This is so interesting! I like how he presents both sides of the events without prejudice. I'm 20 and I'm learning a lot through your channel Mr. David keep 'em coming!
Towards the beginning of this he says that in the 5 years after 1957 a sharp increase of married women entered the work force. I had an elderly neighbor (in 2016) who was telling me the back in the 50s his wife “wanted” to get a job for something to do since their kids were grown. Not long after getting a job his neighbors would came up to him and say to him “Just because thing’s are that bad at home (financially) is no reason to make your wife go out and work!”, and other things similar to that. There was at least one neighbor who knocked on their door and threatened him for “making his wife work”. It got so bad that he had to make his wife quit her job, which of course made her unhappy. Maybe quite a few married women didn’t work in the earl to mid 50s because of similar reasons my neighbors wife went through, but that’s just a guess.
There was an All in the Family episode about Edith going to work and Archie being mortified because he thought her going to work made him look bad. I guess it was true.
That's why it's also dangerous to spend your life worrying about what other people think. It prevents anyone from really being true to themselves. If what the neighbor was accusing him of was true then I could understand his irritation, but once the husband explained his wife was working because the kids were grown and she needed to get out of the house, the neighbor should have just left it alone at that point and minded his own business. Her husband at that point should have told him to do the same when he kept coming back like a codependent, bossy control freak.
Elizabeth Warren, believe it or not, wrote an outstanding book about how forcing two parents to have to work have made families far more unstable and far poorer.
I haven't read it but please tell me she has identified that it was employers responses to the laws which have 'forced' both parents to work not the women's rights movement. It's the cost of living inflating faster than incomes that is forcing families to be dual income not societal pressure from feminists, Income inflation is slow because companies think they can get away with it by saying they don't need to pay as much if their employees are no longer the sole breadwinner, that's not a side effect of women's rights it's a side effect of corporate greed.
@@Lillipie81 It is the cost of living, but it is also the "women's rights movement". The measure of "female empowerment" is now measured by income. You see very little, or none at all, feminist encouragment of women who choose to be mothers and devote their full time to raising a family. That's most likely why the vast majority of women don't identify as feminist.
An excellent 15 minutes. We heard a whole lot of information about a whole lot of factors and reasons about the huge changes in Society regarding the place of & for women. Myself, I am a 67 yr. old male born in 1952 with a fairly traditional family; Dad worked and Mom stayed home and raised us ( 1 older sister, then me, then 2 more girls spread out over a 10 year period ). Mom gave piano lessons at home for a while and helped out with the school choirs sometimes. I do not remember how she managed to be the full time Mother to my 2 younger sisters and still help with the choirs before they got into elementary school, but she did, somehow. When my 2 younger sisters got into the higher elementary grades, Mom began teaching. I actually had her as my History teacher when I was a Senior in H.S. When I got married, I was full time at the local University and she was working full time, but we both decided and agreed that when our 1st child came along that she would stay home and be the full time Mother and I would quit school and go to work. and that's what we did. Just as Eileen D, below said...we weren't gonna have children and have someone else raising them...that's just not right...not if there is any way possible ( and there almost always IS a way ), for one of the parents..preferably the Mother...to stay at home. Now, let me state that when I said .." preferably the Mother" to stay home, I am not being sexist or anything else; I'm saying that usually...biologically...the woman has the maternal instincts to nurture and raise children a lot more than the typical male...usually. But there are always exceptions. I wound up having to get full custody of our 2 children when they were just in early elementary school and I became the full time "Mr. Mom". I was not the so-called typical male who didn't want to be involved in raising his own children. No...I gladly accepted my role as being the only parent. I thank God that I had the temperament and patience and above all else...the love...and willingness to learn how to be a good parent...to give them a safe and peaceful and stable home. Yes, I would have much preferred a traditional 2 parent family...with BOTH parents actively raising the children and taking care of the home/house, and I still believe that usually...usually...it's the woman who has the strongest maternal/protective instincts, but this Life is not easy and not simply 'black & white'..nope...much too complicated for that. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman, for giving us some more of this great and insightful interview.
I was born in 1956. My mother was always a stay at home mom. We didnt have alot of money. But Im so glad my mom was always home. She was there when we left for school, and there when we came home. I believe its far better for children to have their mothers at home taking care of them. I too was a stay at home mother for my daughter. Dont regret it one bit.
@@yamik1385Yamik women during a period of prosperity wanted to work for self-fulfillment. Now, even if married to an employed man, they have to for survival. Most of them at jobs that are not fulfilling. Of course, this is not new. It is just a return to the situation that existed before post WW 2 prosperity, which held on until about 1981 and then slipped away, due to neo-liberalism.
I would have hated to see my wife have to stay home and not be able to go out and enjoy her career, but the sad truth is that now, it takes two incomes to buy what one used to pay for. It's a dilemma.
The economy always adjusts. If you gave everyone a million dollars, there would still be poverty. If you taxed everyone 50%, people would get along OK. Disparity is poverty. It must be moderate. Not excessive but not eliminated.
This makes me wonder whether we're in some pretty dark times. It'd be nice in the final analysis if we can learn how to better love one another, politics aside. I think that would solve the "war" over the family that Dr. Mintz so well describes.
@@suzbone Jesus the guy is saying, "Let's all learn to love eachother better." And you respond with the most onerous "I want to fight you" response I have ever seen.
Fascinating. The paralels in the UK and US are most notable. Industrialisation and disposable incomes changed society so intensely in such a short period of time.
To add to this, asian families studied in USA have maintained strong family unit, so this hadnt affected them so much. I dont know about recent 2010 and forward, but this was in academic papers strong reason why asian children both academically and otherwise succeed in life so spectacularly. It was compared to black families and biggest single thing was coherent family unit. Not even IQ, personality or other traits regarded important for success (individual characteristics) were as strong indicators.
@effexon That is because the government structured the welfare system to not be profitable for poor families to stay together and instead to survive single mother baby daddy situations evolved. Not to mention negative brainwash of blacks by the media. Nevertheless, many black families in rural areas are very strong as far as helping each other but the women seem to rule in the poor communities.
@@tankster5826 was white families now being equal in statistics, also intentional or byproduct of this? and it wouldnt need to be profitable, but neutral... thus not giving any incentive to divorce or stay together in bad relationship.
@effexon It affected black families more in the beginning because many were maids and such and families they worked for didn’t always pay withholding taxes and they were paid so low they couldn’t report it either. So some young girls got pregnant to give their children to grandma to raise for her welfare income while they went to college to try to get a career. That is a hard struggle to do it that way. But once a person is in the system it is structured to be very hard to get out because the thresh hold is so low that if you make $50 dollars a month you lose benefits so the person doesn’t get to accumulate enough pay raises or advancement to get out. In that way if affects any person of any race in trying to get out of the system.
@effexon The end up going from one relationship after another because poverty is so stressful so it is way worse on the children and causes mental disorders in them.
I grew up as one of six children in Australia during the 1960s and 1970s. The social contructs were very similar to those being decribed by Prof. Mintz. My mother was a stauch defender of the role of wives and mothers. Regardless, she sought the best education she could for her two daughters and instilled in them strong senses of enquiry, opinion, thoughtfulness, and discernment. Unfortunately, she then expected them to return from University, marry a local solicitor, and raise large families while preparing the evening meal. More than 40 years on, our family has never completely recovered from the angry and bitter fracturing caused by the decisions of my sisters to commit to personal relationships not sanctified in a church - and to pursue long and successful careers in academia and business.
Multinational corporations worldwide want women single and angry. Its their most profitable demographic- young nuclear families and single men save and invest money, while single women go into credit card debt paying for useless tech, leasing cars they cant afford, funding girl trips to casinos and resorts. So from NYC to Istanbul (yes, even Muslim culture) young, single women instead of going home after work to prepare meals for families, are sitting in Starbucks drinking sweet coffee milkshakes, swiping on Tinder, browsing Instagram, purchasing on Amazon, while going deeper into debt.
It is important to take away womens agency by blaming men fir womens bad choices. Thank you for this deflection of reponsibility. I have always wondered why Hitler was elected by the large majority female vote ( hint:he pandered to Nordic “ goddesses “) and why these women were never held accountable fir WW2. ? Sounds ridiculous? Now replay your pre-programmed save-a-ho postulation.
I think those changes have a lot more to do with greed than the women’s place in the home (just speaking to the end bit). Education system was defunded heavily in the 1980s, and other social programs available in the 60s have been destroyed. These videos are amazing, love looking into the past. Thanks!
Good that you recognize the importance of this subject. Be observant of your environment. Not just the immediate family structure but what happens all around. David Hoffman's video series and others like this will prove beneficial. Consider Sociology courses in college and most importantly, exercise what George Carlin commonly referred to as 'critical thinking.'
Hi from N.Z. when u have time like 1 or 2 hrs a week just go to your local museum or library and ask for old news papers to read like 1800's to early late 60's. I spent almost yrs off my 54 yrs doing this. History and Davids old video gems are very addictive.
@@rockcrusher9524 IMO that is wrong kind of freedom(hurtful for human psyche). There is many kinds of freedom, but this gets lost. People get mentally sick with absolute freedom, ie. extreme example of tests with nonsensory rooms. School tries to balance freedom and chaos of it by pedagogical step by step learning and getting adjusted to freedom (responsibility). Unfortunately there is no school anymore when people are 30s 40s 50s in same sense.
Really interesting, and gives more than two sides to the story. It's cliché, but people really do think about the children less than they should. The children born then became our adults now. What culture have they created, out of what their parents gave, or did not give, them?
This is very interesting.50years ago when I was in my mid teens and growing up in a small country in Europe things were different than today.With hindsight it appears that a family had more money when looked at in the following way..50years ago the man was the sole earner in the family.The woman was at home and taking care of the house and children.Only one wage earner with one job was required to pay the bank mortage or rent and all the neccessary bills and expenses.Today for the most part,the man and woman of the family have to work to pay the same bills and neccessary expenses,plus the expenses of an extra car to run and babysitters and possibly a creche for the children.Also,today it,s not unusual for people to have 2 jobs or more out of neccessity to pay those bills.I pose the question..Are we better off financially than we were 50 or 60years ago or are we just being ripped off and taken for an expensive ride?
The decline of labor coincides with the decline of family. I wish he spoke more of economic forces over articles written and read by a tiny portion of upper class society. The analysis had already forgotten the majority working men and women.
The original goals of the women's movement had merit. But, like any institution, it's mission eventually became an effort to maintain its relevance after it's original goals were achieved. One method to do that is to claim that the goals haven't been achieved after they have. The best example is the wage gap which not one honest and thoughtful economist looking at the data would claim still exists except in isolated cases for BOTH sexes. Eventually, the Feminist movement has become disastrous for the family, this culture and this civilization. That's because the movement was based on the erroneous belief that women would be more happy if only they had what men had. Well, they have it and are even less happy. Basically, women are looking for happiness in the wrong place.
Sounds like the story of my grandmother... because it was. She dropped out of her masters to finance her husband's PhD, and ended up having 5 children. Interesting stuff.
Super informative and non-biased!! Thanks!! Also clear and non-biased are the negative consequences, starting at 14:22. So non-biased, in fact, that maybe we should consider declaring the experiment over, and back-track a little. We now know the consequences. Single parenthood, unattended children, and overall loneliness and individualism is not a good recepy for humane societies. No one should be called a conservative again for upholding some of the values we're missing so much.
Not going to happen. Why? Multinational corporations worldwide want women single and angry. Its their most profitable demographic- young nuclear families and single men save and invest money, while single women go into credit card debt paying for useless tech, leasing cars they cant afford, funding girl trips to casinos and resorts. So from NYC to Istanbul (yes, even Muslim culture) young, single women instead of going home after work to prepare meals for families, are sitting in Starbucks drinking sweet coffee milkshakes, swiping on Tinder, browsing Instagram, purchasing on Amazon, while going deeper into debt.
I was born in 1961. My father was the primary breadwinner, my mother was the primary caregiver & taught ballet in our home. My mother felt her role was important and it was. So was my father's. That structure and security was commonplace & very beneficial. Too many kids are being raised in daycare by people who don't love them now. It's sad to see. I remember when families started falling apart as Mom (or sometimes Dad) discovered that being selfish was something society said was GREAT, so they divorced and went off to find themselves. EST (self-help cult) was a big factor in breaking up families too, at least in my California town. It was the early 70s & whatever you've heard, it was not a terrific time to live in. The shoes were hideous! I will say that when I was a very little girl in the mid 1960s, I did notice an un-equal dynamic between men and women that I resented deeply, even at 5 yrs old, so I do think that it's good that roles have loosened and men & women have more respect for each other now. In that regard, women's lib served a purpose, but IMO it went too far and rejected traditional roles as a respected and valued option. By the mid 1980s women who worked outside the home ( and the media, plus society at large) were very judgmental about women who were stay-at-home moms, even rejecting the notion that it was ALSO work. Even the suffragettes held motherhood in the highest regard, but not todays feminists. It's all up-side down. I don't know what the right answers are, but I do wish traditional family life and roles were as broadly valued today as they were then. So many people in their mid thirties and younger seem to be without mooring or purpose.
I worked for myself and raised my own children. They turned out to be amazing people. When I wasn't home for hours or even a few days I always had family members on hand for childcare. It worked well for all of us.
Ridiculous. “ I was raised by wolves in the mountains of Norway, bought lottery ticket, won, and it has worked well for me” Just as relevant. Outliers prove that the majority aren’t going to have that outcome. Look at the % of men in prison produced by your method of “family” ( its 80%) Strippers with Daddy issues are a meme.
"Fundamental shift in values" is the thing. When a group of people want change, they will get it. Women deserved this in the 1960 and they deserve equal pay now. They were clear about what they wanted in the 1960's and that may have been the last stage of human evolution. Knowledge of the birth control pill trials set off this movement. That is how powerfully strong they wanted this change. These movements today are loud, but weak next to the tidal wave that was 1960's Feminism. I don't like that American economic institutions have blown our economy so that, in the 1950's one man went to work and supported 3-5 kids as this gentleman was saying was commonplace in 1957. Now, people cannot afford to have kids or buy a home with two people working. This is the next "shift in values" that is coming culturally, inclusion laws, socialism and a strong gut-felt right-wing group that are ready to act a fool on camera. This is all some kind of continuum. I think this has been on-going on and is part of American social evolution. I think they had something right in the 1960's that we are missing now. The sincerity is not the same and the clarity of vision is blurry in comparison. Computer News Feed America is a confused place.
I feel that the pill and access to abortion were major reasons why women began to have an equal standing. Women no longer were tied to marriage and child rearing and if they decided to do so they could choose with whom and when.
interesting that I lived through all of this in the 1950's (still my favorite decade) and had no inkling of what he is talking about. All the woman were happy being mothers and homemakers and all the girls wanted husbands and families. I lived in a small town - maybe that's it
The year 1957 marked the beginning of our major decline in economic terms. That was the last year that Cadillac produced a beautiful car and the Chevrolet Belair was one of the best automobiles available. Women went to work because they had to, not because they wanted to.
As a working mother for decades now, I resent this challenge turned imposition of women's roles. I LITERALLY do not know any woman who wanted to go back to work after having children. We all wanted to stay home with them; raise our own children and not have daycares booming raising OUR children. The ONLY think IMO that Gloria Steinem's demagoguery and the ideology of leftists hell bent on destroying the family accomplished is trying to undo traditional roles that a natural and have been since the beginning of time. Now to buy a home you need TWO incomes to qualify. We're all working harder and achieving less.
Its encouraging to see post about these videos and admit is we got it wrong. Babies are now looked at as something totally different more of a birden then blessing sadly
@@knowitall3892 You're so right - it's sad, really. There's so much pressure now for men to do traditional maternal roles in the family too. It's a dystopian nightmare and against our nature for the most part. Like w/women, there's a new competition about "Well my husband gives the kids their baths...and he cooks dinner 3x a week..." It's just nuts.
That was the danger of the feminist movement, and what you have with 2nd and 3rd wave feminists: that there is only one way to be a feminist, and that way is to want to work. Ideally women should be able to do what they want--and frequently that is raising children. Yet that is a dirty word in feminist circles, and the way the world is it is very unlikely that a family can survive on one income alone, so the mother usually HAS to work.
Fast forward to present day where alcoholism for women in their 20's is rising, births are dropping, divorces are rising, women earn more on average when entering the workforce but overall happiness is rating lower.
Hitler said... you can make people believe their living in heaven when their living hell. And hell in when in heaven. Obviously that philosophy didnt die with hitler. The power of suggestion
Been there, seen that . . . a pretty accurate picture. Only problem is, he's talking mostly about white suburban society. And one of the ironies is that the sexual revolution freed men a lot more than women--THEY were the ones who skipped out on their families and pressured women to have sex without marriage, whether or not the women wanted the change. The women got blamed by conservatives for changes in family structure, but the proliferation of deadbeat dads deserting their families says otherwise. And the MAIN reason for family stress is not women working but far fewer good jobs for ANYONE, especially blue-collar workers, for whom the effects of globalization, Republican policies, and corporations busting unions have been disastrous (the educated still find jobs and have unified families with two careers). Funding child care, education, and other social services would help more than anything--these kinds of problems don't exist in, say, Scandinavia.
"the proliferation of deadbeat dads deserting their families says otherwise" No it doesn't. A woman can kick a man out of the house and suddenly he is a deadbeat.
This reminds me of the grimms fairy tale of the bird, the mouse, and the sausage. They live together and each has a job suited to their strong points. A random bird flies by and tells the other bird how unfair the division of labor is and how easy the other 2 have it. So they rearrange the duties, and the household falls to ruin. It turns out each role has it's own good and bad aspects, and none are a free ride.
Thank you for showing us this, it's a good example of how not even an expert can get rid of the patriarchal mentality when analysing women's rights. It's not that I think that his analysis isn't good, but he just left out (at least in this video) one crucial aspect to understand women's lib, i.e. our rightful claim that we want to pursue our dreams just like men, and be free to choose what lives to lead. I mean, did he analyse men's (meaning mostly husbands') response to their wives wanting to work or study? I think I can guess the answer, because it's more or less the same now in many cases: they go from not wanting us to, and actively fighting against us exercising our rights, to not helping, in the best of cases. The only (unfair) solution many women have found is becoming a working person AND a housewife who still doesn't have any help: overwork. Men have very frequently refused to step in and take charge of their responsibilities in homemaking. Because they have them: it's their home, too. This has a clear consequence: if children aren't as well taken care of it's because many fathers past and present have acted as if they hadn't brought those children into the world, and haven't assumed the responsibilities that come from that. They've preferred keeping their own lifestyle rather than take proper care of their children together with their wives. As time passes, fortunately, more men understand how wrong this is and act accordingly. I'm writing this because I don't think it's fair to leave it out in this discussion. Women want respect, freedom and equality and that doesn't make us guilty of anything. We're not responsible for corporate decisions against workers or some men's poor parenting. I hope this expert has understood this by now.
As society evolve so does the values it hold, changes are inevitable. Its imperative that the Bible, Constitution, UN Security Council (Permanent) and the most basic of laws also evolve or change with the times to accommodate humanity's push forward.
Here is a fun factoid about the 1960s. Most Americans were pro-choice back then, as the culture wars had not yet become fully politicized in the GOP. But there was an interesting split. The pro-choice faction included both most Protestants and most Second Wave feminists. But who was opposed were not only Catholics but also First Wave feminists, the latter worried about the perceived loss of value for wives and mothers.
Typical ultra right-wing reactionary conservative response to facts they don't want to accept. Hence the attack on personal appearance. Typical...the current president employs the same tactic. Changing the subject is another common tactic.
@T-rexdreamsofmars I'm commenting on Claytons comment, not Dr. Mintz, whom I believe is totally spot on. You earlier made the comment that Clayton was being horribly dismissive. My comment was in tandem with yours. In proper decorum, you would offer an apology. But l doubt I'll see one.
I'm NOT saying by ANY means life in the 60s was above and beyond better...as an African American male in his 40s, i can ONLY imagine that life then was VERY rough then. Despite that there was still some values within in a family system that had merit. When both male/female were clicking on 8 cylinders and there was respect and nurturing from BOTH sides, I could certainly see benefit in values like that. But the moment when one sex decides to dominate another, that's when the trouble begins. My ex had been on her own since late teens (turbulent home growing up), and when she married me in her 30s, she was already set and conditioned to live a "free" 5:36, and if conflict or compromise presents itself, mindset became 5:42, and wanted to find relationship(s) that were more filling elsewhere. Never grounded or taught from loving co-habitat parents. So it created a fight or flight complex 6:49. What I'm saying is even in 2022, this division between male/female stronger than ever
How so? He does sound like he has an accent as such- not as noticeable as a pronounced Inland North accent, but definitely Great Lakes Midwestern, or whatever linguists prefer to call it.
I agree with Camille Paglia: women weren't miserable because they were housewives, rather because they were isolated from other women in their roles as such. Women used to spend the day in groups getting the chores and child-rearing done, and meeting their husbands at the end of the day. Women are still miserable. This could be why. And I see lots of modern women getting degrees and missing their childbearing years, only to look back in lonely regret.
Unfortunately now we are stuck in a culture that Pitts men against women, blacks against whites, gays against straights etc. Seems people just want a cause and be damned the consequences of what they push. A marriage is team work not me vs you. I would also say that I was raised by 2 working parents. At some point they made the decision that it was not working. When my mother decided to stay home from that point I was better off for it. They made the decision together. No resentment just doing what they thought best. My father never tried to tell my mother she shouldn't work. He appreciated the help she gave when she did work. It's too bad some people only find joy in complaining about things.
