Family+-+'What+We+Really+Miss+About+the+1950s'

Family: "What We Really Miss About the 1950s" Oi vey, this is probably a very bad way to start a Reading Response, but I personally found this article, What We Really Miss About the 1950s, boring as I agree with I perceive to be the basis of the article: what we miss about the 1950s is built on illusion.

According to Coontz, what is really missed about the 1950s is the "simplicity" of the time and the decade's seeming ability to have all the answers, while at the same time being willing to forego the blatant one-sidedness of the decade. The interesting thing is that what is looked at with admiration as important, and what is seen as unimportant or even grizzly, in the long run, are flipped. When looked at, the "simple" decade of the 1950s was not simple, but a decade under a complex and tense political and social atmosphere brought about by the Cold War and McCarthyism which Coontz points to as a factor that brought the nuclear family, with all its safety, to being one of the main themes of the decade's history. Even the "answers" that the decade brings up are built on illusion perpetuated by the media, and not the media that comes to mind when news networks are discussing media agendas most of which are in fact news networks, but the simple entertainment media of the classic 1950s sitcoms. Coontz asserts that these sitcoms did not reflect what-was, but rather what, at the time, was the should-be (39). This would suggest that the idyllic 1950s family had the same worries that run among families, specifically parents, today: "am I good parent" and "is what I am doing for my child, in the long run, good for my child?" This makes the 1950s sitcoms as much of a parenting tool in the parenting process as they are entertainment. Meaning that entertainment business shaped much of the 1950s culture; the same culture that brought about a one-sided social atmosphere in favor of males and in disfavor of females, with themes that assert male dominance, one of the things not looked upon with favor in today's culture (45). Furthermore, the admiration for the 1950s stems largely from the 1950s sitcoms, because they are what is remembered from that time, and with their deceitful messages about the 1950s' family life, it leads to a mental regression in people that simply want to return a time that was much simpler and everything was nicer as if a utopia, despite that neither that sort of time nor utopia actually ever existed.

Now looking at what people usually considered the undesirable aspects of 1950s culture, ends up ending in a direction that is more favorably looked upon. It sounds odd to say that the racial tensions that existed during the period should not be looked at as bad or wrong, most people today would say that it is, but without those tensions boiling over, there would never have been a move forward. Even more so though, is the apparent one-sidedness to the 1950s view of the different genders. Specifically Coontz asserts that the practices, like having kids at an early age close together of the 1950s lifestyle paved the way for more equal opportunities in the job market (48). Essentially what happened was the culture the 1950s had taken up as its own, shaped largely by media, collided with the emerging trends, which in turn brought the daughters in the family to want to be something other than a homemaker (46). All in all, it brings up the idea that the 1950s were fundamentally no different than today. Sure, we have different technology, and different thoughts, and different many things, but on the basic level our generation is looking for answers as were the 1950's generation. Things were not peachy and sunshiny then either, and new trends will come out of our practices that seem to go against our answers and will face a collapse of our hypocrisies just as the 1950s did, and because of that, all the romanticizing over the 1950s is nothing more than regression. All in all, what we miss about the 1950s was never really there because it's what we want: answers and a break from a grueling world.

Jeez, I don't really know about any of that. I mean, yeah, it's my reaction: agreance with the reasons why, but man, I do not know if that's easy to follow. I hope so. I should probably retract that boring statement made previously. It's not that it wasn't boring, it was interesting, it just seems as though it would have been easier to jump start the response had the piece been something that really flared a nerve, which this first one didn't; and I truely hope and expect future articles to do otherwise. Anyway, moving on.

Like I said, after a few re-rereadings, the article did produce a lot of interesting tidbits, of which I think the results of the Knight-Ridder poll to be one of the more interesting: "38 percent of the respondents picked the 1950s; 27 percent picked the 1960s or the 1970s. Voters between the ages of 50 and 64 were most likely to choose the 1950s, the decade in which they themselves came to age, as the best time for kids; voters under 30 were more likely to choose the 1970s" (33). I think it is interesting because even though the 1950s is the "best" decade, there still feels as though the question still depends on who is asked. Right here, towards the beginning, Coontz shows this information, in writing, to say that the answer is still subjective despite having a general winner. I find that, combined with the rest of the article, that the results also show that it's every decade that has some form of nostalgia to it that makes it "the best." Take for example the correlation between age and decade. Those who grew up in the 1950s chose the 1950s, whereas those who grew up in the 1970s chose the 1970s, and I'm willing to bet that, if given enough time, when my generation is asked, they'll either reply with the 1990s or the 2000s. It supports the idea of mental regression we have as a country and as seperate generations. Although I'm curious as to why the other decades of the 20th century aren't mentioned. It could be because the poll was simply between the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s; or perhaps Coontz only needed these three since she mentions all three decades in the article. After all, the inclusion of at least the 1980s with a smaller percent than the 1970s would bring the reasonable conclusion of mental regression being a key reason for the fondness of the 1950s. Since Coontz mentions that the 1960s were actually the "best" time for children to grow up in (44), it appears that Coontz is trying to push the idealness of the decade as the responsibility of the entertainment media. I think Coontz further pushes the responsibility of the 1950s illusion onto the media when mentioning that "Racial clashes were ever present in the 1950s, sometimes escalating into full-scale anti-black riots" (39) and other statements along a similar vein. This isn't to ignore the racial tensions, but to look at the white response around the activities; most of white 1950s America could "ignore larger patterns of racial and political repression" (39). And why is this? Because at the time, the media was not responding to any of it, creating the ignorantly ignorant culture of the 1950s that is so fondly remembered as "innoncent", meaning that again the media is responsible for the decade's image; and even if the events were documented by the news, why watch that worrysome program when you can just flip the channel to another episode of //I Love Lucy?//