Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Are You Wearing THAT In Public???!!!


Palmerin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The fashions of the time of HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING are among the worst of the misbegotten Godforsaken 20th century. The women's dresses seemed designed to deny that women had any curves; as to the men's suits, they were so tight and unwieldy that whoever wore them was in hourly risk of ripping them apart.

Generally speaking, the 20th century was not a good period for fashions and hairdos. Watching movies of the 1930s is painful to me because the female fashions and hairdos were so damn FRUMPY; as to the men, they all look so ridiculous in those stuffy double breasted suits and high collar shirts. And what was the deal with those shapeless felt hats? Was their true purpose to be used as handkerchiefs and towels? I have certainly never seen a 1930s movie in which a man uses the handkerchief on the coat pocket as anything other than an useless ,,decoration''.

I genuinely think that part of the success of Rita Hayworth was the fact that the 1940s were a great time for women's hairdos: GORGEOUS SEXY HAIRDOS! If Hayworth had had to search for stardom with her hair done in the dowdy unattractive fashions of either the 1930s or the 1950s her career would have died on arrival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Generally speaking, the 20th century was not a good period for fashions and hairdos. Watching movies of the 1930s is painful to me because the female fashions and hairdos were so damn FRUMPY...

 

Sooooo, tryin' to get FredCDobbs all fired-up, are we Palmerin?!!! LOL

 

'Cause as you may know, Fred thinks that look Harlow sported back then makes her THE hottest chick who ever LIVED!!!

 

Yep, just wait 'til FRED sees this post of yours here, my friend!  ;)

 

(...btw, and for the record, personally I think the fashions and hairdos of the late-50s and early-60s flattered women the most of any era, and before the whole "Hippie look" seemed to attempt to make "Earth Mothers" out of all women...now THAT was "FRUMPY", dude...but then again, that late-50s/early-60s period was the era I WAS "coming of age" and started noticing the opposite sex, and so I'm probably a little "biased" toward THAT era here myself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooooo, tryin' to get FredCDobbs all fired-up, are we Palmerin?!!! LOL

 

'Cause as you may know, Fred thinks that look Harlow sported back then makes her THE hottest chick who ever LIVED!!!

 

Yep, just wait 'til FRED sees this post of yours here, my friend!  ;)

 

(...btw, and for the record, personally I think the fashions and hairdos of the late-50s and early-60s flattered women the most of any era, and before the whole "Hippie look" seemed to attempt to make "Earth Mothers" out of all women...now THAT was "FRUMPY", dude...but then again, that late-50s/early-60s period was the era I WAS "coming of age" and started noticing the opposite sex, and so I'm probably a little "biased" toward THAT era here myself)

I was born in 1954; what does that tell you? I have never understood why that herring bone Jacqueline Kennedy was regarded as a great beauty and fashion plate.

As for Harlow, she was attractive exclusively because of her natural charms, not because of the fashions of her time; those nearly non existent eyebrows did not do any favors either to her or to Dietrich and Loy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do the fashions of SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER stand the test of time? The dancing dresses of the women are still cute and attractive, but the men, including even Travolta, now look so EFFEMINATE! lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do the fashions of SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER stand the test of time? The dancing dresses of the women are still cute and attractive, but the men, including even Travolta, now look so EFFEMINATE! lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

Some of the best disco music, as I've been saying as nauseum on these boards, still holds up quite well. The fashions are a little more questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Dargo had against the '60's fashion as far as the "hippie" era goes.  Personally, I kinda LIKED the idea of no bras. :D

 

Yeah, I have to agree with the dislike of the mid '60's "business" look.  The sharp, angular women's "suits", and the skinny tied, lapeled men's suits,  AND the loss of decent sized brims on the hats, ala "Mad Men".

 

But, as a man, I paid little attention to fashion over the years.  as my OWN man, I've always worn what I liked, regardless of being "in" or not. 

 

Now, any "man" in these forums who would "flame" me for this comment, well, they're probably flaming already! :lol:

 

 

The good thing about these old movies, especially when it DOES come to fashion, is it gives us all a look into where we came from, in a way, and is proof positive of the old addage, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."  Example----

 

While Palmerin makes a big deal out of the fashions worn in a mid-to-late '60's movie like "How To Succeed In Business" etc.   he also points out that bad decisions were NOT avoided by the mid '70's disco era. 

 

And I think as far as '30's fashion goes, in many movies from that era, it was clear you couldn't get away with much in some of those dresses.  If you didn't have a well toned or put together body, ladies, those dresses made clear ALL the flaws!  AND it was clear to see that the late '60's and the '70's DIDN'T usher in the "braless" era!  But as time goes on, changes continue.  YOU might think you're hot stuff now, but in 10-15 years, someone's gonna look at a photo of you taken these days, and wonder what drugs you were on when you went shopping!

 

When I was a wedding photographer, it was a common practice to get the subjects to smile in earnest.  Having them laugh was best, because it produced an honest smile.  One thing I often said to produce this was to tell them that----"I want you all to look GOOD for these photos so that twenty years from now, your CHILDREN will look at these photos...and laugh at your HAIR-DO'S!"

 

And it usually worked!

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Dargo had against the '60's fashion as far as the "hippie" era goes.  Personally, I kinda LIKED the idea of no bras. :D

 

Yeah, I have to agree with the dislike of the mid '60's "business" look.  The sharp, angular women's "suits", and the skinny tied, lapeled men's suits,  AND the loss of decent sized brims on the hats, ala "Mad Men".

 

But, as a man, I paid little attention to fashion over the years.  as my OWN man, I've always worn what I liked, regardless of being "in" or not. 

 

Now, any "man" in these forums who would "flame" me for this comment, well, they're probably flaming already! :lol:

 

 

The good thing about these old movies, especially when it DOES come to fashion, is it gives us all a look into where we came from, in a way, and is proof positive of the old addage, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."  Example----

 

While Palmerin makes a big deal out of the fashions worn in a mid-to-late '60's movie like "How To Succeed In Business" etc.   he also points out that bad decisions were NOT avoided by the mid '70's disco era. 

 

And I think as far as '30's fashion goes, in many movies from that era, it was clear you couldn't get away with much in some of those dresses.  If you didn't have a well toned or put together body, ladies, those dresses made clear ALL the flaws!  AND it was clear to see that the late '60's and the '70's DIDN'T usher in the "braless" era!  But as time goes on, changes continue.  YOU might think you're hot stuff now, but in 10-15 years, someone's gonna look at a photo of you taken these days, and wonder what drugs you were on when you went shopping!

 

When I was a wedding photographer, it was a common practice to get the subjects to smile in earnest.  Having them laugh was best, because it produced an honest smile.  One thing I often said to produce this was to tell them that----"I want you all to look GOOD for these photos so that twenty years from now, your CHILDREN will look at these photos...and laugh at your HAIR-DO'S!"

 

And it usually worked!

 

 

Sepiatone

The second paragraph of your post indicates that you paid more attention to fashion than I did. My only fashion interest is how short skirts are, and how low-cut women's tops are... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Dargo had against the '60's fashion as far as the "hippie" era goes.  Personally, I kinda LIKED the idea of no bras. :D

 

Yeah, I have to agree with the dislike of the mid '60's "business" look.  The sharp, angular women's "suits", and the skinny tied, lapeled men's suits,  AND the loss of decent sized brims on the hats, ala "Mad Men".

 

But, as a man, I paid little attention to fashion over the years.  as my OWN man, I've always worn what I liked, regardless of being "in" or not. 

 

Now, any "man" in these forums who would "flame" me for this comment, well, they're probably flaming already! :lol:

 

 

The good thing about these old movies, especially when it DOES come to fashion, is it gives us all a look into where we came from, in a way, and is proof positive of the old addage, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."  Example----

 

While Palmerin makes a big deal out of the fashions worn in a mid-to-late '60's movie like "How To Succeed In Business" etc.   he also points out that bad decisions were NOT avoided by the mid '70's disco era. 

 

And I think as far as '30's fashion goes, in many movies from that era, it was clear you couldn't get away with much in some of those dresses.  If you didn't have a well toned or put together body, ladies, those dresses made clear ALL the flaws!  AND it was clear to see that the late '60's and the '70's DIDN'T usher in the "braless" era!  But as time goes on, changes continue.  YOU might think you're hot stuff now, but in 10-15 years, someone's gonna look at a photo of you taken these days, and wonder what drugs you were on when you went shopping!

 

When I was a wedding photographer, it was a common practice to get the subjects to smile in earnest.  Having them laugh was best, because it produced an honest smile.  One thing I often said to produce this was to tell them that----"I want you all to look GOOD for these photos so that twenty years from now, your CHILDREN will look at these photos...and laugh at your HAIR-DO'S!"

 

And it usually worked!

 

 

Sepiatone

At.our family Christmas celebration on the 24th (Noche Buena), my aunt put on a video taken on Christmas 1988. It was.a revelation, especially for the younger family members. Apart from the obvious: everyone looking much younger and/or decidedly more svelte, some family members no longer with us, it was.interesting to see my sister and several female cousins, and aunts, looking like Molly Ringwall and others from John Hughes movies, enough high hair and heavy makeup to have been in a music video on MTV. The guys leaned toward mullets, except for me, into my Bono inspired slicked ponytail look. Of course, that was an eye opener for the younger family.members, who only know me by my shave head appearance I've had for the last 20 odd years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of the '70s male fashions as somewhat of an experiment in the whole "Peacock Look"...meaning here that THIS era was one of the FEW modern eras when it was acceptable for men to wear much "louder" and brightly colored attire than during most other eras when the basic dark-colored suit is the only "proper" attire for men to sport, and such as is it again presently.

 

(...I mean, remember all those wild colors and those wiiiiiiide labels that those wedding tuxedos came in during that time in the '70s?!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of the '70s male fashions as somewhat of an experiment in the whole "Peacock Look"...meaning here that THIS era was one of the FEW modern eras when it was acceptable for men to wear much "louder" and brightly colored attire than during most other eras when the basic dark-colored suit is the only "proper" attire for men to sport, and such as is it again presently.

 

(...I mean, remember all those wild colors and those wiiiiiiide labels that those wedding tuxedos came in during that time in the '70s?!) 

Remember Frenchy Fuqua with his platform heels containing goldfish?f

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of the '70s male fashions as somewhat of an experiment in the whole "Peacock Look"...meaning here that THIS era was one of the FEW modern eras when it was acceptable for men to wear much "louder" and brightly colored attire than during most other eras when the basic dark-colored suit is the only "proper" attire for men to sport, and such as is it again presently.

 

(...I mean, remember all those wild colors and those wiiiiiiide labels that those wedding tuxedos came in during that time in the '70s?!) 

That is the proper look for the male. The peacock, the rooster, the lion: they are all more colorful than their females. When I have the money for it, I will dress in suits of red, yellow, violet, orange and purple. (smiling emoticon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Business attire is just that, business attire, no matter.the decade. Women were expected to dress.appropriately, meaning professionaly, which meant not too sexy or revealing. There could.be variations, knee length skirts and loosely fitting coats during the WW2 years and in the first half.of the 60, longer.skirts and tighter form fitting coats in the early to mid 30s, and in the later 40s.and most of the 50s, but the basic outline was, and remains the.same. Of course, there were personal variations; those suits could still outline some shapely bodies and curves, and some women might angle for a promotion along these lines.

 

Anyway, HTSIBWRT depicts the business environment. Daily wear.away from this, or evening wear, were other matters. Prior to the loosening of dress habits hastened by the 60s, there were.pretty rigid rules for what was worn when, especially for women, hence terms like.cocktail dress.and After 5 attire. Of course the specifics.changed with the period. In general, women wore more clingy in the 30s, more masculine in the war years, more feminine in the late.40s and 50s, anything goes in the 60s and 70s.

 

Men were usually more.conservative.during.all periods,.with the 70s being an exception, as mentioned by someone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the proper look for the male. The peacock, the rooster, the lion: they are all more colorful than their females. When I have the money for it, I will dress in suits of red, yellow, violet, orange and purple. (smiling emoticon)

 

Hmmmmm...well Palmerin ol' boy, then might I suggest you ONLY sport that attire while driving around in somethin' like THIS...

 

corvorado.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the proper look for the male. The peacock, the rooster, the lion: they are all more colorful than their females. When I have the money for it, I will dress in suits of red, yellow, violet, orange and purple. (smiling emoticon)

Well,.it depends on the social habits of a given species. Those you mentioned all have pronounced variations in appearance, I'm not sure if the term is sexual dimorphism (although this might just relate to pronounced size differences.between the sexes). Anyway, the males of peafowl, chickens and most other pheasant species are.usually brightly colored and have special protruberances, especially compared.to the usually drab females. This is because these.species don't form fixed pairs, and usually are solitary and living in dense brush, forests or jungles. So the males must find and compete for the females,.the brighter the better. Other members of the same order the Galliformes, such as grouse, francolins or partridges, may not have much variations between the sexes,.depicting different life patterns.

 

Likewise.with lions. As the only member of the cat family to establish extended family groups, prides, the.sexual dimorphism in the form of the male's mane evolved along with the new social pattern.

 

I don't know how this applies to humans, other than more mongamous men may not feel the need to loudly proclaim their availability.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this applies to humans, other than more mongamous men may not feel the need to loudly proclaim their availability.

 

Well, I THINK that has "evolved" in western cultures with men proclaiming their availability by means of sporting a very fat wallet...and I DON'T mean possessing a "large posterior" here, of course.

 

(...ever notice those lists of "The World's Most Eligible Bachelors" still to this day only include those with large bank accounts?)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...ever notice those lists of "The World's Most Eligible Bachelors" still to this day only include those with large bank accounts?)  

 

Wealth attracts women.

 

Physical beauty attracts men.

 

I know that for men, it's wiring. For women, I'm not as sure - they've had to evolve some different survival instincts, some different societal defenses. Generally speaking, throughout the world and throughout history, the "weaker sex" has gotten the dirty end of the stick most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth attracts women.

 

Physical beauty attracts men.

 

I know that for men, it's wiring. For women, I'm not as sure - they've had to evolve some different survival instincts, some different societal defenses. Generally speaking, throughout the world and throughout history, the "weaker sex" has gotten the dirty end of the stick most of the time.

Wealth is the modern day equivalent of a "Good Provider", which the human species evolved having the "weaker sex" hoping to find a mate that could hunt, gather, etc. sufficiently to keep the family from starving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth is the modern day equivalent of a "Good Provider", which the human species evolved having the "weaker sex" hoping to find a mate that could hunt, gather, etc. sufficiently to keep the family from starving.

Ah, yes, the good provider, the bane of stupid women in the 1940s who thought marriage was the be-all and end-all and quit their jobs when they married. I knew a few of them, and it didn't turn out well. 

 

Happily women's lib came on the scene and made intelligent women more intelligent.

 

But ah, yes, there are still stupid women who think marriage to a rich man is the be-all and end-all. Sometimes, though, it does turn out quite well, especially when they divorce and take the stupid men for everything they're worth. The really smart stupid ones get a reality show.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth is the modern day equivalent of a "Good Provider", which the human species evolved having the "weaker sex" hoping to find a mate that could hunt, gather, etc. sufficiently to keep the family from starving.

 

Family is one aspect of the dirty end to which I referred. If men were also blessed with pregnancy, they too would have evolved different instincts than what is common to their wiring.

 

That men are wired to be easily stimulated is a great aid to women in terms of survival and value - even though modern women in this part of the world may now have a tendency to bemoan that wiring in men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the good provider, the bane of stupid women in the 1940s who thought marriage was the be-all and end-all and quit their jobs when they married. I knew a few of them, and it didn't turn out well. 

 

Happily women's lib came on the scene and made intelligent women more intelligent.

 

But ah, yes, there are still stupid women who think marriage to a rich man is the be-all and end-all. Sometimes, though, it does turn out quite well, especially when they divorce and take the stupid men for everything they're worth. The really smart stupid ones get a reality show.

I wasn't around when the women's lib movement was in full swing (I'm still sad that the ERA failed even though I wasn't alive when it did), but I am happy for the progress that these women made for future generations.  While I am married (happily), I didn't marry for security.  It's nice knowing that if something were to happen, I am fully capable financially, mentally, whatever other '-ally' you can think of that I could completely take care of myself without needing government assistance.  There are unfortunately too many women out there that leave the job market completely to stay home taking care of children they can't afford and put all their hopes and dreams into their husband's breadwinning basket.  If the husband loses his job, they're up s--- creek without a paddle.  Unless the family is independently wealthy, I think these women are doing themselves and their families a great disservice by not at least maintaining a part time job.  However, it can be argued that the United States' maternity/paternity policies are partially to blame and the lack of affordable childcare.  My husband's sister (19 years old) is married, with a 3-month old baby and her husband has signed up to be in the infantry.  He hasn't been deployed yet.  He just finished boot camp and I don't know what else he does.  She's spoiled and has never in her life ever had to earn her own money.  Unfortunately this has translated into her "adult life" (she's so far maturity-wise from being an adult, I can hardly refer to her as one) and she's fully expecting her husband to take care of her and all children they have.  We keep trying to impress upon her the importance of at least having part-time employment.  Her husband joined the freaking infantry for godsakes, what is she going to do if he were killed? But she won't listen to us-- she just wants to be a mom and wants to be with her child 24/7.  Which being a mom is fine and all if that's what someone wants to do, but you have to at least be able to provide for yourself if you needed to. 

 

In older films, I sometimes have to laugh when women make outdated comments about marriage.  In The Tender Trap, Debbie Reynolds makes a comment about how the highest thing any woman can do in her life is be married and have a child.  While I enjoy that film, I always have to laugh at the absurdity of it.  Also the end of The Thrill of It All, irritates me to no end, because Doris Day gives up her lucrative 6-figure job because James Garner can't handle his wife having a job and being successful to boot.  Women back then were sold a bill of goods when they were told all they needed to be happy in life were 2.5 children, a home in the suburbs, a husband, etc. No wonder so many women were addicted to pills and alcohol.  It was the only way they could cope.  I think it's such a shame that women after WWII ended gave up their jobs in the shipyards, and the like.  It was probably freedom for them.

 

I've noticed to in older films that many single women are working and have their own places.  Except when they marry, they're expected to give all that up and become a housewife.  In other films, the women are single and working, but still live at home with their parents.  The parents are from then on always trying to unload their daughters onto any eligible man that will have them.  These poor women never get to know what it's like to live independently, as they move from their father's house to their husband's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't around when the women's lib movement was in full swing (I'm still sad that the ERA failed even though I wasn't alive when it did), but I am happy for the progress that these women made for future generations.  While I am married (happily), I didn't marry for security.  It's nice knowing that if something were to happen, I am fully capable financially, mentally, whatever other '-ally' you can think of that I could completely take care of myself without needing government assistance.  There are unfortunately too many women out there that leave the job market completely to stay home taking care of children they can't afford and put all their hopes and dreams into their husband's breadwinning basket.  If the husband loses his job, they're up s--- creek without a paddle.  Unless the family is independently wealthy, I think these women are doing themselves and their families a great disservice by not at least maintaining a part time job.  However, it can be argued that the United States' maternity/paternity policies are partially to blame and the lack of affordable childcare.  My husband's sister (19 years old) is married, with a 3-month old baby and her husband has signed up to be in the infantry.  He hasn't been deployed yet.  He just finished boot camp and I don't know what else he does.  She's spoiled and has never in her life ever had to earn her own money.  Unfortunately this has translated into her "adult life" (she's so far maturity-wise from being an adult, I can hardly refer to her as one) and she's fully expecting her husband to take care of her and all children they have.  We keep trying to impress upon her the importance of at least having part-time employment.  Her husband joined the freaking infantry for godsakes, what is she going to do if he were killed? But she won't listen to us-- she just wants to be a mom and wants to be with her child 24/7.  Which being a mom is fine and all if that's what someone wants to do, but you have to at least be able to provide for yourself if you needed to. 

