|
|
|
|
|
| | Were women better off 50 years ago?Page 9 of 21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) | schadenfreudian:
I feel as if I'm talking to myself in a rubber room...or silicone.
Stop reading that Freud crap and call a real psychiatrist. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/17/2008 1:52:12 PM |
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.
No, I mean that those who wanted to work were either told they weren't man enough to do so, or not allowed to actually work. I'm sure that those who tried withstood the boy's club thing to the extent that they found it too traumatizing to stay.
There are industries even today that simply feel a woman doesn't belong, and though legally they can't stop it, they make it a day to day hardship for them to get thru a day without wanting to quit.
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?
Well, that one's a two-parter. The fact that there were kids, which was expected of women in addition to marriage, negates the ability to leave and work, doesn't it? Women who were focused on children they had to have, obviously couldn't go into any type of workforce or job, because having children sort of weeded them out of that option. Unless the family could afford childcare, and that wasn't smiled upon by your friends, family and neighbors either.
Also, yes, I do believe that there were women who wanted to do a lot of that, and did when the draft came thru and they had to - a lot of women learned that despite what they were told, that they could actually contribute.
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.
We'll never know if they'd complain, do we? If some of the older women can shed some light on this, it would be awesome to hear it firsthand. It's not about did they want to, it's more about - was it an option IF they wanted to?
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.
Men had the option to work and stay single, or work and get married - just as women do today. And I am sure had women been allowed to work and make enough to support themselves and stay single and be accepted in society for it, they would have. If welfare wasn't around, then it wouldn't have been an issue. We should all be grateful we have food and shelter, but when we're able to provide it for OURSELVES it's a much more profound gratefulness... | |
|
Dug01
| | Joined: 1/3/2007
Msg: 203 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/17/2008 2:54:18 PM | This thread is starting to smell of bull sh*t.
I was born in 1951, my mother worked in a well paying job along side of men from my earliest memories. My parents divorced in 1956 and my mother raised three children working without any child support or welfare. All she got in the divorce was a 1956 Pontiac Starchief car.
As a young boy, I roamed at will without fear of the violence that exists today. I have plowed, broken, disked, planted, laid by crops using either a single or pair of mules during my summer stays with my grand parents. During my youth I saw none of this beating and control of women I see so rampantly spewed within this thread. I'm sure it happened, but it certainly wasn't rampant like suggested by many.
I was raised to treat all with respect regardless of creed, gender, race or nationality as was most of those I came in contact with. People that beat their wives were dealt with harshly by law enforcement, friends, neighbors or family. Again I'm sure there was those that weren't dealt with but I knew of none. If a woman wanted to work, the work was there. Of course if it was in a physical field, the woman had to pull her weight, though I remember women who were kept on the payroll and given easier jobs simply because they needed to work and compassion actually was quite rampant during the time.
Now I know I just wasted my time sharing some of my early memories and have to agree with Schadenfreudian's assessment of trying to inject into topics like this... "deleted, because too often I feel as if I'm talking to myself in a rubber room...or silicone."
By the way, those who failed to understand what Schadenfreudian was saying aren't exhibiting any depth of thought in my opinion.
Regards,
Dug01 | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/17/2008 3:21:52 PM | No, I mean that those who wanted to work were either told they weren't man enough to do so, or not allowed to actually work. I'm sure that those who tried withstood the boy's club thing to the extent that they found it too traumatizing to stay.
Well, what do you know, perhaps they were told they were not man enough to do it.... because they weren't man enough to do it? A sack of 100lb of coal doesn't care for affirmative action, you know. And of course, the fact that the sack was for 100lb and not for 25lb is a conspiracy by the old boy's club to keep women out.
There are industries even today that simply feel a woman doesn't belong, and though legally they can't stop it, they make it a day to day hardship for them to get thru a day without wanting to quit.
Well, if it's too hard for them, perhaps they really don't belong there, don't you think?
Sorry, but this "the industry should accomodate to women" mindset is BS. You go to work somewhere, you adapt to it, if you don't like the place, you work elsewhere.
Men had the option to work and stay single, or work and get married - just as women do today.
Actually women have one more choice: get married...and stay home. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/19/2008 3:12:59 PM | @ rock hunter...
Actually women have one more choice: get married...and stay home.
Good point...
After reading all of the posts here, a nagging thought, keeps coming to mind...
My mother was raised in a way where men were never "taken for granted".
She was also not raised with the idea that someday a "man would taked care of her".
She was raised with the idea that she must develop her potential and whatever paths she choses and if she marries, she and her husband will work as a team and both will share in the responsibilities of their choices. (ie: budget, children, chores, etc.)
Those values were instilled in me also. Never did I even think in all of my years as a young woman to this present time,that at some point, a man will have to cater to my every need.
It is ludicrous to think this and it was ludicrous in the fifty's also.
Only I can make myself happy. No one can MAKE me happy... Impossible.
Sure, some families have mild to severe levels of disfunction. Those situations, I hope, are not the norm. All families, whatever the decade had their problems.
I may sound out of tune with the times, but I still hope to find someone where we both invest and pull our weight in the relashionship. I see it as a team of horses where both have to pull and both have to face in the same direction and both must follow the same path.
Have any of you rode a wagon of horses where only one is pulling and the other is coasting?... The horse burns out very fast and the other is never tired...
I have seen this with some of my friends that are married.
The husband is always tired and the wife, (she does not work), it seems she is always shopping and renovating... She complains he does not take her out dancing, or that there is no romance left in their relashionship, or that they never have enough money for whatever useless thing she needs... blah blah blah...
I also have an other friend where the wife does work full-time and she makes good money and the husband comes home before her and as soon as she gets home, he asks "What's for dinner?"... WTF
She has confided in me and she is basically so so depressed. She has no back bone also and I tried to help her as a friend but I refuse to get stuck in between them. Deep down she knows where the problem is, but she refuses to go there... So... in the meantime, she takes these "happy pills" as she calls them and apparently they give her so much energy. Apparently, she can accomplish so much at work and at home... Yea, whatever.
Anyway, there are always two sides to every coin.
As I was reading, I was suprised at the bitterness of some of the posters.
I truly believe that like anything else, healthy boundaries must be drawn up when you meet someone and it looks like the relashionship will flourish into something more.
What is difficult is the definition of "healthy boundaries". It seems to vary from personality profiles, to the decade involved, etc. ... ying and yang, the law of offer and demand... etc.
Anyway... somewhat off topic, but from the women who were from the fifty's or any other decade had their pluses and their minuses... and dare I say, so did men.
Hoping off the soap box... walking out of thread.
 | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/20/2008 12:08:56 AM | | Well In the 30's and 40's life expectancy age was down to like late 40 early 50 years so chances are you had no parents to be helping with your kids and if the life expectancy was deemed to be this low, it would be very doubtful yould think of divorce and also you would have more kids to work the farms and other manual labour -work, the more kids the stronger the family. I would think that would mean more cooking cleaning, washing, sewing darning socks crafts name it etc. Maybe not so much in the more better off Families they lived healthier longer lifespans. The longer life expectancy I think came the desire for Less kids and with more commercial than industrial age came Housewifes then Nobody would dare to be just a housewife. I think 50 years ago a wife and mother was more precious. Now Its Brains and brawn Some women and some men have both. When it comes to The Famous Artists and Writers, Woman have been perfectionists since we can remember From Language to Fashion, Designers in all fields. Men as well and there is always a will there is a way. You cant tell me Man does everything for money for their families(4,000 bah hum bug) Its Tit for Tat and same goes for women. If its all about dysfunction look around so much detail for perfection and usefulness. Look for greed abuse waste youll find it, true caring, building, deepening Even the least likely Music from each Generation developes when its deemed impossible. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/20/2008 3:26:39 PM | | Women wanted into the work world of 100 years ago about as much as they want to be included in the military draft today. Men saved women then and continue to do it now. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 3:48:08 AM | >>>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?>>>
Get over yourself rockhunter...you sound like your qouting the movie "Coal Miner's Daughter" in your posts..
The world changed ..
It seems like there are those who haven't figured out the benefits of a independant and self reliant woman these days.
How can you ever expect some acknowledgement for men's sacrifices..when it is clear you cannot recognize the sacrifices women have made in the past and are making in the present?
Think about this...there wouldn't have been a woman's movement in the 60's and 70's if most men simply acknowledged the contributions women made. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 3:59:54 AM | | Too funny! So many angry women, so little time. Poor old me...sniff sniff..I'm just a victim. Anyway...when you women wake up from this perpetual state of victimhood, maybe you'll realize that there is more too life than being a parasite and constantly looking for handouts. Grow up! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 4:39:32 AM | Get over yourself rockhunter...you sound like your qouting the movie "Coal Miner's Daughter" in your posts..
Unlike you, I live in the real world, I don't need references to movies. What's next, "Oprah said..."?
It seems like there are those who haven't figured out the benefits of a independant and self reliant woman these days.
On the contrary, we acknowledge them. The thing is, what kind of "independant and self reliant woman" is the one who keeps riding on "my grand-grand-grandma wasn't a wage slave, MEN owe me"?
Think about this...there wouldn't have been a woman's movement in the 60's and 70's if most men simply acknowledged the contributions women made.
Think about this... if women keep dismissing men's contributions, and blaming us by imagined evils, at some time men will stop giving a **** about your wellbeing (yes, I admit I'm already at that stage). Let's see how well you "independant", self-reliant (while there is running water, power and police at your service, all of them mostly provided by men) life is then.
And by the way, if you're soooooo "independant" and self-reliant, why do you care if men "acknowledge your contributions" or not?
when you women wake up from this perpetual state of victimhood, maybe you'll realize that there is more too life than being a parasite and constantly looking for handouts.
So you noticed it, too? The key was on: ""no jobs made available for them". What kind of entitlement sense is the one that thinks that somebody owes a job to you? If there are no jobs suited to you, you create your own job, instead of whining because nobody is changing their ways to accomodate you. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 7:58:13 AM | Maybe men were better off 50 years ago than they are today. He could have the same job for 40 years and be able to support the wife and kids at home. The woman was subservient to him and he could beat and cheat on her with impunity (not that I endorse such behavior...). She didn't really have much of a choice because getting a divorce was hard and she wouldn't have been able to survive economically in the work force on her own, not to mention the social stigma of being divorced.
Women definitely have it better today in many regards. | |
|
| Whose Ears Have Become Deafer to The Pleas of The Other?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:03:53 AM |
The woman was subservient to him and he could beat and cheat on her with impunity Why in hell is this one of the first assertions to appear when debating this subject? Sure, it's happened since time immemoriam, and we shouldn't dignify it, yet given what we know about today's marital behavior, there's probably a LOT more of this reprehensible behavior today BY BOTH SEXES than 50 years ago.
I keep reading about subservient wives, but I believe that even back then, in the Dark Ages of Pre-Feminism, that men found wives who they could respect to be much more desirable. What has become anathema to any kind of relationships in English-speaking countries is the invasive nature of local governments in the pursuit of "protecting victims."
Despite many women affirming that "I never demanded much in terms of property and [child] support, so I don't know where you get that idea of all women looking to screw over their husbands." Doesn't matter if the woman is, or isn't. Domestic LAW and an adversarial legal system--yep, the one that urges attorneys to suck as much money from the other party as possible--destroy non-custodial parents. States that collect the most amount of child support (relative to how much is owed in child support), receive big bonuses from federal agencies.
Many questions have been asked about why guys:
- Are commitment phobic
- Avoid marriage
- Don't date single/pregnant women
- Jump from bed to bed
- Love their [insert inanimate object here] more than women
- Don't call after obtaining phone numbers
I think the results of a survey of men about these types of behavior would reveal, upon analysis by a credible source (e.g., NOT Cosmopolitan), that men feel they live in a society with so little freedom and financial wiggle-room; every woman they admit into their lives could result in disaster.
Despite any man's attempt to explain what I would call Everyman's Dilemma, and why a man might choose never to marry, there's a percentage of very vocal women who feel that somehow it is inherent in women to render judgment on anything that runs contrary to an arbitrary, Western mindset. To men it seems often that women are far more interested in control and propaganda management than to actually listen to and become responsible for hearing the truth from a man's perspective.
To live with someone who views deep discussion more as a challenge to a paradigm of thought (more than as evidence of respect for her) becomes a dealbreaker for many men. It's difficult when you see that with each attempt to truly communicate with your spouse yields days of ex-communication and disdain, and that this may be as good as it gets. Given this knowledge, a lot of men ask if it's okay to live this way or if it's not better to avoid the risk. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:16:04 AM |
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. WOW, those poor babies.....12-14 straight? Why complain about a full time job? Granted, frequently I got to just work 8 hrs on Sundays...but the other 6 days a week were almost ALWAYS 12 hrs a day. By the way....I AM a woman, and a relatively small one.....but I could handle an 24" pipe wrench in one hand....backing it up with an 18" in the other. Trust me on this: for $30 an hour....you bet your sweet ass I preferred it to staying at home so I could give you guys one more woman to rag on about how inept and worthless we all are.
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. Well, let's see....I'd say the titanium steel implant screwed into my back is proof positive that indeed, it is backbreaking work...but.....I'm curious....when did I have the sex change operation? (last I looked...I was still female) Dangerous, oh yeah....rated 5th dangerous of all know occupations. I still feel bad about the year that I had my dad bring my daughter to the work site on "Bring Your Daughter's To Work Day" that while I was 60 ft in the air crawling along a steam line trying to get to a broken sprinkler fitting, that my poor terrified 10 yr old was crying afraid her Mommy was going to get hurt. Ohhhh, my perfume? It's just good ole "A deu Hydraulic Oil"....ya like? The era??? Ohhhh, it was just a mere 30 yrs ago. AND YES, I DID fight to be allowed to PROVE that I could do the work. Funny thing is......all the men who QUIT the job the first time they had to grind all night on a 16" diameter weld pipe setup!!! ROFL!!!! Did the men whine about complain....yeah, for a few weeks, til they realized that not only COULD I do the job.....but then after that....mostly the whined...That **** is crazy...she's trying to work us to death! Poor Babies. | |
|
TPNW
| | Joined: 3/15/2008
Msg: 214 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:20:28 AM | | Yes they were. Some women are more in love with themselves than anything else. They dont want to have any sort of role as a woman, but demand roles for a man. I respect most women but not greatly. The majority of women Id rather not know. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:24:30 AM | WOW, those poor babies.....12-14 straight? Why complain about a full time job?
Who's complaining? The only ones who complained are those "poor slaved women chained to the kitchen and burdened with babies". And of course, all those women who complain nowadays about "the boys club" and "hostile environment".
you bet your sweet ass I preferred it to staying at home so I could give you guys one more woman to rag on about how inept and worthless we all are.
Curious. I always thought I went to work to make a living, not to dispair about women. But live and learn.
Poor Babies.
I could say the same for all those "poor slaved women", but I'd use another b-word. However, I'm already too grown to use shaming language. I wonder when will some women become grown enough for that. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 4:20:26 PM |
I could say the same for all those "poor slaved women", but I'd use another b-word. However, I'm already too grown to use shaming language. I wonder when will some women become grown enough for that. Ahhhh pardon my mistake. I had assumed that since YOU tossed out the example if PEOPLE who were used to working 12-14 hrs a day at those dirty, dangerous, hard jobs that you had gotten beyond that bigoted kind of thinking. The men (real ones) that I worked with, welcomed me into the "good ole boy" club as a equal with them IN EVERY RESPECT. Apparently whoever it was that told you about those hard rough jobs with the extremely long hours also forgot to mention that tool boxes don't come in pink and blue, to join the club I had to learn NOT to flinch when one of them said the "F" word....and for the final initiation, I had to stand toe to with the biggest, baddest of them and say "FU" to his face. But alas, I see that you were just retelling someone else's story and have no empiracle knowledge yourself of what that kind of manly man work entails. The storys do have a lot more meaning however when they're PERSONAL.....telling it 2nd and 3 hand.....really looses something in the translation. In your nice clean little office with that glass ceiling, you can worry about about that lady boss crap...in the construction field....not only does it have NO place....but it's a definite NO NO. I'm really surprised you didn't get that memo! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 5:45:54 PM | Grandma,
How many women are willing to do your job today, despite the much improved work environment compared to the jobs of the late 1800's and early 1900's? The fact that women are still non-existant in the dirtiest, most physically demanding jobs of today speaks volumes as to why they were not part of the workforce 100+ years ago. Somehow it has all been attributed to oppression, yeah right. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 6:04:38 PM | The men (real ones) that I worked with, welcomed me into the "good ole boy" club as a equal with them IN EVERY RESPECT.
WHAT? You mean they didn't oppress you? They didn't shun you by not being one of the boys? They...they respected you????
But...but... feminists say men oppressed women!! that men used to harrass women out of the workplace! That evil men prevented women from working outside the home!!!
You mean all those stories of victimism and poor oppressed women not allowed to work are (gasp) A LIE?????????????????????????????????????
