U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-06-2011, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,326 posts, read 7,287,642 times
Reputation: 16508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.P View Post
My grandpa was born in Washington Missouri in 1939, and he said he remembers seperate bathrooms, and in the movie theater colored people could only sit in the balcony. He also said colored people weren't allowed to move off of 1st first street, and that in Hermann the city limits sign said that all black people had to be out of town by sun set. Those were days to be forgotten.
I looked those two towns up, and they are roughly due west of St. Louis, and not very far either. Amazing. I would conclude that the existence of certain phenomena was a function not only of how far north one was, but also of whether one was in a big city or a more rural area. Thanks for your informative post.

Even in St. Louis, though, schools were segregated until the Supreme Court decision, which I think was in 1954. In St. Louis, unlike some parts of the deep south, the schools were immediately desegregated without substantial resistance. I remember having black kids in my classes starting in seventh grade. I didn't think much of it, as my parents didn't make a fuss about it.

It all seems so bizarre from our present vantage point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2011, 07:52 PM
 
Location: New England
7,898 posts, read 5,834,594 times
Reputation: 10443
When I was a newlywed (and working full time) I remember reading in a women's magazine that "men create with their minds; women create with their bodies."

This was in a magazine that was supposed to be for women and yet they wrote stupid, insulting things like that. This was about 1970.
I also remember going on a job interview and being told that they didn't hire women because they decide to have kids and then they leave.

I was also told by a doctor that if I had kids, maybe I wouldn't have time to be tired. This is when I was working as a first grade teacher and a full time housewife.

It was good to be a kid way back when but to be an adult and get treated badly because you were a woman.........not so good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2011, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Heights OH
13,601 posts, read 10,684,720 times
Reputation: 13276
Quote:
Originally Posted by in new england View Post
When I was a newlywed (and working full time) I remember reading in a women's magazine that "men create with their minds; women create with their bodies."

This was in a magazine that was supposed to be for women and yet they wrote stupid, insulting things like that. This was about 1970.
I also remember going on a job interview and being told that they didn't hire women because they decide to have kids and then they leave.

I was also told by a doctor that if I had kids, maybe I wouldn't have time to be tired. This is when I was working as a first grade teacher and a full time housewife.

It was good to be a kid way back when but to be an adult and get treated badly because you were a woman.........not so good.
Ah, this was the mantra of the 50's, 60's and the early 70's. I once told an employer who mentioned that when I asked why I couldn't go farther than a secretarial position in his company (I couldn't type but had been trained as an insurance adjuster in a smaller company) that I was not going to ever have kids. He told me I would change my mind. I told him I couldn't have kids. He told me I would adopt. I told him I didn't want kids. Ever. He looked at me incredulously.

When I asked for a raise from an employer he told me that the young married women were working for "pin money" for those little extras to make their lives pretty. At the time I was the sole support of my husband and myself putting him through grad school.

Yeah, they had a whole lot of nerve. Can you imagine anyone trying that crap today? Or should I say, telling a woman that to her face?

I am so glad that the young women of today have so many better opportunities for careers.

I agree, it was great to be a kid in those years. Much better I think than today. But not a grown woman with a brain searching for a career other than nurse, teacher or secretary. Or who had to support her family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2011, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Arizona
410 posts, read 390,707 times
Reputation: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
There have always been people who just can't resist having what they can't afford. For your parents it was six children. Today it might be six vacations or six color televisions or a big house they bought a few years ago on an option ARM. But it's all irresponsible behavior.

I was an only child. Most of the children I knew were from families of two or three children. One of our neighbors was a family of eight children. But they were able to afford a full-time maid as well as a laundress. In general, however, it seemed that large families lived an unpleasant and distressed life. The adults suffered because they were overworked with the light at the end of the tunnel far away. The children suffered because of inattention, lack of personal possessions, and most because of poorer educational opportunities. So many of those people had nothing, but they could always have another child. Think how different both your life and the life of parents would have been if your parents had had a smaller family they could afford.

In those days before automatic washers and dryers were standard there were many commercial laundries offering home pickup and delivery. Everyone I knew sent out linen and large items even after they bought automatic washers and dryers. There were specialty laundries that handled diapers, again offering pickup and delivery. It wasn't until the next generation that people really started doing their own laundry.

Life is what people make of it. That was true fifty to seventy years ago; it's true today.
I have tried hard not to respond to the couple of male chauvinists who have posted on this thread, but this post is completely off the wall.

I grew up in a blue collar middle class neighborhood in Detroit during the 1950's. It was not uncommon to have families in the neighborhood consisting of 5 or 6 children. As a previous poster pointed out, these were typically Catholic families. The children all went to Catholic schools. Back in those days, tuition was free and the only additional expense to attend was the cost of the uniforms. The public schools were excellent. Being city schools, the student body consisted of students from all financial backgrounds. No one was looked down upon because of their families financial status. They educated us to either go on to college or to gain successful employment. There were special technical or business high schools that anyone could attend. So, the educational opportunites were there for everyone no matter their family finances. I had a close friend who lived in the projects that went to a downtown business high school.

As many have pointed out, it was not a good time for women to excel, nor was it a good time for racial minorities. Glad to see the progress made to correct that wrong.

We kids played outdoors from morning to night during the summer months. The typical Christmas gifts were bikes, sleds, ice skates, board games and the reasonable gender toys. No one felt deprived. As we became teenagers and wanted a car or more clothes we earned money from a paper route, doing odd jobs or babysitting. No fancy cars handed to us from our parents. My first car was a 1951 Ford that cost $50.00. Insurance rates were reasonable. As a female, I was added to my dad's policy for no extra cost.

Actually, not many people were struggling financially back in those days. The auto industry was booming and most people were working 6 days a week. Most people seemed to live within their means. Small houses, one car per family and only one black & white TV in the home. Of course, the one parent home struggled just like they do today.

To this day I do not hear anyone whining about the lack of possessions or being crowded out by their siblings during that time. In fact, most people have nothing but warm memories of growing up during the era of the 50's.

In my middle class neighborhood everyone had a ringer washing machine and no dryer. There definitely was no maid or laundry services. The babies wore cloth diapers laundered by their mothers. In fact, I used cloth diapers for my daughter who was born in 1968. Disposable diapers were availabe but too expensive for any of us new mothers to use on a daily basis.

Maybe your recollections of life in the 1950's was based upon your life in a wealthy or upper middle class family. But, your recollections are not fact of life growing up in middle class Detroit during the 1950's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 07:08 AM
 
2,130 posts, read 1,564,001 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCBaker View Post
I have tried hard not to respond to the couple of male chauvinists who have posted on this thread
Hey -- you forgot to call us "pigs." You know, "male chauvinist pigs."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,089 posts, read 3,038,248 times
Reputation: 1559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Ah, this was the mantra of the 50's, 60's and the early 70's. I once told an employer who mentioned that when I asked why I couldn't go farther than a secretarial position in his company (I couldn't type but had been trained as an insurance adjuster in a smaller company) that I was not going to ever have kids. He told me I would change my mind. I told him I couldn't have kids. He told me I would adopt. I told him I didn't want kids. Ever. He looked at me incredulously.

When I asked for a raise from an employer he told me that the young married women were working for "pin money" for those little extras to make their lives pretty. At the time I was the sole support of my husband and myself putting him through grad school.

Yeah, they had a whole lot of nerve. Can you imagine anyone trying that crap today? Or should I say, telling a woman that to her face?

I am so glad that the young women of today have so many better opportunities for careers.

I agree, it was great to be a kid in those years. Much better I think than today. But not a grown woman with a brain searching for a career other than nurse, teacher or secretary. Or who had to support her family.
My experience was similar! And successive bosses (those that harbor misogynistic traits [I was once told that I could not be the boss of a male employee, because I could not lift and carry an item weighing 400 lbs], have wondered why I became so angry at their (veiled) attitude!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Heights OH
13,601 posts, read 10,684,720 times
Reputation: 13276
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
My experience was similar! And successive bosses (those that harbor misogynistic traits [I was once told that I could not be the boss of a male employee, because I could not lift and carry an item weighing 400 lbs], have wondered why I became so angry at their (veiled) attitude!
It is almost laughable now but it certainly wasn't at the time. One place where I worked a very intelligent woman was the trainer for all the newly graduated young men to teach them about our work. The men would then be put on supervisory jobs.

I asked this woman why she didn't push to be a supervisor herself. She was very qualified, smart and everyone like her. She looked at me strangly when I asked her that question and told me "Women cannot supervisors."

She had bought into the myth that it was a "man's" job. There was just so much acceptance of this garbarage on both sides. In my experience, it wasn't until younger women with college educations started suing the companies that wouldn't hire or advance them that things began to turn around.

I had an African American woman supervisor once who told me prior to getting her supervisory job, she felt more discrimination against her being a woman than her being black.

The good old days? Not for all of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:23 PM
 
1,241 posts, read 823,173 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
We seem to be unusually interested in each other's newspaper recollections! I would like to hear more about your claim of remembering this kind of segregation in 1968, presumably appearing in the Baltimore Sun, after the civil rights legislation of 1964. Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is correct. Until then, Bunk!
Interesting thread - I'm only up to page 7 at the moment, but did want to respond to this before I forget. I did skim through to make sure nobody else had posted links.

This isn't the Baltimore Sun, it's from the Raleigh News and Observer, and is from 1968. Please note two of the jobs for women stress "white": Segregated employment ads - North Carolina Digital History

In Pittsburgh, sex-segregated newspaper want ads continued until 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled it was discriminatory:
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Heights OH
13,601 posts, read 10,684,720 times
Reputation: 13276
Here is another example of the help wanted men's jobs and women's jobs. I remember looking at these when looking for work and daring to read the "help wanted Men" section. Not that it did me any good until the mid 1970's. History is always interesting.

Advertisements:Serial and Government Publications Division
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 04:47 PM
 
1,241 posts, read 823,173 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwanderer View Post
Choices for women were very limited. I should have been an engineer (I have the mind of one), or a doctor, but was steered away from the sciences by my guidance counsellor, despite having high IQ scores. In those days, it was: nurse, secretary, teacher, housewife. I actually did work as a secretary after university until I broke into IT and got where I was intended to be, career-wise.
It's impossible for a white male who grew up in that time period to comprehend what it was like to be a female in that same time period. Not only that, it is also impossible for young women today to comprehend the same thing, they have no clue that their opportunities are there because of the brave and strong women who came before them and made it all possible.

Somebody said something earlier about conditioning - for me, it wasn't just one comment by a guidance counselor or a teacher, it was conditioning from birth on that you could not do or be certain things if you were female. I too had a high IQ, and in fact, I had the highest IQ of us kids (three brothers and me, the only girl) and I was the only one placed in the "gifted" classes. Yet I was conditioned all those years that "girls don't go to college, girls become secretaries and get married" while my brothers were encouraged to go to college and had money set aside for them for that purpose. The message I received was from my parents, teachers, and guidance counselors, and it was in our faces in pretty much everything we were exposed to - television, magazines, books, movies, everywhere you looked. I was not allowed to drive the family car when I turned 16, for the simple reason that I was a girl, yet my brothers were allowed to drive it. I have many more examples, but I'll stop there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibraGirl123 View Post
My mother was a stay-at-home Mom during the '50s and '60s. She didn't have plenty of leisure time for shopping and reading...she was too busy taking care of six kids (remember, families were a lot bigger back then) and keeping an immaculate house. Lunches for my Dad and us kids were packed every morning, a home-cooked dinner was prepared every evening. Dishes were washed by hand, as my Mom didn't get a dishwasher until the late '60s.

I don't recall when she got a dryer, but I do remember her hanging wash out on the line (including tons of cloth diapers), even in the winter. No such thing as permanent-press, so she had lots of ironing...heck, she even ironed pillowcases and my Dad's handkerchiefs. Socks were darned by hand, clothing was mended on the sewing machine.

Mom took care of paying the bills, and the checkbook was balanced to the penny. As they say, she could squeeze a nickel and have a dime pop out.

So there you have it...another view of the life of a woman who didn't head out to the workplace.
This was my mom too, although she didn't get a dishwasher until 1973. She also had to care for a disabled child. She had to beg for money for every single thing she needed for us kids, and if it was for her, she simply did without. She was the one who helped the kids with homework. My father got up in the morning, ate the breakfast my mom made for him, grabbed the lunch my mom packed for him, and when he came home, he sat down and read a book, had a drink, went swimming, sat down to the dinner that was cooked for him, watched TV, went to bed. He did no housework, no cooking, no dishes, nothing. He did nothing to take care of the children. The kids mowed the lawn and did yardwork. "A man may work from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done" absolutely applied in our house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
There have always been people who just can't resist having what they can't afford. For your parents it was six children . . . But it's all irresponsible behavior.

I was an only child. Most of the children I knew were from families of two or three children. One of our neighbors was a family of eight children . . . In general, however, it seemed that large families lived an unpleasant and distressed life. The adults suffered because they were overworked with the light at the end of the tunnel far away. The children suffered because of inattention, lack of personal possessions, and most because of poorer educational opportunities. So many of those people had nothing, but they could always have another child. Think how different both your life and the life of parents would have been if your parents had had a smaller family they could afford.

In those days before automatic washers and dryers were standard there were many commercial laundries offering home pickup and delivery. Everyone I knew sent out linen and large items even after they bought automatic washers and dryers. There were specialty laundries that handled diapers, again offering pickup and delivery. It wasn't until the next generation that people really started doing their own laundry.
Hmmm, where did you grow up exactly? Commercial laundries? Not in my neighborhood. You must have grown up in an affluent family.

We were Catholic, perhaps you aren't familiar with the Catholic church, they don't believe in birth control. Oh, wait, they did push "the rhythm method," which obviously didn't work too well. And, of course, you weren't a good Catholic wife if you didn't submit to your husband's amorous needs. Abortions were illegal, so . . . irresponsible? Really?

I had an aunt and uncle who had eight kids, they weren't even Catholic (before the Pill, remember), and although they weren't well off by any means, they were a very happy family, still are, all the kids are very close, I always envied them.

I personally wouldn't go back to those days for anything, mostly for the reasons posted here about the inequality of women and any race other than Caucasian. I also lived through a brother's cancer which he would have had a better chance of surviving today because of the advancements in medicine, not to mention all the improvements in treatment of many other diseases.

I also grew up in an extremely dysfunctional alcoholic home, with other issues that I won't go into here, and there was no place I could turn in those days because these things were taboo. There was no support of any kind available. Now all those taboo subjects can be talked about, and there is help readily available. I absolutely believe that if I had grown up from the 70s or 80s on, my life would have been much better. It would have been more fulfilling as I would have had opportunities that weren't available to women when I grew up, and I would have had access to help with my domestic problems.

And I never did like Roy Rogers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top