Comparing divorce pre-1960, to now

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when
divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main
reasons ??

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

I *know* what the main reasons are. I don't just "think" them. But you
don't really wanna hear em. So perhaps I'll just leave it there.
(Well, perhaps).

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

I *know* what the main reasons are. I don't just "think" them. But you
don't really wanna hear em. So perhaps I'll just leave it there.
(Well, perhaps).

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'I *know* what the main reasons are. * I don't just "think" them. *
But you don't really wanna hear em. * * So perhaps I'll just leave
it there. (Well, perhaps).

Reply: Bill, You always have good insight. Id like to hear what your
thoughts are on this. Please list explicitly. Thanks.

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'I *know* what the main reasons are. * I don't just "think" them. *
But you don't really wanna hear em. * * So perhaps I'll just leave
it there. (Well, perhaps).

Reply: Bill, You always have good insight. Id like to hear what your
thoughts are on this. Please list explicitly. Thanks.

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

Bill in CO wrote:

'I *know* what the main reasons are. I don't just "think" them. But you don't really wanna hear em. So perhaps I'll just leave it there. (Well, perhaps).

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

Reply: Bill, You always have good insight. Id like to hear what your thoughts are on this. Please list explicitly. Thanks.

Well, a few decades ago (as in the 1950's), the roles were much more clearly
defined and differentiated for men and women, and, moreover, they
*complemented* each other. This was the age of the *nuclear family*
(well, there were other ages, but that's before my time). Usually, the
mom was the caregiver and homemaker, always there for the kids, and the dad
was the provider, usually out to work all day. But both needed each
other, and both *complemented* each other. (Well, hopefully they also
"complimented" each other too!) But there was always someone home for the
kids during their critical developmental years, unlike today. So, unlike
today, the nuclear family was the rule, and NOT the exception. (yes, there
were also dysfunctional relationships, and women had less opportunities to
escape that problem then they do today - and I do acknowledge that)

So this pretty much changed when women entered the workforce, and BOTH
became "providers". Yes, there were (and are) *way* more career
opportunities for women today, which is great - EXCEPT for one thing: WHO
is there for the kids? (No one, quite often). Now, people are so rushed
they often have to grab a bite to eat at a fast food restaurant on the way
home. And as for "quality time" at the dinner table, with the kids?
Don't make me laugh! It's a LOT harder to accommodate and find this these
days. We are too rushed - too busy. And for what? What have we
really gained, in the Big Picture? Are we happier as a nuclear family
today?

The problem wouldn't be such a huge problem today if we were just talking
about families who decided not to have children. But once the decision is
made to have children, the whole thing (and consequently, society, in the
larger picture), just falls apart, and you can *clearly* see the results in
society today - or at least *I can*, since I've been around long enough to
witness this "stellar transformation". People that haven't generally
don't know what I'm talking about, and/or just deny it, because it hurts to
acknowledge it. And then there are just some that say it's always been
this way, or society is always changing, so what's the big deal, etc, etc,
etc. But the important thing is that we have TVs and cell phones and
Nintendos in each room, and that 3 car garage! (the fruits of OUR collective
labor)! I mean, in the final analysis, that's what's important, right?
Isn't it? And we are all so "self-fullfilled" these days! You know,
it's just remarkable how far we have progressed!

/end sarcasm

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

Bill in CO wrote:

'I *know* what the main reasons are. I don't just "think" them. But you don't really wanna hear em. So perhaps I'll just leave it there. (Well, perhaps).

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

Reply: Bill, You always have good insight. Id like to hear what your thoughts are on this. Please list explicitly. Thanks.

Well, a few decades ago (as in the 1950's), the roles were much more clearly
defined and differentiated for men and women, and, moreover, they
*complemented* each other. This was the age of the *nuclear family*
(well, there were other ages, but that's before my time). Usually, the
mom was the caregiver and homemaker, always there for the kids, and the dad
was the provider, usually out to work all day. But both needed each
other, and both *complemented* each other. (Well, hopefully they also
"complimented" each other too!) But there was always someone home for the
kids during their critical developmental years, unlike today. So, unlike
today, the nuclear family was the rule, and NOT the exception. (yes, there
were also dysfunctional relationships, and women had less opportunities to
escape that problem then they do today - and I do acknowledge that)

So this pretty much changed when women entered the workforce, and BOTH
became "providers". Yes, there were (and are) *way* more career
opportunities for women today, which is great - EXCEPT for one thing: WHO
is there for the kids? (No one, quite often). Now, people are so rushed
they often have to grab a bite to eat at a fast food restaurant on the way
home. And as for "quality time" at the dinner table, with the kids?
Don't make me laugh! It's a LOT harder to accommodate and find this these
days. We are too rushed - too busy. And for what? What have we
really gained, in the Big Picture? Are we happier as a nuclear family
today?

