Were 1950's housewives and their husbands the most fortunate generation?

Question

Were 1950's housewives and their husbands the most fortunate generation?

Answer 1

No, no, no, absolutely not!

Answer 2

When do you think "mother's little helper" came into play? If it weren't for some serious political/traditional policies, I would have loved to have lived then. I'm an SAHM and love it but if I had been one in 1950 I probably would be pulling my hair out. I don't have my hair set everyday or vacuum in pearls; I don't have a smile on my face when unexpected company comes over and expects coffee and dessert; my kids aren't polished at all times and if my husband expected me to be a stepford wife, i'd divorce him. I love the sense of community and the wholesome values of the 50s but it would've been too big of a trade off to truly enjoy it.

Answer 3

I don't think that they were much different than an average family today. Just because movies make out the 50's to be Stepford-like, doesn't mean it was. That is a huge example of stereotyping. Also, people think of families of that time to be too happy....can there really be too happy and if so, why is it bad? If the families flow together, why is their the need to criticize them? Every has skeletons in their closet, no matter what time you live in.

Answer 4

I would say the white middle class daughters and to a lesser extent sons of that generation where the most fortunate



The reason i differentiate between the daughters and the sons is because  the sons were libel to be drafted into the army to fight the Vietnam war but the daughters where not

The reason i say that they are the most fortunate generation is because they were able to grow up raised by their parents instead of Day cares and it was with their generation that women started to enter into the work force which caused a significant increase in standard of living for families with two professionals before inflation turned that advantage into a necessity They also entered into adulthood in America as it was entering into the height of its status in the world, Vs my generation which is seeing its twilight

Answer 5

I can speak of this era because I actually remember it. For those of you too young to do so, the Hollywood movies were not accurate at all. Except, that families tended to be closer then. We didn't need or want so much materialism as now. It didn't take as much to live then for that reason. It was a simpler time.

With that said, in some ways the 1950's-60's were wonderful, and in other ways it wasn't. You know, kinda like present day. We have good and bad today too. The 1950's-60's had a great deal of inequality with the sexes, especially in reference to job opportunities, wages, etc. Women can work anywhere now without fear of job discrimination. A big plus!

The modern conveniences are better now. We all can enjoy computers, the Internet, and being able to contact anyone at any time of day or night with cellular phones. As kids used to say, "we're just too cool for school".  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚™Â¥ ∞

EDIT: Also medical care is so much better now. I almost forgot that! Without modern technology, I would have lost my husband in 1989 from a ruptured colon. Praise God we live in a country that has such wonderful doctors. ♥ ∞

Answer 6

My mother says that in general life was much rosier back then because of the decade. There wasn't all this 'stress' we have now and people in general were a lot nicer.

I'm sure a lot of people were happy back then but without the media/internet giving us widely availabe info about other things they wouldn't know what else is out there such as ytravelling, careers, interests.

Answer 7

You mean the housewives that had no recourse if their husband abused them and were considered disobediant if they were raped by their husbands?

Yes, they were definitely fortunate.

Answer 8

I know I wouldn't want to be alive during the '50s if I had a warm-blooded choice.

Answer 9

Only if they were white.

Answer 10

No not at all, same O s**t just a different decade. drugs alcohol sexual abuse wife beating post traumatic stress from WW2 and Korea, fear of the up coming war in Viet Nam un-employment, ect and the beat goes on

Answer 11

Perhaps not the entire generation..some were fortunate and happy others were not..It was the unhappiness of thoae people that gave rise to 'womens lib'...And a huge increase in the country's divorce rate.

Answer 12

We will never know, b/c  I'm asssuming people would hide their problems back then. It wasn't acceptable to get divorces or admit that you couldn't stand your husband,right?

Just b/c things looked picture perfect back then doesn't mean it really was...I just think things are more "open" now these days.

Answer 13

Not to me... what about you?, would you like to be seen again, as  the husband who works and don't spend time with the kids, and not to be helped with home expenses???

Answer 14

Well it was a nice time.Most of the time the women were able to raise the kids with good manners, keep the house nice and look good but  the husband must have been stressed going to work paying all the bills exc. It was also a pretty uptight time too (highschoolers weraring girdles so their butts wouldn't shake???)

Mine?http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 15

h**l yeah! The husbands had to deal with their wives' depression, irritability, suicide. The wives' had to wonder why there lives are so meaningless and empty, why their intelligence was devalued and they were treated like children, why their purpose was supposed to be of wife and mother, who they really were and why was the whole US so big on the feminine mystique.  

Come on! Do you really think that a world where half the world's population was wasted was productive? Women were told "anatomy is destiny" and they had no control in shaping their destiny while they watched man conquer and control his destiny with that part of his anatomy that separates him from an animal: his mind. Very unfortunate generation full of frustration and emptiness.

Answer 16

No.  There was quite a bit of abuse, drinking and infidelity  behind closed doors...nt just by men.  Besides, the only people who really benefited from this were upper class white men.  Everyone else struggled to provide for their family or had not obtained equality yet.

It wasn't quite like Leave it to Beaver.

Answer 17

That era had its plusses, but its minusses as well.  Pay scales allowed the husband to work and the wife to stay home and raise the kids and keep house.  But roles were very defined.  If a woman wanted a career, she was mostly out of luck, as was a man who might chose to stay home and raise his kids.  There was too much alcoholism and cigarette addiction, too much conformity, too much racism, anti semitism, just general prejudice.  Yes people had huge cars and cheap gas but it screwed up the world for this generation and future ones.  The country was too militaristic.  We overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala and they still hate us there for doing it.

Answer 18

No, because they had to deal with beatnik kids.

Answer 19

Sometimes I think so.

But men back then didn't change diapers or help with housework since that was "woman's work".

I am thankful for my hubby that helps with everything.

I certainly would love the prices they had during the 50's. And the worldly innocence.

Answer 20

The answer to this question is directly proportional to what one envisions for their own future. Therefore, my answer is no.

Answer 21

lol depresion, irritaBilty and suicide --^

They reincarnated in to asian wifes or something.

You can still be happy D:

Answer 22

It was based on a glossy image that didn't live up to reality.

Answer 23

Not if they didn't WANT to be forced into those roles, no.

Ask an older g*y man or woman, an independent woman who didn't want to marry or have children, a man who preferred to travel and live by the seat of his pants rather than settle down, a woman with high academic aspirations or anyone non-white how they felt about the 50s, and they'll probably tell you they were stifling.