No, he didn’t.
[Seinfeld Episode Guide: Ninth Season](http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2933/episodeseinfeld.html#Ninth Season)
The '50s? Why, we didn’t even have rock 'n roll for the first few years! And while some things have gotten better, socially, medically, etc, and many of the same problems obtained, the 50’s WERE better overall [actually, much better]for the following reasons: they were a quieter, slower, less crowded and simpler time. IMO.
How sweet it was.
I stand corrected. Now that you bring it up, I even remember the confession!
CMK:
You’re right on that level, but the point is that these days, women have the freedom to make choices and thank heavens these aren’t the only two. They can choose to use contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant, choose abortion to end pregnancies, choose not to marry the bum, etc.
OTOH, there’s still some residual “50’s” out there that intimidates some women from obtaining birth control and/or pressures them into keeping their babies when they do get pregnant.
I seem to have been mis-understood. I said that the 1950’s were a time of tremendous progress, not that minorities were content. Minorities spoke out vigorously indeed. I attended one of ML King’s speeches at the Washington Monument, and it was electric.
Frankly, I misunderstood the OP. I said that people in the 1950’s were happy, but I failed to address the real question, which was whether one would want to return to the 1950’s, knowing what has developed. Obviously, most minorities would not want to go back, given all the progress that has been made in the last 60 years.
I don’t see how that’s relevant to Chaim’s point. Even if we assume that this particular choice is a good thing (which I don’t believe it is), Chaim is talking about that. Rather, he is addressing a separate and very specific issue – namely, whether the greater number of births to teenage moms in the 1950’s is inconsistent with a lower number of teen pregnancies. Chaim’s point is that it isn’t – regardless of whether one approves of abortion or not.
Except we don’t KNOW that…
We have no real idea of how many abortions were performed pre-1973. (We don’t even have REALLY good data on how many abortions have been performed post 1973).
We know they weren’t non-existant - I know several women who had pre-1973 abortions. And we know women died of botched illegal abortions - it was part of the driver behind the change in cultural attitudes that made it possible for Roe vs. Wade to be decided in the fashion it was. We have no real idea how common they were.
We do know that the rate of babies available for adoption due to out of wedlock birth skyrocketed between the mid 1940s and 1950s. (I don’t have Koontz book handy, but the numbers are in there), implying that teen sex during the 1950s was not entirely within marriage, not all pregnant teens got married to provide the baby a good home. It also indicates that teens were more sexual active in the 1950s than the 1940s. So perhaps our nostaglia should be for pre-WWII. The depression was a great time for restrictive sexual mores - judging by teen pregnancy rates, out of wedlock birth, etc. The 1950s were a scandalous period of time compared to the 1930s.
I’d tend to agree. Whoever thinks that people were more gentle or innocent in the 1950s should read Hubert Selby Jr.'s Last Exit to Brooklyn (which was written during that decade).
Sorry for the hijack, but this thread reminded me of this:
During the Eisenhower administration, 90% of what you made over $100,000.00 went to taxes. I’m pretty sure neo-conservatives can’t be nostalgic for that.
I’m of two minds as to whether the food is better now than then: no access to neat exotics such as pho or even tacos, but fresh fruits & veggies, while only seasonal, had not yet had their flavor sacrificed to prevent spoilage during shipping.
I’ve asked my mother (born in 1934, graduated high school 1952, married 1954, having babies by 1955) a similar question and her take on it (and one I tend to agree with) is that we tend to look at any age other than the present through some shade of rose colored glasses. She tells me that certainly times were simpler, but as someone pointed out, that had alot to do with the fact that certain subjects just weren’t discussed - and ignorance is bliss. For instance:
A girl that got pregnant either got married and people didn’t pay too much attention to the time between the nuptuals and the birth, went away for a while and came back without the baby (adoption or abortion - you didn’t dare ask), or had the baby out of wedlock and was labelled as “trash” for the rest of her life.
Segregation was accepted (hell, here in VA it was public policy - Massive Resistance to integration led to several school systems closing for years). It was just the way it was. Only a very few whites bothered to think about it one way or another.
Entertainment was more family-oriented, but you did have Marilyn Monroe and cheesecake-type stuff. She says that, in retrospect, it was incredibly dull stuff. But it was all there was, so you watched it (and EVERYBODY watched I Love Lucy.)
There was an optimism, even in the face of polio, duck and cover drills, McCarthy, etc. The future looked bright, or at least you could imagine a future that was going to be bright. That is what she finds most un-nerving about life today - the widespread conviction that everything is going to hell in a handbasket.