But alas, I see that you were just retelling someone else's story and have no empiracle knowledge yourself of what that kind of manly man work entails.
Oh, crap. You just used the RealMan(tm) gambit. I've heard it's taught in Feminist Debate 101, just before "How to use chivalry to shut up uncomfortable questions".
A pity, I had almost started to respect you. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 7:58:00 PM |  Well, since you did ask Boomstrike:
I could say the same for all those "poor slaved women", but I'd use another b-word. However, I'm already too grown to use shaming language. I wonder when will some women become grown enough for that. The truth is (sorry ladies) but yes, In fact, I had to fight with other women harder than I did with the men. As soon as the men realized that I could do the job, asked for NO special consideration....they totally accepted me. Women on the other hand were angry....many believed that I was opening doors that they did want to be expected to walk through (ie....by proving that women COULD do those jobs....they were afraid that women would be EXPECTED to do those jobs).
Indeed, it does sadden me that more women have not, put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.....and gone after careers in those areas that pay really good money. Granted, there are certain "sacrifices"....ie, it was extremely difficult to take off my hard hat and come home, put on pearls and high heels to wax the kitchen floor, but hey....at least I washed my hands before I baked an apple pie from scratch....just like my working granny taught me to do. By the way.....after wearing coveralls g and steel toed boots 70-90 hrs a week; when I went out for dinner....I was ALWAYS in a dress....complete with garterbelts, stockings and heels. See, working in a traditionally male job does NOT have to rob a woman of her femininity....it can also have the opposite effect....of making her covet those traits even more.
Also, saddly, I must agree with you, NO, the inequality in today's workforce is not due to oppression, but rather....choice. The honest truth is....that men readily accepted me once they realized that I could do the same work and asked for no special treatment. Other women.....who tried to do the work, but who counted on their boobs to get them through the tough dirty jobs.....quickly found themselves the topics of jokes, disrespect, and were the ones filing sexual harrassment charges.
The topic of the thread though is about women in the 50s! And I'm here to tell you...that women in the 50s did NOT act like the women of today. The women who built tanks and airplanes in the 1940's didn't run around yapping all day about how equal they were....they just shut the hell up and did the job. I always believed that the proof was in the pudding. I could have yakked all day about being able to carry a full length (21 ft) of 2 inch Schedule 40 on my shoulder....but until the men SAW me do it...repeatedly...without complaint, and not expecting nor accepting someone to throw a damned party over it....my talk meant 0, zilch, nada!
Ohhhh goodness, now don't ya'll all pass out....but I'm on the mailing list of NOM. (National Organization of Men) (They don't have "memberships") Marty Nemko writes some excellent articles on career choices. Then of course, Dr. Warren Farrell, goes into some great (and very accurate detail) on the topic of the so called glass ceilings and the truth about them (mostly self inflicted). In essence, there is nothing physically or intellectually which hinders women in 2008 from jobs in technical trades, engineering, management. It is clearly a CHOICE that women make. I'm not saying that there is not still some resistance....and women DO have to give up the whiny, maternal crap (save that for your children, not your co-workers). When I entered into that "man's world"....trust me....I had to adjust to HIS rules.....because I wasn't going to get 5000 men to adapt to me. Do I get in people's face and call a spade a spade? Sure, you betcha; but I still teach my granddaughter to bake cookies, and in fact....we're in the process of making matching aprons (yes, I also sew). I also taught my grandson how to drill pilot holes in the railing for the deck he helped me build last summer (he's 10).
None if this however is to say that any one profession or another is more masculine or feminine.....worthy or unworthy. My doctor is a female who's husband is her secretary. My sister in law is a nurse who earns quite a bit more than her tool and die maker husband. LOL! funny thing is.....my brother is an idiot about mechanical stuff....and my dad just shakes his head because it's so easy for me. The truth is.....I don't mid getting dirty...and my brother hates it. I'm just SO, SO, SO very glad that my Dad (a mechanic and auto racer) and my Grandfather (a contractor) didn't have the same crappy attitude that so many men have today. My mother (a housewife for 56 yrs now, has NEVER baked a pie or a cookie)....I had to learn that from my Grandmother (a nurse). I was just so very fortunate to have wonderfully talented, and non-chauvenistic men in my early life who didn't limit me and what I was allowed to learn about and do simply because I was a girl. THESE were MEN in the 50s. I dare say that we seem to be lacking a lot of 50's type men in the world today too! Ohhhh my.....I just had this mental image of what would have happened if my grandfather had ever told my grandmother she "couldn't" do something!!!! LOL! | |
|
vro312
| | Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 222 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 8:10:33 PM | Are you people only capable of thinking in extremes? Do you have absolutely no concept of middle ground, grey area, balance?
Of course, there are and always have been respectful people of all genders, ethnicities, political affiliations, and sexual preferences. And there have been many, many varifiable instances and historical episodes of oppression. This oppression is certainly not limited to the oppression of women, but we cannot possibly argue that it didn't include women anymore than we can argue that the Holocaust was a fabrication (which, I know, people do try to do).
Very few, if any, legitimate accounts of U.S. history will overlook or minimize the struggle of women to gain equality in workplace. And please remember, women were not granted the vote in the United States until 1920. That's not even 90 years ago, and that was only 60 years before the UK had its first female prime minister. I cannot speak to the struggles of women in other countries, but I know enough about the history of the U.S. to know that the oppression of women was a very real phenomenon, just as has been the oppression of the Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and even to some degree gays.
That's not to say that I am complaining about anything now. I am quite content with the opportunities afforded to me career-wise; I'm also able to vote, I'm able to own property, and I am respected by all the men I know as an equal. I'm grateful for my rights and freedom, and I do not take them for granted. And I feel absolutely no need to remind the men in my life of the struggles women had previously--the only reminder necessary is my own strength and independence.
Being treated as an equal does not suggest that ALL individuals possess ALL skill-sets, and I don't even know how that is coming up as an issue. There are some very strong women, and there are some weak-ass men. This isn't about physical strength, it's about opportunity. And contrary to popular belief in this thread, "backbreaking" physical labor was NEVER the only kind of work available in this country--or ANY country that has achieved first world status. There have always been teachers, accountants, attorneys, cobblers, blacksmiths, field hands, etc. Though, yes, coal is apparently still the primary fuel, NOT EVERYONE is now or was previously a freakin' coal miner.
You can argue it until you're blue in the face (although, if I were you, I'd use some more credible tactics), but you're not going to convince anyone that the oppression of women never existed. It did, and we've worked through it, and now we all work on a daily basis to maintain equality across society to whatever degree that is possible.
To quote George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."  | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:14:37 PM | Message # 202
No, I mean that those who wanted to work were either told they weren't man enough to do so, or not allowed to actually work. I'm sure that those who tried withstood the boy's club thing to the extent that they found it too traumatizing to stay. Boy, this does bring back memories....but: although there are way too many stories to tell about HOW I actually did get to do the work. Traumatizing? Well....I don't think I'd go quite THAT far. It was " that I toughed it out. Whewww, 4 years of apprenticeship....I think a lot of what helped me was that all the apprentices went to our classes together (after our 10 hr work shift) and I was clearly the best at math and physics :-) I distinctly remember when one of the guys who was in danger of flunking out of the program moved his seat to sit by me; the other guys were ragging on him. He said....pfffftttttt I don't care what you guys think...she's smarter than you.
There are industries even today that simply feel a woman doesn't belong, and though legally they can't stop it, they make it a day to day hardship for them to get thru a day without wanting to quit. Boy, truer words were never spoken! Many times that I wanted to quit.....but it was short lived. All I had to do was think about my 3 daughters.....and that me, and my job were ALL that stood between them and a life of poverty(I was a secretary before I went into blue collar work)....and I realized that my emotional hardships were trivial by comparison.
The fact that there were kids, which was expected of women in addition to marriage, negates the ability to leave and work, doesn't it? Women who were focused on children they had to have, obviously couldn't go into any type of workforce or job, because having children sort of weeded them out of that option. Unless the family could afford childcare, and that wasn't smiled upon by your friends, family and neighbors either. There's the toughest part! Yes, there were no phones on my job. I had to repeatedly inform schools that they were to call the children's FATHER (office job) or the children's grandparents in case of emergency...because I was NOT available during working hours. ONLY if Dad or grandparents called me out of work for an "emergency" could I be reached on the job....and even then it could take a couple of hours to locate me. Fortunately, I had very healthy children. As for the working/marriage thing.....yes, when I got home I was still expected to do ALL the cooking, cleaning, laundry, grass mowing, snow shoveling, homework help, etc. That did change a little when the now ex quit working himself to finish college though. (I was supporting a family of 6 with no help). After 2 years....I guess he figured that occassionally tossing in a load of laundry was the least he could do.
As for the neighbors and what THEY thought!!!! Screw them! I didn't see their name on check that made my mortgage payment each month...so they were not entitled to any opinion about MY life.
We'll never know if they'd complain, do we? If some of the older women can shed some light on this, it would be awesome to hear it firsthand. It's not about did they want to, it's more about - was it an option IF they wanted to? NO, NO, NO, a million times no!!! Cardinal Rule: NEVER let em see you sweat! EVER! I remember once....I'd injured my leg...they hauled me to the dispensary for the nurse to look at me...No, No, No, I'm fine (nurse was going to send me home). Limping back to my job...LOL! there's a bunch of white shirts standing around....one says I don't look like I'm able to work, the other one says.....Oh hell, you don't know her....if they told her she couldn't work, she tell them to cut the damn thing off and throw it away then cause it's no good to her. (Jim Glassner, circa 1982....call him if you don't believe me). Definitely NO complaining......men can do it all day (lots do) but if you're female in a traditionally male job...it's like waving the white flag of surrender.
Men had the option to work and stay single, or work and get married - just as women do today. And I am sure had women been allowed to work and make enough to support themselves and stay single and be accepted in society for it, they would have. I must be honest.....I probably did have the option of staying at home....I chose NOT to. In the early years, I believed that I had both the opportunity and the obligation to set a good example for my daughters. That they could be ANYTHING they choose to be. That they didn't have to be limited being secretaries, or teachers or nurses just because they were born the wrong sex. Other than my mother....who was crippled with Polio at the age of 3, I'd never known any women who didn't work. They all worked at very boring, low paying jobs, but they worked. I don't think it ever really occured to me that work was an "option"....so I figuerd as long as I was working...I might as well work at something fun...that paid a LOT of money! (Yes, I loved my job even aside from the fact that it paid very well). Now, retired, divorced, good pension, health insurance........and I STILL get judged daily, constantly have some twit ask me if I don't feel guilty for living off a man!!!! OMG....ohhh, or here's an even better one....my Mom tells me that my ex is whining to her that he'd like to retire....but he can't afford the health insurance! This from a man who said he wouldn't lower himself to do the kind of work I did...and put up with the conditions I put up with! Who the hell cares what society accepts? I've yet to have ANY store reject my money because it had a little grease on it!!! | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:19:35 PM | Wow. How did this turn into a women's lib thread?
Back to the original question - I think women were better off 50 yrs ago. It may be romanticising an era but I agree with the poster. Women were respected and protected back then. Certainly not all - women made bad choices then just like now. I do know that a man would not have gotten away with some of the things they say and do to women now. If they had tried that with my mother they would have had a lot of men to deal with besides my father. It was not condoned by anyone.
Thats what the OP was talking about and it was turned into a NOW meeting.
What I see in this thread is women still believing the old feminist line and sticking to it right or wrong. They were dropped a long time ago - just don't realize it yet.
If you don't believe that - did they tell you that you'd be raising kids alone?
Women have always had choices and work, when they wanted it enough.
Maybe marriages lasted longer back then because the woman was dependent on the man. But wasn't he also dependent on the woman to run his house and raise his children to be people he could be proud of and not have to support?
My mother did not work outside the home but she would get angry if someone said that she did not work. She had a full time job - at home. She felt that she made just as much of a contribution to their household as my father.
When did wife and mother become synonomous with second class citizen. Why in the 60's of course. When we were all rebelling against the 'establishment' and that included marriage, monogamy and responsibility. It was all about 'free love' and 'if it feels good do it'. Boy did we get fooled. Now we have a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's still looking for love or the next 'feel good' thing. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 3/22/2008 1:20:32 AM | | What person would like to be considered nothing because they were a housewife. No wages not worth anything. Childbearing the only hint of labour. No difinition no wage scale. No job decription, Mind you Leaving the house to work might just be the normal extention of the demands on a house wife and a feeling of self worth. A women doing the working the same demands in her home as in a office, or restuarant, weather its creative work like Art or Writing, Bookkeepping . Child care compared to School whatever the one at home is not providing any effort or earnings | |
|
|
|
|
Page
9
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 
