No, you had to adhere to Morality or else you were a criminal or a hippie.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
ah, the bar at its best: an argument over whose make-believe is the better make-believe
see, there's no reason to be upset that the old bar is gone, its business as usual!
Lol, what book have YOU been reading? My history teacher's mother was a schoolgirl in the mid 50s. She was taught to be serving and nurturing to her husband. Asking how his day was, having a hot dinner ready, getting him beers, not bothering him with her problems until he had time to hear, etc.
The part about not worrying about her future was something that happened to her first-hand. She was talking to her friends about what she would be when she was an adult, and the teacher looked at her and said, nonchalantly and without a second thought, "Oh, don't worry about that. You'll all be dead."
As for the marriages...
And this is average. There were, quite often, girls married as young as 14.
And marriage was expected to last your entire life back then, even if you didn't want it to. 97% of couples were married.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
Six pages into our shiny new thread and already the idiocy has begun. This is why we can't have nice things.
Why Bourbons and Austrians? Why not all of Europe and, hell, all of the world in those days?
Tsarist Russia had its up and down times throughout its history.
For both of the above it should be noted that the definition of conservatism was much different in those days. Therefore, it's neither wise nor accurate to compare things like the Ancien Régime to modern conservatism, which, at least in the US, is very much based on the classical liberal principles that overthrew people like the Bourbons. Today, any supporter of the Bourbons, Habsburgs, or Romanovs would automatically be labeled a reactionary in all truly conservative circles.
Nationalist China was not conservative just because it was opposed to communism. Don't automatically confuse anti-communism with whatever definition of conservatism you subscribe to.
All the same, I'm not denying that bad things happened in all of these countries and all of these time periods. The point was to remind you that your record is anything but clean.
Didn't we warn you about "lol" after your posts being condescending?
Fred, first allow me to say: your anecdotal evidence concerning one housewife from the 1950s makes you more qualified than any of us in this conversation. ()
Second: causation vs. correlation my friend. As those median marriage ages are going upwards, so is life expectancy. There's no longer as much pressure to get married in your teens and twenties because you're not going to die in your teens and your twenties
But that's what any good wife does! How is that a bad thing?
Anecdotal evidence, and some that you can't prove anyway. I think this is bull, myself.The part about not worrying about her future was something that happened to her first-hand. She was talking to her friends about what she would be when she was an adult, and the teacher looked at her and said, nonchalantly and without a second thought, "Oh, don't worry about that. You'll all be dead."
But that claim is NOT backed by facts, and today girls marry as young as 16 by choice because they couldn't keep their pants on. What I see is that either men were more chivalrous or girls were smarter, and therefore married later than they do today. What's the difference, besides that women married for better reasons?As for the marriages...
And this is average. There were, quite often, girls married as young as 14.
As it's supposed to...And marriage was expected to last your entire life back then
Again, EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE!97% of couples were married.
They came to mind.
But it was always an Absolute Monarchy.Tsarist Russia had its up and down times throughout its history.
Reactionary is one of the degrees of Conservatism.For both of the above it should be noted that the definition of conservatism was much different in those days. Therefore, it's neither wise nor accurate to compare things like the Ancien Régime to modern conservatism, which, at least in the US, is very much based on the classical liberal principles that overthrew people like the Bourbons. Today, any supporter of the Bourbons, Habsburgs, or Romanovs would automatically be labeled a reactionary in all truly conservative circles.
Communism is far-left. Opponents of the far-left tend to be far-right.Nationalist China was not conservative just because it was opposed to communism. Don't automatically confuse anti-communism with whatever definition of conservatism you subscribe to.
All the same, I'm not denying that bad things happened in all of these countries and all of these time periods. The point was to remind you that your record is anything but clean.
Didn't I warn you I have a bad memory?Didn't we warn you about "lol" after your posts being condescending?
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
I must say the 'It was better in the old days!' argument is the worst one there is. Better for you or one or two people maybe, but worse for the great majority, and certainly worse for Women or Non-WASPs.
Because it's inconsiderate of her feelings and is an open door for a guy to be a douche?
Yes, because first-hand accounts aren't proof.Anecdotal evidence, and some that you can't prove anyway. I think this is bull, myself.
Uh...because there's very little love in saying "Here, marry this man or you'll be a social outcast, you'll never have a job, and nobody will ever talk to you."But that claim is NOT backed by facts, and today girls marry as young as 16 by choice because they couldn't keep their pants on. What I see is that either men were more chivalrous or girls were smarter, and therefore married later than they do today. What's the difference, besides that women married for better reasons?
Supposedly.As it's supposed to...
Supposedly.Again, EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE!
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
Run while you still can.
Okay, and?
No? Reactionism in its traditional sense is a step on the left-right compass that could probably be placed somewhere between Conservatism and the most extreme far-right (as in, Fascism). It's not Conservatism. In fact, the word "reactionary" is so delightfully bendable that it can also mean any reversion to an old order. A Russian advocating the return of the USSR could technically be considered a reactionary just because he/she would want to return to a previous way of doing things.Reactionary is one of the degrees of Conservatism.
Stereotype. I know plenty of liberals who are also anti-communists. You don't have to be a right-winger to oppose your broken system.Communism is far-left. Opponents of the far-left tend to be far-right.
Of common courtesy?Didn't I warn you I have a bad memory?
For the love of God, not this argument again! All the same, I find it funny that one of the lowest correlations for marriage age is around the hippie era.
Uhh...no. Not since the very earliest years of the 19th century would that be the case, probably not even then in fact. People would still be in school at age 14 in the 1920's-1950's since the public school system was up-and-running by that time. The world did not work this way.And this is average. There were, quite often, girls married as young as 14.
By the way, I don't know why either of you are arguing the 20's as a time of conservatism. If anything, the years after World War I were some of the most liberal years in human history, up until the 1960's of course.. Read up on the "Lost Generation," the Roaring Twenties, and all that.
EDIT: By the way, just because the Roaring Twenties were a time of victory for economic conservatism does not mean that they were a time of victory for moral conservatism. Aside from Prohibition (which very few people followed anyway) it was a time of very lax moral restrictions. Again, "Lost Generation."
Sorry, but they aren't. I argue this for the sake of semantics though, since it's obviously true that feminism wasn't in its heyday in the 50's. All you have to do is watch an episode of I Love Lucy to figure that out. Whether or not there is logic behind the change from 50's status is a debate that I will not engage in.Yes, because first-hand accounts aren't proof.
When did this become Romeo and Juliet?Uh...because there's very little love in saying "Here, marry this man or you'll be a social outcast, you'll never have a job, and nobody will ever talk to you."
But what if it was? And it was NOT worse for women... in the '50s, girls didn't get pregnant at sixteen, rape was rare, and instead of dressing like whores and being treated like such women could be cherished as they deserve to be.
Not really... The woman's job is to take care of the home, the man's is to provide for the woman. If that's what happens, no conflict ensues.
Not when not backed up by proof.Yes, because first-hand accounts aren't proof.
Again, in the '50s women chose who they married... No excuse.Uh...because there's very little love in saying "Here, marry this man or you'll be a social outcast, you'll never have a job, and nobody will ever talk to you."
Stupid argument.Supposedly.
Ditto.Supposedly.
It's not 'What If', It was bloody worse. And there's a difference between 'Cherishing' women and keeping them bound in a entirely lower social status. Why can't they do the same stuff as men? There's certainly no physical or mental limitation.
"Only Connect!...Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer."
Oh, looks like I'm getting into it.
Though, surprisingly, I will throw my lot in with Fred and MMM on this one. I'm no feminist, but there's really no reason to make women constantly subservient towards men. Judging by your previous discussions of the topic, I know what you're thinking Aggy: It may say "Wives, submit to your husbands" (paraphrased - I'm not sure the exact phrasing) in the Bible, but it also says "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." The relationship between husband and wife is one of mutual reliance between the partners, not a reason for the wife to constantly sweep under her husband's feet.
The Kids
"Only Connect!...Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer."