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.
Since Mr. Forbish seems to feel that only feminist propagandists, or women from poor families feel as we do, perhaps he should speak to women of his own class and quality that he knows in real life, whose opinion he respects, if there are such women. It might enlighten him to hear their opinion of the treatment of women in the 50's and 60's.
There are, and I have, and, believe it or not, they disagree with you (how dare they?!!).
I'm not sure that alcoholism is a big "elephant" in this room. Yes, it was a problem in many families, but there was plenty of dysfunction going around that didn't involve alcohol.
I agree completely -- Dysfunction is the elephant, not necessarily caused by alcohol.
I'm not posting this link to refute any particular point. I bumped into this article and found it interesting. It's a 1971 Time article about the rapidly increasing numbers of women in the workplace.
This is attributed to changes in laws, men's "willingness" to have their wives work, economic factors, and yes "Women's Lib".
My comment is not intended to try to refute anything either. But the post above reminded me of a very good book concerning (in part) the influx of women into the workplace. The title is, IIRC, The Two Income Trap, or something like that, by Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth is, of course, a woman, and a person I respect enormously! She is now running for Senator from Massachusetts, and I would be proud to vote for her without a moment's hesitation if I could.
This is the elephant in the room, which may explain a lot of the posts in this thread. Also, there is another elephant here -- social class. My original post, which seems to have prompted a lot of righteous indignation from feminists, was limited to experiences of people who were "at least lower-middle class." Those who fell below that threshold have always had a hard time (both men and women), and probably always will.
Could you explain this a little more? It appears that you are saying that I and my family "fell below that threshold?" I just would like to have you clarify if that is what you meant to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
I agree completely -- Dysfunction is the elephant, not necessarily caused by alcohol.
Here it appears you are saying that, because I grew up in a dysfunctional home, that is the reason for my being treated as I described, rather than it being how society as a whole treated women during that time period. Is that what you are saying here?
No. Not unless you beg. And maybe not even then. My lips are probably sealed, at least for a while. That's the situation when elephants come into the room.
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 10-12-2011 at 06:51 PM..
No. Not unless you beg. And maybe not even then. My lips are probably sealed, at least for a while. That's the situation when elephants come into the room.
I have to say I am not understanding you either. You stated all groups had some type of discrimination well no one said they didn't. But as women who were discriminated against, some of us here are telling our experiences; we cannot speak for others.
Then you said it was the lower middle classes who were discriminated against but my example of the woman doctor is an upper middle class example of discrimination toward women. It was all women in one form or another.
It had nothing to do with dysfunctional upbringing. In fact my father was very encouraging of his daughters to reach their full potential. We were a blue collar working class family; no alcohol or elephants.
I can understand how some people would like to go back to the 50's and 60's. That's one thing. It really is bizarre to think someone doesn't believe there was across the board discrimination against women. Even with selective memory, there is so much factual documentation out there it just doesn't make sense. It's like believing the moon landing was faked.
Amazing how this has all turned into - first - a racial discrimination discussion and - second - a women's equality discussion. How too bad!
I don't think that anyone with the least bit of cognition would dispute the fact that "them thar days" were fraught with what, nowadays, would be significant social issues revolving around equal rights. Point taken, given and hopefully laid to rest. We dealt with them, or not, to the extent that they were a part of the general "consciousness" of those times. We didn't know any better.
Now then, moving back to the original question posed (would you go back), those were also simpler, safer and likely more satisfying times than most experience now or ever have. Graffiti and gangs were inner-city anomalies as portrayed in West Side Story. Drive-bys and car-jackings were unheard of. Drug cartels - wazzat?, etc. For all their "hidden" faults, the Beaver Cleavers were alive and well. Corporate America still felt and displayed some sense of responsibility for and loyalty to its workers and that loyalty was returned full measure.
I don't care how the "modern", the "youngsters" and the uninitiated care to portray them, those were good times in the overall scheme of things and should be remembered, cherished and not derided or buried under the tombstone of political correctness. If you missed them, in the vernacular of my times, "Sorry about that!"
Last edited by Curmudgeon; 10-13-2011 at 02:51 AM..
I think that even lower-middle-class women had a better deal in the 1950's than men in many ways.
The feminists might want to actually read my post before putting words in my mouth, so I quoted it above. The point is not that women faced discrimination (as did men), or not. Rather, the point is that women of the 1950's (of at least lower-middle-class status) also had certain advantages, which have now gone away. Thus my comment responded to the OP about the advantages of returning to that earlier era.
Also, please check the dictionary on the term "feminist." Mine (Webster) says nothing to indicate any disrespect. Further, check the definition of lower-middle class according to Wiki, which is a technical term that does not include the "working class."
Sorry, but I do not accept the idea of victimhood for women of the 1950s of at least lower-middle-class status; they had a better deal in the 1950's than men in many ways, including exclusion from the draft and often the option of not participating in the workforce, as I mentioned above.
As for faking the moon shot, feel free to be as insulting as you can, within the limits of your ability.
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 10-13-2011 at 04:22 AM..
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.
