|
|
|
|
|
| | Were women better off 50 years ago?Page 8 of 21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) |
Did it ever occur to you that maybe that change wasnt all that welcome for those going back to what little they were allowed?
I really believe that many men will never understand this because as a male there were very few restrictions put on what you were allowed to aspire to based on the fact that you didnt have the right genitalia . Men were rarely told they couldnt do something just because they were men, they are encouraged to be strong and fight for what is their right as men! Yet when women ask for the same thing we are wrong in that [/quote
Oh Yea! ~ It occured to me ~ but not many family oriented ~ The emphases was on family ~ and if not ~ then on self. ~
And this is when the change started ~ and then it got to where ~ To have all the family wanted ~ it now required Two paychecks ~ ~ The early stores ~ what were their names? Before Target and K Mart? ~ can't remember them anymore. ~
Anyway Ladies ~ You are much better off in so many ways now ~ You don't have to take S`it off nobody , except the boss ~ and the other people at work and ~ your fellow commuters. ~ and the IRS. ~
And when you get home ~ now you can kick the dog around or go for a drink with the girls ~ Maybe put in a load ~ water some flowers ~ or like some do ~ just replace them as they die. ~ You have much to chose from. ~ More then you did.
Best of luck to all ~ I for one like the arrangment ~ It's a lot easier for men as well ~ if you understand the program. ~ dar | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/13/2008 3:32:34 PM | The problem these days is women can bail out of a relationship or marriage much easier and men find this hard to deal with.
My way of dealing with it is not to live with anyone. Why risk half of my money and house on a possible chancer ? | |
|
vro312
| | Joined: 11/22/2007 Msg: 178 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/13/2008 8:45:03 PM |
If a person would rather have a well defined "roll" rather than the freedom to do what they want, maybe they'd be happier in medieval europe, where your place was on the farm and on your wedding night, you got to have sex with the Lord of your land *if he wanted you* and thereafter with your husband... and if you strayed off the manor you could be hung for "poaching" because you must have been hunting on the land of a Lord that wasn't yours.
I find it somewhat baffling that posters are arguing the whole "roles" point. It's not really about people *wanting* a well-defined role. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But the reality is gender roles have changed. Watch any 1950s sit-com and you see a family unit and gender-specific behaviors that are no longer representative of our culture. I wonder why this is such an issue of contention.
Confusion about roles is a pretty standard internal conflict--it happens to many people as they age. When the nest empties out, many parents feel lost because they've been "Mom" and "Dad" for so long and now they're not sure who they are. People experience this confusion when they are offered the Golden Handshake before they're ready because for so long their work has defined them. And people definitely feel it when their relationships end--they go from being boyfriend or girlfriend or lover or whatever to just a regular old single person.
So, in the case of women entering the workplace and being less dependent upon men, the conflict seems to be cultural/societal as opposed to individual. But it is a conflict nonetheless. There was that movie Kramer vs Kramer in like 1980--it was about this confusion and the changing roles. Whether I myself am confused or not, I can't possibly deny that there is ample evidence of this gender role confusion out there. Why all the argument? And if you're going to argue, why not make a good solid point with some examples or evidence to back it up?
I can't believe how dumb people are, religious fanatics notwithstanding....head up the wrong end... don't know enough to come in out of the rain *ugh*
Now I've seen a lot of questionable and even downright embarrassing posts on these forums, but honestly, I don't see a whole lot of "dumb" posts on this particular thread. What is accomplished by calling people stupid or dumb? Does the poster really think that makes him look *smarter*?  | |
|
hlr32
| | Joined: 3/4/2008 Msg: 179 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/13/2008 9:11:47 PM | I think that there is this whole illusion about 'the good old days' Read some Richard Shenkman. He writes these great books about US History and they are really witty and easy to read. He kind of goes through debunking our beliefs about our history. I know there is a chapter about The Good Old Days. Its funny. Things werent really any better 50 years ago. Women especially were subjected to a lot of silly social rules. I am really grateful for the seventies and women's lib! And I think that nice and normal people will treat each other with respect and it doesnt have anything to do with gender. I am treated respectfully because I treat people...men and women... respectfully. Its as simple as that. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 11:59:56 AM | Good old days are an illusion ~
It's the way the mind works ~ it ~ forgets a lot of the bad ~
who don't have a few fond memories of the ~ the ~~~ Ex?
Who remembers walk up hill , both ways ~ in the snow ~ to school! lol
or just how cold the floors are in an old clap board house? ~ might as well been outside.
The mind ~ is a strange a wonderful place ~ It protects itself ~ without you trying
~dar | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 12:47:54 PM |
Watch any 1950s sit-com and you see a family unit and gender-specific behaviors that are no longer representative of our culture.
they never ever were... not even for Hollywood families
Look at the bios of the people who played those roles on tv! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 1:58:21 PM | Oh man...they weren't really like that at home ! ?
