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.
I always wonder...if people were so fulfilled in their 1950s marriages and they were so mature and married "for the right reasons" and they "took their vows seriously" and blah blah...then why did they jump ship like rats fleeing a gas leak once no-fault began rolling out in 1969-early 70s?
'Cause in large part those WERE the people married in the 50s.
Methinks marriages and marriage expectations of the past weren't quite as fulfilling as some seem to fantasize.
And yeah, I know what the mass scream is gonna be around here. "But a big percentage of the initiators were women! So *women* weren't satisfied!"
To which I will reply...duh.
Yeah. Somebody wasn't loving it. Somebody wasn't loving it, in droves. And a large portion of that somebody appears to be the "loyal, satisfied, non-choosy" ideal woman daydreamed of rather regularly 'round these parts.
And typically, marriage takes two.
You left out something important: in the 50's, a spouse was basically a business partner for running a household, with love thrown in to hold the partnership together. Most social functions were delegated to platonic connections outside the marriage: families of origin, friends, social clubs, colleagues, etc. A man had his Elks Lodge, to talk shop and drink beers (or just talk). A woman had her knitting circle, to exchange advice and do brunches. Both partners had strong family connections to get emotional support from. And neither partner was required to abandon their single friends after settling down. People married young, but other than living with a spouse, marriage didn't turn people's lives upside down.
Today, people expect their spouse to be their be-all-and-end-all: lover, family member, best friend, confidant(e), activity partner, financial partner, emotional supporter, etc.; basically, their everything. Nobody is good at everything; and no one seems to understand that, when it comes levying expectations on their spouse. Also, people marry older, after getting accustomed to the freedom of single life for many years, yet undergo a complete lifestyle change post-marriage. Therefore, marriages are busting apart like a grocery bag full of sharp objects.
Last edited by MillennialUrbanist; 02-11-2018 at 09:30 AM..
Reverse mail order brides will be big business when China’s economy takes the dominant position. If you like “real” Chinese food and fancy a cultural and language change this could be for you.
You left out something important: in the 50's, a spouse was basically a business partner for running a household, with love thrown in to hold the partnership together. Most social functions were delegated to platonic connections outside the marriage: families of origin, friends, social clubs, colleagues, etc. A man had his Elks Lodge, to talk shop and drink beers (or just talk). A woman had her knitting circle, to exchange advice and do brunches. Both partners had strong family connections to get emotional support from. And neither partner was required to abandon their single friends after settling down. People married young, but other than living with a spouse, marriage didn't turn people's lives upside down.
.
And again...these are the people who were divorcing in droves as no fault rolled out. These happy, well ordered partners marrying in the 50s and early to mid 60s.
So obviously the situation WASN'T so ideal.
It was just expected.
The MINUTE they were freed legally to pursue divorce in a reasonably tenable way, they did. What does that tell you about how people were with their separated sedate Elks and knitting circles?
What people want "today" is what they *always* wanted, but in the distant past, weren't societally "allowed" to pursue. Today we can at least try. We fail now but we failed then too. People are now waiting a bit longer to marry, and divorce is down too. Are we ecstatic now? No. But at least we can escape a bad situation. In the past, people couldn't. They had to put up, drink, look the other way for affairs, grit their teeth a whole bunch, expect fairly little.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
You left out something important: in the 50's, a spouse was basically a business partner for running a household, with love thrown in to hold the partnership together. Most social functions were delegated to platonic connections outside the marriage: families of origin, friends, social clubs, colleagues, etc. A man had his Elks Lodge, to talk shop and drink beers (or just talk). A woman had her knitting circle, to exchange advice and do brunches. Both partners had strong family connections to get emotional support from. And neither partner was required to abandon their single friends after settling down. People married young, but other than living with a spouse, marriage didn't turn people's lives upside down. .
Lets not forget closet alcoholism was rampant and housewives were drugged to the gills (through their doctors). So very romantic!
Such counseling/coaching already exists in the USA: feminism for women, and Red Pill for men. Neither is helpful in promoting respect between sexes. In fact, they pit sexes against each other. But it's the best we got, and in this case, the best isn't good enough.
Feminism for women? You're kidding, right? No woman under 30, maybe 40 would ever admit to being a big bad feminist..."I'm for women being equal but I'd never be one of those horrible feminists". It's a badge of honor to be anti-feminist. The propaganda around feminism has been all too effective conveying that feminists are crazy extremists and aren't needed anyway.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Feminism for women? You're kidding, right? No woman under 30, maybe 40 would ever admit to being a big bad feminist..."I'm for women being equal but I'd never be one of those horrible feminists". It's a badge of honor to be anti-feminist. The propaganda around feminism has been all too effective conveying that feminists are crazy extremists and aren't needed anyway.
I don't know a woman under 40 that doesn't call themselves a feminist, honestly. Most over do as well.
You left out something important: in the 50's, a spouse was basically a business partner for running a household, with love thrown in to hold the partnership together. Most social functions were delegated to platonic connections outside the marriage: families of origin, friends, social clubs, colleagues, etc. A man had his Elks Lodge, to talk shop and drink beers (or just talk). A woman had her knitting circle, to exchange advice and do brunches. Both partners had strong family connections to get emotional support from. And neither partner was required to abandon their single friends after settling down. People married young, but other than living with a spouse, marriage didn't turn people's lives upside down.
Today, people expect their spouse to be their be-all-and-end-all: lover, family member, best friend, confidant(e), activity partner, financial partner, emotional supporter, etc.; basically, their everything. Nobody is good at everything; and no one seems to understand that, when it comes levying expectations on their spouse. Also, people marry older, after getting accustomed to the freedom of single life for many years, yet undergo a complete lifestyle change post-marriage. Therefore, marriages are busting apart like a grocery bag full of sharp objects.
The destruction of the family structure was the 1st catalyst to the decline of the West. Oh well, at least people can dress up their pets before they off themselves.
What people want "today" is what they *always* wanted, but in the distant past, weren't societally "allowed" to pursue. Today we can at least try. We fail now but we failed then too. People are now waiting a bit longer to marry, and divorce is down too. Are we ecstatic now? No. But at least we can escape a bad situation. In the past, people couldn't. They had to put up, drink, look the other way for affairs, grit their teeth a whole bunch, expect fairly little.
Meh! <shrug>
I'll take the 50's marriage over today's any day. At least back then, I wouldn't get cleaned out in a divorce. Not to mention, I'd have the ability to escape a rough environment for a few hours, to talk shop at the Elks Lodge, or waste away in Margaritaville at Moe's. Which made "putting up or shutting up" a whole lot easier. And she, in turn, could escape me at a place of her choice. While today, there's an unwritten rule that I must be joined at the hip with my wife 24/7/365. And affairs? Pfft! People cheat now more than ever (Mashley Addison [sic] comes to mind). Although if my kid looked like the milkman, or worse, the paper boy, (being childfree wasn't an option in the 50's), then I'd have a problem .
I don't know a woman under 40 that doesn't call themselves a feminist, honestly. Most over do as well.
Yeah, in my circles it's pretty much assumed. Besides, I just renewed my subscription to Bust Magazine--I'd hate to think I was supporting feminist writers for the wrong reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
Meh! <shrug>
I'll take the 50's marriage over today's any day. At least back then, I wouldn't get cleaned out in a divorce. Not to mention, I'd have the ability to escape a rough environment for a few hours, to talk shop at the Elks Lodge, or waste away in Margaritaville at Moe's. Which made "putting up or shutting up" a whole lot easier. And she, in turn, could escape me at a place of her choice. While today, there's an unwritten rule that I must be joined at the hip with my wife 24/7/365. And affairs? Pfft! People cheat now more than ever; history repeating itself in action. (Mashley Addison [sic] comes to mind.) Although if my kid looked like the milkman, or worse, the paper boy, (being childfree wasn't an option in the 50's), then I'd have a problem .
How are people having all these affairs if they're glued to the hip 24/7? You need to get your narrative straight.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
Meh! <shrug>
I'll take the 50's marriage over today's any day. At least back then, I wouldn't get cleaned out in a divorce. Not to mention, I'd have the ability to escape a rough environment for a few hours, to talk shop at the Elks Lodge, or waste away in Margaritaville at Moe's. Which made "putting up or shutting up" a whole lot easier. And she, in turn, could escape me at a place of her choice. While today, there's an unwritten rule that I must be joined at the hip with my wife 24/7/365. And affairs? Pfft! People cheat now more than ever (Mashley Addison [sic] comes to mind). Although if my kid looked like the milkman, or worse, the paper boy, (being childfree wasn't an option in the 50's), then I'd have a problem .
I'm guessing you're a white straight male. As am I. And yeah, we might have had even more control over society than we do now, but you know, it isn't and should all be about us.
And Ashley Madison was pretty much a scam, more than an effective site. Almost nothing actually came from it except making a bunch of money off of desperate horny dudes.
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.
.
