|
|
|
|
|
Guess
|
Joined: 10/2/2007
Msg: 126 | |
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/7/2008 10:30:27 PM |
From where I stand, I don't see a general lack of respect for women. However, I do see that many people--both men and women--are unsure of their roles in society, and that seems to me to be a result of the rapidly changing social dynamics where male/female relationships are concerned. Maybe that's what you're seeing: people who are unsure and who feel angry about feeling unsure. In a lot of ways, men and women seem to feel less "necessary" than maybe they did in more traditional times.
It's no longer necessary to get married. People still choose to do it, but it's no longer the case that a man attempting to run a homestead to make his living would need to find a wife and to make babies in order to maintain crops and the livestock and whatnot. Likewise, women no longer need to find a husband in order to secure their own future . . . they can get careers of their own and support themselves. As a result of this declining interdependence, people seem to feel lost and angry.
This is how I see it: For the women who really want to get married and have babies, yes, life in the 50s probably would have been easier. Most people settled down in their twenties; there weren't a whole lot of choices as to what a woman would do with her life. That's what they did . . . they grew up and got married and made families of their own. Sure, some women were overlooked and never got married. But that was more of the exception. Now that wanting-to-get-married thing seems like a much harder row to hoe. In some ways, it's almost looked down upon if that's what a woman openly wants. So, yes, for them, I think it's harder.
However, I think there were always the women who didn't especially want to do the whole marriage/kids thing, but in the 50s, that would have been a difficult lifepath to choose. It would have been very frowned upon. Now, it's okay to choose that. So for those women who don't want to raise children, life is easier now
you make a good point with what was said. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/7/2008 10:35:45 PM | | I think this may depend on the mans family life and background. I think that many women fought for rights because they felt they were not respected. I have seen that there are men who are respectful because that is what they have been taught and there are those who are disrespectful because that is what they have been taught. Plus, there are other reasons too. My point is there have always been men who disrepect women on one level or another then and now. I just try to avoid those who are obviously disrepectful. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/7/2008 10:54:24 PM | el Loco1965.....
I think if you could walk into a 1950's saloon which was typically a "men only" watering hole, you would find the same level of disrepect towards women back then. It was a "learned behavior" passed down from their fathers and/or it was a way to gain popularity amoung the guys. The guy that showed the most disrepect was considered the "toughest bad boy on the block" and not someone to be "messed with". Now a days we call them bullys, but that's why it was a "for men only" pub, in the 1950's. Gentlemen typically referred to them as a poor choice for "breeding stock." | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/8/2008 7:33:18 PM | Boy! this has turned nasty!
I think each of us might have experienced some sunshine ~ at one time or another.
Like Janice, sang so well "Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to loose"
there is a trade off ~ in all things ~
It's good that women don't have to stay with a mean man anymore. ~ They have more options now ~ good ones! before they didn't
~ We are mean to each other ~ it runs in familys ~
look at the family ~ before you buy in ~!!
dar | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/8/2008 7:50:01 PM | way too general a question...in what sense?
Dating? hellyes!
The men available? My mother and all her friends think so...
Otherwise No to finances
No to opportunity
I'm guessing you mean re men/dating since this is pof/relationships.
Absolutely, yes | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/8/2008 7:54:38 PM | In the 50's men didn't have to express their subjugation of women through jokes, insults, or media degradation directed at women, because they effectively "kept women in their places" in reality.
Now with women feeling free to walk out on bad marriages (and sue the men for child support that the government will force them to actually pay), feeling free to argue at work for pay raises and promotions that put them on par with male peers, feeling free to "answer back" and speak their minds when they don't agree with their husband/boyfriend's opinions, feeling free to make all sorts of decisions for themselves about how they will live their lives... well now men are feeling their presumed right to dominate women being challenged. They are wanting to put women back in their place and that leads to a lot of violence and anger directed at women, both physically and verbally, not to mention through insitutionalized behavior such as how men relate to male bosses and reluctance of managers to promote women into positions where they will supervise male employees.
Now are all men like this? Of course not. I don't know if one could even say most. But definitely there are many men who truly believe they should have more power, freedom and influence in this world than women. They think that in a marriage if someone has to back down it should be the woman. They think that they should be making more money than their wives, that the only woman who should be able to tell them what to do is their mother and certainly not some female boss, and that men are truly more capable than women when it comes to intellect, emotional strength, or physical endurance, none of which is true in the opinion of most women. And if you leave the western world, go to Asia or Africa for example, the belief in male superiority and rule by right of birth becomes even more pervasive. In one Asian language even the word for female translates as "lesser birth."
So were women better off when their oppression was so complete that men felt secure enough to put them up on pedestals like the fragile little flowers they had to be forced to pretend to be? I don't think so. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/9/2008 7:42:30 AM | I think to a large degree ~ the biggest losers in the last 50 years has been the Children. And it's these very children thats asking this question.
Lets face it ~ the one on one love offered in abundance ~ is not coming through like it use too.
What do we get ~ from all this this ~ mess!
Women that don't know how to be women and men that don't know how to be men.
Not inside any reference ~ that class of 64 understands ~ anyway.
It's for the most part ~ "social engineering" ~ and the power of the dollar and the persuit of happiness all coming together at once.
The family unit ~ is under attack from all sides. ~
It always has been to some degree ~ but from different things now.
I was 60 years old , two days ago ~ so they tell me ~ ( I personally think that they are lieing) ~ so I've wittnessed these 50 years ~ you speak ~
I've seen much change ~ some good ~ some bad.
But we build men and women ~ by the day! ~ We watch us, they copy us and sometimes they listen to us.
My parents offered me much love and confussion ~ It's taken years to sort out the bad and keep the good.
I wish many things could have been different ~ I feel early grooming of children is big part of what they might aspire to be.
End the end ~ it is what it is ~ and you grow beyond your raising. ~ You don't beat women and kids ~ just because you were beaten for the smallest of things when you were small. ~ You learn to stop and listen. You learn that having a set of cocounts does not make you king and does not afford you special rights ~ but the way you show love and offer guidance does.
You learn to weild power ~ with mear presents, Love, a gentle hand and a soft voice or you don't.
Yes ~ for sure, women and men both are better off ~ but opportunity is a funny thing ~ you must reconize it when it's in front of you. This is where many of us fail!!!!!
Learn to reconize an opportunity when it in front of you and act on it.
Second thing to understand is this ~~ You prepaid youself for opportunity.
Rare is the time ~ that opportunity is offered and waits for you to prepair.
~dar | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/9/2008 8:15:13 AM | I think people who think that women or the family were better off in the 1950's are responding to sitcom images and not the diverse reality of life back then and the evolution of family and work. Some families looked like this...at least on the surface. Many women worked...women have always worked to help the family produce capital. But before the early 1900's that work happened at home...the family farm, or trade shop. In the 40's and 50's work moved to the city and family and work became more separated - but this was sociological "blip" and not "the way it should be." There is NO way it should be.
I am a smart woman. If I had been born in the 1930's or 40's I would have been pressured to make marriage and children priority over using my brain in tasks not related to domestic engineering. Would I have been happier as an individual? I doubt it. I probably would have been bored and frustrated like many other women with intellectual talent who were forced into that role. What is good about now is that women who want to make homemaking their career can often choose that and those of us who want to work and use our other talents can do that too. And sometimes we even manage to have children (I have one and one is enough for me, I am enough for her too). I could not have managed more of them, even with a partner.
Posters who are putting the 1950's on a pedastal should also remember this - "dentistry" as one poster reminded us. And that children used to die much more regularly than they do now. In the 40's and 50's all you would have had to do was say "polio" to a parent and watch them freak out.
Why would I want to go back to any of that? Women who work inside and outside the home should stop hectoring each other about their choices and support the freedoms we now have. What works for you works, Why do we need to tell other people to do different or be like us? I don't know but it sure makes the writers of all those "mommy wars" books rich!
drnanjo (Nancy) | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 1:47:35 PM |
I think people who think that women or the family were better off in the 1950's are responding to sitcom images and not the diverse reality of life back then and the evolution of family and work.
Reality indeed; and those who would oppose it are doing no different, further judging it and all other periods of history by today’s standards -- a little point I was trying to make with that “Gone With The Wind” analogy. However, what some have been responding to here is a lack of what once was, further the need to have what modernization and a delusional views of the past has diminished… the family, further our culture.
Some families looked like this...at least on the surface. Many women worked...women have always worked to help the family produce capital. But before the early 1900's that work happened at home...the family farm, or trade shop. In the 40's and 50's work moved to the city and family and work became more separated - but this was sociological "blip" and not "the way it should be." There is NO way it should be.
Not the way it should be? Sociological Blip!? Balderdash!!! It’s the only way it could be then, further a period in our sociological “and” economical evolution. Things were once so different that we actually had “children” quite literally chained to dangerous, factory machines where they lost fingers, limbs, and quite often their lives. It was a period where people did what they had to do just to survive; however, all the activists never seem to bring this up. They seem to believe that yesterday was no different than today, never realizing that most women wouldn’t actually want the jobs men did, and the men weren‘t very happy about them either (yet thankful to get them); furthermore, there was no OSHA, no standards of wage, and certainly no job security.
Does anyone actually remember the “Great Depression?” Of course not; none of you were even alive back then, nor have you ever had to survive by eating jack-rabbits, greens, or anything else you could find. There was also no community colleges -- a little something started by the Department of Motor Vehicles of all things, intended to bring your quality of life up because of the lack of an actual choice for anyone previously!
Ever watch that movie called, “The Grapes of Wrath?” It’s about as close to reality as you would ever want to get back then; however, it doesn’t quite depict the degree of suffering that was happening everywhere. The men who built the Hoover Dam in 1931 often dropped to their deaths, having to hang over the side of cliffs by substandard ropes to clear rock, and those who were hit in the head below by those rocks didn’t fare, too well either. And don’t even get me started on the coal miners who died from black lung, cave-ins, explosions, and labor disputes at the business end of a gun. Jobs weren’t nearly as plentiful as women’s rights are today, nor was there a choice in the matter.
I am a smart woman. If I had been born in the 1930's or 40's I would have been pressured to make marriage and children priority over using my brain in tasks not related to domestic engineering. Would I have been happier as an individual? I doubt it. I probably would have been bored and frustrated like many other women with intellectual talent who were forced into that role. What is good about now is that women who want to make homemaking their career can often choose that and those of us who want to work and use our other talents can do that too. And sometimes we even manage to have children (I have one and one is enough for me, I am enough for her too). I could not have managed more of them, even with a partner.
If you had been born in the 1930’s or 1940’s, you would have suffered right along with the rest of us; furthermore, there was no pressure involved. You would have sprang at the chance of a marriage, and you’d be damned glad somebody actually wanted to marry you. It’s why they had a little something called a “hope chest.“ It’s only your complacency with a comparably soft life, further the lack of an informed, historically accurate reality, that makes you think otherwise. Therefore, it’s not so much a question of whether or not women had it better in the 1950’s as compared to today, but whether or not they had it better than before the 1950’s and who fought and suffered to bring their quality of life to what it is today… that would be everyone, by the way, further the human need of love and family which so many women now smirk at. The only thing anyone hears from most of you now is that you view doing the cooking, laundry, and house work as oppressive, as if you wouldn’t be doing any of this if you were single. Hell, I’ve been doing these things for over five years now as a full time dad, and I certainly don’t see it as oppressive. I see it as a necessary standard of living, further a statement of who I am and how I like to live to anyone who steps into my home.
I think all you ladies need to come to the realization that we actually don’t need you anymore these days than you need us. Yet, we’re still asking you to marry us; to share our lives; to have our children. Why is it, then, that we make this choice in the face of so damn much adversity, further a 70% divorce rate where 80% of them are filed for by women, and the ability to have otherwise easy sex without attachment? Perhaps you should consider the fact that we do and always have wanted more than the stereotypical viewpoints so many of you have of us; viewpoints that are derived more so from the minority of facts than the majority of reality and personal experience. You judge us by the very same stereotypes that you’ve shamed us for having, further every bit as hypocritical and stereotypical as anyone’s behavior has ever been; yet, you never seem to make the connection. You believe your selves every bit as righteous as your ideals, further convinced that your morality is superior and innate. What you don’t acknowledge, however, is that the rest of the world views you as the whores of Babylon which I greatly resent. Indeed, where we were once the ultimate pillar of moral society in this world, we are now viewed as something less by those who come here and look down on us.
I live in a complex just across the street from a corporation which employs and brings to this country a huge number of people from Asia and India (don’t ask why, I’m sure I don’t know). And you wouldn’t believe how much better they believe they are than us. We have you to thank for this. Your idealisms have resulted in our diminishments, and nothing will ever be the same again… | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 2:33:10 PM | ^^^ 
People should read ‘Modern Women: the Lost Sex’ by Maryinia Farnham and Ferdinand Lundgren.
It claimed that most of society’s problems ... alcoholism, teenage hooliganism and even war ... were because of women following careers instead of being housewives and mothers.
Many women decided there was more to life than babies, dishes and happy husbands. They felt that their contribution to the war effort had been forgotten. In the 1960s thousands joined NOW....the National Organisation for Women.
All I gotta say is God Bless Betty Friedan...where ever she is! Ha!
"A comfortable concentration camp" - Betty Friedan describing the suburban home in the eyes of a woman
I have to disagree with this MisterVVVV
nor have you ever had to survive by eating jack-rabbits, greens, or anything else you could find. I personally ate some funky varmit parts living as a young gypsy in the south...I might have been overheard saying “As God is my witness, they’re not going to lick me! I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again! No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill! As God is my witness,
I’ll never be hungry again! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 5:06:27 PM | Everyday I give thanks for those very brave women who fought so hard and so dearly for the rights we take for granted today. Everyday I thank my lucky stars to be living in the present and for modern laws that recognise human rights. There was so much wrong with the 1950s, much "respect" was a two edged sword that was also meant to maintain the status quo for those with power and authority.
Unfortunately our medical profession are still clinging to the 1950s mentality in their attitudes towards women, but thankfully the rest of the world has moved on.
Being groped at, at work, having men talk down to you, being treated like a bimbo - things were so much worse even 20 years ago. I can't even imagine just how bad the 50's were in social attitudes. I am glad there have been some quotes from 1950s literature - you don't have to read much of it to see just how vulnerable women, and children really were.
OP, I am saddened at the social carnage that occurs in your immediate space, in your cab so often. Perhaps a sign and a model of a video camera may not be a bad investment - you should feel free to say you aren't willing to tolerate this in your cab.
Orange oil essence can disperse angry emotions a little, perhaps you could have some of this on the parcel shelf.
I doubt human behaviour has really changed so very much from earlier times, we just have better laws that give the option of walking out on bad behaviour.
I do miss milking cows, shucking peas, trimming beans, and things on the farm - but I also love my washing machine and appliances very much! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 5:29:33 PM | Sadly to say that I really beleive TV has trashed everthing thats respectable !!!....
and the kids see it all,...so they growup with attitudes and beleive everything they see on TV is the way it is out there.... Violence !!!....and killing.... it just dos`nt stop,,,,
If I had a young family I would`nt have a TV in my home...and I would take the trouble to explain it all to my kids .....just how brain washing TV is !!!.....
Women today want to be " MEN "!!!..... drive an eighteen wheeler, lift weights,.. join the army and go to the front lines....everything a man does they want to challenge it ...... It makes me pouke.... | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 5:37:30 PM | Dude, it's a great feeling to drive a truck or a tractor. I very much wanted to join the defence forces - being ready to jump in there and have a go at things. Seeing women choosing to be proactive with their life choices, delighting in a healthy fit body, what could there be to "pouke" [sic] about that?
Assertiveness and a can-do manner are not gender specific traits, unfortunately neither is aggression to some degree. The only thing is that today we are less hung up about gender roles and more concerned with common humanity.
TV certainly has its good and bad features, most especially good is the OFF button!
I also can't see any evidence of brain washing apart from the morning shows with their 1950s style cosmetic adverts - much more scary than than the war footage I think!
Happy Birthday Dancecard, I believe you were born in a good year for the grape. All things get better with time, even the 1950s! .
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 5:57:11 PM |
The biggest losers in the last 50 years has been the Children.
Wow dancecard how very true.When you look at all the kids who are being raised by the tv and the computer and maybe a nanny if they are really lucky ,then yeah the kids are the biggest losers.
I wouldn't say though that women had it better 50 years ago though.It may be not perfect today for women ,but at least we have equal rights and don't have to stay in bad marriages because we can't survive on our own. | |
|
vro312
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 141 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:32:26 PM | I think to a large degree ~ the biggest losers in the last 50 years has been the Children. And it's these very children thats asking this question.
Lets face it ~ the one on one love offered in abundance ~ is not coming through like it use too.
Seriously?
Many of us on this thread were born within the past 50 years. I myself do not feel as though I lost because of the era in which I was reared. Most of the hardships I faced as a child were not specific to the 1970s and 1980s. Born a hundred years earlier, I could have just as easily had an intoxicated mother and an absent father.
Four hundred years ago, Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, King Lear, and Romeo and Juliet, all of which address the issues that arise when a child's need for love and positive attention is not met appropriately. Wuthering Heights, written in the mid-19th Century is at least partially about an abusive parent who is incapable of loving his offspring. Much of Charles D!ckens' work touches on child neglect and abuse, as does much of the late 19th and early 20th Century American literature. Huckleberry Finn could not have existed without a lack of nurturing. Literature deals with universal truths. The stories themselves may not have been true, but the themes always are.
Human beings are human beings. Each era may have new and improved ways of ignoring its children's needs, but rest assured, each era like the one before it fails its children to a certain degree. There will always be understanding and attentive parents, and there will always be the parents who just weren't equipt for the job. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:01:05 PM |
All that says is that YOU are not confused. Good for you.
But I myself have seen a lot of evidence of uncertainty and confusion where gender roles are concerned, especially with men. It has been difficult for some men--not all men--to adjust to the changing dynamics of the workplace, the family unit, the male/female relationship. It has made many men feel unnecessary, which is very, very sad.
And, women who aspire to get married and have children are no longer seen in such a favorable light--in many social circles/regions, the woman who wants to be a homemaker is looked down upon. In fact, it has become standard for women to minimize the fact that they want to start a family because that particular aspiration might be seen as needy. Something which used to be viewed as admirable and a given is now viewed as somehow weak or ignorant or dependent. That adds confusion to gender roles, too.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
yes, very good for me. and everyone i know. i work with men who have no issue with my femaleness, my boyfriend has no issue with me working and being a live in girlfriend. seriously, you would have to be retarded to have not caught up yet. women have been working and raising families for a long time now.
i couldn't imagine coming home from a full day's work, seeing dirty dishes in the sink and wandering around saying, duh.....what do i do? am i a bread winner or a caregiver. thank god i'm not that stupid. i do the smart thing. wash the dishes and move on or watch the man do it.
if that makes men feel unnecessary, chances are the same type of man would feel unnecessary no matter what the situation. that's a physchological problem, not a woman's
if some woman down the street has an opinion on whether or not i want children, well i really don't care. why would anyone care? again, thank god i'm not that stupid.
rollrgrrl...
I came from a long line of very strong and tough females. In the country life, that was essential and respected. Women today who exhibit strength, intelligence and are no nonsense like my mother and my grandmother are treated as ball-bashers et al. Read the threads about that. I have that way about me, too. It intimidates men.
Girls and women today are being tough in non-productive ways. Trying to be like "guys". Talk like them, swagger like them, drink beer like them, swear like them, have sex like them, be violent and aggressive like them....
What they haven't learned is that women have awesome power.
You are just a bit older than my kids. Your perception is like theirs.
sorry to bust your theory, but i'm not much of a drinker. i've never been treated as a ball-buster either, maybe they weren't doing it right. i don't know. i don't have to swagger, the power and strength i have is real.
glad to see your children see things more the way i do. they should see that they don't have to be anything more than they are to have a good relationship or land a job. women don't have to play meek and dumb to do those things. did you not get the memo?? | |
|
vro312
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 143 | |
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:34:53 PM | I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic that we're actually better off now.
I mean, it's pretty tough and I think cities are the worst because people are too easily distracted by the potential of "something better coming along". A little spoiled by growing up in a small town.
As far as a code of ethics? Well, I'm sure the expectations were clearer, but I doubt women were better off. I mean, admitting that their partner didn't live up to that code of ethics was pretty much taking the blame for it. And when men were abusive, they didn't really have any place to go, means to take care of themselves by having a job that pays properly, and were very often blamed for it.
Women's lib hasn't helped much. At least not in the relationship kinda way. I'm a professional woman working in a male dominated profession, and how I perform my job isn't a reflection of the kind of "woman" I am. It'd be nice if we could have it all, work with the men with mutual respect, and date DIFFERENT men (not from the workplace) who can still be gentlemen.
Can't be easy out there for the guys trying to figure out what the rules are... and I guess when people are poorly behaved it's hard to judge because you just don't know what's going on in their lives at the time. I know that on my worst days I still try to be respectful of people around me, just quieter and more to myself... I guess not all people have the same "default" position under stress.
Maybe the good thing about this day in age, is we're willing to discuss it.. I suppose if we all do it more often and louder maybe we can reinstate the "code of ethics" and maintain the support systems for people who need protection from those who don't.
Okay, so nothing conclusive in this meandering post... but hope some food for thought. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:45:01 PM |
my boyfriend has no issue with me working and being a live in girlfriend
I'm sure he doesn't.
um...ok. let me try to break that down for you.
i have a job, i make money. 'k, still with me?
therefore, i make financial desicions with my boyfriend, as well as share household chores with him. he doesn't feel threatened by that. in fact, he welcomes it.
do you need me to slow down? hope not
without trying to be too cliche i can indeed bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never ever let him forget he's a man.
you can't. you're "confused" i can help you no further. go read a book, watch CNN....SOMETHING!!!!! | |
|
vro312
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 146 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:35:45 PM |
without trying to be too cliche i can indeed bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never ever let him forget he's a man.
you can't. you're "confused" i can help you no further. go read a book, watch CNN....SOMETHING!!!!!
Oh, the irony.
I don't recall saying I was confused, at least not on this thread. But don't worry . . . as soon as you brush up on your verbal and critical thinking skills, I bet you'll be giving all those "stupid" confused women and unnecessary men a real run for their money. 
Hang in there! I'm pulling for you. | |
|
vahbsc
|
Joined: 1/5/2006
Msg: 147 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:38:36 PM | not all but a lot of hatred and chauvinism toward women is perpetuated by women. i don't know how i feel about that. is the freedom of independence worth the disrespect women are subjected to everyday?
i think so | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/11/2008 11:05:37 PM |
Women's lib hasn't helped much. At least not in the relationship kinda way
While women's lib may not of helped relationships between men and women it has helped women to be able to achieve things in their careers that they were never able to before .A young girl going to medical school or studying to become a lawyer was a much different more hostile place 60 years ago.Now thankfully our young women who study for these things and others don't face the barriers and open hostility.The young men in their classes don't find it bizarre,weird or out of place to have women studying along beside them.
I think there has been harm done by the militant man hating feminist to the relationships between men and women and that's really sad.It's pointless to blame the men of today and to look down on them for what others did who came before them.You have to let go and forgive .After all it's not the women of today who went through the horrors that the women of yesterday went through. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/12/2008 4:21:01 AM | | I can't say if women were overall better off 50 years ago, but I believe that the family unit was more stable than it is today. I mean most families had a mom and a dad. They both STAYED together for the most part through thick and thin and ups and downs; look at most grandparents today. Morals and standards were seen to reflect the marriage life, which in turn, provided a strong family unit. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/12/2008 6:05:52 AM |
I can't say if women were overall better off 50 years ago, but I believe that the family unit was more stable than it is today.
Or was there just a better job of hiding it and was there a tremendous amount of suffering going on behind closed doors? Lets face it anyone that was born in a 50 or early 60's family model is now in their late 40's or 50's and that is the group of people that have raised todays adults, yet they dont seem to have done all that great a job, but they had the "benefit" of being in a "traditional" family setting so what the hell happened? Ah yes the "strong family unit" of yesteryear...How many of us have grown up in a home that had an alcoholic parent? How many have witnessed domestic violence? How many have dealt with sexual abuse? These are things that people are ashamed to discuss and admit to the general public or close ranks to protect the family name and preserve the reputation.
I grew up in the late 70's and 80's and can remember the school secretary making comments about my mother being divorced and how she had failed as a wife and a parent. However if the truth be known my Dad had been having affairs their entire marriage and was pretty quick with his hands when he got mad to all of us. It was pretty much then that my Mother had to go out and start to work because it was pretty obvious that my Father wasnt taking his role too seriously and she had no choice but to go out to work. I suppose she could have chose to ignore the affairs and explain away her bruises but I guess she chose herself and her kids over the "illusion" of a stable family. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
