Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?

Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
blaineso
Contributor
blaineso
Wow. There’s SOOOOO much anger evidenced here by both men and women. Clearly SOMETHING is out of whack. I just wonder whether men and women from the 50’s and back had this much anger towards each other. My gut tells me no, but then again I’m only 45.

08-26-2006 11:31 PM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
AnnG
Contributor
AnnG

Only 45?  I suspect we’re some of the older folks here.  At 44, I share your concern.  I suspect, though, that past generations had similar complaints.  Instead of web pages, they vented in bars or workplaces (for the men) or PTA meetings, church groups, or quilting bees (for the women).  It’s unfortunate.  No matter how society is structured, there will always be those who are not content.  I guess that’s life.

I’ve been lucky.  My parents were crazy about each other, and loved me and my siblings as well.  No one was abused.  No one was neglected.  We weren’t rich, but we had what we needed, and a lot of what we wanted.  My dad even looked like the guy from Father Knows Best.  It was ideal.

I had great female role models.  My mother was intelligent and capable, and chose to express her talents primarily as a housewife.  She excelled in that role.  My grandmother was an uneducated genius.  My sister (15 years older) is brilliant, and educated, but unfortunately provided a good example of what NOT to do in relationships.  My favorite aunt (for whom I was named) was a very successful career woman, long before it was fashionable.  All of them — as well as the men in my family — expected excellence of me as well.  College was assumed.  Marriage and children were an option to be considered later.

The only time I felt slighted for being a girl was when I was denied the chance to mow the lawn or use a hatchet or power tools.  At the time, I thought my father was being sexist.  After I grew up, I realized he was just being cautious.  My older brother had done all those things, and nearly lost fingers, toes, and limbs from being a klutz.  (He grew up to be an idiot.)  If he’d been more capable, maybe my father wouldn’t have felt the need to be so protective.

Sorry, I ramble a lot in these posts.  The whole notion of gender roles makes me think a lot of my family.  Such common-sense, reasonable people.  Most of them are deceased now, but I miss them a lot.

08-26-2006 11:50 PM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
sunhawk
Regular Contributor
sunhawk

blaineso wrote:
Wow. There’s SOOOOO much anger evidenced here by both men and women. Clearly SOMETHING is out of whack. I just wonder whether men and women from the 50’s and back had this much anger towards each other. My gut tells me no, but then again I’m only 45.

Openly? No. Secretly? Probably more than you think.

08-27-2006 12:49 AM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
tomshh
Regular Contributor
tomshh

Wow. There’s SOOOOO much anger evidenced here by both men and women. Clearly SOMETHING is out of whack. I just wonder whether men and women from the 50’s and back had this much anger towards each other. My gut tells me no, but then again I’m only 45.
—————————————–

You are 45 years old, and can’t figure it out?

It is pretty simple.

Women refuse to do their traditional roles, that they are biologically suited for.

But then women refuse to step up to the plate and be equals to men.

I don’t see feminists complaining about 98% of work related deaths are men.  I don’t see feminists complaining that women are not on the front lines dying in battle.  I don’t see feminists complaining that 86% of suicides in the USA are men.

Women have completely gone to s**t.  They offer NOTHING in our society.  Men now realize this, as the world gets smaller, and our population stays single for a longer period of time.

08-27-2006 04:15 AM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

tomshh wrote:
Women refuse to do their traditional roles, that they are biologically suited for.
How does biology make me more “suited” to scrub crap off a commode, or cook meals, or even watch kids?

It doesn’t, as evidenced by women’s seemless entrance and enduring presence in the workforce.

08-27-2006 05:02 AM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Actually, if you read one of my earlier posts under Fire That Pig, you’ll see me mention male suicides–not as a good thing either–the current speculation is that men won’t seek help because their pride prevents them. So instead they self-destruct in various ways, suicide being one of them.

As for the high rate of workplace deaths, that is probably due to the fact that more men than women work in high risk jobs like oil, firemen, police, construction, etc., etc.  They also often get paid very well in these jobs.  Would you like us to take over some of these for you?  You can be a childcare worker and get paid $6.25 an hour.  I think you’re referring to an article on this from a year or two ago, but the way in which the facts were presented were misleading.  I shall post this information elsewhere.

08-27-2006 07:54 AM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Probably not.

Men weren’t angry because they didn’t think there was a problem–and perhaps there wasn’t a problem, for them.

And women weren’t angry because

1) It wasn’t allowed–women were not supposed to be angry.
2) Even if you were angry, it wouldn’t get you anywhere–where would you go?  What would you do?  Your husband might beat you.  Your friends would shun you.  Your children would blame you for everything because Daddy Knows Best.  You probably couldn’t get a job except as a teacher or nurse or or librarian (in which case you would need some education, possibly more than you had before you got married and had kids at age 18 or earlier), maybe in a textile factory if you happened to live in a major city.
3) Many of them didn’t realize they even *could* be angry.  They didn’t know the world could be different.
4) Many of them were just depressed, which is often a form of internalized anger.

Anyway, I’d suggest something to read, but then you would start labelling me some insult or other which I would have to rebut or ignore.  Basically, this has been written about A LOT. I suggest you catch up on your American social history–like most people on this post should do.

08-27-2006 08:22 AM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
blaineso
Contributor
blaineso
Radiator: “Anyway, I’d suggest something to read, but then you would start labelling me some insult…”

Obviously, there are a disturbingly high no. of insults flying around these responses. However, I just asked a simple question to get a sense of what others think, with no insult even implied.

Radiator: “I suggest you catch up on your American social history–like most people on this post should do.”

— an (unnecessary) implied insult. Also, just because something is written in a contemporary american social history book doesn’t make it fact. Those authors were products of their time too.

08-27-2006 12:29 PM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
Jman
Contributor
Jman

I guess the thing that makes me wonder about the career woman or the career man, is that I’d always be cautious of someone who would describe themselves as that way. Before I’d get myself so involved with that person, I’d have to step back and say, how important is this career compared to everything else? Are you living to work or working to live? Could you put up enough commitment to make a successful marriage?

I might be a young guy, at the same time, yet I’ve had to deal with the thought of death before. What would be more important to me at my time of death, knowing I raised a child full of good character or a great career? Well as that old saying goes, no one says at their time of death, ‘I wished I would have spent another day at the office.’

As far as I’m concerned when I think of the proper order of importance I’d say family first and work second. I’d use work to assist my family, and not use family to assist work. That is why I put family first. If someone said work first, then I’d say maybe you are called to work, and not worry so much about having to lead a family. If that’s you I say bless you, we need people like that. Personally I’d say a homemaker is a job far greater in importance than almost any job.

If you feel a duel income is what the specific needs of your family, that’s no problem. Just make sure you have covered what you need to have in order to make a successful family. Never stop with your spouse communicating, planning and adjusting. Any business that doesn’t do those things well, is going to get shredded by a competitor that does those things well.

While I love capitalism that it gives people more or less the right for people to have property and to have a lot of leeway of doing what one choices to do with it, I hate that it often attracts the family. Every minute that you choose to do use for your career is one less that can be used for the family. One usually often has to make a real effort to stand up to the tendency of businesses that are there saying, ‘if you give a little bit more it’ll make a bigger, faster, better product. It’ll be a win for you, the owners and the customers.” But if that sucks you in more and more, once you realized that you damaged all your relationships what is a better product worth?

I guess when it comes to anger in years past, I’m sure there was. Set up any system in any way, those with access to resources and is intelligent enough to know how to use them, and open up more access, are going to raise to the top. Those with less of those, will sink to the bottom. There will be those who are angered by the system, and those delighted by it.

08-27-2006 12:37 PM

Re: Same Anger 50-100 yrs ago?
blaineso
Contributor
blaineso
No doubt there’s always been unhappiness and complaining on both sides of the gender fence.

However, while sitting in the stands at my daughter’s softball games I hear the women nastily complaining about their husbands. I know some of these guys. They’re good guys, and in my judgement one heck of a lot nicer human beings than their wives. As admittedly anecdotal as this example is, my experiences (& perceptions) point to this being more the norm than the exception. My interpretation for the reason is that we’ve been spoon-fed the idea that women are (by definition) kind and good victims, and men are pigs. Further, as victims, women have been given carte blanche to do and say whatever they choose to in regard to men. & men, since they’re pigs, must shut up, listen and do as they’re told.

Not having lived 50+ yrs ago, I can’t say whether this was how it used to be for women, but conventional wisdom says women were to shut up, listen and do as they were told. What’s amazing is that, if I’m correct, this transformation happened basically in the space of 1 generation. One thing I have read though is that men were given the duty to treat their women with love and kindness, ie. to cherish them. While many men didn’t do this well, or necessarily at all, I don’t see the rough equivalent today being called for of today’s women.

In the end, it’s not ok for either husbands or wives to treat their spouses poorly. It appears though that society’s “rules” are very instrumental in determining how we treat each other. Presently, it appears to many of us men, that marriage has become a very bad gig.
The question is what has created this?

08-27-2006 02:54 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: