What do we think now?

[SirJosephPorter]

There seems to be plenty of nostalgia in this thread, how great things were in old days, how they have gone to the dogs etc.

Well, in my opinion, it is plain nonsense. Memories fade with time, people only remember what they want to remember, they remember only good things, they tend to forget bad things.

The fact is, 1959 was a thoroughly nasty, unpleasant time for anybody except white males. White male ruled supreme. Society today is much more tolerant than in 1959, when racism, sexism, homophobia etc. were quite common and were almost universally accepted.

And there were no problems of spousal abuse, child sex abuse, pedophilia etc. in 1959? What utter nonsense. There was no problem of spousal abuse like Saudi Arabia has no problem of spousal abuse today. There was no problem because nobody talked about spousal abuse, and implicitly it was accepted that a man has the right to bang his wife around a little (remember the ‘rule of thumb’?).

Not only spousal abuse, but society did not talk about most of the problems. Thus child sex abuse by clergy was strictly hidden under carpet, if at all any priest was found to indulge in pedophilia, he was simply transferred to another parish and the thing was hushed up.

The society was more tranquil, more peaceful, because everybody knew their place in the societal hierarchy (white man at the top, then white woman, then black man, then black woman, and homosexuals of course, down in the dirt). Everybody accepted their position and nobody made waves. But the society was much more secretive, much more oppressive, much more puritanical.

Compared to 1959, we are richer today, healthier, live longer, are more prosperous, more tolerant, more open minded. I would say there is no comparison, the society is definitely much better today. Most of the so called advantages of the old days were due to the fact that society was more repressive and did not talk openly about any of the problem facing it.

And I am optimistic about the future, with better things to come. I fully expect the society to be much better 50 years from now that it is today.

 

[TenPenny]

That is exactly right. In general, people will feel better in their familiar comfort zone, and an orderly society where everyone knows there place makes many people feel more secure.

But at what cost? People in Victorian England felt that their way was better than the future. Women were protected from reading newpapers and voting, as it would cause them too much mental strain and hardship.WW1 caused huge upheaval in societies such as Britain, where common folk discovered that many of the upper classes were incompetent fools as officers, and deserved no respect or deferral.

Similarly, we continue to change as a society, and sure, things are different, but certainly not necessarily worse overall. Crimes existed then, and crimes exist now. We have far more opportunities today. Those who worship at the altar of mom staying home, cooking for everyone, missed the point of the Rolling Stones, with the 'mothers little helper'...women who had busy, full working lives during WW2 were suddenly sent back home to work in the kitchen....while 1959 may have seemed idyllic to kids who weren't aware, many of the mothers were seething with resentment and missed opportunities...which is why many of those mothers encouraged their daughters to fulfill their lives and dreams, not be shackled to the kitchen, waiting for Father to come home, greeting him at the door with the martini at 5:30.

 

[taxslave]

One thing I do remember, or perhaps more correctly remember hearing about is that local crime was often dealt with locally. Occasionally the perps such as wife beaters required a trip to the hospital after receiving their punishment and the occasional resident was invited to leave the community. But overall the system worked with no expensive outside involvement.

 

[JLM]

There seems to be plenty of nostalgia in this thread, how great things were in old days, how they have gone to the dogs etc.

Well, in my opinion, it is plain nonsense. Memories fade with time, people only remember what they want to remember, they remember only good things, they tend to forget bad things.

The fact is, 1959 was a thoroughly nasty, unpleasant time for anybody except white males. White male ruled supreme. Society today is much more tolerant than in 1959, when racism, sexism, homophobia etc. were quite common and were almost universally accepted.

And there were no problems of spousal abuse, child sex abuse, pedophilia etc. in 1959? What utter nonsense. There was no problem of spousal abuse like Saudi Arabia has no problem of spousal abuse today. There was no problem because nobody talked about spousal abuse, and implicitly it was accepted that a man has the right to bang his wife around a little (remember the ‘rule of thumb’?).

Not only spousal abuse, but society did not talk about most of the problems. Thus child sex abuse by clergy was strictly hidden under carpet, if at all any priest was found to indulge in pedophilia, he was simply transferred to another parish and the thing was hushed up.

