Can we go back in time?

[blessedtoo]

As others have pointed out, this is just wrong. Look at the number of women working in fields other than teaching, nursing, clerking or secretarial. Look at the number of women in college, or in professional fields. There is no comparison.

Yes, quotas have ensured that there are women represented in all fields. Is that necessarily a good thing? Women now are able to sacrifice (just like men) years of their lives pursuing high stress and time consuming careers that often become obstacles to marriage and child rearing. They put off family life until they have achieved these goals, and finding them to be unsatisfying, attempt to make families later in life. Fertility problems, the cultural stress of leaving the workplace, the scrutiny of others when they choose to stay home and raise kids, all present themselves as problems that our moms did not deal with. Is it any coincidence the number of women on anti-depressants in this country?

Men were certainly more courteous back then – but is superficial courtesy the same as respect? I think men respected women who stayed within certain perimeters.

And what “perimeters” would those be? You mean women who didn’t flash photographers when they were out and about on the town? Or women who refrained from killing their unborn babies? Or women who showed respect to their husbands, fathers, etc?

I feel very respected by my husband, brother, male colleagues and most men with whom I come in contact. I think women and men are now respected on an individual basis on how they conduct themselves, how they behave and on their achievements in any particular field. That’s not a bad thing. The pop culture denigrates human beings in general, and some women choose to disrespect themselves and not encourage respect from others. I don’t think that translates into a blanket “men don’t respect women.”

To quote the ubiquitous Dr. Phil, whose “wisdom” is usually questionable: “You teach people how to treat you”. Women have been teaching men for 40 years that the male is unnecessary, useless, superfluous, replaceable. Now that they have received the message and have responded in turn, women cry foul.

 

[blessedtoo]

And the biggest lie of them all?

“Women can have it all”.

No one, male or female, gets to “have it all”. Someone always suffers.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

And this is terrible because…?

• Because not every husband lives into his old age, and then his widow must support his children. If you use the Wayback Machine, you will see widows who might or might not have had the benefits of life insurance. Being a clerk or a secretary might have meant a certain prestige, but excepting a few executive secretaries, did not mean much money. A lot of women made more money as waitresses, because there was no reasonable way to keep track of tips, and women did not claim them on their income taxes. Being a waitress is a tough, demanding job- as is factory work, which in the City, was the way a lot of widows managed to keep their families together. If not, the family might end up in public housing, on welfare and food stamps.
• Because not every husband stayed married, even then, and took off with no way to find him again to collect child support.

Because it was understood that the man would be the provider in the family

If he stayed, and if he didn’t die.

And the biggest lie of them all?

“Women can have it all”.

No one, male or female, gets to “have it all”. Someone always suffers.

I have not read one person who posted such a statement to this thread.

 

[sanctamaria17]

The fact is that in the 1950s America was a far more moral and wholesome nation than it is today. Dispute it with personal observation if you like. Those of us who lived through it will still look to those days with longing, and want our young people to be able to experience a life without the ‘benefits’ of 24-hour internet porn.

Somehow, I fail to see racism and segregation (both very present in the 50’s) as “wholesome” and “moral”

 

[dwc]

And you attribute the evolution of marriage to the feminist movement? Contrary to popular belief, the feminists goal was to destroy marriage, not strengthen it. If you have reaped some benefit of meeting and marrying a sensitive and conscientious man, do not credit feminism for that.

Yes, I do, but I don’t take credit for the idea – I got it from women who are are much older and wiser than I. Women who lived with and remained faithful and still remain faithful to marriages made before feminism. Women who, as stated, tell me and my sisters and my cousins to be grateful for the changes brought about in the male and female relationship by feminism (btw – we’re not all married to the same man – so it’s not my particular luck in finding a conscientious man. Oh – and no one who knows him would accuse him of being sensitive. )

 

[dwc]

You teach people how to treat you". Women have been teaching men for 40 years that the male is unnecessary, useless, superfluous, replaceable. Now that they have received the message and have responded in turn, women cry foul.

Who the heck is crying foul? Did you even read what you quoted? I said I felt very respected by the men with whom I have contact. And yes, I agree with you and Dr. Phil – you teach people how to treat you. Through behavior toward others, how she conducts herself and what she achieves, a woman today teaches others to respect or not to respect her. I have conducted myself in a manner that induces respect. It’s not rocket science.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Reading through those tips on being a good wife horrified me.

Marriage is not a parent/child relationship! When I marry, I want a man to respect me, not hold submission over my head! I like the way guys at school treat me: they treat me like a lady and respect me for what I have inside my head. They’re the ones who open doors for me and want to protect me while at the same time, they’ll sit down with me while we have a very intellectually stimulating conversation.

Why does it have to be such an oxymoron for a woman to be a good Catholic lady and a professional woman at the same time? My relatives in the 50’s didn’t have it so good: the women didn’t have choices, they felt they had to stay in a marriage even if they were being abused, were never thanked for what they’ve done and never treated with respect (except the superficial kind for being a married lady) Every day, my family tells me how lucky I am to be able to go away to school and make my own choices.

And for all the women choosing abortion, etc. let me assure you that there are plenty of college educated/professional women living for God and standing up for life. Heck, most of my prolife club is made up of women at my campus and we work in conjunction with feminists for life. And we have a girl’s Bible Study, a Catholic women’s prayer group, the Catholic Daughters of the Americas, etc. I know many educated women who want to work AND have a bunch of little ones (one of my friends wants 8 kids, I want 5, etc.) Whether a woman is a SAHM or not

Today, women have more of a choice. We’re not here for our MRS degree (heck, I probably won’t see marriage till I at least get to med school), we don’t have to marry someone simply because people think it’s weird if you’re not by your mid-twenties, we’re expected to marry because we love the person and want to share a life with him and serve God together, etc.

Not only that, but if I wanted to marry someone who simply happened to be of a different race, I wouldn’t have to face the ostracism one would back in the 50’s and 60’s. I can have black and Latina friends and no one thinks twice about it. I can be proud of my ethnicity and not have to worry about multiculturalism being seen as “cool” or not (as many people I know who’ve grown up in those days will testify to. Some of my mother’s relatives STILL make fun of Italians, I hope they realize that my father and us kids are!)

I really don’t understand why those were the “good” days. You didn’t have abortion, no-fault divorce etc, but then you had the Cold War, racism, and sexism in those days too. There never really was a time that could truly be called the “good old days” unless you count before the Fall.

 

[edwest2]

Somehow, I fail to see racism and segregation (both very present in the 50’s) as “wholesome” and “moral”

Another appeal to emotion and a diversion of attention from the issue at hand. Who got the Reverend Martin Luther King bailed out of jail? Then Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. When he was killed in 1968, along with Robert Kennedy, this country lost two great men.

Racism is not dead and the other social engineering experiment, forced bussing, didn’t help much. Detroit is one of the most segregated cities in the country today.

Catholics in the 1950s could expect to see a Nativity scene in front of the local City Hall. President Eisenhower was dealing with the very real threat of a nuclear armed USSR. As kids growing up in that time period, we were not taught to hate or fight. We could and did leave our doors unlocked at night in Detroit. My parents were just as protective as any, and careful.

God bless,
Ed

 

[dwc]

Yes, quotas have ensured that there are women represented in all fields. Is that necessarily a good thing? Women now are able to sacrifice (just like men) years of their lives pursuing high stress and time consuming careers that often become obstacles to marriage and child rearing. They put off family life until they have achieved these goals, and finding them to be unsatisfying, attempt to make families later in life. Fertility problems, the cultural stress of leaving the workplace, the scrutiny of others when they choose to stay home and raise kids, all present themselves as problems that our moms did not deal with. Is it any coincidence the number of women on anti-depressants in this country?

Where to begin …

Quotas. Please support your assertion that quotas as opposed to ability are responsible for the dramatic increase in women in law, medicine, accounting, pharmacy, science, etc etc. I’ll be eagerly awaiting some defense of that little gem. As someone who is actually in the workforce, let me just inform you that your statement is absurd.

Is it a good thing that women are represented in nearly every field? I think so, to the extent that it reflects that women are now able to develop and use their ***God given ***talents more fully. The nuns at my grade school used to tell us that our abilities and talents were a gift from God and that how we used them was our gift to Him. They also said that to do less than our best was to waste the gift.

Breaking News: Chicken little, the sky is not falling. Do some women bite off more than they can chew? Sure. Is the result undue stress on them and their families? I imagine so. Do thousands and thousands of women manage to successfully balance some form of work and child rearing and marriages? Absolutely.

You know, we’re 30 years post this revolution. Some people, such as yourself, contribute societal decline to feminsim and refuse to acknowledge anything positive. The reality is that it has been a process, an evolution. It has not turned out as you say it was intended to. You say it was intended to destroy marriage – well, roughly half of marriages end in divorce, so to some extent maybe that’s true. But the reality is that it has changed marriage and men’s and women’s relationships such that the 50% of marriages that do survive are happy and successful and from what I hear, the envy of older women.

It has given women opportunities for education and career and for a while in the 80s it looked like the picture you painted above – overstressed, overworked, consumed with ambition and what not. That’s changed, too: women now have more options than ever before. We choose, based on our own circumstances and families, whether to work outside the home or stay home full time or work part time or work from home or take a few years off, etc. That’s also a result of the women’s movement, albeit maybe unintended. I’ve tried staying home, working full time and working half time. My family actually thrives best when I work half time. Thanks to all those misguided women trying to turn me into a sheman, I have that choice.

 

[edwest2]

Reading through those tips on being a good wife horrified me.

I really don’t understand why those were the “good” days. You didn’t have abortion, no-fault divorce etc, but then you had the Cold War, racism, and sexism in those days too. There never really was a time that could truly be called the “good old days” unless you count before the Fall.

Abortion on demand is a bad thing.

No-Fault Divorce is very bad since most of these sorts of divorces are not initiated by the couple but by one of them. It forces the other person out. In the past, you had to show proof there was a problem, evidence. Not anymore. Is this fair? No.

The Cold War has simply turned into the War on Terror, and the American military has seen its greatest reorganization since the end of World War II. The President has stated that this war will be ongoing. The odds of it lasting beyond the lifetime of anyone here are good.

Sexism is a fake, made up word. As a boy, I was strictly taught about how to deal with girls, young women and adults. I opened doors, was polite and not bullying. I was taught that the person of the opposite sex was a person, a complete, whole person. She was not just how she looked. Before the feminist fanatics, a young man and young woman could meet each other in a more trusting atmosphere, but that atmosphere has been poisoned by the spreading of lies.

What was good was that people generally, were more polite, and avoid cussing, swearing and sexual perversion in public. Marriage was a sacred, lifelong commitment. Drugs were to be avoided. The bad kids in my neighborhood were shunned, not harassed, but left alone since we wanted nothing to do with their criminal and immoral activities.

You want to see the world all of us avoided in the 1960s, turn on the TV. Any time, any channel.

God bless,
Ed

 

[dwc]

And? How many folks today, who are “sure” they have met their “soul mates”, end up divorced just a few years later. There is absolutely no dispute about the percentage of divorce in the 50’s and 60’s compared to today. It could not have been all bad, right

There is no question in my mind that my marriage is exponentially happier and more satisfying to me than were/are the marriages of my grandmothers, mother, and aunts. All because you can imagine worse doesn’t make something desireable. I trust them when they tell me I should be grateful.

If you want, let’s do talk marriage. How about my grade school friend’s mom who stayed with her husband even though he set his mistress up in an apartment and spent several nights a week with her. My friend’s mom was the good 50s girl – high school, marriage, baby after baby. She submitted to untold humiliation and hurt because she had no family to support her, no where to go, children and no way to support them. Hey, could be worse, though, right?

Well, that would be my friend Sue’s mom who stayed with Sue’s dad although she wouldn’t share a bed with him since he gave her that nastly little disease, and he got drunk regularly and threw things at her and the kids and hollered and screamed and made her beg him for money to buy stuff for the house and kids – but she stayed, too. No work skills, no work history, just a high school diploma, a marriage certificate and children.

Like I said, the women’s movement would not have taken off like it did if things were so great back then.

 

[edwest2]

The so-called women’s movement was divisive, manipulative and harmful. It was not based on Biblical principles and instigated by a Communist.

Even Jesus Christ said that divorce could occur if there was the sin of adultery. The Catholic Church had the proper way to annul a marriage. That some people did not do this is not the fault of the Church.

Today, too many young people are involved in uncommitted or semi-committed relationships that usually consist of “have sex first and then find out what kind of person you’re with.” This is “better” or “modern”? Give me a break.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StratusRose]

And? How many folks today, who are “sure” they have met their “soul mates”, end up divorced just a few years later. There is absolutely no dispute about the percentage of divorce in the 50’s and 60’s compared to today. It could not have been all bad, right

What makes you think that the women in the 50s didn’t think the same thing only to find out that the man she married wasn’t the knight in shining armour she originally thought he was? Just because there was less divorces does not indicate that marriages were fulfilling and happy.

 

[StratusRose]

The so-called women’s movement was divisive, manipulative and harmful. It was not based on Biblical principles and instigated by a Communist.

God bless,
Ed

So equal pay for equal work is a bad thing?

 

[edwest2]

I would like to point out that back then, marriage was regarded much more seriously as a lifelong commitment made before God and man. Not the “oh we could just get a divorce if things don’t work out” way it is often viewed today. A person tends to hesitate and think a bit more about something that is meant to be for life than some ‘kinda, maybe, if it gets too rough, I’ll just bail’ kind of thing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StratusRose]

I would like to point out that back then, marriage was regarded much more seriously as a lifelong commitment made before God and man. Not the “oh we could just get a divorce if things don’t work out” way it is often viewed today. A person tends to hesitate and think a bit more about something that is meant to be for life than some ‘kinda, maybe, if it gets too rough, I’ll just bail’ kind of thing.

God bless,
Ed

I don’t think anyone here is disputing that.

 

[edwest2]

So equal pay for equal work is a bad thing?

Why not ignore everything else I wrote? Read any feminist book, men are the equivalent of the devil. It’s as if men and women are two separate species. Always to be separated. Men are all bad, and if it wasn’t for that reproduction thing, should be avoided.

It may surprise a few people here but sometimes, a bunch of bored, well to do people decide to shake things up. I recently found out that the radical, anarchist, hippie underground newspaper in my area in the 1960s was started by a couple of suburban types who wanted to wear tye-dyed shirts and mingle with their “revolutionary” brothers and sisters in the hotbed of anarchy in Detroit. Beats suburban boredom and then you can brag that you were part of the “movement.” Puh leez

Equal pay for equal work did not require open warfare against “them”/men. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Oh yeah, those are the people I’d want to lead for ‘progress.’

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, I don’t think the song is all bad:
“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger
You needn’t try anymore”

It’s the total objectification of the woman that’s the point - she is not a person in and of herself, merely a satellite of her husband’s possibly passing interest.

 

[StratusRose]

Why not ignore everything else I wrote? Read any feminist book, men are the equivalent of the devil. It’s as if men and women are two separate species. Always to be separated. Men are all bad, and if it wasn’t for that reproduction thing, should be avoided.

It may surprise a few people here but sometimes, a bunch of bored, well to do people decide to shake things up. I recently found out that the radical, anarchist, hippie underground newspaper in my area in the 1960s was started by a couple of suburban types who wanted to wear tye-dyed shirts and mingle with their “revolutionary” brothers and sisters in the hotbed of anarchy in Detroit. Beats suburban boredom and then you can brag that you were part of the “movement.” Puh leez

Equal pay for equal work did not require open warfare against “them”/men. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Oh yeah, those are the people I’d want to lead for ‘progress.’

God bless,
Ed

When you make sweeping, blanket statement like this:

The so-called women’s movement was divisive, manipulative and harmful.

then I am going to call you out on it.

I don’t think anyone here supports the uber-feminazis that you are describing. All we are saying is that all though the women’s rights movement was flawed, some good did come of it.

 

[Kaninchen]

Why not ignore everything else I wrote? Read any feminist book, men are the equivalent of the devil.

With the exception of books like Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology, I’ve not come across men being the equivalent of the devil.

It’s as if men and women are two separate species. Always to be separated. Men are all bad, and if it wasn’t for that reproduction thing, should be avoided.

So you see lesbian separatists as the feminist mainstream then?

Equal pay for equal work did not require open warfare against “them”/men.

I don’t remember much in the way of AK47’s and bombs but I’m a bit young for the ‘being there’ perspective.

“Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Oh yeah, those are the people I’d want to lead for ‘progress.’

Does Ed stand for Edwina or something?

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for making a point I guess but don’t you find that the point that people are hearing isn’t necessarily the point that you think you’re making?