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.
For everyone else, today is better. How many divorced women today would be beaten and trapped 60 years ago? Two water collers based on color? Better watch which part of the bus you sit in.
A college educated woman was , at most, a secretary.same as she'd be without school, and in both cases, she better be pretty and willing to do whatever her boss wants..no matter how inappropriate.
I fully understand why uneducated white men would long for the 50s, as they were granted advantages they did NOT deserve to have.
What you are saying is true. And sometimes, some White males didn't have it so good, but not because of race.
Whites from Appalachia had it hard in the 50s. Many went to northern cities to find jobs because of hard times in Appalachia. Appalachian Whites in Chicago were hated, and so were Blacks. One major difference is that when it came to Appalachian Whites, no one could tell a White person from Kentucky from a White person from Chicago except for
1) Accent
2) Apparel
If you were not a White male who was part of the conformist mainstream, you were basically shut out of alot of things. One difference between being a White male from Kentucky and a Black male who was born and raised in Chicago was this: if a White Kentuckian lost his accent and conformed to Midwestern standards, he could blend in and would be given all kinds of opportunities. It came at a price. As for a Black man, he would always be identified by his skin color and treated accordingly.
And with women, there were some women who did have jobs as teachers, and some other professions, but generally, I can understand what the point would be. Women generally had it harder in the workplace. The workplace was generally a place that was considered a "male domain". Women were encouraged to be nurses, not doctors.
I agree with the observation that general life started getting worse after John Kennedy was killed. That act put all of the subsequent politicians on notice what would happen if they crossed the real "powers" that actually run the country.
That was when we really started to capitalism for the poor and working people and selected socialism for the rich and connected. We are now reaping the harvest of an out of control military/industrial./financial/agricultural cabal running the system for their profit at our costs. Why do you think we are in a Forever War?
I've thought about this before. If one was to do his/her homework, what is it about all subsequent presidents after Kennedy that seem very similar? Just off the top of my head, they seldom ever do what is right for the people as a whole, very seldom. But do what is right by very narrow special interests. Just this very thought provokes one to look deeper into what is really going on. It seems these presidents are following a script. It appears presidents before Kennedy were much more varied. I've often thought that when a president is elected, he is then led into a special meeting in which he leaves a much different man.
I've thought about this before. If one was to do his/her homework, what is it about all subsequent presidents after Kennedy that seem very similar? Just off the top of my head, they seldom ever do what is right for the people as a whole, very seldom. But do what is right by very narrow special interests. Just this very thought provokes one to look deeper into what is really going on. It seems these presidents are following a script. It appears presidents before Kennedy were much more varied. I've often thought that when a president is elected, he is then led into a special meeting in which he leaves a much different man.
Oh, yeah, when Obama approved credit default swaps, it was clear that there were pod spores in the Oval Office.
The only conspiracy theory I buy off on is that there is a relatively small number of extremely wealthy people (a magnitude more wealthy than Romney...he might have seen some of them from a distance) who are really running the world economy and most of its politics. They don't form any organized group, per se (such people are not group-oriented individuals) but they all know what their common interests are and always cause political decisions to be made in accordance with their common interests.
I was born in 1950. I think the 50's and 60's were the best time to be a kid. My sister and I had a lot of freedom. . We were outside playing the whole time. I don't think I could survived being fussed about and micromanaged like kids are today.For example, mom didn't dance around the table trying to get us to eat. If we didn't eat, we didn't eat.
I am from 1960 and looking back on the adults of that time in my street and at school they were unhappy but sort of accepted what they had/ how their life was.
I am sure it had started to change well before that but I started noticing the change in society in the late 60's. We lost our innocence in about 1967 and it hasn't looked back. Before then it was a much more peaceful environment. We didn't have as much but we sure did appreciate all that we had. The main thing we had was less micromanagement.
I am from 1960 and looking back on the adults of that time in my street and at school they were unhappy but sort of accepted what they had/ how their life was.
I believe that is the difference between then and now. In those days, if one was not happy with their prescribed role/the way things were, there was less likelihood of expressing it/complaining about it. Nowadays, many people(starting from the mid 1960s) are more willing to express their unhappiness.
I watched a video about people living in the Transylvania region of Romania. A woman talked about living under Ceaucescu vs now. According to her, during the Communist period, people were standing in line for bread, and if they had a problem with it, they were afraid to even whisper for fear that the authorities would hear. Now, one can shout about their disappointment. Basically, according to this woman, times are hard now, but at least now, there is more freedom.
I think that is the difference between the 50s vs now. One does not have to be afraid to speak up. Some say women are more unhappy now that before. I say women are more likely to express their unhappiness and own up to it. I would say women were probably unhappy in the 50s, but kept quiet about it, learning to be happy with "their place".
I am sure it had started to change well before that but I started noticing the change in society in the late 60's. We lost our innocence in about 1967 and it hasn't looked back. Before then it was a much more peaceful environment. We didn't have as much but we sure did appreciate all that we had. The main thing we had was less micromanagement.
The way I describe the 60s is like this: Everything that was in the dark in the 50s, came to the light in the 60s. If there was an innocence in the 50s, it came from many things being kept in the dark.
Reading Anne Moody's "Coming of Age in Mississippi." Seems like the 40's and 50's kinda sucked.
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.
Were people much happier in the 1950s and 1960s?
