Has Your Wife Read This?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Aaron Gouveia

Aaron is husband to a woman far too beautiful to have married him, and father of two sons far too perfect to be his. After nearly a decade as a Boston-area journalist, he decided to actually get paid and became a content manager. When he's not griping about his beloved Boston sports teams, he's detailing life as a dad at The Daddy Files. You can follow him on Twitter (@DaddyFiles) and Facebook.


  1. I love to laugh out loud (but hate the acronym LOL) and I actually did over coffee this morning. I’ve Tweeted and Facebooked this; my friends should laugh too. Now…do I forward it to my husband? I think I’ll save it for times when he needs reminding. Thanks again.

  2. “Queen of the house”? If that’s still your image of women, looks like you’ve still got a ways to go. Anyway, the truth must be told: nobody knows where the original text you’re riffing on came from, and while it may be an all too accurate portrait of how wives were advised to behave in the 1950s, for all we know it was concocted quite recently precisely for mockable purposes: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp

  3. Hahahahahahaha!

  4. “Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.” This is my fav. Basically, fake it till you make and forget that you both have miserable lives. Classic 1950′s

  5. Linguist says:

    A double irony own goal!

    I get the (lame) joke: the 1955 guide was oh so wrong – we’re so modern today.

    But of course any man would way sooner be married to the woman described in the 1955 guide than to live the dirty, depressing life described in your 2011 example.

    Given your examples, in 1955 people aspired to a clean house, a better standard of living, and to be nicer to each other. Is this supposed to be progress?

    Funny, before about 1970 about 2/3 of both men and women described they marriage as “very happy”. Today about 1/3 do – and that is given the very high rate of dissolution today. More progress.

    But there is a lesson in this: I married a women’s studies major who was my peer in college. My brother married conservative christian girl from the midwest who aspired to be a mother and homemaker. They are happily married – and I’m divorced. Their children still have a stable, clean home environment, are happier, dress better and do better in school.

    But don’t let that stop you from denigrating the work that stay at home parents do.

    • Linguist: First of all, I would NOT want to be married to the 1955 house wife. Not at all. I’ve dated women like that and it was awful.

      Second, I’m not denigrating the work stay-at-home parents do. That’s just ludicrous. Obviously there’s a heavy dose of sarcasm here, or did you not read the “tongue in cheek” part of the introduction. But most troubling is your view of the 1955 mentality. You think that represents people striving to be nicer to each other? No it doesn’t. It represents one person (the wife) doing everything because society believes it is her sole job to make her husband happy. Tell me how, in the 1955 example, the husband is making the wife happy. It’s a one-way street my friend.

      As for your own marriage, only you know what went wrong. But I doubt it was solely because she was a women’s studies major. Marriages usually break up for slightly more valid reasons than that.

      • Linguist says:

        I’m sorry you didn’t like dating a woman who loved you enough to cook for you, care about you, cleaned up after you and dressed nicely for you. I guess some people cannot be pleased.

        Then again maybe she just didn’t satisfy your need for put downs and ball-cutting irony. I can certainly see how that might be a problem for someone so submissive.

        As for me – I’ve been enjoying dating women who are happy to cook for me and please me.

        • Linguist: I’m married to a woman who loves to cook, cares about me, keeps the house clean and occasionally dresses up for me. The difference between her and the 1950s housewife is she does these things because she wants to, not because she’s expected to.

          Congratulations on finding women who want to cook for you and please you. I notice you listed those qualities first before things like “women who make me laugh, stimulate me intellectually, etc.” I’m sure you’re both happily co-existing in your cave. Since you seem like someone who very much enjoys hearing himself talk, it must be nice to be with someone who doesn’t possess that oh-so-nasty habit of expressing her own opinions. The less talking the better right? After all, a woman’s mouth is not meant for talking.

          Of all the things I’ve been called in my life, “submissive” has never been among them. But thanks for the laugh. Now go club yourself another winner!

          • Linguist says:

            You: “Guys, don’t ask her any questions or question her judgment. Even if we’re right and she’s wrong, it’s still our fault. Remember, she may let us think we have a say but she is Queen of the house and if we get out of line she will use her power to unfairly punish us with a lack of sex and an abundance of attitude. You stand no chance against her because a good wife always knows her place. At the top.”

            Sounds pretty submissive to me.

  6. wellokaythen says:

    The historian side of me wants to point out that just because a handbook from that era says that this is the way to do it does not mean that everyone actually did things that way. The handbook gives one kind of ideal, but it’s impossible to tell based on the book itself how many people actually followed its directions. In fact, there are so many guidebooks like this from the 1950’s, constantly telling women how to behave properly, that one wonders how many women actually followed these ideas. If everyone was already doing all these things, why would there be such a huge need to tell them what to do? Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that Leave It to Beaver was a documentary about life in the fifties.

    And, of course, these “domestic guides” were often making this shit up as they went along. Newly married women in the 50’s got much more of this crap thrown at them than their mothers did. Their mothers would have found a lot of this stuff completely laughable, too.

  7. Anonymous Male says:

    Here I go harping on this again, like broken record, but: why is this article in the “Dads” section of the site? You can be a married man and not have children, you can be a father without being married, and you can be married to a woman who is not the mother of your children.

    Ironically, it’s a touch of the 1950′s to suggest husband=father and wife=mother. Also a little 1950′s-like to assume she’s home when you get home from work….

    • Anonymous Male: There’s no irony and you’re over-thinking this way too much.

      All I did was go through the 1955 suggestions one by one and revise them accordingly depending on what was written. Some of those tips involved children, so I involved children. I’m not assuming a 1950s mentality, I’m just going by what was already in place. Not to mention people seem to be taking this far too seriously. It’s a tongue-in-cheek piece laced with sarcasm meant to entertain.

      • Anonymous Male says:

        My question is more for the editors than the author, I think.

        I thought the piece was funny. I had some good chuckles. I’m a husband and I can identify with the 2011 updates. However, I’m not a father, so I generally am not drawn to the “DadsGood” part of the site. I could have missed the article because, to my mind, it was somewhat misplaced in the wrong section. Now I’m thinking I may have missed other interesting articles because I was too quick to judge, thinking that articles about dads or in the dads section were not meant for me. That’s my fault, a good example of unintended irony, the most delicious kind.

        I want the GMP to be successful and reach as many men as possible, and as many different kinds of men as possible. I’m suggesting that the GMP could reach even more men if it bore in mind that articles about husbands are not necessarily articles about fathers, and vice versa. Putting this one in the Dads section would be a bit like putting the article about Thai child prostitutes in a Men’s Travel section.

        • As both the author and the managing editor of DadsGood, I think there is an easy solution:
          Just click on everything and read each article no matter what! ;-)

          But seriously, I’m sure you’ve noticed the taxonomy on the front page broken up into categories such as relationships, sex, advice, etc. While something may fall through the cracks occasionally, I think they’re usually put in the right place. And speaking strictly for the DadsGood writers I can say our articles are absolutely not always about our kids. Sure that’s the majority of them, but we also dabble in relationships, pop culture, friendship, etc.

          Thanks for your advice though, I’m sure you’re not alone. I’ll check to see if there’s any way we can market the “non-kid” articles a little better so they get read more.

Speak Your Mind