I thought every woman dusted her house wearing heels and pearls. Every woman sat next to her husband while he read the paper and she did her needlework !
I'm crushed ! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 2:00:34 PM | Oh my the memories...
...we were feed, watered and put out to play in the morning ~ and thats what we did ~ played! in the trees, the creek, the dirt, the barn, the corn crib, the fields, ~ the neighbors ` we played out little ases off ~ no fears! we were watched over by all the growup eyes ~ we were ratted out ~ if we were naughty ~ or getting in to something we shouldn't...
It almost as if our mothers were related!!!
I was not born in the sixties but my mother had her teen age years in the fifties.
Anyway, as a young adult in the late fifties she did experience the decade...
Anyway... she also "disinfected" us at night.
She would wash each and everyone of us in the "big white porcelain" sink in the kitchen. It was a huge porcelain double sink with long porcelain slabs on each side. Anyway...
After our day of playing, she bathed us, inspected us. Cuts, scrapes, whatever. She would pour peroxide on the new wounds and then put iodine. Touch up the in between wounds with iodine if there was still signs of infection. Once we were disinfected, we would put our pyjamas and we were not allowed to go anywhere near dirt.
We always seemed to have little red blobs on our bodies... Anyway...
Off we'd go to bed all clean and ready for a good night's sleep.
Thanks for the memories!!!  | |
|
vro312
| | Joined: 11/22/2007 Msg: 184 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 5:13:18 PM | they never ever were... not even for Hollywood families
That's not really the point. And I'm wondering what the point is that you are trying to make. You think little boys and girls in the 1950s had the same ideas about their future adult roles as little boys and girls have today?
TV shows might not be entirely accurate in their representation of society, but they certainly represent the ideals of an era. In the 1950s, the ideal was that the woman was at home taking care of the kids and the household chores while the man went out and earned a living. Beyond that, yes, those shows were fictionalized, but the portrayal of ideal gender roles was pretty accurate.
The ideals have changed, that's all I'm saying. For some people, the ideals changed radically between their childhood and their adulthood, and that has the potential to be a source of confusion.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 7:09:11 PM | It all starts out as ` little boys and little girls ~
and what "we" think ~~~
and what does your babies !~~ ~~~~~ think ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~now?
and ~~~~~~~~~~` so ~~~~~~~~~~ it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` is
dar | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 7:49:57 PM | okay, now i'm going to be burned at the stake or put in front of the firing squad, i just ask that you allow me one last cigarette.
i'm sure you heard of people being born the wrong time, well i'm pretty much one of them. unlike some people today, i don't believe in sleeping with someone unless dating for a length of time, i also don't believe in guys having roaming hands and rushing fingers either. most guys today that are single, divorced, or what have you telling women about how they do the cooking, cleaning, and laundry and wouldn't want a woman to do that. to me, i believe that the man is the bread winner, the provider for the family while the woman maintains the interior 4 walls of the home, raising the family, and works as well. right now i'm not able to work but when i was able to and while i was married and had my kids as well, i worked, did all of the cooking, cleaning, laundry, helped my boys with their homework, and i even did my own home repairs and renovations as well.....i even took care of cutting the grass outside of my house. my stb ex husband worked and took care of his car and went fishing. the only time that he did the cooking was towards the end of our marriage when i was working from 1-6pm and refused to have the boys wait until 6:30pm to eat dinner, he still didn't really cook a meal, it was either mc donalds, wendys, or burger king or he would make something where it wasn't hard (he didn't know how to cook).
the way i am....i do the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. when i was with my now ex boyfriend i used to get up at 4am and make his coffee and get his lunch ready for him. i would make the bed right after i had his coffee on, make a cup of tea for myself and sit with him and watch the morning news. i would walk him out to his car with his lunch, give him a kiss and tell him to have a good day. i did all of the cooking, his dinner was served to him (not all placed out on the table), i would not sit down until i made sure he had everything he needed or wanted. right after dinner i did the dishes and scrubbed the counter, sink, and stove then i would sit down with him. while he was in the bath tub and asked for a cigarette not only would i take one in to him but i would light it for him, take out his dirty clothes and put out clean clothes. in our house he pretty much had a bottomless cup, when his cup of sweet tea was empty i would refill it for him without him asking. when he got hurt, i helped him bath, dress and undress. when i got hurt (fractured my tail bone from being thrown from a quad) he filled the tub with water, helped me get undressed and dressed.....i sat in the tub and cried. i never allowed any man to take care of me and still dare not let any man take care of me like that unless i absolutely needed help. i was alway brought up to respect the man that i'm with, not by serving him and taking away his independence but by serving him with love and respect. it's a lot of the women over 50 years old or have been married for a long term being the same way that i have been raised. i'm not with my stb ex husband since he was running around on me and causing mental abuse, i'm not with my now ex boyfriend since he decided to start dating another woman and broke my nose over her as well. he didn't break my nose out of a violent fit, he broke my nose out of love, he asked me to tell her something on the phone in front of him and i did. i pretty much hurt his feelings when i told her what he wanted me to say. i'm not with anyone now since not too many guys are interested in a woman with my beliefs. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 8:21:33 PM | you're sure it was out of love that he broke your nose? Passion like that could (and I think should) be enough to put a man in prison, don't you think? Wow.. what did you tell her? and he WANTED YOU to tell her what you said? Sounds like you were between a rock and a hard place, my Friend.
