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.
If they were (?), perhaps it was because women in the 50's were often less educated and had fewer opportunities to support themselves (and their children) outside of the home. As a result, they were more dependent on their husbands. Similar attitudes prevailed in ancient times and up through the 1960's and 1970's, when women finally began to establish themselves outside of the home and thus, have more options than to simply "put up with philandering husbands."
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
What makes you think they were?
If they were, and I doubt that, it would likely be because they had no choice. They had no way to support themselves, so they just had to grin and put on a front. They were in many respects second class citizens with fewer rights and opportunities.
If they were, and I doubt that, it would likely be because they had no choice. They had no way to support themselves, so they just had to grin and put on a front. They were in many respects second class citizens with fewer rights and opportunities.
Going off tv shows and documentaries it seemed very much the norm for men to have a side piece for weekend get aways and after work romps
Because what choice did they have? Divorce made you a pariah and you couldn't get a job where you could support yourself, and if your husband wanted to retaliate for you not allowing him to be like all his buddies who were also doing the secretary, he'd just get a bunch of friends to testify that you had cheated on HIM so he could sip out of child support and alimony, and then you AND your kids would starve.
Yay, the good old days.
The choices were: be accepting of whatever a man wanted to do to humiliate you in marriage, or starve and lose every friend you'd ever had.
Location: Foothills of Maryland Blue Ridge mountains
993 posts, read 767,520 times
Reputation: 3163
First of all, why do you think wives were more accepting of infidelity in the 1950s?
I've been married 35 years and yep, I'd have a problem with him having a mistress. If he wants another woman, he can damn well hand over all the assets we worked so hard for together and start over after we divorce. No way in hell will he be spending our money on another woman. Hell hath no fury my friend
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rome2300
They make documentaries about people, all who had known mistresses in the 50s
Sure, movie stars, politicians, etc But those aren't everyday normal people living normal lives. In those situations, even more so than with normal people, there was incredible power imbalances and a woman risked everything if she tried to make an issue out of it. She had no choice.
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.
