Talk:The Stepford Wives

• Married with Children Season 11, Episode 10 was titled, "The Stepford Peg."
• The Chronicle Season 1, Episode 18 was titled, "The Stepford Cheerleaders."
• Homeboys in Outer Space Season 1, Episode 10 was titled, "A Man's Place is in the Homey, or The Stepford Guys"
• Newhart Season 2, Episode 4 was titled, "The Stratford Wives."

Note: The BBC movie soundalike The Stretford Wives (2002) is not related at all, but it may have been a wink to the film and book.

Antmusic 22:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's an appropriate addition to the "In popular culture" section, which are basically these kind of references. It would be appropriate to write a sentence about how they relate to the plot of the movie. Calwatch 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:IraLevin TheStepfordWives.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the last paragraph of the section on plot:

"The scene shifts to the men standing outside, wondering what's taking so long, and one of them leaves to call her husband and let him know where she is."

One of the men leaves to call "her husband"? What?? There's no reference for "her husband" anywhere that makes sense. Do you mean "his wife"? (Though that doesn't make much sense either.) Please clarify. Moncrief (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that "her husband" means "Joanna's husband." 190.137.109.13 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This novella is often referred to as "satire" (perhaps especially after the remake of the film embraced it as such). I was surprised to learn that second-wave feminists were initially outraged by it, and that some even saw the book as an attack on the feminist movement of that time. What was Ira Levin's intent? This needs to be clarified in the Wikipedia article, in light of the social implications of this fine work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.73.114 (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

• While I am not sure of Levin's intent, Michelle Arrow (cited in the article) says: "a satire of male fears of women’s liberation, but a savage view of heterosexual marriage. In this telling, a man would rather kill his wife and replace her with a robot than commit to equality and recognise her as a whole person." Feldercarb (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The plot summary is incorrect in the final paragraph. I have never seen any of the Stepford movies, but I am assuming that someone has been lazy and threw on one of the summaries from them. The novel sees Joanne stopped as she attempts to flee Stepford, by three men, who bring her to Bobbie's house. There is no definitive closure in this section of the book, and our next scene of Joanne shows her already transformed. These facts should probably be worked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.104.197 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I pulled an accurate plot summary from the article's history. Mgroat (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was the book a critical or commercial success in advance of the film? Valetude (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section on consent appears to be based on a review of a book on female sex-dolls and not on the book itself. It is also offering an opinion that married men must seek explicit consent for sex. I do not have a Stepford Wife but I can tell you my wife and I do not download consent forms from the internet before sex, although we are both free to say no if we don't feel like it. It is an opinion, and should be presented as such with reference to genuine literary criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.211 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This section says that a theme in the franchise is the men's desire not to need consent to have sex with their wives. It's sourced. You've added quite a bit here -- the section doesn't say anything about forms from the internet. But even if it did, the question is whether this is an idea this franchise is sincerely responding to or elaborating on, not whether it's "factual" or an idea any individual user agrees with. The source makes the case that this is part of the franchise's agenda pretty well, and it seems worth raising. This section is awkwardly written and needs editing, but there's nothing wrong with its claims about theme or its discussion of the consent interpretation. 76.111.36.152 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you go further to explain exactly how it is satire and who it is supposed to be satirizing and how?

The book has had two feature film adaptations, both using the same title as the novel: the 1975 version, and the 2004 remake. Edgar J. Scherick produced the 1975 version as well as all three of the television sequels. Scherick was credited posthumously as producer of the 2004 remake.

is there some reason the producer of the adaptation(s) is notable enough to belong in the lede? It seems like a fairly arbitrary inclusion (why not the director, or screenplay writer, why is this in particular notable?). I didn't delete it, because perhaps there is something I'm missing here. --Tomatoswoop (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "Consent" section makes no sense. The wives are turned into robots (either literal or figurative) that *do* consent to the husbands; but they do so only because they have no free will. The issue is not about consent; it's about free will. Personally, I'd remove that section. Somebody else has pointed out problems with that section, also. It adds nothing to the article, it's incorrect, and it's illogical. I recommend removing it. 2601:600:A480:4C20:687C:21A5:9EA:617F (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply