|
|
|
|
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/6/2008 11:24:35 PM |
I have always thought I was born in the wrong era. I would have loved to be a June Cleaver
Ward had it good too. If only he'd had gone out for a beer every now and then. "June, I'll be back in a bit. There's a horse in the fifth, boys at work really like him. Bye." Have a good time. Bye.
Did he win?
"No unfortunately not. He was blocked leaving. Just couldn't quite overcome it."
You'll get 'em next time dear. Supper's on.
50's values, 50's respect, 50's manners, 50's looking out for your fellow man, 50's air, 50's chevys, 50's outdoor life, 50's don't really need a gun......
Throw in today's technology and some 60's free love and we'd be on our way. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 2:31:51 PM | .Marc..........
Gender roles have become confused... but that's because we're in a transition period. It'll sort itself out eventually.
For all the flaws of the modern world, I like the way that things are headed.
And let's be honest--- Ozzie and Harriet? Leave it to Beaver? Father Knows Best? They don't really reflect the reality of life during the period in which they were made.
I agree .Marc that this transitioning period we are going through now will eventually sort itself out. Although traditional roles in marriage were idealistic in the 50's, they were also extremely unrealistic in the event of disaster and lead to an extreme lack of understanding between the genders. Men/women were not required to understand or perform the other's role and there was no greater recipe for disaster within the "family unit" than this. Men/women were ridiculed by friends, neighbors and family if they saw either one performing the other's role........although there were some jobs outside the "family unit" which were acceptable for women, but usually for a very low rate of pay as in comparison to what a man might earn. A woman contemplating marriage was considered a "fool" for not seeking a wealthy man to marry, because it mean't that her and the children would be forced into living an impoverished life.........hence the term "gold digger". This placed enormous pressure on men to be successful in their careers, and they were considered "lower class" or not good providers if their wives had to work outside the home.
Women were seen as having natural "maternal instincts", men were seen as having no "paternal instincts". We now know that "maternal/paternal instincts do not come naturally to either gender and it is something that is learned/developed over time after having children. If either gender became widowed and there were children from the marriage.....both had to quickly scramble to find another husband/wife if "grandma/grandpa" couldn't/wouldn't help. Fathers/mothers quite often lost their children to orphanges due to men not acquiring domestic/paternal skills and women due to not being allowed to acquire "gainful employment" to adequately support a family. The lack of understanding for each other's role was a "brewing recipe" for the high divorce rate, once it was permitted and legalized.
O.K., Scotty, time warp back to 2008. There has never been a "better recipe" throughout history for the "family unit" to be harmonious and successful. Men and women who think the option does not exist for them to raise their children without the aid of daycares............are simply too caught up in the "me, me generation" and "must have generation" that is influenced by the media. Men and women both made sacrifices in the 50's once children came into the picture and some men were forced into working two jobs to ensure the families survival, which was also another recipe for disaster and it sometimes lead to "burn out", sickness and/or early death for men, if they had more children than they could adequately provide for. In the 1950's, the only form of birth control was low-quality condoms or abstinence. Today's society now allows for the option for both genders to interchange roles "if required."
Thanks "Grandmabobo" for your more accurate representation of what was really occuring in the 1950's.  | |
|
| |
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:05:22 PM | | I have to say that I completely disagree. The 1950's "seemed" like it was all peaches and cream and it wasn't. For some people who actually lived through it the term "rose-tinted glasses" should sound familiar. I believe that during the 1950's everyone was living in this fantasy world and the wives just slapped smiles on to their faces and acted like everything was fine when really a lot of them were dying inside. Plus, a lot of the women during that era were SO drugged up and out of it most of the time, who wouldn't seem happy? I do have to agree though that a lot of younger women today seem to want to be the stay-at-home mom and the good little housewife. I honestly don't understand it myself because there are SO many more opportunities now for women. But the bottom line is that it is a very controversial issue and probably will be for a long time to come. I just thought I would put in a little of my two cents. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:41:04 PM | Hi Darrr,
This is a nice comparative analysis -- it will be interesting to see what replies you get through it all.. seriously though I think that you have to move the discussion eventually into a new direction all together.
Many women were NOT happy with the past and the roles they felt stifled in. Some women were happy. However you know that ol' saying, "you can make some of the people happy some of the time but you cant make all of the -people happy all of the time" its kinda like that; its hard to set a rigid rule for a society that will fit everyones agenda and needs. However there does come a time when compromise and discipline and law are needed to prevent total chaos as is the current trend in the dissolution of marriages and families. If you ask me, freedoms come with a price-- and the price that shouldnt be paid is that of the American family. Still I think the best analysis would be to find a way to maintain cohesion while at the same time allowing women non traditional roles (perhaps more work from home jobs and greater day care access in the corporate world-- some top-notch corporations for example have day care centers in their offices) and furthering the family unit. But how? How can we best allow for a happier connection -- one that if it ends doesnt create so much bitterness financially by the opposite sexes that no one wants to marry again ... I guess to some extent we just have to play it all out- let things go crazy and get uneven and hopefully as a collective conciousness men and women will find an evolved approach.
We could use this forum chat to find ways to improve the modern-day relationship - one that will allow for family unity but that wont create so much stifling that women rebel and men go on a marriage strike! | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:41:40 PM | Is the grass greener is the question and the answer is usually no, you forget that in the fifties women didnt have too many rights, they did not have equal pay, and men were able to treat women badly and women had to stay and put up with it, children were abused and the mothers couldnt protect the children or themselves, and in general, the pitcure looked good on the outside but on the inside most men and women went through hell.
Men and women had to marry out of obligation, and stay together regardless of the situation and as a result the dysfunctional family thrived a smcuh back then as it does now, just in different way.
It's not healthy for people to go from partner to partner or suffer lonliness, in today' s society or to have multiple marriages, and the children are still exposed to dysfunction.
Society has changed so much and everyone's roles have changed, I have to agree that women have won their rights but they have to work harder than ever before as a result of those rights, men have changed with regard to women and no longer feel the obligations they once felt towards women.
If it was so great society wouldn't have changed, but it is a mess either way
Security and direction is what people are lacking as a result of the changing world and it is much harder in that respect, we need to have partners and security in our relationships, and we need a fixed direction to go in, and that was set out for everyone back then and not questioned people just did it automatically.
Society is definatley on a course of self destruction, the old way didn;t work and the new way isn't working either, who know's what is next.
As the new generation you can start to instigate change as the previous generations did and see where it leads, but the human being doesn't tend to ever be satisfied.
We defiantley don't have security in relationships any more , and even if women wanted to change it back, I don't think men would want it again.
It's all about choosing the right partner the first time around and not rushng into it, and making sure you are both 100% committed to your children above everything else and you both want to the exact same things out of life.... and knowing you have what it takes to stick it out and the tools to be able to do it when it gets tough.......
Everyone wants it easy, and this generation is more guilty of that the previous ones, we have created the me me me me generation, and I find that young people have no idea how hard it used to be and have it way too easy, and dont understand how mcuh better they have it now than ever before, but every generation says that about the next one.
Its all about making choices and taking responsibility for those choices no matter what comes your way.
In my case I have had to work twice as hard as my mother ever did....... but I don't envy her or situation at all........ | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:48:47 PM | | Although the 1950's created the "need mentality" as the basis for relationships/marriage, the years to follow have produced a "want mentality" as the basis. However, many single father's/mother's (with custodial rights) currently experience "burn out" from juggling home/family and career responsibilities, so the the "need" factor somewhat remains in the family structure, but not in childless relationships. Interchangeable roles have eliminated much of the "need factor", but men still complain about women being after their wallets only, and women still complain about a man's need for a domestic slave. Yep, it most definiately is a transitioning period. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 4:05:03 PM | What we have all over looked and will come to realise when the world is at an end is that the native villiage living in harmony with nature and the environment was actually the best option.
Its a cycle and eventually when all is said and done and all is gone, the few who survive will have to start way back at the beginning and do the whole thing over again.
I have to get back to the house work, gardening, and make sure I am ready for work on time, after I have cooked dinner and ironed my clothes, cleaned my car, checked my own oil and tyres and fuelled it up, Iused to have to get mychildren ready and do all of this while chasing them around and taking them to their sporting events etc etc,
Life was never simpler than it was way back in the very beginning, a small villiage sharing the roles and responsibilities together, but apparantly we have evolved. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 4:56:27 PM | My question to future posters is.....
