What do we think now?

[Cliffy]

okay, children were safer and drugs weren't around.

Actually, I remember stories of kids dying with their heads in a plastic bag sniffing glue or gas in cans. Opium, heroine and coke were around for centuries, but not as prevalent as today. But I think drug abuse has been around since the industrial revolution (See the opium wars with China) and has been intentionally made available to keep the masses sedated. Child abuse has been around as long as humans have walked the earth but it is reported more today. In the fifties it was just starting to come out of the closet, because I was there and I heard about it.

 

[karrie]

Actually, I remember stories of kids dying with their heads in a plastic bag sniffing glue or gas in cans. Opium, heroine and coke were around for centuries, but not as prevalent as today. But I think drug abuse has been around since the industrial revolution (See the opium wars with China) and has been intentionally made available to keep the masses sedated. Child abuse has been around as long as humans have walked the earth but it is reported more today. In the fifties it was just starting to come out of the closet, because I was there and I heard about it.

See, this is my sticking point... is it really that much more prevalent today, or are we just getting more news coverage, and larger populations? Percentage wise I doubt it's much worse. We just as so inundated with information.

But, apparently I'm not supposed to question it... JLM, talloola, and VI, are older than me and swear that their childhoods are the way things were. But, since my childrens' childhoods aren't 'the way things are', I can't help questioning.

 

[Cliffy]

Well, I was born in the slums of Montreal, so I think my childhood was a little different from theirs. The slums have always been enclaves of degeneration but today, coke has become much more prevalent among the rich. In the fifties alcohol was the drug of choice but it wasn't considered a drug then.

 

[selin]

AS I remember our biggest danger was bears and cougars(4leged)

now , the biggest danger cougars with two-leged.

safety is going bad everywhere,willages seem safer but nowadays it is changing slowly, children aren't allowed to go, play outside with their friends everytime. i am afraid they would be paranoid in the future.

 

[karrie]

Well, I was born in the slums of Montreal, so I think my childhood was a little different from theirs. The slums have always been enclaves of degeneration but today, coke has become much more prevalent among the rich. In the fifties alcohol was the drug of choice but it wasn't considered a drug then.

In the 50's cocaine and heroine were still in some medications, so I really don't believe that the rich weren't taking plenty of doctor prescribed mind altering drugs. The elite have done so all through human history, I can't imagine purity suddenly hitting the 50's and then magically evaporating.

 

[Cliffy]

In the 50's cocaine and heroine were still in a lot some medications, so I really don't believe that the rich weren't taking plenty of doctor prescribed mind altering drugs. The elite have done so all through human history, I can't imagine purity suddenly hitting the 50's and then magically evaporating.

You are right. My mother was wired to Valium since the fifties.

 

[Said1]

Not to mention perscribed 'mother's helpers', Miltown.

 

[JLM]

it was the beginning of a time of great change, yes, lots of work, lots of automation, so factories and
so on were bringing in so many new gadgets, eg. automatic washers and dryers and on it goes.

Change is always going on, but women were on the march, going out to work or staying home, lots of money
around, if one wanted to work, work was everywhere, 'no war' at that time, and the memory for many people
of world war two, was still fresh, and the happiness to have that in the past was abvious, because so
many thousands died on both sides, and it left deep scars, and no one wanted 'that' again.

Many remembered the depression, which had just ended, and having lots of work and money available, was
exciting and new after that awful time of poverty and war, so the energy was high and everyone wanted
to 'live' again, not suffer in a war or be poor and have food stamps again, that was in the past.

I somehow get the impression Talloola that there are many who consider a woman's place in the home looking after children and cleaning the house is less nobel or valued than say taking a job in the work place. Yet I've also seen women who have added up all the hours at various tasks in the home and come up with a hefty $ for what they are worth. Which way is it? :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Changes in women's right came slowly, prior to, during and after the 1950's. Those who want rights have to fight for them, and women did, a right and a decade at a time. With every new decade came advances and supporters.

Quite so, change was slow (very slow) in the 50s. Even 60s did not see that much of a change, other than premarital sex. Besides, in the 60s and 70s the society was preoccupied by the black Civil Rights movement. The main advances in women's issues, equal pay for equal work, spousal abuse, sexual harassment in the work place, day care etc. were not addressed until late 70s and 80, that is when major advances took place.

At that time, there was a spurt of achievements. after that, things again slowed down, mainly because most of the things had been achieved (at least legally) by the end of 80s.

You are right. My mother was wired to Valium since the fifties.

The problem of prescription drugs was quite common among housewives in the 50s. But as everything else in the 50s, it was rarely talked about. People started talking about prescription drugs much later.

