caoilfhionn: (Lungs)
[personal profile] caoilfhionn
Bwahahaaaa!



I score a -11, but it becomes a -16 if you choose to interpret "Doesn't like children" as "Uninterested in making her own." I don't think that purple nailpolish is any better than red, either. And I'm curious about how one manages to be properly dressed for breakfast (assumed to include hair and makeup) in the 1930s without wearing curlers to bed.

via Punkass Blog.

UPDATE: You can take the entire test for wives AND husbands!

Date: 2008-05-14 01:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] effloresense.livejournal.com
I'm also intrigued by the implication that *she* needs to go to church and *he* needs to sleep in on Sunday.

Date: 2008-05-14 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caoilfhionn.livejournal.com
Tells you what church is really good for in some minds, doesn't it?

Date: 2008-05-14 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] effloresense.livejournal.com
Yup. Cuz we're evil, dontcha know.

Date: 2008-05-15 01:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] murasakinoyoroi.livejournal.com
I'm not sure if this helps clarify the condmned situation, but traditionally the religion followed in a household was the wife's. Children were raised in the wife's religion so the husband was simply expected not to interfere with the process. The exception to this was with Baptist households where you follow the husband's religion.

Date: 2008-05-14 01:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sal-e-peters.livejournal.com
Silly girl.

They wore pin-curls in the '30s. Also there was the curling iron.

Date: 2008-05-14 01:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caoilfhionn.livejournal.com
Then the author of the poster is equally uninformed. As he would be, being manfully uninterested in the methods of achieving effortless female beauty!

Date: 2008-05-14 01:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] queenfrizzle.livejournal.com
I'm just amused that even if she has all the merits and none of the demerits, she only gets 25. Which is the low end of "poor".

I bet there's more pages to it though. Or something.

Date: 2008-05-14 01:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caoilfhionn.livejournal.com
That's an awesome point!

Date: 2008-05-14 01:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caoilfhionn.livejournal.com
The rest of the pages have been posted. I love the Internet.

Date: 2008-05-14 04:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] naurien.livejournal.com
I find it odd how, having read the Husband's Test, I still expect a lot of that from mine, but am all like "Yeah, right!" on a lot of the women's stuff. Like it's okay for me to expect all that of him, but not vice versa. Three cheers for women's rights!

Date: 2008-05-14 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caoilfhionn.livejournal.com
The underlying assumptions tend to be that the wife must always be cheerful and pretty and ready to serve, and the husband must be nice to her and not make her work harder, possibly even helping sometimes. But it still assumes that the husband can only help out sometimes with kids, and the wife will always be happy about all the work she does. You're not allowed to be discontent with the role prescribed for you, and that hurts both parties.

Date: 2008-05-14 07:07 pm (UTC)
aedifica: Me looking down at laptop (off screen).  Short hair. (Default)
From: [personal profile] aedifica
Heh. I went through both, answering for Nate and for me. I got 0 (pluses and minuses equaled each other) and Nate got 40.5. Maybe I should see how I stack up on the Husbands Test, since I obviously fail on the Wife Test!

Hmm, yep--I got 33.5 on the Husbands Test. I'm not even going to look at what Nate would have gotten on the Wife Test. :-)

Profile

caoilfhionn: (Default)
caoilfhionn

July 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
45 678910
111213141516 17
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 06:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios