Were things in the past really that bad for women? (smart, students)
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.
The term Mrs means property of the the Mister: Mr's. And that is what women were.They couldn't have property, they had to get permission from their husbands for birth control from the doctor because their purpose was to produce progeny. A woman could inherit from her parents but once married that inheritance was his never to return to her, even when divorced.
They were asked if they were pregnant or would have more children in job intereviews.
Thankfully, terms like housewife were corrected to homemaker.
Before the pill, the man was presumed not to contribute to "fatherless" children by always wearing a condom. The focus was on children not their single parents.
Yet, the property title of Mrs still is used, a TV show revived an antiquated term of housewife, women still get fired for being pregnant and the focus of a fatherless child is placed on the mother instead of both parents.
Men don't do it more often because most don't have the option to, and if they do, women lose attraction to them.
Do women ever stop to think that most men don't "have it all" too?
When women complain about the division of labor in a household when both husband and wife work, they always bring up that the husband doesn't cook, do laundry, etc. Do men complain that their wives don't mow the lawn, change the car's oil, shoveling snow, etc? Actually, some might, but if they do, no one listens or cares. You're a man, you just get to suck it up.
Women never wanted "it all" all at the same time! That was marketing/advertising! Women wanted and still want options. What they were sold was "if you want to work (outside the home) then you still have to do everything inside the home - that's the deal, otherwise forget it!". So they DID try to do it all which of course is impossible - maybe that was the way for the powers that be to get them to stop working!
In terms of tasks around the house - traditional stuff for women is stuff that has to be done pretty much continually - cleaning, laundry, cooking, childcare...stuff that never really gets "done". Men have sporadic tasks that take much less time - you mow once a week...shovel snow half a dozen times in the season...change the oil (or take the car out to have it done!) every 3 or 6 months - not the same amount of work AT ALL.
It sure wasn't bad for the kids! Coming home from school to a mother, running to the door all excited when your father got home from work and watching him hold my mother and tell her how he loves her, everybody eating dinner together and talking about your day, playing outside with all the other kids that came home to a mother instead of a daycare. It was perfect for the whole family, our home was happy.
Wow, that sounds just like my kids’ lives today, in spite of the fact that I now work full time.
Men don't do it more often because most don't have the option to, and if they do, women lose attraction to them.
Do women ever stop to think that most men don't "have it all" too?
When women complain about the division of labor in a household when both husband and wife work, they always bring up that the husband doesn't cook, do laundry, etc. Do men complain that their wives don't mow the lawn, change the car's oil, shoveling snow, etc? Actually, some might, but if they do, no one listens or cares. You're a man, you just get to suck it up.
Assuming people choose to be stuck in rigidly assigning chores by gender, yeah, I can see how the spouse whose chores must be done everyday would find it frustrating when the other spouse’s chores can be done once per week, every every couple of months.
It was terrible. Women stayed home and took care of their children. If they didn't have children they had to prepare meals, play bridge, read, and do all sorts of degrading things. They were treated as second-class people. Men and boys opened doors for them, lit their cigarettes, took off their hats in their presence, and even called them ma'am. Eighty percent didn't know enough to get a divorce and become single mothers.
You've watched too many old TV shows.
Divorce was uncommon because it required proving abuse or abandonment in court, most people couldn't afford attorneys and it was impossible to represent yourself so they stayed married.
Spousal abuse was common and ignored by the Police. Unless a woman had injuries that required medical care the Police wouldn't even take a report.
As late as the 70's employers could refuse to accept your application if you were female and could base their hiring decision on whether or not you had children or were pregnant, and getting pregnant was a fireable offense. Pay disparity continued for decades, in spite of laws prohibiting it.
Until 1974 banks could refuse to issue A credit cards to women, or require that their husband co-sign for them
A number of IVY league colleges refused women admission, Harvard didn't admit women until 1977, Yale and Princeton 1969, Columbia 1981
Before the Title VII of the Civil Rights act, Pan Am Airlines required that stewardesses meet a certain height requirement, maintain a set weight, resign if they got married, maintain soft hands and face, mandatory retirement was at age 32.
I attended high school in the 60's when neither birth control or abortion were legal. Wealthy girls who got pregnant missed school for a few days went to the doctor for a "procedure" and returned magically unpregnant. Poor girls had to quit school when they showed, or they would get an illegal abortion, be sent to a home for unwed mothers, or worse they would have their boyfriend kick them in the abdomen repeatedly in order to miscarry.
The women's movement helped women in some ways, but in many ways it backfired. Today women are often the primary wage-earner, still bear most of the housekeeping and administration burden, and still have the kids and must take care of them (or arrange for them to be taken care of.
By getting rid of the American male from society by vilifying him (in an attempt to make "diverse" groups feel better about themselves), we've ruined both the society and the economy. And the benefits? None that I can see. A woman could always get her revenge on an abusive male in the past when he was asleep, or she could just leave (and be in the same situation all women are in today--supporting herself and any kids she produced).
Let me see if I got this right, women are raising kids alone and working full time because men were vilified? How does that give them a pass on supporting their family?
I was born in 1947. Four years younger than in_newengland. I'm 70. She's 74. The following may have been true for you, in_newengland, you state: "the only jobs open to women were teacher, nurse, secretary, and social worker."
But it certainly was not true for me and millions and millions of other women who entered a wide variety of career fields in the 2nd half of the 1960's, often majoring in them at university in the early 1960's and 2nd half of the 1960's, gaining jobs after graduation, attending graduate school for masters degrees or professional degrees.
I've seen you repeat "the only jobs open to women were teacher, nurse, secretary, and social worker" before in these forums, but it still remains true just for you and a number of women who had that mindset and lacked information. Women were graduating from universities in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's onward, and they certainly pursued a wide range of fields of expertise, particularly during the 1960's and onward.
I want to emphasize this because it just is not accurate for the majority that the "the only jobs open to women were teacher, nurse, secretary, and social worker" during the early and mid 1960's onward.
You got lucky, or you were smarter than the rest of us. My parents sent my brother to college to get a degree in chemistry, they offered me two options; secretarial school or cosmetology.
Assuming people choose to be stuck in rigidly assigning chores by gender, yeah, I can see how the spouse whose chores must be done everyday would find it frustrating when the other spouse’s chores can be done once per week, every every couple of months.
I actually don't think it's that divided anymore. My honey loves to cook, I hate it so he cooks. He hates cleaning the litter box so I do that.
My nephew is SAHD while going to school at night and his wife supports them. This works well for them. She has always been better at household repairs and enjoys yard work, he hates it. So she mows the lawn and puts the new desk together while he does the laundry.
That's the thing about feminism no one has brought up. It gave women opportunity for new roles but also freed men to stray out from old gender norms. In 1970's my nephew would be made to feel shamed for the roles he and his wife are in, he would have been seen as a failure as a man.
We have several male CNA's and male nurses where I work. It was feminism and changing roles that allowed men to take what were traditionally female jobs, before if a man wanted a health care job he needed to be the Dr. Ironically when men started entering nursing was when salaries started to rise and the image of nurses began to change from glorified hospital-based stewardesses to true health care professionals.
Last edited by ocnjgirl; 03-18-2018 at 08:34 AM..
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.
