Well, lemme talk about the kids for a minute.
In the 1950s, more kids were honest with their parents, and whenever their parents found out, they were harsher on punishment with those kids, and those kids are now baby boomers who learn respect for everyone and everything.
Today it is a living hell for parents because kids have a greater chance of sneaking and keeping secrets and because the parents are hardly harsh on them when it comes to punishment that gives them more of a right to be disrespectful and they will eventually come to their twenties self-absorbed, selfish douchebags who refuse to know about life until they are in their late 20s or early 30s.
So, the 1950s were better when it came to parents because the kids who grew up in the 50s now have respect for other people, and have HAD respect for them while they were living in the household, and became mature people at 19 or 20.
Now they mature at 25 or 30.
So... yea the 50s were better. For parents and kids alike.
Damn true
I would sooo be down with being a houseband. If she doesn't mind making the money, then I'll be happy to cook and clean the place, and eventually take care of the kids. Breastfeeding will probably be tricky at first, but I'll get it eventually.
Bobby socks and starched aprons and those long lady like dresses, nicker pants and boys being boys who were men. Everyone loved one another
Donna Reed and Alex.
Tradition it is.
I want that with a modern twist. My husband stays home, and I am the breadwinner
they can make baby food and get formula for the 🍼
the husbands
Opinion
37Opinion
Generally good. Not perfect, as nothing ever is. However, marriages tended to be more stable, divorce and illegitimacy rates were far lower, and such stability conduced to higher graduation rates from high school and higher long term employment prospects.
Although it later came to be seen as constraining on women, this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. This was the aftermath of World War II. Women had been forced to work in the factories as men were conscripted into the armed forces.
Returning to hearth and home and children, far from being seen as constricting and onerous was seen, in the context of the times, as liberating. Being able to get back to what had seemed a more normal life was a relief, not a problem.
Further, this was the time when a college education - for both men and women - started to come within reach. The cry from men coming home with the memory of two world wars and the Great Depression in the rear view mirror raised the cry of, "My kids will never have to go through what I went through."
So the GI Bill was passed - and then expanded after the scare of the Korean War (1950 to 1953) - and a college education became achievable to middle class families that would not have dreamed of it before. (Of course, when the kids of these families began to run riot on the campuses in the 60s, there parents were horrified and the Generation Gap was born.)
Bottom line, the 1950s have to be judged not by our standards, but from the perspective of the war and poverty that came before them. By that standard, the domestic stability and conformity of the times was considered a merciful blessing,
The jibe against Eisenhower was that all he delivered was peace and prosperity and that was boring. How often do we now wish we were so bored?
It was horrible for some people. Men felt like they toiled but were disconnected from their families, women worked or didn't work based on their economic status. Many women who stayed home felt captive. Many women who worked felt underappreciated and underpaid.
good in some ways bad in others. really depends on who you are asking and their own personal opinions and desires for family life
Really not a fan of the whole traditionalism streak that's been having recently. Mostly because people are creating a revisionist image of that time period in their heads, not actually actually understanding the implications. Not to mention it's incredibly impractical in the modern day, there's no way you're average family could survive where I live on one salary. My general concerns around this organisation go as follows:
Economic dependency places women in really desperate situations if divorce does occur, especially if there's a removal of the 50/50 split in assets within settlements (why I say this is because generally the people arguing for traditional marriage also advocate for this), but women will ultimately get put in a worse position, without a job or experience and shafted with the large majority of parental responsibility. This can render women effectively destitute. This was a real issue during the 50s, divorce was so uncommon because of the repercussions for women, individuals would not separate from their cheating, abusive and incapable partners out of fear. I'm also pragmatic about human beings. In this situation, it requires a man to realistically be perfect, never have issues that could jeopardise his family, and a woman is completely at mercy of her husband, so if he is not a nice person it could make it impossible for her to get out of the situation. Not to mention the incredibly sexist attitudes towards women at the time, and the prevalence of valium as a means to sooth women's troubles in the home.
I also personally don't really want that life. I need intellectual stimulation and to learn in an academic environment, being a housewife would effectively put my life at a complete standstill.
Well, statistically speaking, women are happier in traditional roles and where happier in the 50s then currently. Divorce is almost always initiated by women and even historically women could and did divorce and they would by law receive alimony for life or until they remarried. So that was never an issue. Further more women still to this day do almost all the spending (80% of all domestic spending is done by women) so clearly they still are economically dependent on men (who produce more then half of the income generated domestically). They where absolutely legally allowed to divorce if their was cheating or abuse
(though honestly men where far more likely to be abused then women, statistically 70% of all non reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women against men and women are statistically more likely to be emotionally abusive and manipulative (again, statistically speaking). But unlike women men where not allowed to be victims (they would be publically humiliated, while if he abused her he would be publicly flogged (the last occurrence of this was in 1950s actually)). So in fact what your saying is a revisionist history (and a rather sexist one, considering that men where not violent abusers (this was a rare thing) and technically women had more rights then men (and still technically do). As for the sexist attitudes, well it wasn't sexist, it was just an acknoweldgement of our differences, in fact again, women where far happier then they are now.
If you don't want that life that's fine, but suggesting that men as a whole where violent and sexist (itself sexist. plus completely ignores the fact that those men where raised by women and generally educated by women (women where predominantly teachers as far back as the civil war (which has not changed today) then why did these women teach their sons to hate women, and why did these women choose to mate with and take husbands who hated women? That's not a very logical thing to do.) is just incorrect and not backed by historical documentation, statistical data, historical laws, or common sense.
@hellionthesagereborn I don’t hate men or anything but I am being pragmatic. You’ve got to be more critical of the facts that are given to you. I happen to think the happiness bar has a lot to do with the fact that women have to make a choice between kids or career whilst they’re generally young and inexperienced, in the 50s it was just an accepted role so they couldn’t worry whether or not they were being a bad mother or bad employee. This is a psychological phenomenon where the existence of choice creates a lot of pressure and neuroses. Men never and still don’t have to choose between the two, which could contribute towards their stagnant happiness levels. The though has already almost driven me crazy
@hellionthesagereborn divorce is a pretty hairy subject honestly, but just because it exists doesn’t make it a bad thing. I for one would rather have a world where people were allowed to be with someone they liked rather than someone who they were just with for social pressure. Not to mention cheating on the part of men was pretty widespread and not really dealt with, so I can't say that’s a good thing.
@hellionthesagereborn remarriage was also generally off the table, so I can’t say I’d still want to be in a position like that even if I was receiving payments. Not to mention if my partner became ill or died. The abuse thing I cannot back up nor can I argue because the evidence varies considerably and men are less likely to seek help so I don’t know. With the spending thing, women do more than twice the amount of house work a week than men even when both parties are still working full time, it makes sense that they also have a greater tendency towards buying groceries, stuff for the house, paying bills or items for the children. Sure it might be a sharing of both incomes but it’s also going towards a shared outcome
@hellionthesagereborn that logic is incredibly flawed, “if women taught men, how could they be sexist” this really ignores the way women were seen and treated within the environment of the time. Of course they didn’t tell anyone that they hated women, but there was a sentiment that women were lesser, completely at the service of men and had no value outside of the home, not to mention a leeway to abuse women if they didn’t “obey” to their commands. This you cannot ignore happened, my parents confirmed it, historians confirmed it and hell, watch mad men to confirm it. There’s a reason why feminist literature (I’m talking mostly first wave and early second here) compared the treatment of women to a man’s “favourite slave”. They were kind of just at the mercy of the man they were with. Luckily most were probably rather normal people but you cannot deny the outlook of the time would have ingrained itself into the minds of men and women and really effected the quality of life.
Not at all. Women always had the choice to work, most choose even today to be at home. In fact nations with the greatest equality between the genders have the greatest differences in career choices, differences in work ethic etc. Women generally choose to be at home with their children, that's why men out earn women, because women choose to cut hours and to take jobs that will hinder them the least when it comes to raising their children. Further more why would you even want a career? Honestly, why would you choose to work? You make it sound like this is a desirable thing but why? Most people will never have a career, they will have jobs, most people don't want to be stuck in an office 80 hours a week, they want to be home with their family. So why would you say you want a career over being their for your children? That seems like an odd desire to have, one that you simply have assumed you want without actually thinking about it.
So again this choice always existed its just that no one demanded that women sacrifice their families to work shitty jobs before, they where not told that being a stay at home mother was a terrible thing and that they should feel bad for doing that (and yes, this is the normal response to women who are stay at home mothers). But again, the unhappiness goes across every border we have whether its working women or not working women yet women who are traditional report higher levels of happiness.
I also don't think I ever accused you of hating men, I said your revising history as all data shows what your saying is not true and that it was rather sexist to presume the absolute worse in men and that for some reason that cannot be explained men where violent and abusive towards women historically yet suddenly for no particular reason they have changed. That's all I was saying, not that you hated men but you definitely discriminate against them.
As for men's choice, that's really quite messed up that you would make that claim. Sure, men don't have to choose between work and family, because they don't get a choice. No women will ever be with a man who doesn't work. Its incredibly rare, most women don't bother with a man who doesn't make more money then them so your saying they don't have to choose is misleading because it implies that their is no pressure on them when in fact their is considerably more pressure, women can stay at home or they can work, men don't get that option, we have to work or no woman will want us, we have to work more then her and earn more then her or she will not give us the time of day. That's really sexist to presume that only women have to deal with social pressure, what did you think we get a free pass? If anything women have been given far more leeway then men.
I mean look at your response, everything is some one elses fault, its not that women demanded to be able to do what men did (and they where never really prevented from doing so to be honest) then they realized they didn't like it, its that some how its men's fault. It was men's fault for "oppressing" women by encouraging them to be home with their children, now women can do what ever they feel like and make any choice they want, something of which men cannot do, and now men are still some how "oppressing" them because now women have TOO many choices. Make up your mind. Remarriage occurred all the time, yes their was always gossip, but then their always will be so your arguing that because some people might disapprove it was a horrible thing that never happened which is absurd. Further more marriage has absolutely nothing to do with your partner, it has nothing to do with love. What it has to do with is a child right to a stable family, its for children not the parents.
As for the claims of cheating, that's incorrect. Cheating was frowned upon, quite a bit. Philanderers, womanizer, playboys these where all derogatory words for men who cheated and slept around. It was not wide spread at all, in fact cheating has actually become more common not less. Also as it pertains to cheating their where seduction laws, that is laws that prevented women from being held accountable for cheating on their husbands. If a man had sex with a woman all she had to do is claim that she thought he would marry her and he would be sent to prison, if she was a cheating spouse all the husband could do is sue HIM for the lost wages for the duration of time he was providing for her while she was unfaithful. For women, she could divorce and it was considered a reasonable response to an unfaithful husband (because men are never victims and women always victims as such she will always be viewed sympathetically he will never be viewed sympathetically).
As for the work claim, sure women do more house work, but why? Because men do more paid work. In fact statistically men work more then women, not by much but it is more, yet for some strange reason we keep making this claim that women where and are some how working more. That is utter nonsense, men work just like women do they simply do different jobs. Also men are more likely to be the bread winner and that requires them to take on more dangerous jobs or more inconvient jobs then women which pay more which is necessary because they are the ones who have to pay for everything (something which women always like to ignore). As for your claim of flawed logic, no its not. Women raised their children, why did women raise their sons to hate women? WHy? Why did women raise their sons to view themselves as inferior to them? That's a really important question. The answer is they didn't. You say they looked at women as inferior? How? Give an example, you should be able to do that much.
When the titanic sank it took with it 1358 men and a whopping 100 women, why? Because men where expected to sacrifice themselves to ensure the survival of women. This is an unarguable fact. Women where always treated better then men period. Again, their is no example to the contrary. If a woman incurred debt who had to pay it? Her husband. IF it was not payed who went to prison? Her husband. No one thought women where less, if that was the case then why where men forced to do all the hard jobs? Why where men forcibly conscripted into posses, bucket brigades, and the military against their will? Why where men expected to work non stop then give everything they have over to their families?(pensions for instance, can only be cashed out with the wifes permission even though its the mans money. This is because it was never meant for him, it was meant for her so she would be taken care of after he dropped dead.).
Again you have to just really think the absolute worse of men to believe that the vast majority of men where just the shittiest human beings that a person could be, and really think to highly of women to think they where always the victim no exceptions. The fact is we know that's not how the world works, I gave you the statistics, they are correct and from reliable sources. Here are some others:
www.mercatornet.com/.../12834
www.kstatecollegian.com/.../
www.asanet.org/.../Feb13ASRFeature.pdf
Statistically speaking every one was significantly happier in the 50s then they are now so I would say it was a better time. Men worked which made them feel useful, women got to stay home and nurture their children, which made them happy (statistically women are far more likely to quite working or reduce hours once they start having kids), children had a parent that was around at all times which made them happier (studies have suggested that pushing your child off on a babysitter causes abandonment issues (which makes sense) which can negatively impact their development). So over all it seems traditional roles and the traditional family is superior for every one (which is exactly why its traditional, every one got exactly what they needed).
I would love to stay home with my future children for a while, at least until the kids were in school, if not until they didn't need adult supervision. I think it's great that women can choose that today but it's too bad it's looked down upon. It's precious time with your children and no one is going to look after them as well as their mom can.
It’s not good or bad if a couple agrees to that sort of thing. But for me, I’d rather be the breadwinner simply because I only trust myself when it comes to budgeting and finance. Although I’d rather be with someone who has a career because it shows ambition. Overall, I just want to bring in the most money and manage it. I wanna teach my daughters not to RELY on anyone especially a man.
Because men who are traditional tend to expect sex way more than they should. And I don’t believe in being a sex slave. is But all the other crap can be split evenly between him and I and the kids because kids should have house chores as well. I don’t respect men who expect women to cook and never bother to reciprocate at all. I can understand if my SO has zero talent for it, but he at least needs to try sometimes. I’m teaching both future sons and daughters how to cook for themselves. So that me, the dad, and the kids can rotate in the kitchen. That’s what a real family does to me.
Is this how you grew up?
Just curious.
Being a sex object is regardless of marriage or relationships.
Would you prefer a stay at home husband,
most guys would just hand their wives their paycheck cause that's one less thing to deal with.
Both parents working has been proven to result in more divorces, and create delinquent children
If you can't trust anybody but yourself your in for a hard life ahead
@anon4us I understand that being a sex object is inevitable in life, but that can be avoided if you marry wisely. No I don’t want a stay at home dad. I want a man with a career that doesn’t involve being a couch potato. He is feee to handle his own money. I’m not trying to take anyone’s money. I’d be using my own and if I need help I will ask my husband for it. I don’t care what statistics say. Both parents need to be making some kind of living. And I would make sure that my kids would never feel neglected because I would never put my job over their happiness which is where many marriages go wrong. I’m fine with being broke if it means that my kids are smiling.
There are all kinds of people with their own stories. I pointed those things out cause of how coldly you were early on. And not all stay at home husbands are couch potatoes many of them take over as the caterer of the domestic chores. So my question to you would be, if you both had the same salary who would you prefer to sacrifice more for the family raising?
OK, u say this in one sentence: "I want to teach my daughters not to have to rely on the finances of men..." Then this in the next sentence: "I want to marry a man with a career. A good paying career that took years of climbing the corporate ladder to achieve. ... it shows ambition...
It's this kind of internal confusion that shall keep the feminist movements about as underground as your average racial supremist movements. I mean, 30% of Americans identified with feminism, yet feminist movements are still militant and underground movements.
Having a career doesn’t mean being a CEO of some Fortune 500 company that’s gone international. Having a career means doing something you love that provides a steady income. I don't know what kind of goals he has has as long as he has goals. That’s what matters. Drive matters. Who said anything about corporate ladders? And I don't know where you got feminism from but whatever. And what I said was that I don’t want them to rely on anyone especially a man. Idgaf if it’s a woman. They need not to be depending on anyone else when it comes to money.
What is you husband had a construction job working 68 hours a week (5×12hours +an 8 hour shift on Saturday making 35$/ hour + overtime) But comes home and sleeps cause he drives 3-6 hours a day to job sites on top of the long days and only wished for a nice wife to take care of the money kids and house and cook?
I only ask because how can they take care of kids/cook when all you do is work gone 15-18 hours a day how could you expect them to pick up their part of the chores or household duties.
I've met quite a few men that their wife left them cause they worked too much to provide for their family and the wife cheated and they went into a severe depression many going to drugs or alcohol loosing 100k$ jobs and everything overnight homeless.
You’re scenario implies that my husband and I are gonna be gone ALL DAY EVERYDAY with zero down time. Which is false. Those people you’re describing never found a balance. Working like that would probably mean I want some big house with eleven children. That’s false 😂 having steady income doesn’t mean being a workaholic. But people get those things mixed up. And that’s why they fail.
I don’t plan on having kids till I’m good and ready.
And there are places where I’ve been to where cost of living isn’t that high. “Reality” is a game. Everyone doubted me when I moved to Florida for college because it was so pricy and I had very little money going in. But I’m actually proving them wrong because my money is straight now and I don’t owe a dime. My career is slowly kicking off already. I know there will be hardships and that I will eventually lose something. But I already know how to play with shitty cards.
At least marriages did last longer.
WE SHOULD accept that men and women are not the same. They have differences, they need different things, they can do different things better and so on. It's wrong to treat them in the same way.
For instance, assume you have an airplane and a Ferrari. Is it right to use the airplane fuel for your Ferrari just because you want to do justice, to treat equally!!! or assume you have a 14 year-old boy and a 6 year-old girl, is it rational to assign them equal duties or give them the same amount of food?
No, sometimes justice is done when you distinguish between things and people. Imam Ali says: justice is done when you put every things in its position and give every body his/her rights.
Said all above, women and men are equal, they worth equally, but they are different.
it was great but the only problem was that some women didn't get to choose ( some women did work ) if she wanted to do housework or not.
if a woman enjoys being a housewife and doing housework then good for her! and if a woman doesn't then also good for her. the important thing is to have a choice , but i dont think its right to shame women who do choose to stay at home and be traditional.
however today most people have to work to survive and make their own money and i personally want to go down that route. but if a woman feels like she belongs more at home and her husband can provide (or even the vice versa) then go for it. its just that times have changed and therefore people have changed with it too.
In the 1950s, there were traditional nuclear families where the male was the sole provider and female tended to the house and reared the children. At this time in history, divorce was a huge stigma and LGBTQ or mixed race relationships were unfathomable and could lead to being shunned from society. The men were often so stressed out from being the sole provider that many turned their anger onto their dependents (their wife and children) and often beat them into submission, and this was considered socially acceptable. There were no options for battered women, and since they often did not work, they had no resources to run from their abusers.
I would never want to live in the past. I’m very grateful for my independence and am proud of my biracial family.
Lgbq does not reproduce to sustain an economy.
In Canada
Spousal abuse still happens in Muslim house holds which ironically are becoming more numerous. And they almost got a law to pass polygamy as legal and in state pedophilia is soon to become legal. Shit is getting worse every year. Teens are starting sex at 12 now. I would prefer the cons of the 50s over today
Interesting perspective.
I saw someone say this before and as a fellow biracial person I think I gotta agree. They said the "biracial agenda" was to see the world get to a point where everyone was so mixed that race didn't matter, just your culture. And yeah, I gotta agree. I am 100% okay living in a world where there are no more "pure white people". In a world like that, I don't think racism would be an issue anymore - everyone is mixed so everyone is part of multiple backgrounds and cultures. It'd promote the joining of similarities between each other rather than segregation by differences, since we'd find more in common with each other than uncommon. As for the LGBT thing, our world is overpopulated. Our foster care systems are complete and utter shit. If anything, legalizing gay marriage and allowing gay couples basic rights will help society, not harm it
No. Domestic violence was and always has been looked down upon, your claim that their was significant violence towards women and children is not backed by data. Currently men are actually more likely to be victims of domestic violence then women, with 70% of all non reciprocal (one victim one perpetrator) violence being perpetrated by the woman against the man. For reciprocal its 50/50. Statistically women are also more likely to be emotionally abusive and are more likely to use controlling behavior. Men have always defended women, in fact men where expected to fight on a womans behalf even if all the person did was insult her, he was still expected to fight for her and endanger himself. Their is a reason why in every story for as far back as we can find the evil man is generally shown to be evil by how badly he treats women and the hero is shown how well he treats women. In fact men where publically flogged for abusing women, however men who where abused where publicaly shamed.
"I'm only against lgbq cause I don't want the world to be over run by Muslim extremists"
That is so stupid and made no sense, the Muslims hate the LGBTQ.
Lgbtq doesn't reproduce so it leaves a deficit in the lack of a next generation that the gov has to fill by importing more people the Muslims are among the only society expanding ever faster in first nation coy tries like Canada and have lots of kids that one day will over run all the politics and sharia law will become accepted when that happens the defined idea of individual countries will faze out until only the nationalist remain like Japan Germany and Russia
The 1950's were probably good if your family was good and horrific if you had an abusive alcoholic husband in the house. It wasn't bad because the abuse was the norm, but because it was easier for it to fall through the cracks because the woman didn't really have much of a recourse.
Although, I hear this question a lot phrased as a culture question or a personal choice question. The reason both parents generally work now is because most households NEED both parents to work. So it became normal for women to work, because of the expanding working class, and this is one case of a trend moving from the working class, to the better educated middle class, kind of helping to catalyze second wave feminism in the 60's. Both parents work now for economic reasons, not cultural ones; however, the culture did adapt to these new economic conditions.
From what timeframe are we looking at it?
In the 1950s it was feasible.
Now it is simply quite unrealistic to pull off since most households depend on two incomes to sustain their lifestyle.
Whether it's good or not just really depends on the individual.
It becomes more sexist when either are forced in those gender roles. When it's with consent of both, I honestly don't see the problem with either traditional gender roles or the current family dynamic with both working.
Personally, I'll go for both parents working. But since I'm Dutch there is always the realistic possibility of either having a part-time job.
What's important is that there is not one "right" type of family. If you want a traditional family life, that's great. Do that. But if someone chooses a different type of family model, that should be fine too.
People need to stop dictating other people's private matters.
No one is forcing any one to live a certain way, that's illegal. However claiming their is no "right" type of family is misleading. It is true you can have any kind of family structure you want, but the outcomes are not going to be the same and that's absurd to presume that. We know that from multiple studies that the traditional family fairs better, women and men are happier children are better off etc. This is undeniable so while you can do what you want, if you want a strong family where every one is happy (relatively speaking) healthy and doing well, then the best route to that is a traditional family. Their is a reason why its traditional and why it exists in almost every culture in the world, because it works.
www.latimes.com/.../...ucture-20151027-column.html
www.sciencedirect.com/.../S0049089X12000610
@hellionthesagereborn Absolute bullshit. But keep believing it, if it makes you feel better about your ideology.
Well man I believe that I can pitch in. MY last relationship was like this my girlfriend took care of the house and me the money. This was consentual because she wanted to finish college. Oh boy this is crazy. Too much stress on the man when money gets tight then the arguments break out I used to get tired from work at 6 am, she wanted to clean but she couldnt to let me sleep, I was never at home she was always bored and disastified no matter how many times we went out because I never enjoyed it because I worked so hard. The after a few years that stress keep building up and I became moody and distant because I felt so horribly depressed she would get the shit end of the stick because stress didn't do well for our relationship it was pretty bad trust me it works better when they both work.
in the 50's it was possible because the cost of living was lower now its impossible unless the dude is like super rich
lucky you brother
I believe it was way better than it is now. Look at it this way, you only had one person slaving their life away for money, while the other could do anything, but most importantly raise the children properly (today kids are pretty much neglected, however much you lie to yourself that sending them to kindergarten and then putting them to sleep is proper parenthood, I personally don't believe it is).
Then came feminism and thought it would be a good idea to double the workforce, so everyone can be paid less. Thanks to that you now need 2 people slaving themselves in pursuit of career, instead of a family (cause who needs family when everyone is strong and independent and doesn't trust anyone).
I don't know, I am not suggesting women should not be able to work, but I think they got duped into chasing some superficial career, to outcompete men instead of being who they are: women. But I guess if we want to die out as our birthrates are abysmal, then we are doing great.
It worked very well and still does. Where I live it's still very common, like probably half of couples with kids.
There is a heck of a lot of misinformation and false stereotypes surrounding this. When I grew up, virtually ALL families were like that. I still know many of those couples, who are now in their 70s-90s ( if they are still alive ). It worked very well for them.
This is the description of how traditional family is destroyed now:
I think it was individual. Some people were probably happy with the 1950s family, others were deeply miserable. It's one thing to be able to CHOOSE the "man is the breadwinner, woman is the homemaker" roles... if they're both comfortable with that, then more power to them both... but it's something else entirely when this is the only valid choice you have.
I want to work and I don't want kids so it's not for me
Tbh it's only sexist if it's forced, if the woman decides by herself that she wants to be a housewife it's not sexist
I prefer traditional roles, but I think the husband and wife should take turns doing housework, instead of "women's work" only. I think it's completely fine for her to have a job too, but I think we should both try to have work hours that make time for at least one of us to be home when the children get home from school.
That's what I'm trying to solve. My Uncle is a truck driver, and my aunt is a night time Nurse, and my cousins are still toddlers and babies, so those work schedules are absolute hell on them. I'm majoring in Mechanical Engineering and soon I'll do CADD as well, so my hours will probably be better.
Call me old fashioned but I believe men should be the ones working, paying bills, fixing up the house and bring the rules and order to the house. The wife should raise the children, prepare the meals, and support her husband. They should both get a say in their own relationship as husband and wife, but the man should have final say in things like how something gets done. I have a very unpopular opinion nowadays, but it's my opinion and I have the right to have it
As babys born with different genders. There are things what each gender does better. And from ancient times womens were gatherers and taking care of babys and household and men were hanters. And it worked maybe not for all but still for majority. And i think nowdays its kind of out of hand. With feminism and all other social movements. Saw somewere a picture where 4 womans were proud of muving frige to 3rd floor. As in the same time while 2 man do it its not a some kind of great task to be proud of. And the examples go farther. Why just man can't do the things they can do best and womens the same? Cas i think with that roles the equality where more than now.
what the fuck are these polls lol
the human race is stupid,,,
things would be slightly better if we killed the satanic government
but since you are all idiots do not believe in satan
they will keep running this earth into the ground
like they have been doing for a long time now
but since you all do not want to fight
and you allow them to give you scraps
whatever
ok let the family be broken apart its on you
the divorce rate is so high its crazy
bitches better learn women are going to be killed and raped soon on a high scale
The only option missing is : 'Doing what they choose to do'
The problem with history is we tend to romanticise it. While it does sound sorted and rosy, it was far from it. Women felt like they were in captivity of a social construct, and men felt over - entitled. Men also shouldered the financial burden of the family and thus grew disconnected as time passed by.
I think the roles are gender-fluid. Let each person do what they'd like to do.
Hope this helps.
I am in a very traditional role of wife stays home and watches the kids, does household chores and cooks, husband works and does minimal work with kids and house. It's ok, but in a year or two I hope to go to get a carer.
It was bad, the only good thing about it was the aesthetic but we can still have that without doing the era over again.
Mrs. Cleaver stayed Home to Clean, Mr. Beaver Cleaver Went to Work. Both Raised two Fine lads. xx
This is how it should be, this is how it needs to be, this is how it will be. Our enemies cannot suppress the Natural-Order any longer. The age of (((Cultural-Marxism))), fractional-reserve banking, international Zionism, and pseudo-egalitarianism is coming to an end.
I would love a traditional marriage where I had a husband who worked while I took care of kids and house.
But I’m a single mom so I do everything myself.
I think sure if it works for that family. As long as it's talked about beforehand.
I would rather traditional roles, but honestly it's impractical economically for most middle class people to do that so I think both parents workong is fine.
I don't like it, and I dislike most things that are from that time.
Yeah, I prefer modern things. Just my opinion though.
Our view of the 50's lifestyle is distorted by the manufactured image we use as reference. Women were working. They had been since the war (American factories were staffed primarily by women during WWII while the men went off to war).
Not very. Plus, the women were helpless back in 1950s. They needed the man to do anything for her like make all of the money and fight her battles for her.
Not overly true but ok. What if the average height of women was still 5' and weight under 100 lbs while men were 5'6" about 160 lbs. And they didn't have hormones in the meat they ate so it didn't mess with their own hormones or those of their kids. Where children were respectful instead of being self absorbed brats blaming society for their problems. Where the gap between the rich and poor was smaller, where housing was affordable and good jobs were plentiful. I just feel like something good was lost in the last 60 years that will destroy us but we won't find out until it's way too late
I love tough independent dominant tomboys not sissy princess girls
I like traditional gender roles. To hell with feminism!
That could mean feminism to you, I think feminism was always meant to mean “women’s choice and freedom” so there you go... at least you can choose
@Platypus007 Oh screw that! all those feminists out there hating conservative women who choose to be traditional doesn't attest to the fact. So screw them!
Ok. You mean judgmental libetards who can’t think for themselves, conformist who think by following whomever their parents aren’t is the way to go? Are these the women feminist you are talking about?
Who gives a fuck about them, are their parents financial sponsored adult allowance, but the question still remains... do you feel women should be at a level in society where they have choices to make decision to be traditional or do whatever they want?
I mean, whatever they want, with respect to, what is exceptable career path or self discovery behavior, as men have as far as freedom, should they have that same freedom?
Because originally, that is what feminism meant
It was dishonest. It was a period of time when people were taught to pretend and appear what they weren’t
Economy i think things were better probably not perfect but on social issues it would be hell and for the traditional roles i say do as you want if you can afford it
Both. Family units have existed for millennia, why is the 1950s always the standard for "traditional family life"? Why not the 1850s?
Exactly, isn't that more traditional?
Those are all relatively recent inventions
Not arguing with that, but The Industrial Revolution was kind of a big deal too.
That's the traditional attitude, which has been proven wrong on several occasions.
"Technology" isn't new, and not a synonym for electronics. Innovation is an unstoppable force.
I like the style but I'd like both of us to work so we could knock out the bills B)
1950s were awful and outdated
-The KKK were huge
-The Jim Crow Laws
-Women had like no or little rights
-The LGBTQ had no rights
-Atheists were killed
As a man, the only acceptable marriage is traditional styled. Anything else would be pure chaos and hell. Probably why men don't bother getting married any more generally speaking.
It was different. Worse in some ways, better in others. In terms of mental health people where doing much better in the 50.
I think if it works (that is, if you have a great partner) then it's absolutely incredible. The problem is there's a LOT of risk if your partner isn't so great.
It was good for the majority of people believe it or not.
I think so because its simple. Social media has damaged life. And in this errar. We really have sharp brains to some good n bad things
I like traditional, just easy to get along but I like to have a mutual understanding of both of us. Is both of us are happy then yea
Ok. So u tried to break free of man's vice grip. But look what has happened in our schools. The greed of our economy has led to our downfall. Getup. Riseup. We can do it our way, chickenshits.
Good for people who want that lifestyle, bad for people who don't. I'd be miserable in a 1950's household.
I am planning to be a househusband, but I do not want any babies
A time when women had a clear idea of what their role was.
1950s was bad bad bad. lynchings...
I would rather live in the 50's than to be subjected to evil today.
Cost of living is too high you need both parents working.
Having good thought about tradition and respecting eacother and a happy life
Not in this economy. Everyone needs to work
good for straight white men only
But not women? Women who didn't have to work, where provided for and doted on? Why where women happier in the 50s then they are now (by a substantial margin) if that where the case?
@hellionthesagereborn Dude, no one wants to hear your backwards views
@HeyThere94 backwards? That seems like a stupid claim to make. What I stated is a fact, its well documented. As for backwards as an insult, if your going the wrong way then going backwards is a legitimate response. Right now people are more miserable then ever before, we know that the traditional family with traditional gender roles brings the most happiness for every one but especially women and children (yes that's right, women are actually more happy who are living traditionally then men, statistically speaking).
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...n-happy-years-ago-.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...womens_b_289511.html
www.theguardian.com/.../womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
www.researchgate.net/.../226799968_Why_are_Benevolent_Sexists_Happier
link.springer.com/.../10.1007%2Fs11199-011-0017-2
@HeyThere94 www.kstatecollegian.com/.../
www.asanet.org/.../Feb13ASRFeature.pdf
I'm not being backwards, far from it I am pointing out verifiable facts. Just because you change something doesn't mean its changed for the better.
I love making my own money
indifferent, I wouldn't want it for myself though.
Traditional roles, and a thriving economy.
Good.
Good.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions