Ward and June Cleaver

We recognize the present
Is half as pleasant
As our nostalgia for

The past'll be presented
Recast and reinvented
Until it's how we meant it


Sorry, Ans. I tend to think it lyrics sometimes & it's what popped into my head as I read this....

Point being... I'm not sure those days were as great as recalled or that the present is as bleak by comparison. Roles, role reversals, division of household chores, & manners all seem to get rolled into a big hodge-podge until the basic message of, "treat your partner with respect & expect the same in return" just seems to get lost.

The whole song.... for any who care...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vYzbMJlqUY"]YouTube- Barenaked Ladies - Testing 1-2-3 (The Bathroom Sessions)[/ame]

Back in 1940, income about $2,400 a year.
In 1975 under $20,000.
I grew up in a family where mom never worked.
Those days in my opinion were better.
My X never had to work.
Even if both do work, Having family dinner together (with no TV on) is essential.
Back in the 60's, with welfare, a single mom received more money. The Government would show up unannounced to check up on recipients. Since they never knew when they would come by, people on welfare would have the father stay with someone else until the social worker had made the rounds. Some fathers were gone for 30 days at a time. Many never came back. Society has suffered as a result of the family suffering. Not the only reason of course. I remember in the 60's. Summer evenings, all the dads coming home, kids running out to meet them. Barbecues firing up. If you did something wrong you didn't have to worry about just your own parents because all parents in the neighborhood would rat you out.

We played outside all day. Now I rarely see kids outside.

As far as feminism, I don't understand that they say that women can make decisions concerning their own body's but they can't decide to be a provider or pose for a magazine.

I'm not blaming women entering the workforce, I'm blaming govt. policies that forced both parents into the workforce. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Oh horse pucky. I'm no fan of government, but you may have well just said "the Devil made me do it". The truth of the matter is that demand for luxuries exploded and incomes had to rise to keep up. Remember, the Cleavers only had 1 car and 1 TV -- not four cars and one in each room.

The truth of the matter is that demand for luxuries exploded and incomes had to rise to keep up. Remember, the Cleavers only had 1 car and 1 TV -- not four cars and one in each room. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Exactly!! I pull this out every once in a while because it shows how we have reallocated our spending. This is a comparison done by the Federal Reserve in 1997 of the number of minutes it takes for us to work to buy a car, or a house, or a dozen eggs, or or a TV, etc...as compared to the number of minutes our parents or grandparents had to work to achieve the same item.

The fact is, things have gotten a lot cheaper...if measured against our time at work. The problem is that our income can't keep up with our insatiable desire for more things.

Go to this link to read the entire article.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar97.pdf

Oh horse pucky. I'm no fan of government, but you may have well just said "the Devil made me do it". The truth of the matter is that demand for luxuries exploded and incomes had to rise to keep up. Remember, the Cleavers only had 1 car and 1 TV -- not four cars and one in each room. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm blaming it all on Title IX

Seriously there is a competitiveness in girls starting at a very young age that I don't think existed in the past. We live in an achievement based society, with girls a part of that. They are now conditioned at birth to compete for everything. We are now seeing the 2nd generation of these women in the workplace and as mothers.

These last few days for some reason I have been thinking of how the roles of men and women have changed over the years. Whatever happened to the men and women of yesteryear? When men were men and women were ladies.

I really think that Gloria Steinem threw a monkey wrench into things. I enjoy being a woman. I have no desire to be equal to a man. Yes, I like doors being opened for me. In yesteryear it was the responsibility of the man to take care and look after the woman in his life. In turn she supported him and his career, and of course stroked that ego of his.

While women are busy trying to be equal, we have pushed men right out of their role. It seems they get bored and go on to the next 'plaything.' Why wouldn't they? Women of today don't need a man. Originally Posted by Ansley

There is nothing sadder than an emasculated man. Particularly a good friend or family member who in better days was a "man's man." There is one guy we refer to his life in periods as "B.C." (before Christine) , "W.C." (with Christine or 'Water Closet') & "A.C." (after Christine)

I will take issue with how much "better" families were back in the "good ole days" & just suggest a lot more problems were pushed under the rug. Family business stayed family business. Nowdays, you're apt to find out (on Facebook no less) your Best Man's son just came out of the closet and moving to Canada.

I think the reason a lot of guys 25-44 watch Madmen is they secretly would like to live in that time

I love equality for the sexes. I think women should have true equality with men. If a woman beats her husband, she should go to jail. If a woman doesn't want a child she has the "choice" to keep the child, and the man has to live with that choice. Why should a man be forced into fatherhood if he "chooses" not to be?

There is no true equality in this world/our society. Women have taken over in many aspects as head of household. I have a brother who cannot do anything without his wife's permission. He works a LOT and she shops a LOT. He has to ask to buy ANYTHING, and she spends mucho dinero on useless crap.

Unfortunately it is still true that men make more than a woman in the same job with the same qualifications. But that needs to change.

When I say I am for equality, I mean it. In every single form and fashion. Originally Posted by rekcaSxT

+1 -- if you want equality, take the responsibility that comes with it.

Back in 1940, income about $2,400 a year.
In 1975 under $20,000.
I grew up in a family where mom never worked.
Those days in my opinion were better.
My X never had to work.
Even if both do work, Having family dinner together (with no TV on) is essential.

We played outside all day. Now I rarely see kids outside. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

What a crock of horse manure. Not sure where you live but everywhere I have lived kids were outside during the summer from morning until dusk. As far as dinner together ..... the key is having some quality time together, when it is matters far less then making sure it happens. And growing up around the time you did I can attest that with sports and other after-school activities many families did not have dinner together. Most managed at least 2-3 times a week and it does not seem to have made a difference (empirically of course my sample is statistically insignificant) in the trajectory of my peers' lives.

As far as feminism, I don't understand that they say that women can make decisions concerning their own body's but they can't decide to be a provider or pose for a magazine.[/QUOTE]
Word!

Exactly!! I pull this out every once in a while because it shows how we have reallocated our spending. This is a comparison done by the Federal Reserve in 1997 of the number of minutes it takes for us to work to buy a car, or a house, or a dozen eggs, or or a TV, etc...as compared to the number of minutes our parents or grandparents had to work to achieve the same item.

The fact is, things have gotten a lot cheaper...if measured against our time at work. The problem is that our income can't keep up with our insatiable desire for more things.

Go to this link to read the entire article.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar97.pdf Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'd seen that before - and although getting on the older side still makes a solid point. The only nitpicks I have is it doesn't take into consideration product lifecycles/innovation in some of the comparisons. Of course early computers, etc. were prohibititavely expensive. Also I think the piece focuses too much on "things" vs. the service/subscription economy we have become. That said the central point is valid.

What a crock of horse manure.

You may be right where you are from and I might have stated it differently.
We had sports as well so every night wasn't going to happen.
And I would say for the last several years I do not see kids outside anymore.

I think that is the central point, ATL. It is not that we are factually worse off, but our perception (because of our wants) is that we are missing out on the dream.

I really think that Gloria Steinem threw a monkey wrench into things. I enjoy being a woman. I have no desire to be equal to a man. Yes, I like doors being opened for me. Originally Posted by Ansley

I believe many men are still quite willing to open doors for their women, etc. Chivalry isn't dead, but it did and continues to get kicked squarely in the balls for its own sake; I've had more than a few women who were insistent that I not do such things for them, explaining to me that they were perfectly capable of doing for themselves.

Fine.

In yesteryear it was the responsibility of the man to take care and look after the woman in his life. In turn she supported him and his career, and of course stroked that ego of his.

I'm curious: which yesteryear do you speak of? Sounds to me as if you describe a Victorian-era relationship, perhaps post-Vict and post-WWII.

I was raised in a rural environment, farming, and women--while still considered and treated as inferior to men--were expected to and did work the land to provide for the family, as well as maintained a household and raised children.

Supporting a man's career? Stroking his ego? Synonymous terms, yes? Are we talking about women who also kept a house in order, raised children, etc., or are we talking prized hens with nannies to mind the rugrats and little else to occupy the wife's time beyond shopping, banging the lawn-boy ( ) and spending hours gossiping with other bored wives?

While women are busy trying to be equal, we have pushed men right out of their role. It seems they get bored and go on to the next 'plaything.' Why wouldn't they? Women of today don't need a man.

I prefer independent women. I also prefer cats to dogs. Hopefully, my comparison is clear, but I can expound if needed.

I desire women, want them, perhaps "need" them on those grounds alone, but I've no desire to reproduce or to be a provider for another adult just to be able to have a woman around 24/7.

I think many women think similarly; they can provide for themselves, and men are no longer needed for their security.

I do not believe I could ever live comfortably with a dick-and-paycheck kind of gal.

And while it might be more difficult to find a woman who enjoys me for me, a relationship based on like and lust, I'd rather fly solo than yield to the diminished returns found in a June Cleaver type.

Viva Zappatista!

By the way, any of you strong-willed, independent, successful ladies looking for a kept man, I'll be glad to open all the doors in China for you. Keep me well-stocked in stout Irish and pet me softly and I'll purr all the live-long day.

And I was meant to be a father and family man. Each to his own wants and needs/desires.

Oh horse pucky. I'm no fan of government, but you may have well just said "the Devil made me do it". The truth of the matter is that demand for luxuries exploded and incomes had to rise to keep up. Remember, the Cleavers only had 1 car and 1 TV -- not four cars and one in each room. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You didn't watch the lecture did you? I am not a fan of Warren's politics, but her research is solid.

Here is part of the big picture, Supply and Demand. Before the hyper-inflation of the 70's, caused by govt intervention, there was typically only a single income family. It was those policies that forced the two income family. The two cars was a result of both parents needing transportation to and from work. Demand for cars doubled resulting in higher prices. Housing prices increased because credit became much easier to a get by govt easing credit restrictions.

As credit became easier, everything that couldn't be purchased with cash was borrowed, including education. The luxuries you speak of, e.g., multiple tv's, etc, were not cash and carry. Our grandparents were always taught, never by anything you can't afford, so they saved for large purchases and rainy days. (A console tv in the early 70's easily cost over 1k. Inflation adjusted, buying 2 or more now costs the same.) Those luxuries are now bought on credit where a lot of people carried balances for years. The more credit you had, the more you could borrow resulting in higher demand for the home upgrades and/or luxuries.

I'm not blaming the government for people making poor choices. When people are forced to make the hard decisions through circumstance, it's easier to maintain a budget. When people aren't worried about the future, they tend to be less frugal. Why would we need to worry about the future when govt impliments social programs to "take care of us?" Our parents, pre-70's, and grandparents saved lots of money on single incomes. Dual income families are not afforded the same luxury of saving.

The new documentary Generation Zero talks about a lot of this.

And I was meant to be a father and family man. Each to his own wants and needs/desires. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Marcus, I've no quarrel with your position. To each his/her own, indeed.

I've raised my children and want no more (hell enough raising the ones I have).

I see nothing ignoble about wanting or not wanting XYZ in a relationship. My only quarrel is with those who seek the proverbial blood from turnips. I have been nailed a few times by women who entered my life talking one line before doing a 180 on me shortly after I was snared.

Viva Zappatista!

That happened to me too. I'm still paying through the nose.
Never again for this guy as well.