I am a Baby Boomer, but I listen to girls of all ages, 21 to 60. Belive it or not a lot of women tell me they preferred the old days when they did not need to work and a Man took care of all her needs. Its true that there were some bad things for women back in the 50's 60's but in principal was it a better time for men and women?

Phil

Shit, man, are you kidding? *I'd* prefer not needing to work and having a man take care of all my needs, too.

...but that doesn't mean the '50s were better. Lots of housewives took either tranquilizers (https://www.cbc.ca/life/backintimefordinner/crazy-things-we-told-housewives-in-the-1950s-1.4683987) or stimulants (https://scibabe.com/mos-the-meth-fueled-1950s-housewives/) in order to stay sane. They had little or no recourse in cases of domestic abuse (see e.g. https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/). And so on.

So, like, were the '50s better specifically insofar as lots of households could be very comfortable with only one worker, leaving the other person theoretically free to pursue the life they wanted? Yeah. Hell yeah. People in most countries work way too fucking much today, and they get way too little out of it. So really it's no surprise that some people feel like women's lib only succeeded in exposing women to the constant medium-grade misery of working capitalism. (Interestingly, you can even see this trend reflected in literature, with modern books like Severance and Station Eleven being largely inspired by their authors' flat-out disillusionment with work.)

But that goes for men, too. Men work too much and get too little out of it. Women shouldn't have to debase themselves before the market in order to live; neither should men. Everyone should have the time to be with their families and upkeep their homes and get to know their neighbors. Unless you're a straight-up asshole who just wants to hold power over women, those fantasies about the golden '50s are really best understood as meek, misdirected protests against our present economy.

I think there is a difference between what women that want to be kept think life was like in the 50's and what it really was. Do they want to be kept, or do they want the homemaker role? There is a difference. I am suspecting that once they find out the difference they will not want the homemaker role. The other thing to think about side from all of the social issues with it all is retirement and social security. If you don't pay into the system you have nothing to claim when you reach that age. No retirement from being a homemaker.

Someone who is now 60 was born in 1962 or 1963. So, similar to dalamar's comment, even the oldest people you've been speaking to weren't alive in the 1950s, and they'll be forming their opinions second-hand. It's tempting to watch something like "Happy Days" (made in the 1970s) or "Back to the Future" (made in the 1980s) and get nostalgic for the fashion/music in the 1950s, but that's not the same thing as living through it.

I have a slight suspicion that the people voting "bring back the 50s" are not women....

Not really.

In the 1950's, ideally ONE partner worked and the other stayed home and did everything that needed to be done at home and for the children.

(I have to say "ideally" because women of color have always worked. This 1950's stay-at-home-mom thing did not apply to all women. But I understand that you're asking a cultural question.)

The bad in this arrangement was that it was always the woman was forced into the dependent stay-at-home role, no matter how she felt about it. And if the marriage went bad, and the man started beating up on her, getting out was a bitch.

There just weren't many good job options -- or other options -- for women in the 1950s.

Fast-forward to today. You got two partners enslaved by the work force while the kids are shipped off to daycare to be raised by total strangers. This happened in part because the addition of women to the workforce enabled corporations to freeze pay.

If you ask me, this type of slavery is just as rotten as that kind of slavery -- but we seem to have swallowed it.

Girls who tell you they wish they could go back to the 50's perhaps are feeling ripped off by the current arrangement and are wish-dreaming. If I could have just one wish come true, though, mine would be to win the lottery.

Nessie

Nah, I don't think you'll be murdered over this.

I think this is a good test to see if we can keep a discussion civil here though. Being not a woman, and having only my grandparents to tell me what the 50s were like, I didn't vote.

I have a number of women friends who fall into both camps and they give compelling reasons as to why they do. Some of my friends want to be "trad wives" They want a man, to take care of them, and they want to raise their children at home. It's less that they're lazy or don't want to work, but they feel being a good mother IS their career. And I think that's wonderful.

On the flip side, I have friends that really don't want to have kids, and dream about pursuing their careers and are really passionate about their work. A number of them are married to carrier husbands too. Some DO want kids even, but do a balancing act with raising and taking care of them.

I don't have any friends where the woman is the bread winner and the husband stays at home, but I know they exist, and I some make it work and are happy about it even.

---------
As for stories of the 50s

My maternal grandmother born in 37 worked her entire life until she retired in 2017 at 80 years old. Her last job was working with her third husband as a contractor with Lowe's installing doors on people's homes. I shit you not, they only retired because they both needed back surgeries.

My grandmother was partly a career woman because her father raised her to be strong and independent, and partly because her first two husbands were layabouts. The first was an abusive drunk that didn't work and eventually killed himself. The second (my grandfather) worked, but was also a bit of a playboy, a gambling addict and had a lot of mob buddies. He pulled a gun on her once, and she responded the next time by smacking him in the face with a frying pan. It's also worth noting that mom mom was a knock out in more way than one and comes from a line of large Russian babushkas while pop pop is a rather small man.

My nana (paternal grandmother) (born in the early 20s) had more of a trad wife existence. Her first husband died about 10 years after the war (the both served, she was a nurse) when my dad was very young. Her second husband was a 6'6" retired PA state cop who opened a limo business. Nana was 4'10" and 85 lbs soaking wet, but both my grandfather and dad fell into line when she laid down the law. I have fond memories of Nana teaching me and my cousins how to deal with bullies bigger than us. Stomp their foot hard so they lower their head and sucker punch them. God, I miss her.

So, I think our perceptions of the 50s may be rose tinted by television and pop culture of the time. Dad has pretty fond memories of them, but he was a kid. Mom wasn't born until 59, so she doesn't remember them but she remembers how abusive her father was to her and her sisters, and then later to me.

Prefer the old days?
Are you being serious?
Women of my mum's generation often had no income and no resources of their own.
Husbands gave them, "housekeeping!"
Might possibly be OK if you had a caring, committed husband.
Most husbands had a good drink first.
And treated their wives as a possession. Marital rape?
I can't believe this post is serious.
You keep the past if you like.
I think we've made a lot of progress.

Peter

Those are great stories!


They do exist. In fact I know of four.

I don't know of any instances where it was a choice, though. All four female breadwinners were married to men who did work, but became disabled or got laid off -- long before they were officially retirement age -- and those guys simply never found a way to get hired again.

Since women are blessed with a few more years of life than men are, I would imagine that this might be more common that most of us think.

At least today, women can hold down good jobs. This situation must have sucked in 1955.

Nessie

was the 50's as they were, better as a whole? no, i dont think so.

Were there some elements that were good and would perhaps make things today a little better? yes, i think there were.

On one account, dating in the 50s and 60s (and into the 70s) was much easier, from what i've been told. a more generally respectful dating culture compared to today's 'disposable' dating culture with dating apps and the commodification of dating (not to mention the dangers to both men and women).

My dad, whose now in his mid 60s, used to do ballroom dancing when he was a kid to teenager and he always said that it was very easy to meet girls that way (in a respectful manner) as opposed to today with dating apps, clubbing and such. Probably also helped that his mother raised her children to be respectful.

overall, it feels like in the race for equality and equal respect, some things that engendered those exact qualities were discarded along the way ending up with a reverse result to what the ideal was.

that's my view at least.

Your dad was a smart kid.

I was in the very first class where a certain rule was finally overturned. No longer were all boys forced into "shop" classes (woodworking, mechanics, all the boy stuff) and no longer were all girls forced into "Home Economics" (cooking, sewing, all the girl stuff).

I walked into the cooking unit and there was ONE boy there.

Yes, he met girls. About 30 of us.

Nessie

Will we ever arrive at a time when we can be the people we are first, ie, a carpenter or a cook, regardless of our gender? When we can be judged by the quality of our contribution, rather than the by colour of our skin or our gender? Sorry, I need cheering up. I'm going off to listen to Martin Luther King.

The old ways, like in the 50s? That's kind of where the whole bra-burning, equal rights thing really started gaining ground in the western world, soooo I'm pretty confident that if the women living in the time you want everyone to go back to were _literally the same people_ that initiated the change, you might be backing the wrong horse here.

Lots of people seem to have a rose-tinted view of the past, and especially the 1950s. I guess it's an era that is both romanticised and gently lampooned in various movies and fandoms, and of course in the US in particular it was the great post-war boom era.

But the reality for the vast majority of women was of strictly limited choices and horizons. Men ruled, women were effectively property. "Miss" indicated an unmarried woman, property of her father, to whom applications for her hand in marriage could be made, by those of suitable eligibility. It may not have been arranged marriage on the Eastern European or Asian models, but men strictly controlled who women were allowed to see, be with, and life with.

"Mrs" indicated a married woman, property of her husband, to treat as he pleased, including as much sex as he wanted, when he wanted, regardless of consent - up until July 5, 1993, in most US states, a man had the right to effectively rape his wife. The same situatuion held here in the UK until 1992.

The James Bond films are an interesting reflection of how the role, and expected capability, of women has changed over the years. I'm a fan of the whole series, I grew up with them, and have the entire set on DVD, and really love the (now fully equal) Daniel Craig ere. I still enjoy watching all of them right back to 1962's "Dr No", but they are very much period pieces and each reflects the era in which it was made, and some of the older ones have truly horrific social attitudes and expectations of their female characters, and of the male characters' attitude towards women. In one of the earlier ones when Bond needs some information he literally chokes it out of the bad guy's girlfriend by brute force. Which was how men expected to treat women who resisted or disobeyed them. And of course in Goldfinger he effectively saves the day by having mindblowing sex with Pussy Galore, causing her to change sides. Literally, as lampooned many years later, "The Spy Who Shagged Me."

So while I'm sure there are plenty of people of all genders who dream of never having to work again, being with a partner/breadwinner who provides all the finance so they can just raise kids or keep house, the reality of "back to the 50s" would be hell-on-earth for anyone who's ever expected to be able to make their own choices and control their own lives.

Omg, if you want a really good laugh built on pure cringe, seek out the original Dr. No paperback. I recall one particularly notable scene where Bond thinks of his lady: "Pity shes broken her nose - but then again, maybe she can still find work as a prostitute.'

Oh, James, you dreamboat, you.