Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[TenPenny]

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.

You are so easy.

The above isn't even a close approximation of what you wrote.

You said, 'the society in which they were produced'.

They were PRODUCED in TELEVISION LAND, IE HOLLYWOOD, in the 1970s which, as even you should know, is no where near what America in the 1950s was. If Hollywood in the 1970s is equivalent to America in the 1950s, I'd ask you to explain, oh, say, Roman Polanski. That's Hollywood of the 1970s; and that's the society that produced Happy Days.

As I said, you hit the nail on the head: a fantasy TV show, produced by some of the most bizarre people in North America, and you look up to it as some sort of reflection on a bygone era?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

If there are only a handful of women or blacks who could enter the profession, that tells me that only the most exceptional, most dedicated, the most belligerent, most bitchy (who wouldn’t take any crap from the white male establishment) were able to get in. That in no way demonstrates that everybody had equal opportunities.

Let us look at voting in the South. No doubt a handful blacks were able to register for voting, does that mean that any black could register, but they were just too lazy to register? Well, yes according to conservative thinking. The fact was, the Bible Belt states made it as difficult as was legally permissible for blacks to register to vote. That is why very few blacks could register to vote and Voting Right Act was necessary. Which of course, the Bible Belt states opposed tooth and nail.

It was the same with admissions to universities etc. White male establishment made it as difficult as possible for blacks, women etc. to get in, so that only a handful could get in. As I said before, if one was a white male, life was easy indeed in those days, white male reigned supreme (perhaps that is why so many white males here hanker back to the 'good old days').

To blame the victim, to blame women for not getting into medical, legal profession etc, to blame blacks for almost exclusively being janitors and servants (and also to blame them for segregation in the South), to blame gays for the state imprisoning them for consensual sex is the classical conservative philosophy.

Anyway, so you really answered my question. Let me see if I understand your position. In the 50s, there was no discrimination against women, no discrimination against blacks, no discrimination against gays, period. The fact that women did not go into medical, legal engineering profession was because they were too dumb, too lazy, not because they lacked the opportunities.

The fact that blacks were mostly janitors and servants was their fault, that blacks were again too stupid to too lazy to go into professions. They had plenty of opportunities to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc., they were just too lazy. Similarly, the fact that gays used to be imprisoned for consensual sex, used to be beaten up (they still are) was the fault of the gays.

Anyway, you have demonstrated the typical conservative thinking, conservative philosophy. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly. It also explains why I am not a conservative, and never will be one.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

And why is that the only yardstick JLM, as opposed to standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality, racial and sexual discrimination etc.? Because it gives you the answer that you want?

 

[Cannuck]

You are so easy.

The above isn't even a close approximation of what you wrote.

You said, 'the society in which they were produced'.

They were PRODUCED in TELEVISION LAND, IE HOLLYWOOD, in the 1970s which, as even you should know, is no where near what America in the 1950s was. If Hollywood in the 1970s is equivalent to America in the 1950s, I'd ask you to explain, oh, say, Roman Polanski. That's Hollywood of the 1970s; and that's the society that produced Happy Days.

As I said, you hit the nail on the head: a fantasy TV show, produced by some of the most bizarre people in North America, and you look up to it as some sort of reflection on a bygone era?

Are you suggesting "The A-Team" might not have been accurate?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are so easy.

The above isn't even a close approximation of what you wrote.

You said, 'the society in which they were produced'.

They were PRODUCED in TELEVISION LAND, IE HOLLYWOOD, in the 1970s which, as even you should know, is no where near what America in the 1950s was. If Hollywood in the 1970s is equivalent to America in the 1950s, I'd ask you to explain, oh, say, Roman Polanski. That's Hollywood of the 1970s; and that's the society that produced Happy Days.

As I said, you hit the nail on the head: a fantasy TV show, produced by some of the most bizarre people in North America, and you look up to it as some sort of reflection on a bygone era?

So what is your point? It is irrelevant when they were produced, the setting was in the 50s. So they probably researched the 50s and tried to show it as realistically as possible.

You must have thought on your reply for a long time (at least it took you a long time to come back to me, I suppose you were engaged in the ‘two minute hate’ on the other thread). And this is all you can put forth?

Whenever a writer writes novel set in historical period, he/she painstakingly carries out research into that period and tries to portray that period as realistically as possible.

I have read several historical novels by Chelsea Quinn Yarboro (well, they are actual vampire novels set in different historical periods). In the preface she always describes the pains she took to research the relevant period, how many relevant scientists helped her research the period etc. whether it be ancient Egypt, Medieval Europe, Czarist Russia etc.

It is no different in television. If they set a show in a particular time period, they research that era in detail and portray it as accurately as possible.

And anyway, you are totally wrong about the Lucy show. I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1960, it was NOT produced in the 70s. In you zeal, your enthusiasm to write something, anything critical of me, you could not spare even a minute to Google for ‘I Love Lucy’? Amazing.

I suggest you go back to the ‘two minute hate’ on the other thread dedicated to me. It is much easier to post over there.

 

[TenPenny]

Are you suggesting "The A-Team" might not have been accurate?

No, I would never say that. Obviously, 'The A-Team' is an honest portrayal of the fate of returning Vietnam vets; by extension, we can assume that all (or virtually all) returning Vets became voluntary mercenaries for victims of crime.

After all, we can now rest assured that a television show is an accurate portrayal of history.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In this respect, it is interesting to compare I Love Lucy, produced in the 50s, with Here’s Lucy, produced in the 70s.

In Here’s Lucy, she is a single mother, has two kids (her real life kids, she was divorced by now). She is a working mother, she has a full time job, in an employment agency run by her brother in law, Gale Gordon.

Here’s Lucy accurately depicts the 70s, same as I Love Lucy accurately depicts the 50s.

 

[Cannuck]

After all, we can now rest assured that a television show is an accurate portrayal of history.

Here’s Lucy accurately depicts the 70s, same as I Love Lucy accurately depicts the 50s.

I've changed my mind now. I think the 50's were better. Those people sure had a funny time


YouTube - Lucy, Lucy, Lucy

 

[TenPenny]

And anyway, you are totally wrong about the Lucy show. I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1960, it was NOT produced in the 70s. In you zeal, your enthusiasm to write something, anything critical of me, you could not spare even a minute to Google for ‘I Love Lucy’? Amazing.

You might want to stop drinking so heavily; we were talking about Happy Days. You're the one who used 'Mrs Cunningham' as an example.

 

[ironsides]

Here is a timeline of events in Southeast Asia:

Vietnam War Timeline : Vietnam War Statistics

About right, but the average person including me did not become aware of Vietnam till around 1959, and then it still meant nothing.

 

[TenPenny]

About right, but the average person including me did not become aware of Vietnam till around 1959, and then it still meant nothing.

It really wasn't until the mid 1960s when the Vietnam war meant very much to the average North American.

 

[JLM]

If there are only a handful of women or blacks who could enter the profession, that tells me that only the most exceptional, most dedicated, the most belligerent, most bitchy (who wouldn’t take any crap from the white male establishment) were able to get in.

Those aren't bad criteria to qualify for entering a profession.... you don't want to be paying people in high paying jobs good money when they can't cope with a minimum of adversity.

 

[JLM]

And why is that the only yardstick JLM, as opposed to standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality, racial and sexual discrimination etc.? Because it gives you the answer that you want?

Where did I say the only yardstick?

 

[JLM]

"And anyway, you are totally wrong about the Lucy show. I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1960, it was NOT produced in the 70s. In you zeal, your enthusiasm to write something, anything critical of me, you could not spare even a minute to Google for ‘I Love Lucy’? Amazing."

You are splitting hairs here, her career spanned the years from 1951-1974.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"And anyway, you are totally wrong about the Lucy show. I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1960, it was NOT produced in the 70s. In you zeal, your enthusiasm to write something, anything critical of me, you could not spare even a minute to Google for ‘I Love Lucy’? Amazing."

You are splitting hairs here, her career spanned the years from 1951-1974.

Quite so, JLM. But the show that we were discussing, 'I Love Lucy' aired from 1951 to 1960. That is the one that is relevant to what we are discussing, the 50s.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If there are only a handful of women or blacks who could enter the profession, that tells me that only the most exceptional, most dedicated, the most belligerent, most bitchy (who wouldn’t take any crap from the white male establishment) were able to get in.

Those aren't bad criteria to qualify for entering a profession.... you don't want to be paying people in high paying jobs good money when they can't cope with a minimum of adversity.

I know that is how conservatives think JLM, but I never accepted that logic. If there were say, 10,000 medical students in USA in 1959, of that 4 were women, 2 black men and 9994 white men, conservatives would claim based upon that that there was no discrimination against women or against blacks. And that if there were only 4 women and 2 blacks (out of 10,000 total), it was the fault of women and black for being too dumb, there was nothing wrong with the white male dominated system.

Conservatives almost always blame the victim, the minorities. That is one of the reasons why minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic in USA.

Anyway, then I assume you also think that there was no need for the Civil Rights act or Voting Rights Act, since blacks already had full, equal rights according to you. Then would you also say that there was no need for Rosa Parks or for MLK?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You might want to stop drinking so heavily; we were talking about Happy Days. You're the one who used 'Mrs Cunningham' as an example.

I also used Lucy as an example. I was talking of Mrs. Cunningham AND Lucy, and so were you, in spite of your straight faced denial now. This is what you said in your post #161.

You are so easy.


They were PRODUCED in TELEVISION LAND, IE HOLLYWOOD, in the 1970s which, as even you should know, is no where near what America in the 1950s was. If Hollywood in the 1970s is equivalent to America in the 1950s, I'd ask you to explain, oh, say, Roman Polanski. That's Hollywood of the 1970s; and that's the society that produced Happy Days.

You said, ‘they were produced’, not ‘it was produced’, you were referring to both the shows. You were not talking of one show ‘Happy Day’s, you were talking of both shows. Maybe you forgot what you wrote in your #161, go back and read it again.

Let us face it, in your zeal to trash me (and from what you have said about me so far, I think you automatically assume that everything I write is a total, bald faced lie), you were caught in a total untruth. You posted hastily without checking your facts first, you just couldn’t wait to claim that I was wrong.

 

[JLM]

I know that is how conservatives think JLM, but I never accepted that logic. If there were say, 10,000 medical students in USA in 1959, of that 4 were women, 2 black men and 9994 white men, conservatives would claim based upon that that there was no discrimination against women or against blacks. And that if there were only 4 women and 2 blacks (out of 10,000 total), it was the fault of women and black for being too dumb, there was nothing wrong with the white male dominated system.

Conservatives almost always blame the victim, the minorities. That is one of the reasons why minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic in USA.

Anyway, then I assume you also think that there was no need for the Civil Rights act or Voting Rights Act, since blacks already had full, equal rights according to you. Then would you also say that there was no need for Rosa Parks or for MLK?

First of all I doubt if there are two conservative who think exactly the same- that maybe a dangerous assumption. Secondly I'm not a conservative or any other political persuasion. You selected the "medical" profession to make your argument so lets take it a step further - what conclusions would you draw if 10000 people were nursing students and only four of them were men?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

First of all I doubt if there are two conservative who think exactly the same- that maybe a dangerous assumption. Secondly I'm not a conservative or any other political persuasion. You selected the "medical" profession to make your argument so lets take it a step further - what conclusions would you draw if 10000 people were nursing students and only four of them were men?

I did not say you were a conservative, JLM. I said that in this instance, you were thinking like a conservative.

As to what I would say if there were 4 men out of 10,000 nursing students, that would very much depend upon the society in which it happens. If men were second class citizens, if nursing was considered a ghetto job, then I would say that men don’t have any options in the society and they are forced to become nurses. A great injustice is being perpetrated.

On the other hand, if men very much rule the society, occupy all the positions of power, almost exclusively occupy high paying professions such as medicine, law, politics etc., then I would say that men don’t want to go into nursing because it doesn’t pay as much as a doctor or a lawyer. So it depends upon the shape of the society.

It wouldn’t surprise me if in the 50s, they had 4 male students and 9996 female students in nursing. The reason for that was that women were considered second class citizens, nursing was just about the only job that women were considered to be capable of intellectually (besides secretary and teacher) and the statistics (4 men, 9996 women) was indicative of the debased, second class status of women in the 50s.

 

[talloola]

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.

change comes very gradually, people don't just do things differently, quickly, in the
50's most women stayed home to be with the children and have that sort of partnership
in a marriage, but those decisions were not because women were in slavery, it's because
society had enjoyed that type of life for many years, and in the 50's that slowly began
to change, some women worked part time, some full time, but the choices were there,
women were just slow to grab the change and run with it, and we are creatures of
habit, and our stay at home life was comfortable and what we were used to, and
some did not want to change (me), and some were glad to go to work, as the money
was there to be made, and those couples had much more money coming into the
house than we did, it was a CHOICE, you talk as though we were being held down
like a 3rd world country. I was living the life, I was there, I remember what it was
like. Some men didn't want their wives to work, that was their problem, men also
were in a process of changing, and some liked the fact that their wife could bring
in extra money.
Complete change doesn't happen over night, and it is still that way.
I worked for 3 years in an office learning various things, payroll, bookeeping, and
other things, and all but one women (she was 17), I worked with were married and
working. I was also 17, and not married yet. Life was changing fast, everything
automatic was bursting onto the scene, and life for women was becoming much
easier at home. We were all driving, I learned to drive when I was 15, got my licence
the first day I was legal.
The hardships were in my mother's time, not mine..
It was well after world war 2, and everyone was up beat and the country was alive
with activity and invention.
Here in B.C. we did not have much connection to the blacks at all, but knew the
hardships they had below the border, but our first nations were made fun of and
treated poorly, and had not yet begun the 'treaty' talks which came later.