MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 30, 2016 11:05:22 GMT -5
Is there no one else to give You a break? My brother could, but he's too worthless/selfish/spoiled by my mom. the same mother who needs care? wow.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Aug 30, 2016 11:15:16 GMT -5
I can't remember where I read this (so can't quote) but there were studies done that showed that the more choices people had, the less happier they were. It wasn't talking about marriage and women, it was about goods and services.
I can see the same thing when it comes to women's choices. I think having choices is wonderful and I think it's great that women are able to accomplish whatever they choose if they choose to do so. But I also think it brought a lot of internal struggle as well. A lot of pull in different directions. A lot of guilt. I think over time it will be resolved, but for now, I think many women have difficult time with their choices.
Or may be it's just that media is blowing this all up.
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Aug 30, 2016 11:24:00 GMT -5
I must have missed the part where it said that the husband sacrificed his life / happiness / whatever for her.......
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,104
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 30, 2016 11:28:25 GMT -5
But that's the reality of the 1960s. People like to idolize Leave it To Beaver as the perfect model of family life but you notice that June is not taking Beaver to Mommy and Me classes and Gymboree. He's out in the neighborhood creating TV drama. I'm not saying that my grandparents or in laws never did ANYTHING with their children but the concept of parenting/motherhood was quite a bit different in 1965-1975 than it is today. Saying that women would be happier as SAHM like in the 1960s does not take into account the fact that cultural norms and expectations regarding parenthood have changed significantly. It's like when people say they wish we could go back to the days of Little House on the Prarie because they've watched the TV show. That doesn't take into account at all the actual realities of living in 1870's Dakota Territory. If time travel WERE possible I am pretty sure a lot of those people would come running back to 2016 pretty quickly. Same with people who wax poetic about being a woman in the 1950's-1960's. I honeslty don't know what would prevent a woman from being with her kids...unless she just didn't want to. Even if the expectations were there for a spotless house and cooked meals, that isn't going to consume 8-10 hours a day. It's just not. The fact that women ignored their kids doesn't mean that they had no choice but to ignore their kids. They had 3 hours of soap operas for a reason.... Of course you don't. You are applying your cultural norms and expectations onto women in the 1960's. That's the problem. If you were to travel back in time your parenting philosphy would be just as alien to then as theirs is to you. When people talk about the good old days they are nostalgic for things that never really existed they are rose colored versions of history heavily influenced by how we were raised and view the world. I happen to have my grandmother's baby book from the 1930's. I am pretty sure I'd get CPS called on me if I took some of the advice laid out for parenting/motherhood. That does not make my great grandparents horrible people because they followed the parenting philosphy of their time period. Flash forward to the 1950s and parenting styles have changed. Flash forward to the 1980's and they change again. Flash forward to 2010 when my daughter was born and they have changed again. That doesn't make my grandparents or my parents bad people. They followed the cultural norms and expectations of the time. I am sure there is quite a bit of stuff that we do that my daughters will wonder "WTF" when it comes time for them to have children. It does not make me a horrible parent. When people say that everyone would be "happier" in a certain time period it does not take into account the actual reality of that time period. You are viewing it thru your own cultural biases from your own time period. Being a SAHM and being a breadwinner husband in the 50's-60's are not the same thing as they are in 2016. It's people wishing for something that never existed. If they had to actually LIVE it they would probably be quite surprised.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 30, 2016 11:36:43 GMT -5
I honeslty don't know what would prevent a woman from being with her kids...unless she just didn't want to. Even if the expectations were there for a spotless house and cooked meals, that isn't going to consume 8-10 hours a day. It's just not. The fact that women ignored their kids doesn't mean that they had no choice but to ignore their kids. They had 3 hours of soap operas for a reason.... Of course you don't. You are applying your cultural norms and expectations onto women in the 1960's. That's the problem. If you were to travel back in time your parenting philosphy would be just as alien to then as theirs is to you. When people talk about the good old days they are nostalgic for things that never really existed they are rose colored versions of history heavily influenced by how we were raised and view the world. I happen to have my grandmother's baby book from the 1930's. I am pretty sure I'd get CPS called on me if I took some of the advice laid out for parenting/motherhood. That does not make my great grandparents horrible people because they followed the parenting philosphy of their time period. Flash forward to the 1950s and parenting styles have changed. Flash forward to the 1980's and they change again. Flash forward to 2010 when my daughter was born and they have changed again. That doesn't make my grandparents or my parents bad people. They followed the cultural norms and expectations of the time. I am sure there is quite a bit of stuff that we do that my daughters will wonder "WTF" when it comes time for them to have children. It does not make me a horrible parent. When people say that everyone would be "happier" in a certain time period it does not take into account the actual reality of that time period. You are viewing it thru your own cultural biases from your own time period. Being a SAHM and being a breadwinner husband in the 50's-60's are not the same thing as they are in 2016. It's people wishing for something that never existed. If they had to actually LIVE it they would probably be quite surprised. But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,247
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Aug 30, 2016 11:44:48 GMT -5
Of course you don't. You are applying your cultural norms and expectations onto women in the 1960's. That's the problem. If you were to travel back in time your parenting philosphy would be just as alien to then as theirs is to you. When people talk about the good old days they are nostalgic for things that never really existed they are rose colored versions of history heavily influenced by how we were raised and view the world. I happen to have my grandmother's baby book from the 1930's. I am pretty sure I'd get CPS called on me if I took some of the advice laid out for parenting/motherhood. That does not make my great grandparents horrible people because they followed the parenting philosphy of their time period. Flash forward to the 1950s and parenting styles have changed. Flash forward to the 1980's and they change again. Flash forward to 2010 when my daughter was born and they have changed again. That doesn't make my grandparents or my parents bad people. They followed the cultural norms and expectations of the time. I am sure there is quite a bit of stuff that we do that my daughters will wonder "WTF" when it comes time for them to have children. It does not make me a horrible parent. When people say that everyone would be "happier" in a certain time period it does not take into account the actual reality of that time period. You are viewing it thru your own cultural biases from your own time period. Being a SAHM and being a breadwinner husband in the 50's-60's are not the same thing as they are in 2016. It's people wishing for something that never existed. If they had to actually LIVE it they would probably be quite surprised. But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
I grew up in the 70's with a sahm and we (the kids) were all over the neighborhood during the day. Mom would never lock us out but she would send us over to our friend's house, whose mom did lock us out. I would help my friend with her chores and then her mom would kick us outside and we would ride our bikes around the neighborhood or play house in some old concrete pipes out in the desert.
