OT: Can you believe this was just 50 years ago?

My, how we have progressed! (?)

Can't wait to print this out and present it to the little lady! :)
 
dmr said:
/me throws up!

Are you sure this isn't a hoax? :(
Click to expand...

I believe I've seen this before and as 'weird' as it may seem - I'm pretty sure it's actually from that publication and from that year (1955).

Then again, who knows :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it's legit.
i used to facilitate a program for women who had left abusive relationships and we used that as a handout to show what the attitudes were 'back then' and compare to now.

joe
 
FrankS said:
My, how we have progressed! (?)

Can't wait to print this out and present it to the little lady! :)
Click to expand...

You might want to duck when you hand it to her.
 
Amazing that it is still this way in many parts of the world.
 
back alley said:
it's legit.
Click to expand...

Joe, with all respect, you might want to carefully read the link above before saying that.

First of all, there's no such thing as "Housekeeping Monthly"! Google it! Search for back issues on Ebay. Look it up in Wikipedia. All other womens magazines, old and new, domestic and fashion and whatever, will be in there.

It doesn't exist!

i used to facilitate a program for women who had left abusive relationships and we used that as a handout to show what the attitudes were 'back then' and compare to now.
Click to expand...

If this text was indeed used in a counseling program, it showed that those who put it in the curriculum did not do their homework. :(

My best guess is that somebody created it in jest, perhaps in the style of National Lampoon in the early 70's.

It was also attributed to a Home Economics textbook. (See Snopes) Although I could not even begin to read in 1955, when I was in school, some of the Home Economics textbooks were of that vintage and did not have any crap like that. (The chapters on "health and hygeine" were an amusing read, though.) :)

It's a thought-provoking piece of satire, historical humor, but I sure wish people would quit passing on drek like this as fact.

Unfortunately, what is fact, is that attitudes like this still proliferate. :(
 
I hope my wife doen't read this. If she thinks she is supposed to use the oven she may find her Chirstmas presents. (She hasn't found them yet in 34 years).

Wayne
 
My wife has several times referred to this type of wifely image, well illustrated in the "Leave It To Beaver" series, with the comment of how rediculous it was when compared to real life. I won't set her off by showing it to her.

Jim N.
 
dmr said:
Joe, with all respect, you might want to carefully read the link above before saying that.

First of all, there's no such thing as "Housekeeping Monthly"! Google it! Search for back issues on Ebay. Look it up in Wikipedia. All other womens magazines, old and new, domestic and fashion and whatever, will be in there.

It doesn't exist!



If this text was indeed used in a counseling program, it showed that those who put it in the curriculum did not do their homework. :(

My best guess is that somebody created it in jest, perhaps in the style of National Lampoon in the early 70's.

It was also attributed to a Home Economics textbook. (See Snopes) Although I could not even begin to read in 1955, when I was in school, some of the Home Economics textbooks were of that vintage and did not have any crap like that. (The chapters on "health and hygeine" were an amusing read, though.) :)

It's a thought-provoking piece of satire, historical humor, but I sure wish people would quit passing on drek like this as fact.

Unfortunately, what is fact, is that attitudes like this still proliferate. :(
Click to expand...

i'll have to look into it.
we were told it was from an old home ec textbook.

i didn't look too close at the mag but more at what was written.

joe
 
Whether or not the specific example is legit, it is indeed the case that there was and maybe still is a literature or school of thought echoing these sorts of tenets.

I used to have a book (don't ask me where I got it or why I had it -- I don't really know) called The Total Woman by Marabel Morgan. My (female) friends and I used to read it and giggle. It's still in print and popular among some conservative types, along with other similar books.

These things obviously have to be taken in context. To me -- and ask anyone who knows me, I am not by any stretch of the imagination a subservient sort of Stepford woman -- a lot of this sort of "wifely advice" consists of ideas that are not bad in and of themselves. Who doesn't want his or her significant other to be supportive and kind and clean and attractive? Who doesn't like to do nice things for someone he or she loves? These things don't have to be demeaning.

The problem arises when these desires are accompanied by attitudes that are outmoded or unfair (the man is always in charge and his desires/opinions of higher value simply because he has a Y chromosome, a woman's greatest duty is to make some man happy, "a wife should know her place," &c.), and if such "wifely" favors are never particularly appreciated or reciprocated, but simply absorbed as if they were a man's due.

I'd be a bad "Total Woman" because I have an agenda beyond making my man happy. But I try not to have a chip on my shoulder about it either. If I want to be nice, I'm going to be nice, and I don't look at it as especially demeaning just because I'm female.
 
Here this attitude makes a big return at the moment, the women in question usualy wear scarfs around her head and I've even seen some burkas in the past two years.
 
You can't judge that easily these texts from fifty years ago.
I think Melanie C has a very healthy view on the things. I would add, most of these should be natural - and reciprocal.
 
Hoax or not, this sort of attitude persists in a lot of countries around the world, in this day and age.

I guess it's an eye-opener, so we shouldn't take our freedoms for granted because it could so easily be taken away....
 
This is one of those rare times when I think I'll pass and not click on the link.

From what's been said so far, I don't think I need to nor do I have the mental strength today to do it. I'm very happy to know that there are people like Melanie that can see things in 360 degrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom