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.
Freedom to be irresponsible isn't the key to anyone's happiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
Never said it was.
"Lots of men today seem pretty dissatisfied with their lives, despite having far less responsibility and far more freedom than previous generations of men (most women today work outside the home and contribute to the family income, and people get married significantly later than in the 1950s, which means men aren't "tied down" at early ages as most were decades ago).
Yet, are men any happier today than men in the 1950s? I remain skeptical..."
Me as a child of the 50's having a stay at home mom, she did cook from scratch, most of the time, so I got that. and I got the benefit of being able to be raised by my mom and not daycare like is common nowadays. Eating home made - made from scratch food - is so much more delicious than the microwaved stuff I tend to make.. I wish I had learned how to bake pies, a turkey, and a roast and some other fancy food. I do make a few things but I wish I had learned to appreciate it more. My grandma really made all the good homemade Polish food but I was a picky eater so I missed that opportunity to enjoy cooking more.
A person above posted that the housewife of the 1950's got to have all her chores done by an earlier time of day, so she got to sit down and enjoy her evening. This was true for me. My mom did the laundry, cooking, etc by 5:00 and so we got to enjoy dinner together.
however, I know my mom put up with some things because she felt she had to and it was not enjoyable im sure. she was too afraid to be on her own and divorce was a huge scarlet letter.
We had the same scenario with dinner on the table and eating together, although my Dad was often absent due to late sales calls. My Mom would have been mortified to have "help" (not that my Dad would have paid for it anyway) or to watch afternoon shows. She had chores for every day in the week, and during the summer I got to participate. I learned how to do laundry, clean, cook, iron, and shop from her though, so I benefited. Once I was in junior high school, my Mom did get sick and tired of having to ask for money from my Dad for every little thing, so she started working part-time at a local department store. She eventually saved enough to buy her own car which she really treasured. She was so proud of being able to earn even a little money of her own that she didn't have to account for either! It made a BIG impression on me such that I made sure never to be totally financially dependent on another, even when married.
Lol. Let’s be real. Men have not changed - some are good and some are arseholes. The 50’s or in 2020 - but the many laws are in our favor now. Hopefully the newer generations are now more in tune with what all of us need to be happy - not just themselves. We not at 100%. But I do see many men pushing baby carriages or at the school bus and food shopping at the grocery stores grabbing kids hands before the kid topples all the stacked cereal boxes.
In the 50’s men were shunned and ridiculed for helping out unless she was having triplets. Or if she made more money It’s better now. Not 100%
The expectations at that time, generaly, were still that a woman's worth was measured in her ability to marry and raise children. It was very hard - but not impossible - for a woman to gain professional credentials as a doctor, accountant, lawyer or what have you. Women were still expected to limit themselves to teaching, nursing and other professionas deemed "suitable". So from that perspective, yes, they were worse than the currect situation. And just to be clear, for me, it's about choice. If someone shooses to stay home to raise children, etc., that is 100% fine. But in the 50s if a woman elected to buck that trend, it wasn't exact;y easy to break out of that mold if that os where her talents led her.v We still have work to do now, but we have mde progress.
Well, no. In the United States women actually are in a better position than men these days. They are considered part of the "diverse" workforce, they are eligible for more scholarships. There are grant-funded programs EVERYWHERE for girls to be exposed to and learn science. More women go to college than men. More women have college degrees than men.
Women have more opportunities than men. Girls have more opportunities than boys.
If you want *more progress*, you would have to eliminate men and boys from the United States. Anyone who truly believes women have it *bad* in the US, or women need *more rights* should go visit a country where women are actually oppressed. Then come back and compare.
I'm comparing it to the 50s - with women with two small children at home - with today, with women working full-time jobs and STILL coming home to small children, and their needs.
Also, I am comparing middle-class today to middle-class from the 50s:
1) Middle class now: In order to afford a nice house, the wife must work a full-time job, pick her kids up from day care by 5:30 p.m., then perhaps stop off at the grocery store (by now it's 6 p.m.), then make dinner (starts at 6:30 p.m. with dinner at 7 p.m. if she's fast), and then afterwards put a couple of loads in the wash. Finally 9:30 p.m. before she can sit down for an hour of TV.
2) Middle class then: Husband earns enough alone to afford a nice house, wife does grocery shopping at 11:00 a.m. while kids are at school, does the couple of loads of laundry at 2 p.m., and gets dinner started at 5 p.m., ready for hubby when he walks in the door at 6 p.m. After washing the dishes by hand (with the kids drying), it's now 7:30 p.m. and the evening ahead is free, with no early wake-up at 6:30 a.m. for work the next day.
No question that middle-class women in the 50s had it easier.
Where is the husband in scenario 1? Can't he pick up groceries, or the kids? Can he not work the stove or the washer?
It would seem that if both are working full time jobs then they should be splitting the house work and child care too.
We had the same scenario with dinner on the table and eating together, although my Dad was often absent due to late sales calls. My Mom would have been mortified to have "help" (not that my Dad would have paid for it anyway) or to watch afternoon shows. She had chores for every day in the week, and during the summer I got to participate. I learned how to do laundry, clean, cook, iron, and shop from her though, so I benefited. Once I was in junior high school, my Mom did get sick and tired of having to ask for money from my Dad for every little thing, so she started working part-time at a local department store. She eventually saved enough to buy her own car which she really treasured. She was so proud of being able to earn even a little money of her own that she didn't have to account for either! It made a BIG impression on me such that I made sure never to be totally financially dependent on another, even when married.
Ohhh you reminded me ! I no longer had to give account of how much I spent on that dress !! Or hide it and say oh that old thing my sister gave it to me 3 years ago -lol ! Not only economically underfoot - mentally too - obey and report. Let’s be real - some husbands are a charm - sweet and humble - but in those times especially- they were supposed to be leaders and in control of their homes - per the Bible too. I think this is why the older boomers are such control freaks today. That upbringing still around.
You would think so, but study after study has shown that the majority of the house chores still fall to the wife, even when she has a full-time job.
As does most of the child care, but that is changing. Lots of Dads are way too involved with their infants and toddlers. Now where is my Scotch and cigar?
Anecdotes aside, let's look at what laws were in place in the 1950's that affected women.
In the 1950's it was legal:
To refuse to hire a woman for a job, solely because she was a woman
To pay a woman less than a man for the same job
To deny a woman a bank account or credit card in her own name
To exclude women from juries
To refuse to rent an apartment to a woman solely because she was a woman
For public schools to refuse to offer girls sports, or provide less funding for girls sports
Married women could not freely access contraception, and a woman could not file for divorce without a "reason". What reasons courts would accept varied. In New York, beatings were acceptable grounds for divorce, if the woman could prove there were a sufficient number of them. In theory, "wife beating" was banned in the 1920's but it was not until the mid 70's that all 50 states allowed a woman to bring criminal charges against her husband for assault. Marital rape was not a crime in the 1950's.
So I guess as long as you were a woman who didn't want or need to work, didn't want or need a bank account, didn't want or need birth control, was fortunate enough to be married to a man you liked, who didn't rape or beat you, sure the 1950's were peachy keen.
All of that also applied to earlier decades.
Also, many women were probably glad they were not required to do jury duty! Look how many people today try to get out of it.
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.
It’s better now. Not 100%