My mom kept an immaculate house and would cook a new dinner every night, without ever repeating the same dinners. She would go to 4 or 5 grocery stores every week to maximize sales and would clip coupons from several sources. My friend's mom would take in sewing jobs and she would be sewing in the house all day while we were kicked out. My friend had to do all the cleaning for her chores but her mom cooked dinner every night.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 30, 2016 11:53:10 GMT -5
But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
I grew up in the 70's with a sahm and we (the kids) were all over the neighborhood during the day. Mom would never lock us out but she would send us over to our friend's house, whose mom did lock us out. I would help my friend with her chores and then her mom would kick us outside and we would ride our bikes around the neighborhood or play house in some old concrete pipes out in the desert.
My mom kept an immaculate house and would cook a new dinner every night, without ever repeating the same dinners. She would go to 4 or 5 grocery stores every week to maximize sales and would clip coupons from several sources. My friend's mom would take in sewing jobs and she would be sewing in the house all day while we were kicked out. My friend had to do all the cleaning for her chores but her mom cooked dinner every night.
Your friend's mom wasn't a SAHM she was a WAHM. I also grew up in the 70's with a SAHM. We played in the neighborhood obviously but I also had two very involved parents (again, until my parents divorced when I was 9). My mom was very hands on and my dad took me to the park a lot, too.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 30, 2016 11:58:25 GMT -5
I am one of those women who would be absolutely miserable as as SAHP. I am often extremely thankful that I was born in a time when women were at least starting to have more options other than being a SAHM, teacher or nurse. I like having choices and I don't ever want to be depend upon someone else to take care of me. My mom was at SAHM and my father is a wonderful person but I always remember her having to "run stuff by him" financially. If she we went to lunch and spent $20 he would ask what the $20 was spent on. He wasn't mean or controlling about it but it was just the fact she had to tell him that annoyed the shit out of me.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Aug 30, 2016 12:11:44 GMT -5
I am one of those women who would be absolutely miserable as as SAHP. I am often extremely thankful that I was born in a time when women were at least starting to have more options other than being a SAHM, teacher or nurse. I like having choices and I don't ever want to be depend upon someone else to take care of me. My mom was at SAHM and my father is a wonderful person but I always remember her having to "run stuff by him" financially. If she we went to lunch and spent $20 he would ask what the $20 was spent on. He wasn't mean or controlling about it but it was just the fact she had to tell him that annoyed the shit out of me. I ask my husband what he spends money on and he is the one bringing all the income. I am just very OCD about $$$
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,104
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 30, 2016 12:15:42 GMT -5
Of course you don't. You are applying your cultural norms and expectations onto women in the 1960's. That's the problem. If you were to travel back in time your parenting philosphy would be just as alien to then as theirs is to you. When people talk about the good old days they are nostalgic for things that never really existed they are rose colored versions of history heavily influenced by how we were raised and view the world. I happen to have my grandmother's baby book from the 1930's. I am pretty sure I'd get CPS called on me if I took some of the advice laid out for parenting/motherhood. That does not make my great grandparents horrible people because they followed the parenting philosphy of their time period. Flash forward to the 1950s and parenting styles have changed. Flash forward to the 1980's and they change again. Flash forward to 2010 when my daughter was born and they have changed again. That doesn't make my grandparents or my parents bad people. They followed the cultural norms and expectations of the time. I am sure there is quite a bit of stuff that we do that my daughters will wonder "WTF" when it comes time for them to have children. It does not make me a horrible parent. When people say that everyone would be "happier" in a certain time period it does not take into account the actual reality of that time period. You are viewing it thru your own cultural biases from your own time period. Being a SAHM and being a breadwinner husband in the 50's-60's are not the same thing as they are in 2016. It's people wishing for something that never existed. If they had to actually LIVE it they would probably be quite surprised. But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
And maybe you could have. That is great for you. The letter in the OP implies that women as a WHOLE were happier and better off in the 1960's. That's also the common sentiment behind people wishing for whatever "good ole days" they desire be it Leave it to Beaver, The Waltons, Little House on the Prarie, etc. People choose to cherry pick the things they like about whatever good old days they are waxing about and tend to ignore the fact that there was just as much crap then as there is now. It was just different crap. There are probably people who would be quite happy to return to the 1960s and take whatever negatives there were in that decade in exchange. Then they are people who are quite happy living in 2016. Unfortunately physics has not figured out time travel so we'll never know. The thing is the letter writer is claiming ALL women were happier in the 1960s when they could all live her life. That is not true. It also ignores A LOT of the luxuries and rights the letter writer enjoys as a women/mother in 2016 that she would not have had in 1960. It also ignores that not all MEN want to go back to 1960 either. We'll assume for simplicity that her husband agrees with her and would love to go back to the 1960's model of being a husband/father. That doesn't mean every man wants to. My FIL has told me he would much rather have the relationship that DH and I have and been a dual working household. While yes that means MIL would have not been home it would have allowed him to not have to work 3 jobs to support the household. He could have spent more time with his kids. But that's not what you did back then. As the husband it was his job to provide the paycheck. Much like the set up in the letter. Good old days are good when they suit your personal viewpoint on life. Reality was just as messy in 1960 as it is in 2016. I may not have had as many "choices" as I do today but that's not automatically a good thing when you consider what some of my lack of choices entailed.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,017
Member is Online
|
Post by raeoflyte on Aug 30, 2016 12:16:36 GMT -5
Dh and I both really want to be a sahp. I earn more and dh can earn good money working nights and weekends so he is lucky enough to only work 20 hours a week. I do feel like I'm sacrificing my goals for my family sometimes, but we're doing what is best for the kids. It would probably be better if dh could stay home full time because then he could take on the majority of the household tasks. But for now we just keep on, keeping on.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 30, 2016 12:22:56 GMT -5
My brother could, but he's too worthless/selfish/spoiled by my mom. the same mother who needs care? wow. Yeah, but he mows her 1/4 acre lot with my dad's riding mower every other week, so he's great
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 30, 2016 12:23:48 GMT -5
But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
And maybe you could have. That is great for you. The letter in the OP implies that women as a WHOLE were happier and better off in the 1960's. That's also the common sentiment behind people wishing for whatever "good ole days" they desire be it Leave it to Beaver, The Waltons, Little House on the Prarie, etc. People choose to cherry pick the things they like about whatever good old days they are waxing about and tend to ignore the fact that there was just as much crap then as there is now. It was just different crap. There are probably people who would be quite happy to return to the 1960s and take whatever negatives there were in that decade in exchange. Then they are people who are quite happy living in 2016. Unfortunately physics has not figured out time travel so we'll never know. The thing is the letter writer is claiming ALL women were happier in the 1960s when they could all live her life. That is not true. It also ignores A LOT of the luxuries and rights the letter writer enjoys as a women/mother in 2016 that she would not have had in 1960. It also ignores that not all MEN want to go back to 1960 either. We'll assume for simplicity that her husband agrees with her and would love to go back to the 1960's model of being a husband/father. That doesn't mean every man wants to. My FIL has told me he would much rather have the relationship that DH and I have and been a dual working household. While yes that means MIL would have not been home it would have allowed him to not have to work 3 jobs to support the household. He could have spent more time with his kids. But that's not what you did back then. As the husband it was his job to provide the paycheck. Much like the set up in the letter. Good old days are good when they suit your personal viewpoint on life. Reality was just as messy in 1960 as it is in 2016. I may not have had as many "choices" as I do today but that's not automatically a good thing when you consider what some of my lack of choices entailed. My dad didn't work 3 jobs and he spent time with me. Not all men worked 3 jobs back then. Just like not all men have it cushy now.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,601
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2016 12:24:13 GMT -5
I love this: In 1960, women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today this gender gap has reversed: male happiness has gone up, and female happiness has declined. This is true both in America and in the U.K.
But wait, how can women in the postfeminist era be less happy than their mothers were?
Because they’ve been groomed to reject their femininity and to be resentful of men and marriage. The result is a nation of bitter, divorced and infertile women.
I didn't know that opinions about marriage affected your fertility! I can honestly see that women were happier...or maybe it is just the women that I knew. My aunt's and mom didn't work. They were all very involved SAHM (my mom was until the divorce). But they weren't married to assholes who treated them like they had no value. But then my mom got divorced and her life fell apart because she had no skills to support us. All she ever wanted to be was a mom and she struggled with working...which somehow led to being a completely shitty mom because she turend to alcohol....but I digress...
I can see how women with good home lives were happier back then. I love being a mom and honestly loved taking care of the kids, the house and my husband. What I didn't love was the risk that came with that. I saw what the did to my mom and how we went to poverty...so I would never put myself in that position (good thing since I got divorced!)
But it sucks being a professional and a mom. I always feel like something is losing out. And I can live iwht my job losing out but not my kids. So yes, if not for the risk of financial security, I would totally take the life of a 1950's mom over what I have now.
Granted...all of this might be my stress talking!
I think it was just the people you knew.
My mom grew up with the idea that the only socially accepted path for women was to be a SAHM. She went to college with the sole goal of finding a man who could support her. She had several marriage proposals and picked the man who she thought would earn the most money.
She ended up being a SAHM but she was miserable, because she hated cooking and cleaning. She hated being a 'taxi' and ferrying us kids around. She hated taking care of kids. She complained constantly that our dad didn't earn enough to pay for a country club membership so she could go meet her girlfriends at the club for lunch while her kids played at the pool, then go back to the club every night for dinner and dancing. She felt that her life was one long thankless chore after another, and she made my dad and the rest of us miserable, too.
By the time I got to high school, I was convinced I would never get married and have kids because my mom was so miserable being a SAHM. It seemed far better to never marry at all.
I think she would have been happier if she had a job and they could have afforded a house cleaner and some take out food a couple times a week. That's just my opinion, though, and we won't know, because at that time, two working parent families were an anomaly.
That's the beauty of our current society - couples can figure out what works best for them. SAHM, SAHD, two parents working outside the home, maybe working shift work so one is home more with the kids - whatever you need to do to raise your kids and keep your house in order.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,601
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2016 12:30:11 GMT -5
I must have missed the part where it said that the husband sacrificed his life / happiness / whatever for her....... The woman writing the article is stating that her DH gave up his dream of being a writer to be the full time bread winner. That he gave up having the ability to just decide to have 'me' time in the middle of the week because he had to get up and go to work every day. She thanks him for making all those sacrifices for her and her kids.
Of course, that is what SHE is saying. It could very well be that her DH sees going to work as exciting. Maybe he loves his two hour martini lunches with his work pals. What his wife sees as drudgery may in fact be his happy chance to escape the noisy kids and nasty household chores.
We don't know, because the article writer is writing only what she sees, and assumes - or, what she wants to assume, in order to make her political point in this article. As I said in an earlier post, I would love to hear DH's take on his 'sacrifices.'
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 30, 2016 12:48:30 GMT -5
It doesn't surprise me that women may have been happier in the 50's and 60's.
Back then they were expected to stay at home, take care of their children, cook, and clean. These days, many women are expected to work full-time, take care of their kids, cook, clean, attend 7 million different kids activity's, and get judged for their parenting.
I realize that men do more to take care of their kids and housework now, but even with that I see that women seem to do the bulk of that sort of work. And many women have to take the job with greater flexibility and lower pay and professional rewards. So I can see why they might be unhappier now.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,158
|
Post by giramomma on Aug 30, 2016 12:51:47 GMT -5
That doesn't mean every man wants to. My FIL has told me he would much rather have the relationship that DH and I have and been a dual working household. While yes that means MIL would have not been home it would have allowed him to not have to work 3 jobs to support the household. He could have spent more time with his kids.
I'd argue that the lack of three FLEXIBLE jobs prevented your FIL from spending more time with his kids. And I think personality makes a huge difference. Having jobs that you can do before the kids wake up, after they go to bed, or while you are commuting allows you to do more than a job that requires you to have a set butt-in-seat time. I don't get paid anymore or less if I work faster/slower at my dayjob. But, if I work faster and get my work completed sooner than 8 hours, well, then I have times for other things. My kids forgot I had to go into the office and work this past summer. Because I was around so much. I dunno. I've worked between 2-3 jobs. My kids don't really feel like I'm an absent parent. They feel like they get more time from both DH and I then their friends with dual income working parents. They've told me so. They don't say "Oh, we get more time with Dad, but mom you are never around." One of my old clients had a super involved dad. Worked two jobs, drove his 4 kids around, coached their sports, and at one point was going to school to finish up his bachelors and doing some pretty heavy duty work on a house they were building (tiling bathrooms, paint rooms, putting on molding, etc.) I know he didn't sleep much.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 30, 2016 12:54:13 GMT -5
I can honestly see that women were happier...or maybe it is just the women that I knew. My aunt's and mom didn't work. They were all very involved SAHM (my mom was until the divorce). But they weren't married to assholes who treated them like they had no value. But then my mom got divorced and her life fell apart because she had no skills to support us. All she ever wanted to be was a mom and she struggled with working...which somehow led to being a completely shitty mom because she turend to alcohol....but I digress...
I can see how women with good home lives were happier back then. I love being a mom and honestly loved taking care of the kids, the house and my husband. What I didn't love was the risk that came with that. I saw what the did to my mom and how we went to poverty...so I would never put myself in that position (good thing since I got divorced!)
But it sucks being a professional and a mom. I always feel like something is losing out. And I can live iwht my job losing out but not my kids. So yes, if not for the risk of financial security, I would totally take the life of a 1950's mom over what I have now.
Granted...all of this might be my stress talking!
I think it was just the people you knew.
My mom grew up with the idea that the only socially accepted path for women was to be a SAHM. She went to college with the sole goal of finding a man who could support her. She had several marriage proposals and picked the man who she thought would earn the most money.
She ended up being a SAHM but she was miserable, because she hated cooking and cleaning. She hated being a 'taxi' and ferrying us kids around. She hated taking care of kids. She complained constantly that our dad didn't earn enough to pay for a country club membership so she could go meet her girlfriends at the club for lunch while her kids played at the pool, then go back to the club every night for dinner and dancing. She felt that her life was one long thankless chore after another, and she made my dad and the rest of us miserable, too.
By the time I got to high school, I was convinced I would never get married and have kids because my mom was so miserable being a SAHM. It seemed far better to never marry at all.
I think she would have been happier if she had a job and they could have afforded a house cleaner and some take out food a couple times a week. That's just my opinion, though, and we won't know, because at that time, two working parent families were an anomaly.
That's the beauty of our current society - couples can figure out what works best for them. SAHM, SAHD, two parents working outside the home, maybe working shift work so one is home more with the kids - whatever you need to do to raise your kids and keep your house in order.
That is really sad about your mom. Did she even want kids or was she pressured?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 30, 2016 13:14:46 GMT -5
I can honestly see that women were happier...or maybe it is just the women that I knew. My aunt's and mom didn't work. They were all very involved SAHM (my mom was until the divorce). But they weren't married to assholes who treated them like they had no value. But then my mom got divorced and her life fell apart because she had no skills to support us. All she ever wanted to be was a mom and she struggled with working...which somehow led to being a completely shitty mom because she turend to alcohol....but I digress...
I can see how women with good home lives were happier back then. I love being a mom and honestly loved taking care of the kids, the house and my husband. What I didn't love was the risk that came with that. I saw what the did to my mom and how we went to poverty...so I would never put myself in that position (good thing since I got divorced!)
But it sucks being a professional and a mom. I always feel like something is losing out. And I can live iwht my job losing out but not my kids. So yes, if not for the risk of financial security, I would totally take the life of a 1950's mom over what I have now.
Granted...all of this might be my stress talking!
I don't know if I could say that people were happier back then. There were definitely less choices and appearances were everything, so I can see how people could have appeared to be happier. And yes, there were/are definitely women who get all of their happiness and life from taking care of their home and family. I thought I would be one of them.... HOPED I'd be one of them. But I'm just not. Don't get me wrong, I love my son more than life and I want to make sure I raise him well. I love a clean home and I like cooking and decorating. And I haven't given up on love and possibly a second chance at marriage (and who knows, maybe another kid!). But that is not all I want my life to be. I only had a taste of the SAHP life when I was on maternity leave, and for me it was exhausting in all the wrong ways. I felt isolated and always on edge. That could have been the PPD talking, but idk - that's how I felt. I've gone to some playdate type events on Meetup, and 95% of what these women talk about is their kids. Even at MNO! I just can't imagine that being the only important thing going on in my life. It's not a life I think I'd enjoy, but I'm not going to dog on them for enjoying it. Feminism is about celebrating the plethora of choices we now have. If women choose to be a SAHM, I have no problem with that. If that makes them happy, GREAT! I just can't see that making me happy. That was one of my issues as well. Not just in talking to other moms, but in talking to anyone else who can only talk about one subject... it's really, really, really boring to be around. There is no single subject - even my own kids - that I could stand to discuss 95% of the time without wanting to kill myself from boredom. And I'm acutely aware that my kids are only interesting to me because they're mine, so talking about other people's kids even 50% of the time would probably be enough to push me over the edge as well so that wouldn't be the mark of a good friend. That's probably why most of my friends tend to be people I have some hobbies or interests in common with, but who can talk about subjects other than even those common interests. The people who don't have enough varied things going on, or don't read enough to know about or want to talk about new and different things, or who haven't experienced enough things to have a varied history to discuss are really tough for me to spend time with because the conversation is so tedious. It works fine if you're a person who is interested enough in children in general to want to talk about them the majority of the time - and judging from the people I've met and read about, there are a lot of those (mostly) women out there so you can easily find friends with the same interest. But it's harder if you don't find the subject of children (or really any one subject) fascinating enough to discuss a majority of the time, and it's harder if you're a women because the pool of women who wants to discuss a variety of non-kid things is smaller and society is still judgy if many of your friends are men...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 30, 2016 13:23:39 GMT -5
Of course you don't. You are applying your cultural norms and expectations onto women in the 1960's. That's the problem. If you were to travel back in time your parenting philosphy would be just as alien to then as theirs is to you. When people talk about the good old days they are nostalgic for things that never really existed they are rose colored versions of history heavily influenced by how we were raised and view the world. I happen to have my grandmother's baby book from the 1930's. I am pretty sure I'd get CPS called on me if I took some of the advice laid out for parenting/motherhood. That does not make my great grandparents horrible people because they followed the parenting philosphy of their time period. Flash forward to the 1950s and parenting styles have changed. Flash forward to the 1980's and they change again. Flash forward to 2010 when my daughter was born and they have changed again. That doesn't make my grandparents or my parents bad people. They followed the cultural norms and expectations of the time. I am sure there is quite a bit of stuff that we do that my daughters will wonder "WTF" when it comes time for them to have children. It does not make me a horrible parent. When people say that everyone would be "happier" in a certain time period it does not take into account the actual reality of that time period. You are viewing it thru your own cultural biases from your own time period. Being a SAHM and being a breadwinner husband in the 50's-60's are not the same thing as they are in 2016. It's people wishing for something that never existed. If they had to actually LIVE it they would probably be quite surprised. But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
My grandmother never had a washer until I was 14 or so....so this would have been in 1973. For her to wash clothes, it was a full day job, and that was just washing. I still remember her at the laundry sinks on the porch, and putting the clothes through a ringer. Then the clothes went on either the lines outside or inside. Clothes were sprinkled and went into a basket to be ironed. Everything got ironed, so that was another day. She did have an electric iron. She also canned for the winter, and there would be bushels of veggies or fruit brought in to can, some of it she went out to pick. By the end of the summer, there were hundreds of canning jars filled with everything you can imagine. We did live with her periodically (when my dad was stationed some place families couldn't go) so my mom helped and it was a bit easier. But during those times, we were let out to play in the morning, and showed up filthy at dinner. We roamed the town, probably about an 8-10 block radius in every direction. We went to the library, park, pool, frozen custard stand, etc. by ourselves. The first time we moved there, I was finishing up first grade, and then we were moving to England. I walked to school alone each morning. It was 5 blocks. I walked home for lunch, back to school after lunch, and home again at the end of the day. My mom didn't take me, I either walked with neighborhood kids or alone. No ones parents walked with them either. I also went to the pool by myself from about the same age, it was 4 blocks away. So after reading that a kid was playing alone in a park and CPS was called just blows my mind. This was the norm back then, so was getting left alone in the car while mom was in the store. My my childhood would be impossible today.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Aug 30, 2016 13:33:47 GMT -5
If time travel WERE possible I am pretty sure a lot of those people would come running back to 2016 pretty quickly.
If for no other reason than to get away from the outhouse ....... I started working full time when DD started K in 1966 and got a long lecture about 'woman's work and man's work' from DHs aunt. She was horrified that I would want to do something other than housework and cooking ....... and the ladies meetings at church. But it was something DH#1 and I decided was best for our family unit and it allowed DD to go to a church school until 5th grade. Except for the couple of years when I was 50-51 when I attended DeVry I've worked full time at something until I retired. DH#2 always had a SAHW when his kids were growing up and beyond until her death. Then he married me ....... shocker LOL I started working as soon as I could. He doesn't really like it but is finally getting used to the idea of having to help around the house.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Aug 30, 2016 13:34:21 GMT -5
My mom grew up with the idea that the only socially accepted path for women was to be a SAHM. She went to college with the sole goal of finding a man who could support her. She had several marriage proposals and picked the man who she thought would earn the most money.
She ended up being a SAHM but she was miserable, because she hated cooking and cleaning. She hated being a 'taxi' and ferrying us kids around. She hated taking care of kids. She complained constantly that our dad didn't earn enough to pay for a country club membership so she could go meet her girlfriends at the club for lunch while her kids played at the pool, then go back to the club every night for dinner and dancing. She felt that her life was one long thankless chore after another, and she made my dad and the rest of us miserable, too.
By the time I got to high school, I was convinced I would never get married and have kids because my mom was so miserable being a SAHM. It seemed far better to never marry at all.
I think she would have been happier if she had a job and they could have afforded a house cleaner and some take out food a couple times a week. That's just my opinion, though, and we won't know, because at that time, two working parent families were an anomaly.
That's the beauty of our current society - couples can figure out what works best for them. SAHM, SAHD, two parents working outside the home, maybe working shift work so one is home more with the kids - whatever you need to do to raise your kids and keep your house in order.
Soooooooo much I grew up with a "SAHM" who worked "on the side." She taught voice and piano in our home, and substituted at our school. [Y'all can thank her for the musical gift that is David Paich of the band Toto. She was his very first music teacher.] But she was NEVER happy doing the middle-class-housewife-in-the-suburbs thing while my dad was busy chasing a career (and finding success) as an aerospace engineer. And after my dad died when I was still fairly young (I was in college and my kid brother was still in high school) I found out why.
After he died, she spent about six months moping around the house (normal), then she went back to school and became a paralegal. The next year, she landed a job in a well-known Century City law firm and just blossomed. Seriously. I spent some time wondering who the heck this woman was, the one who drove a new car every three years and wore suits, silk and pearls to work - and LOVED her job. And made good money. I only passed her in salary about a dozen years ago.
What finally occurred to me was that this version of her was the woman she was always meant to be - the one who was witty, intelligent, well-read, and an excellent writer who thrived on using her intellect. This was the woman who got a master's degree back in the early 50's when most women still didn't even go to college, and was a college professor who chucked it all to marry my dad and do the 50's 60's housewife thing. But she was never happy in that role.
I'm GLAD people (both men and women) have more choices now. I'm glad traditional roles are falling away. I'm glad everyone is freer to follow what works for them, instead of trying to fit into some kind of culturally acceptable role.
The good ol' days sucked for a LOT of people, just sayin' . . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 9:14:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 13:44:41 GMT -5
But what were the norms back then? You lock the kid outside and do what all day? I'm not being sarcastic. I have NO IDEA what a person would do in their house for 8-10 hours while their husband worked. My house was immaculate, I cooked, I gardened and I spent plenty of time with my kids. So if I cut out spending time with my children what exactly would that be replaced with?
But you also don't account for the fact that not everyone ignored their children. Just like in today's world not everyone is a helicopter parent. So I very well could have enjoyed the simplicity of the times and still spent time with my children.
My grandmother never had a washer until I was 14 or so....so this would have been in 1973. For her to wash clothes, it was a full day job, and that was just washing. I still remember her at the laundry sinks on the porch, and putting the clothes through a ringer. Then the clothes went on either the lines outside or inside. Clothes were sprinkled and went into a basket to be ironed. Everything got ironed, so that was another day. She did have an electric iron. She also canned for the winter, and there would be bushels of veggies or fruit brought in to can, some of it she went out to pick. By the end of the summer, there were hundreds of canning jars filled with everything you can imagine. We did live with her periodically (when my dad was stationed some place families couldn't go) so my mom helped and it was a bit easier. But during those times, we were let out to play in the morning, and showed up filthy at dinner. We roamed the town, probably about an 8-10 block radius in every direction. We went to the library, park, pool, frozen custard stand, etc. by ourselves. The first time we moved there, I was finishing up first grade, and then we were moving to England. I walked to school alone each morning. It was 5 blocks. I walked home for lunch, back to school after lunch, and home again at the end of the day. My mom didn't take me, I either walked with neighborhood kids or alone. No ones parents walked with them either. I also went to the pool by myself from about the same age, it was 4 blocks away. So after reading that a kid was playing alone in a park and CPS was called just blows my mind. This was the norm back then, so was getting left alone in the car while mom was in the store. My my childhood would be impossible today.This was my life as a kid too. My mother was gone working and my Grandmother had a garden of at least a half acre. My cousins and I disappeared in the morning only we weren't in town, so we left on horseback and came back at night. If we stuck around we'd be digging weeds or picking peas. I was just reading another board where a mother was wondering what she was going to do with her daughter when after school care ended in 6th grade and she wouldn't have anyone to watch her from 2:30 to 5:30. That's just so foreign to me. I was walking to and from school alone starting in 1st grade. If I forgot my lunch or homework I was SOL.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 9:14:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 14:07:04 GMT -5
My mom grew up with the idea that the only socially accepted path for women was to be a SAHM. She went to college with the sole goal of finding a man who could support her. She had several marriage proposals and picked the man who she thought would earn the most money.