 

[JLM]

"All in the Family" was nothing more than a sitcom, the purpose of which was nothing more than providing entertainment. Archie, Edith, Meathead and Gloria weren't typical of anyone- just hilariously funny....................:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is too bad that the media only focus on all the nasty stuff going on out there. There is a lot of really wonderful stuff going on but it takes effort to find it. It is worth while to focus on the positive things that are going on. In fact, if we did, the world would become a much better place.

World is already a much better place, Cliffy (compared to 50 years ago).

This constant focus on the negative only reinforces the negativity that makes people feel despair about our future. I think the most life affirming thing people can do at this time is shoot their TVs.

Bad news sells TV adds, because people are fascinated by bad news, and they tune in. And in these days of internet, cell phones etc. bad news is much easier to find than 50 years ago.

50 years ago, you knew what was happening in your neck fo the woods and in big cities like Toronto, but little else. I think that is why people did not get much bad news in the old days. Now they get bad news from all over the country. Indeed, from all over the world. So it is natural to assume that there is much more bad news than before. But I doubt if that really is the case.

 

[karrie]

I somehow get the impression Talloola that there are many who consider a woman's place in the home looking after children and cleaning the house is less nobel or valued than say taking a job in the work place. Yet I've also seen women who have added up all the hours at various tasks in the home and come up with a hefty $ for what they are worth. Which way is it? :lol:

I think the chronic issue JLM is that we view people who make choices we wouldn't, as valueless. Look at how most people view honeytruck operators, housecleaners, etc. Just because there's monetary value to the job performed doesn't mean people respect those who perform it.

 

[AnnaG]

Actually, I remember stories of kids dying with their heads in a plastic bag sniffing glue or gas in cans. Opium, heroine and coke were around for centuries, but not as prevalent as today. But I think drug abuse has been around since the industrial revolution (See the opium wars with China) and has been intentionally made available to keep the masses sedated. Child abuse has been around as long as humans have walked the earth but it is reported more today. In the fifties it was just starting to come out of the closet, because I was there and I heard about it.

I doubt the abuse of drugs is limited to the past couple decades. The majority of drug abuse is done using prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drug use and abuse is as old as mankind itself. Human beings have always had a desire to eat or drink substances that make them feel relaxed, stimulated, or euphoric. Humans have used drugs of one sort or another for thousands of years. Wine was used at least from the time of the early Egyptians; narcotics from 4000 B.C.; and medicinal use of marijuana has been dated to 2737 BC in China.

[/FONT]http://www.drug-rehabs.org/drughistory.php

 

[talloola]

I never said they didn't talk to one another, I said that a child's or young adult's viewpoint of their happiness isn't necessarily accurate. I grew up thinking the adults around me were happy too.. Children usually do. QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No children don't, 'usually do', it depends on the outward behavior of the parents.

I explained in a post earlier on that many children grew up in homes where the marriage was 'bad, and the
couple stayed together anyway, and in opposition to growing up thinking adults were happy when they were
not, I explained that they grew up watching for years the behavior of parents who disliked each other,
and vowed they would never live like their parents did, and they didn't, and yes, there were children
who had parents who hid their unhappiness very well, and the children did not notice, that certainly
was not the case in my childhood, it was very obvious.

When I discussed non drugs, I also explained that I was speaking from a young persons views, growing up
in a society 'without' drugs, and I went on to say that older adults who were not mainstream, and living
a life a alchoholism etc., probably did get involved with some type of drugs, usually over the counter
crap, or something prescribed by a doctor to 'keep' them going, but there was no 'STREET DRUGS' in my
young generation, or in the schools, not sure about other groups, first nations reservations for instance,
they will have to speak for themselves, I did not have access to 'how' they were doing at that time.

How can you say I don't want to hear about molestation etc., I haven't given any comment in that area.
I said where I was coming from, and it was directed to the non drug problem with young people, and
situations within the household, between couples.


Of course there was molestation back then, but no one heard about it, those subjects were well hidden,
unless it was a case where injuries took place, and the police were involved, and even then, many
of those types of situations were hidden, and settled quietly, People were so ashamed when it came
to that area of life, if they were the victim, or afraid if it was someone close in to the family, as
keeping quiet was the safe thing to do.

Those problems are still in the home, but women pack it in much quicker, won't take that 'sh*t' from
any man, at least not the second time, 'but not all do', some still stay and put up with the crap.
There is definitely reasons why marriages are breaking down in huge numbers compared to earlier on,
and it seems that is the way of the future as well, things are definitely changing.


There was always crime,the type that hurts kids and women, and still is, only now the children are much more educated and taught to speak
out, and women seek help much more now, and have more support, but the violence in the home has not improved,
only the help they need is easier to get.

I never commented on molestation, kidnapping or drowning, don't know how I can be unwilling to listen.

I would more appreciate what you think of the issue, than you trying to correct my comments,or non comments.
don't need your corrections as though you are our teacher, you were born in the 70s I assume, but seem
to need to point to 'us', who can give information, of how it was, having lived the life at the time, it seems to me
that would be a valuable thing for younger people, and I have not generalized about all of life, just
what I can remember actually happening, having been there.
Somehow, we are seen as people with closed minds, poor memories, and a nieve view of life in the 50's,
thats a sad thing to know.

My comment 'what a crock', was not to your comment, it was the statement you said you read somewhere, just
to make that clear.

I've given far too much in this thread, too many words, too many posts, so now I will sign off and just
read, i'm sure everyone is tired of me by now, and so am I.

-------------------------------------

While I get what you're saying talloola, you're also being completely unwilling to listen to the reflections other people are giving. you don't want to hear that there were drug problems even though it was clearly discussed in the media from the time. You don't want to hear that molestation, kidnapping, drowning, etc., have not become more frequent and were just as common as kids in your time swam in the river all day, hopped trains alone, etc. No one is really saying anything drastically different from you, and I appreciate your viewpoint. I wish my kids had grown up with fewer fears hanging over their heads... sometimes ignorance is bliss.[/

Changes in women's right came slowly, prior to, during and after the 1950's. Those who want rights have to fight for them, and women did, a right and a decade at a time. With every new decade came advances and supporters.

exactly, each generation helped what happened for the next generation, nothing happened overnight.

 

[JLM]

I think the chronic issue JLM is that we view people who make choices we wouldn't, as valueless. Look at how most people view honeytruck operators, housecleaners, etc. Just because there's monetary value to the job performed doesn't mean people respect those who perform it.

Yep, no doubt about it (at least one poster on this forum has expressed exactly that) What I say about that is this- if the job needs doing and the person doing it does it honestly and to the best of his ability and is happy doing it- what is wrong with that and what's to criticise? As a matter of fact I have more respect for the person who drives the "honey truck" than the guy who wouldn't do it. One has character, the other may not. :lol::lol::lol:

I did read at one time that housewives have a lower life expectancy than women in other careers, but, I don't know what era they were pulling data from.

I think there's a possibility that is just another one of those "statistics", a.k.a. bullsh*t, anyway as they say it's not important how long you live, what is important is how you live. :smile::smile:

 

[VanIsle]

I never said they didn't talk to one another, I said that a child's or young adult's viewpoint of their happiness isn't necessarily accurate. I grew up thinking the adults around me were happy too.. Children usually do.



While I get what you're saying talloola, you're also being completely unwilling to listen to the reflections other people are giving. you don't want to hear that there were drug problems even though it was clearly discussed in the media from the time. You don't want to hear that molestation, kidnapping, drowning, etc., have not become more frequent and were just as common as kids in your time swam in the river all day, hopped trains alone, etc. No one is really saying anything drastically different from you, and I appreciate your viewpoint. I wish my kids had grown up with fewer fears hanging over their heads... sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Your point of view seems to be full of believing that any of us around at that time were pretty much deaf, dumb and blind. I had not reached my teens yet by 1959 but I was certainly old enough to know what was going on around me. Taxslave made a good point in stating that a lot of things were probably taken care of on the home front. None I am aware of but I do agree with you that there was likely things that happened behind closed doors that I never heard about. People seem to take great joy in pointing out how woman were so controlled back then and that is such a crock. My Mom and my friends Mom's ran the household. Dad's held the "title" as head of the household but all women knew different. My Dad never gave my Mom an allowance. He gave her his whole pay cheque and knew she was in charge of looking after the household with it. He wasn't even good with money. I have been married for 43 years. Before employers auto deposited pay cheques, my husband handed his cheque over to me every payday except once. He decided he would take care of the bills. He screwed things up badly. He handed the reins back to me and has never questioned me again.
It was not at all unusual to arrive home from school to find most of the neighbour hood women sitting around our kitchen table having afternoon tea and fully enjoying each other company. No one I know does that anymore. My Mom never wanted to work outside the home. She had zero desire and she was not trained to do anything outside the home. My sister always worked and my Mom basically raised my sister's kids. She lived with them after Dad died and she ran their house like it was hers. They paid their own bills of course but other than that - everything was done her way.
Men treated women with a great deal more respect than they do today. Foul language was rarely used in front of a woman and if it was, the person would apologize to the lady for doing so. Children showed respect to adult people. Today, you ask a 10 yr. old a question or indicate (s)he is doing something wrong and they'll tell you to eff off. The kids I grew up with would never ever have spoken to an adult that way.
Women didn't earn the same money as men but we truly lost something when the women's movement wanted equality. We got it in Spades!

