Southern girls

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Got into a discussion with some of my friends last night, all of us single cuz hounds, and we got to talking that chicks now arent like they were 50 years ago obv

[/ QUOTE ]

you're constantly making statements like this but never back them up. How would you know what home cooking tasted like 50 years ago? FWIW, people eat out a lot more today than they used to, but that's easily attributable to a larger economy/higher standard of living. Progress FTW.

I'm so sick of hearing about how "things were so much better back in the day" from people who have a poor knowledge of history, or refuse to back of their assertions with ANYTHING.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so sick of hearing about how "things were so much better back in the day" from people who have a poor knowledge of history, or refuse to back of their assertions with ANYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure there was like a whole women's rights movement and everything. Women were tired of cooking and cleaning and making babies. They wanted to vote, go to school, have careers.

I might be a little rusty on that though.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Got into a discussion with some of my friends last night, all of us single cuz hounds, and we got to talking that chicks now arent like they were 50 years ago obv

[/ QUOTE ]

you're constantly making statements like this but never back them up. How would you know what home cooking tasted like 50 years ago? FWIW, people eat out a lot more today than they used to, but that's easily attributable to a larger economy/higher standard of living. Progress FTW.

I'm so sick of hearing about how "things were so much better back in the day" from people who have a poor knowledge of history, or refuse to back of their assertions with ANYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of exactly what kind of proof you're looking for, or why someone's observations or ideas on something like this are something that particularly require proof.

I'm also not sure why your tone seems angry on this.

I guess I don't understand your post. Would you explain what you're trying to get at here?

Clearly, the world changes in 50 years. Liking it or not, characterizing it one way or the next, are different issues. But how could you question that it does indeed, and irrefutably, happen?

I don't know, I'm confused. There seems to be emotion brought to bear on innocuous(sp?) statements here that makes me think there's something I'm missing.

[SNOWBALL]

Pergesu, Blarg,

I'm not denying that things have changed in the last 50 years. Actually, in my post I suggested that an expanding economy can be credited with people eating out more. What I take issue with is Guids' idea that there used to be an idyllic past where women cooked delicious meals for their men and children, and that they did so lovingly. Hence my question "how would you know what meals tasted like 50 years ago?"

I might add "how would you know what families were like 50 years ago?"

A lot of people get their history education from watching black and white tv show reruns or old movies. Few people realize that a lot of the same problems we face today were just as bad 50 years ago. Teen pregnancy, STDs, child molestation, spousal abuse, unhappy marriages, and *gasp* BAD cooking are NOT recent inventions.

This isn't the first time Guids has begun a post by pulling history "lessons" straight from his poopshoot. I remember one he made a while ago that irked me to no end. It was about how men today aren't "real men" because they don't play sports, and how we have produced a generation of men who don't know how to get laid because they were raised by single mothers and raised to be wimps. Besides being frought with tortured logic, that post actually sought to explain an illusory phenomenon. Men nowadays DO get laid. Even the "pussy emo kids" (as guids calls them) pull a good amount of tail.

For some reason, beginning 100% of social commentaries with "things were better 50 years ago" is no longer the sole province of the 60+ coots and codgers, and has been adopted as a popular rhetorical style by younger people. I often see it go unchallenged, and unexposed, and it's become a pet peeve of mine.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
What I take issue with is Guids' idea that there used to be an idyllic past where women cooked delicious meals for their men and children, and that they did so lovingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple. There was a time when women cooked and cleaned and took care of the house, and that was basically it. I assume you don't deny that, right?

Well it stands to reason that if those were a woman's responsibilities, then she'd want to be good at them. The women who were the best caretakers got the best husbands. Not necessarily from a quality-of-person standpoint, but simply the ability to provide.

Of course there were women that weren't great cooks, or didn't perform their duties lovingly. But it surely was in their best interest to be good at those things.

Put more simply, if you sampled a bunch of random 21 year old chicks 50 years ago, the vast majority of them would be cooking and cleaning and taking care of their five children. These days, I bet you'd find a lot more slutbongs at party schools than girls who act as caregiver to the family.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Few people realize that a lot of the same problems we face today were just as bad 50 years ago. Teen pregnancy, STDs, child molestation, spousal abuse, unhappy marriages, and *gasp* BAD cooking are NOT recent inventions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that most people "realize" that humans have always been humans, and people always have problems. But if you think most teen pregnancies today are shunned to the point of being disowned and shipped to a distant relative in order to obscure the pregnancy, you're an idiot. If you think getting tested for AIDS was understandable in 1956, or even 1985, you're an idiot. If you think a priest in 1750 could molest a child and then have it broadcast around the world, you're an idiot. The problems are the same, because people are people, but the reaction and judgment of those problems are vastly different today than they were 50 years ago. I think that's what he was getting at, and if you disagree, then you're an idiot.

Things change. Ethics change. Standards change. I don't know why you'd even attempt to argue that women today place the same emphasis on household duties as women in 1940, because back then they were told - as soon as they could understand English, basically - that their job was to cook, clean, raise children, etc. Of course even those that were the worst at housekeeping duties were made to practice more than some girl today who is told to study and become the best biologist she can.

You ask, "how would you know what families were like 50 years ago?" I answer, "Because women couldn't vote in 1900." Its not like there's some deep mystery about how life was in the past, and its not like any such education necessarily comes from "I Love Lucy." Its a simple fact that, before recent times, women were incentivized to be good at cooking and cleaning. Today they don't have such strong incentives. To deny that is to be a [censored] idiot.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
What I take issue with is Guids' idea that there used to be an idyllic past where women cooked delicious meals for their men and children, and that they did so lovingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Christ, how do you even attempt to argue that there has never, in all of history, been a time where women were relegated to household roles like cooking? This quote is so stupid I can't even wrap my mind around it.

[DrewDevil]

Snowball, the concept of women working outside the home, of dual income families, etc. is absolutely a new concept in America. 50 years ago, the wife stayed home and cared for the house and the family, and the dad worked. That's the way it was.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Got into a discussion with some of my friends last night, all of us single cuz hounds, and we got to talking that chicks now arent like they were 50 years ago obv

[/ QUOTE ]

you're constantly making statements like this but never back them up. How would you know what home cooking tasted like 50 years ago? FWIW, people eat out a lot more today than they used to, but that's easily attributable to a larger economy/higher standard of living. Progress FTW.

I'm so sick of hearing about how "things were so much better back in the day" from people who have a poor knowledge of history, or refuse to back of their assertions with ANYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]


you are an idiot. I never said 50 years ago things where idyllic, I never said that things where better back than either, and the proof I have that women did a better job taking care of their husband 50 years ago is my grandma. She is the best cook in the world, and still makes dinner for my grandpa everynight. You tell me to learn history, I tell you to learn to read.



Also, I know how my family was 50 years ago, because I hang out with my family a lot, my uncles, great uncles etc, and what do old people like to do? reminisce, and give me recipes, thats what.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
Got into a discussion with some of my friends last night, all of us single cuz hounds, and we got to talking that chicks now arent like they were 50 years ago obv, its tough to find a girl that can even cook a meal better than I can. then one of them said we should all move to the south, becuase girls down there know how to take care of their men.




[/ QUOTE ]

Having lived in the South for 12 years I'm calling BS on this. Chicks are chicks.