U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue
5,706 posts, read 8,127,732 times
Reputation: 8886

Advertisements

No, because that would mean I'd have to get up to change channels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,658,574 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
I would go back without hesitation. As for missing today's technology and mindless complexity, I say phooey.

I think that even lower-middle-class women had a better deal in the 1950's than men in many ways. Furthermore, the idea posted above that everybody's family was dysfunctional is baloney -- my family was just fine. There was absolutely no familial abuse of anyone ; quite the contrary. This was the case for everyone I knew in that time period. But Blacks got a raw deal, as they historically had, and there was always the threat of nuclear war . . .
Pray tell how so? Examples please.

And regarding newspaper classifieds, they were listed under Men's jobs and Women's jobs. I know because I used them to job hunt in the 60's.

Read this please:

The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act — Infoplease.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 05:28 PM
 
2,912 posts, read 3,548,783 times
Reputation: 4103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Pray tell how so? Examples please.

And regarding newspaper classifieds, they were listed under Men's jobs and Women's jobs. I know because I used them to job hunt in the 60's.

Read this please:

The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act — Infoplease.com
Geez, Minervah - please read my posts above directed to Lenora, where I give two important examples concerning military service and the workplace, and discuss specifics of the classifieds appearing in the Baltimore Sun.

I know about the wage gap -- it is one factor among many that describe the period. Believe it or not, I think that there are other issues beyond wages and the workplace that enter into a discussion of the well lived life. It is also helpful to understand that the differences between the extremes of men's wages (and also the differences among women's wages) totally dwarf the difference between men's and women's average wages, both then and now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 07:03 PM
Status: "Support the Mining Law of 1872" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Cody, WY
9,571 posts, read 10,917,875 times
Reputation: 19200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
And don't forget that toilets were never in evidence in movies or TV until Archie Bunker came along. Guess they just had to hold it - for life!
Did that correct a defect in our society? Homer seems to have done very well without mentioning execretory functions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
Even as a child in the '50s I was disturbed at how women were treated because, as a girl, I knew that I would get the same treatment some day.
When a woman or girl entered an elevator men immediately removed their hats. When she approached a door the nearest man would open it for her. When she entered a room the men would stand until she sat down. If she needed to get up from the table in a restaurant her escort would stand. When the bill came her escort would pay. My mother told me when I was becoming interested in girls for the first time that that was why men earned more money. They were expected to honor and protect women as well as pay the expenses. It worked rather well for some thousands of years.

Married women who didn't head out to the workplace sixty years ago did not live the life of drudges. They had plenty of leisure time for shopping, reading, etc. In earlier times when they really did do hard work so too did their husbands. I find it hard to believe that the average woman today rushing to a job, to the store, to her home lives a better and happier life than the women of times past. They certainly seemed happier. I'm glad that I met my love and won her before things changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,658,574 times
Reputation: 35449
It wasn't only the wage gap. When I was married in the 70's it was my savings that allowed my then husband and I to buy a house but the bank would not allow a women to have her name on a loan even with her husband. When we divorced, I had no claim on the house and he was able to get it all.

Earlier back in the 60's, my boss threw a Christmas party at his club. The women were allowed to enter only around the back through a side door. That was humiliating.

My doctor was the only woman in her class in medical school and was treated with a lot of disdain by both male teachers and students some of whom told her she was only there to "get her man." But she never married and devoted herself to her career which was relegated to pediatrics because that was the only area where she could be accepted.

My aunt was a single mom after her husband died young. She couldn't make it on her secretary's salary even though she earned good money for that position so she moved in with her sister and together they raised my cousin.

I worked with many single moms or mothers who did not have husbands to rely on due to death of their husbands or divorce. They struggled to earn a living wage to support their kids. Their choices of good wage jobs were severely limited.

I put my spouse through graduate school. I was our only support on a "women's wage."

My mom loved being working outside the home. She was miserable being a stay at home housewife. She was happiest when she had a part-time job rather than going shopping or reading.

The point is, if women wanted to do anything other than the prescribed roles assigned to them there were many obstacles they faced that they do not have to today. I don't expect many men to understand this because they pretty much always had choices and alternatives at their disposal.

Not all women were lucky enough to be taken care of by a husband. Not all wanted to. Some were able to lead idyllic lives I am sure but there were those who had to struggle because of circumstances or the desire to be on their own.

