Are Women Happier Post-Sexual Revolution?

catefrances

hedonist wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share

Tuesday through Thursday, kid's on his own

kids are resourceful. 8-)

Prince Of Dorkness

Yeah. Women were MUCH better off when they got paid about half of what men did for the same work. They didn't have to wrestle with wether to leave an abusive, alcoholic husband or not... the inability to get so much as a car loan or a lease on an apartment on her own took that hard decision away from her.

Times were better before she could make her own decisions about birth control or getting a job. It was much easier when boys were asked "what do you want to be when you grow up" when girls were told to go play with her toy vacuum cleaner or she wouldn't grow up to be a "good mommy."

And back in the days when women would go to the police to complain about stalkers and told "well, maybe he likes you."

And back when teenage boys were given cars for graduation and girls were given a "hope chest."

Back when women got angry and were told "there there, dear" and given tranquilizers and alcohol so they could be good women... you know, like Betty Ford was.

Back when things were better (you know, for lazy men who don't want to work hard because their female boss is such a bitch). I'm sure you pine for days like that again.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

I'm with Jeanwah the article sucked, poorly researched (one article about an ancillary thing that was loosely tied in, but served as the main premise seriously?), and seemed more to pull at one's emotions either way rather than produce any active thought. I mean there are plenty of other things to look at in terms of real wages stagnating than blaming women in the work place. Wouldn't outsourcing manual labor, the decimation of unionized labor, tax cuts and kickbacks for the uber-rich, and so on seem to be both more reasonable for the lack of happiness in people and more logically connected to the stagnation of wages? I suppose the rise in instantaneous, reactionary, entertainment "news" has really cut into the need for deep thought and research, and this is but one example.

Further, as an aside, my wife and I share household chores pretty evenly. I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share, I cook, she does dishes, she washes clothes, I take out garbage, we got all bourgie and got house cleaners to keep up where we can't. Oh, and we both work, and make just about the same amount depending on whether or not she works weekends vs. me teaching in the Winter and Summer. Both of us are very happy.

I think you'd agree, that most (unlike us) don't have the luxury of teaching college or having malleable schedules. So, their schedules often conflict. In these situations, kids go in daycare even if that's not desired. My point is that "that", is difficult for some women (and some men!). I'm sure that problem did exist before the sexual revolution, but I do think the sexual revolution was one aspect that certainly made it worse. Why? Well, more women entered the labor force driving down real wages, and decades later married couples can't really exist as easily on one income as they did decades prior.

Prince Of Dorkness

And good for Jean and Brian for noticing...

What this REALLY is is the beginning of the new "real problem" narrative that huge corporations and the extremely rich of America wants to create...

At one time the real problem was "illegal immigrants taking all of our jobs" like picking cucumbers in 98° heat for below minimum wage. They blamed "minorities" for affirmative action taking away jobs. We've blamed the poor for actually wanting to be paid enough to live... wanting your health insurance company to provide the care they promised you when they took your money.

Now we're blaming WOMEN because they were so selfish as to not stay at home and make dinner, make babies and make the bed.

It's all just another ploy by mega corporations and the mega rich to take the blame off of themselves for giving themselves tax-free, consequence-free, risk-free and guilt-free money... your money. Remember, it's not the banks and CEOs and corporations that took your money and house and job, it was the Mexicans or the blacks and the women. And we need to send them back where they belong... Mexico, the fields and the home.

There.... that's better.

hedonist

Prince, can't say I disagree with how it was then (Mother's Little Helper, anyone?) but I'm thankful that not all gave in to those restraints.

This is probably apropos to nothing but struck me as funny as I was posting the above -

Just earlier I was in our living room listening to Springsteen, with his usual earnestness (which I typically like, depending on the moment / my moment. At that / my moment, I liked. It fit.)

I come into the bedroom to post here, and he's listening to APC's cover of Let's Have a War.

Had to laugh. And I did.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Yeah. Women were MUCH better off when they got paid about half of what men did for the same work. They didn't have to wrestle with wether to leave an abusive, alcoholic husband or not... the inability to get so much as a car loan or a lease on an apartment on her own took that hard decision away from her.

Times were better before she could make her own decisions about birth control or getting a job. It was much easier when boys were asked "what do you want to be when you grow up" when girls were told to go play with her toy vacuum cleaner or she wouldn't grow up to be a "good mommy."

And back in the days when women would go to the police to complain about stalkers and told "well, maybe he likes you."

And back when teenage boys were given cars for graduation and girls were given a "hope chest."

Back when women got angry and were told "there there, dear" and given tranquilizers and alcohol so they could be good women... you know, like Betty Ford was.

Back when things were better (you know, for lazy men who don't want to work hard because their female boss is such a bitch). I'm sure you pine for days like that again.

I don't know if this is directed at me or not. But, this is just silly. We can have a civilized discussion without resorting to this sort of nonsense.

Anyway, as I've stated many times in this thread - my point of view is not to say there's a desire to go back in time at all. Instead, I am saying it's difficult these days to thrive on one income. In a lot of cases, couples can't really exist comfortably economically without using daycare (even if they don't want to). Society, these days, pushes keeping up with the Jonses. In order to do so, both in the relationship may need to work. I'm not saying this wasn't ever the case pre-sexual revolution, but I do think it was less so. Back more families survived comfortably on one income. That's the point.

Now-a-days, women (who are now empowered by the sexual revolution) can't necessarily stay home with their own children, even if they want to. Moreover, when they do get home from a hard days work, there's more work pushed towards them once they get home. That 9 to 5, plus staying up all night (in some cases) really worked out. This is why I find this thread so interesting. A lot of feminists don't even try to hear this or acknowledge that there were some negatives associated here.

hedonist

OK, I was talking to your earliest post.

Gotta digest your latest rant up there.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Now we're blaming WOMEN because they were so selfish as to not stay at home and make dinner, make babies and make the bed.

.

No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?

This is not the simplistic discussion you want it to be. I, for one, am all for illegal immigrants being welcomed in and taking jobs. I'm also for women working. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the fact that pre-60s less women worked and more families survived comfortably on one income.... whereas, now it's more difficult to do so.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the fact that pre-60s less women worked and more families survived comfortably on one income.... whereas, now it's more difficult to do so.

And you love blaming women for that and not the mega-corporations that refuse to pay a decent living wage.

All this "are women really better off?" It's all a ploy to pretend we're just asking a question and trying to see "both sides" of a truly repulsive argument. Women are better off. Yes, many people take on too much and try to have it all... kids and a house and a car and a vacation and an iPad.

But blaming the "keeping up with the Joneses" on women and not American's need to one-up their neighbour is offensive and disgusting.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?

Yes. It is.

Women are able to make decisions about their lives. Some of them make bad decisions, maybe but it's their decision to make.

Don't pretend women were better off when they had fewer options or rights or protections and that it's their fault that there are fewer jobs or lower wages. Wages are lower because corporations are greedy and there are fewer jobs because they've been shipped to third-world nations and China.

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?

Yes. It is.

Women are able to make decisions about their lives. Some of them make bad decisions, maybe but it's their decision to make.

Don't pretend women were better off when they had fewer options or rights or protections and that it's their fault that there are fewer jobs or lower wages. Wages are lower because corporations are greedy and there are fewer jobs because they've been shipped to third-world nations and China.

absolutely its womens decision to make. all i ask is that i be allowed to do what i want when i want .. actually im not even asking... i just do it.

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

I'm with Jeanwah the article sucked, poorly researched (one article about an ancillary thing that was loosely tied in, but served as the main premise seriously?), and seemed more to pull at one's emotions either way rather than produce any active thought. I mean there are plenty of other things to look at in terms of real wages stagnating than blaming women in the work place. Wouldn't outsourcing manual labor, the decimation of unionized labor, tax cuts and kickbacks for the uber-rich, and so on seem to be both more reasonable for the lack of happiness in people and more logically connected to the stagnation of wages? I suppose the rise in instantaneous, reactionary, entertainment "news" has really cut into the need for deep thought and research, and this is but one example.

Further, as an aside, my wife and I share household chores pretty evenly. I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share, I cook, she does dishes, she washes clothes, I take out garbage, we got all bourgie and got house cleaners to keep up where we can't. Oh, and we both work, and make just about the same amount depending on whether or not she works weekends vs. me teaching in the Winter and Summer. Both of us are very happy.

I think you'd agree, that most (unlike us) don't have the luxury of teaching college or having malleable schedules. So, their schedules often conflict. In these situations, kids go in daycare even if that's not desired. My point is that "that", is difficult for some women (and some men!). I'm sure that problem did exist before the sexual revolution, but I do think the sexual revolution was one aspect that certainly made it worse. Why? Well, more women entered the labor force driving down real wages, and decades later married couples can't really exist as easily on one income as they did decades prior.

first i certainly realize i'm a lucky motherfucker and can choose my sked...still i took the summer off to be dad, and taught and was dad with no daycare in the fall on a 4 course teaching load (near suicidal move btw). so it was difficult. at the same time i think you are confusing two things here. women in the workforce did not drive real wages down as much as the other things i mentioned, i'd argue that the post-fordist destruction of blue collar unionized labor in America has WAAYYYYYY more to do with this than women working.

inlet13

RW81233 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

I'm with Jeanwah the article sucked, poorly researched (one article about an ancillary thing that was loosely tied in, but served as the main premise seriously?), and seemed more to pull at one's emotions either way rather than produce any active thought. I mean there are plenty of other things to look at in terms of real wages stagnating than blaming women in the work place. Wouldn't outsourcing manual labor, the decimation of unionized labor, tax cuts and kickbacks for the uber-rich, and so on seem to be both more reasonable for the lack of happiness in people and more logically connected to the stagnation of wages? I suppose the rise in instantaneous, reactionary, entertainment "news" has really cut into the need for deep thought and research, and this is but one example.

Further, as an aside, my wife and I share household chores pretty evenly. I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share, I cook, she does dishes, she washes clothes, I take out garbage, we got all bourgie and got house cleaners to keep up where we can't. Oh, and we both work, and make just about the same amount depending on whether or not she works weekends vs. me teaching in the Winter and Summer. Both of us are very happy.

I think you'd agree, that most (unlike us) don't have the luxury of teaching college or having malleable schedules. So, their schedules often conflict. In these situations, kids go in daycare even if that's not desired. My point is that "that", is difficult for some women (and some men!). I'm sure that problem did exist before the sexual revolution, but I do think the sexual revolution was one aspect that certainly made it worse. Why? Well, more women entered the labor force driving down real wages, and decades later married couples can't really exist as easily on one income as they did decades prior.

first i certainly realize i'm a lucky motherfucker and can choose my sked...still i took the summer off to be dad, and taught and was dad with no daycare in the fall on a 4 course teaching load (near suicidal move btw). so it was difficult. at the same time i think you are confusing two things here. women in the workforce did not drive real wages down as much as the other things i mentioned, i'd argue that the post-fordist destruction of blue collar unionized labor in America has WAAYYYYYY more to do with this than women working.

First, that does sound suicidal. I'm working two jobs right now so my wife can stay home with our child. I see many women in my life struggling as they want to stay home, like my wife, but they can't. It's tough. That's basically my point. I get that life is tough sometimes and it can be for the greater good, but I really do believe there's a connection here.

For your other points - I don't think unions are "good" - so bias be known at the outset. But, I do agree that they prop up wages. Nevertheless, I don't think they are/were "more important". Would be tough to prove either way. To me, the most destructive force over this time span was the Fed.... causing inflation... which hit nominal wages, amongst all prices... making everything across the board almost immeasurable (comparatively) over time. But, I also think that "more" women entering the labor force, pushed real wages down. It just makes sense. My main argument is that more families use day care now, without wanting to, then back then. I'm pretty sure that's undeniable. The question is really why? I think this has something to do with it.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?

Yes. It is.

Women are able to make decisions about their lives. Some of them make bad decisions, maybe but it's their decision to make.

They were always able to make decisions. The truth is, women could and did work pre-sexual revolution. The reality is they worked much "more" after.

Don't pretend women were better off when they had fewer options or rights or protections and that it's their fault that there are fewer jobs or lower wages. Wages are lower because corporations are greedy and there are fewer jobs because they've been shipped to third-world nations and China.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that women work more (in aggregate) now... when one includes both at home and at work. I'm asking the question and I think it's a worthwhile question to ask.

I don't understand the latter points. First, I'm not blaming women for their being fewer jobs. In fact, I know, with 100% certainty there are more jobs now then there were back then (even post recession). So, that doesn't make sense at all and I don't know where you got that. Second, as for wages, I don't think wages are lower either, they are higher. So, your latter point saying wages are lower doesn't make sense. My point was regarding real wages.... wages adjusted for inflation. My hypothesis was that as women entered the labor force (more and more), they pushed labor supply to the right (or increased it). That forced real wages down (holding all else equal). This isn't rocket science. I don't even think uber-uber liberal economists like Krugman would disagree that I'm right here to some degree. He'd just say other things were more important than my argument. And I think that's fine, but to deny it played any role, is probably not true.

Prince Of Dorkness

It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).

Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?

Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?

Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).

Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?

Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?

Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?

homos have kids too.

Prince Of Dorkness

catefrances wrote:

homos have kids too.

Yes, and we'll pay you nice people to look after them. It's in the bible.

Or... meh, it will be once we rewrite it and give it a nicer ending.

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

catefrances wrote:

homos have kids too.

Yes, and we'll pay you nice people to look after them. It's in the bible.

Or... meh, it will be once we rewrite it and give it a nicer ending.

im not that nice. 8-)

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).

Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?

Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?

Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?

You seem like a very, very angry person.

I'm not a male chauvinist, bro. There's absolutely no need to go and start insulting people. I brought up a topic, was interested in people's opinions (particularly women) and was respectful to everyone's points of views, despite at times disagreeing. You come in and clearly want to argue. I don't know why you're so bitter.

But, since you started on the subject of me: My wife and I are lucky. I work and can support her and my family. She stays home with our children. This wasn't always the case, but we figured it out and were lucky. We know many who can't do this and aren't so fortunate. In a lot of these situations, the wife would like to stay home with their kids, but can't because of their financial situation. They hesitantly choose day care, but would prefer not to.

As for you: I know you're gay and like to bring it up in pretty much every thread - so congrats. You did it again. That's awesome - but I don't really get your point quoted up there on that subject.

To quote your last sentence on "treating women like equal human beings"... that's the whole point. I know you enjoy arguing, but think about it. Just because you disagree with me on this subject, doesn't mean you can't respect my point of view. I know that may be a first for you. But, I'm not looking to change women's ability to work, and in fact I think that's a good thing. I'm saying that "maybe, just maybe" the sexual revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be... that's pretty much it... and I've now provided plenty of examples in the thread on why I believe that could be considered the case.

Some parting advice: Grab a glass of wine, or a beer, or whatever floats your boat and chill out. We're on a rock band's message board, not debating topics at the UN.

hedonist

Well, this turned weird.

Too bad.

edit - for what it's worth, I thought it could've been a good discussion.