She ended up being a SAHM but she was miserable, because she hated cooking and cleaning. She hated being a 'taxi' and ferrying us kids around. She hated taking care of kids. She complained constantly that our dad didn't earn enough to pay for a country club membership so she could go meet her girlfriends at the club for lunch while her kids played at the pool, then go back to the club every night for dinner and dancing. She felt that her life was one long thankless chore after another, and she made my dad and the rest of us miserable, too.
By the time I got to high school, I was convinced I would never get married and have kids because my mom was so miserable being a SAHM. It seemed far better to never marry at all.
I think she would have been happier if she had a job and they could have afforded a house cleaner and some take out food a couple times a week. That's just my opinion, though, and we won't know, because at that time, two working parent families were an anomaly.
That's the beauty of our current society - couples can figure out what works best for them. SAHM, SAHD, two parents working outside the home, maybe working shift work so one is home more with the kids - whatever you need to do to raise your kids and keep your house in order.
Soooooooo much I grew up with a "SAHM" who worked "on the side." She taught voice and piano in our home, and substituted at our school. [Y'all can thank her for the musical gift that is David Paich of the band Toto. She was his very first music teacher.] But she was NEVER happy doing the middle-class-housewife-in-the-suburbs thing while my dad was busy chasing a career (and finding success) as an aerospace engineer. And after my dad died when I was still fairly young (I was in college and my kid brother was still in high school) I found out why.
After he died, she spent about six months moping around the house (normal), then she went back to school and became a paralegal. The next year, she landed a job in a well-known Century City law firm and just blossomed. Seriously. I spent some time wondering who the heck this woman was, the one who drove a new car every three years and wore suits, silk and pearls to work - and LOVED her job. And made good money. I only passed her in salary about a dozen years ago.
What finally occurred to me was that this version of her was the woman she was always meant to be - the one who was witty, intelligent, well-read, and an excellent writer who thrived on using her intellect. This was the woman who got a master's degree back in the early 50's when most women still didn't even go to college, and was a college professor who chucked it all to marry my dad and do the 50's 60's housewife thing. But she was never happy in that role.
I'm GLAD people (both men and women) have more choices now. I'm glad traditional roles are falling away. I'm glad everyone is freer to follow what works for them, instead of trying to fit into some kind of culturally acceptable role.
The good ol' days sucked for a LOT of people, just sayin' . . .
I love!!! "Rosanna!" DH was so thrilled to show me his cassette tape that he found yesterday. He's such a nerd.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,601
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2016 14:08:28 GMT -5
I think it was just the people you knew.
My mom grew up with the idea that the only socially accepted path for women was to be a SAHM. She went to college with the sole goal of finding a man who could support her. She had several marriage proposals and picked the man who she thought would earn the most money.
She ended up being a SAHM but she was miserable, because she hated cooking and cleaning. She hated being a 'taxi' and ferrying us kids around. She hated taking care of kids. She complained constantly that our dad didn't earn enough to pay for a country club membership so she could go meet her girlfriends at the club for lunch while her kids played at the pool, then go back to the club every night for dinner and dancing. She felt that her life was one long thankless chore after another, and she made my dad and the rest of us miserable, too.
By the time I got to high school, I was convinced I would never get married and have kids because my mom was so miserable being a SAHM. It seemed far better to never marry at all.
I think she would have been happier if she had a job and they could have afforded a house cleaner and some take out food a couple times a week. That's just my opinion, though, and we won't know, because at that time, two working parent families were an anomaly.
That's the beauty of our current society - couples can figure out what works best for them. SAHM, SAHD, two parents working outside the home, maybe working shift work so one is home more with the kids - whatever you need to do to raise your kids and keep your house in order.
That is really sad about your mom. Did she even want kids or was she pressured?
She loved babies. She always said she liked kids until they could talk and argue with you.
I do feel sad for her because she didn't have any choice, being born in 1929. Getting married was what you did, unless you were an unlucky spinster or someone weird, like Madam Curie, who actually liked work. She did what she thought she needed to do- married an engineer for the lifestyle he could give her, rather than marrying for love - but her two older sisters married guys who had family money and could provide my aunts with the country club lifestyle my mom always wanted. So she was unhappy, comparing her life to the lives of her sisters, and unhappy that she didn't have enough money to buy the kind of car or clothes she wanted, and it really is true, if Momma ain't happy, nobody's happy.
It's funny, she used to lecture me and my sisters that we needed to marry the 'right' kind of man who could provide us with a country club lifestyle (yes, that's what she called it). She insisted women who worked HAD to work, and were miserable. That kids of working couple families always turned out to be criminals. Her three oldest daughters all worked outside the home and we had kids that turned out very well, but it wasn't until my father died, when my mom was 76, that she had a sudden change of heart about working moms and their kids. When she saw how much less she would get from SSI as a widow with no working history of her own, she announced that ALL women needed to work to have their OWN money and SSI payments in retirement. Overnight, she started hounding my little sister, the only one of us who was a SAHM, to go back to work and start earning money, which was kind of astonishing for all her children to witness.
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Aug 30, 2016 14:20:47 GMT -5
I must have missed the part where it said that the husband sacrificed his life / happiness / whatever for her....... The woman writing the article is stating that her DH gave up his dream of being a writer to be the full time bread winner. That he gave up having the ability to just decide to have 'me' time in the middle of the week because he had to get up and go to work every day. She thanks him for making all those sacrifices for her and her kids.
Of course, that is what SHE is saying. It could very well be that her DH sees going to work as exciting. Maybe he loves his two hour martini lunches with his work pals. What his wife sees as drudgery may in fact be his happy chance to escape the noisy kids and nasty household chores.
We don't know, because the article writer is writing only what she sees, and assumes - or, what she wants to assume, in order to make her political point in this article. As I said in an earlier post, I would love to hear DH's take on his 'sacrifices.'
and what is the "political point" of this article? I guess I missed that too
thanks for trying toe explain it though
The only thing I read that the dude "missed" was his dream of being of a "writer".......so what, maybe dude wouldn't have made it as a writer.......I wanted to be an astronaut.....oh well.....you really think the whole time they been married he never been laid off, unemployed, etc....I doubt dude had same job the whole time they been married.......even if wifey poo "assumes" he is sacrificing, I don't see it........he's not sacrificing more than anyone else in this world.....but I guess I missed that
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 30, 2016 14:34:18 GMT -5
It doesn't surprise me that women may have been happier in the 50's and 60's. Back then they were expected to stay at home, take care of their children, cook, and clean. These days, many women are expected to work full-time, take care of their kids, cook, clean, attend 7 million different kids activity's, and get judged for their parenting. I realize that men do more to take care of their kids and housework now, but even with that I see that women seem to do the bulk of that sort of work. And many women have to take the job with greater flexibility and lower pay and professional rewards. So I can see why they might be unhappier now. I am not surprised that women answered as if they were happier back in the 50's and 60's. Did women actually feel comfortable expressing unhappiness back then? I have a feeling they didn't. People in general often suppressed their feelings, whereas now, people are more comfortable saying they aren't fully happy. Men worked jobs they hated but the motto was to just suck it up, women wanted more than just being a mother but didn't necessarily express those things. I can imagine the results from the 50's and 60's being seriously skewed.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Aug 30, 2016 15:09:34 GMT -5
It doesn't surprise me that women may have been happier in the 50's and 60's. Back then they were expected to stay at home, take care of their children, cook, and clean. These days, many women are expected to work full-time, take care of their kids, cook, clean, attend 7 million different kids activity's, and get judged for their parenting. I realize that men do more to take care of their kids and housework now, but even with that I see that women seem to do the bulk of that sort of work. And many women have to take the job with greater flexibility and lower pay and professional rewards. So I can see why they might be unhappier now. I am not surprised that women answered as if they were happier back in the 50's and 60's. Did women actually feel comfortable expressing unhappiness back then? I have a feeling they didn't. People in general often suppressed their feelings, whereas now, people are more comfortable saying they aren't fully happy. Men worked jobs they hated but the motto was to just suck it up, women wanted more than just being a mother but didn't necessarily express those things. I can imagine the results from the 50's and 60's being seriously skewed. And don't forget - this whole "leave it to beaver" thing was pretty much only if you were white. (Not that there weren't exceptions, but on the whole...)
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,104
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 30, 2016 15:12:48 GMT -5
There is a reason why The Feminine Mystique was published and launched second wave feminism.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,601
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2016 15:24:04 GMT -5
The woman writing the article is stating that her DH gave up his dream of being a writer to be the full time bread winner. That he gave up having the ability to just decide to have 'me' time in the middle of the week because he had to get up and go to work every day. She thanks him for making all those sacrifices for her and her kids.
Of course, that is what SHE is saying. It could very well be that her DH sees going to work as exciting. Maybe he loves his two hour martini lunches with his work pals. What his wife sees as drudgery may in fact be his happy chance to escape the noisy kids and nasty household chores.
We don't know, because the article writer is writing only what she sees, and assumes - or, what she wants to assume, in order to make her political point in this article. As I said in an earlier post, I would love to hear DH's take on his 'sacrifices.'
and what is the "political point" of this article? I guess I missed that too
thanks for trying toe explain it though
The only thing I read that the dude "missed" was his dream of being of a "writer".......so what, maybe dude wouldn't have made it as a writer.......I wanted to be an astronaut.....oh well.....you really think the whole time they been married he never been laid off, unemployed, etc....I doubt dude had same job the whole time they been married.......even if wifey poo "assumes" he is sacrificing, I don't see it........he's not sacrificing more than anyone else in this world.....but I guess I missed that
Click on the link and read the whole article. The OP only posted a part of it.
The writer states many times how her DH gave up his freedom and dreams to be the breadwinner and support his family, and she thanks him for that sacrifice. The 'political' message of the article is that all good men squelch their dreams, give up their freedom and turn into work drones so that they can provide their wives and children with comfortable lives.
We don't know how her DH feels, though. He might love his job and love the fact that his wife handles all the housework chores for him. He may not feel like an office drone at all. We don't get to hear his side of the story.
|
|