Ok this question may be weird and I do actually think it is. But I was watching my DVD collections of “I love Lucy” . Lots of fun. But one thing struck me, was the level of casual violence against women that one saw in it. Or a woman, since on at least 3 or 4 occasions Desi or more accuratly Ricky put Lucy across his knee and spanked her if she was a child. Now this was a show (and a time) where displays of affections were strictly controlled. Yet this was allowed! Granted it seemed to be a punishment rather then anything else, but it raises the question was such behaviour tolerated or accepted back then?
I asked a few other this question, and they were of the opinion that considering the subject matter it could have been satire and I hope it is, but I have always enjoyed watching old shows and movies (not for this reason of course ) and I remember physical coercion (in many different forms) placed on a female character by a male character while not exactly common was not unknown. One remembers James Bond of Connery fame.
Was the level depicted at the time related in anyway to any actual acceptability?
I’m not sure you’ll find a cite, but having grown up in the '50s, mores have changed considerably in terms of the treatment of women and children. What was perfectly acceptable in 1955, is considered abuse today.
It was acceptable for schools to use a wooden or leather paddle on the bare bottoms of children.
My family didn’t hit, but many of my friends and their mothers were physically punished. No one found it strange or wrong. Hitting with an open hand or a belt was fine, a fist wasn’t.
I caught an episode of “I Love Lucy” a few months back and was struck by the physical abuse, too. In this particular episode, Ricky spanked Lucy for interfering in the romantic lives of two older neighbours. In the next scene, Lucy goes to the older lady’s apartment and is invited to sit down, and Lucy says, “No, I don’t think I will…” Lucille Ball’s delivery was what really made me cringe because it was the look on her face – not at all comedic – and the very fact that she implied that sitting would be painful due to Ricky’s abuse. That is to say, he injured her.
I wasn’t born until 1963 and I did the bulk of watching “I Love Lucy” in the early seventies. It never consciously occurred to me that Lucy was mistreated in any way (although on some level I think I knew.) It never dawned on me in 1972 that there was something horribly wrong with a man physically punishing his wife to the point of pain but 36 years later I was disgusted by it. I assume that (to at least some extent) these values were still acceptable 15 years after they first aired. Probably moreso in the late '50s.
Spanish law (changed in I think the 1990s) used to consider it perfectly appropiate for a man to beat up his wife, short of killing her; killing her was frowned upon but it could still be “justified,” meaning no jail time at all.
Last March I caught a piece on Spanish TV which talked about how much attitudes about “domestic violence” have changed in just 30 years; one of the guests was a popular showman who was shown in old footage talking to a woman who had filed a complaint (this may not be the proper translation for “denunciar”) against her husband for cruelty. The presenter said things like “well, you must have done something to deserve it!” and “aw, what’s a slap to the face between husband and wife.” She was murdered by the husband years later.
Being hit by your husband or raped by your grandfather (another recent case) are not “in the family” any more - but they used to be and, in the first case, it used to be perfectly legal, with no defense for the victim.
I believe that the issue is that during the 1950s, such things weren’t surveyed. So really your best guess based on what you can see in fiction is as good as anyones.
Personally, having lived in Japan which still has a pretty similar vibe to it as the 50’s for middle-aged and higher couples, I’d guess that actually putting a woman over your knee for a spanking is pretty infrequent. A man might totally bawl a woman out and call her worthless till she cries (in a workplace full of people, even), but even with a high dose of machismo in the social norm, most people would probably actually have their real (as opposed to society induced) machismo level, which would probably regulate them from actually attempting something so physical. Slapping the face, yes, bending over your lap, no.
But again that’s a WAG based on nothing more than how it seemed to feel to me.
Either way, I’d still guess that you’re definitely more likely to see wife-disciplining happening where the male as head-of-the-household is strongly held, than where it isn’t. And I would presume that popular entertainment wouldn’t include it unless they thought that this was something scarily common enough that it was something which should be pointed out as being a bit borish, so people could let off some steam about their uncomfortableness about it through laughter. I.e. I doubt that it was included in I Love Lucy or the Honeymooners because it was common, but rather because it was something the writers wanted to fight against.
I survived the 1940s and 1950s school systems in Texas and I never saw or heard of a student being smacked on the bare bottom by any sort of implement. I did see a few spankings administered by teachers and I did know a coach who used a wooden paddle with holes in it.
The kids knew that their moms got spanked or were otherwise physically corrected? Or was it just inferred later or then. Since the nature of corporal punishment is not exactly easy to hide.
I was spanked as a child myself. Out of all porpotion to my infractions; I deserved a lot more than I got. , and usually other siblings knew or could infer it had occured and vice versa, it was never done in public deliberatly, but there are few secrets in families. My mother definatly was not physically punished in her married life. That I am sure of.
Sage Rat, the context of the punishments in the shows and movies I tell you about made the actions seem routine or at least uncommentable, not much more than say a wife getting mad at her husband for being late from work. And in the show the men are hardly depcited as abusers, indeed they seem dominated (if thats the right word here :eek: ) by their better halves.
So I can take it physical punishment of wives was acceptable then.
If it was uncommentable, there wouldn’t be a laughtrack playing at the moment they say or do it. The basis for almost all humor is things which make us uneasy–specifically when we’re unsure of whether we should trust that it’s truism or not.
Take for instance some jokes:
Why was Mozart able to write a sonota at age 8? Because he was a musical genius!
What’s the difference between a Mexican and a pizza? A pizza can feed a family of four!
Why do black people have white hands? Everyone has some good in them!
Well, most likely your reactions to them were bogglement, mild humor, and disgust in that order. If something is just true, it’s not funny and so the first joke isn’t funny. If you’re sure something isn’t true, then it’s just disgusting, and so the third joke is. But it’s when you sort of feel that there might be some truth to the thing, but also feel unease at feeling that way, then it’s funny–which is where a decent amount of modern America would be with the Mexican joke.
An anecdote I heard about comedians was that people, new to Hollywood, will often try to invite comedians to their parties, figuring that this will liven things up. But then soon find out that it’s a bad idea because comedians are at heart just really opinionated people who enjoy ranting about anything and everything. Their stand-up is really just them ranting in a more refined way that provokes unease in everyone who listens who finds themselves becoming unsure and uneasy about the things the comic brings up. If the comic succeeds in knowing where that fine line is, the audience (or laughtrack) will laugh.
So again, if it’s expected that a man would spank his wife, just as it would be expected that a musical genius would write music at a young age, it won’t provoke laughter.
Another movie that comes to mind is From Russia with Love, in it Ms Romanova’s interrogation by Her Majesty’s Loyal Subject consisted of pretty much slapping her silly. Though it was understandable considering the circumstances.
Weird thread. Weird that apparently it did happen for real per one poster.
The point was he was spanking her like a child. That was the humor. It wasn’t shown to promote wife spanking. Lucy also balled like a child if she messed up. A lot of the humor on that show was aimed at her being immature and child like. The fact that many women from that period did act like dependent children, is why there was a big social revolution in the 60’s and 70’s. It was a different generation and they defined what they thought was right, just like every generation to come will define what they consider right and humorous. They would have never tolerated a show like South Park. People knew Lucille Ball was a smart mature women at the time, and respected her regardless of what the humor of her show implied. She also had control of the content in that show, so was doing what she thought was funny the whole time. Her husband was the one that had no control over the series. I recommend watching one of the shows on her life or reading her autobiography.
Physical violence against wives by their husbands was perfectly acceptable in the 1950’s and 1960’s. A man could beat the shit out of his wife and if she called the cops, they couldn’t do anything unless they actually saw him do it! The cops could come to a house where a woman was bruised and bloody but nope, they couldn’t take the husband away. Instead, they would tell the wife to go somewhere else until “he cooled off.” It wasn’t until a few battered women killed their husbands that the laws were changed.
The Burning Bed is a good book about a battered wife, how the system could not help her, and how she fought back.
Anyone who thinks any adult has a right to physically abused another human being is just plain nasty.
That was my point, as explained. Either of the latter two could feel just the same as the first if the listener felt sufficiently sure that they were simply a statement of the way things actually are. And if you were someone who wasn’t quite sure that such a thing as a child genius existed, the first one would be a “joke.”
The jokiness of a joke is something that is variable based on the beliefs of the listener and nothing else. There is no universal joke that will always be funny to everyone because beliefs on any subject vary so widely and are liable to change. And anything can become a joke if the listener is teeter-tottering on the validity of the subject, regardless of what it may be.
Abusing a wife was NEVER acceptable but in the 50’s and 60’s it was ‘not seen’. It was most likely an after effect of the war. Men who had served in the war (who hadn’t!) suffered from what they had seen/done.
It took at least a full generation removed from the horror to begin to recover and act in a far more sensitive way. It also meant that neighbours would close their eyes to things they shouldn’t in order to avoid conflict.
Yes it is true that we find it distasteful. And rightly so. But in another era certain amount of physical coersion seemed to be acceptable. That was the question, not whether abuse was acceptable, it has never been , but standards of what constitutes abuse vary. That is the OP.
I recently viewed French pornography from the 1940s. Many of the scenes began with a woman breaking something, say a vase. Then another woman or a man would spank her, eventually escalating to sex. :eek:
That’s the era when I grew up and it was not “perfectly acceptable.” It may have been tolerated as something that wasn’t anyone’s business but the couple’s, but when the neighborhood wives gathered together for their kaffeklatches, they knew that any marriage where violence was present was deeply flawed.
As for the depictions in *I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners * or whatever, do you also accept Three Stooges movies as lessons on conflict resolution?
If I remember correctly, yes. Not present in every married couple’s relationship, but in enough that I vaguely remember it.
I agree with picunurse. It was also acceptable for your mom to slap you in the face. People were just more crude and un-civilized all the way around. Think of the old stereotype of the boss chasing the secretary around the desk. That has seeds of truth in it - it happened enough that people made fun of it.
Personal anecdotal evidence: one of my ex-husband’s cousins was spanked one time by her father-in-law. I forget what the infraction was - this is a handed-down story.
Check out this clip from the movie Frontier Gal. In reference to the spanking, one of the busybodies remarks “I’m … not going to help him bring up his wife.” Here’s another one where the girl slaps the guy first.
) and I remember physical coercion (in many different forms) placed on a female character by a male character while not exactly common was not unknown. One remembers James Bond of Connery fame.
, and usually other siblings knew or could infer it had occured and vice versa, it was never done in public deliberatly, but there are few secrets in families. My mother definatly was not physically punished in her married life. That I am sure of.