What do we think now?

[SirJosephPorter]

And do you sign up for them all?

No, no you don't.

Thus proving our point. If it was the banks' fault, you'd sign up for them all and be massively in debt. Blaming the banks is like blaming the grocery store if you weigh 450 lbs. Just because it's available, doesn't mean you have to indulge. Whether it's debt, or food, or alcohol.

My son officially is a doctor now, he tells me that he gets several unsolicited credit card applications every month. Being a doctor, people are falling over themselves extending loan, line of credit, credit cards etc. to him. So far he has thrown away every one of those applications.

He only has a Master Card. I suggested to him that he apply for a Visa as well, it is useful to have both Master Card and Visa. But it is really up to him to decide how much of a debt he is going to carry (abd having our example before him, he told me that he is not going to carry any, except the morgage he is carrying), not up to the bank or the credit card company.

Talloola, apparently you have jumbled up posts by several posters and attributed them all to me. For instance, I never said that women who stayed home were given an allowance, somebody else said that. Anyway, you have responded to some of the points I made, and I will try to respond to them.

You describe one particular type of woman who stayed home, but forgot to mention the many other types who
stayed home, you pack them all in a description that makes them all the same, like cookies from a cookie
cutter, you are very very misinformed, and that is too bad, you have tunnel vision, and don't seem to
realize that women of every generation were individuals just as they are today, and made decision for
different reasons just as they do today. society slowly changed, and many more women joined the work
force, they enjoyed the independence and financial freedom, and that is fine.
The idea that women who stayed home were like the black slaves in the south is 'laughable', and my husband and I had a
good laugh at your expense, when he also read your post.

I did not compare 50s housewives with black slaves. I gave slavery as an example, to illustrate the point that just because people may be happy in some situation, does not necessarily mean that the situation is desirable.

And the idea that women who stayed home were 'given' an allowance fits a small percentage of couples, but
you again forgot to mention all of the rest of the women staying home, who were 100% in charge of the
finances, had good heads for money and budgeting, and husbands were happy to have them to it, because many
men, certainly not all, don't budget very well and hate doing it.

Again, I did not say that, you are attributing somebody else's quote to me.

All of the examples you gave only fit a small percentage of people, but you generalize so much that it seems
like the 50s were slave years, poor years, unhappy years, and the opposite is true, yes society was slowly
changing, that is the way life is, that is normal, things don't stay the same, especially when there was
so many openings out there for women to go out and work.

I never said that 50s were poor or unhappy years. Again maybe somebody else may have said it.

The standard of living we had in the 50's was not 'low' it was middle class for the day, good wages, money
for everything we needed to do.

It may have been middle class compared to 1950s, but compare that to today, and the standard of living was low.

Our standard of living in the 90s was still middle class, we had money
for all of the things we need to do. In the 50's we had many things that they didn't have in the 40s and
30s, and in the 60s,70s,80s,90 and on they all had many things that the decade before them did not have.

That indeed is how it works out. As years go by standard of living for most people increases. So you may have a middle class standard all along, but 50 years ago standard of living was much lower compared to today. And that indeed is what I said, we are richer today, enjoy a higher standard of living compared to 50 eyars ago.

You make it sound like life in the 50s was sad, people didn't have much of anything, but that is not true, we had everything, (to a point) that a middleclass family was able to have in that day, not a low standardof living at all.

Quite so, you had a middle class standard of living in those days, but compared to today, it was low.

And again, I never said that life in the 50s was sad (where do you get these things?). On the contrary, I have specifically said that life in the 50 was tranquil, peaceful compared to today. There were very few problems in those days, mainly because nobody talked about any problems. Everybody knew their place and nobody made waves. Women were oppressed, but didn't know they were oppressed and were happy and contented in being housewives.

In the 60s and 70s they realized that they were oppressed, that they did not enjoy equal rights with men and then they were unhappy and rebelled.

Having 'stuff' doesn't describe how successful people are, it's the 'stuff' inside the people that describes how successful people are.

Some 'get it' some 'don't'.

No, I don't get it. Having stuff (house, cars, wealth, money etc.) describes how successful people are. The stuff inside is what makes you happy, that doesn't tell us how successful you are. Successful and happy are two different things.

So are we happier today compared to 50s? That is a very difficult question, and everybody has to answer it for him or herself. But are we healthier, wealthier, living longer, more tolerant today, is the world a more just place today? Indubitably.

 

[karrie]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/spirituality-philosophy/93310-empathic-civilisation.html

I'd encourage everyone involved in this thread to go check out this link, because one of the biggest defining differences occurred to me.

What we consider our community, our society, has changed dramatically since the 50's from what I can see.
See, when I read articles about rampant drug crime, addiction, it is STILL fairly localized to urban, high population density areas. And with larger populations, while I can't pin down any statistics, I doubt the percentage of drug use is much different, but it creates a higher number. The big difference is... I wouldn't try to say that those areas aren't part of the time, or part of the society. I wouldn't pooh-pooh them as being irrelevant because they don't affect me or my loved ones. Whereas in the 50's, there still was that kind of societal segregation from everything the people I know tell me. There were still residential schools that poor children or people of the wrong race were shuttled off to. There were still segments of the population who were deemed unfit due to any differences, and were cast out to the fringes. While history might have been kind to some, the whole story is a harsh one.

There was a change... a slow change perhaps, but a change that, looking back at it from the perspective of someone brought up in the 80's, is drastic. I think I accidentally hit on it with the video. Knowledge of the people. We know more now, and thus can empathise more now, with people from such a wide variety of situations. I can read the stories of prostitutes in Vancouver. It's not because they're new... they've always been there, but we HEAR them now. The stories of drug addicts. Homosexuals. The mentally challenged. We have this wider base of people voicing their life experience, their humanity to us, than my parents or in-laws ever had. And we empathise with them. The poor ARE our society, not a separate fringe we can pretend doesn't effect us. We are a more cohesive society now... and the funny part is that I hear it even in the people who talk about the differences between then and now. Talloola talks about then, and the skid row comes off as something separate, but NOW it is part of her society (and that's an impression, not trying to put words in tal's mouth here). There's a change in view there that I find fascinating, and that explains a lot about the 'then' and the 'now', and how they are so drastically different.

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so, if somebody wants to live by the old standard of living, they can do so, without any problem. It is just that most people don't want to. People these days have high expectations, they are not willing to settle for lower standard of living. Hence the necessity of two incomes. There is nothing wrong with that.

I see what's going on. You are confusing standard of living with the traditional model of family. People these days have today's standards of living whether they are using traditional models or not. The traditional model is hubby works to make the living and wife stays at home to work. That's not a standard of living, it's simply a societal model. :roll:

 

[talloola]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/spirituality-philosophy/93310-empathic-civilisation.html
... Talloola talks about then, and the skid row comes off as something separate, but NOW it is part of her society (and that's an impression, not trying to put words in tal's mouth here). There's a change in view there that I find fascinating, and that explains a lot about the 'then' and the 'now', and how they are so drastically different.

no change of view at all, perhaps between you and I, as I don't agree with that statement.
skid row is a different community than the mainstream one, it was then, and is now, and it is referred to
as skid row, east end of vanc'r, and I'm sure many other names that I am not familiar with.
It is not where the majority of the middle class live, but they certainly end up there, if out of work
very long, and unable to get any help at all, live on the street, or somewhere in their car, it is not the choice
of many, but it is the choice of some, and they will live their all of their lives.
British Properties is also a community on it's own, for different reasons, the well-to-do live there, it is
their choice because of financial wealth. A separate community.

We are ALL part of society, separated by various reasons into different communities.

In the 50's the mentally handicapped were 'mostly' all insitituionalized, river-view, woodlands, but
government shoved them all out onto the street some years ago, thinking that being shut up in an institution
was not the thing to do, and most of all, because of the saving to the government by not having those
people to care for. Many of them ended up on skid row, trying to live their life, with two problems,one,
not having the financial means, and two, their handicap, which i'm sure caused them much grief, because
of treatment on the street. Someone else, with much better knowledge on that subject will have to come here and explain
how that has worked out over the years, I am not the one to do that, I have given my knowledge of what
i 'know' to be true, but will not start guessing about things that are out of my range of knowledge.

Also, my knowledge of drug use in the 50's is accurate, but I've also stated it was the young mainstream
students and other young people in the city, which I was part of. I went to a junior high school which
numbered 1500, and in the 3 years I was there, there was never a mention of drug use, no one was ever
brought to the office and suspended for drug use, (because they would been immediately, had it happened).
and the gossip would have been all over the school.

Then on to high school, for two years, and it was the same, so the drug scene in schools had not come
about 'yet', the sneaky drug of the day was 'alchohol', not sure when drugs started to filter into schools, will have to refer to someone who went through the city school system in the 60s and hear what they have to say.

Those mysterious cigarettes I mentioned a while back called reefers had dope in them, that is what we called
drugs, as in our day drugs only came out of drug stores, there was nothing being taken by young people that was called drugs unless they had a prescription from their doctor, and that takes the chat into prescription drugs, which is entirely different than street drugs, and those mysterious cigarettes did not come into
the schools or into our community, seemed to be something that was sold in blaine or point roberts, but
no one I knew ever saw one.

Elvis showed up around l957 or so, and rumours of drugs may have began to filter down the pipe around that
time, not sure, and LSD came about after that, not sure when exactly, maybe that was along with the hippies,
which were a stinking lot, nothing but a filthy bunch of beggars, walking around with flowers, high on
'whatever', most of the time, and begging in parking lots and such for people to buy a flower and love
everyone, hmmmm, now i'm interested to hear the backlash to my statement about hippies, will be fun
to read. I was a young mother then, with 3 daughters, and so proud of them, and worked very hard to give
them love and a nourishing childhood, that would show them the way to adulthood as smooth as possible.

and mini skirts came along, first time I witnessed girls crotches on a regular basis, while they bent
over, pretending not to know, or sat with their legs just apart enough to see what they wanted you to
see, that was a first for me, I was so astonished to realize that girls would actually do that. My
daughters never owned a mini skirt, not because I forbade them to, because it was never a desire of any
of them to wear one, they snickered to one another about the crotch showing.

 

[VanIsle]

I can relate to almost everything you say Talloola. For some odd reason, the fact that we lived it doesn't seem to get through. There is a greater need to believe that we couldn't be right about the lives we led. I never ever heard of street drugs until LSD came on the scene. I only heard about that because I know it was not in my little town. In the late 60's I became a mother and like you, I was busy raising a family. I was certainly in a position to hear about street drugs considering my husband's career of the time. Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 1980 when my youngest son turned 10 yrs. It was around then that we started to hear of marijuana, maybe a little before but not much. I know when our oldest was about 15 he went to the neighbour's and picked a leaf off a huge plant they had and then he dried it out in the oven and put it in a bag all crunched up to look like he was carrying marijuana. He was expelled for 3 days from school. The school said that while he wasn't carrying the drug, the intent was there. We felt 3 days off was a good idea and hoped he would learn from it. He did.

 

[TenPenny]

It's not that people don't believe you lived the life you did. It's that you make sweeping generalizations that life everywhere was perfect back then, and today every teenager is a horrible, rude, violent drug addict, with no respect for their elders.

Perhaps there were things that you weren't aware of back then, and just maybe there are decent teenagers around today. Just maybe.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

If I had the money in 1959 that I have now, I would say 1959 was better.

If we had the morality, honesty and integrity we had in 1959, I would say we have a tie.

Women in the 1950s who worked in the home had few 'rights' - they were dependent upon the largesse - or lack of - their spouse.Women who worked outside the home earned less than their male counterparts - even if they did the same job. Healthcare was less. Morality? So we said the Lord's prayer in school and recited a psalm - it didn't mean that it was anything other than recitation. The same things happened then as happens now - it was just hidden. There was a patina of morality and integrity - it doesn't mean that life was more 'moral' than it is now.
My mother had a very hard time giving birth - she was literally in labour for days. If she had been giving birth now? She would have had c-sections with both her children. Back then she had to suffer - it was expected - after all, this is what it says in the Bible:
Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said,"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you."
Even in the early 80's women had a difficult time getting credit. Women who were married to farmers lost everything if there was a divorce - the law figured that they gave almost nothing to the marriage.
Sorry. Life is really messy now, but would I want to go back to life as it was in the 50's? As me if I want to have a life where I would be a second class citizen even though I gave 100% to a relationship or to the worth of my country. No way. I 'll rather help deal with the 21st century mess than going back to the mess of the 50s and before.

I don't have any real vivid memories of 1959 JLM but I do know that I didn't have to be afraid to walk down the street alone or go out to play. My friends and my brothers and sisters were not into drugs. The only way any kid died from being at a party was the drinking and driving scene but even that was rare. Legal age for drinking was 21 so no one wanted to be caught drinking by their parents let alone the cops. Parents were able to be more responsible for what their kids did then because double income families were not necessary and were more rare than the norm of today. Most kids today do not get to see their parents from breakfast to dinner or later. I used to go home everyday for lunch and it was very rare for me to arrive home to an empty house after school. If that did happen, my Mom was home within a half hour or less from the time I got there. Summer holidays were the only time I might have missed lunch at home. We used to get playing and forget to go home and eat. Parents didn't worry. They always knew you were at a friends place or in my case - playing down by the river. For all my playing by and later in the river, I would be afraid to let my grandkids go there and would probably have been afraid to let my sons go there. On the other hand, I wish they could have. Such great memories of swimming in the Similkameen all day long.

