Thanks to @Vermillion for finding this thread. He’s a screenshot from a discussion. https://imgur.com/a/wUikm9q
“I see this so much with my daughter and her friends too. Even the young women who yearn to be wives and homemakers and not so set on a career have problems finding any suitable men. It’s sad.”
Women are told many lies, but a damaging one often comes from well-meaning men who tell young women that, to escape feminist hell, they should try to act like it’s the 1950’s and getting wifed up by a nice^H^H^H^Hgood guy while she’s still young.
Not to say this is impossible, mind you, and that if a woman is going to go this route, doing it in her youth gives her the best chance. Certainly, when I was young and naive at that age, I might have fallen for such a woman if she had appeared on my radar.
The problem is that it’s not economically feasible for most. Consider what us men are told: A plethora of high paying jobs, inexpensive education, and the ability to make lame approaches to women and get lauded for doing so are over. We are told that those “easy days” are behind us and we have to work harder… for less!
Historical romanticism is not new to our era and many people fall for idealized notions of the past that even those still living today from that era believe if asked. I’m reminded of Winston, in the book 1984, attempts to get historical knowledge from a “Prole” about whether The Party’s narrative is correct:
“’Yes,' he said. 'They [capitalists] liked you to touch your cap to 'em. It showed respect, like. I didn't agree with it, myself, but I done it often enough. Had to, as you might say.’”
He then launches into this long story that never happened about a “capitalist” shoving him as if it was a memory.
Here’s the thing: It’s my understanding that few people were educated or had comfy office work back a century ago. Most people worked in the fields or at factories. A housewife living in a single family home with a husband able to support her on one income was a luxury usually for executives and this is why many men developed a pride if they could “afford” it in post WWII USA when Europe lay in ruins and the USA was basically like China producing cars, appliances, and other goods for the whole world.
This was also due to (gasp!) sexist traditions where men were given promotions and higher pay to be able to afford to do so. In some cases, businesses balked because they wanted to hire women in order to save money but social pressure prohibited them from doing so.
It was possible back then for an 18 year old man to get a “Union Card” and earn enough to start a family back then or at least get on that path while living with his family and his wife moves in and the grandparents look after the kids while the wife went to work after a year or two to wait tables or factory work to help make ends meet.
In some cases, where the family didn’t have the money or time to help support a young family, the housewife would be stuck in a small apartment, by herself, struggling to look after the newborn infant. Without a car and modern appliances, they struggled.
My grandmother, a saint in my eyes, founded a Polish church charity “New Mothers”, where Polish women went to the homes of these young mothers to help them with childcare, cooking, and such while she recovered and the husband was at work 12 hours a day in the factory or mines.
Note that back then, fancy weddings, diamond rings, and lavish dinner dates were laughable. Courtship was a “coffee date” or Vanilla Cokes at the local drugstore.
THAT WAS WHAT LIFE REALLY WAS LIKE BACK THEN!!!
So for young women to say: “Well, if I just declare I want to reject feminism and wait for a decent looking guy to ask me out on a paid date and have a family by age 21” is unrealistic in many cases, sadly.
Not impossible though. My landlord back 30 years ago had a plump daughter who fell for a handsome looking (to her) working class guy and they helped pay for him to go to plumbing school and he got licensed and that was good money for them and she was happy.
In other words, women and their parents who SUPPORTED a promising young man was rewarded with that lifestyle. “Meeting him at the finish line” was a rarity.
Also, there was a culture that tolerated normal men making clumsy approaches to women and women had more reasonable standards. My wife, a traditional woman, viewed my relative ugliness as an asset “No other woman will look at him so I’m safe!” This is NOT the mindset of many even “traditionalist” modern women. (It helped me a LOT when my former high school flames at a reunion flirted with me and my wife was jealous for a good few months after that!)
If there are women reading this and want to help others, it’s possible, heck even relatively easy, to break out of this mess but it’s not going be falling off of a log like it was in the 1950’s: You’re going to have to (gasp!) make an EFFORT. Learn how to approach men and yes, women a century ago knew how to find out what a man was interested in and strike up a conversation with him. Use family and friend’s social networks. Yes, even church but note that the young, promising men in church will get grabbed quickly. My niece met her husband in college while going to church there. She’s no looker but she didn’t play games.
Hmm, it’s a good time to pause and reflect on what “games” mean: In the old days, “games” for women meant like for men today: With a goal to “catch a fish” so speak. They didn’t emotionally manipulate men for fun or to make him work harder, but to hook and grab him ASAP.
My maternal grandmother out of a family of 8 kids saw an older sister reject a suitor so she grabbed him. She chatted with him during visits and made herself interesting and likable. She smiled and was fun. She steered the conversation to family matters and such but without being obvious or forceful. In other words, she had social skills and “emotional maturity.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArlY8EKc8Vw
One of my favorite movie scenes is this one from Other People’s Money where “Larry the Liquidator” gives a solid dose of redpill reality: “It was dead when I got here!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q
Ironically, the 1950’s housewife lifestyle was killed by what is killing many jobs for men: automation. The “labor saving appliances” of the 1950’s were unwieldy by modern standards but predicted an era of bored women looking to enter the workplace and “make as much as a man” (but then expect men to pay the bills anyway).
There were vacuum cleaners so that women didn’t have to drag rugs out of the home and beat them with a broom to knock out dust. The dishwasher is amazing. I honestly enjoy filling and emptying it just as Bill Gates and his (then) wife fought for the “chore”. 5 minutes of zombie work a day to free my mind compared to a good half hour or more of “dish soaked hands”. You can microwave leftovers instead of having to put them into separate pots, heat them on the stove, and then clean those reheat pots. And so on.
I had an ex crazy redhead MILF girlfriend from that era who got prescribed “Kurban” (I think) which was basically either quaaludes or perhaps opium because they were BORED!!!! When I was a Gen-X kid and DARED to tell my parents I was “bored”, they’d UNBORE me with CHORES!!!
I recall my mother in the 1970’s had a LOT of time to watch “soap operas” and gossip with the local neighbors. The OPPRESSION. She did have a part-time and sometimes full-time work when she could find it as a secretary or receptionist.
The Rolling Stones had a hit about the era (referral from the redhead MILF) “Mother’s Little Helper”
“It’s a drag getting old…” https://youtu.be/x-zxBNz3XbM
I’m at an age now where I feel like I have a DeLorean time machine: I have seen the collapse of the 1950’s utopianism, to the golden era of Career Women marrying Boomer Guys, to the decline since the 1990’s:
Note that, according to Jetson’s canon, George worked 1 hour a day for 3 days a week and Jane told him to complain he was being slavedriven!
I chuckle how this contrasts to The Flintstones where working class Fred has a less civilized relationship with his wife but yet has a good job that provides for her along with a home full of automated conveniences for her to either drink wine, gossip, or cheat.
So, in conclusion, even if the feminists hadn’t killed and peed on the corpse of housewifery, those days would have ended anyway. I chuckle that back in women’s lib and until recently, feminists shrieked “They’re trying to bring us back to the 1950’s!!!!” but yet, they can’t go back even if they wanted to which many now do.
Sorry. Truly.
ogrilla99 Mod 13h ago
At the risk of tooting my own horn, a while ago, I wrote about those supposed golden years of the 50s: https://www.forums.red/p/whereallthegoodmenare/268190/what_feminism_forgot_the_glass_floor_is_far_more_important_t
tl;dr: that golden era was very, very short-lived, a product of a unique set of circumstances (namely the destruction of most of the industrial world outside of the US by WWII, as you mentioned, the rise of unions, and household technology), and even in those days, plenty of women had to work (~30% of all women). This was the era, after all, of female schoolteachers, nurses, secretaries, etc.
Outside of those so-called golden years, women worked their asses off just like men (albeit in different tasks). What we're seeing now is basically a reversion to historical norms, and pining for that brief historical outlier isn't going to bring it back.
That said, part of why it will never come back is because women's expectations of what a "housewife" life will be have also expanded. Men expect that if they marry a housewife, she will raise the kids, cook, keep a tidy home, etc. That is, she will still be spending time working, but those tasks will be unpaid work like childcare, household stuff, etc. while he brings the money for the family.
But a modern woman doesn't feel that way. A lot of these modern women expect that being a "housewife" means the man brings home enough money for an expanded life (expensive cars, vacations to europe, a mansion, designer clothes) and enough to outsource domestic duties to an army of nannies, house keepers, cooks, etc.
IOW, ask these women who pine to be a housewife if she's planning on scrubbing the kitchen floors, like the housewives of the 50s did. What you'll usually find is that their expectations aren't to live like a 50s era housewife, but rather a 50s era lady of the manor. That class of the idle rich still exists, but it is now, and has always been, exceedingly small.
That linked image of the lamentations of a newly minted 30s female doctor is doing a lot of work in what is left unsaid: female doctors are leaving the field in droves, or drastically reducing their hours. Of course, the only way they can do this is by marrying a rich husband (either a doctor in a more lucrative specialty like surgery, or an entirely different field altogether like tech or finance). But because they're a doctor, they're not looking to retire to a plumber who can provide a small house (average house in the 50s was < 1000sq ft, and they would raise 4 kids in it) (https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html) that she'll have to clean and maintain while taking care of the kids. She expects a large house in an expensive neighborhood, private school for the kids, nannies and house cleaners for her, expensive cars, vacations, and clothes, and of course, enough left over to pay her school debts and fund a retirement. Even if she intends to stay in fulltime medicine, that's a lot of burden on a man, doubly so if she wants to become a "housewife".
And of course, if you're a man who can actually provide that life without needing your wife to contribute, then why would you be interested in a 30-something woman (who will likely still demand to be treated like an equal due to her degree, regardless of the fact that she explicitly sought to marry someone better than her) when you will have hot 20-somethings scratching each others' eyes out to get to you?
polishknight Endorsed 7h ago
I enjoyed your analysis as well plus the comments. I joined TRP about 3 years ago so I didn't get to this posting which was likely 2 years old by then.
I just posted the Carol doctor on the other forum: https://www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/324913/it_seems_like_30_year_old_single_men_are_just_not_okay_these
A small quibble I have with your analysis, perhaps due to our differing cultural backgrounds, is the effect of DEI upon the Marxist paradigm of class struggles: White working class guys who were the primary electorate of the USA back then largely were quite content and even supported the ruling classes, so to speak, rejecting the welfare states of Western Europe and opposing communism. This irked the left immensely. You may not be familiar with the show "All in the Family" but it portrays a smug leftist character portrayed by Robert Reiner against a "stupid bigot" "Archie Bunker", a working class racist white man who oppresses his wife and daughter. Ironically, he also was the reliable breadwinner for the whole household which made for excellent comedic points as he was continually being criticized by those utterly dependent upon him.
The irony is that while the left castigated working class white men as all "Archie Bunkers", the reality is that most tiptoed around in fear of being accused of being racist or sexist and didn't politicize DEI as an election issue. I personally never heard it being brought up in presidential debates or as senate/congressional television advertising. Usually, right wingers will focus on crime, taxes, or even (illegal) immigration. Pro-life was the lead issue for most conservatives although they rarely advertised it against their democrat opponents for fear of alienating the conservative-women-who-get-abortions vote.
This was a double whammy in addressing this issue because men would fear a coalition of feminists and DEI advocates who would accuse him of being "racist" if he were to challenge either feminism or DEI.
First-light 11h ago
Another well thought out piece here. I like the way you give some references as links. Thanks.
I agree that there is no going back and no one sane man should want to. The 1950s were just a blip in history, a transitional time when great prosperity and technical advancement met with an old system where an man and a woman divided their labour to keep the family.
By the 1950's there was actually already little need for such a great division of labour. A transition was already happening. Families were shrinking, so a woman was only needed in the home for a few years when a few children were small. There was a car that would take her to the shops. A refrigerator that would cool the larger amount of perishable food she could buy in one go and transport in the car. She had a vacuum cleaner, maybe a washing machine (or access to one in a launderette), she had a gas or electric cooker not a range that needed to be fired up and kept burning. She actually had very little to do. She was enormously privileged compared to any generation of women before or since because she had all of this and her husband's job earned plenty enough and the economy was growing and new consumer products were coming out every day, holidays were affordable and so on. It was a time like no other.
If women today look back on this they are looking at an unrealistic time. Today to have this, you have to marry a pretty unique man -a rich man who has already made it and will take you one when you have not really shown any aptitude yourself yet. He is not likely to be a man you grew up around as to have made it he must be older, so how is he to know if you are really worth the commitment, especially when the penalties for divorce are so high for men today.
One observation I would make is that actually it is still more possible than men and women like to think for a family to live on a single income. For whatever reason I seem to have ended up with housewives. Perhaps I am just too willing to please? But for whatever reason I have lived with 3 proper "housewives" (only legally married the first of course because I learned my lesson then). I am a pretty low income blue collar tradesman. It works out fine if you are prepared to live more like a family might have in the past in certain ways -no holidays past pretty local camping trips, few new clothes for kids, few optional school trips, few meals out, all food home cooked, heat the house with wood, only use the boiler to heat water, shoot a lot of wild meat, buy no alcohol except as presents for others, that sort of thing.
Like this it is actually very possible these days to live as a sole provider for a family on a low income. I pay myself well under $30k a year and keep a household on it. I personally miss very little that others have. I only wish I could travel more. Otherwise, I have all I need and the internet brings me all the knowledge of humanity for the price of a connection. BUT and I put it in capitals because its a big but, you have to get a lady who sees it that way too. None of the ones I have had have ever really bought into it. The present incumbent certainly is very jealous of what other women have and harps on about how she has messed her life up by becoming a poor housewife (not that she has done anything about stopping living for free). She does a bit of cleaning and a bit of gardening and keeps all the money for herself while complaining that she has messed her life up. What she means is she wishes she had not chosen a man like me who actually thinks that wearing old clothes is a virtue because it shows moderation and valuing internal things that matter not external appearances. If we were both to be honest; find her shallow, she finds me a disappointment.
So, while it is perfectly possible to be a housewife and still live better than most women did in the early 20th century, it will not be to the taste of most women. A double income gives you so much more power to consume and to be seen consuming. Life off one income, please yourself off the other. What is there not for a girl to like when the man will shoulder most of the burden of provision and you will be the one with the power to spend?
Today's women don't want to try any more for their families. Its all about her and finding herself, about first world problems that need "therapy" and not about being a successful female who raises strong young. Men have given up too since the women are not worth it. A real traditional wife wanted to build a strong family. Today's trad wife wants to do nothing. She wants to keep the home she wanted to keep anyway, buy the clothes she wanted to buy anyway, take the holidays she wanted to take anyway but do it on someone else's labour. She is a parasite not a help mate.