No drugs? Check with Billie Holiday and Gene Krupa.
No crime? When I was a kid the adults were up in arms about juvenile delinquency.
No STDs? Suuure. Lenny Bruce had a very funny bit about The Clap in his 1962 Carnegie Hall Concert - it revolved around people’s ignorance of it.
As for the educational system - well, back then Republicans supported our schools, and weren’t trying to destroy them because our “gasp” taxes were too high. So I kind of give you that one.
Plus, your father’s permission was needed because he would be on the hook in case she wrote any bad checks.
(Sorry for the segmented posts; I’m busy right now and posting between bouts of doing other stuff.)
Or forcing girls to give up the babies. That was another wonderful alternative.
In New York it was nearly impossible to get a divorce without lying or going out of state, so we had loads of disfunctional families. Another winner.
In 1978 Louisiana my wife wasn’t allowed to either because of the wonderful head and master law. She had the real job, I was in grad school. She discovered this when she was shopping, and wanted to get a check cashing card to pay for the groceries. She was told that it was impossible unless I was there to sign it. She left the groceries and walked.
Oh, give me a break! Do you really interpret what I said as no one anywhere in a country of 150 million people was doing drugs or getting an STD?
The point is they were nowhere near as commonplace as they are today. Exceptions don’t prove the rule and you perfectly well know it.
And it wasn’t Republicans who decided that the right thing to do for a kid’s self-esteem was to pass them whether they learned the subject or not, and it wasn’t Republicans who put the teacher’s unions and the federal government largely in charge of running the school system. Plus you could discipline kids in those days. You can’t nowadays and they perfectly well know it. Ask any school bus driver.
A married woman did not need her father’s permission, LavenderBlue’s post clearly outlined that she needed her HUSBAND’s permission.
Comprehension is really not your strong suit, is it?
Yeah back then they had no drugs, crime or STD’s. No. That’s just a liberal delusion if you point out otherwise.
The fact that you can find justification for the historical practice of treating a grown woman like a child solely on the basis of her gender makes me glad that those times are indeed largely long past.
It wasn’t just about checking accounts. Legally married women were not considered equal to men. Go look up the laws of coverture and educate yourself on this topic.
Here is one take on the reason behind that. And it does not involve the beatles, or liberals:
So it seems that one explanation for the rise in STD’s in the United states is that it is the fault of those who cut the STD prevention programs because of the prudes who did not want anyone to talk about sex, and the fear of people having sex without the consequences of getting a disease.
In other words… the rise in STD’s is the fault of the Conservatives.
Those practices were put in place to ensure that ONE person, the MAN, had most of the rights. The effect was to make sure that women NEEDED to be married to survive.
And some men long for the days when women pretty much needed to be married, because women can afford to be pickier about who they marry. Today, women can usually make a living without needing to be married, so if their alternatives are being a single woman, or being stuck in a loveless marriage to some slob who is content to get drunk in front of the TV, they’ll choose being single. And guess what? If they have kids, it’s probably better for the kids if they don’t have to see Daddy passing out in front of the TV every night, and possibly beating Mom and the kids before he passes out.
Single parenthood is not always inferior to married parenthood. I think that most kids do better with at least two adults in the household…but those adults don’t need to be married, and in fact they don’t even need to be in a sexual relationship. But sometimes, the choice isn’t between a good marriage and single parenthood. Sometimes, the choice is between an abusive marriage and single parenthood.
But, er, it should be noted that those figures are quite old. Rates of both gonorrhea and syphilis are down from the fifties—see Table 1 in the 2009 HHS STD surveillance report. Chlamydia’s up; chancroid is down; HIV wasn’t even around (hey, I’m a poet). Yadda yadda yadda.
The problem with focusing on STD prevalence as an indicator of widespread social malfeasance is the number confounding factors. STDs can be prevented or cured some by vaccines; some by antibiotics; some by condoms or other barrier prophylactics. Thus rates can decrease irrespective of the level of sex being had—this is probably why we had such a steep drop from the forties to the fifties—not because people all of a sudden developed a stricter kind of sexual morality.
On the other hand, we can increase the rate of STD transmission simply by creating new STDs and throwing them into the mix. Something like, say, the introduction of HIV/AIDS will hoist up STD rates even holding constant the level of sexual activity./
If someone wishes to argue that we as a society are in the crapper, he’ll have to do better than pointing to historical STD rates. (He might need an actual argument.)
Boy the way Glenn Miller played,
Songs that made the Hit Parade …
People, people, relax! They’ve got it covered.
You can, apparently, get a Pap smear at Walgreens now.
Let me phrase it this way: Do you have any evidence that conservative states, or conservative households, are significantly less likely to experience the social ills you’ve listed so much? If not, why are blaming it all on “liberal permissiveness”?
Why do Red States have a higher divorce rate than Blue States?
Now there’s a mental picture.
“Excuse me, where are they doing the pap smears?”
“Aisle Five.”
An even better mental picture is Stephen Colbert’s take on it then going in to how they offer colonoscopies too.
starts at 3:20
FFS, read a fucking book! The 50s that you so cherish are an aberration in human history; a very brief period of time when a relatively large number of US women were not required to work and were able to be “stay at home” moms. Most of history sees the majority of women working in some capacity to support themselves and their families. Maybe not what you consider work since women weren’t allowed careers, but work nonetheless: menial labor to rich folks while their own children are raised by others, working out on the farm while the oldest kids care for the youngest, taking in laundry, etc.
You have zero idea what it has ever been like for women or any other minority, so please don’t speak for any but yourself. I strongly doubt you are even remotely curious as to what life was really like for the people you think were so happy to be held back…
Very good point. Perhaps next we’ll hear about how Liberal attitudes are actually responsible for creating new variants of microorganisms.
But we’re using Starving Artist logic here. Let me explain this sort of logic:
THEREFORE:
3. We should cut funding to STD Prevention programs, because this will cause fewer people to fuck for enjoyment. God will be pleased.
FINALLY
When the result of your policy of cutting funding to STD Prevention programs is that shockingly, the incidence of STDs goes up: Then blame the Liberals/Hollywood/Negro music.
This sort of logic works in a variety of ways:
Then: When the economy tanks and the deficit is skyrocketing, blame the party that has just been elected to the presidency. Now deficits are the most important thing in the universe.
Bonus: If you can blame the deficit on social programs that make up a tiny, tiny portion of the spending (cough, planned parenthood, cough)
Obviously drinking Bitter Beer has long raging effects.
Beyond the horrid wrinkles it appears to alter one’s sense of reality and long for a time that never was.
Lesson: stay away kids. Get laid instead.
Then why in the fuck do you fucking keep talking about two fucking second graders as if that fucking anecdotal blip has any statistical significance over the question of increased kid fucking nationwide?
Yes. I made a point like this earlier, and Starving Artist completely ignored it (as well as all my other actual citations that demonstrate he’s off base). Disappointing performance overall. I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt but he’s quite clearly utterly ignoring all evidence contrary to his beliefs.