Would you prefer a relationship/marriage in an era that is based on the
"need factor" as was the case in the 1950's or the "want factor" where the roles of men and women are interchangeable, assuming you have a partner with dual "skill sets?"
What would be your reasoning for preferring "tradional roles" versus "interchangeable roles?" | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 4:58:55 PM | talk about a topic to bring out all those libbers ..why on earth didn't you ask for your own sign saying WOMENS ONLY ROOM over the hotel bar room entrance and let the men be on there side where the MEN only sign was hanging over the door ..no you had to be able to join the men ..
nothing has changed regarding the supreme court treating women as care givers (unemployable ,or only part time employable,baby sitters ,house cleaners ,CARE GIVER etc.) ,..and awarded sole custody ..the womens groups blocked an equal custody proposal ..so what equality were you working toward when you did that ? cant go all the way can you ..equality and equal responsibility ? chicken ..bring back the 50s ,at least the kids didn't end up in jail ,or on the street,they had a father and ..mom didn't grow old single and alone...i think the younger children lost out on the role models you had ..but you can vote yourself in as job well done now..yes you got the vote ..changed the world..but still cant offer equal custody .you expect to find equality when you insist on sole custody against all information put forward regarding the disadvantage your children are faced with growing up fatherless ..some village ..your still playing the victim.. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 5:21:41 PM | VALLEYJAVASTOP............
I was hoping this forum would be one that both MEN & WOMEN could comfortably and jointly respond to without being ridiculed by the opposite gender or their own gender or by extremists. Male/female roles are currently in a "transitional stage" from the traditional roles that existed in the 1950's. Matrimonial law now allows for both men or women to expect/collect child support and spousal support..........and there are a lot of women paying both, as well there are a lot of men who have sole custody of their children and are collecting child support from an absentee mother. The men on this thread have offered some very reasonable opinions........in my opinion. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 6:59:24 PM | Oh my, LOVE message 26 @ItsMargo... You brought back the article I was trying to remember...
I would need prozac if I had to go back in the 1950's....
I would be sooooooooooooooo bored.....  | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/7/2008 7:25:45 PM | Ewwww back to the 50's-60s oh yeah.
My mom was very young, beaten up regularly by my dad. I remember a couple of them. The church ignored her and cast her out because she decided to divorce the drunk pedophile. In the church's idea it was not socially acceptable. Her own parents were angry that she didn't stay with this wife beating, child abusing freak. It wasn't proper, its not what society did!
No thanks. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 1:32:45 AM | .
true 4 you
We need the old days back. 50'S and 60's days relationships. Thats me old school.
Here's the difference, I will gently suggest.
Nobody is stopping you from having a 'traditional' relationship today. And there are plenty of guys looking for that same thing -- I just don't happen to be one.
Today, couples have a lot more freedom to structure a relationship that works best for them as individuals. I have only dated one "traditional" woman myself, and I really enjoyed treating her like a lady. Because she was also a modern and independent woman, everywhere except romance.
Which would you rather have -- a traditional relationship with a man who CHOSE to have that with you?
Or a man who had no choice in the matter?
The defense rests. 
. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 3:59:53 AM |
Would you prefer a relationship/marriage in an era that is based on the "need factor" as was the case in the 1950's or the "want factor" where the roles of men and women are interchangeable, assuming you have a partner with dual "skill sets?" Well, I've become aware of something in my life. I "want" Pizza. I "need" to eat healthy. If I eat Pizza all the time, I will suffer from stomach complaints, tiredness, and eventually severe ill-health. I find that most things are like this.
When it comes to relationships, I "want" to have my own freedom. I "need" to have a supportive environment with a life-partner. Also, I don't really think that this has changed much. But in the 2000s, "need" has become synonymous with "desperate" and "likely to be abused". But I find that if I am not willing to admit my needs, then I run from satisfying my needs, and I end up having things I "need" and don't get, and has the same deleterious effects on my body and my mind as eating nothing but Pizza for 50 years. So although it's not PC, I would rather be with someone who can admit that she needs me and wants me, rather than pretends that she doesn't need anything.
What would be your reasoning for preferring "tradional roles" versus "interchangeable roles?" My father and mother had non-traditional roles. My mother went to work everyday, and my father stayed home. I'm open to both. But these days, women seem keen on having a much closer bond to their children than they used to, and want to spend the first few years at home with the kids. On top, childcare costs a fortune. Also, work has got more demanding, and it's just that much harder to get a job if you've been out of work for a few years. So I can see how it would be easier and more satisfying for a woman, if she stayed home and I went to work, until the kids were at school, and then she looked for a job and went back to work. At that point, I suppose I could quit work. But then there's pensions, and mortagages, and school fees, so I would imagine that both I and my life-partner would both be working from then on until we retired.
I don't know if that is traditional. But I cannot see women going on dates with me, if I wanted to be a house-husband from the start. I would expect to be called a bum for saying that. So I don't see how there is any way to avoid the traditional role of the man being in work and not at home, for the majority of his life.
Anyway, these days, both partners need to work to pay the bills.
Expecting a woman to do the cleaning and cooking is at best unrealistic because so few women want to cook and clean, and at worst impossible to consider, because so many women have grown up never learning to cook or to clean. Of the men and women I know, the women eat out or have takeout, and the men cook. Even at university, in the first week, my flat-mates organised a weekly rota for the cleaning and woe betide anyone who didn't pull his weight. Contrast that with the girls flats, which were messy, and dirty by comparison.
So it's a nice idea to expect that the man will make enough money that the woman doesn't have to work, and that the woman is going to cook and clean for her family. But it ain't gonna happen. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 4:03:30 AM | I have mixed feelings on this. I was always very intelligent and loved the fact that I could go out and work and support myself without having to rush into a marriage. I could marry for love not survival. But when I finally did have my daughter at 26, I hated the fact that I was expected to keep working instead of staying home with her.
About ten years ago, I finally met an old fashioned man who loved his job, wouldn't do housework or dishes or laundry or cooking but loved having me home and to my surprise, I loved doing all those things and being home! He was far more attentive and respectful then any of the liberated men that I had been with before that. He was far more protective and considerate, too.
Instead of working all day and then coming home and having 3 or 4 more hours of work to do at home, I was able to work part time, do all the housework chores and when he came home, we both could relax and enjoy our time together! It was great!
I think it's very important that job opportunities for women opened up so that women could marry for love instead of survival but it's my experience that both the men and the women that I know are much happier in traditional roles once they marry. The men want the women to have time for them and if the women work full time, the women can't be superwomen and do it all........
I like the traditional roles.............I actually feel more nurturing and loving when I'm home and doing those things ........... I liked having a nice clean house and he always appreciated what I did and I always appreciated what he did............ | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 5:31:24 AM | Life in the 50's sounds so nice. Mum at home with the kids and dad out earning the families income.
Hidden behind this 'perfect family atmosphere' is the women and men who suffered at the hands of their spouses. Way back when it wasn't heard of to report your spouse for hitting and bashing you and your children. Everyone turned a blind eye, swept it under the carpet so to speak.
These days this type of behaviour is brought out into the open and is dealt with. It didn't just occur over the past few years it was happening in the 50's and has always happened.
These days there is far too much competition. Everyone wants a 4 wheel drive, everyone wants a stupidly sized T.V everyone wants to travel and see the world.
All of these things cost money. Most families need both parents to work in order to have these things I think it's called 'A better quality of life'.....Is it? | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 7:11:29 AM | My Mom was raised in the traditional sense in the 30's thru 50's.
She had to be the 'wife and mother' type to her Dad and 2 younger sisters after her mom died of cancer (mom was only 16).
One thing she insisted on after meeting my Dad was that she was going to finish school (she was going for a teaching degree, lol, yeah stereotypical) and she wanted to teach for a year before she married.
My parents were always about 5 years older than my friends's folks back in the day. I felt kinda weird and yet proud about that. They both always looked and seemed younger though...lol.
I was raised with both the 'old fashioned' values and the newer ones.
I used to disdain the 'values' of the '50's (based on old tv reruns and relatives that still purported those values that plainly did not work).
Then I saw a movie called 'Mona Lisa Smiles'... it was an enlightening insight to what the beginning era of the feminist movement meant.
Everyone is an individual, every era has it's pluses and minuses.
