The Good Old Days

[mkgal1]

This comes up often.....where people have this fantastical image of days past. For context...it was recently raised again, when someone asked here, "what year would you rather live in? The year 2014 or 1814?" (it was originally asked "if you were a female", but evolved to more of a general population question).

This was said:

Anyone who thinks ANY other time in history is better than today either has not studied history or is just deluding themselves.

with the response of:

It depends on what you value. I value cohesive families. I think today's legacy of broken families is tragic. Historically, most cultures valued family more than today's. Other than war-torn areas, I can't think of any other example where the family unit is as marginalized as it is in Western culture today.

....and I wonder what that means for the family unit to be marginalized (what that thought was about)?

How is that keeping individuals from having their own cohesive families?

 

[akmom]

Sure, there were hardships back then. And being born in 1814 was no guarantee of an agrarian lifestyle (though in my family tree, it was). However, you're just as likely in 2014 to be born in a ghetto to a drug-addicted mother and absentee father, be neglected in the formative years of your life and then bounce through foster care until you join a gang in adolescence and die young amid drug-centered street violence. Even in higher socioeconomic circles, kids are far less likely to grow up in a two-parent home, and substance abuse is still common. You may not die of measles or pneumonia, but you have a good chance of getting heart disease or diabetes. I don't think any one is calling it the "good old days," just saying it wasn't the dark ages either.

What I meant by marginalized, is that the family unit is no longer valued or preserved. One third of children are born out of wedlock, and another 40% of the remaining families will divorce before their children are out of the home. What that shows me is that men and women do not value the family unit, for so many of them to enter parenthood without creating that family structure of marriage in the first place. You can blame unplanned pregnancy, but the fact is, single parenthood was far less common 100 years ago - even though we didn't have the conveniences of modern birth control back then. The only conclusion from that is that men and women today really don't care as much as they did back then about having strong families. Divorce rates reflect the same story. People are more individualistic, and thus more invested in their own personal lives than having that family unit intact. I don't believe that the majority of divorces are precipitated by domestic violence, so the notion that more battered women are escaping is only a small part of the puzzle. Men and women both just aren't that invested in marriage, even if they have children. A cohesive family unit is immensely important to children, and also significantly affects their own marriage success rates later on. So that is what I mean by "marginalized." The family unit has taken a back seat to other priorities, at great social cost to society.

 

[mkgal1]

Assuming that is true.....why would one have to travel back in time to 1814 in order to have their own cohesive family? What does it matter what others are valuing/not valuing? Why can't a couple value it on their own (living today)...and raise their children with those values (IOW.....why does society dictate private lives)? Isn't that what we are called to do....be bright lights in darkness?

BTW....am I understanding the term "agrarian"? Isn't that about growing food--naturally and w/o chemicals? Or are you talking about the land distribution from the rich to the poor?

 

[Odetta]

I think you also need to define "cohesive". Do you mean cohesive, as in the family stayed together, or do you mean cohesive as in they also actually functioned well in addition to staying together? There's a big difference between the two.

Also, I hate references to "the good old days". The old days weren't necessarily good. Each generation has its high points and its low points. And exactly which years are you calling "the good old days"? Personally, I think it's a catch phrase used to justify unwillingness to change.

 

[Hetta]

Assuming that is true.....why would one have to travel back in time to 1814 in order to have their own cohesive family? What does it matter what others are valuing/not valuing? Why can't a couple value it on their own (living today)...and raise their children with those values (IOW.....why does society dictate private lives)? Isn't that what we are called to do....be bright lights in darkness?

BTW....am I understanding the term "agrarian"? Isn't that about growing food--naturally and w/o chemicals? Or are you talking about the land distribution from the rich to the poor?

Well said MKGal.

I would not trade the 21st century ... unless I could trade it for the 22nd century, maybe.

 

[mkgal1]

I think you also need to define "cohesive". Do you mean cohesive, as in the family stayed together, or do you mean cohesive as in they also actually functioned well in addition to staying together? There's a big difference between the two.

Excellent point. I agree---there's a big difference between the two, so there's a need to define what's meant by "cohesive". A family sticking together doesn't mean they desire that (or are able to function together).

Also, I hate references to "the good old days". The old days weren't necessarily good. Each generation has its high points and its low points. And exactly which years are you calling "the good old days"? Personally, I think it's a catch phrase used to justify unwillingness to change.

I agree.

 

[Autumnleaf]

If you're a middle aged woman this seems to be the time to live in.

 

[Hetta]

If you're a middle aged woman this seems to be the time to live in.

But younger women love it too ... women like maybe Emma Watson, who seems spectacularly successful, and also educated and smart.

 

[Autumnleaf]

But younger women love it too ... women like maybe Emma Watson, who seems spectacularly successful, and also educated and smart.

Its all about being perceived as smart with women these days as well as physically attractive, ego. The quaint notions of a quiet woman of piety being the way to be have long since been discarded.

 

[DZoolander]

I wouldn't live in the past for a variety of reasons... hygiene, health issues, etc... Like Hetta - if I wanted to live sometime other than now - I'd definitely opt to see what the future is all about beyond my years.

That being said - ehhh - since people are talking about the family unit/etc - I'd be curious to find out just what the percentage of bastards in the past was relative to now. Sure - if you *have* (or *had*) a family unit in place - in the past - society pressured it to stay together far more than today regardless of what might be going on in the home...but w/respect to "unmarried people having children" - I really haven't ever seen any studies on that.

I also have always been under the impression that bastards, while marginalized, weren't exactly in short supply.

 

[mkgal1]

The quaint notions of a quiet woman of piety being the way to be have long since been discarded.

I'm pretty sure the notions are still present (not personal notions, but other's desires for that).

 

[Hetta]

Its all about being perceived as smart with women these days as well as physically attractive, ego. The quaint notions of a quiet woman of piety being the way to be have long since been discarded.

Oh a woman can be good as well as smart.

 

[mkgal1]

I wouldn't live in the past for a variety of reasons... hygiene, health issues, etc... Like Hetta - if I wanted to live sometime other than now - I'd definitely opt to see what the future is all about beyond my years.

That being said - ehhh - since people are talking about the family unit/etc - I'd be curious to find out just what the percentage of bastards in the past was relative to now. Sure - if you *have* (or *had*) a family unit in place - in the past - society pressured it to stay together far more than today regardless of what might be going on in the home...but w/respect to "unmarried people having children" - I really haven't ever seen any studies on that.

I also have always been under the impression that bastards, while marginalized, weren't exactly in short supply.

I agree. I think they were just kept quiet (family secrets and all). Also....while abortions weren't legal, that didn't keep them from happening.

I haven't read this book....but it's on my wish list:

The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap: Stephanie Coontz: 9780465090976: Amazon.com: Books

 

[HannahT]

Its all about being perceived as smart with women these days as well as physically attractive, ego. The quaint notions of a quiet woman of piety being the way to be have long since been discarded.

That isn't just a 'women' thing though. You know the smart, attractive, ego.

(shrugs) Quiet women of piety haven't been removed or discarded. They are around just like they have always been.

 

[Odetta]

Mkgal1, that book does look very interesting. I put that on my own wish list.

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1, that book does look very interesting. I put that on my own wish list.

Great. Let me know if you get it.

 

[seeingeyes]

Its all about being perceived as smart with women these days as well as physically attractive, ego. The quaint notions of a quiet woman of piety being the way to be have long since been discarded.

Which would you rather be?

 

[Thunder Peel]

I'd take 1914.