Rules for wives-circa 1955

[SEVERUSMAX]

Unless he's landed in the hospital, if he stays out all night, he won't hear any complaints. He'll just find all his stuff out on the lawn and the locks changed the next morning.

I like you LJ, so don't take this wrong, but I am glad that we're each involved with other people and not each other. I'm pretty damned sure that we would end up in divorce court.

That being said, I don't think that anyone has the right to impose such a lopsided relationship without the other's consent. If they want to be Gorean and have TPE, that's one thing, but it should be a mutual decision. Housewives (and even househusbands) might well object to such a regime forced on them. Consent is necessary. Expecting all homemakers to act like that is just silly.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I would never agree to an open relationship, so yep, out on the lawn he'd be. He can take his open relationship to the other woman and suggest that SHE cater to his every burp and fart.

 

[angela146]

What generation of women was this aimed at?

The baby boomers (my parents) would have been 10 years old (or younger) at the time.

The generation that fought WWII (my grandparents) had much stronger women than this (i.e. they worked in factories while their men fought the war).

This must be the in-between generation: people born in the 1930's who were too young for WWII and too old to be drafted for Vietnam, i.e. the mini-generation that fought the Korean war.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I would never agree to an open relationship, so yep, out on the lawn he'd be. He can take his open relationship to the other woman and suggest that SHE cater to his every burp and fart.

That's why we're better off as friends, lol.

 

[Weird Harold]

1) Make sure your "little treasures" are playing the part...and not let the other spouse see kids as kids? I dunno. That sounds like a rather artifical relationship to create between child and parent.

Would "keep the kids from geting out of control" sound better? If the division of labor/responsibilities is for one spouse to provide most of the training and disipline, isn't it reasonable to expect them to reign in childish exuberance when it is time for a bit of peace and quiet?

2) Don't complain (throw grease on the fire) even if the spouse is late or stays out all night long. Hmmmm. I dunno. This kinda sounds like advice offered to wives as a way of letting them know that they should just accept that their husbands are fooling around. Don't ask, don't tell kinda shit.

How about "allow your partner time and space for their own interests and don't treat them like irresposible children who have to account for every minute of their lives?"

3) Never question a spouse about their actions or judgement.

This one is a bit "don't ask, don't tell" but is similar to #2 in the "Don't be a nagging Bitch/Bastard" vein. There is -- or was -- a difference between "Discussing" and "Questioning."[/QUOTE]

Okay, Harold. You've offically earned the weird part of your name.

You're just now figuring out that it isn't just a cool sounding name?

Seriously though, once you consider the differences in language and social expctations from 1955 to now, the article could well be titled, "How to Pussy-whip Your Husband Without Him Noticing" because the advice is mostly about avoiding direct confrontations and manipulating Hubby's mood.

Meeting Hubby at the door, shrieking like a fishwife because he's late is NOT the way to find out WHY he was late. Confronting him directly over being late in any kind of language is -- or was in the 50's -- likely to put him on the defensive and cause him to go all macho and clam up.

So, meet him at the door with a smile and kiss, get him settled in the lounger, pour him a drink and ask about his day, and he will be more likely to offer an explanation of why he was late without prompting.

I've always seen that article as a very subtle "how to" on manipulate men because I was raised with the male values it would be most effective against.

Your mother must have either been on a very high level socially or she took a job that was not considered to be respectable.

Nope, not a social maven, just a woman that took a "government" job that wasn't cleaning, washing or babysitting and she still had children in Elementary School-- which basically means it wasn't "respectable" in that it wasn't "Women's Work."

I was raised in a small town in Wisconsin. My mother worked in a local cannery and as a telephone operator. Other women worked at those jobs or as sales clerks, secretaries, waitresses, teachers or nurses.

I was raised in a "lumber town" and there were women working in all of those "Lady Like" occupations, but the working women in the area were a small minority of the total adult female population; something on the order of about ten-percent -- that doesn't include the carhops at the A&W drive-in or waitresses at the local hangout.

Out of a total population of 4,000 in the immediate area, I don't think there were more than 150 women working and the majority of the ones I can remember were single and didn't have any young children.

 

[Weird Harold]

What generation of women was this aimed at?
...
This must be the in-between generation: people born in the 1930's who were too young for WWII and too old to be drafted for Vietnam, i.e. the mini-generation that fought the Korean war.

Good House Keeping was aimed at the "Young Wives" demographic -- 18 to 28 or there abouts, so yes, it would have been aimed at the Korean Conflict generation -- the generation that made Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and The Donna Reed Show top ten TV shows and had June Cleaver, Harriet Nelson, and Donna Reed's TV persona as role models.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Your mother must have either been on a very high level socially or she took a job that was not considered to be respectable.

Nope, not a social maven, just a woman that took a "government" job that wasn't cleaning, washing or babysitting and she still had children in Elementary School-- which basically means it wasn't "respectable" in that it wasn't "Women's Work."

I was raised in a "lumber town" and there were women working in all of those "Lady Like" occupations, but the working women in the area were a small minority of the total adult female population; something on the order of about ten-percent -- that doesn't include the carhops at the A&W drive-in or waitresses at the local hangout. Out of a total population of 4,000 in the immediate area, I don't think there were more than 150 women working and the majority of the ones I can remember were single and didn't have any young children.

When I first looked for a job, it was 1960 and I was in San Francisco. I looked in the "Help Wanted section of the paper. At that time, there were separate sections for men and women. The women's section was jammed full of openings for typists, girls Friday, receptionists, clerks, waitresses, telephone operators and other rather low level jobs, most of them in offices. There were probably more openings for women than for men, but they were lower paying jobs. "Pink collar" work was considered to be for women, which was why it was given that nickname.

Before I went to SF, though, working women were not at all uncommon. Most of the teachers I had in elementary and high school were women.

Why wouldn't you include waitresses and car hops among working women?

 

[Weird Harold]

Why wouldn't you include waitresses and car hops among working women?

I excluded them from adult working women because in those two places they were almost entirely High-school students.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think a lot of the problems of advice like this misses, bizzarity, stupidity, and sexism aside is believing children not to be work.

Dealing with kids, especially kids in the multiple sense is a full-time occupation that is most often (especially when they are young) if not always MORE stressful, tiring, and overall exhausting than a full day's work in most fields that "working" members of the family (especially in a service economy) would be in.

Raising, disciplining, running around, and overall working with one's children as well as preparing all dinners and planning the whole continual running of a household is a mind-boggling sum of both responsibility and time-commitment.

The problem that "working" members and especially male "working" members run into is that they do not often believe this. They don't really face it hour after hour like the mother in this context and somehow to believe it to be a spot of fun for the missus rather than grueling labour of a far higher class than just sitting in front of a computer screen having your boss ass-rape you for kicks.

This leds of course to the further problem that arises and I think the real one that undercuts much of the sexism which is that the stable home becomes the symbol of male empowerment. This is utter bullshit. A marriage is supposed to be a commitment of love and respect and so there should not be a power dynamic. But because of god-knows-why and who-knows-squat those men in Fight Club fashion after a day meekly getting ass-raped by a power-tripping middle manager decide to make themselves feel better about their powerlessness by lording it over the missus and complaining when the missus who has also had a hard day if not harder responds negatively to it. Hence the advice.



This is of course not to say that no homemaker has never flown off the handle completely or falsly accused someone and would not be placated and demanded to control one's life better. Of course neither do I believe that this advice is at all empowering to the homemaker. It's simply godawful advice. A real relationship should have trust, the ability to try and explain oneself when the other feels wronged (to the best of their abilities even if the ending is not satisfactory), and hopefully also a committment to both to apologize and make up when they've calmed down especially when they're in the wrong.

The important thing to remember is that both segments can drive a person nuts. Making a home is such a mind-boggingly difficult task with such little social regard (one has to apologize for being a homemaker and even in areas where it is respected, it is still considered beneath the man and his "real work") and such total isolation from the world (how many moms would only really have friends with immediate neighbors or the mothers of their children's friends if it wasn't for the internet) that it is truly a trial on the mind's fortitude. It is such a sacrifice especially to one who has worked that suspicion can rise merely out of the knowledge that if one was to be "cast aside" they'd drown (child support really isn't enough to raise a child without yet another man demanding the same damn role or helpful family).

And on the flip, jobs can make one weak, especially right after. My SO has been working a job for the last couple of months to pay the rent that literally has had her near tears for about an hour after each day of work.

Understanding and a firm trust of the person that is willing to persist. Actual love. These are all things that are far more valuable than a bad S&M meets Stepford Wives mockery. This is the key to creating a sham marriage leading to eventual heartbreak or murder that will look fabulous to some mythical on-looker or rare guests you don't really care about. It is the quintessential 50s fantasy, the same design that created houses that kept all bodily functions away from the door and kept all the items you weren't allowed to use in that visible area instead.

As Jimi Hendrix said though "Castles made of sand slip into the sea, eventually."

 

[3113]

The generation that fought WWII (my grandparents) had much stronger women than this (i.e. they worked in factories while their men fought the war).

This must be the in-between generation: people born in the 1930's who were too young for WWII and too old to be drafted for Vietnam, i.e. the mini-generation that fought the Korean war.

Actually, it was aimed at both older sisters (WWII) and younger (Korean). Keep a few things in mind about those stronger women who worked in factories while men fought the war:

1) Whether they did or not, they were expected to think working in factories was a temporary job, required because of the war. Once the war ended, they were expected to surrender all those jobs to the men and marry them. They were very much encouraged to do this; once the war ended there was a good deal of propaganda to push women out of thinking of themselves as "Rosey Riveter" and into thinking of themselves as very feminine. As mothers and homemakers.

2) Keep in mind that there were no laws to protect a woman in regard to her jobs at that time. No maternity leave, for example. If she got pregnant and could work, she was out of a job. And if the boss fired her so that he could hire a man she had no legal recourse. Just as black men had no legal recourse if the boss fired them to hire a white man. So women were out of a job anyway in many cases and forced to either take "womens jobs" (secretaries, etc.) or marry.

3) Assuming a woman kept that job in the factory, there was no moving up for her into manager jobs and earning more money. Such jobs almost always went to men. First, because it was thought: (a) that men under a woman wouldn't listen or obey her (re-read those rules about men being the master, right?), (b) because those hiring were sexist males and (c) it was a assumed that a woman would get pregnant and leave, a man wouldn't. So, for example, in the telephone company, all operators were women, but all the managers, even newly hired managers, were men. No woman could apply for the higher paying job and expect to get it even if they were far more qualified.

4) The economy of America at that time made it fairly easy for a man to be the breadwinner. The G.I. Bill allowed him to get married and go to college while his girl worked her low paying job, then get himself a good job and move them to the new suburbs and raise a family all on his paycheck. So a woman could go back (once again was encouraged to go back) to thinking of herself as wife and mother, not as a worker.

It's not to say that this propaganda worked. What you're reading, afterall, is propaganda, faux advice, but it reflects the tenor of the time, how women were regarded, how men were regarded. It reflects the way society tried to stuff them into particular boxes. If a woman gained a certain toughness in the independent years of the war, well, she was suppose to surrender it--according to society. Doesn't mean she did, but the culture wanted her to and expected her to.

The cultural Zeitgeist in regards to these things--how people should think, react, etc, doesn't take individuality into account.