S/O: What's wrong with being a '1950's wife'?

[Carol in Cal.]

Then I would HIGHLY suggest you not get a part time job as it certainly wouldn't be the right fit for you. ;)

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

See, but, there is another way I could have said this. And it would have been nicer.

 

I could have said, "I considered working parttime when DD was a baby. I worked in a tech job for an employer who was supportive of that kind of arrangement, at least officially. I would have had an excellent income and kept up my professional ties easily. And I would not have had all the pressures of juggling fulltime work and family.

 

But I chose not to go that way, for several reasons. I knew that people who did this tended to be poorly regarded as 'not quite serious' as employees, and were expected to actually complete a full time amount of work, but not be given salary increase credit for doing so. I knew that that would frustrate me tremendously, as it's pretty unfair.

 

Also, I was enjoying being home far more than I thought I would, and knew that thinking about work responsibilities all the time would take away from that.

 

So I decided to stay on maternity leave as long as possible (over 2 years) and then to return to work fulltime and save as much money as possible so that we could live on one salary if necessary, and then quit if I still felt like it. This worked out superbly. We had one really tough year (the year I went back to work) but other than that, we had an unsullied good time.

 

Frankly, I was a lot more interesting to talk to when I had time to keep up with the news and hobbies and arts and interests that I had had to put off while working 60 hours per week and jetting off on business trips at the drop of a hat.

 

I would not say that my education or work experience were wasted. I've used both to homeschool my own child and other people's children, and in significant volunteer positions."

 

See what I mean? I haven't knocked anyone else's choices by anything I said there, and so I've added light rather than heat to the conversation.

[creekland]

See, but, there is another way I could have said this. And it would have been nicer.

 

I could have said, "I considered working parttime when DD was a baby. I worked in a tech job for an employer who was supportive of that kind of arrangement, at least officially. I would have had an excellent income and kept up my professional ties easily. And I would not have had all the pressures of juggling fulltime work and family.

 

But I chose not to go that way, for several reasons. I knew that people who did this tended to be poorly regarded as 'not quite serious' as employees, and were expected to actually complete a full time amount of work, but not be given salary increase credit for doing so. I knew that that would frustrate me tremendously, as it's pretty unfair.

 

Also, I was enjoying being home far more than I thought I would, and knew that thinking about work responsibilities all the time would take away from that.

 

So I decided to stay on maternity leave as long as possible (over 2 years) and then to return to work fulltime and save as much money as possible so that we could live on one salary if necessary, and then quit if I still felt like it. This worked out superbly. We had one really tough year (the year I went back to work) but other than that, we had an unsullied good time.

 

Frankly, I was a lot more interesting to talk to when I had time to keep up with the news and hobbies and arts and interests that I had had to put off while working 60 hours per week and jetting off on business trips at the drop of a hat.

 

I would not say that my education or work experience were wasted. I've used both to homeschool my own child and other people's children, and in significant volunteer positions."

 

See what I mean? I haven't knocked anyone else's choices by anything I said there, and so I've added light rather than heat to the conversation.

 

Quite honestly either way would have worked for me and I preferred the first as it was more concise and to the point. Perhaps my math and science nature makes me more inclined to prefer concise? I don't know, maybe. The second was more of a story-telling post - fine for those that want more info. Even at home I'll sometimes tell my kids to, "get to the point" if they start into a long story when I don't have time... so it's not just my reaction on here. (And I'm sure many think I'm a horrible mom for saying such a thing - it's their right to believe that!) But I've already determined I'm "weird" in that I don't get bothered by other people's beliefs, practices, attitudes or writing styles. Such is life. I kinda like being weird. ;)

[Carol in Cal.]

Quite honestly either way would have worked for me and I preferred the first as it was more concise and to the point. Perhaps my math and science nature makes me more inclined to prefer concise? I don't know, maybe. The second was more of a story-telling post - fine for those that want more info. Even at home I'll sometimes tell my kids to, "get to the point" if they start into a long story when I don't have time... so it's not just my reaction on here. (And I'm sure many think I'm a horrible mom for saying such a thing - it's their right to believe that!) But I've already determined I'm "weird" in that I don't get bothered by other people's beliefs, practices, attitudes or writing styles. Such is life. I kinda like being weird. ;)

 

I'm a math and science person myself--my degree is in chemical engineering, and my most recent tech job was program management.

 

But the first way was rude, the second a bit longwinded but without implied judgement of anyone else's other opinions. So the second was more respectful and left room for conversation rather than argument. Light rather that heat.

[creekland]

I'm a math and science person myself--my degree is in chemical engineering, and my most recent tech job was program management.

 

But the first way was rude, the second a bit longwinded but without implied judgement of anyone else's other opinions. So the second was more respectful and left room for conversation rather than argument. Light rather that heat.

 

No problem agreeing to disagree on this end! ;)

[Carol in Cal.]

No problem agreeing to disagree on this end! ;)

 

Here, too!:001_smile:

[GraciebytheBay]

I completely disagree with this statement, it could be valid if you said women in highly urban areas or in higher income levels...but women across the board? I believe there are more women taking sleep medications, stimulants, depressants, mood drugs now than in any generation...in the 50's you just didn't have that many women who could afford drugs...they were focused on putting food on the table. Plus, Valium wasn't approved for marketing or even available until 1963...so doubt it was prescribed in the 50's... me was a pharmaceutical rep for 10 years...

 

Tara

 

Okay, so early 1960s. I stand corrected. The point was that it was commonly prescribed for housewives of that era. Dh did say that suburban housewives were the primary users of this medication. (I didn't mention that because I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion.) I know that my grandmother and my mother took Valium, and I actually remember my mom taking her "nerve pill" every so often.

[creekland]

Okay, so early 1960s. I stand corrected. The point was that it was commonly prescribed for housewives of that era. Dh did say that suburban housewives were the primary users of this medication. (I didn't mention that because I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion.) I know that my grandmother and my mother took Valium, and I actually remember my mom taking her "nerve pill" every so often.

 

I actually remember my grandmother taking it too, but never put two and two together about what exactly Valium was until this thread. My grandmother worked as a hairdresser when her kids were young - in a factory before that and as a volunteer at her church thrift shop ever since I could remember.

 

I guess it was just the "in" thing at that time?

[Guest laniecehoward]

Just read the serving food to your husband thread and the 1950's wife statement intrigued me! I have to say that I think I am a bit of a 1950's wife - or at least I try to be!! I really do take pride in serving my husband in all the ways that I can - making things easy for him, cooking food that he likes, not stressing him out when he gets home from work etc etc.

 

He helps me out with my stuff as well, and there is lots of give and take, but in our house he is the leader and he is treated and respected as such. Part of my satisfaction as a wife comes from looking after my husband well.

 

Am I alone in this? Or have I read too much into this?!

 

I basically have to be. I stay at home, and I'm not use to it. I never had my dad in my life so I did not have a good example. BUT My husband did, that's how his mom and dad are. I don't mind being that wife, but while he was upset one day, he says I will never stack up (or basically measure up or fill her shoes) to her. I feel as though, even though it says that once a man leaves his parents, he is supposed to cling to his wife. I still feel like in some case, the apron strings are still attached. I love him but it makes me sad.

[Rebecca VA]

Now that my younger child is in private school and my older child is in college (though he lives at home), I have the house to myself during the day. It's sort of a lonely life -- the house doesn't get that dirty, and there just isn't that much to do. I've taken to watching Gossip Girl to keep myself interested in something. This is not really a lifestyle I want to keep on with.

 

When my family members come home at the end of each day, I'm just starved for news of what they've been doing. I can't wait to feed them...I've been trying out a lot of different recipes, because I have more time on my hands now. I have more energy to give them. So in a way I'm like a 50's wife. It's comfortable for my husband and kids to come home to a clean house, delicious, interesting meals, and all, but I secretly feel that I need to get a hobby. I need some goals.

 

If being a 50's wife is *all* someone wants out of life, that's not good. It's not a lifestyle that should be permanent...it should be a stage in a woman's life (not a homeschool mom's life, but the life of a mom with kids in school), but it needs to end, and the woman needs to expand her horizons.

[Bluegoat]

I think there are good reasons people look back to the 50's and see it as freeing, and at the same time I think it was in fact a very rigid and unfriendly time for women and men.

 

On the one hand, it was really possible to do well on one income, there tended to be a fair amount of job security, and people actually still lived in their communities. Today the work is different, but a lot of people are working way more than they did in the 50's for less money, they have a few hectic hours a day with their kids, the social contract between business and society has been broken, people's communities are fractured. (Mind you, the 50's was the rise of the suburb and car which went a long way to creating today's fractured communities.)

 

On the other hand, men and women were both relegated to these kinds of cardboard cut-out roles and work that was probably very unsatisfying in many cases. Conforming was in many cases more important than reality.

 

I think it is great for a wife at home to make a comfortable home for her husband. I usually try to do a quick tidy and brush my hair and stuff before my dh gets home - I know stepping into a crazy house can be a downer. But he takes similar care of me. And I sure as heck expect an explanation if he goes out all night!

[JessieC]

OK, I'm going to try to set an example here of what I mean.

 

The middle ground is the worst of all possible worlds. It ties you to an employer and a specific external schedule, and thus ensures that you can never relax into being home. But it stops you from doing a thorough job of homeschooling or anything associated with a traditional homelife by being so time consuming. You COULD have an intelligent conversation, but you DON'T because you are simply so busy. Duty rules your life all the time, and pleasure is elusive and hard to justify the time spent. It's the worst. Either work or don't work, but don't try to straddle. It just doesn't work.

 

This is an interesting perspective, but I disagree. In my family, we need my part-time income to pay the bills. I work nights/weekends from home when dh is home. My other choice would be to put kids in school/daycare and work full time, which I have done and really disliked. Are you saying that because I have to bring in income, I have to work full time (in your view)?

 

I would rather not work at all, or work a lot less, and I do feel stretched a lot of the time, but we have to eat.

[DawnM]

My favorite Barbara Billingsly saying:

 

"June Cleaver didn't keep her house spotless, the prop man did." :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

To me, saying that you want to be a 1950s housewife is like saying you want to be Caroline Ingalls or Pippi Longstocking. "She" is a fictional character. My dad's mom served frozen TV dinners and worked, much like many moms of today. My mom's mom taught Sunday school, kept house and cooked dinner every night, much like many moms of today.

[Impish]

Holy zombie thread, Batman.

[Mrs Mungo]

Holy zombie thread, Batman.

 

Oh, curses. At least I said something similar to what I said before, lol.

[Starr]

The bringing up of ancient threads is a way to see if our opinions have changed. :lol:

[Jean in Newcastle]

The bringing up of ancient threads is a way to see if our opinions have changed. :lol:

 

I don't like it when I respond again, but this kind of a subject is timeless. I have no problem having new responders to the thread.

[Mommee & Baba]

Just read the serving food to your husband thread and the 1950's wife statement intrigued me! I have to say that I think I am a bit of a 1950's wife - or at least I try to be!! I really do take pride in serving my husband in all the ways that I can - making things easy for him, cooking food that he likes, not stressing him out when he gets home from work etc etc.

 

He helps me out with my stuff as well, and there is lots of give and take, but in our house he is the leader and he is treated and respected as such. Part of my satisfaction as a wife comes from looking after my husband well.

 

Am I alone in this? Or have I read too much into this?!

 

I'm with you. I'm looked at oddly because I try to be as much as a modern 50's housewife. There are somethings about a 50's wife that my dh finds disrespectful in regards to women but there are alot of things that he likes about a 50's wife. He never expected me to act like a 50's wife. It's something that came natural to me.

[kalanamak]

We need a Zombie thread color code!

Edited February 4, 2012 by kalanamak

[OrganicAnn]

What I dislike about resurrecting old threads when I respond and the thread was about a specific event that has long since past.

[Joanne]

Someone start a new thread on the topic. I have some thoughts, but missed this thread. :bigear:

[....]

Hey, I remember this thread! :lol:

[Wheres Toto]

I don't want to mention how much time I spent looking for the other thread referenced in the OP before I realized this was an old thread.

 

I didn't read enough to know if I answered this before but I'm about as far from a stereotypical 50's housewife as you can get. Dh comes home and cooks dinner, my kids are anything but quiet and after being home all day with two little kids, the house is usually chaotic at best with toys scattered from one end to the other. I do listen to dh when he wants to talk about work (I used to work in the same industry) but he mixes his own drinks.

 

There are some days where I wish he would come home, mix me a drink and send me to lay down for a while. :tongue_smilie:

[PentecostalMom]

Nothing if you like being one and your hubby likes having one.

 

:iagree:

[LAS in LA]

Oh, Boy. I was just going to keep my distance from this thread. This is going to sound horrible. One branch of my family was also Mennonite. I have a disturbing number of relatives who committed suicide. My great grandfather, my great grandmother, my great uncle, etc. This is actually the first time I've heard someone say that they encountered anti-depressant use in their community. Hmmmm.... Granted, this was probably about a hundred years ago. :confused: I wonder if there isn't a correlation between depression and their communities or maybe it's depression and that time period.

 

Sorry I haven't read all the replies yet, but want to comment on this one briefly. Seems like there may also be a genetic factor here (American Mennonite gene pool), not just a result of their community lifestyle.

[stephanier.1765]

Bree Van de Camp (from Desperate Housewives) is what happens to a 1950's wife trying to live in a modern day world.

[Carol in Cal.]

This is an interesting perspective, but I disagree. In my family, we need my part-time income to pay the bills. I work nights/weekends from home when dh is home. My other choice would be to put kids in school/daycare and work full time, which I have done and really disliked. Are you saying that because I have to bring in income, I have to work full time (in your view)?

 

I would rather not work at all, or work a lot less, and I do feel stretched a lot of the time, but we have to eat.

 

In context, I was not expressing that POV or advocating for that position. I was instead demonstrating how expressing that POV could be done in an inflammatory way. This is because in context (over a year ago) I was trying to show Creekland why it was reasonable for people to be offended or take exception to something she wrote that seemed to denigrate SAHM's. When old threads get resurrected, you really have to read the whole thing to see what is going on.

[Georgiana Daniels]

As long as we resurrected this thread....

 

Forget June Cleaver. If I'm a 50's wife, it's more of the I Love Lucy variety:tongue_smilie:

[Xilka]

I'm definitely not any kind of housewife.

My husband helps with all household chores.

But, if being a housewife made me happy, I wouldn't care what anyone else thought.

 

I don't agree with there being ONE leader of the household as you put it.

 

And I think, in any case, if there were going to be ONE leader of the household, it should be the person who spends more time housekeeping.

 

As long as it's your choice and you're happy,

and, if you have daughters, that they know that they have choices.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Not read all the responses except the OP...In answer to the question, nothing is wrong with being the kind of wife both you and your husband agree on. There is no wrong or right way to be a wife as long as it is a healthy and happy relationship.

[ClassicalTwins]

we are so not the 1950's family in our house. I am the one who works he stays home &does the homeschooling & housework (laundry, cleaning, &cooking)....and still does the outside stuff like the lawn. I travel for work, leaving on Monday and back on Thursday nights. It works for us...probably wouldn't work for all families. Now, our boys are growing up with a different view of how the world works for sure. We couldn't do it if he was the sole worker, and if we both worked the kids would have to go school, not a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[ElizaG]

Now that my younger child is in private school and my older child is in college (though he lives at home), I have the house to myself during the day. It's sort of a lonely life -- the house doesn't get that dirty, and there just isn't that much to do. I've taken to watching Gossip Girl to keep myself interested in something. This is not really a lifestyle I want to keep on with.

 

(...)It's comfortable for my husband and kids to come home to a clean house, delicious, interesting meals, and all, but I secretly feel that I need to get a hobby. I need some goals.

 

If being a 50's wife is *all* someone wants out of life, that's not good.

How can you be sure it's not good for that someone, though?

 

Even if a housewife ends up with plenty of leisure time, that doesn't have to mean that she has to be lazy or bored. The philosopher Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is the basis of culture. "Nothing to do" means that she has the freedom to contribute to the development of culture in herself, her family, and in the world at large.

 

For one thing, it used to be typical for women in this situation to join (or start) volunteer projects. These days, if busy working or homeschooling parents find the time to help out, it's usually in their own children's activities. I always feel a bit sad when I talk to the lovely people in our area -- mostly elderly -- who volunteer with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, local historic sites, etc. They're not going to be around forever, and their work makes our community a much kinder, more interesting, and more beautiful place to be. I'd be honored to make this sort of contribution some day -- hopefully while I'm still fit enough to help with tasks that many seniors can't physically do any longer.

 

Maybe my perspective is different because I'm not so much into "goals" as such. My action orientation is mixed, with elements of both being and doing. :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist the jargon; I just came across it in a book about cultural differences. Anyway, the theory goes that some people's self-definition comes from the activities that they're currently doing, while others define themselves mainly in terms of their established relationships and roles. It would make sense that the latter group might see more value in the (often mundane and unglamorous) tasks involved in creating and maintaining a way of life for themselves, family, friends, and neighbors.

 

One of my favorite movies is about this (though I wish they'd skipped the euthanasia subplot, but that's OT).

 

"How do you do this, every day, all day, in this house and no one notices? Doesn't that drive you crazy?"

 

"But this is my family, Ellie. These are the people I love."

 

And it's not just her family, but her lonely and depressed friend, the children who enjoy the holiday decorations, etc. Maybe this isn't for everyone -- maybe, in some respects, it's not even for me -- but I would never describe it as "not good."

Edited February 4, 2012 by Eleanor
fixed link & punctuation

[3blessingz]

That's sort of what I think of when I head "1950s wife" and it's definitely not me. It seems to imply that what happens at work is worth more, and requires more, than work that is done in the home. (And I think it's that thinking that has so many women desperate to return to the workforce after having children.)

 

I guess if a woman spends all her day in the gym or having coffee and lying by the pool, then it's not unreasonable to expect her to "work" to make her husband's evenings more pleasant. But for women with kids at home all day?

Nikki

 

Truth.

[justamouse]

How can you be sure it's not good for that someone, though?

 

Even if a housewife ends up with plenty of leisure time, that doesn't have to mean that she has to be lazy or bored. The philosopher Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is the basis of culture. "Nothing to do" means that she has the freedom to contribute to the development of culture in herself, her family, and in the world at large.

 

For one thing, it used to be typical for women in this situation to join (or start) volunteer projects. These days, if busy working or homeschooling parents find the time to help out, it's usually in their own children's activities. I always feel a bit sad when I talk to the lovely people in our area -- mostly elderly -- who volunteer with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, local historic sites, etc. They're not going to be around forever, and their work makes our community a much kinder, more interesting, and more beautiful place to be. I'd be honored to make this sort of contribution some day -- hopefully while I'm still fit enough to help with tasks that many seniors can't physically do any longer.

 

Maybe my perspective is different because I'm not so much into "goals" as such. My action orientation is mixed, with elements of both being and doing. :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist the jargon; I just came across it in a book about cultural differences. Anyway, the theory goes that some people's self-definition comes from the activities that they're currently doing, while others define themselves mainly in terms of their established relationships and roles. It would make sense that the latter group might see more value in the (often mundane and unglamorous) tasks involved in creating and maintaining a way of life for themselves, family, friends, and neighbors.

 

One of my favorite movies is about this (though I wish they'd skipped the euthanasia subplot, but that's OT).

 

"How do you do this, every day, all day, in this house and no one notices? Doesn't that drive you crazy?

 

"But this is my family, Ellie. These are the people I love."

 

And it's not just her family, but her lonely and depressed friend, the children who enjoy the holiday decorations, etc. Maybe this isn't for everyone -- maybe, in some respects, it's not even for me -- but I would never describe it as "not good."

 

:iagree:

 

 

Get that Josef Pieper book, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, it's an excellent read and would help greatly.

[Maela]

 

 

 

OK, so, I know you didn't mean it like this, but this comment could really stir up SAHM's. It implies that staying at home is dreary and that those who are satisfied with it don't 'LOVE educated conversation.' Now, don't get mad. I KNOW you didn't mean it like that. But this is the kind of thing that unconsciously brings on the anger that was mentioned upthread. That's why it's so hard to discuss.

 

Agreed. I love being at home (i'd do it for the rest of my life if I could), AND I love 'educated conversation.' DH and I love talking about all kinds of things, not just our kids and the house.

[awisha.]

Wow, we have re-resurrected thread!!

 

*braaaaaaaaaains*

[Maela]

Ha! Oops! I must have been searching for something, been distracted by this thread, and forgotten what I was looking for. Sorry!

[Hedgehogs4]

Just read the serving food to your husband thread and the 1950's wife statement intrigued me! I have to say that I think I am a bit of a 1950's wife - or at least I try to be!! I really do take pride in serving my husband in all the ways that I can - making things easy for him, cooking food that he likes, not stressing him out when he gets home from work etc etc.

 

He helps me out with my stuff as well, and there is lots of give and take, but in our house he is the leader and he is treated and respected as such. Part of my satisfaction as a wife comes from looking after my husband well.

 

Am I alone in this? Or have I read too much into this?!

 

I'm all for being nice to my husband, but maybe it's your choice of words that is a turn-off. I have seen so many good, Christian women "encouraged" by other Christian women to serve their husbands, but it became synonymous with "submit and shut-up." It causes my stomach to go into knots when I hear things like that...

 

I take pride in the fact that my husband considers me his best friend, loves to come home to us at night, desires to spend time with me, cooks dinner alongside me, appreciates the fact that I taught his kids all day, etc. We work side by side and share the stresses and joys of life equally. I take all this as evidence that I have done my part of being married to him well. "not stressing him out when he gets home???" Do wives do that? It just sounds as though you have him set upon some pedestal and you are dancing around him strewing flowers...I think it's just how it comes across. I'm sure that you have a lovely marriage and things are very well-distributed. I don't doubt that he loves you completely. I just think that the language is a bit hard to swallow.

[mathwonk]

Those of us who actually grew up in the 1950's are perhaps amused at what some people assume it was like from tv shows. To some of us, it meant eating tv dinners that were thought to reflect modern living, having lots of unsupervised play time, and going to segregated schools. Some of our parents fought like cats and dogs.

 

The most distinctive difference to me is perhaps that the economy was so much more middle class friendly that one salary normally sufficed to support a family of 4. My dad could do this even though he had only a high school diploma, whereas I was not quite able to do so even with a PhD in the 1970's and 80's.

 

This meant in my parents' family that working outside the house was a choice for my mom, not a necessity, so she indulged herself in working when she wished, and was able to quit when she found it unpleasant. My dad was so proud of her education too, that when she wanted to go back to graduate school he supported her 100%. In my own marriage, money was so tight that although a college professor I was unable to afford to buy books in my own research specialty until the later years of my career. In the early years, when trying to acquire some post graduate training while living on a research fellowship, we sold our old car for food.

 

In the 1950's and 60's, competitive Merit scholarships were also available to top scoring students, that paid over 100% of tuition at places like Harvard, but nothing like that exists today to my knowledge. That little temporary window of opportunity changed my life.

 

As far as showing respect and concern for ones spouse when s/he comes home from work, that has nothing to do with a particular date in time. That's just human decency, wisdom, and maturity. We are all working on those to the best of our ability.

 

This reminds of a funny story from the beginning of our marriage. One day when my young wife was learning to care for a new baby, her own doting grandmother (a traditional 1920's and 30's wife) came to visit. When I got home exhausted from work, the grandmother greeted me with "your poor wife, she had such a hard day today." When I foolishly responded with "Well, I had a hard day too!", my wife's loving "nonnie" stared at me, frowned, pursed her lips, and said flatly "too bad."

 

It dawns on me that we may benefit from listening to our parents and grandparents on these matters.