Frankly, I'm getting old as I think the era I came into my own was the best. LOL! | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 8:21:47 AM |
I would need prozac if I had to go back in the 1950's....
your saying you arent on in now.??.oh my god..in the 50s you have had to ask what is a prozac??
Anyway, these days, both partners need to work to pay the bills.
try telling that to a judge...
Matrimonial law now allows for both men or women to expect/collect child support and spousal support..........and there are a lot of women paying both, as well there are a lot of men who have sole custody of their children and are collecting child support from an absentee mother
custody ?well lets just say we dont loose every fight but it is a long way from being even ..and the support payments ,,haa i have been hearing the courts havent forced the few that were ordered to help to pay up..and equal custody was blocked by the womens movment just google it..
| |
|
| |
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/8/2008 12:32:52 PM | bearded romantic..........
Nobody is stopping you from having a 'traditional' relationship today. And there are plenty of guys looking for that same thing -- I just don't happen to be one.
Today, couples have a lot more freedom to structure a relationship that works best for them as individuals.
I agree, there is more choice than ever before and the freedom to structure a relationship so that both individuals have balance in there day to day lives......and nobody would have to turn alcohol, legal and/or illegal drug use as a coping mechanism. These stimulants were an avenue to cover your ears and go la la la la la, whatever. The key may be finding a partner who has the same "skills set" as yourself and growing together in balance, and not apart as was the case in the 1950's. If a mother/father refuses to develop their maternal/paternal instincts after babies come into the picture, an imbalance occurs and one feels like they are left "holding the bag." | |
|
| |
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/9/2008 1:53:09 AM | | this topic has many different scenario's it has good and bad, there is no grey area, I think I will leave this topic alone for a bit.its not something I want to touch with writting, because either points ya put down, with get someone shooting at you with an ozzie, | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:00:32 AM | '
jorel78
I think I will leave this topic alone for a bit.its not something I want to touch with writting, because either points ya put down, with get someone shooting at you with an ozzie,
Don't take it personally Jor. May I call you Jor? 
I used to monitor Compuserve forums in the early 90s. Nothing has changed. Most of the time, if we see a comment that we like, we nod our head silently and move on.
We'll jump in only for clarification, or to disagree. Without that almost every posting would be followed by 10-20 Attaboys.
So it may SEEM a lot more hostile than it really is.
That's for people here in general. Speaking for myself ... I think you're crazy as a loon. javascript:smilie(' ')
(Have fun; stay loose; and tease now and then)
. | |
|
| If relationships could revert to the 1950's era......
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:28:02 AM | I was a teen in the 50's. I find it interesting how all you people in your 30's and 40's seem to think you know what the 50's were like. First of all trust me when I say I was NEVER bored. And even we laughed at June Cleaver. Our mothers were not like that. My mother worked all her life. Not every mother stayed at home and baked cookies. She did it when she got home. One thing we did have was knowing your place. The women took care of the inside of the house and the men did the outside and service the cars etc. And we all knew as children if we got in trouble at a neighbors or in school we would get it twice as bad when we got home. There was no going and telling anyone your kid would NEVER do a thing like that. If PARENTS GAVE A PUNISHMENT THEY CARRIED THROUGH. Not threaten and then give in an hour later because they didnt want to listen to the crying or whining. That only made our punishment worse.
As children we were taught to respect our elders, but trust me, we vented about them in private, just not to their faces. Gosh my parents even went out partying. Imagine that.!!!!!!! I never heard my parents have a fight , but trust me they had LOUD discussions. I never heard my mother or father argue about money. There was no hers and his it was theirs.
My parents worked hard and never had a sense of entitlement that the government should help or subsidize them. If things were tight my dad just went and got a second job.
And dating was no different then it is now. The young men tried as hard as they do now to sweet talk you into sex. If they got it they ran. One thing they did do, is man up if they got a girl pregnant. Yes we had movies, dinners out, dancing, and occassional nights at bars. We walked in parks, went to the beach, live concerts, all the typical things daters do today. There were good men and there were idiots, trust me this generation does not have a lock on that. And we even went dutch. Whoever at the time had the money to get us where we wanted to go. It worked then....it works now.
OK Now I'm getting a little nostalgic so I'm going to call my best friend of 55 yrs and take a trip down memory lane. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
