An article from a 1955 edition of Good Housekeeping
How things have changed... thank goodness!
- Thread starter Kacey
- Start date
Around here I just say "Honey! I'm home!":ultracool
DavidCC
Master of Arts
You all laugh but...
how many of you have read "the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands"?
at it's core I think it is not far from this. This of course clearly places the wife in a secondary role and that is an outdated concept. Dr. Laura proposes that the women have all the power to make a happy marriage, and that by being "wifely" in some of the same ways this article describes, she can have everything she wants from her husband.
And so even when I KNOW for a FACT that my wife is using a technique from that book on me, I cannot resist. Sometimes she makes me happy despite myself.
Compare:
"Dammit David you said you'd get off the computer 30 minutes ago and come watch a movie with me! Are you gonna do that or what?! <angry>"
<sitting in my lap and kissing my ear>"The popcorn's ready and so am I. Let's go watch that movie"
uhhh....
Of course this assumes that the husband is not a deadbeat d+++head loser or something
how many of you have read "the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands"?
at it's core I think it is not far from this. This of course clearly places the wife in a secondary role and that is an outdated concept. Dr. Laura proposes that the women have all the power to make a happy marriage, and that by being "wifely" in some of the same ways this article describes, she can have everything she wants from her husband.
And so even when I KNOW for a FACT that my wife is using a technique from that book on me, I cannot resist. Sometimes she makes me happy despite myself.
Compare:
"Dammit David you said you'd get off the computer 30 minutes ago and come watch a movie with me! Are you gonna do that or what?! <angry>"
<sitting in my lap and kissing my ear>"The popcorn's ready and so am I. Let's go watch that movie"
uhhh....
Of course this assumes that the husband is not a deadbeat d+++head loser or something
Of course this assumes that the husband is not a deadbeat d+++head loser or something
Isn't that the definition of a husband?
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
Doesn't everybody, man and woman, hanker for someone like this? Give it a couple of decades and we will probably be able to buy just what we want.
Dr. Laura rocks! The article obviously goes too far, but the idea is to be lovable or not lovable. If a woman chooses not to be lovable then consequences arise, such as the fall of the marriage. That is fine if that was or is her intended goal, but if children are involved then choices must be made.You all laugh but...
how many of you have read "the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands"?
at it's core I think it is not far from this. This of course clearly places the wife in a secondary role and that is an outdated concept. Dr. Laura proposes that the women have all the power to make a happy marriage, and that by being "wifely" in some of the same ways this article describes, she can have everything she wants from her husband.
And so even when I KNOW for a FACT that my wife is using a technique from that book on me, I cannot resist. Sometimes she makes me happy despite myself.
Compare:
"Dammit David you said you'd get off the computer 30 minutes ago and come watch a movie with me! Are you gonna do that or what?! <angry>"
<sitting in my lap and kissing my ear>"The popcorn's ready and so am I. Let's go watch that movie"
uhhh....
Of course this assumes that the husband is not a deadbeat d+++head loser or something
sean
tellner
Senior Master
And that is the evil family-destroying unwomanly legacy of feminism. Pure, simple, no argument possible. As feminism has become a dirty word we've seen the Know Nothings and the woman-haters start to sneak in a few other old ideas. Think of the *spit* Promise Keepers. Consider "G-dly Submission" as the model for a marriage. Take a look at the not terribly subtle subtext of the Silver Ring crowd. And look at what Dobson, Kennedy, Robertson and the rest of the smarmily Christo-fascist crowd say they want for America. Start with "Dispensationalism" and the "Christian Reconstruciton" movement.
Look at arguably the single greatest event in women's emancipation - the ability to control their fertility, space their children and limit family size without. Consider that no woman in her reproductive years in America has lived under a regime where birth control was unavailable and illegal. Now consider that the Christian Right, not just the "Full Quiver" whackjobs but more mainstream are spreading propaganda about the evils of all birth control and passing "conscience" laws which allow pharmacists to deny contraceptives to women and steal the prescriptions. Add in the "abstinence only" sex-I-hesitate-to-call-it-education which is mandated by law. Contraception can not be discussed except to say that it does not work. Condoms can not be mentioned as being at all effective against STDs including AIDS.
At the same time the EEOC has decided that discrimmination cases against women are "not a priority" but ending the separation of Church and State is. A blind man in a coal mine could see what's happening.
The last twenty seven years, and in particular the last six, have seen a wholescale retreat from women's civil rights in the US. It's an explicit attempt to return to the days Kacey mentions. If you're a man I suppose it could be kind of cool. If you're a woman, well, I suppose the no-limits edge-play sort of submissive could enjoy it. For the rest of you...
Look at arguably the single greatest event in women's emancipation - the ability to control their fertility, space their children and limit family size without. Consider that no woman in her reproductive years in America has lived under a regime where birth control was unavailable and illegal. Now consider that the Christian Right, not just the "Full Quiver" whackjobs but more mainstream are spreading propaganda about the evils of all birth control and passing "conscience" laws which allow pharmacists to deny contraceptives to women and steal the prescriptions. Add in the "abstinence only" sex-I-hesitate-to-call-it-education which is mandated by law. Contraception can not be discussed except to say that it does not work. Condoms can not be mentioned as being at all effective against STDs including AIDS.
At the same time the EEOC has decided that discrimmination cases against women are "not a priority" but ending the separation of Church and State is. A blind man in a coal mine could see what's happening.
The last twenty seven years, and in particular the last six, have seen a wholescale retreat from women's civil rights in the US. It's an explicit attempt to return to the days Kacey mentions. If you're a man I suppose it could be kind of cool. If you're a woman, well, I suppose the no-limits edge-play sort of submissive could enjoy it. For the rest of you...
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
Now that's a damn fine piece of writing. Could not agree with you more, but please enlighten me as to what the EEOC is.
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
:angel:
maybe I am lost but what was wrong with the original copied page it looed great to me other than it forgot to say she should have his slippers and beer ready as soon as she gets home from work and deliver them to him as he reclines on the coutch after a hard day of watching tv
maybe I am lost but what was wrong with the original copied page it looed great to me other than it forgot to say she should have his slippers and beer ready as soon as she gets home from work and deliver them to him as he reclines on the coutch after a hard day of watching tv
It would scare the hell out of most men wondering what was up
Yeah! Screw family values!
Sean
CoryKS
Senior Master
So, we should hang on to this Good Housekeeping article? Just in case?
