happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,987
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 17, 2018 10:31:15 GMT -5
Maybe that's the part you don't like - that society used to impose certain standards of conduct on wives, husbands and families, and now everyone is choosing their own parenting style, willy nilly? Because I don't think you really care much whether women are happier or less happy, as a group, than they were in the 50's. I think you just miss the regimented social order of the 50s. My parents lived through the late 50's in diapers. I'm two generations removed from being able to 'miss' anything. As for a love of regimented social order: What good is regimented social order if it doesn't lead to a happier, safer citizenry, subject to long-term sustainability? None. At best, it's useless. Of course the importance of sustainability in particular can't be overstated. Even if crime, happiness, and the other factors we've discussed were unchanged from the 1950's, we're presently on a train wreck trajectory unimaginable in the 50's. Take your pick: unpayable debts, unsustainable social programs, an evaporating middle class, deteriorating demographics, unsustainable lifestyles, worsening race and class warfare, the burgeoning police/surveillance state, near-total loss of public faith in government, and the list goes on. Thyme suggested earlier that I believe we live in a "dystopia". Hardly. We may not be as happy as families in the 1950's, but we have it good in terms of comfort, safety, and wealth. Better than any other generation in human history in many respects. The dystopia comes in when we inevitably derail. It's such a daunting prospect that several YMAM posters readily admit they don't entertain the possibility. We all want to believe things will get better, and all the more so want to believe things aren't going to get a lot worse. Hence let's suppose you're correct, the data mean nothing, and "the regimented social order of the 50s" was a great depressor of men and especially women. If that regimented order was responsible for staving off the nightmares we're piling up for ourselves in this golden era of dependence, largess, and lack of restraint--and it no doubt did to a large extent--it's far superior to the present day social order on that basis alone. That's something all of us should fear: when the myths of democratic liberalism fall apart completely in front of everyone's eyes, at a time when the West is plunged into chaos and severe need, and militant right-wing reactionaries who make Paul, OC, and me look like hippie beatniks by comparison rise to power over the rubble and ashes of yet another failed social experiment. And I'm not talking about Islamic reactionaries. Virgil it's so fun talking to you, you're a breath of sunshine.
I'm not arguing with you that western civilization isn't going to go the way of the dinosaurs. Our planet has witnessed the rise and fall of countless eras, starting with eras where humans didn't even exist, each of them making way for the next dominate species. Maybe a new, virulent plague will launch itself around the world due to mass transit and inept local governments, or we'll all finally use our nuclear weapons and the next great era will be the age of the insects.
I just don't think it will happen tomorrow, and I don't think a forced retreat to a moral life (as you image life in the 50's was) will make much difference, in the long run.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 17, 2018 10:34:17 GMT -5
Oh my. Virgil, I always thought you were like 20 years older than me, but I'm now thinking we are the same age-ish. Yikes. Nope, I think he's around my age. A fellow Millennial. I always assumed he was a grumpy old man fussing about how things used to be.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,369
|
Post by movingforward on Apr 17, 2018 10:35:47 GMT -5
I believe there are too many factors involved to even remotely compare the happiness of women, or people in general, from the 1950's to those of today. The constant influx of information today compared to that of the 1950's could definitely have an effect on happiness for both sexes. We have non-stop news telling us not only what is happening locally but also internationally. It has been proven time and time again that the influx of all this "news" can lead to depression. We have social media that is constantly telling us that such-and-such just bought XYZ, is jetting off to France, etc. So we have people walking around feeling totally inadequate because not only are they not keeping up with the Jones next door but they aren't keeping up with their 150 FB friends either.
In general, people seem way more open to admitting unhappiness these days. There used to be a huge stigma regarding mental disorders and divorce. Even if people were unhappy, like Thyme said, I don't think people were so open in admitting it.
So even IF people were polled as being happier in the 1950's something tells me that a "regimented social order" doesn't have diddly squat to do with it. There are just too many other factors that could effect happiness.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 17, 2018 13:18:03 GMT -5
Maybe that's the part you don't like - that society used to impose certain standards of conduct on wives, husbands and families, and now everyone is choosing their own parenting style, willy nilly? Because I don't think you really care much whether women are happier or less happy, as a group, than they were in the 50's. I think you just miss the regimented social order of the 50s. My parents lived through the late 50's in diapers. I'm two generations removed from being able to 'miss' anything. As for a love of regimented social order: What good is regimented social order if it doesn't lead to a happier, safer citizenry, subject to long-term sustainability? None. At best, it's useless. Of course the importance of sustainability in particular can't be overstated. Even if crime, happiness, and the other factors we've discussed were unchanged from the 1950's, we're presently on a train wreck trajectory unimaginable in the 50's. Take your pick: unpayable debts, unsustainable social programs, an evaporating middle class, deteriorating demographics, unsustainable lifestyles, worsening race and class warfare, the burgeoning police/surveillance state, near-total loss of public faith in government, and the list goes on. Thyme suggested earlier that I believe we live in a "dystopia". Hardly. We may not be as happy as families in the 1950's, but we have it good in terms of comfort, safety, and wealth. Better than any other generation in human history in many respects. The dystopia comes in when we inevitably derail. It's such a daunting prospect that several YMAM posters readily admit they don't entertain the possibility. We all want to believe things will get better, and all the more so want to believe things aren't going to get a lot worse. Hence let's suppose you're correct, the data mean nothing, and "the regimented social order of the 50s" was a great depressor of men and especially women. If that regimented order was responsible for staving off the nightmares we're piling up for ourselves in this golden era of dependence, largess, and lack of restraint--and it no doubt did to a large extent--it's far superior to the present day social order on that basis alone. That's something all of us should fear: when the myths of democratic liberalism fall apart completely in front of everyone's eyes, at a time when the West is plunged into chaos and severe need, and militant right-wing reactionaries who make Paul, OC, and me look like hippie beatniks by comparison rise to power over the rubble and ashes of yet another failed social experiment. And I'm not talking about Islamic reactionaries. You're only looking at life through the lens of your hyper-Christian parameters.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 17, 2018 13:34:06 GMT -5
I was born in 1942. I'm still in possession of my faculties, such as they are, and my memories are intact. There's an old adage: Ignorance is bliss. Back then, we were pretty ignorant with regard to world events and even events in our own country. We had two TV channels when I was in my teens. If you weren't home when the telephone rang you missed that call. We had the newspaper, such as it was, and that was our main source of news. We didn't have answering machines, smart phones, social media, 24/7 newscasts (such as they are), or any of those "modern conveniences". The result? A lot of ignorance as to what was going on outside our concise little worlds. That's not true today unless one chooses to live off the grid as a virtual hermit.
Some personalities have more tendency to soak up all this information clamoring for their attention and convert it into angst; hence, unhappiness. Some are able to read it and shrug it off. Some read it, research it, digest what they've discovered, and convert that into a prescription for how they're going to conduct their business in short term. These are all things that weren't necessary when the data coming in was so much less to process. Women, in particular, didn't work outside the home as much, so were only exposed to what family and friends brought into the home and certainly weren't expected to have an opinion on anything more complicated than what would be served for dinner. Things have changed drastically. I think that has a lot to do with people feeling less content.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 14:19:21 GMT -5
It's a fair theory. I can neither affirm it nor debunk it as this point. Personally I suspect information overload (and grief porn in particular) does have some effect on depressing happiness. Not enough to account for the shift we've seen over the decades, but some. Access to information isn't what's rotted the last vestiges of sustainability out of our society (since the 1970's in particular), however.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,108
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Apr 17, 2018 14:33:44 GMT -5
There is no such fact here. I suppose you may be referring to survey data? You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts? Yes. Especially when we're talking about numerous methodologically-defensible studies comprising the data of 1.3M people. Women 70 years ago may not have even felt free enough to be honest about how they felt. They might have had snow leopards sitting on them for all we know. You're a scientist. You have a hypothesis to explain the data. Prove it. Let's start with differences in the response rates. By all means, make your case. How about make your case that they're equivalent? As demonstrated previously, I can site 50 NIH studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "my uncle the dr said" and think you win. #Ain'tnobodygottimeforthat I'll save my research discourse for peer reviews.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 15:07:09 GMT -5
Yes. Especially when we're talking about numerous methodologically-defensible studies comprising the data of 1.3M people. They might have had snow leopards sitting on them for all we know. You're a scientist. You have a hypothesis to explain the data. Prove it. By all means, make your case. How about make your case that they're equivalent? As demonstrated previously, I can site 50 NIH studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "my uncle the dr said" and think you win. #Ain'tnobodygottimeforthat I'll save my research discourse for peer reviews. As demonstrated presently, I can cite 50 international studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?". Hence it would appear we've reached an impasse. And for the record: "my uncle the dr said" wasn't even close to the sum of my argument in that debate, whereas "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?" is the sum of yours here.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,108
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Apr 17, 2018 15:12:47 GMT -5
How about make your case that they're equivalent? As demonstrated previously, I can site 50 NIH studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "my uncle the dr said" and think you win. #Ain'tnobodygottimeforthat I'll save my research discourse for peer reviews. As demonstrated presently, I can cite 50 international studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?". Hence it would appear we've reached an impasse. And for the record: "my uncle the dr said" wasn't even close to the sum of my argument in that debate, whereas "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?" is the sum of yours here. I Where are the citations?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 15:19:45 GMT -5
As demonstrated presently, I can cite 50 international studies supporting my supposition and you counter with "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?". Hence it would appear we've reached an impasse. And for the record: "my uncle the dr said" wasn't even close to the sum of my argument in that debate, whereas "You really think survey data between 70 years reveals facts?" is the sum of yours here. I Where are the citations? Two in the post citing the UCR data, six in the HuffPo article.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,372
|
Post by swamp on Apr 17, 2018 15:21:44 GMT -5
I don't need a study to tell me that I would be miserable if were a housewife.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 15:36:39 GMT -5
I don't need a study to tell me that I would be miserable if were a housewife. Indeed, but you're a product of your society, the same as the rest of us. Your attitude reflects a particular system of values instilled in you by society. My point in Reply #103. Note that I'm not suggesting you could be "made to enjoy" homemaking, etc. at this point in time. After (insert your age here) years, the canvas of your mind is thoroughly painted on. Nobody is going to change your painting of a sailboat into a painting of a cat at this point.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 17, 2018 15:46:08 GMT -5
Nope, I think he's around my age. A fellow Millennial. I always assumed he was a grumpy old man fussing about how things used to be. that's still accurate minus the "old" part.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 17, 2018 15:55:20 GMT -5
I don't need a study to tell me that I would be miserable if were a housewife. Indeed, but you're a product of your society, the same as the rest of us. Your attitude reflects a particular system of values instilled in you by society. My point in Reply #103. Note that I'm not suggesting you could be "made to enjoy" homemaking, etc. at this point in time. After (insert your age here) years, the canvas of your mind is thoroughly painted on. Nobody is going to change your painting of a sailboat into a painting of a cat at this point.so prior to 1960s or whenever women started working en masse, all women aspired to and enjoyed housewifery? I know there are a few more "seasoned" posters who grew up in the 50s and 60s and had moms who hated being housewives.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,372
|
Post by swamp on Apr 17, 2018 16:13:53 GMT -5
I don't need a study to tell me that I would be miserable if were a housewife. Indeed, but you're a product of your society, the same as the rest of us. Your attitude reflects a particular system of values instilled in you by society. My point in Reply #103. Note that I'm not suggesting you could be "made to enjoy" homemaking, etc. at this point in time. After (insert your age here) years, the canvas of your mind is thoroughly painted on. Nobody is going to change your painting of a sailboat into a painting of a cat at this point. My mom is 77. She didn't want to be a housewife either. Nor did her mother who would be about 106 if she were still alive.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,369
|
Post by movingforward on Apr 17, 2018 16:21:32 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't even believe we are having this debate...a bunch of successful women arguing with Virgil about the enrichment of being a housewife in the 1950's
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 17, 2018 16:31:48 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't even believe we are having this debate...a bunch of successful women arguing with Virgil about the enrichment of being a housewife in the 1950's Make America Subservient Again
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 17, 2018 16:45:51 GMT -5
If they were so happy, why did they fight so hard to change everything?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 17, 2018 17:54:01 GMT -5
Indeed, but you're a product of your society, the same as the rest of us. Your attitude reflects a particular system of values instilled in you by society. My point in Reply #103. Note that I'm not suggesting you could be "made to enjoy" homemaking, etc. at this point in time. After (insert your age here) years, the canvas of your mind is thoroughly painted on. Nobody is going to change your painting of a sailboat into a painting of a cat at this point.so prior to 1960s or whenever women started working en masse, all women aspired to and enjoyed housewifery? I know there are a few more "seasoned" posters who grew up in the 50s and 60s and had moms who hated being housewives. Mine. Early 1960s. Once we kids were old enough to be in the house alone after school, mom was out the door. Wanted more stimulation than listening to little kids. Safety wise, it helped having dad's dental practice/office attached to our home.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2018 20:09:43 GMT -5
It's a matter of values and priorities, not raw desire. Notwithstanding higher values, man is a hedonist, seeking the most personal gratification from the least amount of work. That's what societies of all eras blindly strive toward once they're sufficiently prosperous. It's entropic. Our own descent started in the post-war 1950's.
Secondly, the issue is more complicated than "housewife" versus "not a housewife". It concerns factors such as how many children a couple has, whether both parents are present and committed, whether the family is functional, how much time parents personally invest in educating their children (particularly with regards to a moral education), how much time the family spends together, the quality of home life, and the social health of the family (in terms of staying connected with friends and extended family). While it's possible for both parents to work without sacrificing any of the above (particularly in later life), it's exceptionally difficult.
To the extent families fail in these regards, society suffers. Failure occurs in part because we have different values, different priorities, and aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices. In the end, we have a broken, dying society and none of the happiness we sought.
This isn't the only factor contributing the relative happiness and stability of the 1950's versus the train-wreck-in-waiting of today, but it's a major one.
ETA's: Ms. Barbara Bush, who passed away today, had a great deal to say about priorities. The wife of a US president, having experienced everything from the life of a housewife to the life of a 24/7 campaigner and public figure.
I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 18, 2018 8:19:32 GMT -5
It's a matter of values and priorities, not raw desire. Notwithstanding higher values, man is a hedonist, seeking the most personal gratification from the least amount of work. That's what societies of all eras blindly strive toward once they're sufficiently prosperous. It's entropic. Our own descent started in the post-war 1950's. Secondly, the issue is more complicated than "housewife" versus "not a housewife". It concerns factors such as how many children a couple has, whether both parents are present and committed, whether the family is functional, how much time parents personally invest in educating their children (particularly with regards to a moral education), how much time the family spends together, the quality of home life, and the social health of the family (in terms of staying connected with friends and extended family). While it's possible for both parents to work without sacrificing any of the above (particularly in later life), it's exceptionally difficult. To the extent families fail in these regards, society suffers. Failure occurs in part because we have different values, different priorities, and aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices. In the end, we have a broken, dying society and none of the happiness we sought. This isn't the only factor contributing the relative happiness and stability of the 1950's versus the train-wreck-in-waiting of today, but it's a major one. ETA's: Ms. Barbara Bush, who passed away today, had a great deal to say about priorities. The wife of a US president, having experienced everything from the life of a housewife to the life of a 24/7 campaigner and public figure. I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. I completely agree that as a society (American society, specifically) our priorities are out of whack and should be re-examined... however, I am skeptical that people were as happy back then as you keep claiming they were! I guess a lot may have been if you apply the adage "ignorance is bliss", but I'm willing to bet a LOT of people were not asked how happy they were. It seems that your way to build a great society is by spoon-feeding them "feel-good" news so they don't question anything, limiting women's access to the workplace, outlawing divorce, and having a national religion. Do you really think having freedom and choices is so damaging to society?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,108
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Apr 18, 2018 8:28:44 GMT -5
If they were so happy, why did they fight so hard to change everything? Bingo.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,108
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Apr 18, 2018 9:20:18 GMT -5
I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. And somehow this great wisdom applies only to females?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,470
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 18, 2018 9:32:41 GMT -5
It is always easy to say that when you aren't struggling to put food on the table. I know plenty of older people who say things like "If I had a better job, I could have saved more and had some money now." Or "I wish I had been able to put my kids through college." Of course no one regrets not working more, but many regret things they missed because they didn't have the resources. Sometimes you sacrifice.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:08:16 GMT -5
It's a matter of values and priorities, not raw desire. Notwithstanding higher values, man is a hedonist, seeking the most personal gratification from the least amount of work. That's what societies of all eras blindly strive toward once they're sufficiently prosperous. It's entropic. Our own descent started in the post-war 1950's. Secondly, the issue is more complicated than "housewife" versus "not a housewife". It concerns factors such as how many children a couple has, whether both parents are present and committed, whether the family is functional, how much time parents personally invest in educating their children (particularly with regards to a moral education), how much time the family spends together, the quality of home life, and the social health of the family (in terms of staying connected with friends and extended family). While it's possible for both parents to work without sacrificing any of the above (particularly in later life), it's exceptionally difficult. To the extent families fail in these regards, society suffers. Failure occurs in part because we have different values, different priorities, and aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices. In the end, we have a broken, dying society and none of the happiness we sought. This isn't the only factor contributing the relative happiness and stability of the 1950's versus the train-wreck-in-waiting of today, but it's a major one. ETA's: Ms. Barbara Bush, who passed away today, had a great deal to say about priorities. The wife of a US president, having experienced everything from the life of a housewife to the life of a 24/7 campaigner and public figure. I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. I completely agree that as a society (American society, specifically) our priorities are out of whack and should be re-examined... however, I am skeptical that people were as happy back then as you keep claiming they were! I guess a lot may have been if you apply the adage "ignorance is bliss", but I'm willing to bet a LOT of people were not asked how happy they were. It seems that your way to build a great society is by spoon-feeding them "feel-good" news so they don't question anything, limiting women's access to the workplace, outlawing divorce, and having a national religion. Do you really think having freedom and choices is so damaging to society?I'd answer that the same way as a proponent of gun control might answer it in the context of gun rights. There are three separate issues: - Which specific freedoms/choices are harmful, and how are they harmful?
- What should society's policy be in discouraging harmful choices? Something as mild as a stigma, or something as severe as a prohibition by law?
- How "far gone" is society with respect to making harmful choices?
You mention divorce, hence let's consider that as an example of a freedom/choice.
Is it harmful? Absolutely. It's one of the greatest traumas a family can suffer, both due to the aftermath and the events that lead up to it. Worse still, it propagates down through generations. Divorce and infidelity (both in the form of violence and adultery) are terrible things.
What should society's reaction to it be? Prohibition? For millennia, divorce has rarely been prohibited in Israelite-descended nations on account of it being permitted in Old Testament law. Other scriptures indicate this permission stems from the greater priority of preventing spousal violence. In other words: the only reason such a detestable thing is permitted is because it's one of the rare instances where a prohibition by man's law is the greater evil. The ancient world, including Christendom all the way up to the 20th Century, generally understood this judgment and respected it. Hence while divorce was permitted, it was treated with contempt befitting its harmfulness.
Enter the latter half of the 20th Century. Western man, grown rich and prosperous, decides divorce really isn't such a bad thing in his great "wisdom". Damnable ignorance, of course, as the world boards the express train to Hell. But man fancies himself an enlightened creature, as it has been since the day he first set foot on the Earth, and his society, at tremendous expense, has heaped up enough cushioning that divorce isn't as financially devastating as before. Hence slowly, decade by decade, the stigma against divorce evaporates. Eventually man forgets the value of monogamy, and after that, the value of marriage. This is accompanied by other deleterious shifts in social values, and by the early 21st Century, he's all but totally lost his mind and on the cusp of too many disasters to count.
Which brings us to the final question: How "far gone" is society with respect to making this harmful choice? The undeniable answer for anyone with eyes to see is: well beyond the point of no return. As dearly as I'd like society to return to a state where the majority understand the evil of divorce and openly treat it as a shameful and detestable thing, this isn't going to happen. Even when society falls apart before our eyes, it's not going to happen. A law prohibiting divorce in the US today would fare as well as a law prohibiting all firearms.
You say "ignorance is bliss" as though women in the 1950's were the ignorant ones. Not as well educated, perhaps, but possessing wisdom and values this generation will never have.
Hopefully that answers your question.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:17:01 GMT -5
I wish I could find the exact quote, but paraphrasing, her message to younger generations was: "As you get older, you won't regret not closing one more deal, earning one more bonus, getting one more promotion. What you will regret is one more hour you didn't spend with your husband, one more gathering you missed with your family, one more afternoon you didn't spend with friends." There's great wisdom in that statement. And somehow this great wisdom applies only to females? Men who neglect their family duties are just as culpable. But then enters the issue of the psychology/skills of men versus women in terms of raising and educating children, the need to carry on a 9-5 job, etc., which, as dearly as feminists and homosexual activists love to deny it, is strongly asymmetrical between the sexes. I'm can't follow that arc today. I'm spending far too much time here typing up defenses for my other arguments.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 18, 2018 10:20:34 GMT -5
I don't have time to inject any more thought into the "why isn't divorce stigmatized more" debate, but I will say the WOMEN were usually stigmatized while at the same time unable to support themselves once the husband had left. So their choices were to:
a) stay with an adulterer/abuser b) somehow force husband to stay if he wants to leave c) in the event of divorce, women is shunned, unable to support herself, she and kids slide into poverty and possibly die
So that again brings us back to the "fact" that less options for women = better society.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:32:48 GMT -5
It is always easy to say that when you aren't struggling to put food on the table. I know plenty of older people who say things like "If I had a better job, I could have saved more and had some money now." Or "I wish I had been able to put my kids through college." Of course no one regrets not working more, but many regret things they missed because they didn't have the resources. Sometimes you sacrifice. I interpret the statement as: you'll regret prioritizing work above family. This comes with the implicit caveat that "family" includes responsibility to family: keeping food on the table, saving enough for retirement so as not to be burdensome or shut-in, and taking care of one's health and financial obligations, among many other things. I suggest this because I don't believe Ms. Bush was ignorant of the fact that we'd all love a little more money.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 18, 2018 10:59:21 GMT -5
I don't have time to inject any more thought into the "why isn't divorce stigmatized more" debate, but I will say the WOMEN were usually stigmatized while at the same time unable to support themselves once the husband had left. So their choices were to: a) stay with an adulterer/abuser b) somehow force husband to stay if he wants to leave c) in the event of divorce, women is shunned, unable to support herself, she and kids slide into poverty and possibly die So that again brings us back to the "fact" that less options for women = better society. I can't do battle with whatever circumstances you contrive to make divorce an inconceivably horrible option, especially since the Bible permits it on the basis of ( a) and therefore acknowledges its necessity in some cases. Suffice it to say: anyone contemplating divorce should compare it to committing a violent assault on their family--especially their children. If the circumstances in ( a) are present, all other options (which are manifold) have failed, and if leaving is still the less harmful option in light of such a comparison, they needn't fear condemnation from me. Furthermore, so that nobody misunderstands me: if a man divorces his wife in spite of her sincerest efforts to reconcile, she's blameless in the matter. The decision to break his oath is the man's alone.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,987
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 18, 2018 11:17:21 GMT -5
I don't have time to inject any more thought into the "why isn't divorce stigmatized more" debate, but I will say the WOMEN were usually stigmatized while at the same time unable to support themselves once the husband had left. So their choices were to: a) stay with an adulterer/abuser b) somehow force husband to stay if he wants to leave c) in the event of divorce, women is shunned, unable to support herself, she and kids slide into poverty and possibly die So that again brings us back to the "fact" that less options for women = better society. I can't do battle with whatever circumstances you contrive to make divorce an inconceivably horrible option, especially since the Bible permits it on the basis of ( a) and therefore acknowledges its necessity in some cases. Suffice it to say: anyone contemplating divorce should compare it to committing a violent assault on their family--especially their children. If the circumstances in ( a) are present, all other options (which are manifold) have failed, and if leaving is still the less harmful option in light of such a comparison, they needn't fear condemnation from me. Furthermore, so that nobody misunderstands me: if a man divorces his wife in spite of her sincerest efforts to reconcile, she's blameless in the matter. The decision to break his oath is the man's alone. Not in the 50's and 60's. Divorced women, even if they were 'blamelessly' left by their husbands, were considered by society to either be a horrible wife (which is why DH left) or a floozy, willing to bang anyone, which is why DH left. If the DH was drunk or abusive, if she'd been a 'good' wife she could have gotten him to stop that.
My older sister had a BF whose parents were divorced, and my mom was on a relentless campaign to break up the friendship, because 'nice' people did not associate with divorced people (or even the children of divorced people).
Fast forward 30 years, and Mom went on a campaign to get one of her daughters to divorce her husband, because my mom didn't like that particular SIL. Times do change... fortunately.
|
|