Changes in Attitude in Marriage & Divorce from the Golden Era to Now.

[just_me]

The divorce rate was lower the poverty rate was the same and teenage pregnancy was much lower. Gee, perhaps they might have had something there.

The divorce rate was lower because it was much harder to get a divorce (my mother had to go to Mexico to get one) and many people stayed in unhappy marriages. Many women felt trapped in unhappy marriages because they did not have training, careers, or experience in the working world and with kids felt they couldn't make it on their own.

So please don't use divorce rates as proof that the 1950s were a happier time than now.

 

[jamespowers]

The divorce rate was lower because it was much harder to get a divorce (my mother had to go to Mexico to get one) and many people stayed in unhappy marriages. Many women felt trapped in unhappy marriages because they did not have training, careers, or experience in the working world and with kids felt they couldn't make it on their own.

So please don't use divorce rates as proof that the 1950s were a happier time than now.

It may have been harder to get a divorce but it was not impossible and depended on the area of the country you lived in. However, marriage was looked on much more seriously from the start and that is why it was harder to get a divorce. It was not looked at as the temporary state until something else better came along like it seems to have become today.
You can also look at crime rates for even the Great Depression and find that the crime rates were much lower even when people were up against the wall financially.
The major problems in schools were gum chewing and tardiness. Now the major problems are violence related that can result in teachers and/or students dying.
I could go on but that tends to get the point across.

 

[Joie DeVive]

It may have been harder to get a divorce but it was not impossible and depended on the area of the country you lived in.

Very true. The availability of divorce varied widely. My Great-grandmother got one in the 1930s and I never heard that she had any difficulty getting it. Of course her husband up and walked out on her, moving in with another woman, in the height of the Depression leaving her with 3 kids (later 2, the boy died of whooping cough) to raise. Of course she lived in Colorado, and as I understand it, some western states had looser divorce laws.

 

[jamespowers]

Very true. The availability of divorce varied widely. My Great-grandmother got one in the 1930s and I never heard that she had any difficulty getting it. Of course her husband up and walked out on her, moving in with another woman, in the height of the Depression leaving her with 3 kids (later 2, the boy died of whooping cough) to raise. Of course she lived in Colorado, and as I understand it, some western states had looser divorce laws.

Yep, the west coast states had much freer divorce laws---especially when it came to abandonment. Geez, I feel for her in such a situation. :rage: :eusa_doh:

 

[Paisley]

My friend Opal was abandoned by her husband c. 1948 in New Mexico. She had a baby and one on the way. When her husband finally contacted her, he wanted a divorce so that he could marry his pregnant girlfriend. Opal got a divorce and a support order. Not that he paid a cent in child support; the courts didn't get serious about enforcing support orders until the 1980s.

In 1940, Emily Post called divorce an "epidemic." She mentioned couples breaking up over "attacks of love for another." Edith Wharton wrote a novel about a whole family of children of various married and divorced couples in "The Children" set c. 1925.

 

[jamespowers]

My friend Opal was abandoned by her husband c. 1948 in New Mexico. She had a baby and one on the way. When her husband finally contacted her, he wanted a divorce so that he could marry his pregnant girlfriend. Opal got a divorce and a support order. Not that he paid a cent in child support; the courts didn't get serious about enforcing support orders until the 1980s.

In 1940, Emily Post called divorce an "epidemic." She mentioned couples breaking up over "attacks of love for another." Edith Wharton wrote a novel about a whole family of children of various married and divorced couples in "The Children" set c. 1925.

Gee, if the divorce rate in 1940 was an epidemic in 1940 then it is a deadly disease now. :eusa_doh: In 1940 the divorce rate was 14.7%. Now the divorce rate is over 41%! (based US Census Bureau data). In 1925 it was even less at 8.6%. It was less common than crashes of that newfangled thing called the car.
Having a historical perspective makes you wonder what Emily Post would say today. :eusa_doh:

P.S. There were skunks in the old days just as there are now---both sexes but as I said before, they were not accepted with open arms and lauded on TV then as they are now.:eusa_doh:

 

[Paisley]

An excerpt from an article in the NY Times:

One mother in TriBeCa, who is married, at least for now, to a Wall Street executive, put it rather bluntly: “My job was to run the household and the children’s lives,” she said. “His job is to provide us with a nice lifestyle.” But his bonus has disappeared, and his annual pay has dropped to $150,000 from $800,000 a year. “Let me just say this,” she said, “I’m still doing my job.”​

More and more, as I see it, mates are chosen based on appearance and earnings potential. In other words, how well they look good on paper. If that's the case, we might as well go back to arranged marriages and save people the angst of multiple breakups of long- and short-term relationships and waiting too late to have children.

 

[jamespowers]

An excerpt from an article in the NY Times:

One mother in TriBeCa, who is married, at least for now, to a Wall Street executive, put it rather bluntly: “My job was to run the household and the children’s lives,” she said. “His job is to provide us with a nice lifestyle.” But his bonus has disappeared, and his annual pay has dropped to $150,000 from $800,000 a year. “Let me just say this,” she said, “I’m still doing my job.”​

More and more, as I see it, mates are chosen based on appearance and earnings potential. In other words, how well they look good on paper. If that's the case, we might as well go back to arranged marriages and save people the angst of multiple breakups of long- and short-term relationships and waiting too late to have children.

lol lol lol lol lol lol
Ok, if it didn't have a scintilla of truth it wouldn't be funny right?

 

[Paisley]

lol lol lol lol lol lol
Ok, if it didn't have a scintilla of truth it wouldn't be funny right?

I think the woman quoted will stay married. How many single men making $800,000 a year and willing to take on stepchildren can there be?

 

[jamespowers]

I think the woman quoted will stay married. How many single men making $800,000 a year and willing to take on stepchildren can there be?

Pretty few and far between to put it mildly. How many making $150,000 a year can there be? Maybe that pool is smaller and she will rethink her "job." :eusa_doh:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

"job." :eusa_doh:

Oh dear. Watch your back, JP. Those quote marks … [huh]

bk

 

[jamespowers]

Oh dear. Watch your back, JP. Those quote marks … [huh]

bk

Those are Tracey Berry's quote marks not mine.

 

[reetpleat]

Gee, if the divorce rate in 1940 was an epidemic in 1940 then it is a deadly disease now. :eusa_doh: In 1940 the divorce rate was 14.7%. Now the divorce rate is over 41%! (based US Census Bureau data). In 1925 it was even less at 8.6%. It was less common than crashes of that newfangled thing called the car.
Having a historical perspective makes you wonder what Emily Post would say today. :eusa_doh:

P.S. There were skunks in the old days just as there are now---both sexes but as I said before, they were not accepted with open arms and lauded on TV then as they are now.:eusa_doh:

At the same time, divorce does not have the crushing impact as today. People often divorce somewhat amicably, share custody, share support, creat new families and integrate them. Divorce may not be ideal, but neither is a woman being abused and beaten, parents fighting all the time, women having to allow their kids be abused by a mean husband, etc. Or people that do not love each other at all. many people are better off due to divorce.

 

[reetpleat]

An excerpt from an article in the NY Times:

One mother in TriBeCa, who is married, at least for now, to a Wall Street executive, put it rather bluntly: “My job was to run the household and the children’s lives,” she said. “His job is to provide us with a nice lifestyle.” But his bonus has disappeared, and his annual pay has dropped to $150,000 from $800,000 a year. “Let me just say this,” she said, “I’m still doing my job.”​

More and more, as I see it, mates are chosen based on appearance and earnings potential. In other words, how well they look good on paper. If that's the case, we might as well go back to arranged marriages and save people the angst of multiple breakups of long- and short-term relationships and waiting too late to have children.

YOu will have to go back a long way to find a time when men did not choose mates on their attractiveness and liklihood to be good mother, and women did not choose mates based on their looks, demeanor and "prospects"

 

[reetpleat]

Very true. The availability of divorce varied widely. My Great-grandmother got one in the 1930s and I never heard that she had any difficulty getting it. Of course her husband up and walked out on her, moving in with another woman, in the height of the Depression leaving her with 3 kids (later 2, the boy died of whooping cough) to raise. Of course she lived in Colorado, and as I understand it, some western states had looser divorce laws.

It wasn't just getting one though. With limited prospects, how many women were willing to get a divorce knowing it would mean a life of difficulty and probably penury for them and their kids. women have much more options now.

 

[jamespowers]

At the same time, divorce does not have the crushing impact as today. People often divorce somewhat amicably, share custody, share support, creat new families and integrate them. Divorce may not be ideal, but neither is a woman being abused and beaten, parents fighting all the time, women having to allow their kids be abused by a mean husband, etc. Or people that do not love each other at all. many people are better off due to divorce.

Tell that to a child whose parents have just told them that they are getting divorced.
I don't know where you find people who have divorced amicably. I have never seen it amongst my friends and acquaintances. It is a battle for money, custody and goods that is equivalent to a world war. :eusa_doh:
The children get to be pawns and feel unwanted and cast aside. Aside from getting away from the the abusive spouse scenario, its horrible. The only people who win are the lawyers. :eusa_doh: [huh]

 

[Joie DeVive]

Geez, I feel for her in such a situation. :rage: :eusa_doh:

The family stories do portray him as quite a cad. Of course, not to speak ill of the dead, but having met the woman, there was probably a lot more to the break-up than I ever heard. She wasn't exactly a shrinking violet!

It was especially hard on my Great-grandmother as she had grown up in the middle class when that meant something different than it does today. When she went down to the employment agency, the staffer told her that: "Any woman as good looking as you can find a job if you really want too..." wink-wink... How's that for old school manners?? :eusa_doh: lol

She finally found a job as a laundress, rented out rooms in her house and eventually remarried quite well.

 

[Paisley]

YOu will have to go back a long way to find a time when men did not choose mates on their attractiveness and liklihood to be good mother, and women did not choose mates based on their looks, demeanor and "prospects"

Going back a long time, it probably was just as you say. The more modern idea has been to choose a mate you loved; most married people have about the same level of good looks and come from the same class, anyway. Now it just seems to be a business arrangement. And when the business goes bad, they pack up and leave.

 

[jamespowers]

It wasn't just getting one though. With limited prospects, how many women were willing to get a divorce knowing it would mean a life of difficulty and probably penury for them and their kids. Women have much more options now.

More options but penurity and poverty are still the same after a divorce no matter when it happens. They might get child support if they are lucky and the guy doesn't skip town or the country for that matter.
I have known many women who didn't exactly better themselves through a divorce unless their husbands were extremely rich. Most times it involved her working harder than before with raising children and working full time with most of their wages/salary going to child care services. It isn't pretty for the average family.

 

[jamespowers]

The family stories do portray him as quite a cad. Of course, not to speak ill of the dead, but having met the woman, there was probably a lot more to the break-up than I ever heard. She wasn't exactly a shrinking violet!

It was especially hard on my Great-grandmother as she had grown up in the middle class when that meant something different than it does today. When she went down to the employment agency, the staffer told her that: "Any woman as good looking as you can find a job if you really want too..." wink-wink... How's that for old school manners?? :eusa_doh: lol

She finally found a job as a laundress, rented out rooms in her house and eventually remarried quite well.

I am glad it all worked out in the end but it could have gone much worse at that time in our history.
An employment agency that advocated earning a living that way. What a bunch of jerks! :eusa_doh: First you get dumped by your husband and then suffer the indiginity of fools. :eusa_doh: