:roll:THINK! MIL was born in 1920 ( I made a booboo there about which one was born when). Her next youngest sister was born a couple years later. 7 years to become a physician after 12 years of public school would make her a doctor in the 40s. 1922 +12 or 13 years + 7 comes to 1942 at the latest. So, no, women were NOT limited to nursing, wifing, and being secretaries in the 50s.
Poll:- life better now or in 1959?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Well, of course, I was going to reply to the inane remark citing the only professions being "secretary and wife". Both nurses and teachers have historically been professions practiced mainly by women. While I suppose Engineers and CAt skinners have been occupations pretty much reserved for men I'm pretty sure that during the past 100 years any woman who wanted to assert herself and get the knowledge could do most anything she was physically capable of. A lot of women have historically been employed in the agriculture and fishing industry. You can generally do what you make up your mind to.
That was the 60s, juan. 50s was the calm before the storm. Everybody, women, blacks, gays knew their place in the society (very much inferior to white male). It would be a few years before they realize that they don’t have to be second class citizens, that they can fight for equality and achieve equality.
But that was still in the future. In the 50s, nobody made any waves, blacks were for the most part janitors and servants, Rosa Parks, MLK were still in the future. Women were content to be housewives, content in serving their Lord and Master (the husband). Gays were content to be in the closet, used to consider themselves fortunate if they were not imprisoned by the government for being gay.
Sexual abuse in places like Catholic Church, orphanages, residential schools etc. was kept strictly under wraps, nobody talked about it. Yes, those were the tranquil, peaceful times. And some really would like to go back to those ‘good old days’. Imagine that.
In the old days men used to be teachers as well JLM, it was not quite feminized as much as it is today.
Any anyway, teacher is very much a dead end job in USA, it is not like Canada (we pay our teachers well, they pay theirs peanuts). So teacher was not really much better than a secretary (except for men of course, in those days there was a much bigger disparity between the salary of a man and a woman).
I see, so what you are saying is that in those days if a woman wanted to be a doctor, a lawyer, a Senator, an engineer, it was easy as pie, there was no social stigma, no discrimination against women. Then I suppose you evidently imply that the reason there were so few female doctors, engineers, Senators etc. in those days was the fault of the women?
If that is what you think, then you have a totally wrong recollection of the 50s (and you are not alone, as I said, many people simply forget the bad things, the horrible aspect of old days and fondly remember only the good aspects).
In those days, both societal pressure and educational system, legal system worked against women entering professions. First, there would be resistance from the parents if a girl wanted to become an engineer. Then their would be resistance from the school, from the teachers, they would encourage her to be a housewife, or at most become a nurse or a teacher.
If she still insisted on applying to engineering course, the dean of admission probably would throw her application into garbage without reading it. Cards were stacked heavily against women who wanted to enter the professions.
And that is the reason why there were so few women in the professions in the 50s. The reason is not that they had every opportunity to pursue any career they wanted, but were too dumb or too lazy to go into engineering, law, accounting, politics and so on (as you seem to imply).
Quite so, old boy, except for some women, like my mother, who got a geology degree in 1948, and worked for the provincial geologist's office. Or my grandmother, who got a degree in library science in 1920, and was a librarian at a university.
Or god knows how many other women who did all sorts of things that you've never heard of.
You might want to read the whole post. The original comment (not the pompous bombast of the Lord High Mayor of Flexible Ethics) was about coming straight out of high school. As I said, and you conveniently didn't quote.
Male teachers are "feminized" these days? I would have thought the reverse.
Dead end? How far can ANY teaching job go?
There are hurdles to leap over even these days. Stuff like degrees and such. There were more hurdles in those days, but some women managed to accomplish being a little bit more than wives, secretaries, and nurses.
And you have one of the gloomiest memories concerning the 50s and the most pollyannaish views of today.
And that's why no women had ever ridden above the lowly professions of nursing, secretary, and wife. Right.
aaahhh the old moving-the-goalposts" ruse again. I was waiting for it. Before it was that women became secretaries and wives and nurses, and now it is "few women" exceeded those duties. lmao Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle.
