Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[SirJosephPorter]

Now I understand you better. You base your opinions on television.

And why not? Television reflects the society most of the time. Even when it is science Fiction. For instance, when you have time, look at some of the reruns of Star Trek. The morality espoused in Star Trek is the white, middle class morality of USA in the 50s.

In fact, compare the two comedies, Lucy (where husband and wife slept in separate beds) and Friends. Why do you think they are so much different? Does it have anything to do with the society in which they were produced? Or do you think they were produced in a vacuum?

 

[TenPenny]

the society in which they were produced

You've hit the nail on the head.
Someday, you'll understand it.

Until then, old chum, keep a stiff upper lip. Don't let the side down.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You've hit the nail on the head.
Someday, you'll understand it.

Until then, old chum, keep a stiff upper lip. Don't let the side down.

OK, so we are both agreed that Mrs. Cunningham and Lucy represent typical women of the 50s. Intelligent, articulate, capable, smart, yet relegated to the housewife role by the society.

Glad we agree on something.

 

[lone wolf]

You are right. I didn't look it up. I knew the French got their ass kicked in the mid-fifties and I thought the Americans were in there shortly afterwards. I remember people pouring gas over their bodies and burning themselves in public over that bloody war.

Oh, Americans were there, alright - in their "advisory" capacity - both as the OSS in coaching Uncle Ho's people in ousting the colonialist French then, after 1949, urging on the South against Ho and his new Commie buddies. Really, I doubt if anyone will ever know the real truth.

 

[talloola]

As I said, it was much better for white males, ironsides. Anybody else was out of luck. A woman with ambition could go to nursing course and become a nurse, but that is it.
That is a false and ridiculous statement, women had many choices, but no as many
women made as many choices as they do today, society slowly changed as the
years went by, and women caught on and moved into many more avenues of
employment, BUT those areas were open to them in the 50s as well.

, positively horrible 50 years ago

that's funny I was having a good life 50 years ago, was 20 years old, and free and
able to choose anything I wanted, and nursing was not interesting to me, or teaching,
but I did love all of the facets of office work, (not secretarial), so I spent a few years
learning about that. Lots of women in university, lots of women doctors, and women
were moving into more and more areas of the work force than ever before, nothing
horrible about the 50's at all, it was a time of freedom and change and lots of jobs.

Todays society is rampaged by drugs, either one is an addict, or one has to put up
with what drugs has done to our society, high crime, and the pitiful sight of drug
addicts on every corner, and the greed of drug suppliers or the weakness of drug
addicts makes this society very dissapointing, and shows us what north americans
have come down to, with our soft spoiled lives, and lots of food and more money
than many other countries in the world, and what do we do with it?, takes drugs,
it disgusts me.
we have a progressive country with lots of freedom and good medical coverage, and
what do I read every day on this forum, whining and complaining about how we are
treated, and how bad our government is, 'just go and live somewhere else for a while,
where they don't have our freedoms, then come back and be happy to be a canadian,
it seems the more we get the more we want.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

we have a progressive country with lots of freedom and good medical coverage, and
what do I read every day on this forum, whining and complaining about how we are
treated, and how bad our government is, 'just go and live somewhere else for a while,
where they don't have our freedoms, then come back and be happy to be a canadian,
it seems the more we get the more we want.

Now, I totally agree with this part of your post (and this part only). I have said the same thing many times. Those who whine and bitch about what a terrible place Canada is, how badly off we are here, have obviously not traveled the world (I have, a significant portion of the world anyway).

Canada is easily one of the best (if not the best) places in the world.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

nothing
horrible about the 50's at all, it was a time of freedom and change and lots of jobs.

Lots of jobs, I agree. But freedom and change? Not a chance, that came in the 60s. The first winds of freedom, change started blowing in the 60s, with the civil rights movement. That in turn spawned the Feminist and gay rights movements.

 

[ironsides]

In 1959 we didn't have AIDS yet but the VietNam war was in full swing. A war in which no ground was gained but close to 60,000 Americans lost their lives and several million Viet Namese were killed. Even today, if you ask ten Americans what that war was fought over, you are likely to get ten different answers.

Aside from supplying the S. Vietnamese goverment with supplies and some instructors/advisors, the Real U.S. involvement didn't start until 1965 when complete unites were sent over there. Before that no one ever heard of Vietnam. I don't think if you asked any young person today, they would have any idea what the war was about (what war? would be a probable answer from them)

 

[wulfie68]

OK I wasn't around in 1959 (never made my debut until '68), so all I can relate is second hand. If I think about this whole thing in terms of are we better off today than in the 70s when I was a child, the answer is definately today. People have hit on the main issues: technology/medical advances leading to longer lifespans and in most cases more productive ones.

