Top | Newest First | Oldest First
missyann · 56-60
People, my point is that I miss the simpler times of the past, when families were the main priority and it seems to me that everything else fell into place.
I know that no era was perfect. Every generation has its problems. We have had to progress to keep up with other nations. Technology has been good in some ways. Medicine and the military are two I can think of. But we haven’t always used it right
But I don’t see it being positive in most cases. My mother went to work after we were all in school to be able to have extras. For me it started with the microwave. Mothers quit cooking, families quit sitting at the table for meals. MTV and cable TV and we quit playing outside, we stayed glued to TV. 2 or more cars kids quit riding the bus. Sports used to be fall/football, winter/basketball & volleyball, spring and summer/baseball. Kids didn’t practice year round. We had summer vacations. Now sports are so competitive kids can’t be kids.
Computers and cell phones are turning our kids into slugs. This is adults and parents fault. When parents are addicted to their phones and social media you can’t expect their kids to be any different. You go to a restaurant and you see everyone on their phone, families don’t talk to each other anymore. And God forbid you try to hide someone’s phone you see complete meltdowns.
Whether anyone will admit it, there are a lot of women who long to be home instead of working. Some of these women are in high profile professions. Most generally, women have the desire and like to feel safe and cared for. Not controlled but safe. We have made our lives so stressful because we have to have everything and make sure we are raising entitled children.
The sad reality is that once we progress we can’t go back but we can control how we use what we know. One example is kids DON’T need cell phones. We survived without them as teens. They ABSOLUTELY don’t need access to social media. It is a fact that parents can be involved and know what their kids are doing and where they are. Kids need to know what the word NO means. That they aren’t entitled to everything they want. Punishment is acceptable. As adults we have to do it. This is possible.
I just wish for a simpler way of truly living. I do realize that it is just the “ idea “ of a “Leave it to Beaver “ and the “ Brady Bunch “ way of life. I also realize that a lot of that wasn’t real. But some of it was.
I know that no era was perfect. Every generation has its problems. We have had to progress to keep up with other nations. Technology has been good in some ways. Medicine and the military are two I can think of. But we haven’t always used it right
But I don’t see it being positive in most cases. My mother went to work after we were all in school to be able to have extras. For me it started with the microwave. Mothers quit cooking, families quit sitting at the table for meals. MTV and cable TV and we quit playing outside, we stayed glued to TV. 2 or more cars kids quit riding the bus. Sports used to be fall/football, winter/basketball & volleyball, spring and summer/baseball. Kids didn’t practice year round. We had summer vacations. Now sports are so competitive kids can’t be kids.
Computers and cell phones are turning our kids into slugs. This is adults and parents fault. When parents are addicted to their phones and social media you can’t expect their kids to be any different. You go to a restaurant and you see everyone on their phone, families don’t talk to each other anymore. And God forbid you try to hide someone’s phone you see complete meltdowns.
Whether anyone will admit it, there are a lot of women who long to be home instead of working. Some of these women are in high profile professions. Most generally, women have the desire and like to feel safe and cared for. Not controlled but safe. We have made our lives so stressful because we have to have everything and make sure we are raising entitled children.
The sad reality is that once we progress we can’t go back but we can control how we use what we know. One example is kids DON’T need cell phones. We survived without them as teens. They ABSOLUTELY don’t need access to social media. It is a fact that parents can be involved and know what their kids are doing and where they are. Kids need to know what the word NO means. That they aren’t entitled to everything they want. Punishment is acceptable. As adults we have to do it. This is possible.
I just wish for a simpler way of truly living. I do realize that it is just the “ idea “ of a “Leave it to Beaver “ and the “ Brady Bunch “ way of life. I also realize that a lot of that wasn’t real. But some of it was.
View 23 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
Who do you think raised the "next" of kids after the kids of the '50's put away their Cowboy and Indian games for the last time and graduated from riding their bikes, "practically anywhere" to driving? It's not the years (or the decade) that created the times you remember as good, it was how people were raised and who raised them to behave a certain way.
If everything was so wonderful as you depict in your romanticized review of the 1950's why did those kids of that time grow up to ignore what they were taught when it came time to raise the next generation of kids.
It's people who prefer to act like victims instead of willing participants that has created the society you wish was different. People create and sustain... and change... societies, not the year.
If everything was so wonderful as you depict in your romanticized review of the 1950's why did those kids of that time grow up to ignore what they were taught when it came time to raise the next generation of kids.
It's people who prefer to act like victims instead of willing participants that has created the society you wish was different. People create and sustain... and change... societies, not the year.
missyann · 56-60
@LeopoldBloom If abortion rights are made illegal , it doesn’t matter how popular it is , it will be illegal and punishable with however the law is written. I don’t believe this law will require a police state anymore than any other. There are some things that can’t be answered until the situation arises. A police state is one of those questions for me
Since there is no constitutional right to abortion. Congress can definitely write a new law that bypasses the supreme court’s decision. But like packing the supreme ccourt can have repercussions. The law will have to be worded in a way that still recognizes and or denies some of what medical experts and technology has proven to be factual, and will allow a woman to intentionally and deliberately end a human life and that her rights exceeds the rights of an unborn life.
Rape and incest abortions are less than.05% of abortions performed. It doesn’t matter if there is only one pregnancy under these circumstances. It is still an innocent human life who has NOTHING to do with how it was conceived that is intentionally and deliberately being killed
I have said over and over that an unborn life has never had to be intentionally and deliberately killed to save a mother’s life.. preterm induction and c section should be done even if Drs know that a fetus may not survive. As far as life limiting conditions the life no matter how long it might live still deserves to be born vs being intentionally and deliberately killed by being stabbed in head or the heart and dismembering
Your silly scenario about a woman’s and man’s fertility just proves the point that contraception MUST be used if pregnancy isn’t wanted. But she is still ultimately responsible with consensual sex to say NO if neither are using contraception. This should be easy for anyone consenting to sex to understand Condoms are easy to use and get. I would say that if someone doesn’t have a dollar to go to a gas station and get a couple of condoms they should leave their pants on. I have never heard of death occurring because someone was horney. There is always masturbation
Since there is no constitutional right to abortion. Congress can definitely write a new law that bypasses the supreme court’s decision. But like packing the supreme ccourt can have repercussions. The law will have to be worded in a way that still recognizes and or denies some of what medical experts and technology has proven to be factual, and will allow a woman to intentionally and deliberately end a human life and that her rights exceeds the rights of an unborn life.
Rape and incest abortions are less than.05% of abortions performed. It doesn’t matter if there is only one pregnancy under these circumstances. It is still an innocent human life who has NOTHING to do with how it was conceived that is intentionally and deliberately being killed
I have said over and over that an unborn life has never had to be intentionally and deliberately killed to save a mother’s life.. preterm induction and c section should be done even if Drs know that a fetus may not survive. As far as life limiting conditions the life no matter how long it might live still deserves to be born vs being intentionally and deliberately killed by being stabbed in head or the heart and dismembering
Your silly scenario about a woman’s and man’s fertility just proves the point that contraception MUST be used if pregnancy isn’t wanted. But she is still ultimately responsible with consensual sex to say NO if neither are using contraception. This should be easy for anyone consenting to sex to understand Condoms are easy to use and get. I would say that if someone doesn’t have a dollar to go to a gas station and get a couple of condoms they should leave their pants on. I have never heard of death occurring because someone was horney. There is always masturbation
sascha · F
@LeopoldBloom Pregnancy is natural, and abortion is used to end this very natural process. Giving birth is also natural, which is why the majority of women who give birth are able to survive.
Air conditioning was artificially created by men, and it requires electricity to work. A pregnancy is created by us, and all it requires is that two fertile people of the opposite sex, engage in sex.
How many women do you know who have given birth? Is it necessary for women to receive assistance in their pregnancy?
If they are experiencing a healthy pregnancy, why do you think they need to give birth in hospital?
I gave birth without *any* pain medications, and all the midwife did was cut the cord. Giving birth is very easy, and very natural. Complications that will end a woman's life are rare.
14 year olds consent to sex all the time, when they are having sex with someone around their age, or slightly older. If they are having sex with an individual who is their age, or no older than 16, they are able to consent.
There is no age that justifies abortion.
You asked me the "warfare" question in our previous interaction, and I told you that we should avoid ending the life of another person. If you are being attacked, you should escape or subdue your attacker, but not kill them if it can be helped.
A baby, similarly to a toddler, small child, or elderly person (and others), is not capable of attacking other people, so we do not have to use self-defense against them. I anticipate that you will repeat the claim that pregnancy and giving birth can threaten a woman's life, but you must consider the following:
1. A baby, like other young children, lacks intent, and cannot cause deliberate harm.
2. It is the woman's body causing problems for the woman, and not the body of the baby.
3. You are of the view that women can, and do, receive medical care during pregnancy. This medical care makes it, according to you, more likely that she will survive pregnancy. This means that she does not have to kill the baby to be able to live, as medical care can be provided to her during pregnancy and the birth of her baby.
4. Women are not having abortions because they fear pregnancy or birth, or for medical reasons.
Women who have abortions may be seeking to maintain a status-quo in their lives. They are not, though, aborting their babies to defend or protect their bodies or health.
Why am I supposed to care about what you think of Republicans? You are arguing with a human being, not a political party or a "movement." I am a person with views on abortion, and you are responding to me in a way that strongly implies you are incapable of recognizing the unique thoughts in my head, or unique features of my heart. You should not treat people like they are caricatures you have created in your mind, and you should listen to what they say. You continually refuse to listen to what I say, which is why you insist on repeating the same points. I made it very clear that I do not live in the U.S, and do not vote in U.S elections. Why are you trying to force this Republican bashing on me? Do not say it is because "you share their view on abortion!", as that would be abysmally stupid.
Perhaps, you are not as bright as you think you are.
I support the use of contraception, so the paragraph that you have dedicated to mentioning this issue has been wasted. I think you should argue with the image you have created in your mind, instead of real people.
[quote]If the only way to stop abortion was through a dictatorship or police state, would you support that? Yes or no.[/quote]
This is an absurd question. Nonetheless, "no" would be my answer. A dictatorship or police state are not necessary to stop abortion. Women being good, kind, and strong people is the way to stop abortion. Families being good and kind is another way. The state interfering less in our lives would make a significant difference. Women can only receive legal abortions with support from the state.
Air conditioning was artificially created by men, and it requires electricity to work. A pregnancy is created by us, and all it requires is that two fertile people of the opposite sex, engage in sex.
How many women do you know who have given birth? Is it necessary for women to receive assistance in their pregnancy?
If they are experiencing a healthy pregnancy, why do you think they need to give birth in hospital?
I gave birth without *any* pain medications, and all the midwife did was cut the cord. Giving birth is very easy, and very natural. Complications that will end a woman's life are rare.
14 year olds consent to sex all the time, when they are having sex with someone around their age, or slightly older. If they are having sex with an individual who is their age, or no older than 16, they are able to consent.
There is no age that justifies abortion.
You asked me the "warfare" question in our previous interaction, and I told you that we should avoid ending the life of another person. If you are being attacked, you should escape or subdue your attacker, but not kill them if it can be helped.
A baby, similarly to a toddler, small child, or elderly person (and others), is not capable of attacking other people, so we do not have to use self-defense against them. I anticipate that you will repeat the claim that pregnancy and giving birth can threaten a woman's life, but you must consider the following:
1. A baby, like other young children, lacks intent, and cannot cause deliberate harm.
2. It is the woman's body causing problems for the woman, and not the body of the baby.
3. You are of the view that women can, and do, receive medical care during pregnancy. This medical care makes it, according to you, more likely that she will survive pregnancy. This means that she does not have to kill the baby to be able to live, as medical care can be provided to her during pregnancy and the birth of her baby.
4. Women are not having abortions because they fear pregnancy or birth, or for medical reasons.
Women who have abortions may be seeking to maintain a status-quo in their lives. They are not, though, aborting their babies to defend or protect their bodies or health.
Why am I supposed to care about what you think of Republicans? You are arguing with a human being, not a political party or a "movement." I am a person with views on abortion, and you are responding to me in a way that strongly implies you are incapable of recognizing the unique thoughts in my head, or unique features of my heart. You should not treat people like they are caricatures you have created in your mind, and you should listen to what they say. You continually refuse to listen to what I say, which is why you insist on repeating the same points. I made it very clear that I do not live in the U.S, and do not vote in U.S elections. Why are you trying to force this Republican bashing on me? Do not say it is because "you share their view on abortion!", as that would be abysmally stupid.
Perhaps, you are not as bright as you think you are.
I support the use of contraception, so the paragraph that you have dedicated to mentioning this issue has been wasted. I think you should argue with the image you have created in your mind, instead of real people.
[quote]If the only way to stop abortion was through a dictatorship or police state, would you support that? Yes or no.[/quote]
This is an absurd question. Nonetheless, "no" would be my answer. A dictatorship or police state are not necessary to stop abortion. Women being good, kind, and strong people is the way to stop abortion. Families being good and kind is another way. The state interfering less in our lives would make a significant difference. Women can only receive legal abortions with support from the state.
Depends entirely on where you live in the world.
For most Westerners, the 1950's were a post-war boomtime.
Work was easy to get; you could usually stay in the same workplace or career until retirement.
On two average salaries, a couple could rent and still save enough for a downpayment on a mortgage, and then be able to pay the mortgage and interest rates.
Credit cards didn't exist and personal loans were hard to get, so fewer people risked living beyond their means.
Yep, it was a relatively affluent time, which is why baby boomers grew up to become who we are - which includes hippies, the "new age" and a whole lot of other trends that later got absorbed into the mainstream.
I'd say most people trusted the media and democratic processes back then - perhaps naïvely - but also I suspect it was probably easier to get caught doing the wrong thing.
Vaccines, medicines and surgery began improving and every decade lengthened longevity - but only for the affluent.
But there were plenty of negatives as well.
Racism, sexism, agism, able-ism and snobbery ruled - and it's not at all certain we've achieved much improvement. At most, I'd say there's more awareness of the now - but actually getting rid of prejudice and systemic injustices still seems a long way off.
The atom bomb ushered in the Cold War. Most people grew up fearing the bomb and most countries distrusted any other country that made them.
Though scientists already knew about it, most people had no idea about greenhouse gases or that humanity was 100% responsible for the excess.
Today,
"Intelligent" Technology has created far more opportunities for hiding corrupt and criminal activities.
It encourages social mirror effects, feedback loops and cancel-culture, so that fewer people are willing to listen to and discuss differences.
Texting and Twitter seem to have reduced people's attention span. The average person now finds it hard to listen to someone else for more than 45 seconds (according to psychologists) before their mind wanders. (Back in the '50s, the average undivided attention span was 3 minutes.) So people are becoming even less skilled in communication and social intelligence. That's dangerous - it can only lead to greater suffering.
But there are also countless good things about today - new ideas, new science, new cultural trends, and some social and environmental movements that offer whispers of hope.
I'm happy being alive now. But then, I choose to nurture happiness.
I think whatever time and place one is born into always has both advantages and disadvantages.
Some are obviously far more unlucky.
For instance, I'd hate to have been born in Tibet, Yemen, Bangladesh or Samoa. I'd hate to have been born during the Black Death in Europe. And so on.
But as far as this privileged Western world goes, I think the difference between being born in the 1950's - or anytime since - doesn't really matter that much.
It will all change soon enough.
This year the global temperature seems to be showing 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. The rise since 1.5ºC warming has been so fast that I think it shows we've past the tipping point. From here on the rise will be hyperbolic.
Those who are alive now are very likely to witness catastrophic global extinctions.
And those of us who lived through the 50s are a big part of what has contributed to the causes.
For most Westerners, the 1950's were a post-war boomtime.
Work was easy to get; you could usually stay in the same workplace or career until retirement.
On two average salaries, a couple could rent and still save enough for a downpayment on a mortgage, and then be able to pay the mortgage and interest rates.
Credit cards didn't exist and personal loans were hard to get, so fewer people risked living beyond their means.
Yep, it was a relatively affluent time, which is why baby boomers grew up to become who we are - which includes hippies, the "new age" and a whole lot of other trends that later got absorbed into the mainstream.
I'd say most people trusted the media and democratic processes back then - perhaps naïvely - but also I suspect it was probably easier to get caught doing the wrong thing.
Vaccines, medicines and surgery began improving and every decade lengthened longevity - but only for the affluent.
But there were plenty of negatives as well.
Racism, sexism, agism, able-ism and snobbery ruled - and it's not at all certain we've achieved much improvement. At most, I'd say there's more awareness of the now - but actually getting rid of prejudice and systemic injustices still seems a long way off.
The atom bomb ushered in the Cold War. Most people grew up fearing the bomb and most countries distrusted any other country that made them.
Though scientists already knew about it, most people had no idea about greenhouse gases or that humanity was 100% responsible for the excess.
Today,
"Intelligent" Technology has created far more opportunities for hiding corrupt and criminal activities.
It encourages social mirror effects, feedback loops and cancel-culture, so that fewer people are willing to listen to and discuss differences.
Texting and Twitter seem to have reduced people's attention span. The average person now finds it hard to listen to someone else for more than 45 seconds (according to psychologists) before their mind wanders. (Back in the '50s, the average undivided attention span was 3 minutes.) So people are becoming even less skilled in communication and social intelligence. That's dangerous - it can only lead to greater suffering.
But there are also countless good things about today - new ideas, new science, new cultural trends, and some social and environmental movements that offer whispers of hope.
I'm happy being alive now. But then, I choose to nurture happiness.
I think whatever time and place one is born into always has both advantages and disadvantages.
Some are obviously far more unlucky.
For instance, I'd hate to have been born in Tibet, Yemen, Bangladesh or Samoa. I'd hate to have been born during the Black Death in Europe. And so on.
But as far as this privileged Western world goes, I think the difference between being born in the 1950's - or anytime since - doesn't really matter that much.
It will all change soon enough.
This year the global temperature seems to be showing 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. The rise since 1.5ºC warming has been so fast that I think it shows we've past the tipping point. From here on the rise will be hyperbolic.
Those who are alive now are very likely to witness catastrophic global extinctions.
And those of us who lived through the 50s are a big part of what has contributed to the causes.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@hartfire Great all around post which most people unfortunately will not read because, as you note, it is not within the character limit of a 45 second attention span. But you touch on one important point few ever do:
[quote]Credit cards didn't exist and personal loans were hard to get, so fewer people risked living beyond their means.[/quote]
When credit cards first came out they were difficult to get; you had to have a very good credit rating. They were envisioned as a convenience and safety net for carrying a lot of cash. But when people started maxing out their credit card debt to live beyond their means, and the banks could charge what used to be illegal usuary interest rates, they realized they were marketing it wrong, and started giving them away like peanuts.
[quote]Credit cards didn't exist and personal loans were hard to get, so fewer people risked living beyond their means.[/quote]
When credit cards first came out they were difficult to get; you had to have a very good credit rating. They were envisioned as a convenience and safety net for carrying a lot of cash. But when people started maxing out their credit card debt to live beyond their means, and the banks could charge what used to be illegal usuary interest rates, they realized they were marketing it wrong, and started giving them away like peanuts.
LeopoldBloom · M
Every era has positives and negatives. You could probably find those same features in many places in the Islamic and developing world right now. You want to emigrate to one of those countries? They'd be happy to have you.
Other features of the 1950s in the US - record high union membership and a marginal tax rate on the highest earners of over 90%. This created a strong middle class and allowed the government to build massive infrastructure projects like the highway system without running a major deficit. Everyone can cherry-pick the features they like and wax nostalgic for them. But like the Jack Burden character said in [i]All the King's Men[/i], "If it was such a God-damned fine, beautiful time, why did it turn into this time which is not so damned fine and beautiful if there wasn’t something in that time which wasn’t fine and beautiful? Answer me that one."
Other features of the 1950s in the US - record high union membership and a marginal tax rate on the highest earners of over 90%. This created a strong middle class and allowed the government to build massive infrastructure projects like the highway system without running a major deficit. Everyone can cherry-pick the features they like and wax nostalgic for them. But like the Jack Burden character said in [i]All the King's Men[/i], "If it was such a God-damned fine, beautiful time, why did it turn into this time which is not so damned fine and beautiful if there wasn’t something in that time which wasn’t fine and beautiful? Answer me that one."
@carpediem Then came the 60s.
Pretzel · 61-69, M
I was barely around for the 50s -but much of that was there in the early 60s
there were advantages and disadvantages.
stay at home moms were a thing - and they could be because one person's wage was enough for the necessities.
of course we didnt have a lot of the things we have now - but we didn't miss them because they didn't exist.
I guess any age you live in will be somebody's "good old days".
there were advantages and disadvantages.
stay at home moms were a thing - and they could be because one person's wage was enough for the necessities.
of course we didnt have a lot of the things we have now - but we didn't miss them because they didn't exist.
I guess any age you live in will be somebody's "good old days".
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@ManKing Racist much?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
There is nothing wrong for wishing for a simpler life. While we cannot go back in time and would not want to, we can simplify our lives and live by the adage "Live Simply, So Others May Simply Live". I try to live without the latest electronic gadgets and produce as much food as possible and minimize my carbon footprint. I am grateful for medical advances, and would have died in my early 40s from sepsis without modern antibiotics. I've raised chickens and dairy goats and angora rabbits, and several of my children can card and spin wool. I live in the country and my water well failed about 25 years ago. It took me a month to get a new one drilled. That month was during winter, and I had to use snow and rainwater for flushing toilets. Bathing was done in the sauna I built. It was doable. I've experimented with using only wood for heat during one winter month, and though I went through a lot of wood and it was quite a bit of work, it was also doable. All of this was done by choice (except the well) and for education. I realize societally we have made many advances, and most of those are good things, but there are always things that can be done on an individual level that simplify and, in my opinion, will improve your life.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
Other than mothers being home, you have ignored the economic differences. As another poster already commented, it was the post-war era where unionization was essentially creating an expanded middle class. Yes, there were millionaires but there was not the huge gap between the 1% and the 99% other. There was not just the GI Bill offering education and housing helping hands to veterans, but state and local governments were pouring tax money into free state colleges, new elementary and high schools, and new or improved infrastructure for the expanding population. There wasn't any major backlash of people not wanting to pay tax at all, a good portion if not most of the investment was coming from Republicans (the Interstate freeway system was from the Eisenhower administration), and none of it was called socialism/Communism. More self help, bootstrap economics rather than trickle down voodooism.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@carpediem [quote]Building infrastructure has never been considered socialism. Not sure where you got such a silly idea like that.[/quote]
Where have you been during the entire "starve the beast" anti-tax crusade that has eroded our ability to maintain our infrastructure, including the public education system, or more recently the debate over the efforts to upgrade and/or replace infrastructure?
Where have you been during the entire "starve the beast" anti-tax crusade that has eroded our ability to maintain our infrastructure, including the public education system, or more recently the debate over the efforts to upgrade and/or replace infrastructure?
Slade · 56-60, M
@dancingtongue 🤡🙄
carpediem · 61-69, M
@dancingtongue LOL. What a nut
Richard65 · M
A big impact has been the transition from analogue to the digital age. Technology has brought gigantic benefits, but also a huge societal increase in fear and anxiety through mass and social media. It's sown division and enabled the spread of hatred, abuse, violence, suspicion and disinformation, as well as pornography and overt deviancy, which has nurtured a fierce reactionary response. In effect, it's amplified the dark side of human nature tenfold and offered it a platform it's never had before in human history.
LeopoldBloom · M
@Richard65 So that would be one drawback of the digital revolution. However, there have also been many benefits.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
Define better. Rather than kids being traumatized with duck and cover drills for active shooters they were for nuclear holocaust; mothers being forced to stay home because of the misogynist views of their husbands (as my mother was although she had the college degree and marketable skill for a better paying job) or because two incomes are required because the middle class has been squeezed out of existence; law enforcement ran unchecked on the segments of the community most needing them or are being forced to going back to community-based & involved policing, but for the ENTIRE community?
4meAndyou · F
I consider the 1950's part of the "age of innocence" for white people. They were blissfully uninformed and unaware of issues with black people, for the most part.
It WAS safer back then. Law enforcement was very powerful.
Church taught many things in those days, morality for one thing...but hypocrisy for another.
Patriotism was rampant, even among black people, who, at that time, were also patriots, and aspired to assimilation and equality. Communism was hated.
It WAS safer back then. Law enforcement was very powerful.
Church taught many things in those days, morality for one thing...but hypocrisy for another.
Patriotism was rampant, even among black people, who, at that time, were also patriots, and aspired to assimilation and equality. Communism was hated.
missyann · 56-60
@4meAndyou I wholly agree and said other than the way Black people were treated. I didn’t think about one thing you said that black people were very patriotic even with the way they were treated.
Our patriotism and morality is what scared other countries, especially the patriotism that showed solidarity and strength. We are now so divided that we have open the door for other countries to attack us.
Our patriotism and morality is what scared other countries, especially the patriotism that showed solidarity and strength. We are now so divided that we have open the door for other countries to attack us.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
sunriselover · M
The fifties in England were very poor. The class system was rife.
There had been hope in the Attlee years that society would be more equal. A Health service next to none. Slum clearance.
Mains sewage did not come to my village till 1957.
Pre television for most of us. And then the stuffy BBC.
Families close together though.
Men went to work , women stayed at home doing endless housework.
There had been hope in the Attlee years that society would be more equal. A Health service next to none. Slum clearance.
Mains sewage did not come to my village till 1957.
Pre television for most of us. And then the stuffy BBC.
Families close together though.
Men went to work , women stayed at home doing endless housework.
sunriselover · M
@Flenflyys But not the postwar austerity of the UK and its rationing. We were bankrupt.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Flenflyys then you have not met enough that are either willing to talk about it, or are already losing their memories.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
Convivial · 26-30, F
@LeopoldBloom agree totally... I'm not condoning them, just explaining them
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
@PatKirby So how did it come to be run by a Portuguese immigrant living in Ireland?
This message was deleted by its author.
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
@PatKirby What on earth are you babbling on about?
windinhishair · 61-69, M
We tend to look at the bright side of the past and not the bad parts. If you were a white male in the 1950s, life was great. If you were a woman or non-white, not so much. Everyone who lived in the US at that time has radionuclides in their bodies from atmospheric nuclear bomb testing. Automobile deaths were much higher per capita due to poor safety designs. We don’t realize sometimes how many things have improved with technology.
LeopoldBloom · M
@missyann In the 1950s, women couldn't open bank accounts without their husband's permission. It wasn't just Black people being oppressed.
The country was "stronger" because we had no international competition. Europe and the USSR were in a shambles, and China was still undeveloped. The US was the last man standing after World War Two. This had nothing to do with any inherent virtue the country had. Our infrastructure and manufacturing base was intact because we were protected from the rest of the world by oceans on two sides, and friendly countries on the other two sides.
The country was "stronger" because we had no international competition. Europe and the USSR were in a shambles, and China was still undeveloped. The US was the last man standing after World War Two. This had nothing to do with any inherent virtue the country had. Our infrastructure and manufacturing base was intact because we were protected from the rest of the world by oceans on two sides, and friendly countries on the other two sides.
plankter979 · 51-55, M
if you were a straight white man into big American cars and apartheid, sure!
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
Aside from slavery and subsequent inequality of rights, which you seem to think was not really a big deal? Are you suggesting that the "place" for a women is to be at home, that she has no right to have a career? What if her partner cannot earn enough to support the family and she needs to work?
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@missyann I reiterate that you are welcome to your opinion, but, i suggest that before you make such statements, look at the literature, and the data. Many people seem to have this mythical love of the 1950s and 1960s. By the way, go back and re-read your original post, the title is was: [b][u]Were things better in the [b]50s[/b][/u][/b], I put the emphasis on the 50s. To compare the cost of living I did a google search:
"The cost of a house in the 1950s was about $15,000, compared to $200,000 today. The younger family paid $3,500 in down payment and $125 a month. On the other hand, [b]the average household income was $3,300.00[/b], which was $200 up in 1949.Jul 14, 2020" The emphasis on household income was my addition.
another comparison"
"Did Americans have a higher standard of living in the 1950s than current 2020s?
Discussion
lol as strange as it sounds, I have seen countless leftists and neo-nazis say the exact same thing so I am confused.
I do think there was the post-WW2 economic boom but, bloody hell- you were also facing nuclear war with the USSR. Do not even forget the huge sexism, racism, and homophobia...
Ex. leftists will say there was no healthcare debt in 1950s. Ok but, that was because the healthcare was so garbage no? If you had a heart attack in 1950s, you would basically just get a bed and most likely just die. Now in 2020, there are numerous healthcare breakthroughs so you get costly drugs and expensive tests done. Life expectancy is still much higher now than in 1950s especially with things like ACA. https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/jan/20/was-early-1960s-golden-age-health-care/
Likewise, people in 2020 have bigger and better homes (like AC), more safer cars, etc
People in 2020 are working so much less and have much more paid time off than in the 1950s and they have much more food, electronics, and resources.
https://www.dallasfed.org/fed/~/media/documents/fed/annual/1999/ar93.pdf"
other websites that looks at this:
https://thinkbiglivetiny.wixsite.com/thinkbiglivetiny/single-post/2016/09/14/cost-of-living-1950s-vs-now
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-americans-better-off-than-they-were-a-decade-or-two-ago/
"The cost of a house in the 1950s was about $15,000, compared to $200,000 today. The younger family paid $3,500 in down payment and $125 a month. On the other hand, [b]the average household income was $3,300.00[/b], which was $200 up in 1949.Jul 14, 2020" The emphasis on household income was my addition.
another comparison"
"Did Americans have a higher standard of living in the 1950s than current 2020s?
Discussion
lol as strange as it sounds, I have seen countless leftists and neo-nazis say the exact same thing so I am confused.
I do think there was the post-WW2 economic boom but, bloody hell- you were also facing nuclear war with the USSR. Do not even forget the huge sexism, racism, and homophobia...
Ex. leftists will say there was no healthcare debt in 1950s. Ok but, that was because the healthcare was so garbage no? If you had a heart attack in 1950s, you would basically just get a bed and most likely just die. Now in 2020, there are numerous healthcare breakthroughs so you get costly drugs and expensive tests done. Life expectancy is still much higher now than in 1950s especially with things like ACA. https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/jan/20/was-early-1960s-golden-age-health-care/
Likewise, people in 2020 have bigger and better homes (like AC), more safer cars, etc
People in 2020 are working so much less and have much more paid time off than in the 1950s and they have much more food, electronics, and resources.
https://www.dallasfed.org/fed/~/media/documents/fed/annual/1999/ar93.pdf"
other websites that looks at this:
https://thinkbiglivetiny.wixsite.com/thinkbiglivetiny/single-post/2016/09/14/cost-of-living-1950s-vs-now
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-americans-better-off-than-they-were-a-decade-or-two-ago/
missyann · 56-60
@samueltyler2 My original post is about FAMILY life being better. Even those who were considered poor had a strong connection. I grew up in a small mid western town with a lot of farm. They gave more than anyone to help. Those don’t exist anymore because of government takeover.
Yes, the advances in medicine a
we’ve made are priceless. But technology in just about everything else is destroying the family, labor’jobs. No one can afford to go to college and there are not enough jobs for them who graduate
Technology is great. I think keeping it out of the hands of family homes especially kids wouldn’t have had negative effects that it has had.
Listen to the song “ in the year 2525 “ Zager & Evan. You tell me these guys were ahead of their times, and didn’t see some thing. This is all beginning to happen. We won’t make it to the year 25,25.
Yes, the advances in medicine a
we’ve made are priceless. But technology in just about everything else is destroying the family, labor’jobs. No one can afford to go to college and there are not enough jobs for them who graduate
Technology is great. I think keeping it out of the hands of family homes especially kids wouldn’t have had negative effects that it has had.
Listen to the song “ in the year 2525 “ Zager & Evan. You tell me these guys were ahead of their times, and didn’t see some thing. This is all beginning to happen. We won’t make it to the year 25,25.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@missyann You can't have one thing without the other. Look at what I posted comparing standard of living corrected for family and year. What I do miss, is that in the 1950s women who worked tended to teach. Many had graduate degrees and taught so they were home when their children returned from school.. I think the average education level of those women is far greater than those now teaching, i remember only one poor teacher of all of those i had. The downside of fem-lib was not the break up of families, it was lowering of the background of the teachers. Many of the advances in medicine were made by women, who, if you had it your way, would have been stuck at home baking brownies!
NoGamesTolerated · F
Briggett · T
missyann · 56-60
@LeopoldBloom What is so wrong with desiring the simpler life. I do understand the difference between reality and fiction.
I realize that people would have a total meltdown if their social media and technology was taken away and that there is the high possibility there is going to be a breakdown and we are going to be able to survive without it. I wonder how many will know how to live without it
I realize that people would have a total meltdown if their social media and technology was taken away and that there is the high possibility there is going to be a breakdown and we are going to be able to survive without it. I wonder how many will know how to live without it
LeopoldBloom · M
@missyann There's nothing wrong with desiring a simpler life, and there's nothing stopping you from ditching your phone and social media if you want. But you can't cherry-pick the aspects of the past you like and get society to adopt them. And if there is a societal breakdown, the lack of social media will be the least of our problems. People will be too busy just surviving to worry about that.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Of course things were better. We did nothing like commit WWII, in recent generations and the country turned against the military in the sixties, because they were educated and fed and housed. Never again! The USA will never be that free again. Work for less and die younger.
Jeephikelove · 46-50, F
Northwest · M
It was peachy times for white, Christian families, whose kids played the cowboy part of cowboys and Indians. The ultra rich were in the 90% tax bracket.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
deadgerbil · 22-25
You would have to be very nostalgic for the 1950s to be better
Literally no law enforcement accountability for starters. All well and good until you're the one getting beat up by them with no legal recourse afterwards
Literally no law enforcement accountability for starters. All well and good until you're the one getting beat up by them with no legal recourse afterwards
Sojournersoul · M
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
JovialMoose · 46-50, M
Nope
OliRos · 18-21, F
🤔 No.
