U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2018, 02:44 PM
 
Location: North America
3,682 posts, read 1,391,594 times
Reputation: 15424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Griz View Post
....How did the gov't make it difficult to get divorced??????

I got married in 1954 and my late wife and I were going into our 52nd year of marriage when she passed away from cancer.......
I did have some friends that got divorced in the 1950s, and there was no gov't intervention in the proceedings........
Please elaborate on your statement........
By forcing people to justify their divorces, and if they were unable to justify them then they government would refuse to grant them.

Prior to the widespread enaction of no-fault divorce laws, divorce would only be granted if one party to a marriage could demonstrate a justifiable reason for getting a divorce. Who determined what justified a divorce? The government. Though it varied by jurisdiction, common acceptable justifications were adultery, cruelty, abandonment, denial of affection, and so forth. And it wasn't merely a matter of citing one of these justifications: in court, a person had to provide compelling evidence of such to the state, which opposed divorce. See, at the time the concept was divorce was not a private, personal decision but that the state had an interest in seeing marriages continue. Oh, and divorce was only granted if one but not both parties to a marriage were guilty of one of the justifying offenses. For example, if both husband and wife had been infidelious, then the divorce would not be granted. And if two people simply decided that they no longer wished to be married to each other? Too bad. The government knew better what was good for them.

The fact that you know people who were divorced is irrelevant to what I stated, which was not that that divorce was impossible to obtain. It could be obtained, as cited above. And, of course, if the divorce was consensual, both parties could conspire to obtain a divorce through saying the right things, so long as they were convincing. Also, there was Nevada, where people went to get divorced because Nevada's policy was to accept unconditionally a petitioner's word as to justifiable grounds. Of course, the fact that this was only available to Nevada residents, and that residency required six months in-state to establish, made it problematic. It was limited to the wealthy, and generally only wealthy men as marriage laws at the time were significantly biased against women when it come to common finances and they would rarely have the means to go to Nevada for such a duration.

The first state to implement no-fault divorces was California in 1969, signed into law by Governor Reagan. Other states followed suit in the 1970s. Today, 47 states allow unilateral no-fault divorces, requiring only one party's consent.

Essentially, the difference between the 1950s and today regarding relationships is that today the law allows the individual to control when to terminate a marriage, not the state. Also, since then we've seen the elimination of bans on interracial and same-sex marriages. Cohabitation laws have fallen, as have laws more generally banning premarital sex and homosexual sex. Again, the trend is that the individual, not the government, is best suited to determine the details of that individual's relationships.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2021, 12:37 AM
 
4 posts, read 887 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI View Post
People ARE fatter now....100% on that....the other stuff not as sure
No, people are not. BMI was invented in the 60s, and the threshold for what was considered "obese" was lowered in the mid-90s. Have you even seen an obesity survey from the 50s? Oh, that's right, you didn't, you just circle jerk about obesity statistics today when BMI didn't even exist as a survey method in the 1950s.

It really is fascinating how obsessed people are with talking about obesity - and in such obnoxiously broad, generalized, nasty ways. You see people talk and talk and talk about it day in, day out. It's like the world is feverishly trying to convince themselves of things that they know they can't visually prove to be the case. It seems like some kind of obsessive "i'm special" pat on the back. It's definitely fat people trying to make themselves feel normal or normal weight people trying to make themselves feel special.

The "obesity" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It perpetuates via confirmation bias. Because everyone wants to impugn that everyone but them is "fat".

"But x percent of people are fat!!!"

Says your "study", that uses an indirect form of measurement that didn't exist in the 50s, that declares certain people "overweight" and "obese", when said people would not have been considered as such in the 1950s...

People don't want to do the very simple cross-references needed to debunk BMI-based obesity epidemiology, nor do they want to do the proper research on the matter, and they do not so much as glance at methodology for surveys they access - BMI is not actually an indicator of who is unhealthily "fat" in a population. Most athletes on any given high school or college sports team have "overweight" and "obese" BMI's in the year of our lord 2021 - this is what you're saying when you impugn that "people are fatter nowadays", you do realize that, right? But you're damn right people need to cling to it and nationalize it in really racist ways - how else will they strip America of the sex appeal it's pop culture built up for it throughout the 20th century?

The interesting thing about this is that, via the indirect method of "obesity" survey, the inconsistent terminology, the lack of properly standardized survey methods for ascertaining it, accurately, across populations and ethnic groups, the often tucked-away methodology information, the poor correlation it has with actual data on societal fitness and health, etc, means that the obesity statistics are mostly sheer nonsense perpetuated by confirmation bias - all of the previous issues are purposeful, or not corrected for, in an attempt to shelter the "BMI-obesity" data sets from forceful criticism and deconstruction. They exist, in the United States, as insurance scams. Or that is why health insurance companies charge you exorbitant premiums if you fall across a magical line that declares a suspicious amount of people overweight or fat. You notice that anyone in an online forum that you mention this to has an obsessive, die-on-the-hill approach to post-modern obesity data that isn't seen for any other kind of social issue. "It's true, it's true, it's true, because I see a lot of fat people and all these tabloids said so in the late 90s because the WHO aggregated 'obesity surveys' from all of these countries and...well...idk, you're just wrong! Fatty! Skinny people don't exist anymore! We all fat! Trump? Fat! George Clooney! Slightly less fat but still obese! Your grandmother that I can't see? A fat 2020s-era individual who is definitely fat because this data said this amount of people DEF have to be fat! Fatty!"

The communities that perpetuate it really only have the argument "but look at this percentage from this one source that has only ever produced them for this particular issue in this indirect way, and it's 100% accurate, and can easily be used to generalize and compare across all ethnic groups, sub-regions, nations, and the entire world, because, I mean, look around you, don't YOU think everyone is fat? Everyone is fat. EVERYONE is fat. Most everyone is fat. You're fat. I'm fat. We're all fat. Because the holy data source says so. Skinny people will be extinct by 2025. Sports will cease to exist. Everyone obviously thinks that being a morbid, scooter riding fatso is toootallly normal, and we will worship them as movie stars and the ultimate standard in model-esque beauty, that's definitely why we're talking about morbidly obese people all the time like they're so weird. Periodt, sis."

Last edited by blanketban; 05-09-2021 at 01:07 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 05:06 AM
 
2,428 posts, read 1,023,630 times
Reputation: 3528
We do immense amounts of food today. Even the standard dinner plate is larger. In the 1950's a dinner plate was about 9"; now they are moving up into the 12" range. Food Art: The History of Plate Sizes
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 06:53 AM
 
1,140 posts, read 488,261 times
Reputation: 2300
They probably would want to go back to they're own time.

Hopefully they would write about what is going on as a warning.

But! It wouldn't work because people are trying to erase history.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 07:08 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
21,631 posts, read 22,778,586 times
Reputation: 18049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanGuitarist View Post
They probably would want to go back to they're own time.

Hopefully they would write about what is going on as a warning.

But! It wouldn't work because people are trying to erase history.
Everybody is nostalgic for the time they grew up in.

Children coming of age today will be saying the same thing about the 2020s in fifty years.

“We used to live in big houses, watch big screen TVs with hundreds of channels, ride in SUVs, zoom with our schools, and play games on things called iPads and iPhones. Man, those were the days ...”
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 07:37 AM
 
5,750 posts, read 5,248,250 times
Reputation: 4999
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.” - James Russell Lowell
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 08:15 AM
 
170 posts, read 36,627 times
Reputation: 642
It's a fair bet that a typical person from the 1880s would be as appalled by the 1950s as the typical person from the 1950s would be appalled by the 2020s. The same would likely hold for someone from the 1810s looking seven decades forward. And so forth. The history of humanity is one in which people have long embraced a glorified 'golden age' that was usually a couple of generations previous,

But it would probably vary quite a bit depending on one's demographic profile (sex, race, religion, orientation, and so forth).

I think people tend to assume that people from the past would properly share their dislikes of modern society and culture, In reality, they would probably dislike a whole lot more. For example, someone from 1951 might flip on a radio from 2021 (thought it might take them awhile to figure out how to do so) and be appalled by what they heard. But they'd be appalled by music that was 30, 40, 50 and more years old, music that even your average gray-haired curmudgeon in 2021 probably fondly recalls from their youth. They'd be appalled by what's on television, but that includes decades-old reruns. The Mary Tyler Moore Show would seem salacious to them. Police shows that were 'gritty' in the 1970s would be beyond the pale, even though most people alive today cannot find anything to be bothered in them. Even commercials would astound. Ads for feminine hygiene products? Or medication for erectile dysfunction? Not to mention the depiction of an interracial couple. ("Good Lord, they're supposed to be married? But... but... he's black and she's... white!") People from the 1950s would walk into a modern bookstore and wonder why on Earth the government was allowing many of the books even to be sold, and even aside from that how the bookstore was not being boycotted and threatened into fiscal oblivion. They'd wonder why girls were allowed to attend schools wearing pants, and why they were allowed to wear shorts/dresses/skirts that 'provocatively' showed their knees. Personal appearance in general would upset a lot of them. Where was the conformity, enforced by social disapprobation, they would wonder. They might wander into a coffee shop and be baffled that the server would be employed despite having a visible arm tattoo. If they found their way into a Fortune 500 office and looked around - at women in leadership positions, the minorities, diversity in appearance - they would marvel that it was allowed. And about the time they heard a man say 'my husband' or a woman say 'my wife' it might be time to pull out the smelling salts.

In the other direction, there would be restrictions. Why would they have to submit an ID to take a flight? ("Hey, stewardess, where are the ashtrays? What? No, I won't put it out!") "Why all the concern whether or not I've had just three or four drinks before I drive home?" "What's 'sexual harassment'? All I did was cop a quick feel." "What's a 'background check'? And why do you want me to urinate in this cup before I can work here?" "What do you mean 'toxic waste'? It's my property, and I can dump anything I want here!" "So the teacher can't whip my kid? But sometimes he needs a whippin'!"

Technology would be more welcome. The creature comforts of a car, for example, would be impressive. The ergonomic seats, the climate control, the exceptional sound, the smoothness of the ride. On the other hand, the vast array of digital controls would be hard to figure out. A similar dynamic would be at play for many other technological advancements.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 09:23 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
21,631 posts, read 22,778,586 times
Reputation: 18049
Most of the world outside of the United States was in terrible shape in the 1950s.

Ravaged by war or filled with poverty, hunger and disease. Even Japan was a borderline third world country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2021, 02:06 PM
 
637 posts, read 274,047 times
Reputation: 1119
A number of years ago, I read a book which was written by a woman who came of age in the 1950s. The title is "Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen." Its author is Alix Kates Shulman.

She characterized the 1950s as 'conformist, prosperity driven, and communism obsessed.'
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2021, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Ohio
6,689 posts, read 2,581,552 times
Reputation: 6595
One of the first amazements might be that the USA had not been pulled into a worldwide conflict since 1945. Yes we had some police and regional actions along the way, but nothing even remotely close to the vast devastation of WWII.

The next amazement might be that one of the reasons for this was due to the very weapons that in the 50's and 60's people feared would destroy the planet. They are one of the reasons why large scale warfare has become less common - since no one anywhere wants to risk inciting a nuclear war. For 76 years we've not deployed one in anger. Today even the most avaricious leader understands that pushing the button is suicide.

The next amazement would be that many of the age-old health problems like like heart disease, and even many cancers are not the instant death knell they once were. It is easy to forget that the medicines and surgical procedures of the 21st century are nothing more or less than modern miracles.

One of the big shocks especially here in the USA would be how FAT everyone is. Back in the 50's, Jackie Gleason was surely a standout and considered to be very corpulent - whereas today, he wouldn't stand out in any way.

Just a few in a long list of incomprehensible changes over the last 70 years.
Rate this post positively 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

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 > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top