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

Bronze I didn't think IC was being sarcastic (well not at you anyway!)

carmina, I don't know (and of course, neither can you) if 'we' were happier 50 years ago or not. But even if I only look at my generation and my mum's, there is an obvious trend.

My generation worry. We're worried about never being able to get/pay off a mortgage and we're worried about our careers, and we're worried about childcare, and we're worried about how on earth we'll pay for university for our children when they get there. So if you ask us, we do feel the pressure.

But, ask any of us how we feel in comparison to our mothers, and it's another story. Yes, in a way it was easier for them - houses were more affordable and it was perhaps easier to afford to be a SAHM. But most of us are sad for our mums because they ended up knowing they'd lost out somewhere and feeling rotten about it. I wouldn't be in my mum's shoes for a million dollars, it makes me shudder to think about what she got out of her life.

ImCon- no need to be sarcastic with me when I was replying to CB with something that is so obvious I'm struggling to understand why they can't understand it.

A 'fact'? How can something so subjective be a fact?

carmina, you're just on a wind up on these threads, aren't you? I seem to remember seeing you admitting as much on another thread.

We're no happier now than we were 50 years ago, that is a fact - and taking everything into account - labour saving devices, more leisure time, increased choices, plus all the rights and protections women now have ( and absolutely right that we have those rights) we are in fact less happy - I'm trying to work out why - I can only come up with one theory - maybe women preferred having less to think about and worry about, maybe we were happier when life was simpler - and I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all.

Yes, rates of "happiness" often tend to be higher in countries where people have less in terms of material possessions, money etc.

Surely not, bronze?

Agree with that Orm. I think also, if you knew that you had a good chance of dying in childbirth, just being alive would be qualification enough to be happy.

Incidentally, IIRC, Louis Braille was blinded in his father's carpentry shop when he was a child ... most people have had to have their children either cared for by others, or underfoot in dangerous situations, thoughout history. I'm thinking daycare is perhaps not the Big Bad here!

"As to the happiness thing, I always wonder if that's not because we expect more?"

Yes, we expect more and have the leisure to ask ourselves the question now. I would hazard a guess that if you are struggling to make ends meet, working physically hard all day, when every simple task was hard work, wondering if you were 'happy' would have been a fairly pointless and meaningless exersise. As long as you were well, fed and housed and no-one was actively hurting you or threatening you, I suspect you's have been 'happy'.

And I'm not sure how feminists are selfish. Unless men have been 'selfish' all these years. We are trying to get a bit of what men have always grabbed for themselves. There might be casualties of this but I don't know any feminist mothers who would agree that those casualties are their children. Nor would their children I would suggest. Mine don't for sure.

Or maybe men have always treated women unfairly and expected them to do both a days work and all the childcare.

What about the fathers? Most fathers work. Are they not thinking of the next generation? They are also the ones leaving their children in nurseries. They are perfectly capable of looking after their own children surely?

Those "strangers" in the nurseries quickly become part of the child's extended family, cb. The only difference is that whereas in the olden days, the child's carers would often be biological relations (in the case of poorer women - wealthy women employed nannies, nurses, governesses etc.) nowadays it is common that they are not.
But a child will still build a stimulating and loving relationship with their carer/s (assuming they are decent - and most are) and will learn different things from them than their parents, but often very useful things.

And I don't think needing to earn money outside the home because of family economics is a feminist lifestyle choice as such. Often it is out of financial necessity, including the longer term aim of hanging on that particular job/career to guarantee earning potential/pensionable earnings for the future.

Oh, and children have been brought up by people other than their parents for centuries too. Honestly they have. Not just aristocratic children but gentry and even lots of artisans. It's the nuclear family that's relatively new.

carmina, women in England have worked outside the home for centuries.

As to the happiness thing, I always wonder if that's not because we expect more? You often hear depressed people say they 'should' be happy - I don't know that asking people about their state of happiness is a simple indicator of how good their lives are. It might also indicate how they value themselves.

Xposts sorry - that was to Bronze

Her children were with her - that's the key. it would appear that some feminists are selfish in their life style choices and are not thinking of the next generation.

We don't know what the long term effects are for children being looked after in nurseries by strangers - because as I said, it's a fairly new concept.

That's not a feminist ideology I'm familiar with, cb.

On the subject of women working, you might find it interesting to read Ken Follett's World Without End, which is set in the 14C. Whatever you might think of him as a writer, he certainly researched his historical novels very thoroughly. The only female characters who don't do a "job" as such are noblewomen or gentlewomen.

"1000's of children were not being cared for in private nurseries back in 1950."

No, but they were very often being cared for by grandparents or older siblings, or other relatives/neighbours/family friends, or being left to look after themselves when considered old enough. Both of my grandmothers went out to work, it was perfectly normal for poorer/working class women and often absolutely essential, if their husband was on a low wage or had little job security, as was often the case.

So the woman who took her children out to the fields with her perhaps with her youngest strapped to her back wasn't working?
I would say she was working twice as hard.

I'm pretty sure feminsim isn't calling for mothers to work and still do most of the house work.

Working from home is different - mothers were/are still there for any children they may have - women 'going out' to work is a fairly new concept historically speaking - 1000's of children were not being cared for in private nurseries back in 1950.
I'm not sure you could call a child being left in a nursery for unto 10 hours a day ( whilst the mother works and still does most of the house work ) progress - that's my only problem with feminism.

I know that my great-grandmother's (pretty impoverished) community did a lot of semi-formal bartering. Some took in washing, some did childcare, some sewing, midwifery, etc. There was a go-to woman for almost everything. The men did some stuff too, but I get the impression that it was still the women who did the co-ordination. Money rarely changed hands but it was a really sophisticated operation. Reminds me to get it all written down next time I see my Mum. When I think about it, it lasted in some form until the mid-60s when they knocked the houses down and scattered everyone onto new council estates, so my Nanna and her pals carried it on before they moved, although she always worked outside the home as did most of her contemporaries.

A lot of poorer women wouldn't have been classed as "employees" though - they would have worked by taking in washing/ironing, selling food produce (eggs, milk, butter, cheese, homebrew) - anything to make ends meet.