The Good Wife�s Guide

So now what? Should this now be the “Good Husband’s Guide” since now in most marriages the wives work also?

I wouldn’t want my husband to have a ribbon in his hair when I come home from work.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/how-to-treat-your-husband/page/2

Sarah Radcliff wrote a whole book similar to what was posted above. I just don’t think too many women in our generation follow the advice, even the ones who don’t work.

TakeaDeepBreath: Where in the Torah does it say anything about being equal? Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l said the husband is the Captain and the wife is the second in command as his First Mate. From his Sefer “Awake My Glory”:

1095. There cannot be two kings. The marriage relationship is two-fold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition, the home is disordered. “Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache. 2) The second, but equally essential foundation: a man must always demonstrate respect for his wife. This is “the way of Jewish men that… honor and support their wives in truth” as stated in the Jewish marriage contract. “He honors her more than his own body” – Yevamos 62B, Bava Metzia 59A. He is the captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected. She cannot be made a doormat, she need not beg for money, she deserves some assistance in the house chores, and the husband sides with her against his kin. He must express frequent appreciation and give words of encouragement, and he should remember his wife from time to time with gifts, big or little. Husband and wife should always say “Please” and “Thank You” and never forget to be always polite to each other.

GAW, I knew I could count on you, well said.

BTW, the Torah also says that a man should love his wife as himself and honor/respect her more than himself. So if he considers himself the King, he must consider her the “Super King”. And as everyone knows “behind every great man, is a great woman”.

In addition we also know that Hashem told Avrohom to listen to Sarah.

So for anyone who wishes to put women down, or to bring some posuk from the Torah to show that men are superior, just stop. This isn’t a contest. That is NOT the Torah way or what a truly FRUM marriage is about. A truly Frum marriage is NOT about superiority it is about giving to each other and mutual love and respect, continuously.

Mir Rosh Yeshiva, Hagaon Rav Chaim Shmulevitz Zatzal

“Our rabbi’s teach a man to honor his wife more than he would himself, while a wife is deemed virtuous if she does the will of her husband.

As long as the husband abides by the former and the wife by the latter, their home will be blessed with marital bliss.

It is when they switch roles the wife demanding love and respect and the husband expecting total subservience – that the troubles begin!”

Rav Chaim Shmulevitz Zatzal quoted in Sefer Torah Tavlin

“his topics of conversation are more important than yours”

is that so?

and that sounds to me like someone is putting someone else down…

“Don’t question his judgment or integrity.”

Are you kidding? We believe in ??? ?????, helping refine ?????.

why? what did you do with all your copies?

!!!!

Gosh, if I could stay home I would be more than happy to do all that. except the make-up. And my husband has always done as much in return, including making me coffee every morning (to be yotzei the mitzvah of chessed before davening). Not all those specific things, but the ones that were relevent.

Now I just try to make sure he has a parking space because that is probably the biggest chessed one can do around here.

Snopes very frequently has an agenda dismissing things without compelling evidence because of the writers own biases. And in this particular case it seems even they are equivocating rather than being entirely dismissive, even though this is one of the type of things Snopes tends to be biased against.

There was never a magazine with the name ‘Housekeeping Monthly.’

Popa, your achas didn’t work.

My husband never drinks beer.

Advise.

I don’t; but neither do I blindly assume it didn’t exist (and neither did Snopes even make that claim, something they’d have been sure to mention if they’d been able to determine that) simply because you can’t find evidence of it on Google 60 years later for something from almost 40 years before the web existed.

It is no “ad hominem”. What it is, is a factual observation. And if a so-called ad hominem is factual, rather relate the truth than observe some contorted convention invented in academia.

Joseph,

Snopes very frequently has an agenda dismissing things without compelling evidence

Actually, that claim has been thoroughly debunked by Snopes. 🙂

It is no “ad hominem”.

Sure it is. Rather than addressing the points made in the Snopes article, you instead went for Snopes = biased. That the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

The Wolf

If you’re questioning the reliability of something being reported, challenging the credibility of the reporter is very much on point.

Actually, it’s not.

Look, some crackpot may say that aliens with three legs and green and purple hair live on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon) and that they hold Elvis concerts three times a week. But the factuality of the information (or lack thereof) does not rest on the fact that he’s a crackpot. It rests on the evidence. The fact that he’s a crackpot is really beside the point. It all boils down to the evidence and arguments. If he can provide credible evidence for it, then it’s true, regardless of his being a crackpot or not. And if he can’t provide some evidence, then I can be comfortable dismissing his claims — again, regardless of his being a crackpot or not.

Snopes made some valid points in their article. Pointing out that Snopes has a bias (whether true or not) is really beside the point.

The Wolf

Wolf,

It’s beside the point if they make claims which can be objectively verified. Have they done so? Which claims did they make which prove (or strongly indicate) that this didn’t exist? (FTR, I have no opinion on whether it did or didn’t.)

Joseph- the internet has information on all sorts of people, things, books, and magazines that existed before it was created. that’s not so relevant. It’s reasonable to expect to find at least a bit of evidence of Housekeeping Monthly from google if it really existed. there are archives and such.

At this point the conversation is moot. One Liner has testified first-hand that he personally saw a copy of the issue under discussion.

Yes, and calling the reliability of an anonymous (and probably joking) internet commentator into question is irrelevant, since it’s ad hominum, and doesn’t speak to his point.

I’ve read elsewhere that it was a mock-up on college campuses in the seventies to promote equality — yet most of the text is probably from a magazine in the 1880s. They also mention that dryers were not common in the 50s — which is something that also gave me pause when I read it here. (The washer dryer part was added in the mockup.)

And the photo with the article is from a different magazine cover in 1957– two years after the rules supposedly appeared.

Joseph, you don’t help your cause when you actually expect women to take off their husband’s shoes, which IIRC even an Eved shouldn’t be asked to do.

We can all improve in our spousal duties, but we should look for Jewish sources and be realistic.

Actually, the Internet does have information on nearly every nook and cranny. And besides, it’s laughable that you blindly accept the claim of an anonymous commenter to the point that you think the conversation is moot. It sounds like you have an agenda just as much as snopes does.