7 Tips for Keeping Your Man (from the 1950s)
Replies
-
This article does not express the opinions of the OP. Please don't beat me up.
Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/52108/7-tips-keeping-your-man-1950s#ixzz2eVFsUElL
--brought to you by mental_floss!
7 Tips for Keeping Your Man (from the 1950s)
Author: Therese ONeill
Woman, you have no idea how lucky you are to have landed a man. But as the literature of the mid-century’s greatest matrimonial minds tells us, he’s one wrinkled shirt away from leaving you. Eyes open and mouth shut ladies. It’s about to get real.
1. Don't Talk
Oh, did Mavis from next door insult your prize winning squash? Did little Timmy get sent home for starting fires again? That shooting pain in your left arm just keeps getting more intense? Keep it to yourself! Your man works all through his day and the last thing he needs to hear about is yours. Refer to the first four commandments on “How to be a Good Wife” Edward Podolsky gives in his 1943 book, Sex Today in Wedded Life:
Don’t bother your husband with petty troubles and complaints when he comes home from work.
Be a good listener. Let him tell you his troubles; yours will seem trivial in comparison.
Remember your most important job is to build up and maintain his ego (which gets bruised plenty in business). Morale is a woman’s business.
Let him relax before dinner. Discuss family problems after the inner man has been satisfied.
In his 1951 book, Sex Satisfaction and Happy Marriage, Reverend Alfred Henry Tyrer has more to add to that. Do not ask for things. This is called "nagging":
I verily believe that the happiness of homes is destroyed more frequently by the habit of nagging than by any other one. A man may stand that sort of thing (nagging) for a long time, but the chances are against his standing it permanently. If he needs peace to make life bearable, he will have to look for it elsewhere than in his own house. And it is quite likely that he will look.
Unless your husband wants you to talk. Then don’t you dare disappoint him. Says Reverend Tyrer:
“If [the husband] is intellectually inclined, and from time to time seeks to explain little things to her so that she may have at least a bare knowledge of what it is that interests him, and, without the slightest comment, she takes up again the fashion magazine she laid down when he commenced to speak, we may be pretty sure that there is going to be a ‘rift in the lute’ sooner or later in that house.”
2. Bad cooking will drive your man to seedy saloons
My god woman, this turkey tastes like wet toilet paper stuffed inside a burnt basketball. Have you no pride? Oh, you had a late shift at the hospital and then went straight to Timmy’s intervention? No excuses! Heed Reverend Tyrer!
A social service meeting, an afternoon tea, a matinee, a whatnot, is no excuse for there being no dinner ready when a husband comes home from a hard day’s work.
Housekeeping accomplishments and cooking ability are, of course, positive essentials in any true home, and every wife should take a reasonable pride in her skill. Happiness does not flourish in an atmosphere of dyspepsia.
Or listen to the even more plain-spoken Dr. William Josephus Robinson:
Bad cooking is responsible for dyspepsia, dyspepsia is responsible for grouchiness and irritability, grouchiness and irritability lead to quarrels and squabbles. And bad cooking, which is the usual thing in the average American home, has been responsible as much as any other factor for driving the husband to the saloon, and to other places. And when she does cook, she should cook, and not be, as somebody said, a mere can opener.
If you didn’t want your husband to become a syphilitic alcoholic, you should have learned to make a damn pot roast properly.
3. Be the Hot Steak, Not the Cheap Pork
Speaking of cooking, Reverend Tyrer has a metaphor for you.
Picture a woman preparing a fine meal for her husband. “She remembered his choice of meat and was careful to get an extra-fine cut…her best cutlery and dishes and finest linen are all in evidence, and a little colorful decoration has been tastefully displayed….and as he comes into the house she greets him with a smile of welcome and a touch of manifest love.” Now, say that linen was a bed sheet, the colorful little decoration was fuzzy handcuffs, and you had the privilege of being that extra fine cut of meat. What does all that equal? A husband who doesn’t cheat on you!
But say that same wife "is constantly setting him down to indigestible meals, cold and unappetizing, with nothing properly cooked, set out on a kitchen table with a dirty cloth, she need not be surprised if her husband frequently telephones from the office that business will prevent him from being home for dinner."
All because you weren’t properly cooked when he was hungry!
4. But don't be a Sexual Vampire or a Frigid Franny
Of course, as Dr. Robinson tells us, it is possible to be over-cooked. Then you become a “sexual vampire” and you will drive your husband to his grave, feasting on his life force.
Just as the vampire sucks the blood of its victims in their sleep while they are alive, so does the woman vampire suck the life and exhaust the vitality of her male partner—or "victim."
It is to be borne in mind that it is particularly older girls—girls between thirty and fifty—who are apt to be unreasonable in their demands when they get married; but no age is exempt; sexual vampires may be found among girls of twenty as well as among women of sixty and over.
The opposite of that is to be frigid, of course. That means you take no particular pleasure from the sexual act with your husband. Oh, "we should talk it out openly and honestly," you say? Maybe see a doctor, a therapist?
You disgust me. What do you think that will do to your husband’s ego? Listen to Dr. Robinson and save your marriage!
Now, if you are one of those frigid or sexually anesthetic women, don’t be in a hurry to inform your husband about it. To the man it makes no difference in the pleasurableness of the act whether you are frigid or not unless he knows that you are frigid. And he won’t know unless you tell him, and what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him. Heed this advice. It has saved thousands of women from trouble.
5. Pink Panties are a must
And while we’re on the subject of you performing convincingly in the boudoir, you better be costumed correctly, too.
That the underwear should be spotlessly clean goes without saying, but every woman should wear the best quality underwear that she can afford. And the color should be preferably pink. And lace and ruffles, I am sorry to say, add to the attractiveness of underwear, and are liked by the average man.
6. Let him have a little fun now and then
What if your man strays after marriage? Well, Dr. Robinson is here for you again. He says that ultimately, a wife will react to infidelity as her heart dictates. But he still offers some advice.
Get over it.
But in case of an occasional lapse on the part of the husband—there a bit of advice may prove acceptable. And my advice would be: forgive and forget. Or still better—make believe that you know nothing. An occasional lapse from the straight path does not mean that he has ceased to love you. He may love you as much; he may love you a good deal more.
7. Your Husband is The Boss Of You
It is fitting to close with a simple truism from the renowned Eugenicist Prof. B.G. Jefferis, in his Searchlights on Health, The Science of Eugenics:
The Number One Rule. Reverence Your Husband.—He sustains by God’s order a position of dignity as head of a family, head of the woman. Any breaking down of this order indicates a mistake in the union, or a digression from duty.
Stop talking, slap on some pink drawers, and start worshipping!
Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/52108/7-tips-keeping-your-man-1950s#ixzz2eVG3Khad
--brought to you by mental_floss!
WOW I do not even think my gram (who died at 101 in 2008) followed these rules.
Poppycock indeed!0 -
^^^ im hungry.... get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich0
-
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Um. You are missing the part where this list doesn't define what men in the 1950's actually thought.
I'm missing that? some of the people being quoted as sources are men ( based on their names and titles). If you wrote a book on a topic, it would be impossible to have that thought written down into the book if you didn't think it.0 -
lol0
-
Really!!! Isn't a LOT of THIS STILL the premiss in which MANY MEN operate?!!! THINK about it...YOU (women) may have changed and to a great extent so has society BUT in MOST homes, don't these edicts STILL prevail?! Women may work OUTSIDE of the home BUT they have to come home and WORK again...She does good IF she can get him to take the trash out. If she works Outside of the home and inside the home, whose NEEDS are most important and taken care of FIRST, HIS?!
Articulating this stuff in a 1950's article may seem FUNNY and archaic BUT THINK and LOOK, and LOOK Around. What are Little Girls, Teenage Girls and Adult Women taught and learn..."Get that Man at ALL COSTS"; LoRate yourself, demean yourself, show "Flesh", act dumb, overlook hurt and pain, compromise YOUR integrity, Your needs take a back seat. Why do YOU think we have all of these FAT, Overweight, Anorexic, Bulimic, Depressed, Sad...WOMEN in Here and In Real Life...because THEY have been taught and believe that a man (no matter how inept and weak...) is what makes Life good or "a piece of a man is better than no man".
Women's Lib is GREAT...For Women who have the COURAGE and Desire to be Happy and Self Aware and Self Fulfilling and Whole, With or Without a Man. BUT for sooo many Women, Life is spelled M-A-N.0 -
Really!!! Isn't a LOT of THIS STILL the premiss in which MANY MEN operate?!!! THINK about it...YOU (women) may have changed and to a great extent so has society BUT in MOST homes, don't these edicts STILL prevail?! Women may work OUTSIDE of the home BUT they have to come home and WORK again...She does good IF she can get him to take the trash out. If she works Outside of the home and inside the home, whose NEEDS are most important and taken care of FIRST, HIS?!
Articulating this stuff in a 1950's article may seem FUNNY and archaic BUT THINK and LOOK, and LOOK Around. What are Little Girls, Teenage Girls and Adult Women taught and learn..."Get that Man at ALL COSTS"; LoRate yourself, demean yourself, show "Flesh", act dumb, overlook hurt and pain, compromise YOUR integrity, Your needs take a back seat. Why do YOU think we have all of these FAT, Overweight, Anorexic, Bulimic, Depressed, Sad...WOMEN in Here and In Real Life...because THEY have been taught and believe that a man (no matter how inept and weak...) is what makes Life good or "a piece of a man is better than no man".
Women's Lib is GREAT...For Women who have the COURAGE and Desire to be Happy and Self Aware and Self Fulfilling and Whole, With or Without a Man. BUT for sooo many Women, Life is spelled M-A-N.
oh goody.... just when this was starting to get boring. I knew I was missing some Caps Lock in My Life.0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !0 -
call me old fashion but i like it! lol women in the 50's kept their man!
i use traditional principles in my marrage and we have been very happy and still very much in love
As long as it is YOUR WAY! I Notice that YOU say "I use..." I bet YOU do. Trust Me, when a Woman becomes Self Aware and want HER needs to be met ALSO...Shyt hits the Fan (Even if she is "Traditional", "Religious"... (Heck, the DIVORCE Rate in the Church is over 50%). When a woman hits about 35-40 yrs old Watch Out..Either YOU will adjust or Your marriage will be on the ROCKS (35-40 is usually the age where a woman reaches a higher level of maturity and feels secure about herself...middle age) and she has kinda figured some things about LIFE out. By this time if she has been "Settling" she is probably fed up and wants a change or needs a real partner to adapt. Check out the divorce stats...and men will say, "what the heyall happened, we had a great marriage", yeah, right! YOUR needs were always met.
ETA: In the 20' 30's 40's and 50's... women DID NOT have OPTIONS, so they either stayed or was OUT in the cold with NO where to turn. Women accepted ABUSE, Violence, Incest, Rape, Pedophilia...you name it, women then endured it, a Shelter was NOT even heard of and the Court System belonged to the man! So DO NOT Mistake women of the past staying with their husbands as "Love", put it THIS way...Why do "Slaves" stay with their "Masters"...It is what they know and they can not do any better...OHH, but just wait until they get a "whiff" of FREEDOM...BY!0 -
That kind of dynamic works for some relationships. If that's the way people lived or still want to live, whatever, I'm not one to judge. I consider myself a good little feminist but my husband is still the "controlling" personality in our relationship, but that is simply because of the personality he has compared to mine. I'm much more easy going,so I'm fine with him making decisions. However I work,and he probably cares for the children more due due to his work schedule. I do most of the cleaning and cooking but he helps too. My brother's relationship is the opposite (she's in "the boss" even though she stays home and he works). People just have to find a balance that works for them. And yes, in the 50s women usually didn't have the freedom to chose but some stronger ones did. I know my grandmother never followed those types of rules and my grandparents were married 60+ years until she died.0
-
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Um. You are missing the part where this list doesn't define what men in the 1950's actually thought.
I'm missing that? some of the people being quoted as sources are men ( based on their names and titles). If you wrote a book on a topic, it would be impossible to have that thought written down into the book if you didn't think it.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to understand. The fact that a few men said these things does not mean it represents what all, or even a majority, of the men at the time thought. If it did, we could also say that Mein Kampf was representative of what "men in the 1940's" thought since one, or more, men who were alive at the time obviously thought in this manner.
My point: you make a logical jump from "men who think this" to "the men who served in the allied forces" and I don't think that is a fair assumption. I also don't think it's a fair assumption to think that simply because a man served in a war (that you deem admirable) that they behave morally in other contexts. For example, plenty of men who served in that war came home and beat the crap out of their wives and children.0 -
:flowerforyou:0
-
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
"They didn't know better"?? Good thing you aren't a psychology major.0 -
Eh, i'm cool with it. I'm pretty traditional so most of this seems pretty straight forward, with a modern twist of course. My husband doesnt consider me a slave to wait on his every demand. But i like to do nice things for him and cook him homemade dinners. I work as well so of course it's not the same as staying home and cooking all day. And he appreciates me for keeping the house clean (which is NEVER perfect) and making sure he has fresh socks and undies and all that jazz. He thanks me everyday and always tells me how lucky he is to have me.
anyways we're very much in love and i enjoy making him happy and making sure i'm always doing my part to make him feel like man.
this of course is the way i/we like it, if he was a dominering prick i'd be so outta there!!!!0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
"They didn't know better"?? Good thing you aren't a psychology major.
Why can't the target be my argument and not me?0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Um. You are missing the part where this list doesn't define what men in the 1950's actually thought.
I'm missing that? some of the people being quoted as sources are men ( based on their names and titles). If you wrote a book on a topic, it would be impossible to have that thought written down into the book if you didn't think it.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to understand. The fact that a few men said these things does not mean it represents what all, or even a majority, of the men at the time thought. If it did, we could also say that Mein Kampf was representative of what "men in the 1940's" thought since one, or more, men who were alive at the time obviously thought in this manner.
My point: you make a logical jump from "men who think this" to "the men who served in the allied forces" and I don't think that is a fair assumption. I also don't think it's a fair assumption to think that simply because a man served in a war (that you deem admirable) that they behave morally in other contexts. For example, plenty of men who served in that war came home and beat the crap out of their wives and children.
This wasn't some extremists point of view... like this was from a regular magazine, like Cosmo or something like that. What I pointed out was saying those men weren't worth being called men at all was the issue, it's a bit harsh to judge those man of their worth of being men because they wanted the things that were common of the day.0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
"They didn't know better"?? Good thing you aren't a psychology major.
Why can't the target be my argument and not me?
Because res ipsa loquitur.0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Um. You are missing the part where this list doesn't define what men in the 1950's actually thought.
I'm missing that? some of the people being quoted as sources are men ( based on their names and titles). If you wrote a book on a topic, it would be impossible to have that thought written down into the book if you didn't think it.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you to understand. The fact that a few men said these things does not mean it represents what all, or even a majority, of the men at the time thought. If it did, we could also say that Mein Kampf was representative of what "men in the 1940's" thought since one, or more, men who were alive at the time obviously thought in this manner.
My point: you make a logical jump from "men who think this" to "the men who served in the allied forces" and I don't think that is a fair assumption. I also don't think it's a fair assumption to think that simply because a man served in a war (that you deem admirable) that they behave morally in other contexts. For example, plenty of men who served in that war came home and beat the crap out of their wives and children.
This wasn't some extremists point of view... like this was from a regular magazine, like Cosmo or something like that. What I pointed out was saying those men weren't worth being called men at all was the issue, it's a bit harsh to judge those man of their worth of being men because they wanted the things that were common of the day.
Some people are content to let media dictate their thoughts. And then there are people with brains.0 -
0 -
its still pretty great being a white, male, heterosexual American but man it would it have been nice to have lived in the 50s and 60s.
0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
My grandparents were married in the early 50s. My grandfather grew up as a country boy in the hills of Kentucky and I'm pretty sure if my grandmother would have followed the advice as laid out in the original post, they never would have been together. Yes, my grandmother did most of the caring for the house hold and the family and yes my grandfather worked full time to support her and the eight children they had together. With that being said, they made decisions together and her opinion was not only heard, it was respected. My grandma is a bit of a firecracker always voices her opinions and even when she got into a couple scuffles with the neighbors over their treatment of her kids he never blinked an eye or treated her like a hysterical person. When their first children (twins) were born he would take the laundry to the laundromat every couple days to be sure that there would be plenty of diapers and he never had a problem helping out in the kitchen. They were married 56 years and loved, respected and cared for each other every day of that time. To say that men in the 50s didn't know better would be incorrect, because some did.0 -
0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
"They didn't know better"?? Good thing you aren't a psychology major.
Why can't the target be my argument and not me?
Because res ipsa loquitur.
Haha, I guess burning the witch is easier that proving what she did or didn't do, is or isn't magic. :flowerforyou:0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
My grandparents were married in the early 50s. My grandfather grew up as a country boy in the hills of Kentucky and I'm pretty sure if my grandmother would have followed the advice as laid out in the original post, they never would have been together. Yes, my grandmother did most of the caring for the house hold and the family and yes my grandfather worked full time to support her and the eight children they had together. With that being said, they made decisions together and her opinion was not only heard, it was respected. My grandma is a bit of a firecracker always voices her opinions and even when she got into a couple scuffles with the neighbors over their treatment of her kids he never blinked an eye or treated her like a hysterical person. When their first children (twins) were born he would take the laundry to the laundromat every couple days to be sure that there would be plenty of diapers and he never had a problem helping out in the kitchen. They were married 56 years and loved, respected and cared for each other every day of that time. To say that men in the 50s didn't know better would be incorrect, because some did.
This is true of my family as well.
In addition, I think it is mistaken to assume that because this may have been published in a "popular" magazine that it reflects popular opinion. It reflects a very specific cultural attitude that does not line up with my ethnic cultural expectations, nor that of many cultures that exist here in the states. And yet my ancestors fought in that war. They did not give up their own cultural identity to conform to whatever the "mainstream" (wasp?) publications said.0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
"They didn't know better"?? Good thing you aren't a psychology major.
Why can't the target be my argument and not me?
Because res ipsa loquitur.
Haha, I guess burning the witch is easier that proving what she did or didn't do, is or isn't magic. :flowerforyou:
Your response to people treating other people like crap is to say they didn't know any better. I'm certain had you studied psychology, or philosophy, you would have come across this human emotion called "empathy" by which a person considers another persons feelings and relates to it. It's a skill normally developed by four years of age. Your rationalization that they didn't know any better because it was the "norm" is, well, bad on it's face. If someone were to use that argument for slave owners, Indian killers, or Nazi soldiers, one can only hope you would see the problem.0 -
Apparently I would have been gay if I lived in the 50's b/c there is no way in HELL.....but thanks for the laugh!!!0
-
4. But don't be a Sexual Vampire or a Frigid Franny
0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Those "not man at all" did stop the Nazis.
Being good at war doesn't necessarily make one a man.
What is your definition? Since, stopping the greatest evil of the last century, doesn't speak of their character at all.
Let's not forget the country (men, women, young, and old) was at war we were all involved. You had women making the planes and munitions, healing the soldiers on the front line to help with the war efforts.
and not to be a total nerd but I think it was the dropping of a few A bombs that won the war.
The war effort was a team effort by the whole country, of course.
I was just pointing out that saying those "men" weren't "men at all" for wanting their women that way is a bit ingenuous. They didn't know better but that doesn't make them bad men.
I'm pretty sure those bombs didn't drop themselves
As an American History graduate, yay for history nerds :flowerforyou: !
My grandparents were married in the early 50s. My grandfather grew up as a country boy in the hills of Kentucky and I'm pretty sure if my grandmother would have followed the advice as laid out in the original post, they never would have been together. Yes, my grandmother did most of the caring for the house hold and the family and yes my grandfather worked full time to support her and the eight children they had together. With that being said, they made decisions together and her opinion was not only heard, it was respected. My grandma is a bit of a firecracker always voices her opinions and even when she got into a couple scuffles with the neighbors over their treatment of her kids he never blinked an eye or treated her like a hysterical person. When their first children (twins) were born he would take the laundry to the laundromat every couple days to be sure that there would be plenty of diapers and he never had a problem helping out in the kitchen. They were married 56 years and loved, respected and cared for each other every day of that time. To say that men in the 50s didn't know better would be incorrect, because some did.
Some did, most didn't. Otherwise we would have had better equality and options for women. Is it fair for me to throw a blanket statement and say that men of the time weren't "men at all" because we are basing our judgement based on the way things are now but not taking an unbiased objective view of how it was during that time.
And your Grandpa would be considered a progressive and ahead of his time for the simple fact of being involved in doing laundry. Some people are always ahead of their time and they tend to change the world.0 -
I would rather be a spinster than a doormat. Any "man" who want that kind of woman, is not a man at all.
Doormat ? I like making men happy.
Did you read the thing?
Srsly. Making men happy doesn't have to equate to undermining your own humanity.
Yes, the only one I would not tolerate was straying. Making men happy makes me happy.
[/quote]0 -
What does being a soldier have to do with marriage?
Since we're talking about WW2:
You can argue that the men of the 1950's stopped the "greatest evil" but the world didn't know of the genocide until after the war was almost over. Also, many soldiers were deployed on non European battlefronts. What of their valor and sacrifice? Also, what does it say about the Allied forces when Stalin was also a genocidal maniac?0 -
I really don't think you can say that ALL or even MOST men from the 50s were "not real men" because they lived in a patriotically society. That society was centuries in the making, not the fault of one one generation. It most likely started as a natural phenomenon where it made more sense for the woman to take care of children (because she has boobs which literally make baby food) and for the men to hunt and gather because they are naturally stronger. Through centuries this natural arrangement evolved. Gender rolls became ingrained into society, and strongly delineated instead of just what was easier and necessary to survive. Technology and society made it so a woman no longer had to care solely for the children, but then suddenly SOME men felt threatened and tried to keep control. The happened LONG before the 1950s, probably in the dark ages.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions