GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

jayeff · 09-03-2003, 08:30 PM

It is known as making a virtue out of a necessity. Until the late '50s, most middle-class families did not need a second income to achieve what was then considered to be a reasonable standard of living. Now, many families struggle even with two incomes.

So we pay only lip service to the values of family and parenting that were held less than 50 years ago. These days a woman who is not successful at work is made to feel as guilty as a woman did then who was successful outside the home. Ironically she has no more choice today as to how she spends her life, than she had then. The prescription is simply a different one.

I'm not trying to try to judge what a woman's role should be, if indeed there is any "should" about it. My point is that while we believe we are making personal choices, the vast majority are simply being driven along by current custom. There is little choice involved.

And the shift has some serious downsides. There are fewer jobs today than 50 years ago, so while many families have two incomes, many now have no income at all. This is part of the reason why 1 in 8 Americans now live below the official poverty line and why the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

We haven't dealt with the question of children too well either. 150 years ago nannies and governesses were not unusual among the better off. The present concept of family and parents caring directly for their children spread upwards from the poor after WW1, also as a matter of economic necessity. We still live pretty much as if Mom will be home when the kids finish school, except that of course, usually she isn't any more.

No-one fully knows yet to what extent, if any, this impacts on children and in the long run, on society in general. But the fact remains that traditional school hours and holidays were relevant to a life-style that for most of us is past. We haven't yet tried to tackle this disparity.

You could go even so far as to say that children themselves are increasingly irrelevant too. And if our genes and hormones would give us a break, the size of families would likely decline at an even faster rate.

09-03-2003, 08:30 PM
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	It is known as making a virtue out of a necessity. Until the late '50s, most middle-class families did not need a second income to achieve what was then considered to be a reasonable standard of living. Now, many families struggle even with two incomes. So we pay only lip service to the values of family and parenting that were held less than 50 years ago. These days a woman who is not successful at work is made to feel as guilty as a woman did then who was successful outside the home. Ironically she has no more choice today as to how she spends her life, than she had then. The prescription is simply a different one. I'm not trying to try to judge what a woman's role should be, if indeed there is any "should" about it. My point is that while we believe we are making personal choices, the vast majority are simply being driven along by current custom. There is little choice involved. And the shift has some serious downsides. There are fewer jobs today than 50 years ago, so while many families have two incomes, many now have no income at all. This is part of the reason why 1 in 8 Americans now live below the official poverty line and why the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. We haven't dealt with the question of children too well either. 150 years ago nannies and governesses were not unusual among the better off. The present concept of family and parents caring directly for their children spread upwards from the poor after WW1, also as a matter of economic necessity. We still live pretty much as if Mom will be home when the kids finish school, except that of course, usually she isn't any more. No-one fully knows yet to what extent, if any, this impacts on children and in the long run, on society in general. But the fact remains that traditional school hours and holidays were relevant to a life-style that for most of us is past. We haven't yet tried to tackle this disparity. You could go even so far as to say that children themselves are increasingly irrelevant too. And if our genes and hormones would give us a break, the size of families would likely decline at an even faster rate.