The society was more tranquil, more peaceful, because everybody knew their place in the societal hierarchy (white man at the top, then white woman, then black man, then black woman, and homosexuals of course, down in the dirt). Everybody accepted their position and nobody made waves. But the society was much more secretive, much more oppressive, much more puritanical.

Compared to 1959, we are richer today, healthier, live longer, are more prosperous, more tolerant, more open minded. I would say there is no comparison, the society is definitely much better today. Most of the so called advantages of the old days were due to the fact that society was more repressive and did not talk openly about any of the problem facing it.

And I am optimistic about the future, with better things to come. I fully expect the society to be much better 50 years from now that it is today.

This post is a prime example of someone preaching "tolerance" while at the same time characterizing other's opinions as "nonsense". Perhaps this post deserves the Pullitzer prize for both intolerance and hypocrisy.............................:lol::lol::lol::lol:

One thing I do remember, or perhaps more correctly remember hearing about is that local crime was often dealt with locally. Occasionally the perps such as wife beaters required a trip to the hospital after receiving their punishment and the occasional resident was invited to leave the community. But overall the system worked with no expensive outside involvement.

Right on Taxslave.......................And how many lawyers were involved in those episodes? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That is exactly right. In general, people will feel better in their familiar comfort zone, and an orderly society where everyone knows there place makes many people feel more secure.

But at what cost? People in Victorian England felt that their way was better than the future. Women were protected from reading newpapers and voting, as it would cause them too much mental strain and hardship.WW1 caused huge upheaval in societies such as Britain, where common folk discovered that many of the upper classes were incompetent fools as officers, and deserved no respect or deferral.

Similarly, we continue to change as a society, and sure, things are different, but certainly not necessarily worse overall. Crimes existed then, and crimes exist now. We have far more opportunities today. Those who worship at the altar of mom staying home, cooking for everyone, missed the point of the Rolling Stones, with the 'mothers little helper'...women who had busy, full working lives during WW2 were suddenly sent back home to work in the kitchen....while 1959 may have seemed idyllic to kids who weren't aware, many of the mothers were seething with resentment and missed opportunities...which is why many of those mothers encouraged their daughters to fulfill their lives and dreams, not be shackled to the kitchen, waiting for Father to come home, greeting him at the door with the martini at 5:30.

Are women today who are not "working in the kitchen" better off than the ones who were back in the 50s? I'll admit they are better of than the ones who were "shackled" to the kitchen, but I didn't know any of those types.

 

[TenPenny]

Are women today who are not "working in the kitchen" better off than the ones who were back in the 50s? I'll admit they are better of than the ones who were "shackled" to the kitchen, but I didn't know any of those types.

If they are doing what they want to do, then yes, they are better off.

I gather that you've never known a woman who would have liked to have a career outside of the home, but stayed home to raise children? You must have led a very sheltered life.

 

[JLM]

If they are doing what they want to do, then yes, they are better off.

I gather that you've never known a woman who would have liked to have a career outside of the home, but stayed home to raise children? You must have led a very sheltered life.

Ummmmmmmmm, hang on a minute- yes I knew woman who chose a career outside the home, before they had children, but the ones who already had the children already made the choice...........................so what's the problem? :smile::smile::smile:

 

[karrie]

If they are doing what they want to do, then yes, they are better off.

I gather that you've never known a woman who would have liked to have a career outside of the home, but stayed home to raise children? You must have led a very sheltered life.

It's just more of the issue of not knowing the full depth of what was going on in people's lives, imo. If you grew up in the 50's, what housewife was going to tell you she was miserable? You were most likely a child, or at best a young adult. What inside knowledge would you have of the hearts and minds of your friends' mothers, your aunts, etc?

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.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's just more of the issue of not knowing the full depth of what was going on in people's lives, imo. If you grew up in the 50's, what housewife was going to tell you she was miserable? You were most likely a child, or at best a young adult. What inside knowledge would you have of the hearts and minds of your friends' mothers, your aunts, etc?

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.

In one of the previous threads, somebody had posted the ‘then’ and ‘now’ scenarios that they found on internet, comparing 1959 and 2009 (to the disadvantage of 2009, of course).

To counter that nonsense, I constructed a few ‘then..now’ scenarios of my own, to illustrate the changed attitudes during the last 50 years.

In this context, one of those scenarios bears worth repeating here.

Scenario: a 12 grade student expresses to her teacher her desire to become an engineer.

2009 – The teacher applauds her on her ambition. She offers to do all she can to help, and suggests names of a few good schools she could apply to.

1959 – Teacher calls over other teachers and tells them of the bizarre ambition of this plainly crazy girl who thinks she has intelligence enough to be an engineer. A good laugh is had by all.

The general reaction (after the laughter has subsided) seems to be ‘you want to be what?’. Somebody gives her the gratuitous advice that instead of trying for a B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering), she should try for M.R.S. (misses). Somebody else suggests to her that rather than become an engineer, she should marry one.

She leaves the room in tears. She ends up marrying an engineer and is eventually dumped by her husband for a trophy wife (or for an engineer).

 

[talloola]

It's just more of the issue of not knowing the full depth of what was going on in people's lives, imo. If you grew up in the 50's, what housewife was going to tell you she was miserable? You were most likely a child, or at best a young adult. What inside knowledge would you have of the hearts and minds of your friends' mothers, your aunts, etc?

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.

What a crock.

living in the 50's wasn't living without intelligence, emotions and communication, and women talked to each
other all the time, and the wives who were not satisfied or happy with their particular arrangement, most
often had friends to chat with and share feelings and feel the support.

Many housewives who were living a controlled life, with a husband who was the 'boss', often didn't know
how to deal with that situation, but finally all things come to a head, not much different than it does
today, maybe took a little longer, but people are people, and won't be pushed around or held down too
long, those relationships ended, or got better, just as they do today.

Todays women are much more assertive, will be independent and insist on fairness, and total equality,which is good, but that
can also bring out the violence against them, by men who will not stand for it, so, speaking up, or staying
quiet, has it's good and bad results.

Inside knowledge was there, just as it is today, women talk to each other, and did then as well, and one ofthe
first professional people a women talked to back then was her doctor if life was 'hell', that was very
common, because women's shelters etc were not available, but a doctor could and would lead a suffering
women to a place in her life, where she could get help.

We weren't in the dark ages, we were smart and ready to make changes, and it was a time of change, as
women were out in the work place then as well, and more and more all the time.

Gloria Steinheim was alive and out on the march, and people were watching, (yes, we had television) and
listening to her, she wasn't always right, she was a pioneer in her field, but helped women stand up for themselves more than ever.

I was never a person to cow tow to anyone, and there were many like me also, even though many women stayed
at home, to raise their children, they were strong, intelligent people, and many husbands saw that, and
it was positive for them as well, there were very good marriages, that lasted a long time, just as mine is,
and started with two people who were going in the same direction, and enjoying it with each other.

Just as women in the days of the pioneers, who worked from dawn to sunset alongside their husbands building,
a life, those women were strong and supportive of the life they lived to 'get ahead'. There is good and
bad in all generations.

I lived the 50's, and contrary to was sjp says, my memory is sharp, not stuck in the good, but remembering
the whole picture, I am an intelligent women with a good grasp of the present and the past, and people who
weren't there in the 50's should have some respect for 'us' who were there, and appreciate hearing about it,
straight from the horses mouth, as they say.

We talk about being able to speak to very very old people who can actually say to you how things were for
them, and we feel lucky to have had that happen, well, heres your chance, (i'm not old old, but getting there) lol, and it seems many don't believe
what we say, and think we are either exaggerating, or forgetting, give me a break, please.

 

[TenPenny]

So, if I read your post correctly, the 50s were a great time because you were about to make all of these great changes in society?

 

[talloola]

So, if I read your post correctly, the 50s were a great time because you were about to make all of these great changes in society?

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.

 

[karrie]

What a crock.

living in the 50's wasn't living without intelligence, emotions and communication, and women talked to each
other all the time, and the wives who were not satisfied or happy with their particular arrangement, most
often had friends to chat with and share feelings and feel the support.

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.

I lived the 50's, and contrary to was sjp says, my memory is sharp, not stuck in the good, but remembering
the whole picture, I am an intelligent women with a good grasp of the present and the past, and people who
weren't there in the 50's should have some respect for 'us' who were there, and appreciate hearing about it,
straight from the horses mouth, as they say.

We talk about being able to speak to very very old people who can actually say to you how things were for
them, and we feel lucky to have had that happen, well, heres your chance, (i'm not old old, but getting there) lol, and it seems many don't believe
what we say, and think we are either exaggerating, or forgetting, give me a break, please.

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.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So, if I read your post correctly, the 50s were a great time because you were about to make all of these great changes in society?

No, women were not about to make any changes to the society (in spite of what Talloola says).

In the 50s, women were mostly content to remain suburban housewives. Sure, the dissatisfaction may have been there, but most women considered it their own fault, and experts for the most part told them that they should be happy as wives and mothers.

Gloria Steinem may be alive and marching, but hardly anybody was listening to her. The change started in the 60s, and that change had nothing to do with Feminism. Hippy revolution started in the 60s, which began to question the long held social views.

While hippies were into free sex (and not bathing), they really were not all that much into women’s lib. They did not support equal rights in education, employment, housing etc. Then came the civil rights movement, demanding equal rights for blacks. But that still did not translate into equal rights and equal opportunities for women. If there was any Feminist movement in those days, it was confined to bra burning.

Mike in All in the Family was a typical product of those days. He was an Atheist, he strongly supported equal rights for blacks. However, his reach did not extend to giving equal rights for women, he and Gloria used to have that argument all the time. When it came to women’s rights, Mike was not really all that different from Archie.

Even in the 70s, discrimination against women was quite common. Congress passed a law in the 70s, granting women equal rights when it me to getting credit. Before that, it used to be difficult for women to get credit, for a man (with the same income) it was much easier.

Black Civil Rights movement was really the impetus for other minorities to speak up. Feminist movement (and gay rights movement) copied the blacks, and Feminism came into its own in late 70s and 80s.

These days most of the Feminist tenets are adopted by the mainstream society. But in 1959, no way women were fighting for their rights, they were quite happy being wife and mothers (and used to think there was something wrong with them if they were not).

 

[AnnaG]

Technology advances and makes some stuff better and exacerbates other stuff. People in cities seem to have less respect for others than the people in places less densely packed and I think it has been like that for decades (familiarity breeds contempt). Societal pressures are different.
Priorities are different.
Lots of people are DINKs now (Double Income No {or few} Kids) in order to have a better lifestyle because taxes are higher to pay for the stuff we didn't have before like better medicine, more roads, etc.
Things are just different. Some stuff is worse, some is better.

No, women were not about to make any changes to the society (in spite of what Talloola says).

In the 50s, women were mostly content to remain suburban housewives. Sure, the dissatisfaction may have been there, but most women considered it their own fault, and experts for the most part told them that they should be happy as wives and mothers.

Gloria Steinem may be alive and marching, but hardly anybody was listening to her. The change started in the 60s, and that change had nothing to do with Feminism. Hippy revolution started in the 60s, which began to question the long held social views.

While hippies were into free sex (and not bathing), they really were not all that much into women’s lib. They did not support equal rights in education, employment, housing etc. Then came the civil rights movement, demanding equal rights for blacks. But that still did not translate into equal rights and equal opportunities for women. If there was any Feminist movement in those days, it was confined to bra burning.

Mike in All in the Family was a typical product of those days. He was an Atheist, he strongly supported equal rights for blacks. However, his reach did not extend to giving equal rights for women, he and Gloria used to have that argument all the time. When it came to women’s rights, Mike was not really all that different from Archie.

Even in the 70s, discrimination against women was quite common. Congress passed a law in the 70s, granting women equal rights when it me to getting credit. Before that, it used to be difficult for women to get credit, for a man (with the same income) it was much easier.

Black Civil Rights movement was really the impetus for other minorities to speak up. Feminist movement (and gay rights movement) copied the blacks, and Feminism came into its own in late 70s and 80s.

