Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the colleges in this region in those earlier times, there was no style in what the women wore. They went around dressed in beaters, like the guys did. Occasionally, some would dress-up for certain events, but not often. They were starting to get into exercise, running especially and there were so many who looked very sharp. It wasn't their clothes, but what was underneath that gave them that appearance. It was a golden age for young men, as there were all these fit and frisky women, most of them conscientiously maintaining infertility. So different were they, than the sad-sacks of a decade before, who knew nothing of exercise and good diets.
The clothes they wore at that earlier time were intended to conceal their bodies that weren't very impressive, anyway. Of course, there were a few who naturally had good shapes, regardless of not taking care of them. But if you saw those women 15 years later, those un-exercised shapes had gone south, unless they had individually seen the light and got into working-out. I wonder how many people today recognize how great the social/sexual revolution of the mid-sixties was and how in just a couple of years, impacted the lives of most younger people and continues to do so into the present.
My maternal grandmother was 49 when she became a grandmother. As a young kid, I remember her telling me on more than one occasion that she was "an old lady". She was in her mid-to-late 50s at the time. When I got older, I once asked her why she called herself "an old lady", when, in fact, she wasn't one. She sheepishly replied "because I felt like one".
Like many women of her era, she never wore pants or sneakers. She kept her hair short and permed. Plus she never wore makeup, except for lipstick for special occasions.
When she was in her early 70s, my aunt bought her a pantsuit. It took some convincing but I got my grandmother to model it for me. It made her look so much younger and I urged her to wear it. Nope. Other than that one time, she never wore it again.
If you all remember the TV show "All in the Family", which was filmed in the 70s, Edith had a frumpy hair-do, never wore pants and wore frumpy dresses. Jean Stapleton (and the character of Edith) were in their mid-to-late 40s at the time.
In the old days, women dressed differently and wore their hair differently once they passed forty or so. I think that really made a difference. Today, with less of this, the lines are blurred. But if you put the same woman in different clothes and put a short poodle perm on her head, and you would likely guess a 20-year difference between the two pictures.
I am fine with this, but it seems to really wig some people out not to have blaring evidence of a person's age. And it gives some of us the impression that we're some sort of Dorian Gray fountain of youth anomaly. We're not - we, the over 40s, are simply the first generation of over 40s not to signal our age with our clothing, hair, glasses and mannerisms, and it confuses everybody.
This - dresses looser and more modest, definitely shorter hair styles past a certain age.
But I noticed most of these women have at least some gray hair - so many women color now, at least for awhile.
I wish these pictures had the actual age of each! - otherwise it is just speculation. It does seem most still have pretty good legs, for what that's worth.
another thing that makes the women of the 1950's - 1960's look different is they are probably less likely to be racially mixed , they probably have more european ethnic background
todays women are more diverse in appearance and racial backgrounds
I think, as others do, that it has much to do with the "beauty parlor" formality of the hairstyles worn by older women then. (Yes, some young women and teens wore their hair also that way, too, but their young skin and usually slim bodies prevented most of them from looking matronly.) It also relates, I think, to "letting your hair down", which refers to having a youthful and more cand relaxed and casual outlook, as opposed to "being uptight"; i.e., casual hair = youth/liberal; uptight hair = older/conservative.
(Can you tell that I was part of the flower child generation, or what?!)
As a side note, I can remember an article from Cosmopolitan in the 70's that was titled something like, "What will you look like at 40?" that featured a slim woman with a casual flip hair-style versus a heavy set woman with a beehive style; and it was very obvious which "model" they considered more attractive. It was like Aunt Bea of Mayberry vs. Mary Tyler Moore.
I think, as others do, that it has much to do with the "beauty parlor" formality of the hairstyles worn by older women then. (Yes, some young women and teens wore their hair also that way, too, but their young skin and usually slim bodies prevented most of them from looking matronly.) It also relates, I think, to "letting your hair down", which refers to having a youthful and more cand relaxed and casual outlook, as opposed to "being uptight"; i.e., casual hair = youth/liberal; uptight hair = older/conservative.
(Can you tell that I was part of the flower child generation, or what?!)
As a side note, I can remember an article from Cosmopolitan in the 70's that was titled something like, "What will you look like at 40?" that featured a slim woman with a casual flip hair-style versus a heavy set woman with a beehive style; and it was very obvious which "model" they considered more attractive. It was like Aunt Bea of Mayberry vs. Mary Tyler Moore.
To be fair, Aunt Bea is clearly much older; 60's or so, I'd say. MTM looks to be about late 30's, possibly early -to-mid 40's. The two women are about a generation apart. But you're right about hairstyles.
And stylish vs. frumpy/matronly clothes can be as simple a matter as taste, and where you shop, not so much the era, itself. Dillard's or Penny's vs. Nieman Marcus, or even an upscale Macy's. However, the problem for the heavier, older women has always been that designers/manufacturers neglect that segment of the population, and don't make an effort to create flattering, contemporary looks for those women.
To be fair, Aunt Bea is clearly much older; 60's or so, I'd say. MTM looks to be about late 30's, possibly early -to-mid 40's. The two women are about a generation apart. But you're right about hairstyles.
Actually, Frances Bavier was only 57 when she started the Andy Griffith show, and Mary Tyler Moore was 40 when she ended the Mary Tyler Moore Show (although, yes, she was only 33 when she started that show). But, yes, there was definitely an age difference, although I personally consider 40-60 be be middle-aged.
However, here is a photo of Mary Tyler Moore in 2003, when she was 66. (I do agree with you that fashions (and make-up) can make a big difference.)
Also, although I am now talking 2016 and not the 60's, Julianne Moore looks absolutely beautiful and in great shape at age 55, I think. (But, then, I think that is true of many 50-something women today!)
Actually, Frances Bavier was only 57 when she started the Andy Griffith show, and Mary Tyler Moore was 40 when she ended the Mary Tyler Moore Show (although, yes, she was only 33 when she started that show). But, yes, there was definitely an age difference, although I personally consider 40-60 be be middle-aged.
However, here is a photo of Mary Tyler Moore in 2003, when she was 66. (I do agree with you that fashions (and make-up) can make a big difference.)
Also, although I am now talking 2016 and not the 60's, Julianne Moore looks absolutely beautiful and in great shape at age 55, I think. (But, then, I think that is true of many 50-something women today!)
OK, so we're comparing a 60-ish Aunt Bea to a 66-yr-old MTM, now? Yes, Aunt Bea looks stereotypically gramdmotherly (which was the point in the show), while MTM doesn't. And I was going to post earlier that back in the mid-20'th century, women didn't color their hair as much as they do now. We can see what a difference that makes in your comparison, here. At 66, most women have at least some grey. And of course, the way women watch their weight now, if they can, and, crucially in some cases, use hormones after 55/60, makes a huge difference.
Bavier sure was the perfect type for the part, wasn't she? Classic! And MTM created the "career girl" type.
I think with some of those women it's the severe hairstyles. The ones with more natural hair look younger. And you could make almost anyone look old if you sat them in front of fake paneled walls with 1960s furniture around them. There are a few who look okay--they have natural looking hair, not tightly permed or poufed. They don't have bright lipstick, harsh makeup or dowdy dresses either.
This, exactly. The first thing that struck me in most of the pictures was the hair.
A lot of being considered "old" has to do with how you carry yourself, how you express yourself, and even the language you use. Women, especially in the 40s and 50s, were taught to mask their emotions and just deal with life. There wasn't any "if you don't like your situation, you can change it" stuff. You were taught to endure things, not change them. That can wipe the smile off anyone's face given enough time.
It's also a combination of sun, age, diet, genes, hairstyle, clothes, and having kids (Stephen King got it right when he wrote that kids drag their parents into old age kicking and screaming). It's also attitude, in a big, big way.
I like to divide people into two categories sometimes: those who jumped on the computer bandwagon when the internet came out and those who refuse to even touch one. Guess which group always looks older?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
