Born in the wrong decade

[garnetflower13]

I often have fantasized about living at the turn of the twentieth century! I am very Victorian deep inside. Having said that, I will say that I was born in the fifties, and was a teen in the seventies. As a child I witness awful racial unrest, with rioting in the streets accompanied by gunfire. I remember President Kennedy's assassination, and that of Martin Luther King. But I also remember the fashions, the types of machines and appliances used, and all the angst of adolescence.

I guess when one feels a longing for a certain era, it is well to see both sides of the picture! Even in Victorian times it may have been much better to be a man than a woman. And as WereBear said, the fifties was not a good time to be a woman, either.

 

[Dusty285]

Yes and no to all that precedes this comment.

I "should" have been born in the mid-1920's. I was born during WW-2. Too young for Korea; my war was Vietnam. If I had been born on time I would have been in the middle of WW-2. Probably too fat and small for combat troops it would have been among the 95% supporting for however long.

I got the full experience of the 1950's in high school. For me the 1960's were military service; join voluntarily into the branch of choice and complete required 8 years rather than the random risk of the draft and probably part-time reserve activity for too many years.

With reference to "now" it all sucked big time. Everything was very 'manual.' Everything required a whole lot of "fingerprinting" and was not well thought out or organized or managed to fit human/employee/user needs. That's the truth. Senior managers and owners were mostly in the attitude of "it worked/was good for me and it's more than good for you." Things only change and improve as the older generations die.

"Aspie" came into existence after WW-2. Asperger was doing his research in Austria during the middle of WW-2. NT's are hostile to anyone "different" and all of us would have suffered severely one way or another. I did experience that hostility for all of my working years.

If you want to know how it really was there are 3 books to read. Get them at your local library or buy them online. Read them in this order. "A World Lit Only By Fire." "Empire Of The Summer Moon." "The Last Stand."

"A World. . .." covers Western Civilization from the fall of the Roman Empire to Magellan. Nominally the Dark Ages from about 500 AD to 1500 AD. It does not like the religions of Europe but seems to tell a lot of truth about the abuses and horrid conditions of the times. Autism is not mentioned but we know that the Autistic were the people who were burned as 'Witches' along with the very wealthy outliers of powerful families and the very intelligent who were scholars rather than being "Rich and Powerful." Single older women and old widows were also popular for Witch burnings.

"Empire. . " is about the Comanche. Neither the Comanche nor the other tribes or the Europeans were what most of us would like to pretend. It was all terrible. The Comanche was exactly like all early humans were really like. This book might change your perspective in ways you will not be happy about. Even if you are of American Indian heritage.

"Last Stand" is about Custer, Sitting Bull, how both were treated by their peers and how they fit into their cultures. The Battle of the Little Bighorn is incidental in this story.

All of these are non-fiction. Collectively they show how humanity developed socially from the earliest times if the information about the Comanche is projected backwards; detail about real life as it really was from the end of the last Ice Advance [Ice Age, in the common thinking] to almost our times. "Last Stand" carries us to the early 20th Century and shows a little of how and why our civilization is where it is and the the way it is right now. Maybe you are happier not knowing?

From my own position in the Universe, it was all too much of a struggle before about the turn of the Millennium, Year 2000. If I had a wish that would be granted I might like to be 25 years old again, know everything I know now, be sufficiently wealthy to not be forced to find a job, and it would be year 2005 AD. If I could look around some at the future, I might prefer to be in 2055 AD?

I am ecstatically happy for computers; the Internet; all existing technology; all existing medical knowledge and medicines; the knowledge of psychology that has brought design of all our physical infrastructure and devices to the point where most of them are easy to use and care for rather than the way it was when people were supposed to "adapt" like a square peg being driven into a round hole.

 

[Adder1234]

Sometimes I think that it would have been nice to grow up in other time periods, then I make a mental list of all of things wrong with living then and I realise that I'm pretty lucky to live when I do.

The comment about penecillin made me laugh, because I'm allergic to penicillin so I've only had it once and I almost died.

 

[rx7chick]

The 1950's was a time of incredible conformity. Don't think so.

Also, on a personal note, as a woman, it would have been awful. Not allowed to have my own credit, buy my own home, few professions open to me...

I grew up in the 50's and 60's, graduated high school 1965. The Viet Nam war was in full swing and those of us who were against it were investigated for being "communist sympathizers." The hippie movement was born as a reaction against the crushing regimentation. And minorities were really suffering. My mother used to rant about how restricted she was legally and economically because of her gender. In some ways I think this is the best time, as women and minorities are better off in many ways. Also, in those days, there was zero understanding of learning challenges and the autism spectrum. I know...I went through it.

 

[ksheehan88]

I wouldn't say I think I was born in the wrong decade, but there are a few periods of History that I wish I could go to... Wouldn't want to live in any of them though, life is much, much better now!

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Well going backward it would either be decades recent enough for there to be little difference aside for the lack of wifi and awesome computer games, or far enough back to be dealing with gender inequality, homophobia, poverty, war, terrible plumping (or none at all), disease, etc. etc. I'm just too practical to idealise past times, and too cynical to idealise the future.

 

[Xenocity]

If I was born 5 years either way I would have been better off.

Serious us who were born in the mid 80s, were born at a critical juncture in history and technology.

If I was born at the beginning of the 80s I would have been 18 at the time PCs and the web became integral to society and business.

If I was born in 1990, I would have turned 18 at the beginning of the mobile era.

Instead I turned 18 at the transition mark where everything was in flux... 5 years later the banking system triggered the Great Recession (which we are all still dealing with).

I'm always at the transition period!

 

[Ender]

I have often thought this.

If I were to choose a different time to be born, it would probably be 1900-1950s America or 1850-1900s Britain. I find the culture of these countries and eras very intriguing.

Though there is also a lot we wouldn't have if we lived in the past. Such as modern medicine and social reforms.

 

[AHJohn]

I don't know, some days a nice quiet sanitarium could be wonderful!

I've heard that Woody Allen once said that he wouldn't want to travel back to before they had penicillin.

W.Allen also said he would like to lead his life backwards-starting in a dark box -then lots of people weeping over him- etc. etc. passing school exams without effort -etc.-etc.- being fed /no effort ; climbing back into a nice warm wet protective soft place ,and ending after 9 months with a great big Or****!!

 

[AHJohn]

Yes, I would like to have grown up before computers and the digital revolution. We now have faster and cheaper technologies than existed at the time. Back then hard work paid off a lot more than today.
I really like alternate history, this being related to being born and raised in the "wrong" decade. See my latest thread on an alternative history discussion board.

I WAS lucky-music savant ; born 1947 ; diagnosis Aspergian at 68 ; everyone needed me in a non -competitve musical world (wouldn't be up to scratch to-day!) In 1990's Inspectors watched my teaching (Ghastly) ;Internet got going (Can't stand it -although this online community seerms good fun -thanks) On trains now people don't talk-only gaze at screeny thingys-are they turning into zombies??!!

 

[OkRad]

I would have liked to be a Spartan. The men had purpose, for sure, and the women RAN the place when the men were off to war. I think Athens would be nice, too, but the women had less control than the Spartan women.

But it would also be nice to be here 100 years from now just to see how it all turned out!!

 

[The Phantom]

Hmm, that's a though one. I really do love period fashion/beauty looks (although I fail to emulate them and instead wind up with a t shirt and jeans everyday ), and I also do like some of the aspects of past decades (whatever they may be). However, as a girl/woman and racial/ethnic minority, I would have to say heck no, I would never live in the past. I mean, even today I encounter sexism and racism (and troubles due to my mental disorders and disabilities) so I can only imagine what I'd feel in somewhere like the 50s oh god. It kind of grinds my gears when I hear people talk about how perfect the 50s were, because when they talk about 'good old American family values', it comes off as a synonymous to 'women, blacks and gays knowing their place But that's not to say that there weren't any positives to that time, because they were, but I believe personally that they outweigh the negatives (in my own positions, I don't mean to judge too harshly). Not to mention the incredible emphasis on conformity and lack of individuality, which I would think as aspies, we all (or most of us, at least) resent. It just seems like it would be an incredibly saccahrine time to live in, although from a tv/movie perspective it can be nice, so there's that. The 60s would have probably been amazing to witness, but that alone wouldn't be enough for me. Skipping ahead, there are great parts to every decade, and not-so-great parts, but I think now is a pretty good ti me for me to be alive in. Of course, being a teen sucks anyway, with all the pressure to fit in at school and such, but now is a time where I really feel I can achieve my dreams, something that wouldn't have felt possible to me in a past decade. Also, I am a fan of the modern internet

 

[Panthro]

I feel like im so far ahead of my time that I should have been born in the year 2030 so that the rest of the world could catch up. Seriously though, I love the fashion of the 1940's and would have loved to be an adult during that era to wear the clothing of that period.

 

[Myrtonos]

The 1950's was a time of incredible conformity. Don't think so.

Also, on a personal note, as a woman, it would have been awful. Not allowed to have my own credit, buy my own home, few professions open to me...

Nor only were women not allowed to do these things in the 1950s, but they never were before then.
It is only a recent thing. But there was a time when men had to go to war.

Even now, with women having these things, one thing that hasn't changed is that even able-bodied women don't have all the physical abilities of the other sex.

 

[WereBear]

I see things getting better for men, too. Toxic masculinity and macho posturing is deadly to their emotions and creativity. It's a lot better marriage between two feminists; the concept of equal partnership applies to everyone, of any persuasion.

When brawn was required, women were at a disadvantage; as this is less and less a factor, there's no reason to keep women from being full members of society.

 

[Bellatrix]

Hi everybody,

I often imagine what it would be like to have grow up in the 1950's or 1970's. I think that I can relate more to people of those times.

Does anyone else think about what it would be like to live in another time?

Thank you

I remember the 70's well (was in primary school). Things - just about everything, really - were really different back then, like in the old quote that "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there". No internet (not even P.C.'s), no mobile phones (growing up, many people didn't even have landlines), only 3 T.V. channels, plus the A.B.C. (a government broadcaster that still exists), very few families even had cars, we didn't constantly hear about "terrorism" (back then it was nuclear annihilation), no C.C.T.V. whatsoever (now Big Brother is everywhere). Schools taught the basics, they were not ideologically-driven, and if you failed a subject you had to endure the humiliation of repeating the year with younger students.

Ah hell, I could go on forever here about how so much better things were back then. I know I sound old when I do so, but the world was more stable, people weren't in so much of a hurry all the time, and the pace of life was much, much slower. It's not nostalgia, it's the truth.

 

[Bellatrix]

I see things getting better for men, too. Toxic masculinity and macho posturing is deadly to their emotions and creativity. It's a lot better marriage between two feminists; the concept of equal partnership applies to everyone, of any persuasion.

What about toxic femininity?

When brawn was required, women were at a disadvantage; as this is less and less a factor, there's no reason to keep women from being full members of society.

Except in most parts of the world (ex. Africa, Middle East), women are denied basic human rights due to archaic customs, culture and religion. We hear a great deal from self-proclaimed feminists who like to go on, ad nauseum, about "glass ceilings" and "objectification" in the West, but not a whisper about "honour killings" and genital mutilation in those parts of the world that are not so civilised. Why is that?

 

[Bellatrix]

Even now, with women having these things, one thing that hasn't changed is that even able-bodied women don't have all the physical abilities of the other sex.

And vice-versa. Why is it SO hard for so many these days to just accept the basic FACT that men and women, boys and girls, are just different, in more ways than just the mere physical? Is this now 'politically incorrect' to acknowledge (or something)?

 

[Myrtonos]

I remember the 70's well (was in primary school). Things - just about everything, really - were really different back then, like in the old quote that "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there". No internet (not even P.C.'s), no mobile phones (growing up, many people didn't even have landlines), only 3 T.V. channels, plus the A.B.C. (a government broadcaster that still exists), very few families even had cars, we didn't constantly hear about "terrorism" (back then it was nuclear annihilation), no C.C.T.V. whatsoever (now Big Brother is everywhere). Schools taught the basics, they were not ideologically-driven, and if you failed a subject you had to endure the humiliation of repeating the year with younger students.

You seem to remember somewhere here in the Australian state of Victoria in the 1970s.

Personal computers were introduced in the 1970s, but they were rare. Landlines phones (just called telephones in those days) had been around for decades before even you were born, yet you say many people didn't have landlines. Were you living in rural Victoria?

Though you may not have had the internet, there was, and still is something called amateur radio. Back then, it was the only way to go communicating with people far away than you had never met in the way you can on a forum like this today.
Is anyone reading this a licenced radio amateur?

Ah hell, I could go on forever here about how so much better things were back then. I know I sound old when I do so, but the world was more stable, people weren't in so much of a hurry all the time, and the pace of life was much, much slower. It's not nostalgia, it's the truth.

In our country it was, but maybe it wasn't overseas. It was unusual, outside the ham radio community, for a non-notable person to interact with someone (far away) they had never met in person. There were also many more localities where the locals all knew each other by name and address.

 

[The Phantom]

What about toxic femininity?

Yes, what about toxic femininity? I've never heard of that term before, so I would be interested if you would explain it. Toxic masculinity refers to the societal stereotyping of men as aggressive, violent, rude and emotionless (etc), as well as how it harms young boys to pressure them into emulating such behaviour. Would toxic femininity be the societal stereotyping of women as submissive, over-emotional, manipulative gold-diggers? Or do you think its the way women aspire to act, because you interpret the term toxic masculinity as a stereotyping of men by feminists? I don't mean to sound defensive (though its hard not to on the internet), I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're communicating.

Except in most parts of the world (ex. Africa, Middle East), women are denied basic human rights due to archaic customs, culture and religion. We hear a great deal from self-proclaimed feminists who like to go on, ad nauseum, about "glass ceilings" and "objectification" in the West, but not a whisper about "honour killings" and genital mutilation in those parts of the world that are not so civilised. Why is that?

Perhaps because this is what these women face in their daily life, which they are hoping to improve? I don't understand why its so darn 'uppity' to fight against objectification, considering such attitudes perpetrate the idea that women can't be smart since they're just pieces of meat. Not to mention, it contributes to the acceptance of sexual harassment and abuse towards both genders. Women because they're disposable and worthless, unable to cause any sort of harm, and men because they're strong no matter what, and always want sex. Especially if the woman is attractive, then there's no way the man could have not wanted it (unless she's ugly,then he's been scarred for life). As you can see, objectification reduces women (in this case, at least) down to appearances, which allows for all sorts of disrespect to happen to both genders. As for the glass ceiling you mention, the first point applies. I don't see what's wrong with trying to be successful in you career and hoping to break the boundaries that have been in place for a long time. After all, a career takes up a lot of your life, so naturally you would think about it often. As to the issue of honour-killings, I see the oppression of third-world women brought up often in these discussions. Usually, its just a device to try and take away from what women in the western world are trying to achieve instead of genuine passion for the subject. It's like saying that you can't care about any of the problems the western world faces, like poverty or education just because other countries have it worse. Besides, do you think about developing countries every day of your life, and when you face a problem you decide not to do anything about it just because other people may have it worse? If not, feminists shouldn't be expected to do the same. Yes, there should be more attention given to these situations, but honestly, how much do you think the average woman could do to help a distant country without having the money and social power in order to make a difference, especially if she's not given the respect she deserves? Perhaps these women feel helpless to try and stop genital mutilation of honour-killings because they're belittled for caring about issues that genuinely affect them in their own lives? After all, its quite hard to help others when you can't help yourself. I'm not trying to say that women in the west are in some sort of ball and chain and can't do anything about problems in other parts of the world, but I hope that you can see why that might pose as a problem, and it not their #1 priority.

And vice-versa. Why is it SO hard for so many these days to just accept the basic FACT that men and women, boys and girls, are just different, in more ways than just the mere physical? Is this now 'politically incorrect' to acknowledge (or something)?

Why is it so hard for people to accept the basic fact that men and women, boys and girls, are just equal? Of course, it would be silly to deny the obvious physical differences between the sexes, as well as developmental difference in boys and girls, but oftentimes when the 'differences' between boys in girls are mentioned in an argument about gender equality, it tends to go beyond simply who has greater upper body strength and ventures into intellectual territory. I don't see people trying to negate the fact that that men are built to be stronger on average (although some like to childbirth throw in the issue of childbirth just to spice it up), but that these facts are more of general guidelines in which many variations can occur depending on different circumstances. Equal doesn't always have to mean the same size or weight, it can mean the same value, which I would believe most people are trying to aim for.