|
|
|
|
|
| | Were women better off 50 years ago?Page 16 of 21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) | Nobody looks down on stay at home mothers!What a ridiculous statement.If you want to see the real reason most people(men and women)do not spend enough time with their children,just look at the state of your economy.Parents are living off credit,in lifestyles they are working like dogs to not even maintain.They need 2 new cars,and no ordinary bungalow,only a mc mansion will do.
That being said,in the 1950's,if you had breast cancer,you were dead.
Not all women are beaten down,no one said that,but how many options do you think were open for working class women in the 50's? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 7:04:05 PM | cuban.....No, .Its not the "right thing to do " for many women to be tied to the career and divorced with children in a day care, just because they desire a life where they can call the shots for themselves.
It takes to two people to have and raise a child, not just one mother devoting her time to her family.
Fathers should be asked the same questions you do of women regarding THEIR choices and THEIR autonomy.
Why is it that the only the womens choices are scrutinized and questioned and blamed for the "breakdown of the family"?
Dont link womens desire for equlity and escape from spousal abuse and lack of economic and educational freedoms with that.
Im so glad I could attend grad school and travel where I want when I want without the permission of a father or male relative.
Im thankful I can get credit in my own name and buy a house on my own and take a job anywhere I want.
Im thankful for legal and assessable birth control and abortion.
Feminists were the reason I got to where I am today.
With a fiancee with adores me and the fact that I can and do stand on my own two feet without him feeling insecure or "attacked" because of that.
What a freaken annoying burden that would be to have to "hold back" because of his ego and insecurities
Women before me were instructed by their mothers to do that all the time.
"dont be too capable or smart or men wont like you!"
Yuk!
That doesnt mean I dont have any morals and that doing the above things you mentioned is the right thing to do for me.....Or that I dont want or appreciate mens compliments on how I look...get real here, quit throwing the baby out with the bathwater and quit the stereotyping
To those men out there who said they wont change for women.
Thats your choice but remember it takes two to make and keep a relationship.
Its a question of give and take, not one person doing all the demanding and taking while at the same time insisting the other person doesnt grow, change or have needs.
If your not willing to bend for her, she wont be willing to bend for you.
You have to learn to treat women with respect as people, not a person whos there to wait on you and look good beside you.
Shes not your mother.
Often that means you the man have to change somewhat if you want a relationship.
Dont forget shes changing for you, at your insistance.
Maybe thats the reason you are alone.
| |
|
ndulj
| | Joined: 5/27/2007
Msg: 378 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 7:12:36 PM |
Nobody looks down on stay at home mothers! Oh really? I guess that depends on your environment.
Parents are living off credit,in lifestyles they are working like dogs to not even maintain.They need 2 new cars,and no ordinary bungalow,only a mc mansion will do. They chose the McMansion, there were other choices.
in the 1950's,if you had breast cancer,you were dead. In the 1970's if you had colon cancer you were dead. All of medicine has advanced. What's your point? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 7:12:56 PM |
I for one, think that feminism started out as a noble cause. It has however been sidetracked into an us verses them mentality. Hell, that is a major part of what is wrong with our culture today. It isn't us verses them it is (or should be) us with them. Each playing to their strengths and filling in the others weaknesses.
I am NO expert on feminism, but I see the above quote as the major difference between then and now.
It seems men and women used to couple with a common goal in mind: To have a family. Raise children. To bring individual strenghts togather to make the team better, for all concerned.
Nowadays, it seems most are focused on individual agendas. Therefore we have divorce lawyers, pre-nups, child support and the rest.
I think women are "better off" than they were 50 years ago, regarding having more options availible to them, but some where in the transition society as a whole gained a more selfish attitude and, therefore is worse off.
I'm not blaming the shift on feminism. Just saying WE, us alive today, are living through the turmiol of the transition. Most likely, in 50-100 years students will study how WE handled the transition, but recognize that at least we righted a wrong!
just a few thoughts | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 7:18:36 PM | OP, there is a general lack of respect in this new century by far too many to nearly everyone...male, female, indeterminate. I don't know why....maybe it was the growth of mistrust and suspicion towards everyone engendered by Watergate? The growth of Heavy Metal (punk, thrash, etc.) and Rap, both of which seem to focus on disrespecting anyone and everyone. A general breakdown in social norms engendered by overpopulation (too many rats in the maze and they all go crazy).
Are women better off now? There are far more opportunities now for women than in the 50s, I suppose. Is it equality? Probably not yet, but moving in that direction, I think. All I can really say is that you should be very thankful that you are not Muslim. Now that is repression carried to excess! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 7:27:45 PM | Op stated “A good friend of mine came up with a theory the other day. That women in the 1950s were better off then women today”
OP-The only thing that I am sure about when it comes to modern gender relations is that "a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle". I believe feminists said the same thing about women and their need for men roughly 50 years ago. People should approach dating with one thing in mind and that is, “what do I want out of this relationship?” and make sure you get it or move on as quickly as possible. Cheers. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 10:50:15 PM | I think that people who remember and long for the "good ole days" have either very poor memories or equally poor historical information. It wasn't all that long ago that many women married and stayed in horrible abusive marriages because it was either that of virtually starve.Jobs were few horribly low paying. Women hav virtually no control over reproduction and It was common for women to die in childbirth. Women didn't even get the vote until the 20's as I recall. Sure, the divorce rate was lower; women usually had no where to go.
I remember a poem (set to music) I learned when I was in college. It was written by a Kansas housewife in the 1860's or '70's kinda says it all: She left it in her daiey to be found after her death, Lots of verses, you can goodle it but I'll just include the chorus.
A Housewife's Lament
Life is a toil and love is a trouble.
Beauty will fade and riches will flee.
Pleasures they dwindle and prices they double
And nothing is as I ould wish it to be | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 11:01:47 PM |
What freakin' planet were you living on?????
I was living in the post-war planet Ndulj.. You know.. The one where WWII veterans came home to the small farming communities and towns to find themselves suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder or "shell shock" as it was commonly known then. They didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of... And our governments were not interested in fixing what they broke so many of the wives of the 50's found out the hard way that war was hell on the homefront too...
I find it very interesting that you come from a "long line of strong women" who were obviously, to all extents and purposes, the "feminists" you have made the following comment about:
If you'll notice, I laid most of the blame at the feet of the feminists. They pulled the rug out from under men, so to speak. Unfortunately it is the women that don't follow their militant beliefs that are paying the price. The later day fems have done their damndest to neuter the modern American male and then whine and complain that there aren't any 'real' men left. Of course there aren't many left: you domesticated half of them and belittled the rest into submission.
Oh for the love of God!! pick one! If women want a 'real' man then they need to stop trying to be one themselves.
You came from a long line of women who believed in a woman's right to choose (or so you say) because they did in fact make choices. That is what true feminism is all about... the right to choose.
Strange you didn't learn THAT from those strong women around you... | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 11:38:08 PM | The most interesting thing about this thread,is how many men who hate women are on this site
True enough, sista friend
Many times whilst posting I'll make an innocuous comment and I get jumped on by some rabid guy 
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 11:54:26 PM | I remember a poem (set to music) I learned when I was in college. It was written by a Kansas housewife in the 1860's or '70's kinda says it all. ~ GreySpot
No, I don't believe it does.
Here is a poem written by a woman called Anne Bradstreet, which she wrote for her husband in 1650 and which I learned at school in the early Sixties:
To My Dear and Loving Husband:
If ever two were one, then surely we,
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee, give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay.
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray.
Then while we live, in love, let’s so persevere
That when we live no more, we may live ever.
Mrs Bradstreet wasn't the only woman to write with such ebullience for her husband. Elizabeth Barrett Browning also gushed favourably about the love of her life, Robert Browning, but I won't quote any of her work here.
- Peter | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/29/2008 11:58:02 PM |
believe that, down here in the good ol USA... its called the Selective Service. The "draft" for you who do not get it. I've never seen a commercial, a flyer, or a poster one that has said a woman has to sign up. Only MEN.
Oh, and dont forget. If men dont sign up, $25000 fines and/or up to 5 years in prison.
Please show me where, at any time in US history, there have been fewer men than women in Congress - THEN you can say that women are the cause of the selective service laws not being changed.
It isn't the WOMEN in the military that think women shouldn't be treated equally in regard to the draft.
There are STILL plenty of men who believe I should never have been a Marine, simply because I don't possess a p3nis.
I'd love to see where that p3nis fires my M-16A2.
Even today, women make up only 7% of Corps at any given time... why? because we still can't fight in offensive combat, because of federal law, and therefore have limited job capabilities.
And, just for the record... the last time we had a draft was in the 60's. That's a VERY old argument. And even with our current foreign policy issues, I don't see that happening any time soon. If you don't like selective service, work to change it. "I" certainly would have enrolled in SS if I needed to way back when.
I have no doubt that feminist claws will now be sharpening on the pumice stone of New Age political correctness, but I stand by my opinion, and it is only my opinion, that women were far more feminine 50 years ago, let alone a hundred years ago, and that we shall not see their like again.
There is a difference between being FEMININE and being afforded EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPECT based on your existence as a human being. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
I am no man hater, I was raised in "polite society" and I am the most feminine, beguiling woman imaginable (or so says my SO). I cook, clean, sew and have raised a baby or two - but I am also a former United States Marine, which means, I can defend myself in an enemy attack with a variety of weapons, wearing a short skirt and high heels. ~grin~
And I believe that we all should have EQUAL opportunity to live the life we choose. and if that makes me less FEMININE, so be it. My closet full of dresses and heels, and polite manners in mixed company would disagree. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 12:19:08 AM |
Nobody looks down on stay at home mothers!What a ridiculous statement.
I would agree with this statement 50 years ago. But this is the age of equality and women are beginning to be measured with the same yard stick as men!! That means if you don't bring home lots of bacon then your a deadbeat!
I am personally all for equality and the woman's liberation. The only thing I can't understand is this consistent whining about the death/lack of chiovalry in the age of equality. What is the saying: "you can't have the cake and eat it too"!! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 12:29:05 AM |
The only thing I can't understand is this consistent whining about the death/lack of chivalry in the age of equality.
When did proper manners become diametrically opposed with "all human beings are created equal"?
I have to be rude because I can vote? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:04:49 AM | everybody was better off 50 years ago. this womens libber crap has destroyed the family, men and women no longer are respectfull toward each other, back then if a man wanted to make a spectater sport out of beating women, her would have been shot, but these days man and women fight each other in full contac martial arts, they are even cage fighting eacher. a man beating a woman with his fist and feet has become a spectater sport. sorry about the spelling.
kenny | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:30:36 AM |
Please show me where, at any time in US history, there have been fewer men than women in Congress - THEN you can say that women are the cause of the selective service laws not being changed. Last I checked... to become a member of congress, one has to be elected. Not my fault there are not many women who are;
A) not willing to run for the appointment.
B)Not qualified for the appointment
C) Simply not interested in the job.
I fail to see how one can make the comparison between an 'elected position' and a 'forced obligation'
It isn't the WOMEN in the military that think women shouldn't be treated equally in regard to the draft. I never said that it was. Most of the women in the military are there of their own choice. They did volunteer.
There are STILL plenty of men who believe I should never have been a Marine, simply because I don't possess a p3nis. And I couldnt care less about those idiots. If you have the stones to be a Marine, go for it. Your point???
I'd love to see where that p3nis fires my M-16A2. And I would love to see where a vagina can carry, shoot and qualify for an M16A2 with an M203 attachment. Sorry, been there, done that. It doesnt matter. I couldnt care less about the gender. If you can pull your weight the only thing I would see is the uniform.
Even today, women make up only 7% of Corps at any given time... why? because we still can't fight in offensive combat, because of federal law, and therefore have limited job capabilities. No... You are dead wrong on this. The reason there are only so many women in the corps is simple, although apparently you need it explained to you... There are NOT that many women interested in joining the corps.
Same reason there's not an "equal representation" of women in the Garbage collection industry.... women are not interested.
And, just for the record... the last time we had a draft was in the 60's. That's a VERY old argument. Correct... woo hoo... you got another one right. But none the less. Its a FORCED OBLIGATION where women are not required to participate to obtain the right to vote, get a drivers license, or receive student financial aid.
And even with our current foreign policy issues, I don't see that happening any time soon. If you don't like selective service, work to change it. "I" certainly would have enrolled in SS if I needed to way back when. Its amazing how many women claim to have "worked" to obtain the "rights" they have... but I dont see them "working" to obtain the responsibility of a forced obligation. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:44:20 AM | To me, equal rights means:
* women can enjoy access to high-paying jobs that they're qualified for and get paid for that work at an equitable wage as compared to men
* women have the right not to marry and to be "female bachelors" should they wish and not get treated any differently than would a man
* men still hold the door for women (because they hold the door for everyone). women are also free to hold the door for someone behind them
* either men or women can feel free to get up and allow someone else to sit down in their seat
* in marriage *BOTH* man and woman work, each contributing to the home finances. the days of stay-at-home moms don't fit in with the equality/feminism movement, sorry. you can't both expect an identity as an equal when you don't bring in an income. we'd like to say that it works for everyone to value her mothering skills as an equivalent for his slaving at a corporate job but we're not capable of doing this (either sex).
* in marriage *BOTH* man and woman clean the house, take care of the kids and vehicles/house maintenance. she gets to drive the car(s) to JiffyLube just as he gets to shuttle the kids to soccer.
* in marriage *BOTH* man and woman are partners in every aspect of their lives. he doesn't get a "presidential veto" vote with respect to the finances and she doesn't get one either with respect to decisions involving the house or the kids.
* there should be no she's-the-gatekeeper-of-sex or he's-the-keeper-of-the-money issues. you can't have equality when you use sex or money as bargaining tools.
To me, equal rights means that the father gets more time with the kids and the wife gets more time in a salaried position. This in theory should help to balance some of the usual problems in a one-income family and the attitudes that develop as a result.
You can't have *equal* if there are gender-based roles in place (he makes the money, she cleans the house). It just can't work this way. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 11:11:57 AM | Thanks TMTWIA......you have given men and women some very healthy relationship words of wisdom to live by.
Back to the OP.....the 1950's was a very transitional period for women and men, and many women were not any better off than the Black Afro-Americans were at that time.........forced to work for White Caucasian Males who threw mere scraps their way for the services they rendered so they could sustain their own meager, impoverished lives. Women have never been given credit in history for keeping the fires burning when men came back from WW2 who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress or Shell Shock (as it is was known then). Black Afro-Americans have never been given credit for their support, and wasn't even their war to fight.
It all goes back even further than the 1950's, try the 20's, 30's, and 40's, but many of these old krony **stards are dead and buried long ago, but their offspring still carry the sick mentality that was nurtured back then.............not just men, but certain women had that same mentality too.........you know the women who enjoyed a good life off of the backs of others and never took a moment to see the hardship they endured. I see a lot of young women today, born in the 70's and 80's who have no respect/appreciation for the suffrage endured by women to bring them the rights they now enjoy. Just take a read of this thread, and you can pick them out one by one.
Don't even get me started on what the white caucasion males/females have done to destroy the North American Indian Culture on soil that didn't even belong to them.
  | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 11:42:42 AM | When did proper manners become diametrically opposed with "all human beings are created equal"?
And what are proper manners? I assume the context to which you refer is those manners associated with "chivalry". If so, should "equal" women not inherit these manners by virtue of being equals? More importantly, have "equal" women the unilateral right to expect these said "manners" from men? It seems that the bulk of women fail to recognize that equality is not only about selectively gaining equal rights when it serves a purpose, but also surrender some inherit benefits associated with a traditional society. In other words, equality means equal without exception. Equal pay, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal judgment and so on!! Capish! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 1:45:25 PM | Ok,let me see if I can understand your point,
If ,in the act of courtship,my partner and I follow an"old fashioned"way of behaving, I can't receive equal treatment at work? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 4:01:51 PM |
No... You are dead wrong on this. The reason there are only so many women in the corps is simple, although apparently you need it explained to you... There are NOT that many women interested in joining the corps
It is statistically impossible for a percentage to remain the same for over 20 years while the overall # of active duty marines has decreased over the same timeframe without there being an external control. (Ie. they only accept so many)
I know MANY women who were on waiting lists to get into bootcamp. I myself had to wait 3 months for my school, because there was no spot for a FEMALE Marine.