 

[Ron in Regina]

Today, as I was up above a ceiling (or below the next floor, depending
on ones perspective) in an old building (built in 1921), I found a news
-paper dated from February 8th, 1935. It was the Regina Daily Star,
and the Final Edition on that date. I was looking for leaking plumbing.

The newspaper was waded up and was very delicate. Crumbling as I
tried to gently flaten it out, page by page. Much of it crumbled away as
I worked at it, but I read what I could. It was neat. Prices in 1935 = Wow!

Now this deals with a snapshot out'a time from 75 years ago, and not
50 years ago, but I read it anyway. Some very cool ads and a story
about the Lindberg Baby, New Zealand try'n to open up trade relations
with Japan (shortly before WW2), and Britain considering reforms to
"the Dole." 1935 was tough times globally, and pretty bad in the middle
of the Canadian Prairies in the middle of the Dirty Thirties, in Winter too.

Locally was a story abut the two traffic accidents earlier in the day, and
it listed not only the locations of the accidents, the circumstances around
them, including the names of the drivers and the home address's. It was
February in Saskatchewan, but a very different time. Turns out both cars
happened to hit trees, in Regina, at that time, & that was newsworthy.

Punch-line though, was there wasn't any stories about anyone being
stabbed by anyone else. That is something I hear about now several
times each week locally. The one I heard about today involved a man
being stabbed 6-7 times in front of his child, over $3 in change and a
pack of gum: CBC News - Saskatchewan - Regina man stabbed as child watches
and: Regina Teen Charged With Attempted Murder | News Talk 980 CJME on the same story.

Stories like the one above are reported several times weekly, locally.
I don't know if before was better than now, but the 1935 newspaper
was a very interesting read.

 

[TenPenny]

Yep, no doubt about it (at least one poster on this forum has expressed exactly that) What I say about that is this- if the job needs doing and the person doing it does it honestly and to the best of his ability and is happy doing it- what is wrong with that and what's to criticise? As a matter of fact I have more respect for the person who drives the "honey truck" than the guy who wouldn't do it. One has character, the other may not. :lol::lol::lol:
I think there's a possibility that is just another one of those "statistics", a.k.a. bullsh*t, anyway as they say it's not important how long you live, what is important is how you live. :smile::smile:

My distinction was whether the woman involved wanted to stay home or not. If she didn't want to stay home, but had to in order to raise a family, then she might well have felt 'shackled' to the kitchen.

It's not a matter of how I value the roles, they are equally valuable. It's a matter of what the woman in question wants to do. She should be able to persue her dreams, with nobody looking down on her.

 

[JLM]

My distinction was whether the woman involved wanted to stay home or not. If she didn't want to stay home, but had to in order to raise a family, then she might well have felt 'shackled' to the kitchen.

It's not a matter of how I value the roles, they are equally valuable. It's a matter of what the woman in question wants to do. She should be able to persue her dreams, with nobody looking down on her.

I hear you loud and clear Tenpenny and like you I find either role women choose equally acceptable, but where I have the problem is after the woman has already had the kids, she decides she wants to do something different and someone else should look after the kids. :smile::smile: There were days too when I was a young feller with a young wife and family when I felt I should quit this bullsh*t work routine and go fishing every day and drink beer...............but it never came to anything beyond a thought.....:lol::lol::lol:

 

[karrie]

Stories like the one above are reported several times weekly, locally.
I don't know if before was better than now, but the 1935 newspaper
was a very interesting read.

I think the population has changed a tiny bit. That's part of what we fail to take into account.

Your point of view seems to be full of believing that any of us around at that time were pretty much deaf, dumb and blind. I had not reached my teens yet by 1959 but I was certainly old enough to know what was going on around me. .... Today, you ask a 10 yr. old a question or indicate (s)he is doing something wrong and they'll tell you to eff off. ...

I haven't said you were dumb or blind, I've said there were reasons for the difference in how kids grew up... differences in population levels and densities, difference in media coverage, etc.

But realize that you're getting ticked with me for questioning your perception, but then turning around and telling me my daughter and son, the kids they go to school with, all the kids they swim with, and all the kids they hang out with at the YMCA, are something I know darn well they are not, that YOU know how life is for them, and no one else could be right. My job is these kids, and while I've seen a few little jerks, the majority are no different than kids ever were.