I think that today children are over regulated - everything is planned. I think that because the world is so accessible, the bad things that happen seem to happen next door and because of that, their fear makes them swaddle their children in cotton wool. Children now are never allowed to explore or even to fail. It's such a shame. Everything is planned - children don't know how to make a decision - they fear everything. The strange thing is, is that while life is more hectic, it's not much more dangerous.
In the 50s, children were being abused - it just wasn't spoken about - now it is. Teenage girls got pregnant - they just when to visit an 'aunt' for a few months, but everyone knew what was happening.
We all recited the Lord's Prayer before school began, but a lot of those kids still stole and beat up other kids - all that recitation didn't make them better people.
As far as having my mother at home at lunch? I (and my husband) were 2 of those rare children in the 60s who had working mothers. Guess what. They weren't there at lunch but they were there when we really needed them and we both grow up ok. We knew why they worked and we knew that when we needed them they would be there, and THAT'S what counted.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Morality? So we said the Lord's prayer in school and recited a psalm - it didn't mean that it was anything other than recitation. The same things happened then as happens now - it was just hidden. There was a patina of morality and integrity - it doesn't mean that life was more 'moral' than it is now.

Depends upon how one defines morality. I don't define morality as having no premarital sex, no divorce, no abortion, no contraception, reciting Lord's Prayer etc. To me, that doesn't represent morality.

In my opinion, racism is immoral, so is sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. Not treating all citizens equally is immoral. By my definition, there was very little morality in those days, we are a more moral society today.

 

[JLM]

It's not that people don't believe you lived the life you did. It's that you make sweeping generalizations that life everywhere was perfect back then, and today every teenager is a horrible, rude, violent drug addict, with no respect for their elders.

.

Which post did that statement appear?

Treating everyone equally is impossible, impractical and does nobody any good.

True story- back in 1968 I worked with a young university student who had just been released after spending four months in jail for marijuana possession - like a joint or two. The reason he got off with four months is because his church parson went to bat for him (at the time he was the first person who got less than a six month sentence for that offense) It was 1967 when marijuana first became vogue among the mainstream. Trudeau came out here on the train about that time, and probably threw a few bags of it off the train, so people would vote appropriately.
P.S. the last sentence doesn't necessarily meet quite the factual criteria of the rest of the post. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[karrie]

I can relate to almost everything you say Talloola. For some odd reason, the fact that we lived it doesn't seem to get through.

Do you guys seriously think you're the only people I know who've lived through the 50's? Perhaps you might want to consider the fact that your view varies quite differently from that given to me from aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents, in-laws, etc.? You don't own the 50's guys. lol.

 

[talloola]

Do you guys seriously think you're the only people I know who've lived through the 50's? Perhaps you might want to consider the fact that your view varies quite differently from that given to me from aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents, in-laws, etc.? You don't own the 50's guys. lol.

My posts are my posts, they aren't 'you guys'.
Just point out the details of what you think are not correct, as before,
and I will answer with my opinion and thoughts as I have before, I don't
believe I have generalized, but please point out where you think I have.
Thanks.

My posts relate to the 50's, don't think VanIsle is doing that, she is
younger than I, so perhaps it's the 60's, not sure, she will have to
give that info, but I know she isn't as old as I am, probably 10 or
more years younger.

 

[karrie]

... and it seems many don't believe
what we say, and think we are either exaggerating, or forgetting, give me a break, please.

For some odd reason, the fact that we lived it doesn't seem to get through.

My posts are my posts, they aren't 'you guys'.

I know your posts are your posts, and when I address the fact that 'you guys' keep trying to dismiss what I have heard and learned about the 50's, just because I didn't live through it, as if you are the only ones I know who did, I have REASON for saying it. Your posts are your posts, and if I feel like addressing the fact that you've made these statements and VI's made them again, I will.

 

[talloola]

I know your posts are your posts, and when I address the fact that 'you guys' keep trying to dismiss what I have heard and learned about the 50's, just because I didn't live through it, as if you are the only ones I know who did, I have REASON for saying it. Your posts are your posts, and if I feel like addressing the fact that you've made these statements and VI's made them again, I will.

Van Isle's posts and mine are really quite different, but do blend at some points.

 

[karrie]

My posts are my posts, they aren't 'you guys'.
Just point out the details of what you think are not correct, as before,
and I will answer with my opinion and thoughts as I have before, I don't
believe I have generalized, but please point out where you think I have.
Thanks.

I've said very clearly what I feel contributes to your idealistic view of the 50's, I don't really see a need to go over it again. I really truly mean what I've said about what I feel skews your view.

Van Isle's posts and mine are really quite different, but do blend at some points.

Like the point I was addressing.

 

[JLM]

Do you guys seriously think you're the only people I know who've lived through the 50's? Perhaps you might want to consider the fact that your view varies quite differently from that given to me from aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents, in-laws, etc.? You don't own the 50's guys. lol.

Could it be that several versions could all be true?

 

[talloola]

I've said very clearly what I feel contributes to your idealistic view of the 50's, I don't really see a need to go over it again. I really truly mean what I've said about what I feel skews your view.QUOTE]



I don't feel I have given an idealistic view of the 50's, i've given many statements that talk about
the bad as well as the good, in many posts.
The non use of street drugs in the schools in the 50's is true, that is not idealistic, just facts.
I have tried to balance my views as best as I can, haven't made the 50's out to be anything wonderful,
and I have only stated things I know to be true, haven't really said that 'the whole' time back then
was better.
Talked about drugs mostly when making comparisons, and the fowl use of language and manners.
Where do you think I have painted an idealistic view of the 50's.

Van Isle doesn't have a recollection of the 50's, as far as I know, so we aren't even talking about
the same time, she was probably a small child in the 50's.

What points in particular please, not generalizing please.


Like the point I was addressing.

 

[JLM]

.QUOTE]




What points in particular please, not generalizing please.


Like the point I was addressing.[/QUOTE]

I think there is one important point worth making. I don't think any era was exempt from the really bad stuff, but I do think the demographics changed- things that were common amongst the riffraff and on skid road in the 50s moved a little to the mainstream of society in the 60s and moreso in the 70s.

 

[talloola]

.QUOTE]




What points in particular please, not generalizing please.


Like the point I was addressing.

I think there is one important point worth making. I don't think any era was exempt from the really bad stuff, but I do think the demographics changed- things that were common amongst the riffraff and on skid road in the 50s moved a little to the mainstream of society in the 60s and moreso in the 70s.[/QUOTE]

oh there you are, the guy who started this thread, how do you think the thread has progressed so far,
anyone getting anywhere or is it a stalemate. lol

 

[JLM]

I think there is one important point worth making. I don't think any era was exempt from the really bad stuff, but I do think the demographics changed- things that were common amongst the riffraff and on skid road in the 50s moved a little to the mainstream of society in the 60s and moreso in the 70s.

oh there you are, the guy who started this thread, how do you think the thread has progressed so far,
anyone getting anywhere or is it a stalemate. lol[/QUOTE]

Patience is the key. First I would never argue about what you saw in Surrey or what VAnIsle saw in Princeton or what Joe Blow saw in Revelstoke- all the variations are possible- each year from 1950 - 1965 was probably a little different, the only opinion that can be questioned are the ones who weren't there. Just like 10 witnesses at a crime scene- everyone has a slightly different view of what happened but put them all together and the result is likely pretty close to the truth- people who have an opinion who weren't at the crime scene don't qualify.

 

[talloola]

oh there you are, the guy who started this thread, how do you think the thread has progressed so far,
anyone getting anywhere or is it a stalemate. lol

Patience is the key. First I would never argue about what you saw in Surrey or what VAnIsle saw in Princeton or what Joe Blow saw in Revelstoke- all the variations are possible- each year from 1950 - 1965 was probably a little different, the only opinion that can be questioned are the ones who weren't there. Just like 10 witnesses at a crime scene- everyone has a slightly different view of what happened but put them all together and the result is likely pretty close to the truth- people who have an opinion who weren't at the crime scene don't qualify.[/QUOTE]

I was born in New Westminster JLM,and grew up there, didn't move to surrey till l966, after being married for 8 years.
New Westminster was a busy city, lots going on.

Surrey was out in the country when I was a kid, we use to go there sometimes for a sunday outing for
the day, all the way to the trans canada highway, (fraser hghwy), and travel a ways, then back home
again, I think everyone helped pay the gas, came to about $1.00 total, if I remember my mother telling me
way back then. My uncle had a car, one of those black square old cars that they fix up and put in
shows now, and call them vintage.