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.
..."Idealized" as in a man and woman married with 2.5 kids, living in a detached house in the suburbs that they own, mother stays at home to care for the kids and home, college educated, dad works 40 hours a week and keeps the bank account in positive numbers and both work to make home as nuturing and pleasant as possible for the kids. Remember, I'm saying "idealized"... not what really happens on the ground. It is the way people aspired to live.
Lifestyle ideals evolve in every culture, and although they change over time, a certain mental picture evolves as to what constitues "the good life" in a given culture. For us, the above stereotypical picture has been "it" for several decades.
Does it still appy? Why or why not? Is it even a healthy aspiration? Should we focus more on trying to obtain it in greater numbers or abandon it all together? If not, what (if anything) has replaced it?
Well, the people that still idealize that lifestyle and achieve it can still go ahead.
It's just that it's taken for granted that that's not the only lifestyle that's acceptable. People have become more tolerant of more arrangements of family/living styles and roles. They can still try for the "old-fashioned lifestyle", but it doesn't stop those who think another way is fine.
I don't think it has changed in theory, but certain points have evolved...such as most women being happy to stay home. Each generation adds their part and rubs out other parts. They each need to find their own balance between dreams and realities.
Part of the economic problems we are facing today is the generation after the baby boomers feeling they had to surpass the dreams of their parents without taking into consideration the reality of what they could make possible and hold on to.
This is why passing along aspirations really isn't fair to our kids. They deserve the right to choose their own path and build their own dreams.
Isee more peopel living what even in the 50's americans couldn't imagine .being 63 :I remmeberwhat they 50's were rally likie. People just wanted a roof over their heads and did have choice available today. Allit takes is lookig at old pictures to see that they were feed but not fattened to the extent of today.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,461,442 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Humpalot
Yes it is valid. Having a parent home with the kids is good for the kids. The tax system supports one income families. Having one parent support the mortgage (as opposed to two) is good because the other spouse is a potential backup earner should the primary earner lose his job.
But aside from whether the Ozzie & Harriet model, with a house in the 'burbs is still the "ideal" (and a fairly recent one at that, having started in the 50's), the defining reality these days is that the "system" really requires (at least) 2 incomes now, meaning there's little or no "backup" anymore. And why today's mortgage's so often go into default as soon as even one "half" loses their job.
It's harder to achieve today and even when it was attainable, a lot of women were not content to stay home.
It's what I had growing up in the '50s and I don't remember the women being very happy with it. Women were bored or felt devalued and left out of the bigger world. I can remember not respecting my mother until years later when she finally got out of the house and got a part time job. There just isn't much respect for housework.
It's so confusing today though, so many choices. If the workplace operated differently so that women could have meaningful part time jobs and also stay home part time with the kids, I think that would be pretty good. No one should be trapped in the home full time--I don't think that's good for anyone.
This generation that has outspent their credit cards and taken on mortgages that they can't afford and travel for expensive vacations--if all of that is really true -- then they are no role model for anyone. If the next generation could pare it down and just buy what they need and be frugal, with one person working full time and the other part time, that would be a good life.
But it won't work if they act like these people I keep reading about who hop on planes all the time for vacations that they put on a credit card, and spoil their children with expensive toys, buy huge houses that are way bigger than they need, show off with new cars that they can't afford, and spend fortunes on clothing and jewelry.
But aside from whether the Ozzie & Harriet model, with a house in the 'burbs is still the "ideal" (and a fairly recent one at that, having started in the 50's), the defining reality these days is that the "system" really requires (at least) 2 incomes now, meaning there's little or no "backup" anymore. And why today's mortgage's so often go into default as soon as even one "half" loses their job.
I bolded the word "requires" in your post because I don't quite see it that way. Maybe we should say that the system as it has evolved since the 50's requires two incomes. Consider this: Our standards have risen since the 50's. Our family pretty much lived the ideal, with a stay-at-home mother, summer trips in the car, college expectations for us two kids. But we had one car, and it was a modest one. We lived (four of us) in a two-bedroom, one bath house until I was 14 in 1958. Going out to eat as a family was a rare thing unless we were on the road. And no, we were not poverty-stricken - that's how middle class people lived then. There were no credit cards, or at least I hadn't heard of such a thing. Many people can still cut back a bit today, even if not exactly to the level I described, and live on one income. It depends on how much you care about keeping up with the Joneses.
I think it is simply case most women do not want to stay at home. They much rather have meaning full career, climb the cooperate ladder and even become CEOs. Being a housewife to most people isn't worth much. In fact, many men want their wives working and pulling in their own money. There for the idealized lifestyle with only a working father is dead, very dead today.
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.
