Elisabella
Posts: 3939
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hierodule Elisabella, you make a good point which is why I wrote this: "the role of a 50s house wife (idealized/fetishized for this century version)" The truth is that many 50's housewives were not happy. And of course, my goal in my relationships to first of all make my partner happy and to be happy myself. Of course there will be bad times there is no reason why both partners can't be generally happy within their chosen roles. My grandmother, who raised me, was expected to get married and it was taken for granted that she would stay home and raise her family. She could have rebelled, but it would have been against everything she believed in and was expected of her. Even though she taught me how to help around the house with ironing and cooking, she always siad "Honey NEVER get married. Do something with your life don't end up like me." She got married in 1948. So she was a real 50's housewife, and she was miserable. While I learned a lot from her, the main difference between her and I is choice. I went to college, had an equal marriage which didn't work out, and I have worked and had my own place where I lived alone. I know what its like to be independent and I know its not for me. She never had the chance to explore independence. Maybe she would have enjoyed it. I, personally, find it alienating and unsatisfying. quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella -FR- I think it depends on what you mean by "50's household" - if you mean "he works outside the house and she works in the house and sometimes I get to put on cute aprons" then there could be any dynamic you want. If you're trying to get into a 50's mindset, well there weren't many 1950's slaves who did everything their husband told them to do...50's housewives could and did say no, and sometimes when they said 'yes dear' they were really just planning how to get him to change his mind. I think any housewife alive in the 50's would go absolutely mad if she had to obey everything her husband said. I'm sorry your grandmother had to experience that. That time was virtually Victorian in its idea of social expectations, I can't even imagine being expected to marry someone in the town I grew up in straight out of HS like my grandmother did (she was happy though...or at least happy enough. She never said she wasn't happy.) Not to mention the number of gays and lesbians who had to go their whole life preventing themselves from having a shot at love. But my post wasn't to say they were miserable...it was to say they weren't M/s slaves (or, taking this post into account, if they were slaves it wasn't to their husbands) - I guess what I'm saying is most people wouldn't consider it very 'slavelike' (in the M/s sense) to think "He said we couldn't afford to go on vacation this summer, so I'm going to use a combination of childlike sulking and subtle manipulation on him until he changes his mind" or "If he won't let me get the shoes I want I'll buy a bit less food and save the extra money for a few weeks then tell him I want a cheaper pair of shoes and use the money I saved to cover the difference" - basically the average 50's housewife knew how to control her husband in at least a couple things...and more importantly she was willing to do so. So yeah, the fetishized version, makes for a great M/s relationship. The non-fetishized version even makes for a good D/s relationship (I see a difference between M/s and D/s), I'm not working right now (won't start looking for a job til after the wedding) so right now we're doing that type of dynamic, and what makes it work is that I don't *submit* to him, rather he *exerts control* on me. We both know he's able to say no to me, he's able to enforce that no, so I'm free to use all my tricks on him knowing full well that the ones that work are just the ones he didn't have a problem with. And I'd imagine there were households like that back in the 50's too, where the husband had final say on everything even though he didn't always exercise that power. But when I start working, I'll have my own income, I'll have more freedom and leverage, and he can't very well say "You can't buy those shoes you really love" because he won't have any way to enforce that. I'll have my own salary going into my bank, it's not reliant on what he gives me. In that case, when I start working, it will turn into a case of *me submitting* rather than *him controlling me* because I have the choice whether to listen or not. Basically to me the difference between a 50's household dynamic and a M/s relationship is that in the M/s relationship the submissive/wife entered the relationship with the intent to submit to the man she loves, whereas the 50's wife entered the relationship with the intent to love the man she loves and be a good wife, knowing that *at times* that includes submission. But that's just me.
< Message edited by Elisabella -- 12/2/2009 1:25:06 PM >
|