Ok it’s late and I’m cranky, but come on, did anybody–anybody?–bother to read, or even to consider, my earlier post which put the article in context?
Remember, if this is even mid 1950s, what had just been happening in the U.S. 10 years ago? 5 years ago?
And the 1950s also marked pretty much the ‘watershed’ of a very modern phenomenon–the rise of the middle class woman (mostly white) to whom this was addressed. Wealthy women had ‘help’. Poor women **were **the help. Middle class women, mostly ‘suburban’ at that (another ‘watershed’ a la Levittown), many of whom had been in some way involved, either themselves, their older relatives or mothers, having worked ‘outside the home’ as well as ‘in’ the home in World War 2, were the ones being addressed.
Maybe the remarks sound dated and condescending. But if one considers that quite a few of the ‘hubbies’ sitting down in, say, 1955, had 10 years ago been in the Pacific fighting, or freeing survivors of the concentration camps, then maybe there were more than a few still suffering the effects of these traumas and who, after a long day at work probably appreciated a bit of ‘calm’ when their lives were not all that calm. Consider the soldiers today coming back from Iraq --50 some years later, and contrast it with the soldiers coming back from Viet Nam (arguably U.S. society’s worst failure to recognize the needs of its returning veterans), and you may note that one reason we try to be more ‘positive’ and upbeat, ‘appreciative’ if you will of the soldiers and their families, is that we saw how much the Viet Nam era soldiers, who not only didn’t have appreciation (like coming home to a quiet house, which may have lessened the chances of ‘flashbacks’) but actually had opprobrium heaped upon them.
Some of the 1950s husbands were still fighting the effects of WW2–and also the Korean War–and were self-medicating with alcohol and pills. People talk about Valium for the housewife? Well, some of the husbands were out making it cocktails 24/7.
We have ‘changed’ in society. Nobody is going to argue about ‘going back’ to a time that itself was a ‘blip’ on the radar in ‘family living’. Really. Many people never had that ‘idyllic’ life. Many also never had the ‘horror stories’ that some apparently did. Extremes are extremes. But most people took advice with a ‘grain of salt’, much as they did, say, fashion magazines. Few women wanted to look as if they had just come from a Dior shoot; most wanted to adapt the look to highlight their own best assets or to recognize a particular trend. We didn’t have a group of girls walking down the street all wearing identical poodle skirts, Lana Turner sweaters, bobby sox and saddle shoes all the same color, and everybody sporting the same accessories, the same shade of lipstick like “Cherries in the Snow”, or even all wearing “Evening in Paris” perfume. Certainly these were all at some time widespread and popular. . .but they weren’t uniform.
I think that often we tend to both under- and overestimate those who lived in a different era. We underestimate them when we compare how ‘unenlightened’ they appear in regard to certain things we take for granted. . . wondering how on earth women spent hours a day in ‘simple’ things like homemaking and child care–until we realize that even in the 50s not all women had washing machines. Ever used a washtub? Time consuming. . . Ovens didn’t self clean, refrigerators needed defrosting frequently, gas stoves needed to be lit, coal and wood stoves were even harder to stoke and to regulate, nobody had microwaves, carpet sweepers were huge and unwieldy, fabrics needed ironing, etc. And we’re not even getting into things like everybody being around the table for dinner (with tablecloths, napkins, also needing to be cared for, and seldom a ‘dishwasher’ unless it was a child!), and afterward things like family games of Monopoly.
And then we overestimate them by going the other way and assuming that they not only ‘felt’ as we do TODAY on topics, but if they didn’t ‘do’ as we did, it was because they had been lied to, or repressed, and all along the women really ‘resented’ being ‘little wifey’ and all along men really ‘were’ tyrants, and that when ‘enlightened’, ALL the women burned their bras and ALL the men turned into cads who dumped their 40-year old wives for two 20-year olds and have been trying to get women back barefoot and pregnant to ‘punish them’ ever since. . .
.
Having a good marriage takes two committed people, wishing to grow in holiness together. It is about serving one another. I cringed when I read the post in this thread stating…‘I wonder how many divorces there were back then,’ as if women should be the only side keeping things together.
…thanks for speaking up. And you are a great role model–kudos to you and your wife for probably making some tough decisions, and seeking to do what’s in the best interest of YOUR family. 
Of course… I had graduated from college and had a good job. I just happened to still be living at home… 
Hey, it was only 3 minutes away from work.