Yes, changing those laws requires an elected position - but WOMEN did not put those laws in place. The elected officials of the United States did. Way before it was even considered that a woman should run for the US Senate or House.
We, as a country, are still adjusting to the concept of females in combat - and until we accept this as a full reality (and stop telling women they can't be in offensive combat situations) The selective service laws will not be changed.
And, for the record, ALL services members are volunteers - even the lowly USMC stopped accepting the "get out of jail" enlistees years ago.
Overall, women are MUCH better off than we were 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, in many situations. But the fact that we even have to have this discussion lends to the problem that equality STILL does not exist.
One more thing - white men were given the right to vote in this country as part of the original constitution. NO other segment of society was given that right - the constitution had to be changed to reflect the rights of all citizens to vote. And we didn't have selective service in 1781 - we had militias... and all white men were participants because it was the right thing to do for our nation. When we can figure out that its still the right thing to do, and have to turn away people because they WANT to enlist, and we don't need that many, THEN maybe selective service should go away. I agree, EVERYONE should serve if requested - there's something they can do, as long as physically and mentally meeting the requirements. (and you don't have to enroll to get a drivers license in my state, you simply are given the OPTION to do so. SS does not require a social security number) | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 5:00:25 PM |
If ,in the act of courtship,my partner and I follow an"old fashioned"way of behaving, I can't receive equal treatment at work?
A vague attempt at spinning words written by someone who missed the concept. Anybody deserve equal treatment at work! And if any man or woman wants to act upon "old fashioned values" during courtship then it is their choice and right to do so.
But that is not where the issue lies. The problem arises when women expect non-precipitated chivalry in a world of equality! They refer to it as a man "having manners" and take such behavior expectations as a given right by virtue of their gender. Ever heard this phrase uttered by women; "I deserve to be treated as a princess because....". If you need concrete evidence, just take a snapshot of a random sample of 20 women profiles and see how many hint to the above mentioned entitlement belief lol!
 | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 5:09:24 PM | I know that I read way too much history, so I am not going to get into anything in depth about Benjamen Franklin and others about the revisions to the constitution they wrote, the discussions, etc. I pretty much agree with your post with the exception of the
and all white men were participants All white men could be participants. Many that came from Switzerland, Germany and other countries were leaving great religious persecution. Because of this, they didn't want the government of the time to know that they even existed. Births were hidden, marriages hidden, meetings were kept in strict secrecy.
I don't understand why it sounds like some men resent that women have more choices today. Men and women are both born with intelligence and the ability to use it. They are also built with hearts to love each other. When man and woman marry they are supposed to be as one, not one better than the other. What a man or woman decides to do with her life is their choice. Thank goodness we do live in a country that allows us to have these freedoms. That truly was one of the purposes of We the people...not men, not women, but people. | |
|
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 6:31:35 PM |
It is statistically impossible for a percentage to remain the same for over 20 years while the overall # of active duty marines has decreased over the same timeframe without there being an external control. (Ie. they only accept so many)
I know MANY women who were on waiting lists to get into bootcamp. I myself had to wait 3 months for my school, because there was no spot for a FEMALE Marine.
Apparently its not that statistically impossible... I had to wait 11 months for my school. Whats your point??? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 8:58:21 PM |
Back to the OP.....the 1950's was a very transitional period for women and men, and many women were not any better off than the Black Afro-Americans were at that time.........forced to work for White Caucasian Males who threw mere scraps their way for the services they rendered so they could sustain their own meager, impoverished lives.
IMO ....this is a very much skewed view of history. Like some kind of far left wing feminist propaganda cartoon view of history. (like you might get from a university "women's studies" program ? )
More often , it was white men who were going off to work to support their wives and families in the fifties and prior and it was the wives might throw the guys back some scraps by cooking them dinner . (-; It actually worked very well for alot of people including the kids , it made them happy.
African Americans were actually better off in many ways as well in the pre : rap music /gang/welfare state times as well .
I think the point is that society needed to evolve naturally , but , the feminist revolution has in many ways 'thrown the baby out with the bath water' ....in some ways quite literally . | |
|
|
|
|
Page
16
of
21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
|
|
Home
login 
