What do we think now?

[talloola]

I liked the absence of drugs back then, and also the respect for teachers and parents, which
seems to be missing now, by many.

I like the idea that when one went through those school doors in the morning, you were usually
on your best behavior, even if you didn't feel like it, and a definite limit as to what you wore
to school, I would not go back so far that girls 'had' to wear dresses or skirts, pants are fine,
but after that, so many of the get-ups they wear these days, make them look like hookers, 'cheap'
hookers at that, and the guys walk around with their ass*s hanging out, it is
disgusting, we used to call guys who looked like that, 'dirty old men',and the schools seem like a place to 'hang out' rather than hit the books and
work hard.

We didn't even think about drugs, they were not in our lives, except for the odd 'reefer', that
we heard that someone smoked, never saw one.

I did not like the inequality between men and women, and that is in the workplace, and in the home.

The man being the boss of the house was a big mistake, no one needs or should be the boss of the house.
Some families had to have the approval of the husband/dad to do almost everything, he was the decider,
and that was that. Many women spent their whole married lives, without any power at all, no bank book,
no money, except an allowance given to her, and was seen as a second rate citizen in society, because 'he' was the
bread winner, those days are gone now, with the exception of a few.

I loved the fact that you had to save money to buy things, no credit cards, there were bank loans, but
it was a strict arrangement, and one had to be able to pay it back with interest, and they didn't make
sure you got a loan, just to get your business, then sit back and watch you go down the toilet.

I hate the crime, violence, drugs, in todays world, it is very scary and getting worse.

 

[JLM]

I liked the absence of drugs back then, and also the respect for teachers and parents, which
seems to be missing now, by many.

I like the idea that when one went through those school doors in the morning, you were usually
on your best behavior, even if you didn't feel like it, and a definite limit as to what you wore
to school, I would not go back so far that girls 'had' to wear dresses or skirts, pants are fine,
but after that, so many of the get-ups they wear these days, make them look like hookers, 'cheap'
hookers at that, and the guys walk around with their ass*s hanging out, it is
disgusting, we used to call guys who looked like that, 'dirty old men',and the schools seem like a place to 'hang out' rather than hit the books and
work hard.

We didn't even think about drugs, they were not in our lives, except for the odd 'reefer', that
we heard that someone smoked, never saw one.

I did not like the inequality between men and women, and that is in the workplace, and in the home.

The man being the boss of the house was a big mistake, no one needs or should be the boss of the house.
Some families had to have the approval of the husband/dad to do almost everything, he was the decider,
and that was that. Many women spent their whole married lives, without any power at all, no bank book,
no money, except an allowance given to her, and was seen as a second rate citizen in society, because 'he' was the
bread winner, those days are gone now, with the exception of a few.

I loved the fact that you had to save money to buy things, no credit cards, there were bank loans, but
it was a strict arrangement, and one had to be able to pay it back with interest, and they didn't make
sure you got a loan, just to get your business, then sit back and watch you go down the toilet.

I hate the crime, violence, drugs, in todays world, it is very scary and getting worse.

Gotta agree with you Talloola. I don't think most women in those days felt the "inequality" the way it would be felt today, it was more that the roles were different, the Dad headed out in the morning with the lunch bucket to "bring home the bacon" and the Mum looked after the house and children and did the cooking and cleaning. Women were on an inferior basis to the men in being able to get loans but that probably came about from the fact very few seldom needed them and since few worked outside the home, they wouldn't have an independent means of repaying them anyway. Are we better off today because women are more independent? I think this independence (good or bad) has resulted in a lot of single parent families. I believe a lot of screwed up kids are the product of single parent families. All other aspects you mention are right on the mark.

Gotta agree with you Talloola. I don't think most women in those days felt the "inequality" the way it would be felt today, it was more that the roles were different, the Dad headed out in the morning with the lunch bucket to "bring home the bacon" and the Mum looked after the house and children and did the cooking and cleaning. Women were on an inferior basis to the men in being able to get loans but that probably came about from the fact very few seldom needed them and since few worked outside the home, they wouldn't have an independent means of repaying them anyway. Are we better off today because women are more independent? I think this independence (good or bad) has resulted in a lot of single parent families. I believe a lot of screwed up kids are the product of single parent families. All other aspects you mention are right on the mark.

P.S. One thing that was worse then, homosexuals were ridiculed.

 

[talloola]

Gotta agree with you Talloola. I don't think most women in those days felt the "inequality" the way it would be felt today, it was more that the roles were different, the Dad headed out in the morning with the lunch bucket to "bring home the bacon" and the Mum looked after the house and children and did the cooking and cleaning. Women were on an inferior basis to the men in being able to get loans but that probably came about from the fact very few seldom needed them and since few worked outside the home, they wouldn't have an independent means of repaying them anyway. Are we better off today because women are more independent? I think this independence (good or bad) has resulted in a lot of single parent families. I believe a lot of screwed up kids are the product of single parent families. All other aspects you mention are right on the mark.

.

Yes, it is very complicated. I agree that it was much better when the 'mom' stayed home with the kids, and
I would do it again gladly, (if we could afford it)., and back then a couple could afford to have one
parent work and one stay home, and I like that as long as the two of them are respected by each other, as
being the same, and also by 'society' as being the same, 'not' the husband having control over finances,
the ownership of the house, the decisions, what everyone is allowed to, or not to do, so it is complicated,
and women got fed up with that treatment by so many husbands and by society.

Now, if we could go back to that agreement, and have the couple on a complete equal basis, then it would
be fair, otherwise, no.

I also agree that there are far too many single parents, marriages are not working, and I see a trend where
people get married, almost expecting it to be that way, and stay together till they don't feel like it any more.
Many young people have said to me, "Wow you've been married that long?, that doesn't happen any more."
They are accepting that fact, get married knowing that, and don't even dream of having a 50th wedding
anniversary.


Back in l959, marriages were expected to last forever, and many did , but also many stayed
together when they were miserable, and many kids lived in those houses, and swore they would never live
like their parents, and didn't.
People don't even
sit down for a real supper every night, with everyone at the table, I see that with my own kids, nothing
like we were at all.

Very complicated back then, and now as well.

 

[Curiosity]

What a neat topic I wish I could type it in paragraphs but am still learning how....(bah).Remembering my mother and her sisters talking about their early lives after school and before marriage I would not trade my own life with them - although they were happy and seemed brought up to do just what theyall ended up doing - making a home for a new husband and a set of children to raise and educate.Life was hard without all the conveniences we now have - especially having cars to get around - we only hadone and it was missing much of the day with my father. Still my mother kept her lovely figure for all herwalking to the store even after having so many kids....She was happy and was always worried about some of the daughters not always anxious to get married right away but to get more education or get a job.....Sounds boring to me but to many of my contemporaries in my family - we have it best....(or so we think!).

 

[karrie]

I think my child hood was as idyllic as the 50's, and I grew up in the 80's. Why do I think that? Because I wasn't plugged into the information superhighway. I hadn't been made paranoid. Humanity hasn't changed, only our awareness of it has. The fact that people grew up naive and unaware of the scope of suffering (domestic abuse, drug use, prostitution, suppression of human rights) that was occurring around them doesn't mean it wasn't occuring.

 

[wulfie68]

Things are definately better now because I wasn't even thought of in 1959

In some ways I don't like these types of comparative threads because there is often a reluctance to admit the short-comings of the era a person is most fond of.

Talloola pointed out a bunch of the back and forth, for example, that most people who pick A or B don't. How do you compare issues like illegal drug use or the repression of sexual identity and discrimination? How do you compare the increased longevity in our population to an increased rate of reported crime?

Bad things happened in the 50's, 60's and any other decade, just as they do today: there were rapes, murders, assaults and other crimes committed; there were divisive social issues that were debated; there were global conflicts that threatened to flare up.

Karrie is right on when she said "Humanity hasn't changed, only our awareness of it has."

 

[VanIsle]

Things are definately better now because I wasn't even thought of in 1959

In some ways I don't like these types of comparative threads because there is often a reluctance to admit the short-comings of the era a person is most fond of.

Talloola pointed out a bunch of the back and forth, for example, that most people who pick A or B don't. How do you compare issues like illegal drug use or the repression of sexual identity and discrimination? How do you compare the increased longevity in our population to an increased rate of reported crime?

Bad things happened in the 50's, 60's and any other decade, just as they do today: there were rapes, murders, assaults and other crimes committed; there were divisive social issues that were debated; there were global conflicts that threatened to flare up.

Karrie is right on when she said "Humanity hasn't changed, only our awareness of it has."

No, I can't agree with you on this. Humanity has changed. While it's true that our awareness of it has changed, there is still a lot more happening now then ever before. I'm saying that the same things are happening but on a much larger scale. Perhaps some of it is due to fast communication. Reports of child grabbings, molestations, wife beatings etc. certainly tend to give others ideas. While I was growing up I didn't like going places in the dark by myself. That's about as afraid as I ever was. I don't know where Talloola grew up hearing about "reefers". I'm younger and I never heard of them until sometime after I was married. The only thing I ever heard of growing up was LSD. No one in my little town used it (and yes - I do know that they didn't) but it was in the news and a lot of us were very afraid of the news reports and what they said was happening to the Vancouver and area kids who did use it. I grew up with 3 older brothers and 2 older sisters. Even today (those still living) still talk about being glad things like that did not effect us directly.
Being afraid of weird things didn't really start until someone poisoned a tylenol pill and then people started to do more weird things more openly then ever before. When was that - mid 80's? The horrors of the world have always been there but never on such a wide scale as now.

 

[AnnaG]

As children we were certainly safer. But on the other hand we did have to participate in nuclear war drills.

Kids were safer in 1959?
I suppose so, unless you were indigenous.

CBC News - Canada - A history of residential schools in Canada

 

[TenPenny]

I don't think things were particularly safer, more that the population was lower, and therefore there were fewer wackos around. But also it's perception: now everybody hears about every outrage in bumfuk pei, as soon as it happens, on 78 different media sources. Back in 1959, you heard about the big stuff, once a day, and that was that.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't think there was any less child or spousal abuse back then, they were just better at covering it up. With inflation today, I had more buying power in the old days (I started working in '64). Cars were easier to work on but they were polluting gas guzzlers and your chances of dying in an accident was greater because they were so engineered

1960 Plymouth Valiant got 36 MPG with the virtually indestructible 225 slant-6 in it.
1959 Chevy Bel-Air with a V-8 in it was getting 18C to 21H per gallon. The 6 cylinders were in the high 20s.
Fuel-mileages in the mid-60s to the early 80s went for a crap. Mid 80s to 90s got better.

A 1959 station wagon was safer than a lot of minivans and SUVs.

People paid cash for things. The rule of thumb was that unless you bought a house or something like that, you didn't use credit.

Women were 2nd-class citizens back then, as Tall said.

A lot more focus was on healthier food production back then, even if it was incidental.

etc
etc
etc

Things are only different. Some are better and some are worse.

 

[talloola]

Yes, I see many differences back and forth, some better then, some better now, yes we are more aware,
yes, women are 'out' there doing their thing, that's good, BUT, we did not have the horrible drug problem,
and that is a huge issue today, it is a war, causing so much crime and sickness and family problems, it
should be dealt with, but isn't, only treatment, nothing done about stopping it at the source, too much
money to be had I guess, and the drug community, lords etc., have so much power, technology, weapons and
it seems our legal community, police etc., do not know, or don't want to know, how to get on top of it.

That is much worse than anything back in the 50's, and I see it from both sides,- 'no drugs at all', up to
today,- where drugs are rampant everywhere, and also, to my disgust, also accepted to a point as part of
life today.
I like the effort put toward 'helping' drug addicts, but that does nothing to stop society from 'having'
drug addicts.

It has nothing to do with 'not' being aware of drugs, it is because there were no drugs back then, at
least in canada.
We had alchohol problems, and that was the issue of those days, alchoholism in the family, and drinking
by minors, driving accidents, no seatbelts, so that problem concerning the drinking and driving has
improved, but needs to keep improving.

Sure the drinking age was 21, but there was booze at all the parties, the older guys got it for the young
guys, just like today, we saw lots of drinking by minors, and lots of fighting and trouble caused from
minors being drunk and disorderly out in public, in their cars, and at parties, we knew lots of young
people who spent time in jail because of their drinking and trouble making, we knew young guys who spent
time in jail for gang rape of a so called 'tramp', well that young girl was a minor, so were they, no
young offenders act then, they all went to jail and spent a good portion of the rest of their teens there,
and a couple of them were adults, so heavier sentences.

BUT now the drinking is still a problem, and with it we have the drug problem, which is bigger and more
dangerous.
There were very few girls back then who were violent and committing crimes against others, but it happened
now and then, but I actually don't remember one incident.

Yeah, a reefer, is a cigarette I suppose with marijuana in it, not really sure. There was no such thing
as LSD in the 50's, and the reefer was a cigarette that one could get if they went 'across' the line into
blaine or point roberts, but it was only slightly talked about, then forgotton about, never anything like
that in our schools, or parties, but i'm sure one or two showed up somewhere.

 

[JLM]

1960 Plymouth Valiant got 36 MPG with the virtually indestructible 225 slant-6 in it.
1959 Chevy Bel-Air with a V-8 in it was getting 18C to 21H per gallon. The 6 cylinders were in the high 20s.
Fuel-mileages in the mid-60s to the early 80s went for a crap. Mid 80s to 90s got better.

A 1959 station wagon was safer than a lot of minivans and SUVs.

People paid cash for things. The rule of thumb was that unless you bought a house or something like that, you didn't use credit.

Women were 2nd-class citizens back then, as Tall said.

A lot more focus was on healthier food production back then, even if it was incidental.

etc
etc
etc

Things are only different. Some are better and some are worse.

Well said Anna, but I think the scales are leaning slightly on the down side reason being we don't have the reasons for optimism today we had in the 50s. Do we see the drug issues improving? NO. Do we see poverty issues improving? No. Do we see health issues improving? NOt until people start paying attention and changing their lifestyle.

 

[karrie]

there have been heroine and opium problems for centuries. Drug addiction, trafficking, crime syndicates, and the multiple effects all of these have on families, is not new, and predates the 50's by a LONG ways.

 

[JLM]

there have been heroine and opium problems for centuries. Drug addiction, trafficking, crime syndicates, and the multiple effects all of these have on families, is not new, and predates the 50's by a LONG ways.

Yep, but I think the burning question here is what percentage of people today are adversely affected vs. prior to 1950.

 

[Cliffy]

Yep, but I think the burning question here is what percentage of people today are adversely affected vs. prior to 1950.

By burning do you mean sparking up a fatty? Prohibition has caused the rise in drug use and the demonization of a medicinal herb has helped by telling lies, that even children can see through, has caused the rise in Cannabis use. It is not the drug so much but the abuse of the drug that is harmful. Drink too much water and you will die. The drug issue will never go away until people start telling the truth, start including everyone in their lives as brothers and sister. Because every wreck you see out there on the street started out as an innocent child and it is our judgments on them that have driven them to despair.

Two medicine people have told me in the last month that when they go to a city, one of the first things they do is buy a bottle to take to skid row to give to one of the alcoholics there. They say that it is those people who hold the old knowledge, the old stories. But it is too painful for them, the rejection and violence they have experience and they drown that pain in alcohol. So even though these men who I talked to have not drank in decades, they bring a bottle to a drunk and they here the legends of their people that is hidden away in those minds who cannot normally bare the responsibility of holding that knowledge.

I found that very interesting that I heard that from two respected elders back to back, one just before I went to that gathering and one when I got there.

 

[karrie]

Yep, but I think the burning question here is what percentage of people today are adversely affected vs. prior to 1950.

My guess is pretty close to the same percentages. There are just so many more of us crammed into cities, and so much more news coverage of the issue.

We have turned into a preventative society... education education education.... so we talk about every issue like it happens to everyone all the time. Look how many people here have said 'we were so much safer back then.' No... you weren't safer as children. You just weren't educated as to all the interesting ways you might die, like our kids are now. And the addiction issues in the cities are no different.

 

[gerryh]

The whining the over 60's are doing here concerning the "good ol days" is nothing new. The same whining has been going on for ever. Same with the standard..... kids these days have no respect for their elders...... This one is repeated over and over again.

 

[talloola]

Yes, when i talk about 'no' drugs back in the 50's, it is true, but again, I am referring to a young
generation growing up, with no drugs, not even thinking about drugs, don't know about drugs, drugs
have not penetrated into that generation at all, but of course if you want to go international or down
to the skid roe section of vancouver, which is where my dad spent much of his middle age and older, then
there is substitutes for alchohol, vanilla and such, phenobarbital,(i'm sure he conned some doctor into
writing him a prescription for his depression), yes, those alchoholics hunted out
anything they could find, if they couldn't get alchohol, shoe polish, i'm told, and whatever else.

But the main stream 'young' generation knew nothing about drugs, it wasn't around, and I'm talking 'Canada',
not china or wherever, whatever they did around the world is another story, I can't speak for them.

Of course opium has been going on for eons, but not when I was growing up, not in my teen generation, and
not even in the young adults of the 50s, who were mainstream.

 

[JLM]

Yes, when i talk about 'no' drugs back in the 50's, it is true, but again, I am referring to a young
generation growing up, with no drugs, not even thinking about drugs, don't know about drugs, drugs
have not penetrated into that generation at all, but of course if you want to go international or down
to the skid roe section of vancouver, which is where my dad spent much of his middle age and older, then
there is substitutes for alchohol, vanilla and such, phenobarbital,(i'm sure he conned some doctor into
writing him a prescription for his depression), yes, those alchoholics hunted out
anything they could find, if they couldn't get alchohol, shoe polish, i'm told, and whatever else.

But the main stream 'young' generation knew nothing about drugs, it wasn't around, and I'm talking 'Canada',
not china or wherever, whatever they did around the world is another story, I can't speak for them.

Of course opium has been going on for eons, but not when I was growing up, not in my teen generation, and
not even in the young adults of the 50s, who were mainstream.

You're right of course. The only yardstick I have to make a comparison is the number of people I knew of in the 60s who were affected by drugs (none) compared to many I know of now and even some in my own family. Now I would be willing to concede that some of the present day druggies are taking the place of what would have been alcoholics. I don't know if the statistics can tell us much about the drug problem, but anecdotal evidence sure can. :smile:

 

[karrie]

The Tyee ? Harm Reduction, '50s Style