We can talk about the impact of increasesed drug use and other crimes in our society, and to a small degree there is some truth to that, but really all thats changed is our awareness of the issue. People abused alcohol for centuries. They smoked marijuana, hashish, peyote and other substances. Opium was an addictive substance as well (both in its "raw" form and refined as laudanum) known of and fought over for centuries as well (anyone know the story behind the founding of Hong Kong or at least the British acquisition of it? It was a prize/concession of the Opium wars...).

The reality is we are more informed of wrong doings, both domestic and abroad. Our understandings of things racist and sexist has increased and is being addressed. Do we live in a utopia? Absolutely not, but we are making improvements, steadily, and this is a function of being better informed and educated. We don't always agree on the priority or best approach to be used in tackling various issues but as a society we are mostly moving forward. Ironically, the biggest drag seems to be based in relgious conservatism/fundamentalism, where there is often an admission and desire to deal with the symptoms of many issues but a lack in the ability of many faiths to evolve with society and confront issues within their dogma.

 

[JLM]

As I said, it was much better for white males, ironsides. Anybody else was out of luck. A woman with ambition could go to nursing course and become a nurse, but that is it.
That is a false and ridiculous statement, women had many choices, but no as many
women made as many choices as they do today, society slowly changed as the
years went by, and women caught on and moved into many more avenues of
employment, BUT those areas were open to them in the 50s as well.

, positively horrible 50 years ago

that's funny I was having a good life 50 years ago, was 20 years old, and free and
able to choose anything I wanted, and nursing was not interesting to me, or teaching,
but I did love all of the facets of office work, (not secretarial), so I spent a few years
learning about that. Lots of women in university, lots of women doctors, and women
were moving into more and more areas of the work force than ever before, nothing
horrible about the 50's at all, it was a time of freedom and change and lots of jobs.

Todays society is rampaged by drugs, either one is an addict, or one has to put up
with what drugs has done to our society, high crime, and the pitiful sight of drug
addicts on every corner, and the greed of drug suppliers or the weakness of drug
addicts makes this society very dissapointing, and shows us what north americans
have come down to, with our soft spoiled lives, and lots of food and more money
than many other countries in the world, and what do we do with it?, takes drugs,
it disgusts me.
we have a progressive country with lots of freedom and good medical coverage, and
what do I read every day on this forum, whining and complaining about how we are
treated, and how bad our government is, 'just go and live somewhere else for a while,
where they don't have our freedoms, then come back and be happy to be a canadian,
it seems the more we get the more we want.

You've said it all Talloola, it boils down to a lot of spoilt brats these days - of all ages. I think S.J. is confusing "better today" with "easier today". Back in 1959 a man's word was generally good enough and you didn't have to go out and buy a $400 pair of glasses to read "fine print".

 

[gerryh]

The world today.....is what the generation that grew up and "matured" in the 50's made it to be.

 

[JLM]

The world today.....is what the generation that grew up and "matured" in the 50's made it to be.

And the ones who never did mature in the 50s or any other decade helped to make it.

 

[gerryh]

The point is, those that go on about rampant drug use and crime should take responsibility for that.

Personally, I don't think things are any worse now than they were in the past in that regard. The main difference now is that it is easier for the average person to find out about it with the increased ease of information dissemination.

 

[#juan]

Aside from supplying the S. Vietnamese goverment with supplies and some instructors/advisors, the Real U.S. involvement didn't start until 1965 when complete unites were sent over there. Before that no one ever heard of Vietnam. I don't think if you asked any young person today, they would have any idea what the war was about (what war? would be a probable answer from them)

Here is a timeline of events in Southeast Asia:

Vietnam War Timeline : Vietnam War Statistics

 

[Blackleaf]

There were many better things to life in 1959 - or the 1950s as a whole - compared to now, and many worse things.

1953 saw the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II at Westminster Abbey - a very happy day for the people of Britain amongst the austerity of the years immediately after the War. And, just four days before the coronation occurred, Edmund Hilary (a New Zealander and a subject of Elizabeth II) and Sherpa Tensing became the first people to climb Everest.

1954 saw an end to rationing in Britain. The 1950s also saw the introduction of fish fingers and toilet paper.

It was the decade which saw the arrival of rock'n'roll; the inverntion of the hovercraft (1956); the Mini (1959); the first jet aeroplane, the de Havilland Comet (1952) which, like the Concorde, the world's first supersonic passenger jet, was a British plane; Britain's first motorway, the M1 (1959) and even the invention of the modem (1958 ).

But look at the downsides of the 1950s. Only 33% of British households had a washing machine. The washing still had to be done by hand. Only 15% of people had a fridge and just 10% had a telephone. Of course, there were no mobile phones.

Two-thirds of British homes had TVs (black and white, of course) but there was only one channel (BBC1) in Britain until 1955 when what is now ITV1, or Channel 3, was introduced (BBC2, or Channel 2, was introduced in 1964, Channel 4 in 1982 and Channel 5 in 1997. Not counting satellite, cable, Sky etc, it is hard to believe that we had just four channels until the late Nineties). Despite this, 20 million people watched the Queen's coronation on TV.

