|
Termyn8or -> RE: 1950s household (11/29/2005 5:17:46 PM)
|
I had to ring in on this one.
That "50's household" was a natural byproduct of human nature. There are discussions of this in other forums in which I have participated, and somehow managed to get my point across without offending.
For the Man to dominate the household and be tolerated and respected by his Woman, he needs a few things. Some of it is descibed in the Yin and Yang principles, and in similar social values.
For one the Man must be educated and I don't mean in what they jokingly refer to as school these days. Back then, genertions of conditioning and circumstance taught Men to think forward. They would be the ones to plant the crops, hunt, work or whatever it took to get food on the table, or more aptly get it to the house. The Woman would feed the children and take care of their immediate needs. Millenia of harsh existence made these two roles symbiotic in nature.
The Woman got "chosen" to feed the children because she's the one with breasts. When the kids were babies she had no choice. It would be impractical for her to drop what she was doing, like plowing a field or hunting down an antelope or something to breastfeed. Thus the roles were cast, and it worked, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Modern society has removed most of the environmental influences that caused this arraingment, and Women do have alot more choices now.
Worth mentioning, but not least, is the fact that the Man needed wisdom. This does not come from school, part of it probably came when a son asked his dad "Why do we have to do this", and instead of smacking the kid he would explain something like this "Well, you know those vegetables we ate today with dinner ?, well they weren't planted yesterday". The son learns the value of some work that doesn't pay off right this minute.
The Woman had an equally important yet very different role. She had to know if the kids ate enough, or too much, were sick or too hot or too cold. She also wound up teaching the daughters to cook and sew. Today, most Women see that as a dull and boring existence, and that is not good. I'm sure these Women of old derived a great deal of satisfaction knowing that they were a part of helping the kids grow up to be adept at their role in surviving, as well as raising children who would also survive.
It's been reported that Ted Nugent and his family live the old way. He shoots it, she cooks it. Unfortunately the gov will only allow certain people to do that. Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge to the Weaver family. They seem to hate the indepenence that is indeed one of the major factors in the survival of our species. That is a shame, but moreso to have Presidents who attack countries just because another country calls for a "regime change", or sit in their office getting blowjobs while the country goes to hell are not leaders.
I can see how the modern dominant Woman developed, look at what some males do ! If some of these people are what you would call modern "Men", perhaps Women SHOULD be in charge, at least of them. Not me.
For a male to be a Man, he needs wisdom and compassion on top of alot of common sense, that is thinking about long term consequences of his actions. To dominate and domineer are two different things. For example, a Woman who has decided to move in, and grace my house with her presence is not going to get away with telling me to do the dishes, but, "Honey, the dishes are kinda piled up and I don't feel like doing them right now" would not invoke the "Fuck you" response, but would be met with "Is something wrong, are you feeling OK ?"
No matter what games we play in the bedroom, I have a life, and so should she. That should be among myconcerns as what would be called a leader. She would respect my opinion enough to defer, it would not be a matter of physical strength or infatuation.
The real 50's household only embodied some of these things in the 50's, because there was enough deviance (bad deviance, not what some of us do) and many buried cases of abuse. Society had already deteriorated if for no other reason than the harsh enviroment being dealt with by technology.
Other influences exist, and I've heard people bitch about the media being inappropriate for children, and they are absolutely right, but if you teach them right they will be relatively immune to the effects.
One final thought, if an Utopian society is ever to exist, it must be Utopian for everybody.
T
|
|
|
|
