Y'all, I swear to you that a book called The Total Woman, by Marabel Morgan, came out not so long ago and it was all about how women should do that stuff. A whole cult/industry/whatever sprang up from it, with the author speaking all over the country about it and people coming to blows about it in public. The her husband came out with some companion book about how men should take the lead gently but firmly--titled something like "Iron Hand In a Velvet Glove".

If you want some major laughs, go look for it, it's probably in your library.

Oh DeltAlum, I didn't mean that to sound disrespectful in any way...especially to those woman who CHOSE to stay home and raise their children. In many ways I hope I'm fortunate enough to be able to CHOSE to do that as well, even though I enjoy working and like making my own money...but that is the struggle we women face today; stay home with the children or work and have someone else raise them. But back to my comment...it just bothers me that woman were expected to listen to their husbands gripe about their day, feelings, problems, etc. and keep their gripes, feelings, problems, etc. to themselves, and if they wanted to let out their feelings, etc. they'd have to count on friends, other housewives, etc. It's my personal opinion/belief that you and your partner should be one another's best friend. So the husband should be expected to listen to his wife, whether she's a housewife or an engineer, go on about her day. I don't feel that a relationship can be completely fulfilling when only one person is giving (one person always does the listening the other always does the talking...it's just not fair, it doesn't seem natural to me). I'm sure many people would agree with me, but that's probably b/c of today's society, as you mentioned. It seems that both men and women were cheated out of a true emotional relationship. Today we're all encouraged to share our feelings with one another (meaning our partners), which allows for a deep, meaningful relationship.

So the comment was not intended to knock housewives. It was intended to knock the idea that the man can blow off steam to the wife, but if the wife needed to blow off steam she'd have to seek the companionship of other housewives, friends, etc. when she should have been able to confide in her husband. Just b/c she didn't/doesn't have to leave the house for her job (keeping the home/raising the children) and he did/does (doctor, clerk, etc.) did not/does not make him more important...or deaf (hee hee) ;) .

Just to keep it in perspective, remember that there were different expectations for the men as well. The men were "expected" to be the sole financial support for the family. Each family probably had only one car, so the "soccer mom" syndrome had not yet started. There were many fewer opportunities for kids, so "Mom" wasn't constantly running kids all over their zip code. In fact, come to think of it, there weren't any zip codes. We all had "party line" phones which we shared with two to several neighbors.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about the era just after WWII and before Korea, when millions of men (and some women) returned from the armed services at age 22 or 23 and were struggling to get their lives and families started. The job market was OK, but there was a huge glut of young men, who had been away for as long as four or five years, just trying to make ends meet for their new families. Most of them had a high school education at very best. Most of them would not go to college and wanted to return home to live close to their family. Remember, too, that this was the beginning of the famous "baby boom" with everyone starting families at the same time.

The whole societal structure was different and the stresses on the sexes where not even in the same galaxy as they are today. They simply can't be compared. Also remember that these were children of the Great Depression, with completely different mindsets than we have now.

Add to all of that the brand new force for social change which was just beginning to sway the way society functions -- television. Remember that these were the very early days of that medium -- and that everything that was portrayed was what was considered "the ideal." In those days, the ideal was that Dad went off to eight hours of highly satisifying work in the office, while the perfectly behaved children went off to school (which they loved), and Mom kept the kitchen floor shiny wearing a dress and her high heels between bridge games with the neighbors.

Was it ever like that? Of course not. But that really is the way everyone wanted it to be. Really. Including the majority of the women. It was the dream. The ideal. I watched my mom, who was divorced in the late 40's, about the time I was born, and who never remarried, struggle with all of that. Trying to imitate as much of it as she could while eeking out a living as a car hop/waitress and trying (and ultimately gaining just a little success) with her own small business. By the way, she only had a 4th grade education due to the deaths of her father and mother and the responsibility of raising younger siblings, but she was one of the brightest people I've ever met.

On the other side of the coin, my wife's mother and grandmother both had college degrees -- nearly unheard of in those days. They both stayed at home and raised their families and enjoyed their lives. Yes, I've asked them. It was what they wanted.

That's what the real difference is. Expectation. Desires. Social climate.

And that's why you can only look at that list and either chuckle or study it with interest as a social phenominon of a bygone era. It isn't fair to hold it to a standard created by hindsight.

Also, when you criticize that kind of desired lifestyle, aren't you insulting that generation of men and women? That definition of Utopia was what they wanted, hoped for and expected. Mom didn't want to work to be able to afford the second BMW. A little three bedroom house in the 'burbs was OK. Not everyone wore braces.

Would you expect a 1952 Ford to compare favorably with a 2002?

It was just different, and it frustrates me to see what was a very satisifying way of life for that generation criticized in the light of generations that have changed dramatically over the course of half a century. Five decades. Fifty years. Do you know how much the world and technology have changed over that amount of time.

Don't criticize what was considered "good" back then. Embrace it and celebrate how far we've (you've) managed to come.

So, was it "better" then? Is it "better" now? I don't think so. I think it's simply different. Different times, different generations, different mindsets. Who defines "better." Those were, after all, "The good old days." Weren't they?

I think it's "better" to look at it, analyze it and celebrate the strides that have been made. Some of them are good.

Now, where can I hide this soapbox?

I was raised in a farming community and "the list" has some points that were imperative for the family to function. Of course, there are points like "speaking in gentle tones" that weren't plausable since al the men had tractor ear.

My other grandparents lived very upscale and indeed, that list was followed (almost) to a "T". Of course she had full time help and hat sure makes it eaier...The exchange for both couples was utter devotion, lavished lives and respect for the home they made and kept. Honestly a win-win.

I have to agree with Delt Alum. The perspective is from 50 or so years ago.

I also feel as a wife in 2002-there are those points that lend themselves to a mutually respectful, loving relationship. The best one is not to hit him with a bunch of negative right off the bat.
Just do a little experiment and take note. You will see many times the mood is set for the evening by the attitude of the wife once the man enters the home.

I vaguely remember Marabel Morgan and her husband Charlie. She used to wear a bouffant hairdo and she was all over the air waves.

Hi, Steel Trap! Did you know the paper's moving into a new building in September? (Back story: Steel Trap and I used to work together.)

If this is what some men still expect from women, no wonder we're still single! :D And I believe I'd have a few suggestions as to where that "velvet glove" should go, after I stopped laughing.

I have to say, as much as that list cheesed me off.....you have to consider that men used to believe in putting their ladies on pedestals.....they always opened doors, car doors, pushed in chairs, etc. There are relatively few gentlemen around these days and a lot of it is our own fault.

That said, I still think the caveman mentality is sick. I believe in doing nice things for my husband.....because I love him, not because he is "masterof the house." What a laugh. And he does nice things for me....it's a two-way street. Like James said, things go smoother when he is well taken care of.....but remember, like the song says, "If Mama ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy!"

I am old- fashioned in lots of ways. Now, that "Master of the House" doesn't sit well with me, and lots of stuff on that list are outdated. Ideally, when I get married and have kids, I would want to stay home them. If not me, then my husband! It's really important to me that ONE of us be there. I am all about 50/50. That probably has lots to do with the way I was raised. Growing up, my parents both worked but they scheduled themselves around us. When my dad worked, my mom stayed home with me and my siblings. When my mom worked, my dad was the one at home cooking dinner.

:) I HEAR YOU, DELT ALUM! :)

I appreciate all you've said. I love to analyze, so I enjoy reading your perspective.

RubberSoul wrote:

"you have to consider that men used to believe in putting their ladies on pedestals.....they always opened doors, car doors, pushed in chairs, etc. There are relatively few gentlemen around these days and a lot of it is our own fault."

You know, I miss that. It's something that most fraternity men were particularly good at -- although a lot of us had been brought up that way by our parents, I think it was also because of the way we were expected to treat our house mothers.

One of the two things I remember most vividly at the first Delt dinner I was invited to is that nobody sat down at any table until "Mom" was escorted in and seated by either the chapter or pledge class president. Some chapters who still have house mothers still do it -- otherwise, it's a lost custom. The second thing I remember is sitting at the table after dinner singing the old Fraternity songs.

Guess it's the "romantic" in me.

I will tell you this: any woman I went out with never opened a car or any other door and always walked on the inside of the sidewalk -- away from traffic, was always seated and always entered a room first -- unless it was a darkened empty one.

Sounds pretty trite by today's standards, but damn it felt good to really treat your date well and put her on that pedestal. And, I truly don't think it was a, "You're too fragile to open the door, so let the big strong guy do it." I think is was a way of showing respect. Oh, and make no mistake, all of the women expected it of us -- particularly the sorority women.

I often wondered what my wife, a real campus beauty, saw in me in those early days. I remember now that she told me often that I reminded her of her dad.

My father-in-law still treats my mother-in-law (really any woman) that way. Both college educated (she is an ADPi, he and independent), they raised their family in the era of "the list." I'll bet they would smile if they read it and compare how many things on it that she did. Not all certainly. Maybe not even a majority. But certainly some of them.

And, I think they would bemoan the fact that some of them have gone away.

As I said, expectations were different.

DeltAlum, you are so right on! Today no one has courtesys!

It use to be in my house a lady walked in or an Alum, or anyone else that they did not know they stood up! Today they dont do s*^&!

The women have not any right to compalin as they wanted equl rights and many dont like it! Why, because thay are not treated as ladys, DA!!!!!!!

It is not just being courtious to a person but what they stand for, a lady, or a gentleman!:)

How hard is it to get off of your asses and be nice?:confused:

DeltAlum, if it makes you feel better I did finally come across one of those gentlemen in college.....he treated me like a queen and that's why I am married to him today! AND he is your fraternity brother!

RubberSoul,

I can't tell you how good that makes me feel, for both you and my brother Delt.

Is he from Ohio? I think you were talking about being in Cleveland the other day.

My daughter loves the fraternity "men" who come from New Orleans. She often describes the differences between those that were raised with the courtesies that Delt Alum and Tom refer to.

I agree, that a lot of the reason for the lack of these niceties falls on the women. If you don't expect it, if you don't allow it and if you don't teach it in your own home, how is it to survive?

I have seen mothers teaching their sons to open the door for women. Many times their isn't so much as a smile much less a thank you from these "ladies". I make it a point to clearly let anyone know it is an appreciated act and depending on the age-sometimes as young as 4 or 5- I will stop and praise the son to his mother or father. We must encourage our children to be socialy skilled and more important-just plain kind.

The list-yes,some of it smacks of keeping a woman "in her place". The problem is, the counter part (what was expected of a man) isn't explained. It was, and still is, just as demanding and in many cases more stressful. Bottom line, courtesy and helping each other is one key to any successful relationship.