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.
The problem was that the quality of a woman's life was almost 100% dependent on the caliber and disposition of the man she ended up being married to.
In one sentence you summed up the most profound, life-mitigating lesson of my entire existence.
This is still true . Nothing has changed except we now have generations of women who think they can follow their heart & not their head into relationships. The implication that young women should find a man that is a "good provider" is actually considered "bad" now because it might suggest that we are saying a woman can't take care of herself.
Taking care of yourself is not the problem. Taking care of yourself never was the problem to begin with.
I bought into the feminist claptrap that as a well-educated, easily employed & financially independent woman; that I was immune to the impact of men. I could take them or leave them. I didn't need one. I could take one for a while & when he became a bore could I send him home to his mom.
I think I even said that to a guy once: "Hey; I think I hear your mom calling you in for dinner ... Bye bye!"
That's all fine & good unless you have kids. Oh, wait ... I'm not supposed to say that either because it implies that a woman can't do it all. Instead; I am supposed to spew the mantra: "Kids are incredibly resilient ...!"
My resilient kids & I did just fine while I did it all, taking care of myself & them, despite the low caliber & poor dispositions of their dads. Until my youngest became permanently disabled at age 2. So much for the education I can't use anymore.
I should have picked a better-educated man.
Anybody here ever read the posts over in the Economics forum? It's 2018 & all the rich, older, white men over there would still sneer at me if I were to post my woes & say " ... You made bad choices ...!"
And they would be right. Because I did. So I don't post my woes over there but I see it directed towards other people all the time. Usually, a single woman who was sidelined due to her own disability or that of a family member. Or sometimes a younger man who grew up hearing "we don't need you guys!", thought that he was disposable & unnecessary & made his own choices in life accordingly.
For the women that this didn't happen; that's great. You either lucked out & nothing bad happened (yet) along the way or you completely negated men &/or children from your life completely. The first possibility is dumb luck. The second possibility is great ...
... Just fine; as long as there are still some people out there having kids who will become gainfully employed so the insurance companies & banks don't close & social security doesn't run dry.
Or maybe ... you were smarter than I & you chose right, to begin with.
Feminism didn't change the fact that women still need to make good choices in men. What it did was to result in: Option 1. No kids & no man. Option 2: False Sense of Security that you will survive your choice & Option 3: Choose right from an ever-shrinking minority of "boys who grew up to be good men"; due to the ever-present mantra of feminists who told them they were never wanted nor needed.
Technically...correct. But presenting a study showing no or little difference in comparison to many other studies showing differences across the board or showing that academia stood out would be nice. It may be a "negative" but you still can't just make an unsupported statement and hide behind that.
To demand evidence is never an unsupported statement. It simply reiterates the onus of proof principle. That principle is simply that the one who makes a positive statement bears the burden of proof.
Feminists always talk about how horrible it was for women in the past. Now I am talking say 40s, 50s, 60s or so. I know there is a history forum but I would like to hear some thoughts from women who have first-hand experience. Was it really as bad as feminists say it was for women? Would you say it was Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia bad?
In some ways, sure it was. The police refused to intervene even if a husband or boyfriend was beating and raping a woman right in front of the officer because "it's a husband's right to do that to straighten her out," and if she's his girlfriend, hey, she probably asked for it. Into the 70s it was still common practice and perfectly OK for a woman to get fired as soon as she got married "because your place is at home taking care of your husband." Similarly, little girls were being blamed for "seducing" the adult men who were using them for sex.
Women smart and capable enough to be doctors and lawyers couldn't get hired anywhere because they were female, "and she'll just run off and get married as soon as we get her trained." Worse still, women's aspirations were so low that even straight-A students in exclusive college prep schools never had ambitions any higher than being a secretary -- not because she couldn't do any more challenging work, but because she BELIEVED it when she was told that.
My own aunt stopped driving as soon as she got married. He wanted her to. She did.
So, no veils or having to walk ten paces behind their husbands, but still plenty of invalidation and squelching of valuable talent.
Didn't mean anything of the kind. I thought the question was more about women who were *adults* in the 1940s and all. That's why I mentioned my own birthdate. Sheesh.
The lady born in 47 was an adult in the target years which included the 60's. So why isn't her post relevant again?
Feminism didn't change the fact that women still need to make good choices in men. What it did was to result in: Option 1. No kids & no man. Option 2: False Sense of Security that you will survive your choice & Option 3: Choose right from an ever-shrinking minority of "boys who grew up to be good men"; due to the ever-present mantra of feminists who told them they were never wanted nor needed.
Because of feminism women have a choice to get married or not, to have the career they want and there are laws to protect them from spousal abuse. I would submit that real feminists aren't anti man (yes, I'm aware of the extremists on the issue) but are pro women. Feminism (again not talking about the fringe element) isn't about putting men down, it's about equality. I'm sorry you can't see that.
But in talking about equality before the law in many areas of life, things were much worse for women. We're not talking only about work, I thought.
I was responding to the post about men dropping dead every 5 min which I included in an earlier post. And another poster questioned where are men dropping dead every 5 min. So there were two posts concerning men dying which I related to overwork. You must have missed them. While work is just one aspect, it is a very important one. My post is certainly not the only one about work in this thread.
All those things were obtainable in 1960, but they weren't standard.
You had them, which is great, but don't let that convince you that it was typical for women to have those appliances in the 40s - 60s.
As evidence, you know what a clothes line and clothes pins are. And although you can still buy clothes pins usually for craft type projects, in the 40s-60s they were a standard item at a dime store. Because families didn't have clothes driers.
I still have a clothesline and clothespins (both outside, and in the basement). Some items are best hung up to dry. Queen sized sheets are typical. They just crumple up in all but the largest commercial dryers. Nothing better than bedclothes hung out to dry in the fresh air. And they fold easier with less wrinkles.
Home Ec, was required of every female in my school.
IMHO Home Ec, and shop should be taken by everyone in HS both male, and female. I would have loved to have taken shop, and learned how to do basic building. If I had to chose between the two then I would have chosen shop. I graduated in 66, and my small Lutheran High had neither of those classes for us. We didn't even have a gym.
Those of us in the "advanced academic" program didn't take typing and shorthand in high school.
Haha - I'd say the joke is on you since they took secretaries away from everyone and we all have to do our own typing now!
My mom advised me to take typing in H.S. "to have something to fall back on" even though I was already planning on college. Little did I know how much that typing would come in handy for papers, a thesis, and all the emails and reports for the rest of my academic and working life!
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.
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.