Some things were better, some were worse
Abstract painting was in its prime
Bebop was in its prime
The US right wing was not trying to bullshit us into believing high taxes on the wealthy would cripple the economy
On the other hand US Christians suddenly felt the need to stamp "God" on US currency and on the Pledge of Allegiance, when these things had been functioning just fine forever without such theocratic meddling and propaganda
Abstract painting was in its prime
Bebop was in its prime
The US right wing was not trying to bullshit us into believing high taxes on the wealthy would cripple the economy
On the other hand US Christians suddenly felt the need to stamp "God" on US currency and on the Pledge of Allegiance, when these things had been functioning just fine forever without such theocratic meddling and propaganda
LordShadowfire · M
That's all fine and good if you happen to be a Christian, but what about the thousands of other religions out there? We are all expected to understand when businesses are closed on Sundays. We're all expected to understand when you sit there and force women to go through the pain and agony of childbirth. And don't get me started on forced nationalism.
Literally the only thing that was better in the '50s was when kids could pretty much play anywhere in safety.
Literally the only thing that was better in the '50s was when kids could pretty much play anywhere in safety.
missyann · 56-60
@LordShadowfire PLEASE don’t get starred on your forced nationalism
Your pain and agony of childbirth is bad enough.. For someone who has never given birth you seem quite knowledgeable about the
Your pain and agony of childbirth is bad enough.. For someone who has never given birth you seem quite knowledgeable about the
LeopoldBloom · M
@NativePortlander1970 It started a lot earlier with Reagan's systematic destruction of the middle class in the 1980s. A book by one person didn't have the effect you think it did.
@LeopoldBloom How about we compare primetime tv from 1985 to the 21st century. You assume you're smart, try and figure it out, entertainment has always been the pulse of modern culture.
[media=https://youtu.be/f2_OOt9AlEU]
[media=https://youtu.be/SpD9Wz2txi8]
[media=https://youtu.be/f2_OOt9AlEU]
[media=https://youtu.be/SpD9Wz2txi8]
LeopoldBloom · M
@NativePortlander1970 It doesn't really make sense to compare "prime time TV" in the past to today, when most people are watching streamed entertainment.
So what's your point? Does popular entertainment shape culture, or merely reflect it?
So what's your point? Does popular entertainment shape culture, or merely reflect it?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
missyann · 56-60
@jshm2 Wow, what is the abuse any worse than it is today ? Women aren’t happier just because they can go out and work.. kids disappear today and are abused.. are you trying to tell me that children aren’t being molested today?
Women have been voting since 1920 in the United States. White supremacist cops, men abusing their wives. You are using the marginal cases and putting everybody in the same category. And it isn’t true. I
I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that there were more violent gangs in the 50s. . violent gangs and drug dealers are worse now than all of history. Drugs are more prevalent and harder drugs..
I don’t understand why church and religion is such an issue today but if people really did go to church to avoid people talking about them. They chose to do that. It doesn’t sound like anybody held a gun to anybody’s head.. maybe if more people went to church today and believed in God, we wouldn’t have the problems we have especially the hate
Maybe if we had prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in school and more mother stayed home with their kids. We might just have happier kids..
Why can’t all peaceful religions have prayer in school?? oh, and if a kid doesn’t want to be in the classroom they don’t have to they can step out in the hall. Maybe kids would be interested to learn about other religions. Her kids would be interested to learn about other religions . Why do you think more parents have chosen to send their kids to private schools? Charter schools parochial schools ? And homeschool their kids Even parents who aren’t the religion of parochial schools they still want their kids to have a school that teaches standards and respect . They pay a lot of money for tuition or get in the lottery for their kids to be chosen. This says a lot about some parents today.
Women have been voting since 1920 in the United States. White supremacist cops, men abusing their wives. You are using the marginal cases and putting everybody in the same category. And it isn’t true. I
I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that there were more violent gangs in the 50s. . violent gangs and drug dealers are worse now than all of history. Drugs are more prevalent and harder drugs..
I don’t understand why church and religion is such an issue today but if people really did go to church to avoid people talking about them. They chose to do that. It doesn’t sound like anybody held a gun to anybody’s head.. maybe if more people went to church today and believed in God, we wouldn’t have the problems we have especially the hate
Maybe if we had prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in school and more mother stayed home with their kids. We might just have happier kids..
Why can’t all peaceful religions have prayer in school?? oh, and if a kid doesn’t want to be in the classroom they don’t have to they can step out in the hall. Maybe kids would be interested to learn about other religions. Her kids would be interested to learn about other religions . Why do you think more parents have chosen to send their kids to private schools? Charter schools parochial schools ? And homeschool their kids Even parents who aren’t the religion of parochial schools they still want their kids to have a school that teaches standards and respect . They pay a lot of money for tuition or get in the lottery for their kids to be chosen. This says a lot about some parents today.