There's something that bothers me about the way this video is presented, and it lies almost solely in the title and description. When you listen to Dr. Mintz talk about the social challenges and expectations of women in the 50's and 60's you should recognize more differences to today than similarities. I'd like to point out a few I find important: 1) Women were expected to marry at a very young age and begin a family. This is not typical, nor is it encouraged today (of either men or women). Youth are taught to practice safe sex and to build a stable, independent life before pursuing the establishment of a family. Teen pregnancy and marriage during these early years are actively discouraged and seen as irresponsible ("C'est la vie, say the old folks", this is not a new sentiment). The average age of first time parents (male and female) has steadily increased since the 60's. 2) Women were discouraged from pursuing education or careers. The expectation today is unisex; you must pursue a higher education and a career. You are expected to be an established professional by the end of your twenties regardless of sex. 3) The pay gap. This is a hot topic but at the least it can be said that this is not the issue it was 60 years ago. If it were the case that laws regarding fair pay were not being enforced, then of course that should be rectified. As it happens, there is no evidence that this is taking place today on an institutional scale. In other words, if your boss isn't paying you fairly based on your sex, you should and do have access to the legal framework that will allow you to remedy the situation. (There's an extra point I want to make here but I can't really phrase it without essentially speaking on behalf of all women or all men. But I'll add simply that the evidence I've seen in my life, which is the women I've known, worked with, family etc... These women have built amazing careers and their compensation has been incredible. I simply haven't encountered this concern among women in the workforce. I've worked in several unionized environments alongside women, I've worked for women as owners and as managers. I just honestly haven't seen this in my life and I don't hear working women talking about it.) When I did my once over, reviewed some of the video, I realized that these are essentially all the points Dr. Mintz spoke about. There is almost no parallel to modern social conditions. For me personally, I see the relation to today as disingenuous, and it takes away from the integrity of your work. The message being sent is an accelerant to current tensions and need not be.
i totally agree. The gap between then and now is huge, though i see a parallel between the late 60s/early 70s and now in terms of revolutionary zeal. Disturbing. Same mistakes..
It simply never occurred to me that there were gender roles although it should have been obvious. I knew what I wanted to do from the time I was a small child and was oblivious to all else so I simply did it.
Divorce rates went down shortly after the divorce laws were made as it only spiked from the lack of law before hand Also kids are have problems from overuse of media Neither was cased but the feminist movement
Guess Im old fashioned , I still like the idea of a Mom staying home, cooking cleaning, taking care of the children. Dad going off to work making the living for the whole family. Times have certainly changed. I never was a feminist . Women were spoiled by it. I realise that today both parents need to work just to make ends meet , maybe! Depending on the lifestyle you live. Maybe a person doesnt need that beautiful 2 million dollar home, or that cadillac sitting in the drive. Ive always lived an ordinary middle class life . Not rich ,& not poor . But who says you cant be fullfilled by being a mother? Im quite fullfulled , I stayed home after marraige, and raised the children. My children grew up very well adjusted they had everything they needed, Love , food clothing attention, ,education , they are both wonderful children. Who love & respect me . Ive never had one problem with my children. And I think thats a testament of my beliefs. In other words womens lib was not for me. It changed the whole moral structure of our society . And we are now seeing , the not so nice result, of it ! No thank you ,womens lib , was not my cup of tea. Although I did, have to do things during the Viet Nam war, that most women would not have done. But I didnt have children then . My life has been quite happy & fullfilling as just being a Mom ! Oh and Grandma , hope to a be Great Grandma soon !' I also tho understand about the women who had to work, their husbands died or divorced them . I admire those women who worked their butts off to. support their children. So theres always 2 sides to every story. Im just saying, for me, I enjoyed staying home raising my children. And I give my husband so much credit for working so hard. to support us all those years. We will be married almost 50 yrs. & Still happy .
@@bernadettesandoval3990 women have been working slog labor since the beginning of time, yes. Only recently have we been allowed to get degrees in medicine, law, and other professional careers.
Meanwhile women working as domestics, farm laborer, factory assembly line operatives, etc. for decades were like, "Your feminism is for us too, right?"
What I find striking that already in 1957 women were overtaking college places vs men. I've seen this whole my life my generation of women have strongly outnumbered men in college/university level yet there is discontent that even if it is still not good enough, that somehow men have something better or more. Studies are quite clear in this, university degree is much much better prospect in life both quality and getting job. Other than that, there's a lot of choices in life to make.
"Our way of life is being stigmatized and that offends us! So we demand legislation that forcibly prevents people from escaping our lifestyle!" Not exactly an equitable or even-handed response.
Today’s women, with “fulfilling careers” are even unhappier, and unfulfilled, so the argument that marriage and family caused it has been proven wrong.
The writer of Sex in the City states just this. She's now in her 60s and alone without children. She regrets having chosen her independence rather than a family life.
The changes & bad things he talks about in regards to children, were happening long before that time. It was just not talked about. It was swept under the rug. People suffered from physical, verbal, sexual, & other abuses... but you did not talk about it. Therefore, it appears that society was better.
1920s. Voting rights for women. even Queen Victoria in the 1800s, pushed not just for poor children to stop working factories and be giving the chance to attend schools, become literate that only the wealthy were able as the majority, but for young girls to be treated equal in education. the 1950s may have stemmed from the days of Rosie the Riveter during WWII.. "We had Jobs and we were in charge and paid the bills". He's saying much of the same but I'm feeling a bit bravado for the beat period. Also, it has been recently noted that 1980s went back to traditional periods where wives stayed home more and most recently the repeat of the 70s high divorce rate is going up. We're hitting 1970s divorce rates and "Plurist lifestyles" (Swapping and key parties)
Industrialists figured that, by separating the Woman from the Man, they could double the profits. They hadn’t reckoned that a single woman usually doesn’t have as many offspring as a married family used to, especially with anti-conception means and abortions emerging on the scene. But, even if the birth rates of the Western people weren’t hampered, commercial opportunists wouldn’t be satisfied with twice the sales and political opportunists - with doubled tax source, so they decided to use all manner of thoroughly illogical, gimmicky - and fundamentally treacherous - excuses to import hundreds of millions of exotics into the up until very recently White West: industrial, political and financial opportunists had by then figured that Europeans and their derivatives in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand had been sufficiently dumbed down and lost grip on their identity to acquiesce with own demise through a Racial, Cultural and Religious replacement - and, without asking people whether they consent or object to own slow, but steady replacement and the moral, sexual, physical and genetic contamination through imminent (and now, apparently, quite popular - with female numbnuts) miscegenation, proceeded to open the gates to all European and derivative countries. The globalists’ plan would prove unprecedentedly lucrative for them financially and, in long term, politically, at the expense of the White Race. Now they unashamedly promote miscegenation by any means they can leverage for the task, while making their plan of the contamination of the once proud, beautiful White Woman through ugly flings with ever-oversexed male exotics as some sort of “normal” (on one hand) and “virtuous” (you don’t like being tainted by shags by the exotics - then you’re a Nazi, Racist, etc. bitch, rather than a proud Woman, refusing to be an interracial harlot). They also come up with new plans to turn Europe from the continent that begot the great J.S. Bach and sons, Haendel, da Vinci, Newton, Tesla and hundreds of thousands of like genius minds, the Race, whose genetic excellence is represented in the likes of Grace Kelly and Alain Delon - to a continent of rap & halal slaughter aficionados, of shallow bimbos and opportunistic skirt chasers, opportunistically preying on them as a daily sport. As long as they can continue profiting from the ugly mess they have concocted. I’m fairly certain, now, that the colonisation of Mars looks rather plausible, many antiWhitests are planning to secure their seats to save their hides when the mess that they created, become unmanageable for them and is threatening to cull the very filth that planned and executed the rabid antiWhiteists.
Isn't it funny that people talked about rising violent crime in the 1970s and 1980s. But no one talks about the plummeting violent crime rate ever since then. The world is always getting worse. And even when things are getting measurably better, the reactionaries still complain about everything getting worse. Yet we've had some of the lowest violent crime rates these past couple decades, as compared to any earlier point in US history.
As crestons wife I will never understand my parents era of my dad you need a man women need to be taken care of like a woman could not be single and live on her own like she's helpless to take care of herself no wonder my mom made an awesome living very capable but she lived at home until my dad married her very weird narrow minded thinking it makes no sense to be single working but living at home wages were very good by the 40s and 50s homes were very good price especially without minimum wage and apartments were very cheap I don't get that at all no independence for single working women that's crazy thinking. If you can work be single women obviously not helpless and able to take care of yourself without I have to get married because I'm a woman I work but I got to live at home because I need a man to take care of me because I work but I'm not capable of independence and taking care of myself that lacks common sense no wonder donna reed nonsense that was very unrealistic like I love lucy married but twin beds they were married in real life what the heck it was not just married for the show not realistic make believe fairy land. It's not like they were having sex outside of marriage. I'm not saying they needed to take their clothes off and bare all of course not but twin beds but you are married in real no I love my husband we sleep in twin beds but hey here's our son little ricky that so bizzare.
It's hard (but worthwhile for a man) work to raise children. I think we limited women to very few options in the 1950s and 1960s. They truly had few choices. And I find the limited lifestyle of women in Muslim nations (I have read "The God Who Hates") to be repugnant, but we did similar things in those days!
It seems to be the exact opposite of what is happening now. Women are told they can be/do whatever they want. Then they hit the natural wall at the end of their 20s/early 30s. Biology kicks in. Everybody knows what happens then..
That's not always true. Some of us are lucky enough to find careers that we're passionate about and feel lucky to go to work every day. I wish that were true for more people than it is.
@@m0L3ify well said. I'm working with three people right now who retired then came back part-time. (We're a research institute.) Some of them have been back part time for years lol. They absolutely don't need the money- they love what they do and don't want to stop. I'm really lucky and I agree with you, I wish more people could have that experience.
How peculiar. This guys eyes are essentially without movement, strangely untrustworthy. Although, perhaps this guy is exceptionally decent. Albeit, with a overfit to okayness.\
Only a wealthy country can put forth the idea that being happy is a "right". Feminism is a first world invention because only a wealthy country can afford to have the sexes blame each other for their unhappiness. The reality for everyone else is that life is hard and filled with suffering or at the very least not a Disneyland experience of hedonistic self indulgence that you see in the west. I have never seen the message of happiness sold anywhere in Asia. The west creates their unhappiness by their expectations and these expectations are created by those who want to make money off of unhappiness. This is only possible in a wealthy country. Actual desperation does not have the luxury of time or energy to concern itself with this moronic ideology that capitalism has created to make money.
So China isn't a wealthy country? Do you even keep up with the global fiscal market? They aim to suppress a women's right to be indipendant with the new social credit system, that's not even talking about the shortage of young woman because of infanticide during the single child policy. Look at Japan right now where women are speaking out against sexual abuse and sexism in the work place. Your opinion is formed from ignorance.
The pursuit of happiness is a right, not the happiness itself. The pursuit of happiness was viewed as a natural right in the 18th century, meaning a right that exists simply because we are human beings. Therefore it is an universal right, unrelated to the wealth of a country.
The wealthy control the countries made up of those unable to exert control. The U.S constitution uses the famous phrase "The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" At the time there was legalized slavery and women as a class had very few freedoms in excess of the slaves. The concept of a right indicates something guaranteed not to be violated. There is no right to happiness because there can never be a guarantee that this right will not be violated. I personally think it creates a false sense of security mimicking a delusion to think a person has a right to happiness. Happiness is not a right but a outcome and this outcome does not have a universal path to its experience.
I did not say that a wealthy country will put forth the concept that happiness is a right. It is ONLY a wealthy country that can entertain the luxury of even considering happiness a right as a concept and belief its people hold. China is actually an excellent example. The new wealth of the country has increased the need for control by the authoritarian government. The wealthy threaten to destabilize the regime through the power that wealth gives them. Happiness is an expression of power but it is only possible to understand this relationship between power and happiness when "Power" in all its forms and expressions "is understood". It is actually a distraction to talk about happiness when the conversation should be about power. Poverty and misery is the absence of power. Misery usually implies the absence of happiness except in cases of mental illness.
5 лет назад+1
Even with the problems of family life in the 50's America, todays 2019 families are much worse! Thank you Femminazis! Thank you Far left liberalism!
Ivanka is not the only one I've been around kids who wanted more time than here's some money or let's go to the mall so I can buy you something so I don't feel guilty about not spending quality time like you want because I'm too busy being a workaholic working 80 hrs a week so you can have everything but what they need which is family dinners with their parents that's why kids are so depressed and feel alone alot empty inside sad you kids need your love family dinners at the table after work not I'm too busy so I feel guilty so I got you the latest gadget or very expensive shoes or expensive outfit. I'm glad my dad worked hard but he made quality time family dinners kids don't have that because their parents are too selfish sad. It's all about money money money to the point of greed and consumerism and their kids I guess this is how it has to be when I grew up that's the modern american dream sad when you coming son I don't know when we will get together then and the son doesn't have time because he realized his dad never cared too busy to pay attention then the father retired and wanted to catch up the son was like nice to hear from you I gotta go because the son was like too late I have my own family who cares I'm not going to let you in my life because you never cared to take the time I have my life and I don't want you around ever because I remember it hurts to much I don't want to be rude so I say nice to hear from you but I'm busy with my kids don't have time for you now dad should have thought about that when you had the time he doesn't say it but that's what is going through his mind and the dad brought it upon himself now he's the one grieving over what he thought would happen one day that never came true because he waited to late. That's why live now because the future you it's not what you think will happen that's why it's called today not the future you don't know what tomorrow will bring and yesterday is over that's why it's called the present because each day is a gift you may retire and find out the future you worked your whole life and your dr says I know you just retired but bad news you are dying that's what happened to my uncle he was a snob to me I am sure he realized I built my life on the wrong ladder the ladder of success so I can have a fabulous retirement then I will live and not be overworked anymore then I can enjoy life and do and go like I always wanted I'm sure that's what his plan was he always a planner for the long term future life happens while you are making plans sometimes the tomorrow of the future that you planned your whole career for and then you find oh no I'm dying I'm not going to live abundantly because I'm dying I'm sure he regretted what he did thinking it would turn out like everything else he planned this time God had a different plan than all his other plans that he made for himself this time for the first time it didn't go according this plan. I'm sure man I never got to live because it was mostly about my work so I could one day live abundant and carefree retirement that never happened built your life on the wrong ladder and it collapsed just when you thought finally I can rest and enjoy my golden years that's why you don't over plan thinking everything is gonna happen the way I plan everything not always that's why live today not for the future you don't know about the future and yesterday is gone that's why it's called today today if you hear my voice God says Jesus because you may be dead tomorrow sometimes tomorrow never comes so today is the day not tomorrow you may not see it. You might plan and it not turn like you planned like that dying uncle who didn't get to enjoy retirement at all.
Having kids and raising the future wasn't "fulfilling." Somehow, being childless and alone at 45 with nothing to look forward to but cats and wine doesn't sound particularly fulfilling either.
That's a very narrow projection onto an extremely diverse population of people. This entire topic is really all about choice. Culture wasn't giving women a choice in living their lives how they wanted. Some women want to be stay at home mothers. Some don't. Society was saying "here's your tiny little box we made for you without asking" and giving them a life sentence of living inside of it. Everyone should be free to choose how to live their lives, male or female. Maybe that means having kids, maybe that means having a career, maybe that means both, maybe that means neither. It's not about a dichotomy of choice between 2 narrow options. It's about the freedom to choose your own path.
@@m0L3ify I disagree with you the choice given to women is a misleading one. Women should all want babies it's part of their natural life. To give them the illusion that they can be happy without them is just cruel. Just look at the way they fawn over animals nowadays. The cat lady? It's so obvious. They want kids, it's not a controversial statement. But society has been constantly tellin em they don't have to have them or they should be afraid of them. Babies are a huge responsibility babies are expensive babies change your life huge responsibility it's very hard blah blah blah. Babies are part of life like puberty not having one is UN natural. This all needs to stop, because we are seeing the effects of this issue everywhere in the world. We act like we care about kids but man sometimes I think people care more about themselves. It's a viscous cycle and this issue is far more important than politics.
Also I wasn't brave enough to touch my dad's alcohol I would have been in big trouble but rainbow parents don't understand because they don't instill fear in them if they go as far as trying to do something like that their kids no it my friend remembers said I remember your dad when you disobeyed he was grabbing you by the collar and whipping your butt for some of going to far but they watched they knew we were going to test the waters and there were healthy dose of fear and respect because they would be ready to act on it if you went to far now they act surprised. You let them get away with way too much what do you expect them to do. If your daughter ends up pregnant and she hasn't finished highschool that's dumb to let your kid go with their boyfriend to another state for the weekend etc you are asking for them to possibly come home pregnant before they go off to college I could date but I couldn't go off and to another state with my girlfriend and in those days parents would say I don't trust you that much with my daughter I want her to finish highschool without possibly ending up pregnant but not now parents don't care not enough. Probably like Obama I want my daughter to have an abortion so she doesn't have to pay for her mistake ok Obama you want your would be grandchild to pay for it so you don't have to be responsible for being grandparents either rich parents mentality they are the most spoiled brats I've ever seen is rich kids parents boarding school that is not normal life my mom would have never done that she wanted to be there for me after school but rich parents don't want to spend that much time with their kids they don't think they have that kind of time and then rich kids say everything was normal with my childhood what ever you say that is not normal life not normal parents not normal childhood for them that's sad only time they see them is during holiday vacation for two weeks that's not a real parent you might as well let the boarding school raise your kid to make life harder on them but easy and convenient for the parent I'd rather be adopted than to grow up that way they won't admit it but they know they were not truly loved like other kids were especially when they become adults and see how their friends grew up they may have had everything growing up but they think money is how to show love like their parents that's not true love money and things don't buy real love real love is spending lots of time with your kids they won't say it but they wish they had the life that their adult friends did that had a normal childhood that's why they run to different addictions to drown the pain that they don't want to face about their parents and their childhoods pain of their life with their rich parents sad. It's like trump and his kids he never made quality time only workaholic that's what he's taught them to be workaholics who don't have time alot with their own kids I'm sure even for Ivanka kids I doubt they get quality time with either her or husband he's too much like trump that's not good that's why she's empty inside her cup is empty except.
The women's movement was great for women but it was disastrous for the American family. The beginning of this movement was also the beginning of the decline of the American family. Not criticizing the movement. Just making a truthful observation.
As with most everything American, there is no love of moderation. The manic,pathologic swings towards extreamism in the feminist,homosexual and paraphilia movements has soured the nation.
This is so interesting! I like how he presents both sides of the events without prejudice. I'm 20 and I'm learning a lot through your channel Mr. David keep 'em coming!
Thank you Basma.
David Hoffman - filmmaker
Did we hear different things at 14:33 mark in the video
Young people always wanna announce their age...
@@3rdJose Old people always wanna find something to complain about
see how easy it is to generalize
@@maxxxxxxy both are true tho
Towards the beginning of this he says that in the 5 years after 1957 a sharp increase of married women entered the work force. I had an elderly neighbor (in 2016) who was telling me the back in the 50s his wife “wanted” to get a job for something to do since their kids were grown. Not long after getting a job his neighbors would came up to him and say to him “Just because thing’s are that bad at home (financially) is no reason to make your wife go out and work!”, and other things similar to that. There was at least one neighbor who knocked on their door and threatened him for “making his wife work”. It got so bad that he had to make his wife quit her job, which of course made her unhappy. Maybe quite a few married women didn’t work in the earl to mid 50s because of similar reasons my neighbors wife went through, but that’s just a guess.
There was an All in the Family episode about Edith going to work and Archie being mortified because he thought her going to work made him look bad. I guess it was true.
That's why it's also dangerous to spend your life worrying about what other people think. It prevents anyone from really being true to themselves. If what the neighbor was accusing him of was true then I could understand his irritation, but once the husband explained his wife was working because the kids were grown and she needed to get out of the house, the neighbor should have just left it alone at that point and minded his own business. Her husband at that point should have told him to do the same when he kept coming back like a codependent, bossy control freak.
Elizabeth Warren, believe it or not, wrote an outstanding book about how forcing two parents to have to work have made families far more unstable and far poorer.
"The Two Income Trap"
by Elizabeth Warren, and her daughter.
I haven't read it but please tell me she has identified that it was employers responses to the laws which have 'forced' both parents to work not the women's rights movement. It's the cost of living inflating faster than incomes that is forcing families to be dual income not societal pressure from feminists, Income inflation is slow because companies think they can get away with it by saying they don't need to pay as much if their employees are no longer the sole breadwinner, that's not a side effect of women's rights it's a side effect of corporate greed.
But she still believes in feminism
@@Lillipie81
It is the cost of living, but it is also the "women's rights movement". The measure of "female empowerment" is now measured by income. You see very little, or none at all, feminist encouragment of women who choose to be mothers and devote their full time to raising a family. That's most likely why the vast majority of women don't identify as feminist.
Eileen: The key being "Have to work" not "allowed to work."