 

In older films, I sometimes have to laugh when women make outdated comments about marriage.  In The Tender Trap, Debbie Reynolds makes a comment about how the highest thing any woman can do in her life is be married and have a child.  While I enjoy that film, I always have to laugh at the absurdity of it.  Also the end of The Thrill of It All, irritates me to no end, because Doris Day gives up her lucrative 6-figure job because James Garner can't handle his wife having a job and being successful to boot.  Women back then were sold a bill of goods when they were told all they needed to be happy in life were 2.5 children, a home in the suburbs, a husband, etc. No wonder so many women were addicted to pills and alcohol.  It was the only way they could cope.  I think it's such a shame that women after WWII ended gave up their jobs in the shipyards, and the like.  It was probably freedom for them.

 

I've noticed to in older films that many single women are working and have their own places.  Except when they marry, they're expected to give all that up and become a housewife.  In other films, the women are single and working, but still live at home with their parents.  The parents are from then on always trying to unload their daughters onto any eligible man that will have them.  These poor women never get to know what it's like to live independently, as they move from their father's house to their husband's.

 

Related to Debbie Reynolds comment;   is it the marriage part or the having a child part or both?    As you know for the human race to continue some percentage of the women have to have children.    Also, while I support the notion that the traditional marriage as defined by movies of the studio-era doesn't fit the feminist POV (a POV I fully support) I don't see the same connection with women having children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related to Debbie Reynolds comment;   is it the marriage part or the having a child part or both?    As you know for the human race to continue some percentage of the women have to have children.    Also, while I support the notion that the traditional marriage as defined by movies of the studio-era doesn't fit the feminist POV (a POV I fully support) I don't see the same connection with women having children.

Well in the film, Reynolds is 22 and works as a dancer.  She has her entire life mapped out, the number of children she's going to have, where she's going to live, where the children will be born, the school districts the kids will attend, etc. She's only missing a man.  She makes it clear that she's only dancing until she meets the man she has envisioned to help her carry out her fantasy life.

 

I think Reynolds says something to the effect of "A woman just isn't fulfilled until she's married and has children."  Obviously some people have to procreate in order for the human race to continue, I wasn't thinking her comment was absurd in the sense that people think they have to have children.  Fortunately, I think there are plenty of people out there doing more than their share of procreation to keep the human race going (those people having 6+ children will make up for those who aren't having any).  I just think Reynolds' comment is ridiculous in the sense that a single woman without children could not possibly have a worthwhile, fulfilled life.  Even if the woman was married, but happily (or unhappily) childfree, she's only semi-fulfilled.  However, I understand that in the 1950s, most women were looking for a husband that would make a good father for children.  It was pretty much assumed back then that women wanted children and that women should aspire to have children.  I don't share the same affinity for children as some of my peers do, they're not on the top of my list.  I rather like having the independence and quiet that goes with not having children.  However, if someone else feels that their life isn't worthwhile unless they're married and with kids, than that's their prerogative.  I myself, completely disagree with Reynolds' comment, but do understand that the comment and film are a product of their time (1955).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus, the very reason, Speedy and James, that I've been pushing for years an idea that I think world make a better place for ALL children in the future:

 

Everyone, both women AND men, be placed on some form of birth control from age 12 to age 30!!!

 

'Cause the VAST number of people in the world have NO freakin' idea about WHO the hell they REALLY "are", WHAT the hell they REALLY "want in life" and/or HOW the world REALLY "works" and thus have NO freakin' business having AND raising children until they're AT LEAST 30 freakin' years old!!! LOL

 

(...I mean, just think how many children TODAY wouldn't live in "broken homes" IF my plan were instituted, and BESIDES maybe lessening the number of all the "unwanted and neglected" children in this world, RIGHT?!...HELL, this might EVEN cause a few less WARS being started in this freakin' world TOO, right?!) ;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus, the very reason, Speedy and James, that I've been pushing for years an idea that I think world make a better place for ALL children in the futurre:

 

Everyone, both women AND men, be placed on some form of birth control from age 12 to age 30!!!

 

'Cause the VAST number of people in the world have NO freakin' idea about who the hell they REALLY are and/or how the "world works" and thus have NO freakin' business having AND raising children until they're AT LEAST 30 freakin' years old!!! LOL

 

(...I mean, just think how many children TODAY wouldn't live in "broken homes" IF my plan were instituted, RIGHT?!) 

Lol.  Especially with all the babies having babies these days.  Unfortunately, there are some post 30 year olds that have no business having children either.  At 30, I'm not in any rush to have children, because I don't want the responsibility.  I'm happy that thanks to the actions of women before me, there are options and things available to keep me child-free.  Nowdays, there are still women who don't have the right to make that decision for themselves, which is unfortunate.  

 

I think along with an age requirement, there should be some other type of test people should go through to procreate.  Maybe we wouldn't have so many people abusing the welfare systems and/or such a high number of children living below the poverty lines.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't around when the women's lib movement was in full swing (I'm still sad that the ERA failed even though I wasn't alive when it did), but I am happy for the progress that these women made for future generations.  While I am married (happily), I didn't marry for security.  It's nice knowing that if something were to happen, I am fully capable financially, mentally, whatever other '-ally' you can think of that I could completely take care of myself without needing government assistance.  There are unfortunately too many women out there that leave the job market completely to stay home taking care of children they can't afford and put all their hopes and dreams into their husband's breadwinning basket.  If the husband loses his job, they're up s--- creek without a paddle.  Unless the family is independently wealthy, I think these women are doing themselves and their families a great disservice by not at least maintaining a part time job.  However, it can be argued that the United States' maternity/paternity policies are partially to blame and the lack of affordable childcare.  My husband's sister (19 years old) is married, with a 3-month old baby and her husband has signed up to be in the infantry.  He hasn't been deployed yet.  He just finished boot camp and I don't know what else he does.  She's spoiled and has never in her life ever had to earn her own money.  Unfortunately this has translated into her "adult life" (she's so far maturity-wise from being an adult, I can hardly refer to her as one) and she's fully expecting her husband to take care of her and all children they have.  We keep trying to impress upon her the importance of at least having part-time employment.  Her husband joined the freaking infantry for godsakes, what is she going to do if he were killed? But she won't listen to us-- she just wants to be a mom and wants to be with her child 24/7.  Which being a mom is fine and all if that's what someone wants to do, but you have to at least be able to provide for yourself if you needed to. 

 

In older films, I sometimes have to laugh when women make outdated comments about marriage.  In The Tender Trap, Debbie Reynolds makes a comment about how the highest thing any woman can do in her life is be married and have a child.  While I enjoy that film, I always have to laugh at the absurdity of it.  Also the end of The Thrill of It All, irritates me to no end, because Doris Day gives up her lucrative 6-figure job because James Garner can't handle his wife having a job and being successful to boot.  Women back then were sold a bill of goods when they were told all they needed to be happy in life were 2.5 children, a home in the suburbs, a husband, etc. No wonder so many women were addicted to pills and alcohol.  It was the only way they could cope.  I think it's such a shame that women after WWII ended gave up their jobs in the shipyards, and the like.  It was probably freedom for them.

 

I've noticed to in older films that many single women are working and have their own places.  Except when they marry, they're expected to give all that up and become a housewife.  In other films, the women are single and working, but still live at home with their parents.  The parents are from then on always trying to unload their daughters onto any eligible man that will have them.  These poor women never get to know what it's like to live independently, as they move from their father's house to their husband's.

Good post, speedracer. You're one smart cookie. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...