Found a description of a 1950's housewife!!

[ChiRho]

I remember my aunt, now married over 60 years, noted with some disdain a fellow baseball wife who would make her daily declaration that “I must go prepare myself for Cal”, her husband. Cal’s wife seems to have been adhering to something very much like that original list, but Cal and his wife didn’t stay married. My aunt did not find this any surprise.

I guess following that list = divorce. gotcha

By the original list, a wife’s evening should be planned so as to revolve around her husband’s comfort, she is supposed to see to every detail of that, but she is not supposed to complain if he doesn’t feel like availing himself of this lavish homecoming. It doesn’t say, “remember that sometimes he will be somewhere other than home for dinner”, but rather that she has no perogative to question any reason or any amount of time he makes himself absent from home. How is that setting her up for the expectation that he will not be “rude and insensitive”? The original list tells her that this kind of rudeness is her husband’s right!

I don’t remember the original list saying that rudeness was a right but you’re entitled to think it. I already said I disagreed with the bit about staying out late with no call, so why use that in an argument against me? Advice like this is even given frequently on these forums, where one will complain about their spouse’s habits, and the correct response of “you can only change your own habits” is given. Maybe the list comes off to you as justifying coming home gruff, heartless, and disinterested, but maybe it is instead just telling the audience to worry about themselves and how they can make their spouse’s day better. Like I said, there needs to be a guy’s list. It’s just as important for them to worry about improving their wife’s day rather than being critical when things aren’t up to their standards

Your list is not complementary. Your list takes the wife out of “her place”, as described by the original list. You encourage a husband to listen to his wife’s complaints and ask about her day, while the original list forbids her from voicing those things. What is the perfect wife supposed to do with that internal conflict? Notice that her rules say, “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.” Your list tells husbands not to be insensitive or rude, but the original list supposes that such a thing is impossible by the nature of the husband’s role in the home.

The list “forbids” (rather, suggests) that she bring up her own day at the front door the second he has walked in. I am not sure what’s offensive about that. Maybe the husband’s role is to seek out how her day went, but he has to ask her once he has settled down? It sounds like a selfless interpretation – the husband thinking “I should be in a good mood even though I’ve had a rough day, and see how her day went” and the wife thinking “I should try to give him some space even though I’ve had a rough day I want to talk about.” You can’t control the other person, which is why a complementary list might should be written. I don’t think you appreciate that just because one has this role, and the other that, that there won’t be interaction, or that just because one person is recommended to act in a way that might be sacrificial for them for the benefit of their spouse (saying burned dinner tasted great, or that the half-dead roses your husband brought were really fantastic), that the other spouse won’t in return act in the same way. They should, I think and your argument that “they aren’t complementary” because they’re both self-sacrificial is bewildering to me because mutual sacrifice is complementary — and there’s no denying that asking how one’s day was or refraining from chatting is sacrificial for many people. Is here the part where I lecture you to go read certain passages I can assume you’ve already read? Because it really is condescending.

Furthermore, your theatrical interpretation “the original list supposes that such a thing is impossible by the nature of the husband’s role in the home.” is a bit heavy. We aren’t ripping apart a college thesis. I doubt any list writer would assume that everyone would follow it to a T, and maybe they should have just written the same boiled down (boring and obvious) list that I provided so people wouldn’t chain themselves to a figurative tree about how awful it is

 

[LoyalChristian]

Well, here is the problem, how do we expect to keep vows to our spouses, when spouses get angry at such minor duties.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t remember the original list saying that rudeness was a right but you’re entitled to think it. I already said I disagreed with the bit about staying out late with no call, so why use that in an argument against me? Advice like this is even given frequently on these forums, where one will complain about their spouse’s habits, and the correct response of “you can only change your own habits” is given. Maybe the list comes off to you as justifying coming home gruff, heartless, and disinterested, but maybe it is instead just telling the audience to worry about themselves and how they can make their spouse’s day better. Like I said, there needs to be a guy’s list. It’s just as important for them to worry about improving their wife’s day rather than being critical when things aren’t up to their standards

The list “forbids” (rather, suggests) that she bring up her own day at the front door the second he has walked in. I am not sure what’s offensive about that. Maybe the husband’s role is to seek out how her day went, but he has to ask her once he has settled down? It sounds like a selfless interpretation – the husband thinking “I should be in a good mood even though I’ve had a rough day, and see how her day went” and the wife thinking “I should try to give him some space even though I’ve had a rough day I want to talk about.” You can’t control the other person, which is why a complementary list might should be written. I don’t think you appreciate that just because one has this role, and the other that, that there won’t be interaction, or that just because one person is recommended to act in a way that might be sacrificial for them for the benefit of their spouse (saying burned dinner tasted great, or that the half-dead roses your husband brought were really fantastic), that the other spouse won’t in return act in the same way. They should, I think and your argument that “they aren’t complementary” because they’re both self-sacrificial is bewildering to me because mutual sacrifice is complementary — and there’s no denying that asking how one’s day was or refraining from chatting is sacrificial for many people. Is here the part where I lecture you to go read certain passages I can assume you’ve already read? Because it really is condescending.

Furthermore, your theatrical interpretation “the original list supposes that such a thing is impossible by the nature of the husband’s role in the home.” is a bit heavy. We aren’t ripping apart a college thesis. I doubt any list writer would assume that everyone would follow it to a T, and maybe they should have just written the same boiled down (boring and obvious) list that I provided so people wouldn’t chain themselves to a figurative tree about how awful it is

*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 *and 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.(underline mine)

I don’t know how you make that out to mean anything other than the plain meaning of the words used. Why is it condescending to point that out, when your comments do not seem to indicate that we were really reading the same text? Where did you get the premise that the list was written by someone who was merely making suggestions? I don’t see anything in the text that suggests there is an acceptable alternative to the world view of the author. Maybe you can quote me something that I missed?

I can only say this: among the marriages lasting in the neighborhood of 50 or 60 years–which is to say, among the dozens of couples I personally know who actually were married between 1940 and 1960–none of them had the family life the list described or gave me that kind of advice when I married. “Mom makes dinner and Dad gets some space when he gets home”, absolutely, but not that whole laundry list. They all used humor, along the lines of “Divorce never, homicide maybe” and “If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”. Their way is hard to argue with, because they all tell me they’d do it all over again, the men and the women both. I can guarantee they’d all find the list just as over the top as my aunt did.

You and your wife will do things your own way. If that list works for you, more power to you. I’m just saying that if it doesn’t, I wouldn’t take that remotely as some kind of a bad sign. It is not really the way it was done, back when they did it right a lot more of the time than now.

 

[ChiRho]

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 and 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.(underline mine)

I don’t know how you make that out to mean anything other than the plain meaning of the words used. Why is it condescending to point that out, when your comments do not seem to indicate that we were really reading the same text? Where did you get the premise that the list was written by someone who was merely making suggestions? I don’t see anything in the text that suggests there is an acceptable alternative to the world view of the author. Maybe you can quote me something that I missed?

you’re correct, and I should have referenced the text more clearly. I’ve seen this list elsewhere on the internet and it’s origin is questionable at best ( snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp ), and if it is fake it was obviously written as a parody – a parody I don’t understand for the most part, although the lines you underlined I think could have been put better. But obviously it was a list of suggestions and not orders, unless this list of unknown origin was Federal law in the 1950s. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees – which is my original point. If both spouses tried to follow just 2 or 3 of these tips, I doubt it’d make for worse marriages. The world is not suffering from an over-abundance of self-sacrificing for one’s spouse. The wording of a particular phrase or the Leave it to Beaver cliches perceived that people love to deride are not the most important part of the ideals recognized (wittingly or unwittingly) in this list. Rather, they are the subject of snickering, when they could be updated, amended and Catholicized a bit to become useful in a forum full of relationship problems.

I didn’t call your pointing out lines condescending, either, if you’ll read my quote. I was referencing the paternalistic (maternalistic?) recommending of Scripture that I find irksome.

I can only say this: among the marriages lasting in the neighborhood of 50 or 60 years–which is to say, among the dozens of couples I personally know who actually were married between 1940 and 1960–none of them had the family life the list described or gave me that kind of advice when I married. “Mom makes dinner and Dad gets some space when he gets home”, absolutely, but not that whole laundry list. They all used humor, along the lines of “Divorce never, homicide maybe” and “If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”. Their way is hard to argue with, because they all tell me they’d do it all over again, the men and the women both. I can guarantee they’d all find the list just as over the top as my aunt did.

You and your wife will do things your own way. If that list works for you, more power to you. I’m just saying that if it doesn’t, I wouldn’t take that remotely as some kind of a bad sign. It is not really the way it was done, back when they did it right a lot more of the time than now.

that’s fair, and I don’t mind the difference of opinion enough to post back and forth about why so-and-so’s personal experience is more importance than this-and-that’s.

Thank you for the discussion

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I do like it, and don’t see why we shouldn’t assume the gentleman listed in the thread deserves it because he treats his wife in the same way. You know, since we are to be charitable on this forum.

boiled down, this is the list that people are besides themselves laughing and guffawing at:

-have dinner read
-look good for him

• act excited to see him
  -keep the house clean
  -comfort him
  -say hi to him
  -listen to him
  -don’t complain
  -don’t be suspicious
  -remember your vows

maybe if a complementary list of

-thank her for her cooking, and if she’s forgotten something don’t bring it up, since she’s had a long day
-look good for her, and remind her how good she looks for you
-always thank her, don’t be rude and insensitive
-be excited to see her, regardless of your day
-ask her how her day was, let her voice complaints
-don’t put work above your family. if you are going to be late, let her know ahead of time
-reassure her
-remember your vows

were created, people wouldn’t be getting their knickers in a twist over some pretty standard things. If the list had been edited for more modern language, the part regarding the 1950s (a bad word) left out, and a complementary list for men been created, I don’t see what the fuss would be about.

It’s the phrase “know your place,” that really does it for me. It’s just the way that sounds, even if there’s some good thought behind it, there’s gotta be a better way to word it.