The Perfect Wife
What do you all think of this advice from decades ago? It was sent to me by a friend from college. If you click on the picture you should be able to read it. Otherwise, you can get it here.
I myself am disgusted by our society's destruction of male-female roles and tend to think that this advice has more good than bad. I think women would be amazed at the type of treatment they would receive from their husbands, children, and other men by following this. I want to know your thoughts, though, because it is very politically incorrect (it was actually posted in a humor section).
posted by Chris Hill @ 9/17/2006 10:42:00 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
oh goodness Chris...where do I start!! The independent woman in me would LOVE to go off on this and I do think it is in part to societal views of male/female relationships. I also think it's in part do to the stage I'm at in life (see my response to your comment on my blog) Although I don't think I'll be putting a bow in my hair before my husband comes through the door...I just don't like ribbons!
I think if women really think and accept the feelings that God gave them most of these desires would be innate. I NEVER thought I would be of this mindset because I am naturally independent and have been said by my friends to be one of the most stubborn people they have ever met (not something to be proud of).
But I look forward to the day where I can be a supportive and caring wife. It's obvious to me that I'm wired to desire to take care of something/someone. Yet women today ignore those feelings or put those feelings into themselves, i.e. how I can climb the ladder at work, how I make myself more equal to men.
Honestly stuff like that article still grates me a little and I don't doubt it always will. And it is meant as humor.
I also don't think it means women become a door mat either which is a little what it seemed like to me. Women today have such a problem with this kind of thing because we think it's belittling our value. However, I think when said a bit more tactfully and respectfully it can be recieved better. Women need to realize that it's not about being unequal. In 1 Cor. 11 it says that "man is not independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God."
So I take this as saying that all believers, male and female are equal and complementary in the work of the Lord. Their roles look different, but not their spirituality or importance. Woman was created to fulfill the role as a suitable helpmate. I accept that...but I also want to be treated with the same love and respect that men are called to treat women with.
Maybe that is where the disconnect comes from. Women have become objects to so many men...and it's so accessible to view women in a distorted manner that women feel they need to "step up" and break that view that we can be seen as objects. Therefore, we become a type of feminist feeling we need to be equal in order to beat the label of an object.
I could go on for a while but I'll probably just get further off on a tangent...
I think that this is catered to a certain type of family model, namely the hard-working husband and the stay-at-home wife/mother. However, when placed into a different family model, it would not work very well.
For example, if the family consists of both the husband and wife working full time, then perhaps they should come home and figure out dinner or clean the house up together. It would be entirely unfair for the husband to just sit around while the wife comes home from a busy day and then has to do all the housework herself.
However, some of the things do seem rather inapropriate.
If the husband can "stay out all night" or go to dinner elsewhere without informing the wife, (which I don't think if very loving considering how easy it is to pick up a cell phone these days), then should the wife be able to as well? It doesn't seem that people who practice this would have a very good marriage.
Also, saying that a woman has no right to question her husband is ludicrous. Christian marriage is supposed to be an illustration of God's relationship with the church. And if God allows us to question and even doubt Him, any husband should as well.
One more: "His topics of conversation are far more important than yours." That statement is 100% untrue. As Emily said, "all believers, male and female are equal and complementary in the work of the Lord. Their roles look different, but not their spirituality or importance."
Ps. Are you guys really warm to the whole "arrange his pillow, take off his shoes, speak in a low, soothing, and pleasant voice" deal? I think behavior like this is better suited for the family pet.
Thanks for the thoughts from both of you. I think you make a lot of good points. Like I alluded to, I don't agree with everything in that article. For what it's worth, as far as I know this is a legitimate article from 1955, even though it was posted in a humor section (hence the underlines and circles). I find it fascinating how different things have become in 50 years. It makes you understand the Old Testament better when it talks of people following after God under one king, then all of a sudden turning their backs under the next one (i.e., one or two generations later).
