The very sexist guide to being the perfect wife (but it was the 1930s)
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Is your wife "slow to get into bed"? Does she flirt with other men at parties? Or is she "a good hostess – even with unexpected guests", ever ready to "react with pleasure and delight to marital congress"? If so, fill in below and give her a score.
Psychologists in America have discovered a "Marital Ratings Scale" from the 1930s that allowed husbands to assess their wives. Through the scheme, wealthy men could evaluate the social and sexual merits of their partner by awarding plus and minus points for behaviour deemed disappointing, desirable or downright depraved.
In the decade of the Great Depression, the documents reveal that American men of a refined ilk found time to mark their wives down for any number of ostensibly minor misdemeanours. Women who were unwilling to go to bed, or failed to sew buttons on properly, if at all, were given minus points.
Those who failed to darn socks, or decorated themselves with red nail polish, were similarly punished. Any wife who dared to go to bed "with curlers on her hair or face cream" was viewed with suspicion – and worst of all was the woman who put her "cold feet on [her] husband at night to warm them".
Despite the many lifestyle failings for which a wife could be castigated, the Marital Ratings Scale, an invention of the American academic George Crane, offers them manifold opportunities to redeem themselves. For example, they could prove themselves capable of upholding good conversation, or being punctual at meal times.
Wives worthy of respect could keep a tidy house, or put children to bed "personally". They could gain bonus points if they deserved the description "never goes to bed angry – always makes up first", or "lets husband sleep late on Sundays and holidays".
A wife who used "slang or profanity", however, would be docked five points or awarded a similar number for "squeezing the toothpaste from the top".
Yet nothing elicited quite as much point-scoring – or point-deduction – as performance during sexual congress. If a wife should "react with pleasure and delight to marital congress", a bonus 10 points was on offer. If she failed to show sufficient enthusiasm during such moments, a fine of similar proportions could instead be given.
The research, published by the American Psychological Association, shows that Crane also ran a matchmaking service based on his wife test and wrote an agony aunt newspaper column called The Worry Clinic.
His scale encouraged men to add up the scores and give their wives a rating, ranging from "Very Poor (failures)" to "Very Superior".
Post a comment
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use

I find this insulting, it's like keeping score at a ball game.
If there's a scale by which women are graded, then surely there is a scale by which men are equally graded. It is degrading to women to be graded on their performance. It would be equally degrading to a man to grade them on how well they preform the job of being a husband. If they are a good wage earner, father,if the husband was good in the bedroom. If they were kind, tender, or mean, harsh, cruel to the wife, kids. Food for thought. Don't judge least ye be judged. We're all individuals, with individual needs & concerns, to lump women - or men togeather then to grade them is just degrading.
Posted by Peggy T. | 16.05.08, 04:38 GMT
I have to say, while women tolerated being floor mats in the 1930's, for the most part, we don't tolerate it any more. It just goes to show what women have put up with though, doesnt it? Oh well, at least the women aren't behind the men any more.
Posted by JoJowunder | 16.05.08, 02:18 GMT
@ Vahakn Keshishian: Disagree with you there. I am a middle-eastern female, and I don't feel treated/viewed in that way. I would never accept those supposed "social norms", and nor would anyone else I am acquainted with.
Posted by CG | 15.05.08, 22:27 GMT
The point of this article being? Sounds like a story warmed up for slow times to me, if you allow me and unworthy of a quality paper like the independent.
My family has an extensive stock of pre WWII illustrated papers, which I delighted in reading as a child. I remember tests for women to score their husbands and vice versa and both were sexist.
Later in the sixties there remained many opportunities to judge the husband in the lighter press. I remember them being quite sexist.
The point of this article being?
She who is without sins throweth the first stone.
Posted by CFW Rietveld | 15.05.08, 18:56 GMT
Dear, what you should do with your feet, is after sex while fetching me a cold one, slip into something that will warm your feet. If I'm doing my job your extremities should be pretty warm during.
Posted by lovely lady's spouse | 15.05.08, 18:52 GMT
since women's bodies are designed to warm babies and not feet, (cores and not extremities) and sex with socks is presumably also a no-no, what am i supposed to do with them while behaving like a very superior wife since i can't stick them under your hot feet?
Posted by the lovely lady | 15.05.08, 18:25 GMT
Damnable progress.
Posted by Bill Clinton | 15.05.08, 13:09 GMT
And they said that other cultures were barbaric....
Posted by Polondo | 15.05.08, 09:33 GMT
It may sound bizarre, but this is how the women are perceived in the Middle East still today. Not according to an academic research (something that the westerners admire), but by established social norms, that is even accepted by women themselves.
Posted by Vahakn Keshishian | 15.05.08, 09:28 GMT