An excellent 15 minutes. We heard a whole lot of information about a whole lot of factors and reasons about the huge changes in Society regarding the place of & for women. Myself, I am a 67 yr. old male born in 1952 with a fairly traditional family; Dad worked and Mom stayed home and raised us ( 1 older sister, then me, then 2 more girls spread out over a 10 year period ). Mom gave piano lessons at home for a while and helped out with the school choirs sometimes. I do not remember how she managed to be the full time Mother to my 2 younger sisters and still help with the choirs before they got into elementary school, but she did, somehow. When my 2 younger sisters got into the higher elementary grades, Mom began teaching. I actually had her as my History teacher when I was a Senior in H.S. When I got married, I was full time at the local University and she was working full time, but we both decided and agreed that when our 1st child came along that she would stay home and be the full time Mother and I would quit school and go to work. and that's what we did. Just as Eileen D, below said...we weren't gonna have children and have someone else raising them...that's just not right...not if there is any way possible ( and there almost always IS a way ), for one of the parents..preferably the Mother...to stay at home. Now, let me state that when I said .." preferably the Mother" to stay home, I am not being sexist or anything else; I'm saying that usually...biologically...the woman has the maternal instincts to nurture and raise children a lot more than the typical male...usually. But there are always exceptions. I wound up having to get full custody of our 2 children when they were just in early elementary school and I became the full time "Mr. Mom". I was not the so-called typical male who didn't want to be involved in raising his own children. No...I gladly accepted my role as being the only parent. I thank God that I had the temperament and patience and above all else...the love...and willingness to learn how to be a good parent...to give them a safe and peaceful and stable home. Yes, I would have much preferred a traditional 2 parent family...with BOTH parents actively raising the children and taking care of the home/house, and I still believe that usually...usually...it's the woman who has the strongest maternal/protective instincts, but this Life is not easy and not simply 'black & white'..nope...much too complicated for that. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman, for giving us some more of this great and insightful interview.
Good to hear from you again and thank you.
David Hoffman - filmmaker
67 born in 52
I loved being a married stay at home mother. I was raised in the 60s. Never wanted a career.
Good for you
PERIODT 💅🏼!!!
I was born in 1956. My mother was always a stay at home mom. We didnt have alot of money. But Im so glad my mom was always home. She was there when we left for school, and there when we came home. I believe its far better for children to have their mothers at home taking care of them. I too was a stay at home mother for my daughter. Dont regret it one bit.
Double the tax base, double the taxes.
And let's not forget, double the workers, halve the paychecks.
Exponential growth at all costs. On a finite planet.
@@yamik1385Yamik women during a period of prosperity wanted to work for self-fulfillment. Now, even if married to an employed man, they have to for survival. Most of them at jobs that are not fulfilling.
Of course, this is not new. It is just a return to the situation that existed before post WW 2 prosperity, which held on until about 1981 and then slipped away, due to neo-liberalism.
Also don't forget that working at a job means freedom now lol
Can't wait to get interviewed in the future for my perspective during the late 2000's to 2020's in the year 2050.
I just want to see how many people here are 17-21
Bruh
hurB
15
29
20
I would have hated to see my wife have to stay home and not be able to go out and enjoy her career, but the sad truth is that now, it takes two incomes to buy what one used to pay for. It's a dilemma.
The economy always adjusts. If you gave everyone a million dollars, there would still be poverty. If you taxed everyone 50%, people would get along OK. Disparity is poverty. It must be moderate. Not excessive but not eliminated.
😂😂😂
As always, David Hoffman, wonderful insights that help me gain an understanding of my own parents issues!!!!! You rock!!
Thank you again Ted.
david Hoffman - filmmaker
David, your videos are so important and interesting. So much can be learned from them, in so many levels.
When I was first searching for jobs in the local newspaper in 1974, they were listed as “Jobs For Men” and “Jobs for Women.”
How about including a head shot with your resume? I heard that was was a thing in the 70s.
This makes me wonder whether we're in some pretty dark times. It'd be nice in the final analysis if we can learn how to better love one another, politics aside. I think that would solve the "war" over the family that Dr. Mintz so well describes.
@Long Schnozzed Tribesman catastrophizing egalitarianism the way you do says a lot about you.
@@suzbone Jesus the guy is saying, "Let's all learn to love eachother better." And you respond with the most onerous "I want to fight you" response I have ever seen.
@@twrecks6279 the comment I was responding to has been deleted. I wasn't responding to the OP.
Fascinating. The paralels in the UK and US are most notable. Industrialisation and disposable incomes changed society so intensely in such a short period of time.
To add to this, asian families studied in USA have maintained strong family unit, so this hadnt affected them so much. I dont know about recent 2010 and forward, but this was in academic papers strong reason why asian children both academically and otherwise succeed in life so spectacularly. It was compared to black families and biggest single thing was coherent family unit. Not even IQ, personality or other traits regarded important for success (individual characteristics) were as strong indicators.
@effexon
That is because the government structured the welfare system to not be profitable for poor families to stay together and instead to survive single mother baby daddy situations evolved. Not to mention negative brainwash of blacks by the media. Nevertheless, many black families in rural areas are very strong as far as helping each other but the women seem to rule in the poor communities.
@@tankster5826 was white families now being equal in statistics, also intentional or byproduct of this?
and it wouldnt need to be profitable, but neutral... thus not giving any incentive to divorce or stay together in bad relationship.
@effexon It affected black families more in the beginning because many were maids and such and families they worked for didn’t always pay withholding taxes and they were paid so low they couldn’t report it either. So some young girls got pregnant to give their children to grandma to raise for her welfare income while they went to college to try to get a career. That is a hard struggle to do it that way. But once a person is in the system it is structured to be very hard to get out because the thresh hold is so low that if you make $50 dollars a month you lose benefits so the person doesn’t get to accumulate enough pay raises or advancement to get out. In that way if affects any person of any race in trying to get out of the system.
@effexon
The end up going from one relationship after another because poverty is so stressful so it is way worse on the children and causes mental disorders in them.
I grew up as one of six children in Australia during the 1960s and 1970s. The social contructs were very similar to those being decribed by Prof. Mintz. My mother was a stauch defender of the role of wives and mothers. Regardless, she sought the best education she could for her two daughters and instilled in them strong senses of enquiry, opinion, thoughtfulness, and discernment. Unfortunately, she then expected them to return from University, marry a local solicitor, and raise large families while preparing the evening meal.
More than 40 years on, our family has never completely recovered from the angry and bitter fracturing caused by the decisions of my sisters to commit to personal relationships not sanctified in a church - and to pursue long and successful careers in academia and business.
Multinational corporations worldwide want women single and angry. Its their most profitable demographic- young nuclear families and single men save and invest money, while single women go into credit card debt paying for useless tech, leasing cars they cant afford, funding girl trips to casinos and resorts. So from NYC to Istanbul (yes, even Muslim culture) young, single women instead of going home after work to prepare meals for families, are sitting in Starbucks drinking sweet coffee milkshakes, swiping on Tinder, browsing Instagram, purchasing on Amazon, while going deeper into debt.
Thank you David. Very interesting analysis and facts.
I always wonder whether another problem regarding women's happiness was potentially husbands with undiagnosed ptsd following the war
Rocky Road Great point. And Rocky Road is a great ice cream (Baskin & Robbins)
Not to mention the vastly increased number of newly widowed single mothers who were desperate enough for a man to steal a husband
It is important to take away womens agency by blaming men fir womens bad choices. Thank you for this deflection of reponsibility. I have always wondered why Hitler was elected by the large majority female vote ( hint:he pandered to Nordic “ goddesses “) and why these women were never held accountable fir WW2. ? Sounds ridiculous? Now replay your pre-programmed save-a-ho postulation.
@@bernadettesandoval3990 Lol, that is not a real thing. Men are not shoes. They voluntarily chose to leave the marriage.
When he yelled out '"GROWTH, FULFILLMENT, SELF REALIZATION, i felt that.
I think those changes have a lot more to do with greed than the women’s place in the home (just speaking to the end bit). Education system was defunded heavily in the 1980s, and other social programs available in the 60s have been destroyed. These videos are amazing, love looking into the past. Thanks!
As a 18 year old girl, this is so interesting.
Good that you recognize the importance of this subject. Be observant of your environment. Not just the immediate family structure but what happens all around. David Hoffman's video series and others like this will prove beneficial. Consider Sociology courses in college and most importantly, exercise what George Carlin commonly referred to as 'critical thinking.'
Hopefully you will learn that there is a price to pay for freedom.
Hi from N.Z. when u have time like 1 or 2 hrs a week just go to your local museum or library and ask for old news papers to read like 1800's to early late 60's. I spent almost yrs off my 54 yrs doing this. History and Davids old video gems are very addictive.
@@rockcrusher9524 IMO that is wrong kind of freedom(hurtful for human psyche). There is many kinds of freedom, but this gets lost. People get mentally sick with absolute freedom, ie. extreme example of tests with nonsensory rooms. School tries to balance freedom and chaos of it by pedagogical step by step learning and getting adjusted to freedom (responsibility). Unfortunately there is no school anymore when people are 30s 40s 50s in same sense.
Your S.M.V. is as high as it's ever going to be. Use it wisely.
Really interesting, and gives more than two sides to the story. It's cliché, but people really do think about the children less than they should. The children born then became our adults now. What culture have they created, out of what their parents gave, or did not give, them?
This is very interesting.50years ago when I was in my mid teens and growing up in a small country in Europe things were different than today.With hindsight it appears that a family had more money when looked at in the following way..50years ago the man was the sole earner in the family.The woman was at home and taking care of the house and children.Only one wage earner with one job was required to pay the bank mortage or rent and all the neccessary bills and expenses.Today for the most part,the man and woman of the family have to work to pay the same bills and neccessary expenses,plus the expenses of an extra car to run and babysitters and possibly a creche for the children.Also,today it,s not unusual for people to have 2 jobs or more out of neccessity to pay those bills.I pose the question..Are we better off financially than we were 50 or 60years ago or are we just being ripped off and taken for an expensive ride?
The decline of labor coincides with the decline of family. I wish he spoke more of economic forces over articles written and read by a tiny portion of upper class society. The analysis had already forgotten the majority working men and women.
The original goals of the women's movement had merit. But, like any institution, it's mission eventually became an effort to maintain its relevance after it's original goals were achieved. One method to do that is to claim that the goals haven't been achieved after they have. The best example is the wage gap which not one honest and thoughtful economist looking at the data would claim still exists except in isolated cases for BOTH sexes. Eventually, the Feminist movement has become disastrous for the family, this culture and this civilization. That's because the movement was based on the erroneous belief that women would be more happy if only they had what men had. Well, they have it and are even less happy. Basically, women are looking for happiness in the wrong place.
Sounds like the story of my grandmother... because it was. She dropped out of her masters to finance her husband's PhD, and ended up having 5 children. Interesting stuff.
Super informative and non-biased!! Thanks!! Also clear and non-biased are the negative consequences, starting at 14:22. So non-biased, in fact, that maybe we should consider declaring the experiment over, and back-track a little. We now know the consequences. Single parenthood, unattended children, and overall loneliness and individualism is not a good recepy for humane societies. No one should be called a conservative again for upholding some of the values we're missing so much.
Not going to happen. Why? Multinational corporations worldwide want women single and angry. Its their most profitable demographic- young nuclear families and single men save and invest money, while single women go into credit card debt paying for useless tech, leasing cars they cant afford, funding girl trips to casinos and resorts. So from NYC to Istanbul (yes, even Muslim culture) young, single women instead of going home after work to prepare meals for families, are sitting in Starbucks drinking sweet coffee milkshakes, swiping on Tinder, browsing Instagram, purchasing on Amazon, while going deeper into debt.
Women found meaning and value and opinions on issues other than her husbands in the 1960s and many men did not like it.
I was born in 1961. My father was the primary breadwinner, my mother was the primary caregiver & taught ballet in our home. My mother felt her role was important and it was. So was my father's. That structure and security was commonplace & very beneficial. Too many kids are being raised in daycare by people who don't love them now. It's sad to see. I remember when families started falling apart as Mom (or sometimes Dad) discovered that being selfish was something society said was GREAT, so they divorced and went off to find themselves. EST (self-help cult) was a big factor in breaking up families too, at least in my California town. It was the early 70s & whatever you've heard, it was not a terrific time to live in. The shoes were hideous! I will say that when I was a very little girl in the mid 1960s, I did notice an un-equal dynamic between men and women that I resented deeply, even at 5 yrs old, so I do think that it's good that roles have loosened and men & women have more respect for each other now. In that regard, women's lib served a purpose, but IMO it went too far and rejected traditional roles as a respected and valued option. By the mid 1980s women who worked outside the home ( and the media, plus society at large) were very judgmental about women who were stay-at-home moms, even rejecting the notion that it was ALSO work. Even the suffragettes held motherhood in the highest regard, but not todays feminists. It's all up-side down. I don't know what the right answers are, but I do wish traditional family life and roles were as broadly valued today as they were then. So many people in their mid thirties and younger seem to be without mooring or purpose.
I worked for myself and raised my own children. They turned out to be amazing people. When I wasn't home for hours or even a few days I always had family members on hand for childcare. It worked well for all of us.
Bingo. A strong community makes rigid marriage obsolete.
Ridiculous. “ I was raised by wolves in the mountains of Norway, bought lottery ticket, won, and it has worked well for me” Just as relevant. Outliers prove that the majority aren’t going to have that outcome. Look at the % of men in prison produced by your method of “family” ( its 80%) Strippers with Daddy issues are a meme.
Key phrase here…“I had family“…that would be a lot harder now
@@peterlemonjello5824 exactly but women overall use outliers instead of the data and vast numbers
"Fundamental shift in values" is the thing. When a group of people want change, they will get it. Women deserved this in the 1960 and they deserve equal pay now. They were clear about what they wanted in the 1960's and that may have been the last stage of human evolution. Knowledge of the birth control pill trials set off this movement. That is how powerfully strong they wanted this change. These movements today are loud, but weak next to the tidal wave that was 1960's Feminism.
I don't like that American economic institutions have blown our economy so that, in the 1950's one man went to work and supported 3-5 kids as this gentleman was saying was commonplace in 1957. Now, people cannot afford to have kids or buy a home with two people working. This is the next "shift in values" that is coming culturally, inclusion laws, socialism and a strong gut-felt right-wing group that are ready to act a fool on camera. This is all some kind of continuum. I think this has been on-going on and is part of American social evolution. I think they had something right in the 1960's that we are missing now. The sincerity is not the same and the clarity of vision is blurry in comparison. Computer News Feed America is a confused place.
I feel that the pill and access to abortion were major reasons why women began to have an equal standing. Women no longer were tied to marriage and child rearing and if they decided to do so they could choose with whom and when.
interesting that I lived through all of this in the 1950's (still my favorite decade) and had no inkling of what he is talking about. All the woman were happy being mothers and homemakers and all the girls wanted husbands and families. I lived in a small town - maybe that's it
The year 1957 marked the beginning of our major decline in economic terms. That was the last year that Cadillac produced a beautiful car and the Chevrolet Belair was one of the best automobiles available. Women went to work because they had to, not because they wanted to.
The pressure of globization. If the workers at Foxconn work 12 Hrs 6 days a wekk for a fraction...
@@sw.7519 Chinese slavery is a whole other topic.
Wow what a wealth of information in a short amount of time
As a working mother for decades now, I resent this challenge turned imposition of women's roles. I LITERALLY do not know any woman who wanted to go back to work after having children. We all wanted to stay home with them; raise our own children and not have daycares booming raising OUR children. The ONLY think IMO that Gloria Steinem's demagoguery and the ideology of leftists hell bent on destroying the family accomplished is trying to undo traditional roles that a natural and have been since the beginning of time. Now to buy a home you need TWO incomes to qualify. We're all working harder and achieving less.
Its encouraging to see post about these videos and admit is we got it wrong. Babies are now looked at as something totally different more of a birden then blessing sadly
@@knowitall3892 You're so right - it's sad, really. There's so much pressure now for men to do traditional maternal roles in the family too. It's a dystopian nightmare and against our nature for the most part. Like w/women, there's a new competition about "Well my husband gives the kids their baths...and he cooks dinner 3x a week..." It's just nuts.
That was the danger of the feminist movement, and what you have with 2nd and 3rd wave feminists: that there is only one way to be a feminist, and that way is to want to work. Ideally women should be able to do what they want--and frequently that is raising children. Yet that is a dirty word in feminist circles, and the way the world is it is very unlikely that a family can survive on one income alone, so the mother usually HAS to work.
@@sophroniel Yes, exactly! Excellent point.
@@eileen1820 we are truly living with the radical consequences. But I will forever be Pro-Family
Fast forward to present day where alcoholism for women in their 20's is rising, births are dropping, divorces are rising, women earn more on average when entering the workforce but overall happiness is rating lower.
Hitler said... you can make people believe their living in heaven when their living hell. And hell in when in heaven. Obviously that philosophy didnt die with hitler. The power of suggestion
i should not watch this while im high. *i should not watch this while high*
Been there, seen that . . . a pretty accurate picture. Only problem is, he's talking mostly about white suburban society. And one of the ironies is that the sexual revolution freed men a lot more than women--THEY were the ones who skipped out on their families and pressured women to have sex without marriage, whether or not the women wanted the change. The women got blamed by conservatives for changes in family structure, but the proliferation of deadbeat dads deserting their families says otherwise. And the MAIN reason for family stress is not women working but far fewer good jobs for ANYONE, especially blue-collar workers, for whom the effects of globalization, Republican policies, and corporations busting unions have been disastrous (the educated still find jobs and have unified families with two careers). Funding child care, education, and other social services would help more than anything--these kinds of problems don't exist in, say, Scandinavia.
"the proliferation of deadbeat dads deserting their families says otherwise"
No it doesn't. A woman can kick a man out of the house and suddenly he is a deadbeat.
Sex, drugs and crime was the unofficial London motto in the 18th century 😋
This is a gem.
This reminds me of the grimms fairy tale of the bird, the mouse, and the sausage. They live together and each has a job suited to their strong points. A random bird flies by and tells the other bird how unfair the division of labor is and how easy the other 2 have it. So they rearrange the duties, and the household falls to ruin. It turns out each role has it's own good and bad aspects, and none are a free ride.
I thought it's just me finding the scenario surprisingly familiar even tho I grew up in the 90s
Thank you for showing us this, it's a good example of how not even an expert can get rid of the patriarchal mentality when analysing women's rights. It's not that I think that his analysis isn't good, but he just left out (at least in this video) one crucial aspect to understand women's lib, i.e. our rightful claim that we want to pursue our dreams just like men, and be free to choose what lives to lead.
I mean, did he analyse men's (meaning mostly husbands') response to their wives wanting to work or study? I think I can guess the answer, because it's more or less the same now in many cases: they go from not wanting us to, and actively fighting against us exercising our rights, to not helping, in the best of cases. The only (unfair) solution many women have found is becoming a working person AND a housewife who still doesn't have any help: overwork. Men have very frequently refused to step in and take charge of their responsibilities in homemaking. Because they have them: it's their home, too.
This has a clear consequence: if children aren't as well taken care of it's because many fathers past and present have acted as if they hadn't brought those children into the world, and haven't assumed the responsibilities that come from that. They've preferred keeping their own lifestyle rather than take proper care of their children together with their wives. As time passes, fortunately, more men understand how wrong this is and act accordingly.
I'm writing this because I don't think it's fair to leave it out in this discussion. Women want respect, freedom and equality and that doesn't make us guilty of anything. We're not responsible for corporate decisions against workers or some men's poor parenting. I hope this expert has understood this by now.
As society evolve so does the values it hold, changes are inevitable. Its imperative that the Bible, Constitution, UN Security Council (Permanent) and the most basic of laws also evolve or change with the times to accommodate humanity's push forward.
Here is a fun factoid about the 1960s. Most Americans were pro-choice back then, as the culture wars had not yet become fully politicized in the GOP. But there was an interesting split. The pro-choice faction included both most Protestants and most Second Wave feminists. But who was opposed were not only Catholics but also First Wave feminists, the latter worried about the perceived loss of value for wives and mothers.
That lower chin strap hair abomination probably helped motivate a lot of the things he described
People have different opinions about beards but he's a very handsome man, regardless 👍👍.
Typical ultra right-wing reactionary conservative response to facts they don't want to accept. Hence the attack on personal appearance.
Typical...the current president employs the same tactic. Changing the subject is another common tactic.
Lol @ all the angry over thought replies to my simple jest
Learn to take a joke
@T-rexdreamsofmars
I'm commenting on Claytons comment, not Dr. Mintz, whom I believe is totally spot on. You earlier made the comment that Clayton was being horribly dismissive. My comment was in tandem with yours. In proper decorum, you would offer an apology. But l doubt I'll see one.
I'm NOT saying by ANY means life in the 60s was above and beyond better...as an African American male in his 40s, i can ONLY imagine that life then was VERY rough then. Despite that there was still some values within in a family system that had merit. When both male/female were clicking on 8 cylinders and there was respect and nurturing from BOTH sides, I could certainly see benefit in values like that. But the moment when one sex decides to dominate another, that's when the trouble begins. My ex had been on her own since late teens (turbulent home growing up), and when she married me in her 30s, she was already set and conditioned to live a "free" 5:36, and if conflict or compromise presents itself, mindset became 5:42, and wanted to find relationship(s) that were more filling elsewhere. Never grounded or taught from loving co-habitat parents. So it created a fight or flight complex 6:49. What I'm saying is even in 2022, this division between male/female stronger than ever
The future was clear, and this guy basically described it.
Thanks David!!
He'd no sooner said one sentence then I'd pegged him for a Michigander.
How so? He does sound like he has an accent as such- not as noticeable as a pronounced Inland North accent, but definitely Great Lakes Midwestern, or whatever linguists prefer to call it.
I agree with Camille Paglia: women weren't miserable because they were housewives, rather because they were isolated from other women in their roles as such. Women used to spend the day in groups getting the chores and child-rearing done, and meeting their husbands at the end of the day. Women are still miserable. This could be why. And I see lots of modern women getting degrees and missing their childbearing years, only to look back in lonely regret.
Whizper2me Helcat didn’t! Helcat said “lots of modern women” not all modern women. Pay attention genius
@Whizper2me yeah whatever cat lady
@@crownj01 👏
Unfortunately now we are stuck in a culture that Pitts men against women, blacks against whites, gays against straights etc. Seems people just want a cause and be damned the consequences of what they push. A marriage is team work not me vs you. I would also say that I was raised by 2 working parents. At some point they made the decision that it was not working. When my mother decided to stay home from that point I was better off for it. They made the decision together. No resentment just doing what they thought best. My father never tried to tell my mother she shouldn't work. He appreciated the help she gave when she did work. It's too bad some people only find joy in complaining about things.
This guy nailed it .
Mainly Liking this video for the comments.
Reason is happening in dark and dusty corners of the interwebs.
This guy is the ultimate outsider
There's something that bothers me about the way this video is presented, and it lies almost solely in the title and description. When you listen to Dr. Mintz talk about the social challenges and expectations of women in the 50's and 60's you should recognize more differences to today than similarities. I'd like to point out a few I find important:
1) Women were expected to marry at a very young age and begin a family. This is not typical, nor is it encouraged today (of either men or women). Youth are taught to practice safe sex and to build a stable, independent life before pursuing the establishment of a family. Teen pregnancy and marriage during these early years are actively discouraged and seen as irresponsible ("C'est la vie, say the old folks", this is not a new sentiment). The average age of first time parents (male and female) has steadily increased since the 60's.
2) Women were discouraged from pursuing education or careers. The expectation today is unisex; you must pursue a higher education and a career. You are expected to be an established professional by the end of your twenties regardless of sex.
3) The pay gap. This is a hot topic but at the least it can be said that this is not the issue it was 60 years ago. If it were the case that laws regarding fair pay were not being enforced, then of course that should be rectified. As it happens, there is no evidence that this is taking place today on an institutional scale. In other words, if your boss isn't paying you fairly based on your sex, you should and do have access to the legal framework that will allow you to remedy the situation.
(There's an extra point I want to make here but I can't really phrase it without essentially speaking on behalf of all women or all men. But I'll add simply that the evidence I've seen in my life, which is the women I've known, worked with, family etc... These women have built amazing careers and their compensation has been incredible. I simply haven't encountered this concern among women in the workforce. I've worked in several unionized environments alongside women, I've worked for women as owners and as managers. I just honestly haven't seen this in my life and I don't hear working women talking about it.)
When I did my once over, reviewed some of the video, I realized that these are essentially all the points Dr. Mintz spoke about. There is almost no parallel to modern social conditions. For me personally, I see the relation to today as disingenuous, and it takes away from the integrity of your work. The message being sent is an accelerant to current tensions and need not be.
i totally agree. The gap between then and now is huge, though i see a parallel between the late 60s/early 70s and now in terms of revolutionary zeal. Disturbing. Same mistakes..
It simply never occurred to me that there were gender roles although it should have been obvious. I knew what I wanted to do from the time I was a small child and was oblivious to all else so I simply did it.
Divorce rates went down shortly after the divorce laws were made as it only spiked from the lack of law before hand
Also kids are have problems from overuse of media
Neither was cased but the feminist movement
Guess Im old fashioned , I still like the idea of a Mom staying home, cooking cleaning, taking care of the children. Dad going off to work making the living for the whole family. Times have certainly changed. I never was a feminist . Women were spoiled by it. I realise that today both parents need to work just to make ends meet , maybe! Depending on the lifestyle you live. Maybe a person doesnt need that beautiful 2 million dollar home, or that cadillac sitting in the drive. Ive always lived an ordinary middle class life . Not rich ,& not poor . But who says you cant be fullfilled by being a mother? Im quite fullfulled , I stayed home after marraige, and raised the children. My children grew up very well adjusted they had everything they needed, Love , food clothing attention, ,education , they are both wonderful children. Who love & respect me . Ive never had one problem with my children. And I think thats a testament of my beliefs. In other words womens lib was not for me. It changed the whole moral structure of our society . And we are now seeing , the not so nice result, of it ! No thank you ,womens lib , was not my cup of tea. Although I did, have to do things during the Viet Nam war, that most women would not have done. But I didnt have children then . My life has been quite happy & fullfilling as just being a Mom ! Oh and Grandma , hope to a be Great Grandma soon !' I also tho understand about the women who had to work, their husbands died or divorced them . I admire those women who worked their butts off to. support their children. So theres always 2 sides to every story. Im just saying, for me, I enjoyed staying home raising my children. And I give my husband so much credit for working so hard. to support us all those years. We will be married almost 50 yrs. & Still happy .
@ahri women always had that choice, women have been working since the beginning of time.
@@bernadettesandoval3990 women have been working slog labor since the beginning of time, yes. Only recently have we been allowed to get degrees in medicine, law, and other professional careers.
Not to mention the fact that you couldn’t always depend on a man to take care of you and/or the family.
The only difference is now we have social media and back then you actually had to get together with somebody
Meanwhile women working as domestics, farm laborer, factory assembly line operatives, etc. for decades were like, "Your feminism is for us too, right?"
What I find striking that already in 1957 women were overtaking college places vs men. I've seen this whole my life my generation of women have strongly outnumbered men in college/university level yet there is discontent that even if it is still not good enough, that somehow men have something better or more. Studies are quite clear in this, university degree is much much better prospect in life both quality and getting job. Other than that, there's a lot of choices in life to make.
What was the Women's Liberation Movement? I am reading a book titled Sister Is Powerful and yeah, I don't what to think of it
"Our way of life is being stigmatized and that offends us! So we demand legislation that forcibly prevents people from escaping our lifestyle!" Not exactly an equitable or even-handed response.
Neither is stigmatizing their life styles and destroying the family unit through media and education.
Today’s women, with “fulfilling careers” are even unhappier, and unfulfilled, so the argument that marriage and family caused it has been proven wrong.
The writer of Sex in the City states just this. She's now in her 60s and alone without children. She regrets having chosen her independence rather than a family life.
"Women. They don't know what they want half the time, and the other half of the time they don't know what they want!" Popeye, circa 1936
so very very true
It’s subjective.
as if women are homogeneous.
very interesting stuff
Thanks!
Thank you so much Chuck.
David Hoffman
The changes & bad things he talks about in regards to children, were happening long before that time. It was just not talked about. It was swept under the rug. People suffered from physical, verbal, sexual, & other abuses... but you did not talk about it. Therefore, it appears that society was better.
1920s. Voting rights for women. even Queen Victoria in the 1800s, pushed not just for poor children to stop working factories and be giving the chance to attend schools, become literate that only the wealthy were able as the majority, but for young girls to be treated equal in education. the 1950s may have stemmed from the days of Rosie the Riveter during WWII.. "We had Jobs and we were in charge and paid the bills". He's saying much of the same but I'm feeling a bit bravado for the beat period. Also, it has been recently noted that 1980s went back to traditional periods where wives stayed home more and most recently the repeat of the 70s high divorce rate is going up. We're hitting 1970s divorce rates and "Plurist lifestyles" (Swapping and key parties)
Industrialists figured that, by separating the Woman from the Man, they could double the profits. They hadn’t reckoned that a single woman usually doesn’t have as many offspring as a married family used to, especially with anti-conception means and abortions emerging on the scene. But, even if the birth rates of the Western people weren’t hampered, commercial opportunists wouldn’t be satisfied with twice the sales and political opportunists - with doubled tax source, so they decided to use all manner of thoroughly illogical, gimmicky - and fundamentally treacherous - excuses to import hundreds of millions of exotics into the up until very recently White West: industrial, political and financial opportunists had by then figured that Europeans and their derivatives in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand had been sufficiently dumbed down and lost grip on their identity to acquiesce with own demise through a Racial, Cultural and Religious replacement - and, without asking people whether they consent or object to own slow, but steady replacement and the moral, sexual, physical and genetic contamination through imminent (and now, apparently, quite popular - with female numbnuts) miscegenation, proceeded to open the gates to all European and derivative countries. The globalists’ plan would prove unprecedentedly lucrative for them financially and, in long term, politically, at the expense of the White Race. Now they unashamedly promote miscegenation by any means they can leverage for the task, while making their plan of the contamination of the once proud, beautiful White Woman through ugly flings with ever-oversexed male exotics as some sort of “normal” (on one hand) and “virtuous” (you don’t like being tainted by shags by the exotics - then you’re a Nazi, Racist, etc. bitch, rather than a proud Woman, refusing to be an interracial harlot). They also come up with new plans to turn Europe from the continent that begot the great J.S. Bach and sons, Haendel, da Vinci, Newton, Tesla and hundreds of thousands of like genius minds, the Race, whose genetic excellence is represented in the likes of Grace Kelly and Alain Delon - to a continent of rap & halal slaughter aficionados, of shallow bimbos and opportunistic skirt chasers, opportunistically preying on them as a daily sport. As long as they can continue profiting from the ugly mess they have concocted. I’m fairly certain, now, that the colonisation of Mars looks rather plausible, many antiWhitests are planning to secure their seats to save their hides when the mess that they created, become unmanageable for them and is threatening to cull the very filth that planned and executed the rabid antiWhiteists.
Thank you David Hoffman.
I'm just so glad that I made the decision to remain childfree. Much better being a DINK (Double Income No Kids) kind of family.
Isn't it funny that people talked about rising violent crime in the 1970s and 1980s. But no one talks about the plummeting violent crime rate ever since then. The world is always getting worse. And even when things are getting measurably better, the reactionaries still complain about everything getting worse. Yet we've had some of the lowest violent crime rates these past couple decades, as compared to any earlier point in US history.
This interview reminds me of the movie "The Hours".
Pursuing a *caweer*
As crestons wife I will never understand my parents era of my dad you need a man women need to be taken care of like a woman could not be single and live on her own like she's helpless to take care of herself no wonder my mom made an awesome living very capable but she lived at home until my dad married her very weird narrow minded thinking it makes no sense to be single working but living at home wages were very good by the 40s and 50s homes were very good price especially without minimum wage and apartments were very cheap I don't get that at all no independence for single working women that's crazy thinking. If you can work be single women obviously not helpless and able to take care of yourself without I have to get married because I'm a woman I work but I got to live at home because I need a man to take care of me because I work but I'm not capable of independence and taking care of myself that lacks common sense no wonder donna reed nonsense that was very unrealistic like I love lucy married but twin beds they were married in real life what the heck it was not just married for the show not realistic make believe fairy land. It's not like they were having sex outside of marriage. I'm not saying they needed to take their clothes off and bare all of course not but twin beds but you are married in real no I love my husband we sleep in twin beds but hey here's our son little ricky that so bizzare.
It's hard (but worthwhile for a man) work to raise children. I think we limited women to very few options in the 1950s and 1960s. They truly had few choices. And I find the limited lifestyle of women in Muslim nations (I have read "The God Who Hates") to be repugnant, but we did similar things in those days!
Wow. Looks like the conservatives had a very valid concern... their fears are confirmed, in my opinion.
Wow, history is repeating, but worst then yesteryear
It seems to be the exact opposite of what is happening now. Women are told they can be/do whatever they want. Then they hit the natural wall at the end of their 20s/early 30s. Biology kicks in. Everybody knows what happens then..
I recommend "Decade of Nightmares" by Phillip Jenkins. Dr. Mirttz sets the stage in this interview so very well.
Except that "careers" are not fulfilling except as a means to provide for family.
That's not always true. Some of us are lucky enough to find careers that we're passionate about and feel lucky to go to work every day. I wish that were true for more people than it is.
@@m0L3ify well said. I'm working with three people right now who retired then came back part-time. (We're a research institute.) Some of them have been back part time for years lol. They absolutely don't need the money- they love what they do and don't want to stop. I'm really lucky and I agree with you, I wish more people could have that experience.
Is that... is that Abraham Lincoln?!
Bro fix your collar
bruh 25 years later tho.
Uriah its never too late
The end of fun...
I would think that Abraham Lincoln would be an authority on the 1860s, not the 1960s.
How peculiar. This guys eyes are essentially without movement, strangely untrustworthy. Although, perhaps this guy is exceptionally decent. Albeit, with a overfit to okayness.\
now women are seeing marriage benefits men more...esp in poorer nonwhite community...
Only a wealthy country can put forth the idea that being happy is a "right". Feminism is a first world invention because only a wealthy country can afford to have the sexes blame each other for their unhappiness. The reality for everyone else is that life is hard and filled with suffering or at the very least not a Disneyland experience of hedonistic self indulgence that you see in the west. I have never seen the message of happiness sold anywhere in Asia. The west creates their unhappiness by their expectations and these expectations are created by those who want to make money off of unhappiness. This is only possible in a wealthy country. Actual desperation does not have the luxury of time or energy to concern itself with this moronic ideology that capitalism has created to make money.
So China isn't a wealthy country? Do you even keep up with the global fiscal market? They aim to suppress a women's right to be indipendant with the new social credit system, that's not even talking about the shortage of young woman because of infanticide during the single child policy. Look at Japan right now where women are speaking out against sexual abuse and sexism in the work place. Your opinion is formed from ignorance.
The pursuit of happiness is a right, not the happiness itself. The pursuit of happiness was viewed as a natural right in the 18th century, meaning a right that exists simply because we are human beings. Therefore it is an universal right, unrelated to the wealth of a country.
Would it because these wealthy countries have more of a "control" on their happiness?
The wealthy control the countries made up of those unable to exert control. The U.S constitution uses the famous phrase "The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" At the time there was legalized slavery and women as a class had very few freedoms in excess of the slaves. The concept of a right indicates something guaranteed not to be violated. There is no right to happiness because there can never be a guarantee that this right will not be violated. I personally think it creates a false sense of security mimicking a delusion to think a person has a right to happiness. Happiness is not a right but a outcome and this outcome does not have a universal path to its experience.
I did not say that a wealthy country will put forth the concept that happiness is a right. It is ONLY a wealthy country that can entertain the luxury of even considering happiness a right as a concept and belief its people hold. China is actually an excellent example. The new wealth of the country has increased the need for control by the authoritarian government. The wealthy threaten to destabilize the regime through the power that wealth gives them. Happiness is an expression of power but it is only possible to understand this relationship between power and happiness when "Power" in all its forms and expressions "is understood". It is actually a distraction to talk about happiness when the conversation should be about power. Poverty and misery is the absence of power. Misery usually implies the absence of happiness except in cases of mental illness.
Even with the problems of family life in the 50's America, todays 2019 families are much worse!
Thank you Femminazis! Thank you Far left liberalism!
Ivanka is not the only one I've been around kids who wanted more time than here's some money or let's go to the mall so I can buy you something so I don't feel guilty about not spending quality time like you want because I'm too busy being a workaholic working 80 hrs a week so you can have everything but what they need which is family dinners with their parents that's why kids are so depressed and feel alone alot empty inside sad you kids need your love family dinners at the table after work not I'm too busy so I feel guilty so I got you the latest gadget or very expensive shoes or expensive outfit. I'm glad my dad worked hard but he made quality time family dinners kids don't have that because their parents are too selfish sad. It's all about money money money to the point of greed and consumerism and their kids I guess this is how it has to be when I grew up that's the modern american dream sad when you coming son I don't know when we will get together then and the son doesn't have time because he realized his dad never cared too busy to pay attention then the father retired and wanted to catch up the son was like nice to hear from you I gotta go because the son was like too late I have my own family who cares I'm not going to let you in my life because you never cared to take the time I have my life and I don't want you around ever because I remember it hurts to much I don't want to be rude so I say nice to hear from you but I'm busy with my kids don't have time for you now dad should have thought about that when you had the time he doesn't say it but that's what is going through his mind and the dad brought it upon himself now he's the one grieving over what he thought would happen one day that never came true because he waited to late. That's why live now because the future you it's not what you think will happen that's why it's called today not the future you don't know what tomorrow will bring and yesterday is over that's why it's called the present because each day is a gift you may retire and find out the future you worked your whole life and your dr says I know you just retired but bad news you are dying that's what happened to my uncle he was a snob to me I am sure he realized I built my life on the wrong ladder the ladder of success so I can have a fabulous retirement then I will live and not be overworked anymore then I can enjoy life and do and go like I always wanted I'm sure that's what his plan was he always a planner for the long term future life happens while you are making plans sometimes the tomorrow of the future that you planned your whole career for and then you find oh no I'm dying I'm not going to live abundantly because I'm dying I'm sure he regretted what he did thinking it would turn out like everything else he planned this time God had a different plan than all his other plans that he made for himself this time for the first time it didn't go according this plan. I'm sure man I never got to live because it was mostly about my work so I could one day live abundant and carefree retirement that never happened built your life on the wrong ladder and it collapsed just when you thought finally I can rest and enjoy my golden years that's why you don't over plan thinking everything is gonna happen the way I plan everything not always that's why live today not for the future you don't know about the future and yesterday is gone that's why it's called today today if you hear my voice God says Jesus because you may be dead tomorrow sometimes tomorrow never comes so today is the day not tomorrow you may not see it. You might plan and it not turn like you planned like that dying uncle who didn't get to enjoy retirement at all.
Having kids and raising the future wasn't "fulfilling." Somehow, being childless and alone at 45 with nothing to look forward to but cats and wine doesn't sound particularly fulfilling either.
That's a very narrow projection onto an extremely diverse population of people. This entire topic is really all about choice. Culture wasn't giving women a choice in living their lives how they wanted. Some women want to be stay at home mothers. Some don't. Society was saying "here's your tiny little box we made for you without asking" and giving them a life sentence of living inside of it. Everyone should be free to choose how to live their lives, male or female. Maybe that means having kids, maybe that means having a career, maybe that means both, maybe that means neither. It's not about a dichotomy of choice between 2 narrow options. It's about the freedom to choose your own path.
@@m0L3ify And the path they have chosen is dysgenic, dyscivic, and is destroying the West.
@@cschulzke26 lol what on earth.... rotfl
@@cschulzke26 tHe wEsT
@@m0L3ify I disagree with you the choice given to women is a misleading one. Women should all want babies it's part of their natural life. To give them the illusion that they can be happy without them is just cruel. Just look at the way they fawn over animals nowadays. The cat lady? It's so obvious. They want kids, it's not a controversial statement. But society has been constantly tellin em they don't have to have them or they should be afraid of them. Babies are a huge responsibility babies are expensive babies change your life huge responsibility it's very hard blah blah blah. Babies are part of life like puberty not having one is UN natural. This all needs to stop, because we are seeing the effects of this issue everywhere in the world. We act like we care about kids but man sometimes I think people care more about themselves. It's a viscous cycle and this issue is far more important than politics.
Also I wasn't brave enough to touch my dad's alcohol I would have been in big trouble but rainbow parents don't understand because they don't instill fear in them if they go as far as trying to do something like that their kids no it my friend remembers said I remember your dad when you disobeyed he was grabbing you by the collar and whipping your butt for some of going to far but they watched they knew we were going to test the waters and there were healthy dose of fear and respect because they would be ready to act on it if you went to far now they act surprised. You let them get away with way too much what do you expect them to do. If your daughter ends up pregnant and she hasn't finished highschool that's dumb to let your kid go with their boyfriend to another state for the weekend etc you are asking for them to possibly come home pregnant before they go off to college I could date but I couldn't go off and to another state with my girlfriend and in those days parents would say I don't trust you that much with my daughter I want her to finish highschool without possibly ending up pregnant but not now parents don't care not enough. Probably like Obama I want my daughter to have an abortion so she doesn't have to pay for her mistake ok Obama you want your would be grandchild to pay for it so you don't have to be responsible for being grandparents either rich parents mentality they are the most spoiled brats I've ever seen is rich kids parents boarding school that is not normal life my mom would have never done that she wanted to be there for me after school but rich parents don't want to spend that much time with their kids they don't think they have that kind of time and then rich kids say everything was normal with my childhood what ever you say that is not normal life not normal parents not normal childhood for them that's sad only time they see them is during holiday vacation for two weeks that's not a real parent you might as well let the boarding school raise your kid to make life harder on them but easy and convenient for the parent I'd rather be adopted than to grow up that way they won't admit it but they know they were not truly loved like other kids were especially when they become adults and see how their friends grew up they may have had everything growing up but they think money is how to show love like their parents that's not true love money and things don't buy real love real love is spending lots of time with your kids they won't say it but they wish they had the life that their adult friends did that had a normal childhood that's why they run to different addictions to drown the pain that they don't want to face about their parents and their childhoods pain of their life with their rich parents sad. It's like trump and his kids he never made quality time only workaholic that's what he's taught them to be workaholics who don't have time alot with their own kids I'm sure even for Ivanka kids I doubt they get quality time with either her or husband he's too much like trump that's not good that's why she's empty inside her cup is empty except.
Ironically when they do studies the statistics say that women are happier as stay at home mothers
The women's movement was great for women but it was disastrous for the American family. The beginning of this movement was also the beginning of the decline of the American family. Not criticizing the movement. Just making a truthful observation.
As with most everything American, there is no love of moderation.
The manic,pathologic swings towards extreamism in the feminist,homosexual and paraphilia movements has soured the nation.