Emily, I thought your comments were very telling and really appreciate your honesty. It is the role of husbands to be loving towards their wives and not treat them as objects. Both have responsibilities to the other, and this article only speaks of women. I think it is irresponsible, for instance, if the man stays out all night without letting his wife know, and if it upsets her and his reasons are not because of other responsibilities (i.e., work), he should not do it. If he fails, he really screwed up, and is accountable to God for his actions.
The wife's response, however, should be one of respect and not nagging (you can be upset and respectful). I know this is hard and seems unfair (it pretty much is unfair - but that's because the husband made it unfair). Just because he sinned doesn’t mean she gets to sin too. The bible tells wives that the best way they can change their husband when he screws up is to be submissive (I Pet. 3:1-2). So this article is somewhat correct in telling wives how to respond, but is incorrect in justifying the husband's actions.
In regards to your concern about being treated as an object, I can fully understand where you would be afraid. I would have the same fear in your position. In fact, using the I Peter passage again, God says that your natural response is to be afraid, which is why he says to fight that (I Pet. 3:6). Men treating women as objects is the natural, fleshly response of most men towards women. In other words, it takes work for men to not see women as objects, and this trait is not what men are born with. Men need to work on this constantly, but women can help them.
The best way women can help men not see them as objects is to have an attitude similar to one proposed in this article. This response seems ironic, I know, but it is the best one that works. When men see a woman who thinks of herself as independent, equal in everything, "I can do everything a man can do", they are more likely to treat that woman as an object. Let me prove this with an example: How many men really respect Hillary Clinton? Maybe 3, and they're all gay.
When women are respectful, gentle, and submissive to their husbands, men find an amazing beauty in that (I know this from personal experience :) ). Another question: How many men respect Laura Bush? I can't remember one man saying a disrespectful things about her. All the criticism comes from women, not men.
This attitude doesn't mean the woman is her husband's slave, or pet, or anything of the sort. She has equal value. But value does not equate position. And as she places herself under her husband, showing him respect, gratitude, gentleness, and grace, it naturally produces in him a respect for her as the weaker vessel (I Pet. 3:7). He will then yearn to honor and praise her (Prov. 31:28-29). In addition, this attitude makes other men respect and admire her and be willing to die for her... Now the husband has many, and actually he has more, responsibility towards his wife. He is the head; he is responsible for everything happening under his headship. But we're speaking only of womanly duty here, which is something our society has lost.
P.S. I only had one misspelling here when I copied it into Word, which makes me feel pretty good since I have a masters degree.
P.P.S. Dang it! I misspelled "misspelling" and had to correct it. Oh well. So much for being smart.
Chris, thanks for posting this instructional booklet...I love reflecting over historic changes like this.
Laura, like you said, the practical aspects alone make this type of arrangement impossible for a dual working household...which is becoming extremely common for a variety of reasons. I wonder...if Laura, my wife, is my sugar mama do all these rules apply to me? uhoh.
It sounds, however, like a good advertisement for a man spa.
Oh, and Laura, yes, I am warm to that.
So I've actually never seen the whole "pillow" concept acted out because my dad would never sit down long enough when he got home to let my mom fluff a pillow for him :) But I do think there is something to be said about the treatment at the end of the day. Think about how much better the evening would be for both of you if you chose to have a positive attitude instead of a negative one. This goes for both people I think though. I don't think it would be good for the relationship if the husband came home and just started complaining about the day the moment his foot steps through the door. Yes, it is good to share these struggles with one another, but I think you could benefit to sharing a positive moment first.
This whole subject is just so controversial. It’s true that times have changed and in some ways I would agree that we need to change along with them, as well as times we need to listen to where God is taking us. Chris, for instance, you and Katie are both working/going to school. Granted you just got married and moved, both significant changes in your life you’ve deemed it ok that you both work. From Katie’s end I know she’s really excited to be a wife and fulfill all that means to be. I look forward to using her wisdom some day :)
Before the Industrial Revolution this sort of thing was not the norm. In an agrarian society, marriage was NOT a romantic ideal as was not the home a private haven away from the workplace. Back then the home was the economic epicenter of the family and the marriage was its engine. Partnership between man and woman was shared much more because the burden was much heavier.
The guide referenced comes from a post WWII culture that re-indoctrinated women with the cultural more established during the Industrial Revolution where the economic epicenter laid outside the home (man goes to work), and the home became a privatized haven that the wife was responsible for. Remember the woman in the photo was probably hard at work in a factory making war supplies only ten years earlier.
You have to admit the lines that say "his topics of conversation are more important than yours" and "Never complain" if he is an ass and neglects to be a good husband (i.e. stays out late with friends"), and "don't question him" are a bit sexist and degrading to a woman's personhood. And the "speak in a slow soothing voice"… that cracks me up.
Thanks, Adam, for your thoughts here. I know you consider yourself an egalitarian in regards to sex roles, so we probably won't agree.
Anyway, I wouldn't throw out the ideas of male-female roles as represented here just because of the time period it came from. I do believe these to be more traditional roles, regardless of an agrarian or industrial society (hence my comment about "traditional" roles, although I understand what you're saying). Even in an agrarian society, the home is a place of rest and the responsibility of the wife. The husband tends the crops and does work outside the home, even if he is near it. Also, even in agrarian societies, there is often a collection of community leaders - men who come together to make decisions affecting the community. Again, the man is outside the home.
Although I don't like all of everything in this article, I think some of the attitude is good. The article speaks only to women and not to men (and excuses some responses of men), which makes it seem skewed. I think your criticisms are justified for the most part. But when coupled with the responsibilities of men, the points made here are very good.
Adam,
As you yourself said, society was primarily agrarian prior to the industrial revolution. In an agrarian society the man is working the fields most of the year. In growing season that is often a sunrise to sundown job, and much longer during harvest. While your idea of shared industry in the home might be true in the winter months, it is backwards for most of the year, as anyone who is familiar with the farmer lifestyle knows. In fact, the idea of a forty hour work week, allowing the man much more time in the home, is an invention resulting from the industrial revolution. Prior to that, the man was away from the home much more in growing season than men are now. My point is, this lifestyle faded during and after the industrial revolution because, as you admitted, women began working in factories outside the home. Your conclusion is flipped. Women were solely in the home and men solely outside it for much more of the time than we observe now, post-industrial revolution. The fifties were a brief pocket of time turning back toward that tradition.
As a brief tangent (I think this thought is from Ann Coulter), women did not begin clamoring for so called economic/employment "equal rights" until after the industrial revolution and more comfortable jobs became available. The point is, in the laborious environment of an agrarian society, the distinct roles of men and women were exacerbated all the more. Women were all the more content to be in the home, working hard from that environment, rather than demanding to be "equals" with men by being allowed to labor in the sun all day. Funny how that works.
(This is where someone points out that some women did in fact work in the field, because the person pointing that out will miss the entire point of this post and won't bother thinking things through.)
Chris,
I didn't want to get involved with this discussion, for obvious reasons, but reading that article I can't help but think much of it is concerned with attitude. E.g., considering a husband's topic of conversation to be more important when he comes home... the whole focus there is on helping a husband who has been working all day to unwind and calm down from a presumably stressful day. What's being missed by some people is that (if you choose him carefully) a husband would practically worship a wife who was so selflessly nourishing. The result? Whether or not his topics of conversation are more important, he will be wanting to know what hers are. The entire article, if carried out properly, would turn the husband's concerns entirely toward his wife, as you suggested. I think that is the whole point. But people in our society get so caught up in their desire to be offended that they can't help missing it.
Jordan,
Yes.
- Chris
Sara, my wife, will NOT finish her bachelor's because she firmly believes that her place is at home. And quite frankly, I agree with her. She manages the home VERY well. I am amazed at her ability to keep in mind the things mentioned in the articles.
Of course, there are things that are so non-PC in that article that makes me laugh... but think about it... if you know you are built for homemaking, don't fight it ! It's not a crime for women to actually stay at home.
I think you women with college degree might face a very tough challenge ahead when you are married that:
1. dual income is nice
2. you'll need to place your child in daycare
3. day care = $$$$$$$$$ / day
4. if you make more than $$$$$$$$$$ / day, you probably don't have much time for your family
-or-
1. single income is difficult
2. you'll need to change your lifestyle
3. your life long goals of a career might be on pause
4. you can spend more time with your kid(s)
So, all this to say: I actually support Chris here. I think it works - in fact, I KNOW it works. Trick is to find a guy who actually supports this view and work to achieve this. What kind of a man is this?
1. A man who chooses a line of work that can support this
2. A man who is stable
3. A man who is happy in this state
I know that most people are doing this dual income thing, and I'm not saying I disapprove of it. I'm just saying, PRACTICALLY it might not be that smart at all.
Ken,
Good points and you must have a wonderful wife! My wife thinks very similarly, and it is a blessing to both of us. I feel more fulfilled in my work, and she feels more fulfilled as just being my wife. She works and goes to school, but it isn't a whole lot, and she accepts that her primary responsibility is at home. I make 95% of the money, anyway. We don't have kids... at least another year... but I'm sure these things become more pronounced at that point, and my wife staying home (she won't work at that point) will be such a blessing to both our kids and me. She'll be more fulfilled in that too, I know.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I will limit this comment to one ( I could probably go on for about three years on how this article, is well, ummmmm not my favorite. Oh and you don't know me but I went to school with Emily at the U of M.) My comment is in regards to the "do not question your husband, his judgement or actions." And how dangerous that can be, it can lead a family deep into the darkest parts of life and sin. Yes as a woman I am called to be a helpmate, but if my husband is making a decision that is not in line with the Lord which will be harmful for our family, YES I WILL QUESTION AND CHALLENGE! And hopefully I will do that with humility and respect, but I will not sit back and watch destruction happen. Joel and I (my special someone) just finished reading a book about the two sides of love; the hard and softside of love. Both of which we are called to do, each of us equally, in our relationship. (Hard love being correction and challenge; soft being nurturing, comforting.) These two sides of love aren't assigned individually to the partner (ie men=give hardsided love, women=softsided love) but are to be lived out in a balance in our relationship. Both parties are to hold and live out these two sides of love equally. When giving hard sided correction it should be done in a humble, caring way. So therefore, I will challenge Joel when he makes a choice or a decision which is blatently not in line with what the Lord requires of us. But I want to do this is a humble, loving way (and he does the same of me, we are to challenge eachother to be something better). If we do not question our partners then we are doing them a disservice and allowing them to fall into a dark, awful cycle.
So those are my thoughts, very few because, again, I could go on and on about what I did not like about this article. So I will now stop! :)
Thank you for your thoughts, Shannon. Even though you don't plan to post more, I hope you read this.
There is a difference between disagreeing and challenging. A wife may disagree, and should give her husband input. There is nothing wrong with this. Questioning can be helpful to a point. But when he makes a decision, she should not challenge or question it in any way. That is an ungodly response. I know this is hard for women, which is why Peter warns against giving way to fear (I Pet. 3). I find it interesting, too, that Peter's example of a godly woman to model was Sarah, who obeyed Abraham in even bad decisions (i.e., the whole thing in Egypt).
If a wife truly loves and trusts her husband, though, she does more good to herself and him to not question or challenge him and to let him lead. I can say that, as a man, he is less likely to change his mind when he feels challenged, which is the beauty of a submissive wife: she is much more effective at changing her husband's mind when she doesn't challenge his decisions. If I know my wife will follow me in bad decisions, that frees me up to be the godly leader that I, my wife, and God desire me to be. If I know my wife will challenge me when I make bad decisions, I become an emasculated, unconfident figurehead with no real authority or decision making ability. If I can’t lead us into a bad decision, I never really led in the first place.
Post a Comment
<< Home