'd love to be the nurturer. My $.02

09-27-2006, 04:15 PM	#23 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Has anyone ever watched Mona Lisa Smile? its pretty much a depcition on film of the "fabrication" in the OP This is the way my mothers parents were...I've heard it many times. To an extent my own parents were that way until I was about 12 (not that Im saying this is the way it should be....it should be like it is in my house....Dave does all that for ME ahahahahaha) If you havent taken the time to watch the above mentioned movie and you're interested in this you should.... __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

09-27-2006, 04:21 PM	#24 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Skogafoss has a book that does express the OP sentiment within it. It's a homemaker book from around that point in time. I was amazed when I stumbled upon it in her bookcase and she wants to keep it because she finds it funny. So if the clipping is fake, the book I have isn't. I'll find it and post the name.... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!