Can we go back in time?

[blessedtoo]

Sorry, but you quoted and addressed only my post when making that comment. I’m sure you’ll forgive my understanding that you were referring to me.

If you weren’t addressing your comment to me or my comments, what did it have to do with this thread? I haven’t seen any woman except you decrying the general lack of respect men have for women.

I was responding to your post in it’s entirety and in generalities. My reference to women who “cry foul” was meant as an indictment of those who would continue to blame men for the dismal state of affairs between the sexes. It was a general commentary, not a personal attack.

 

[Kaninchen]

I was responding to your post in it’s entirety and in generalities. My reference to women who “cry foul” was meant as an indictment of those who would continue to blame men for the dismal state of affairs between the sexes. It was a general commentary, not a personal attack.

What “dismal state of affairs between the sexes”? In what way is it more ‘dismal’ now than it was?

 

[StratusRose]

I have to address this canard first because it is pervasive among both women and men.

At one time, men were paid a “family wage”, with the understanding that they were the sole supporters of their families. Typically, women did not seek employment in traditionally male careers but those who did may have been paid less. Employers may have worked from the principal that a women would only be in the work force for a limited number of years, until she married and went on the raise a family. Making a financial investment in women back in the 50’s and 60’s would not have been a smart business strategy nor would it have been “family friendly.” The idea was to insure a man would be paid adequately to support his family, so his wife would not have to work.

Of course, the feminists did away with that.

Since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, sex discrimination in hiring, promotion or pay has been illegal. Cases where discrimination in pay is alleged, the “victim” has legal recourse. Any employer who practiced wage discrimination in the last 40 years could be brought to justice through the courts.

“Equal pay for equal work” has been addressed. But that is not enough for the feminists. They want equal pay for DIFFERENT work. They are seeking “comparable worth” which argues for a regulatory scheme that would dictate wages so that pay in fields with predominantly female workers would be comparable to pay in typically male occupations. The Jobs Rated Almanac reveals that 23 of the 25 worst jobs are over 90 percent male. Men make up 54 percent of the workforce, but account for 92 pecent of all job-related deaths. Dangerous occupations like coal miner, logger, fisherman and metal workers are less that 5 percent female. The feminists would have teachers, nurses, and secretaries paid a “comparable wage” to such jobs. Can you explain how that is fair?

Just look at the high tech field, a relative newcomer to the culture. It has been effectively accessed and defined by both genders and there is no pay discrepency at all.

It’s time to let the lie go.

You’re hilarious. You can’t seem to get that we’re not talking about uber-feminazis. Stop getting so emotional.

What about women in the 50s who had to support families when their husbands ran off with their mistresses? Don’t you think they deserved a family wage as well? I doubt that employers gave them that benefit. All they had to do was point out their sex and that was enough grounds to give them lesser wages.

What do you do for a living? Suppose a male had the same job as you and worked just as hard as you did. Would it be fair to be paid less that him?

 

[StratusRose]

The discrepencies in wages and occupations fuel the feminist insistence on affirmative action for women.

“Women make up only 1.3 percent of plumbers, pipe fitters, and steamfitters and only 1.2 percent of heating, air conditioning and refrigteration mechanics. These occupations offer men with high school educations well paying opportunities that remain largely closed to women.”

There is a reason why there are so few women in these fields: they do not want these jobs. However, feminist dogma would have you believe this is discrimination and invoke governmental regulation. They would have you believe there is some grand conspiracy to keep such jobs “closed to women”. American women, supposedly the most “liberated” and accomplished in all of history, need gender preferences in order to compete with men?

Do you have support for this comment?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I admit that I am shocked to see feminism being defended as though it’s a good thing, and traditional family life downgraded because ‘in the 1950s we had racism and women had no choice.’

That’s just silly. Racism can exist in any culture, and against any race.

Were any of you aware that one of the first beauty-industry millionares was a black woman—back in the 1800s???

If I can find the link, I’d love to post it. There were always choices and opportunities.

Look at the GENERAL TONE of the culture back then in the 1950s. Look at it now. If you can’t see how it’s degenerated since then, I don’t know what standards you’re applying.

So to get back to the original post, yes, I would love to see a return to traditional values. They are well worth fighting for.

 

[StratusRose]

I admit that I am shocked to see feminism being defended as though it’s a good thing, and traditional family life downgraded because ‘in the 1950s we had racism and women had no choice.’

That’s just silly. Racism can exist in any culture, and against any race.

Were any of you aware that one of the first beauty-industry millionares was a black woman—back in the 1800s???

If I can find the link, I’d love to post it. There were always choices and opportunities.

Look at the GENERAL TONE of the culture back then in the 1950s. Look at it now. If you can’t see how it’s degenerated since then, I don’t know what standards you’re applying.

So to get back to the original post, yes, I would love to see a return to traditional values. They are well worth fighting for.

The problem is you refuse to recognize that while not everything that came from the women’s rights movement was good, some good did come of it. Unless you think women should not have choices other to be wives and mothers and to earn less than men then there’s no getting through here. No one here is advocating mainstream feminism. But I do advocate the kind of feminism that Feminists for Life stand for.

I think we can all agree that the family values preached in the 50s was something to be admired. But to say that we should move backwards to that time period is asinine. We need to deal with the problems we have today.

The woman you speak of, CJ Walker, was very successful. However, she was one in a million of blacks who never had those opportunities because of Jim Crow.

 

[SMHW]

Going back to the first post in this thread…

My question is–how much of it is worth trying to re-capture in the 21st Century?

One parent working while another parent stays home?

I think at least one parent home with the kids most of the time is a good idea. I don’t think a couple hours a day without them matters much. I actually think tweens and teens need a parent (as opposed to a sitter) more than younger school age kids.

Less television?

Less television is probably good but I love my SciFi channel.

Less food?

Less food? I’m not sure what that means exactly. Probably less pre-packaged food. But today there is far more variety of fruits and vegetables available to most people.

More outdoor play?

More outdoor play? Depends on what kind. I wouldn’t want more of the kind of inner-city play that some kids had in the smoky, smoggy past. In many places the air is better today. More physical activity would be good.

Less music/sports/extracurricular activities and more unplanned play?

I would prefer more unplanned play. My suburban kids spent a lot of time in unplanned play with neighbors but they still did gymnastics, soccer, swimming, and kick-boxing. (Well, when one of them got SERIOUS about swimming the unstructured part went away.) The relative value of structured versus unstructured play has been governed by the location the child lives for many generations. It’s different for urban, suburban, and rural areas.

Strict rules about bedtimes?

I don’t really remember having a bedtime past the age of nine or so. Weekends we were allowed to stay up as late as we wanted. Earlier than that I think it was 8:30pm and then latter 9:00pm. That allowed us one hour of prime time TV watching which back then started at 7:30pm rather than at 8:00pm (for most of the USA.) I was usually wanting to be asleep by 10:00pm until I got to high school. At that point I took care of scheduling myself. I haven’t been that strict with our kids. :coffeeread:But I know no one in my family, adults or kids, probably gets enough sleep.

Or is the way we raise our kids now actually better for everyone? . . . Anyway, what good things should we strive to recover from those halcyon years of childhood, and what good things are we doing in the year 2007?

I’ve hit on some of them already

THERE IS NO ONE BLANKET ANSWER.

There are two sides to most technological advances and just about any social institution, however well intentioned, will be exploited.

And my husband works for IBM, so we had the very first PC ever sold to the public. He’s been online since online was invented! And our whole family uses the computer a LOT–is this good? I think it is.

Hah! I was the one who worked for IBM but it was my husband (then boyfriend) who got the IBM PC. He worked at Sears and they were an authorized seller. We still have that old PC in a closet. Haven’t tried turning it on in years. The keyboard is heavier than some modern laptops.

We have at least one working computer for every member of this family and my son and I still want** MORE!!!** :hypno: :whacky:

 

[blessedtoo]

You’re hilarious…Stop getting so emotional.

Can we refrain from getting personal about this topic?

You can’t seem to get that we’re not talking about uber-feminazis.

Nor am I. The women who spear-headed the feminist movement that you claim brought such benefits were and are not considered, by most folks, “uber-feminazis” (whatever that is).

What about women in the 50s who had to support families when their husbands ran off with their mistresses? Don’t you think they deserved a family wage as well? I doubt that employers gave them that benefit. All they had to do was point out their sex and that was enough grounds to give them lesser wages.

I don’t know what your hypothetical situation has to do with the facts I provided. Do you have statistics for the number of women who were forced to support families when their husbands ran off with mistresses?

I stated that prior to 1963 there did exist a disparity in pay. Men were paid a family wage because the majority of men were the sole providers of their families. While there may have been isolated cases of women who were abandoned by husbands and forced to work, this was the exception to the rule.

What do you do for a living? Suppose a male had the same job as you and worked just as hard as you did. Would it be fair to be paid less that him?

As I already stated, wage discrimination has been illegal since 1963.

 

[blessedtoo]

Do you have support for this comment?

Rachel Smolkin, “Equality at Work Remains Elusive”, Pittsuburgh Post-Gazette, June 3, 2001.

 

[Kaninchen]

As I already stated, wage discrimination has been illegal since 1963.

One of the most ‘freedom’ oriented constitutions was that of the USSR under Stalin (1936), the problem lay in the question and practicalities of implementation (ie, didn’t happen).

Implementation is key to everything, anybody who thinks that passing laws is the equivalent to creation of reality only needs to look to the history of African-Americans

If you choose to respond, apologies but, being a reasonably observant (European timezone) Jewess, Shabbat approaches.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t know what your hypothetical situation has to do with the facts I provided. Do you have statistics for the number of women who were forced to support families when their husbands ran off with mistresses?

I can only imagine the thread titles on CAF for “Gay male ‘spouses’ better provided for than children of single-provider working mother Catholic widows”.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The problem is you refuse to recognize that while not everything that came from the women’s rights movement was good, some good did come of it. Unless you think women should not have choices other to be wives and mothers and to earn less than men then there’s no getting through here. No one here is advocating mainstream feminism. But I do advocate the kind of feminism that Feminists for Life stand for.

I think we can all agree that the family values preached in the 50s was something to be admired. But to say that we should move backwards to that time period is asinine. We need to deal with the problems we have today.

The woman you speak of, CJ Walker, was very successful. However, she was one in a million of blacks who never had those opportunities because of Jim Crow.

Still astounded that so many people insist there was no such thing as opportunity in the past, so we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There has always been opportunity. It’s asinine indeed to refuse to see it. I’m defending traditional values. That’s all. They were here in abundance in the 1950s. And part of the ‘problems’ we have today that you claim we have to deal with is simply this: the enemy re-drew the lines in the sand over and over again, and all we did was step back and let them take whatever territory they wanted.

I want to take it back. Nothing more complicated.

I am also against feminism; if you take exception to that, it is your privilege to do so.

 

[Catholic90]

Still astounded that so many people insist there was no such thing as opportunity in the past, so we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There has always been opportunity. It’s asinine indeed to refuse to see it.

Sure there were opportunities…opportunities to teach…be a nurse…be a secretary…do laundry…babysit…style hair…retail sales.

Not many opportunities for a woman to be a doctor, lawyer, businesswoman, CEO, CFO, engineer…pretty much anything in the sciences. I am astounded you insist this is not important! It is asinine to refuse to admit this!

If you are satisfied with never having had the opportunity to pursue a medical degree, law degree, engineering degree, etc, and settle for a lower paying job, good for you. But don’t deny today’s women who have an aptitude, a gift, and a desire to follow those God-given dreams.

I would NOT want to go back to the 50s.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I’ll speak from personal experience; my own and those of friends and family.

My best friend in grade and high school was Italian, like me. Her parents took her Grandma in when her husband died quite young. Nana lived with them the rest of her life, until she died at 100. She was beloved and missed by all when she passed.

May paternal grandmother buried three husbands. Each time she was widowed, she went to live with one of her four children. She supported herself by doing sewing and tailoring for the neighbors. She helped out the family by babysitting for the grandkids and preparing meals for the family. When she remarried, she set up her own home. When she was widowed for the last time, she remained in my aunt’s home until she died. She was beloved and was missed terribly when she left us.

My maternal grandfather left my grandmother when she was in her 40’s. She worked for many years to support herself and her two girls. My grandfather was a skid row alcoholic who spent most of his nights in the county lock up for public intoxication. He eventually killed himself. My grandma continued to support herself until her 70’s, at which time she came to live with us. We loved having her with us until she passed on to her reward.

Back in the old days, family supported eachother. Back in the old days, if your husband left you or died, you knew you could depend on family to help out. Today, it’s everyone for themselves. I do not see that as a positive advancement at all.

That’s nice for your family. Even in the 50s and 60s, your grandmother couldn’t have made much money “sewing” for the neighbors. And it appears when your parental grandmother lost a husband, her children were grown and she went to live with them. Also, you do not say what it is your maternal grandmotehr did for a living, how much she was paid.

Even in the 50s and 60s, people could not always depend on family. I wasn’t talking about older women who lived with their grown children- and “in her 40s” back then put her in the older group; maybe not senior citizen, but no spring chicken. Young men die every day, and not just in wars. A young woman without skills and group of small children would not necesarily been welcome to come live with the relatives, and have to accept their charity.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sure there were opportunities…opportunities to teach…be a nurse…be a secretary…do laundry…babysit…style hair…retail sales.

Not many opportunities for a woman to be a doctor, lawyer, businesswoman, CEO, CFO, engineer…pretty much anything in the sciences. I am astounded you insist this is not important! It is asinine to refuse to admit this!

If you are satisfied with never having had the opportunity to pursue a medical degree, law degree, engineering degree, etc, and settle for a lower paying job, good for you. But don’t deny today’s women who have an aptitude, a gift, and a desire to follow those God-given dreams.

I would NOT want to go back to the 50s.

You keep dismissing the fact that opportunities have always existed. They exist now, they existed then. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand.

And I don’t follow your second paragraph. I don’t stand against women, I stand against feminism and the damage it’s done to every aspect of society.

 

[Catholic90]

You keep dismissing the fact that opportunities have always existed. They exist now, they existed then. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand.

How many FEMALE doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. existed in the 50s?? Not many!! For those who did work in these fields, they were paid substantially less than their male counterparts. The whole glass ceiling thing. How many women were encouraged to further their education and shoot for the stars? A few, sure, but very few. They were encouraged, if anything, to get their nursing certificate, teaching certificate, and polish their typing skills. Maybe go to beauty school. Nurses they could be, but doctors? Not usually. Hair dresser, sure, but electrical engineers? No. Secretary or file clerk, yes, but lawyer? No. Many were sent to college to find their MRS degree. They studied “home economics”. (which was certainly fine for those who wanted to do that, but what about those who wanted to strive higher but were shut out by the ‘good ol boys’?)

And I don’t follow your second paragraph. I don’t stand against women, I stand against feminism and the damage it’s done to every aspect of society.

My second paragraph discusses the very few opportunities that existed…I explained that above.

I am certainly not an ultra feminist (but I do agree with the bra burning…beside nylons, has there been a more uncomfortable piece of clothing??) However, I do believe in giving women EVERY opportunity, career-wise, that is open to men. Certainly some feminism has damaged society (I don’t like the male-bashing); however, other parts of it have opened up worlds never before available (equal pay, equal opportunities, etc.). So I would completely disagree that it has damaged “every aspect of society” as you ascertain.

 

[edwest2]

Feminism was and is anti-family. Gloria Steinem shocked a lot of people when she married one of “them” later in life. Men became the enemy. That is a fact. Aside from reproduction, men were branded as evil. Feminism sought to separate the sexes into two warring camps.

It was divisive. It created fear and suspicion. It did not solve problems. It was not solution oriented.

I clearly recall how I was taught to regard females of all ages. With courtesy and respect. I have not deviated from that teaching.

The feminists were and are creators of victimhood for women.

I agree that a return to the moral, Church centered values of the 1950s is in order. The problems of today were primarily caused by the following Radical groups:

1968: Hippies, Yippies, Anarchists and Radicals chant “Down with the Establishment,” “Don’t Trust Anyone over 30,” “Off the Pigs,” and promote the use of illegal and dangerous drugs, sexual immorality and pornography.

1973: Abortion made legal. Hardcore porn increases in quantity. Adult Bookstores spring up across the country.

1978: Gloria Steinem of NOW tells her sisters to throw off the chains of their oppression - men.

1980s: No-Fault Divorce. Porn on cable.

1990s: Divorce is out of control. Porn on TV. Start of internet porn.

2000s: I believe Christians are looking back at the last 40 years and finally realizing that the anti-family, anti-morals and anti-God groups who all want to be tolerated and accepted as normal and/or average have gone too far.

The 1950s are to be defended as a time when religion was not under attack by the ACLU, founded by a Communist. And the family was not under attack by feminists; Betty Friedan was also a Communist. And there was no such thing as a Porn Star or Exotic Dancer, they were called by their proper names: Prostitute and Stripper.

Wake up my Christian brothers and sisters. Turn away from sin. The same people who defended the privacy of the bedroom have now brought the bedroom into your TV or computer, and, on occasion, to city streets.

There is a right and wrong. There is decency. The time has long past for maybe-ism, who-knows-ism and who-can-say-ism.

God bless,
Ed

 

[blessedtoo]

How many FEMALE doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. existed in the 50s?? Not many!! For those who did work in these fields, they were paid substantially less than their male counterparts. The whole glass ceiling thing. How many women were encouraged to further their education and shoot for the stars? A few, sure, but very few. They were encouraged, if anything, to get their nursing certificate, teaching certificate, and polish their typing skills. Maybe go to beauty school. Nurses they could be, but doctors? Not usually. Hair dresser, sure, but electrical engineers? No. Secretary or file clerk, yes, but lawyer? No. Many were sent to college to find their MRS degree. They studied “home economics”. (which was certainly fine for those who wanted to do that, but what about those who wanted to strive higher but were shut out by the ‘good ol boys’?)

Rather than asserting what you “think” happened before the scourge of feminism, why don’t you produce some facts to back up your claims? For example, can you prove that women were forbidden to pursue the careers you keep quoting as exclusionary? Can you prove that women were actively discouraged from furthering their educations, except to find the “MRS degree”?

What makes you think feminism had anything at all to do with the cultural shift in women’s career choices?

Women traditionally have been interested in some version of service oriented work. It is an inherent instinct of women to want to help people. Even today, the number of women represented in positions such as nursing, teaching, medicine, sales, etc, is significantly higher than mechanics, engineering, and finance. As I see it, moving into these more sophisticated and higher paying service careers was a natural cultural shift that occurred after WWII, brought about by the advancement of technology, industry, and science. Women were flooding the colleges in the 50’s and early 60’s, long before Betty Frieden decided that her vocation in life was to convince all women that seeking a career had more value than seeking a husband and family.

However, I do believe in giving women EVERY opportunity, career-wise, that is open to men.

This is where the indoctrination becomes evident. EVERY (bold emphasis yours) opportunity? Do you really want a woman, who may have passed her test as a firefighter due to lowering standards, to be the person who is sent in to rescue your loved ones from a fire? How about having a woman prison guard who is there by quota mandate who is physically incapable of acutally restraining a prisoner? Just last year, several people were killed because a female prison guard who was transferring a prisoner could not get control of her male charge. He broke free and killed several innocent bystanders.

Women don’t have EVERY opportunity as men, nor should they. Contrary to the feminist dogma, men and women are not the same and no amount of propaganda will change that fact.

 

[blessedtoo]

The 1950s are to be defended as a time when religion was not under attack by the ACLU, founded by a Communist. And the family was not under attack by feminists; Betty Friedan was also a Communist. And there was no such thing as a Porn Star or Exotic Dancer, they were called by their proper names: Prostitute and Stripper.

Ed

I watched the Ken Burns documentary “The War” last week and was absolutely stricken by the stark dichotomy between the way we were, as a country, and how we are today. In a mere 50 years, we have sunk so low that I often wonder what Jesus is waiting for.

Today at work, a group of 6 men (in their 30’s) were listening to a brother speak about how he and his wife “courted” before they married. In great detail, this incredible guy told these stunned and speechless men that he did not even kiss her until they were engaged, and even then, it was done with the greatest caution, as they did not want to fall into temptation. He spoke with such eloquence about how he received all the strength he needed from God to restrain his desires and instead, cultivate an actual relationship with his betrothed, one based on respect, love, faith, communication, tenderness and patience. The men who listened were aghast that anyone could have such discipline and yet, after this young man gave his witness and left the room, the boys continued the conversation, each expressing their deep respect for what their buddy had just shared. One even remarked that he was envious. I stood in the corner of the room with tears in my eyes.

There was a time, not so long ago, when this man’s story would have been typical, just an average tale about a courtship and marriage. Today, he would be considered a “freak” by most.

That is what I miss about the “old days”. Who knows, maybe there are a few who will bring the good parts back.

 

[Catholic90]

This is where the indoctrination becomes evident. EVERY (bold emphasis yours) opportunity? Do you really want a woman, who may have passed her test as a firefighter due to lowering standards, to be the person who is sent in to rescue your loved ones from a fire? How about having a woman prison guard who is there by quota mandate who is physically incapable of acutally restraining a prisoner? Just last year, several people were killed because a female prison guard who was transferring a prisoner could not get control of her male charge. He broke free and killed several innocent bystanders.
In my city, we have female firefighters who must pass the SAME tests as males. We are one of the few, but do have some women who meet the requirements. I’ve met some of these women at the annual open house. After looking at them, yeah, they can rescue my family any time! These are built, tall, muscular women who can lift 100s of pounds. Amazon women! I do not agree with the ‘dumbing down’, but I also feel that if a woman can meet the same requirements for men, then they should be able to pursue that career.
Women don’t have EVERY opportunity as men, nor should they. Contrary to the feminist dogma, men and women are not the same and no amount of propaganda will change that fact.

Of course they are not the same. Duh. But women should have the same opportunties if they pass the tests, meet the requirements, etc. What is so difficult or wrong about that?

The Good Old Boy network and Glass ceilings were very much a reality. Look it up.