In the 1950s, the manufacturing industry dominated Britain's economy, whereas today the services industry dominates. The air in British cities in the 1950s was was foul and polluted. Huge industrial chimneys belched out thick black smoke, and so did the millions of domestic chimneys. This was a time when almost everybody had coal fires rather than electric ones. As a result, smog was common in London and other big cities, and rivers such as the Thames were so polluted that almost no life could exist in them. The Great Smog of 1952 in London lasted from Friday 5th December to Tuesday 9th December. In those four days, 12,000 people were killed. London had been accustomed to such smogs for at least 200 years, but this was the worst. Such were the dangers of driving in that smog, even ambulances couldn't run, which meant that the thousands of sick had to make their own way to hospital. The smog even entered people's homes and other buildings, meaning that concerts and film screenings were abandoned as people couldn't see the stage or screen.

The Thames was also filthy. For centuries, sewage effluent and industrial discharge were emptied into the Thames - a river where many people also got their drinking water from. This was still happening as late as the 1950s. A thick, black, sticking scum of pollution often floated on the surface. London stank to high heaven as it had done for centuries (several times throughout history politicians in the House of Commons had to soak the curtains in chloride of lime to get rid of the stench). It was that decade in which the Thames was declared "dead" - it was absolutely devoid of life. Then it was started to be cleaned up, with more sewage sent to treatment works rather than the river. It wasn't until 1974 that salmon returned to the Thames - the first time in 150 years.

So there are good things about the Fifties, and not so good things.

 

[#juan]

the first jet aeroplane, the Comet (1952)

I know this is nit-picking but I believe you meant the first jet airliner..

 

[AnnaG]

You are being pedantic here TenPenny, quibbling over details.

It's ok if you do that but no-one else? :bootyshake:

The point I was making was that Women (or blacks, Hispanics etc.) had few opportunities for career advancement in those days. Whether they had zero female geologists, 1, 2 or 20 is irrelevant. The fact is, women were discouraged from becoming geologists, most geologists were men, a female geologist was an oddity, a curiosity.

Again, redefining the goalposts. Everyone got the point a long time ago. But apparently you can't get the idea that you make sweeping statements and then wiggle around redefining what you said.

So whether there were no female geologists, or there were a handful, affects my argument not at all. My point still remains valid (unless you can demonstrate that women had as many opportunity as men to become geologists, they received same encouragement, support and resources as men to become geologists.

It is important not to lose the sight of the overall picture, rather than quibble about the details.

I am sure someone will throw this comment right back in youre face the next time you start nitpicking about minor details.
lol "Whatta maroon" - B. Bunny

 

[AnnaG]

S.J. Perhaps the main reason most women didn't pursue these professions was because in those with larger families to tend to it was more impractical and did you ever think maybe that was the role they were most happy at? Even in those days a lot of women did work, in the small community where I first lived, there were several women working, one drove taxi, one operated a dry goods store, two operated a restaurant together, a couple more operated the grocery stores, several were nurses, one was a baker. No you, are right there WEREN'T as many but several of the families in the communities had at least 8 children. They pretty well all had husbands to support them. The demographics were different. But I doubt very much if discrimination had ANYTHING to do with it.

Not only that, but during WW2 there were not many men around doing the jobs they normally do. So Women doing men's jobs is a lot older than the 50s, and after WW2 it was generally felt that Canada needed repopulating, so women had kids left, right, and center (baby boomers). There are lots of reasons women do things, not just because of the one reason Pompass suggests.

 

[JLM]

The point is, those that go on about rampant drug use and crime should take responsibility for that.

Personally, I don't think things are any worse now than they were in the past in that regard. The main difference now is that it is easier for the average person to find out about it with the increased ease of information dissemination.

If there is one "yardstick" apparent today to measure the pros and cons of now compared to the 50s it might be the number of children today being rasied by grandparents compared to the number of children then being raised by grandparents.

 

[JLM]

You are being pedantic here TenPenny, quibbling over details. The point I was making was that Women (or blacks, Hispanics etc.) had few opportunities for career advancement in those days. Whether they had zero female geologists, 1, 2 or 20 is irrelevant. The fact is, women were discouraged from becoming geologists, most geologists were men, a female geologist was an oddity, a curiosity.

So whether there were no female geologists, or there were a handful, affects my argument not at all. My point still remains valid (unless you can demonstrate that women had as many opportunity as men to become geologists, they received same encouragement, support and resources as men to become geologists.

It is important not to lose the sight of the overall picture, rather than quibble about the details.

NO, NO, NO, S.J. - If there was one or two or twenty is very important in that it proves there were opportunities for minorities. I'm suggesting the problem was that some minorities didn't have the sagacity or gumption required to take advantage of the opportunities. You have to look for opportunities and in some cases make them, they don't just jump out of the woodwork at you.