Why are society's restrictions on men's appearance never mentioned?

In terms of beach wear - I live in Australia and because of the strength of the sun it is commonplace for men, women and children to wear a sea tea shirt (like surfers would wear) and shorts/board shorts. I wear these on the beach and can honestly say I have never felt any pressure to wear skimpy clothing - I hope this will at some point become the norm on all beaches around the world!

I read this thread with interest. Going back to the original point on appearance, there is certainly a restriction on the range of clothing that us men can expect to wear. I do a fair bit of running / swimming and always wear plain black Adidas or Nike sports tights when I go running (full length or 3/4 length). Although these garments are made for men, very practical and comfortable I was still a bit conscious of wearing them at first, and I have had the odd derogatory comment shouted from people I pass. Despite that I continue to wear them because they are ideal for running. Sometimes I wear them at home when it is cold as they are more comfortable than jeans (my wife doesn't mind, infact she thinks I look good in them .) I wouldn't dare wear them or anything similar outdoors if I wasn't out running however, but seems a shame that I (or any other man) should feel that way. Perhaps need David Beckham et al to make it fashionable!

There is a happiness in being a contributor to household income a sense of satisfaction in knowing that financial decisions can be yours independently of anyone else. In being an equal partner. Since DH started earning as much as me he has taken on more of the work at home. We both feel equally valuable.

AyeRobot - absolutely. The building of tower blocks led to the feeling of isolation for many families and were an architectural
disaster ( that's why most of them have been demolished )

It doesn't seem to be just women who are apparently less happy than in the 1950s though. Isn't it likely that if women's happiness has decreased it might well be due in large part to the same factors decreasing men's happiness (we could speculate a lot about what those factors might be, but people have made some good suggestions on this thread) rather than because 'women prefer having less to think and worry about' . Many aspects of our society have changed since the '50s, perhaps if not for the changes due to feminism women would be even less happy now!

Breaking up established communities makes people unhappy - see my post up there about slum clearing. Not to say that it was wrong, because the standard of housing was far superior. Ruined established community bonds, though. Happened in the 60s.

Lots of cars on the roads, forcing people (especially children) out of public spaces makes communities unhappy.

Junk food makes people unhappy.

Commercial television makes people unhappy.

In fact, according to the report linked to, 52% of people describe themselves as very happy in 1957, as opposed to 34% in the early 1970s. Yet there was very little change in the number of women working between the 1950s and the 1970s. So whatever has caused this drop off in perceived happiness, it is something that happened in the 1960s, and is not about working women at all.

I don't think it is an enormous leap, considering the Feminist movement has been one of the most significant political movements of the last 50 years.
But hey - I think we're just going around in circles now - it's a beautiful day and I'm off to have a magners in the garden ...

There have been a huge number of changes between the 1950s and now. Most of them having nothing to do with feminism. It is impossible to tell from these surveys why more people perceived themselves as very happy in the 1950s, and an enormous leap to connect it to feminism.

So women would all be much happier in the home, cooking the tea and ironing his shirts? I, for one, wouldn't....

I'm happy that I don't need the signature of my father or husband to get a mortgage. I'm happy that medical schools don't have a maximum quota on female students. I'm happy that job adverts don't contain two salary levels - one for men and one for women for the same role.

Perhaps the unhappiness is in part due to the fact that whilst we have made a lot of progress outside of the home, in the home the biggest changes have been in technology rather than in attitudes. When a couple work both work full time the woman is still, in the majority of cases, doing the greater share of the housework and childcare. Washing machines and dishwashers and microwaves have cut the time required to do the work, but it is still unequally shared.

I don't think having the opportunity to have better jobs has given a lot of women more money; it has given women money of their own, which has made a lot of women happier.

It has also taken pressure off men. It certainly made a big difference to DH, when he was having operations as a consequence of being disabled, that I had an income. My grandmother was the sole breadwinner for decades after my grandfather had an industrial accident. The whole family would have had a terrible time if she hadn't had an income.

And the consequences of having whole lifetimes of not being in paid employment are now being felt by a whole generation of elderly women, many of whom are living in poverty - that is how the state rewarded SAHMs. Having more money does make a difference to your happiness if you are below the poverty line.

More money has not made us any happier - so the opportunity to have a fantastically paid career ( thanks to feminism ) has not really paid off.

The statistics I quoted yesterday were from this report

I'm not talking about the 1890's when of course lives were harder.

I agree Milly - and I think that makes a lot of sense in the context of what you said about children down mines. If we could bring back a woman from 1870 who told us she considered herself and her family happy, but she and her children worked down a mine and could expect to die before the age of 35, I don't think we'd be content to say 'well, if you say you're happy I'm sure it's all fine'!

These surveys are also very very dependent on things like how the questions were phrased and the way they were asked, also whether they asked a comparable sample of people in the 1950s and the 2000s (e.g. if the surveys were done by telephone, did that exclude poorer people who were not on the phone network in those days?)

Not to mention cultural norms and what people tend to understand 'happiness' to mean, e.g. does it mean contented and satisfied, or fulfilled, or positively joyful, or does it just mean 'not unhappy'? You will find different definitions are the norm depending on the time period and location/culture the people you ask are living in.

There is a link between how content people consider themselves to be and relative wealth. So people tend to be happy if there aren't big differences between how wealthy people are in society. There are bigger divides between rich and poor now than there were in the 1950s.

I suspect people also perceived themselves as happier because there had just been a war, and that was their point of reference for how bad things could be. Life probably does seem quite rosy if you are no longer being bombed.

But I don't think marriage and women's position in society had much to do with happiness levels. Single women as a group are much happier than married women as a group. Marriage makes men happier, not women.

carmina, that's like saying there is statistical evidence that God existed in the Middle Ages, because people claimed He did.

Do you not see the logical flaw here?

I do understand what you're getting at and I agree it's important, but you can't ever 'prove' how happy people are.

There is statistical evidence to prove that people were happier in the 50's than they are now - of course people could be lying when answering researchers questions ( although I'm not sure why they'd do that ) - there is evidence out there to back up what I'm saying - how else would I know?

I'm sure a lot of women did have their children with them while they were working, because their children were working too. Whatever the pros and cons of extended schools and private child care, they are preferable to children working down a coal mine, under mechanical weaving equipment or up a chimney.

Slight retraction: possible a little bit of malice directed at the men of yore....

S'ok I've had my coffee now. Sorry

Apologies, bronze, it wasn't meant as sarcasm at all.

It was a little funnyism, that's all because I totally agree with you about the obviousness. No malice was intended at anyone, especially you.

Thanks for your understanding, Blackduck (and that's meant in a spirit of friendliness too).