Wheweeeeee.....
Hope for your sake you're done with guys like that. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/14/2008 8:45:22 PM | Msg.#190 (Country girl) - I value that you have high morals, integrity, etc. but allowing yourself to be a DOORMAT in your marriage was WRONG, and this has nothing to do with being old-fashioned. However, it has everything to do with lack of self-esteem & self-respect, and trying too hard to be loved by others.
You should know by now that men do NOT respect women who will do everything for them - because that's not the way it's supposed to be. Men are supposed to do some things for their woman and for the sake of the relationship, after all. Today, as well as many years ago, men more often than not, do yard work, fixed the vehicle(s), do some renovations and/or house maintenance (if skilled or capable), etc. But you, Country girl, did practically EVERY THING in your marriage - how foolish & naive of you!!
So even though you're old-fashioned (nothing wrong with that) - you had a ONE-SIDED marriage with your ex, and it's YOUR fault that you ALLOWED it to happen that way - especially since we all make choices in our lives - therefore, we can't blame others all the time for what transpires in our relationships with others! What kind of marriage is that when one person does everything, while the other has it so easy?? Like I said, that has nothing to do with being old-fashioned, as you mentioned - but rather everything to do with lack of self-esteem & respect! I'm old-fashioned in a lot of ways - but never, ever would I allow a guy to NOT pull his weight in a relationship (whether living together or married)! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/15/2008 5:59:50 AM |
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…
You completely lost me, and I have no idea what you are ranting about here. I was stating as have many other posters that roles are oppressive and are often culturally defined to some extent, whatever the differences between the sexes are - everyone wants some power or control over their lives.
When I marry a man I don't marry a role, a marry a person. I would like to be treated as a person also. I don't think America has ever deserved to be an "ultimate pillar of moral society" - we've had plenty of corruption and greed and abuse - among both sexes, all ethnic groups and all classes - throughout our history We're just people...and there is no "one way" to be happy - something that all of us seek whether or not we choose to admit it. People who "suck it up" (stay in miserable roles, jobs, marriages) ultimately end up taking it out on SOMEONE - themselves, spouses, co-workers, children. Yes it is probably better to be selfish in the sense of preserving one's integrity then to play a role for anyone's else's benefit. I'll probably be attacked by someone on the list for saying this now, so I'll just stop here.
drnanjo (Nancy) | |
|
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/15/2008 6:51:30 PM | | hmm lets see here. sexist crap has been around for awile. why because their is a type of male, he is a half wit weak dip shit, and he also created religions to silent women, along with creating all the other forms of discrimination. now their is a type of women, that is stupid, and sick in the head, she needs theropy, she goes after women haters. then we all have to hear about blah blah. when in fact truth be told their are alot of good men, who have brains, and alot of good women, that have brains. as long as people continue to tolerate any forms of ignorance. it will continue to happen. heck some women hate all men, well at least you can understand where their coming from. what happens to that type of girl is she looks at all the history, and blah blah and begins to think that all men are half wits, when that is actually far from the truth. now the roles of society are stupid, now men, and women are finnally starting to do what they want, not what morons tell them to do. so yah its hard for both men, and women. I mean men let themselves be slaves to money for a long time. women let themsleves be slaves to bearing children, and all other things for a long time, and now have joined the other form of slavery the workplace. we can all get along, if we show respect for all creatures, and lock ignorance away. good luck to my fellow broters and sisters. these forums are neat. fight for real freedom. needing money to survive is bull shit. open your eyes. you need real freedom. watch zeigeist whooop | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/15/2008 6:59:26 PM | | also ofcoase their are still some places where women do not get paid equally. like I said as long as people tolerate bull crap it will continue to happen. hmm more sexism calling women whores sluts traps ****es and such. see no women is really a ****. when she is mean she is mean, not a ****. people have been using that term to try to control women for a long time now. just like some call men **stards. yes some men are evil, but do not derserve that term. now **** originally came from the time when their was slavery in america. **** means female slave, and female dog. now people have changed it somewhat, but it will always be offensive, and it will always not fit right. actually , and **** are kinda the same, if you take some time to think this through. so the next time you get mad at a women dont call her a ****. that makes you sound like you lack intelligence, and are a sexist women hater. men who call women the b word, are women haters, an d need theropy. I wish you all the best of luck, even sexist morons whoopers | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/15/2008 7:14:24 PM | | women have been oppressed for 4 thousand years to say that women were better of 50 years ago is garbage. tied to the sink, reliant on a possible drunken man who you had to stay married to no matter if he hit you, or you hated each others guts intelligent women turned to valium to dull their brilliant minds because they had to hide their sharp minds behind the mundanity of shit and stringbeans and at the end of the day theres always the bloody washing up. the difference now is that women have options what i dont agree with is the constant image portrayed by the media of slags and sluts rather than a free woman in touch ith her own sexuality. i have hyad a long journey to realise what a beautiful funny intelligent person i am and the main problem is in womens self worth and self esteem, phycology from biorth teachers women to be carers alwaysw put other people before themselve get down on your kneews men you need to pay for 4,000 years of repression and the chances are you've got a goodess at home you need to tell shes wonderful, emily pankhurst would turn in her grave shame on you! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 2:29:25 AM | Well I believe there was running water and the telephone in Little House on the Prarie Yeah thet was in the States and Maybe East Coast of Canada - I think My Grandmother had no electricity, heat, running water or telephone until her later life after her children were raised. Grandmother! I think that was 50 or so years ago. Milk the cow, gather ther eggs, fetch and water the garden, fetch water for the house. etc. Bake the bread, cookies etc. sewing ! Now maybe the kids were old enough to help The
Now were reliant on making money for electricity, water, telephone, transportation and other things we have become dependant on along the way that we cant do on our own. Education and social sytems our kids have to have just to get by and thre price in money must have some relavant comparison. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 7:06:27 AM |
get down on your kneews men you need to pay for 4,000 years of repression Do you accept Visa or MC? And since we're on that, why don't you pay us for 4,000 years of working to support your sorry ass? | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 8:54:57 AM | ^^^^^
Y'all can discuss this inane topic 'till Betty Friedan rises from her grave. I assure you that if the world economy--as reflected by the USA, Japanese and Chinese economies--tanks we will be forced to rely on each other more than we can possibly imagine. All this palaver about men bad, women oppressed will fade away like the fields in the Texas dustbowls. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 9:13:59 AM |
women have been oppressed for 4 thousand years to say that women were better of 50 years ago is garbage. tied to the sink, reliant on a possible drunken man who you had to stay married to no matter if he hit you, or you hated each others guts intelligent women turned to valium to dull their brilliant minds because they had to hide their sharp minds behind the mundanity of shit and stringbeans and at the end of the day theres always the bloody washing up.
Such basura from a 26-year-old woman. It is indeed odd that the only women I hear tell of these tales of oppression and hatred speak English as their native language. So sad to hear. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 10:45:27 AM | And since we're on that, why don't you pay us for 4,000 years of working to support your sorry ass? Most women would have loved to work and support their own sorry asses, but in a lot of cases weren't allowed to, either because males forbid it, or because there were no jobs made available for them. That's the thing here, some women were probably fine with marrying some dude to keep from living at home forever and cranking out puppies for him, but some women didn't want to live their whole lives taking care of other people and have no other purpose...
I'm sure it was easy to argue with them at that time and tell them to be grateful they had a place to live and food to eat, but it still meant they had almost no other options. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago? Posted: 3/17/2008 11:15:31 AM | Most women would have loved to work and support their own sorry asses, but in a lot of cases weren't allowed to, either because males forbid it, or because there were no jobs made available for them. You know, I'm always amazed by selective memory. When you say "no jobs made available for them", do you mean "no jobs comfy enough for a woman to do them"? Because until the industrial revolution and the steam engine, almost every job required physical strength, 12-14 straight hours working and the most unhealthy conditions. There were no "office jobs" nor "glass ceiling". Work was dirty, dull, brutal and dangerous.
Do you really believe women would have liked to carry stones in a quarry, to dig for coal down a mine shaft, to fish in a dinky boat, instead of staying at home with the kids?
Oh, yes, I know there were lawyers, scholars, accountants, etc. But guess what: They were a very small minority. Most men had these backbreaking, dangerous, dull, even deadly jobs. Somehow I don't see women of that time complaining by not having to do them.
I'm sure it was easy to argue with them at that time and tell them to be grateful they had a place to live and food to eat, but it still meant they had almost no other options. Exactly what additional options MEN had, then? Besides working AND working? And yes, they should have be grateful for having a place to live and food to eat, since there were no welfare state then. Until the 19th century, STARVATION wasn't just a type of diet, but a real thing. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Page
8
of
21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
|
|