Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dems_R_Losers; valkyrieanne; DameAutour; SweetCaroline; Melas; Stellar Dendrite

Don't blame this on the feminists.

Back in the 50s labor saving devices meant that men could have hot meals, clean clothes, and a neat place without needing a wife. In fact if you look at 50s and early 60s books, movies, and tv, the stay at home bourgeous wife was often depicted as a materialistic castrating parasite who spent her husband's paycheck on status symbols and did nothing but watch soaps, gossip on the phone, and do her nails. The labor of a stay at home wife was unnecessary so she wasn't worth her keep. More and more men preferred to avoid marriage, creating a new class of single urban "swingers". "Playboy", Thunderbirds, pony cars, and the whole double martini Rat Pack lifestyle were created for this new market full of disposable income.

When the sexual revolution and no fault divorce hit, men were free, free to dump their deadweight Bettys and Janets and go chasing after Julies and Jennifers. Feminism didn't kill the 50s marriage. Men killed it because it no longer served their interests to be a woman's lifetime meal ticket, particularly a woman they no longer wanted. Feminism was the logical response. The media at the time was full of horror stories about Bettys and Janets who after divorce and community property split were now expected to support themselves at age 50 without any marketable job skills. Younger women saw this and determined never to have their socioeconomic survival dependent on any man's hormones. The only way to always have marketable job skills is to never stop working.


14 posted on 11/30/2004 3:06:08 PM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Sam the Sham
The media at the time was full of horror stories about Bettys and Janets who after divorce and community property split were now expected to support themselves at age 50 without any marketable job skills. Younger women saw this and determined never to have their socioeconomic survival dependent on any man's hormones.

Good points.

28 posted on 11/30/2004 3:44:20 PM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Sam the Sham
The media at the time was full of horror stories about Bettys and Janets who after divorce and community property split were now expected to support themselves at age 50 without any marketable job skills.....so we taught our daughters to protect themselves, get a education, find a job where there was a chance for advancement and build a nest egg to protect themselves. Of course, zealots and men haters jumped in and turned it into an agenda which we now know as NOW.
52 posted on 11/30/2004 4:38:01 PM PST by SweetCaroline (Give thanks to the GOD of heaven, for His mercy and loving kindness are forever!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Sam the Sham

What you talk about here is a phenomena of about 20-25% of the population back then, and about 35% of the population today. Thats the actual figures for people who have actually divorced at least once or never married.


119 posted on 11/30/2004 9:52:43 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson