You must understand I was not around in the 1950s so I may be fairly wrong about what women were like, but then again I have based this character on my grandmother so it can’t be completely wrong.
You know that much about your grandmother’s sex drive, do you?
I wasn’t around for the fifties either, or the sixties (except for the last few days). But I know a good number of actual women, and the traits you list are not only rare in aggregate but also are somewhat self-contradictory. Women who are fixated on their physical beauty to the extent you imply, for instance, are rarely good listeners. Women who are willing to be entirely subservient to their husbands don’t have good advice to give. Et cetera.
Anyway, I wouldn’t want a woman who would be entirely subservient to me. I cannot be trusted with that much power.
And what did your grandmother expect from men?
Even if we posit that most hetero males want a subservient, advice-dispensing sex slave for a wife, what percentage of these males want to be 100% responsible for financially maintaining another adult until death? Or is there another reason you left that part out of your 1950’s fantasy-land dreaming?
Honey if you based this on your ***knowledge ***of your grandmother, then you need to go to jail or to a therapist.
Otherwise, whatever it may have looked like to an outsider (which, as much as she loved you, you were) there was a lot of shit going down that you don’t know about.
If her life was anything like my own grandmother’s (since we’re throwing out inappropriate grandmotherly knowledge here) I would be willing to bet there was a shitload of stuff going down that your grandfather didn’t know about either.
No thanks, I’ll pass on a slave as a wife when it comes to my home. It’s her home as well isn’t it ? The results of the poll leave me a little dubious as well, I have a really hard time believing that 22% of men want this type of wife.
Traditional woman? You mean like Samantha Stephens, Donna Reed, Jeanne (I Dream of…) or Laura Petrie?
Hell, yeah!
You forgot the part where “domestic violence” is a new age fad, and real women understand the need for and appreciate physical correction.
I’m not trying to produce an “ideal” woman, or justify this caricature in any way really. I’m trying to prove a point although admittedly I may have made some minor errors in doing so.
She’s still alive you know, and not nearly in a nursing home or anything either - she’s still driving and even helping out with my uncle’s family business (which was hers and my Grandad’s). So I can ask questions and get answers - I think I have a reasonably good handle on what has gone on, in outline if not specifics.
Beautiful, trustworthy, intelligent, intuitive, a good sexual partner, enjoys all the work I find tedious, …
Does she have a brother?
(That whole my ‘word rules’ thing, though … I don’t know about that.)
Yes in the same way as aiming to travel to Washington DC from London and ending up in Moscow is a minor navigational error,:rolleyes:
You are trying to prove the point that men want a subservient wife cast in the mold of your idealized granny, but if you only present what’s in it for the man without presenting what’s in it for the woman, you will not get accurate results. So your point is automatically invalid.
Think it’s a bad poll for at least these reasons:
-
Not all of the features are typically associated with the “traditional woman” e.g. being a confidant, giving good advice. But the thread title implies voting “yes” means you want a traditional woman.
-
It doesn’t state that these are in any way important criteria, just whether they are positive or not. So sure, it’s a positive if my partner gives good advice, but that doesn’t mean it is an important requirement for me, or that I select partners on that basis.
In any case I voted “no” as even though the highly-sexed and good advice stuff are a positive, the other stuff is either neutral or negative to me.
I’d be very interested in what she thought of your description. I mean that sincerely.
In the first place, it’s Stevens.
In the second place, while I have no information on Donna Reed, neither Samantha or Jeannie were truly submissive; they were only pretending to be submissive.
In the third place, Laura Petrie sometimes acted in ways approaching the OP’s ideal, but not often, as I recall it; certainly she didn’t seem inordinately horny. And Mary Tyler Moore was not yet by at the zenith of her hotness during the Dick Van Dyke show anyway. Cite.
There was a fourth place but I forgot what it was. Something about Betty Rubble. It’s best omitted anyway as it was quite offensive.
In the fifth place, it’s Stevens.
I don’t think any of these characteristics are what I would list foremost when describing a “traditional woman.”
An “ideal” partner is effortlessly attractive, but I would prefer one who looks average to one who spends all day primping and working out.
I would think every human would like these qualities in their partner.
I would prefer not to win arguments with “because I said so.” It seems very unhealthy.
Of course there’s a difference between a person who acts subservient and someone who actually is. The genuine article would easily vastly preferred of those two, but I would prefer someone more my equal.
So what? It’s been 45/50 years ago. Sue me.
Who said a woman I’d want would have to be submissive, pretend or otherwise?
The OP’s ideal as presented is faulty. He makes certain assumptions, assigns those assumptions to women of a certain era, and presents them as being “traditional.” Well, he has his ideas as to what a traditional woman was like and I have mine. The title of the thread asks if I would prefer a traditional woman, and since Sam, Donna, Jeannie, and Laura fit my ideal of the traditional woman, they are the ones I chose to illustrate that. None of these women were all that submissive (well, I suppose Jeannie was but that’s because it was her job as a genie), and neither were most other women of the time. Relationships then, as now, were mostly a matter of give and take. In each of those shows, the couple loved each other, teased and were playful with each other, consulted with each other as to how to deal with problems, and were generally each other’s best friend. The women I listed were my ideal of the traditional woman I would like to have as a partner and the relationships portrayed in those shows were my ideal as to what a traditional relationship should be. Since the OP asked what I’d prefer, I simply told him. What you’re all pissy about is anyone’s guess.
Oh, I disagree quite strongly, both with this oddly phrased (“not yet by at the?”…this is surely a more egregious error than my misspelling of Samantha Stevens’ last name :D) statement and your contention above that she lacked “horniness.” Not only was Laura Petrie in my opinion the most beautiful and desireable of 50s/60s-era housewives, but no woman could be as slinky sexy and romantically playful as her without having her fair share of appreciation of sack time. You may recall also that they had a child.
Fear of offense is way overdone these days. People need to just suck it up when they hear something they don’t like. I do it all the time. There is no constitutional protection againist being offended.
I don’t suppose you’d care to so much as try to explain what sort of victory you think you gain by making a big deal of the correct spelling of a fictional t.v. character from 50 years ago. So you really think my entire position is undercut in some substantial way simply because I used “ph” instead of “v” in spelling the character’s name from 50 years ago?
Methinks a chill pill is in order. You don’t normally post in such an odd, disjointed way.
SA, the entire post was a joke. I made the same point twice, for Athena’s sake. My only regret is that I neglected to post to the YouTube link of Mary Tyler Moore in the revealing green dress, but I was distracted by a lack of cheesecake.
Oops! Sorry! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in the Pit. My sincere apologies!
P.S. - To make up for it, may I present…
Laura Petrie Dick Van Dyke Show - YouTube.
Not a green dress but enticing nonetheless. 