These days most of the Feminist tenets are adopted by the mainstream society. But in 1959, no way women were fighting for their rights, they were quite happy being wife and mothers (and used to think there was something wrong with them if they were not).

Do you have anything to support some of these ridiculous claims?
You cite stuff from The Archie Bunker Show as if it was mainstream fact. It wasn't. The show was based almost entirely on stereotypes (not on fact but on impressions and interpretations of reality).

 

[karrie]

Technology advances and makes some stuff better and exacerbates other stuff. People in cities seem to have less respect for others than the people in places less densely packed and I think it has been like that for decades (familiarity breeds contempt). Societal pressures are different.
Priorities are different.
Lots of people are DINKs now (Double Income No {or few} Kids) in order to have a better lifestyle because taxes are higher to pay for the stuff we didn't have before like better medicine, more roads, etc.
Things are just different. Some stuff is worse, some is better.

Do you have anything to support some of these ridiculous claims?
You cite stuff from The Archie Bunker Show as if it was mainstream fact. It wasn't. The show was based almost entirely on stereotypes (not on fact but on impressions and interpretations of reality).

exactly Anna. Some stuff is different, better and worse.

I always thought the 80's were a pretty idyllic time. I grew up in a small town, limited media access. The arrival of the internet made me fearful and jaded about the state of the world. information overload. But really, I don't know drug addicts, drugs aren't around every corner like people want to make them out to be now. My kids and the neighbour kids all run around the neighbourhood and play without people trying to snatch them up every five seconds, and enjoy living in a time when childhood mortality rates are low, the complete opposite of 'it's so dangerous for children'. When they their late teens I'm sure they'll follow the same informational path others did... they'll suddenly have access to all sorts of scary information, and think the world is a really bad place, because goodness knows our media doesn't report the good stuff.

 

[Said1]

No, women were not about to make any changes to the society (in spite of what Talloola says).

In the 50s, women were mostly content to remain suburban housewives. Sure, the dissatisfaction may have been there, but most women considered it their own fault, and experts for the most part told them that they should be happy as wives and mothers.

Gloria Steinem may be alive and marching, but hardly anybody was listening to her. The change started in the 60s, and that change had nothing to do with Feminism. Hippy revolution started in the 60s, which began to question the long held social views.

While hippies were into free sex (and not bathing), they really were not all that much into women’s lib. They did not support equal rights in education, employment, housing etc. Then came the civil rights movement, demanding equal rights for blacks. But that still did not translate into equal rights and equal opportunities for women. If there was any Feminist movement in those days, it was confined to bra burning.

Mike in All in the Family was a typical product of those days. He was an Atheist, he strongly supported equal rights for blacks. However, his reach did not extend to giving equal rights for women, he and Gloria used to have that argument all the time. When it came to women’s rights, Mike was not really all that different from Archie.

Even in the 70s, discrimination against women was quite common. Congress passed a law in the 70s, granting women equal rights when it me to getting credit. Before that, it used to be difficult for women to get credit, for a man (with the same income) it was much easier.

Black Civil Rights movement was really the impetus for other minorities to speak up. Feminist movement (and gay rights movement) copied the blacks, and Feminism came into its own in late 70s and 80s.

These days most of the Feminist tenets are adopted by the mainstream society. But in 1959, no way women were fighting for their rights, they were quite happy being wife and mothers (and used to think there was something wrong with them if they were not).

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.

 

[JLM]

"1959 – Teacher calls over other teachers and tells them of the bizarre ambition of this plainly crazy girl who thinks she has intelligence enough to be an engineer. A good laugh is had by all."

That may have happened somewhere, but not in Western Canada. I was in grade 10 in 1959 and a few women were going into what were historically "men's professions" Nor were they ridiculed for expressing the desire. As one who was there, I would like to confirm that statement is pure and utter bullsh*t.

 

[Cliffy]

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. 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.

 

[JLM]

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.

Hey Karrie- Talloola is a good person to listen to and a reliable source of knowledge on the matter- She was there.........................and so was I. :smile:

 

[karrie]

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

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/86/4/505.pdf

Infant Mortality Rates, 1950–2005 — Infoplease.com