Fascinating Womanhood
Andelin
1974
Are you unhappy in your marriage? Perhaps it is because you haven’t seen it through the eyes of your man. Become a fascinating woman by putting your man’s needs first. By paying attention and reacting properly to your husband, you can become a fascinating woman and exude femininity. Essentially, this is all about shutting up and letting the man be a man. (Cuz, they can’t if you are too busy harping on them.)
We first posted this back on ALB a long time ago. I came across it in our donation pile and felt we needed a re-do. Since it was a while back, I think there are enough of you ladies out there that need a refresher on your lady skills. You can read the original post here.
I’ll be in the back working on my “bewitching languor”.
Mary
I think I have done most of those don’ts… :). As one of the few females of a volunteer fire dept. one of our chiefs jokingly (and it really was meant as a joke) gave me an old print out from the 50s explaining how women should behave and be lady like. Believe it or not, he was probably the most supportive of me and really treated me as one of the men when it came to doing the work.
Good for him.
I love how the whole cover is the color of Peptol-Bismol, which is probably what I’d need after reading it.
The repeated use of the word “tender” is disturbing me.
I always thought the term “langour” meant something like “lying around”. Like to lay on a chaise lounge with your hand over your forehead. Or like in The Great Gatsby, Daisy and her friend are hot and bored, so they just plop themselves prettily onto couches and try to look attractive.
RIght, and how can you pose languorously while vigorously stretching the bejeebers out of every dollar?
Why, if there are only two people involved, must there be a leader? Or, actually as the book describes it, an authoritarian dictator? I can’t believe this was published in 1974 — must’ve been part of some kind of backlash.
Don’t forget, girls- a man’s delicate ego must be supported at all costs!
I have a hard time believing this was published in 1974. It seems more like something from the ’50’s. (I assert this having lived through both eras. Yeah, I’m old.)
Page 91 is horrifying, with all its talk of dictating, law and order, and rules of conduct. As if a home were a military campaign.
I thought that too. This book is pure evil.
If a man spoke harsh to me I’d tell him to bite me. Forget femininity, I’ll go right for the jugular and either he puts up with it or he gets out of my way as I heavily walk with a scowl down the street.
Sadly my local library has this and the revised and updated 1980 edition.
I only ever dated women in the “don’t” file….
I am curious about the split woman on the cover. I mean, which side is more fascinating?
How very Stepford Wives
With no irony, this book should truly be kept if it is in an academic library. Holly Welker wrote a piece for Bust Magazine about this book and the resurgence of the DIY/girl/mommy blogging culture, and she looks back to “Fascinating Womanhood” as a source that is still alive. As a feminist, I do believe that this book needs a space on the shelf so that we can access all information, even information we find appalling, even if it’s to study from a point of opposition. Not all books fall into that place and not all libraries can logistically keep this book, but an academic library with a strong liberal arts collection should keep it.
The book “Helen Andelin and the Fascinating Womanhood Movement” shows that Andelin got much of her material from 1920s publications. My library has the 1990 edition; the 2007 is still in print. I actually don’t have a problem with keeping this, if people still want it, but a library that wants to have it should probably have the latest edition.
As a feminist, I have to hang my head in shame that I only do 9 of the 11 “Don’t” for the “Feminine Manner”. I can’t say I’ve ever clapped a man on the back, and I can’t whistle for some weird reason, but the rest is pure me. Especially the roaring. At my own jokes, no less.
I actually own a 1992 paperback version of this. There are people who still abide by this today. The author was a Mormon so you either get a “chew on the meat and spit out the bones” approach or groups like the FLDS and its ilk using it as a tool of manipulation.
I think Dr. Freud may want to have a word with the artist who drew the picture located on the bottom third of the cover.
Ha! I thought the same thing!!
Why would anyone think that pink-on-pink color scheme was a good idea? They could have at least outlined the letters in black or something.