I think most of the posters here are awesome.
Those were few and far between , TenPenny. How many women became doctors or geologists in those days? How many do today? It is important to have the proper perspective here.
No doubt there was an odd black who was also a doctor or a lawyer. Does that mean that blacks faced no discrimination in those days, that them being pushed to back of the bus was merely a myth, or that there was no need for Rosa Parks or MLK? Then you probably also think that there was no need of feminist movement, that women had all the rights, all the opportunities they wanted in the 50s?
That is the conservative view. Extreme right columnists such as Phyllis Schlafly claim that women had full equality, had all the opportunities they wanted in the 50s, and that Feminist movement was totally unnecessary, that Feminist movement destroyed America. If you also feel that way, I strongly disagree.
Just because an odd women (or black) here or there was able to enter professions does not mean that women faced no barriers to career advancement 50 years ago, they faced plenty. Fully as many as did the blacks (but then perhaps you also think that blacks did not face any barriers either).
Quite so, old boy.
It's also important to write what you mean in the first place, it would be somewhat simpler than constantly revising what you 'meant' to say.
I dare say that in your original post you likely meant to say 'the majority of women' not 'women' (which implies all women).
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.
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.
I don’t know if you remember the comedy show ‘Happy Days’, TenPenny. In that, Mrs. Cunningham, the mother of Ritchie and Joanie was a housewife. She also had a degree in Archeology.
I remember in one of the shows, she explained why she became a housewife. She made light of it, saying that there were not many ruins in Milwaukee. To me, that was the most poignant movement in the show. Here is this intelligent woman, who presumably overcame impossible odds to become an Archeologist. But prejudice against women in the workforce being so strong, that nobody would give her a job as an Archeologist, and she finally had to settle for being a housewife.
Or look at Lucy (in I Love Lucy). Here was an intelligent, articulate, extrovert woman. In today’s world she would probably be a Senator or CEO (similar to Carly Fiorina or Oprah). Instead, all her intelligence, her resourcefulness, all her talents were used so that she could get on her husband, Ricky’s show.
That was the reality of 50s, not a few women becoming geologists or whatever. I remember one celebrity once remarked, when asked if Lucy was a Feminist. “Lucy was not a Feminist, but Lucy was the reason why Feminism was necessary.” was his response.
The reality of those days was totally different from today’s reality, no matter what some conservatives may think.
I remember in one of the shows, she explained why she became a housewife. She made light of it, saying that there were not many ruins in Milwaukee. To me, that was the most poignant movement in the show. Here is this intelligent woman, who presumably overcame impossible odds to become an Archeologist. But prejudice against women in the workforce being so strong, that nobody would give her a job as an Archeologist, and she finally had to settle for being a housewife.
Or look at Lucy (in I Love Lucy). Here was an intelligent, articulate, extrovert woman. In today’s world she would probably be a Senator or CEO (similar to Carly Fiorina or Oprah). Instead, all her intelligence, her resourcefulness, all her talents were used so that she could get on her husband, Ricky’s show.
That was the reality of 50s, not a few women becoming geologists or whatever. I remember one celebrity once remarked, when asked if Lucy was a Feminist. “Lucy was not a Feminist, but Lucy was the reason why Feminism was necessary.” was his response.
The reality of those days was totally different from today’s reality, no matter what some conservatives may think.
It had EVERYHTHING to do with discrimination, JLM. Discrimination and societal pressure, societal prejudice against women entering professions. Anyway, I don’t think we will agree on this one. I say the reason most women were housewives was biases, prejudices by the society and discrimination, you say it was because women preferred to become housewives rather than doctors, lawyers, engineers etc., that they had full equality, as many opportunities as today, but they decided not to pursue them. Let us leave it at that.
But I am curious, Do you also claim that there was no discrimination again blacks, and the fact that most of them were janitors and servants was a fate of their own choosing? That they voluntarily decided to sit at the back of the bus? Or that there was no discrimination against gays, and the fact that gays were in the closet was totally their own fault? I just want to find out how much you have romanticized the 50s in your mind.
Last edited: