That is the problem, isn’t it? Do you decide for the whole society that life was better before two income families? If life was go good back then, why did women join the workforce in such large numbers (when they were given the chance)?
If most women were happy being housewives as you claim, surely all the freedom, all the rights granted to them should not have made nay difference, they would have continued to be housewives. Why then do women go into professions in such large numbers? My son tells me that these days in many medical classes more than 50% are girls.
This is similar to the argument the South used to make during the slavery debate. Their point was that most slaves were happy in their condition and if given the choice, most would be content to remain as slaves. The answer was, well then, let us give them a choice and see.
Your argument (that life was better when mom was home to raise children, and that most women were happy and contented with being housewives) is refuted by women themselves, who are participating in university education and in workforce in droves.
No doubt some women are happy being housewives, and they still can, they still have that opportunity. Marry somebody who is a high earner and stay with him for life, no matter what happens or what he does (has affairs outside etc.). Indeed, that is what used to happen in old days. Even if a woman knew that her husband was fooling around she still would stay with him, where was she going to go? Divorce was a taboo, there was no supporting network. The woman tolerated husband’s affairs and suffered in silence.
And if some woman wants to live that lifestyle today, she still can. The problem is many women don’t and they have freedom not to live such lifestyle today.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 standard
of living at all.
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'.
I studied the history of psych not too long ago, and will admit that without my text book on hand I can't recall precisely which philosopher it was, but he had a whole movement that spoke exactly the same as you guys do.... soceity was doomed, because the generations that followed them were immensely disrespectful. Family and society changing shape from what he had been familiar with would be the end of humanity. Lo and behold, it wasn't. I also recently watched a show with Valerie Pringle that points out a lot of what you guys say about how kids are ruder now... swear more... have less manners. But it balances that with pointing out that they are at the same time, innately civil. They treasure equal rights and freedom of choice in a way that previous societies haven't, and so what if they say **** while talking about the hockey game, if they're better people at the core?
back in the 50s, most young people were civil too, had good manners, considerate of others, watched
hockey games, probably said 'sh*t when their team lost, the kids were good and bad back then, as they
are now, being good with good manners is impressive, but all scenarios also happen, bad kids with
smooth manners and don't swear, kids that swear every second word, some good some bad, most somewhere
in the middle, but today, it is very noticeable that the kids/teenagers/young adults, both sexes, use
fowl language much more, and don't worry who is around, and those kids come in all flavours, but their
gestures and fowl mouths are very apparent, and very unattractive.
people are what their times are, equal rights expression was not known back in the 50's, so people were
not refusing to allow equal rights, just living with the times, equal rights came on slowly, people change,
people make it happen, it evolves. just like everything else, all of a sudden someone invents an expression
'equal rights', wow that is clicky and works, and it has, and it is good.
the' people now are not better people at the core', and they weren't better at the core in the past, that
statement is so general, people are individuals, and what they are is such a mix of differences that
it is impossible to say people now are better at the core, some are some aren't.
Society has changed, government has bought into that and changed many laws, that is good, more helpful
for the people who previously dropped through the cracks.
But problems have loomed up that were not around in the 50's, so I'm not sure how anyone can say what
is better or not, overall, that is very difficult, we point to what we 'knew' about the 50s, as that
was 'our time' of being part of the young generation, so we know what was happening then, just as all
of you do about your teen life through your twenties, most informative time of your lives, makes such
an impression on 'you' as a person, and life goes on.
I grew up as a 'city' kid, not a small town'kid', right in the busy part of
the city, and I was very aware very early
on how to live and survive in the 'city', saw how the city worked every
day, became very savvy on the inner pulses of city life, it was natural
living there for me, I loved it, everything was at my fingertips, busses,
activities, movies, libraries, parades, and on and on. I new the streets
like the back of my hand, and even vancouver, by the time I was about 14
one could not lose me in that city, and when I was 17, i quit school, was
on honour roll, principal helped me find a job, my mother needed money at home,
she was a separated mom, I adapted very quickly to typing and all things connected,and was soon working fulltime
as a receptionist in a contracting firm in downtown vancouver, rode the bus
to and from everyday.