The Good Wifes Guide.
Jan 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 12

Mellow Mushroom

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Posts
72
Likes
10
goodwifeguideix0.jpg
 
Jan 5, 2009 at 9:07 PM Post #4 of 12
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif
LOL x2! Things have really changed since then
wink.gif



Have they? I sure hope not!
 
Jan 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM Post #6 of 12
I forwarded this to my coworkers, many of whom forwarded it to their wives.

I'd say there are some things the 50's were good for.
 
Jan 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM Post #8 of 12
Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What went wrong in the past 50 years, and what do we have to do to get back to those wonderful years???


Good question.
 
Jan 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM Post #10 of 12
Before you get too gung-ho about sending this along, you should know it's a fake.

My wife makes more money than me, enjoys my mediocre cooking, is a spectacular haggler, and indulges my every ridiculous whim just enough. I wouldn't trade anything for her, let alone some Stepford automaton.
 
Jan 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM Post #11 of 12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Before you get too gung-ho about sending this along, you should know it's a fake.


Interesting, but the link says that the status is "undetermined" not that it is a fake.

Quote:

Whether the piece at hand is a genuine excerpt from a yet-undiscovered home economics textbook, it is nonetheless a relatively accurate reflection of the mainstream vision of a woman's appointed role in post-war America, as evinced by such educational training films as "The Home Economics Story" (made familiar to a whole new generation of youngsters through its spoofing on the popular Mystery Science Theater 3000 program).


 
Jan 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM Post #12 of 12
It does note that the picture attached, as well as the attribution to "Housekeeping Monthly" are both inaccurate.

The only "undetermined" part of it is the fact that it cannot be stated empirically that no one published this seriously before it began its circulation as a piece of "gee whiz" fiction in the 1980s.

As it is displayed above it is undisputedly fake.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top