The problem wouldn't be such a huge problem today if we were just talking
about families who decided not to have children. But once the decision is
made to have children, the whole thing (and consequently, society, in the
larger picture), just falls apart, and you can *clearly* see the results in
society today - or at least *I can*, since I've been around long enough to
witness this "stellar transformation". People that haven't generally
don't know what I'm talking about, and/or just deny it, because it hurts to
acknowledge it. And then there are just some that say it's always been
this way, or society is always changing, so what's the big deal, etc, etc,
etc. But the important thing is that we have TVs and cell phones and
Nintendos in each room, and that 3 car garage! (the fruits of OUR collective
labor)! I mean, in the final analysis, that's what's important, right?
Isn't it? And we are all so "self-fullfilled" these days! You know,
it's just remarkable how far we have progressed!

/end sarcasm

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

You're kidding. That must make all of a whopping two of us in here!
Guess we're both out to lunch.

[Bill in Co.]

ChimChimery ChimChimery wrote:

Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

You're kidding. That must make all of a whopping two of us in here!
Guess we're both out to lunch.

[S.Taylor]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:35:03 -0600, MsMaryPoppins@webtv.net (ChimChimery
ChimChimery) wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time whendivorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the mainreasons ??

Because in the 60s, the feminazi movement had not yet succeeded in
pushing women into the workforce. Women needed the man's paycheck.

By the 1970s, women realized that they had their own paycheck and didn't
need a man. They left marriages in droves, took the kids, refused to let
the father see/participate in the child's lives, and used the arcane
legal system to extract huge sums of money from the ex-husband.

This clearly demonstrates that most women are feminists, and only marry
as a way in enhance their financial/personal security.

Feminist filth is everywhere.

An American man today is crazy to marry. If he wants children their are
several ways to have one, without marrying.

[S.Taylor]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:35:03 -0600, MsMaryPoppins@webtv.net (ChimChimery
ChimChimery) wrote:

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time whendivorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the mainreasons ??

Because in the 60s, the feminazi movement had not yet succeeded in
pushing women into the workforce. Women needed the man's paycheck.

By the 1970s, women realized that they had their own paycheck and didn't
need a man. They left marriages in droves, took the kids, refused to let
the father see/participate in the child's lives, and used the arcane
legal system to extract huge sums of money from the ex-husband.

This clearly demonstrates that most women are feminists, and only marry
as a way in enhance their financial/personal security.

Feminist filth is everywhere.

An American man today is crazy to marry. If he wants children their are
several ways to have one, without marrying.

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

You're kidding. * That must make all of a whopping two of us in here!
Guess we're both out to lunch.'

REPLY: No..it just makes us Old Timers from an era that was vastly
different and so much better than todays culture.

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'Bill, I agree with you 101 % .

You're kidding. * That must make all of a whopping two of us in here!
Guess we're both out to lunch.'

REPLY: No..it just makes us Old Timers from an era that was vastly
different and so much better than todays culture.

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'This clearly demonstrates that most women are feminists, and only marry
as a way in enhance their financial/personal security.
Feminist filth is everywhere.
An American man today is crazy to marry. If he wants children their are
several ways to have one, without marrying.

Reply: Well, theres no doubt about it, that, most women probably are
Feminists or at least have acquired some Feminist qualities. Id bet youd
like this guys site : www.nomarriage.com (or..perhaps its
www.nomarry.com)

[Supercalifragil Isticexpialidocius]

'This clearly demonstrates that most women are feminists, and only marry
as a way in enhance their financial/personal security.
Feminist filth is everywhere.
An American man today is crazy to marry. If he wants children their are
several ways to have one, without marrying.

Reply: Well, theres no doubt about it, that, most women probably are
Feminists or at least have acquired some Feminist qualities. Id bet youd
like this guys site : www.nomarriage.com (or..perhaps its
www.nomarry.com)

[johnny]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:47:07 -0500, dejablues wrote:

My grandmother divorced her abusive , alcoholic husband in 1937, when my mom was a baby. She remained a single working mother until my mom was 12 years old (1950), when she remarried to a good man that I remember as my Grampa. My grandmother worked in a knitting mill to support both my mom and her own mom, who came over on a boat from Europe in the late 1800's. My mom suffered derision and mocking as a child of divorce in the 40' s and 50's, when many of her classmates and neighbors went home to intact families where the dad got drunk and beat the mom and kids, but hey! They were still married!

IMHO, beating the wife and/or kids and adultery are the only 2 legitimate
reasons for divorcing. But, I have talked to many divorcees and a lot of
times people got divorced just because they were bored with each other or
they "grew apart". If those are considered legitimate reasons for divorce
then I wonder why anyone gets married. The only "happily" married men that
I've met are hen-pecked (wimps).

[johnny]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:47:07 -0500, dejablues wrote:

My grandmother divorced her abusive , alcoholic husband in 1937, when my mom was a baby. She remained a single working mother until my mom was 12 years old (1950), when she remarried to a good man that I remember as my Grampa. My grandmother worked in a knitting mill to support both my mom and her own mom, who came over on a boat from Europe in the late 1800's. My mom suffered derision and mocking as a child of divorce in the 40' s and 50's, when many of her classmates and neighbors went home to intact families where the dad got drunk and beat the mom and kids, but hey! They were still married!

IMHO, beating the wife and/or kids and adultery are the only 2 legitimate
reasons for divorcing. But, I have talked to many divorcees and a lot of
times people got divorced just because they were bored with each other or
they "grew apart". If those are considered legitimate reasons for divorce
then I wonder why anyone gets married. The only "happily" married men that
I've met are hen-pecked (wimps).

[Us]

I think one of the main reasons is that more women are financially
independent and don't have to stay in a bad marriage due to economic
reasons. Divorce is more acceptable today also.

Just my .02

"ChimChimery ChimChimery" <MsMaryPoppins@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20738-423AD907-1097@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

[Us]

I think one of the main reasons is that more women are financially
independent and don't have to stay in a bad marriage due to economic
reasons. Divorce is more acceptable today also.

Just my .02

"ChimChimery ChimChimery" <MsMaryPoppins@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20738-423AD907-1097@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...

If youre a BabyBoomer, you know that the pre-1960 era was a time when divorce was rare as compared to today. What do think are the main reasons ??

[S.Taylor]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

My grandmother divorced her abusive , alcoholic husband in 1937, when my mom was a baby.

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was
abusive.

Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during
divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations
during divorce.

[S.Taylor]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

My grandmother divorced her abusive , alcoholic husband in 1937, when my mom was a baby.

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was
abusive.

Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during
divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations
during divorce.

[Doug Anderson]

S.Taylor <STaylor938129@Hotmail.com> writes:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was abusive. Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I think you are confused.

Innocent until proven guilty refers to the practice that one is not
considered legally guilty of a crime until one has been convicted in a
court.

It does not (as you seem to think) prohibit anyone from making
accusations against a person not yet convicted of a crime.

Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations during divorce.

As, apparently, do men.

[Doug Anderson]

S.Taylor <STaylor938129@Hotmail.com> writes:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was abusive. Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I think you are confused.

Innocent until proven guilty refers to the practice that one is not
considered legally guilty of a crime until one has been convicted in a
court.

It does not (as you seem to think) prohibit anyone from making
accusations against a person not yet convicted of a crime.

Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations during divorce.

As, apparently, do men.

[Bock]

S.Taylor wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was abusive. Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations during divorce.

You are, of course, free to hold any opinion you wish. And your case
is as unique as the next.

But you have left out the good part. And it is the part that is never
told.
How could two people choose one another out of all the other potential
spouses
on the planet, fall in love, get married and have babies and then want a
divorce. What happened?

The never tell us how the met.
They never tell us how long the dated.
They never tell us if the met all members of the spouse's family before
they agreed to marry.
They nevre tell us why the agreed to marry this person over other offers
of marriage.
They never tell us the ages of their children.
They never tell us why they are divorcing.
They never tell us why the believe they can find a better person then
the one they chose in
the first place that fell in love with them and agreed to have babies
with them.

[Bock]

S.Taylor wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:33:14 GMT, johnny <johnny@n0sq.us> wrote:

Hmmmm... yet another example of a woman saying the ex-husband was abusive. Isn't it funny how women habitually play the 'abuse card' during divorce. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Women have made, and continue to make, scores of false allegations during divorce.

You are, of course, free to hold any opinion you wish. And your case
is as unique as the next.

But you have left out the good part. And it is the part that is never
told.
How could two people choose one another out of all the other potential
spouses
on the planet, fall in love, get married and have babies and then want a
divorce. What happened?

The never tell us how the met.
They never tell us how long the dated.
They never tell us if the met all members of the spouse's family before
they agreed to marry.
They nevre tell us why the agreed to marry this person over other offers
of marriage.
They never tell us the ages of their children.
They never tell us why they are divorcing.
They never tell us why the believe they can find a better person then
the one they chose in
the first place that fell in love with them and agreed to have babies
with them.