Last edited by Minervah; 10-05-2011 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 07:41 PM
 
4,948 posts, read 16,520,958 times
Reputation: 2866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollydo View Post
Yah...HiHo Silver...and back I go to 50's!
my friend Flicka and Fury were neat also!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 08:02 PM
Status: "Support the Mining Law of 1872" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Cody, WY
9,571 posts, read 10,917,875 times
Reputation: 19200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
When I was married in the 70's it was my savings that allowed my then husband and I to buy a house but the bank would not allow a women to have her name on a loan even with her husband. When we divorced, I had no claim on the house and he was able to get it all.
My parents bought their first home in 1938. My mother's name was on both the deed and the mortgage. When my grandparents bought a home in 1927 I know that my grandmother's name was on the deed because she was the sole owner after my grandfather's death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,658,574 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
My parents bought their first home in 1938. My mother's name was on both the deed and the mortgage. When my grandparents bought a home in 1927 I know that my grandmother's name was on the deed because she was the sole owner after my grandfather's death.
It may have depended upon the state in which one lived. There was no law restricting having the wife on the deed but none of the banks we went to would allow it because they said they felt only the "primary provider" with a continuing salary could sign. They felt that was my husband.

Ironically, according to them, if I had purchased on my own as a single woman they would have given me a loan. But with a larger down payment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 08:24 PM
 
Location: zone 5
7,330 posts, read 13,232,101 times
Reputation: 9611
Yes it sure was great when a woman didn't have to worry her pretty little head about anything because the man was in charge.

10 Most Sexist Print Ads from the 1950s | Business Pundit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,216,058 times
Reputation: 6866
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!

Unfortunately I have not been able to find a link to a Sun (or News American) advertisement. If I have the opportunity to hit the State Archives, I'll be sure to find one for you. Nevertheless, you are sadly misinformed if you believe the civil rights legislation of 1964 prohibited all acts of discrimination. It did not. To help rectify this problem, Maryland passed its Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. Furthermore, it was not until 1973 that the Supreme Court issued a decision that effectively prohibited newspapers from advertising jobs limited to one sex. As an example, here's a link to a 1968 N.C. ad: Segregated employment ads - North Carolina Digital History

Also, it would be good for to you clarify the situation regarding Social Security that you mentioned above. My understanding is that housewives did indeed get SS, and still do, under the provisions of spousal benefit and survivor's benefit, subject to some "time-to-tenure" conditions for failed marriages.

In 1956, wives became eligible for spousal benefits at the age 62.
The "time-to-tenure" for failed marriages was 20 years until 1977.
Today, the average retirement check is about $1,000. Some lucky homemakers who were dumped by their husbands now receive an amount equal to 1/2 of their ex's retirement checks- about $500. Whoo Hoo! Way to go!

The central point of our disagreement, however, seems (to me) to concern the goodness of paid employment. You would seem to suggest that this was a great prize that was maliciously withheld from women in the 1950's, whereas I would claim that paid employment is a life-diminishing pain-in-the-ass (hence the interest in early retirement so often seen today) that many women were shielded from and had the option of avoiding.

The central point of our disagreement is NOT the goodness of paid employment. It is about the importance of self determination. However, money IS power. Unemployed (and underemployed) women did not have sufficient cash reserves unless their husbands provided an extraordinarily generous allowance. Most (or all ?) married women did not have credit cards. Think about this: no cash reserves, no access to credit. How would a wife escape an abusive marriage AND provide for their children? In general, she didn't. Even today, there are still many women who are financially dependent on their husbands and cannot escape.

Greeks of a philosophical nature in the time of Pericles often addressed a paid employee as "Slave." Such was the condition of men in the 1950's (and also before that, and also today), but not necessarily the condition of women in the 1950's. Therefore, in my opinion, women had a better deal in the 1950's in some ways, as I claimed earlier, and this specifically is one of those ways.

Sorry, but the appropriate analogy would be Husband and Wife becoming one, with the Husband being the One.


You may now have the last word of our chat, if you so choose.

Why, thank you. I was hoping you would give me permission to do so.

Thanks, and best regards (honestly) -- HF
Same to you. Dang. I still can't believe you were employed by Giant Food. That almost makes us family!
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top