Overall, you have a ____ reaction to this article "Improve your Husband Scientifically, Ladies Home Journal 1942"
imgur.com/VtSmr8H
Conversation
Replying to
It feels like the article correctly recognizes that there’s *something* in the dynamic that could be improved, but it’s wrong about both its diagnoses and its remedies. It’s like blaming witches for crop failure. The crops may be failing, but jumping to “witches” misses the mark.
1
Replying to
Overall my impressions are slightly negative. One of the things I didn't like is that it's an early form of clickbait. There's absolutely nothing scientific about it, but scientifically is in the title to grab reader's attention.
7
Replying to
Uh, I agree with loving your partner for who they are, not who you want to make them into. There's a lot of other things in there that are archaic and not agreeable and contradictory?? Don't try to change a man (agree), but do influence his behavior by stroking his ego...
1
Replying to
You expect me to believe someone out there pronounces "casual" as "causal"? This whole thing is discredited. Poppycock!
Replying to
This is a stark and amazing contrast to men's PUA/redpill "game" theories. It almost comes across more like internalized oppression. Basically, be obsequious, kill him with kindness/grace, and set lower expectations.
2
Replying to
My first job out of college was purchasing print advertising from the "Seven Sisters", a collection of women's magazines which included LHJ. One rep produced a chart showing his magazine was the best because 60% of the content was factual. That's a true story.
1
Replying to
Some decent advice, but it irked me how it takes for granted that a husband would never update on useful corrections from their wife - perhaps if your husband is incapable of recognizing his myriad flaws (as it assumes will be the case), you should seek a better one.
1
Replying to
To me, it felt like it was simply explaining the simple truth that we can't directly change anyone for the better, only for the worse, unless they want to change, too. Also, that having someone as a "project" is dehumanizing and doomed to fail if they aren't an active part of it.
1
Replying to
Dang, I jumped the gun. The first details paragraphs and the latter part of the list were bad, so I voted negative, but I regret it now. About a third into the article it gets substantially better, if only for one or two excesses in old-fashionedness but it's fair for its time