Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
     I say that anybody in their 20's has it just as bad as any age group.
    The problems are just DIFFERENT! That's what you should say the next
    time somebody hits you with that nonsense.  
    
      You have a hard road when it comes to taxes + house prices etc...
    They had it hard ( depending on age ) with the depression , two
    world wars , no labor laws ,no birth control pill, no civil rights...etc...
    
        It all washes out the same....
    
    Jack
    

    
    Well, I'm not in the age group you wanted to hear from but I think you
    have it worse, and for all the problems you describe.  I don't think
    the problems didn't exist when I was growing up, I think I was just
    sheltered from them, somehow.  Times were different, they had their own
    set of problems.  I think it's just a natural thing that happens to 
    people the longer they live, and the more experience they have, with 
    living, to feel like they've "gone through a lot" and to therefore 
    somehow lose sight or fail to appreciate that others younger than they
    are "going through it".   I think there are probably worse things than 
    "walking to school 5 miles in the snow." 
    
    CQ 

I feel sorry for today's generation for one reason: If reports I read and hear
about are true, they aren't learning much in school.

I went to mostly crummy schools in the South, but I learned how to diagram
sentences, when to use the objective case, all the multiplication tables, all
the states and capitals, even all the cabinet members in JFK's cabinet when I
was 10 years old.

People may say that those things aren't relevant today. Now we have grammar
checkers (ha!), even educated people say "between you and I", we have
calculators to do arithmetic, etc.

But I think education is always relevant, and I regret that people in the U.S.
seem to care so little about it. If today's kids truly aren't learning as much
as previous generations, then yeah, I think they're gonna have a tough time.

Vicki Meagher

    Lisa, don't forget *AIDS*.
    
    Last generation is was polio.  In the past it was smallpox, bubonic
    plague, etc... It's always something.
    
    Life is hard all over.  I always resent it when I hear "You kids got it
    so easy."  Makes it sounds like my sucesses are a fluke of nature as
    opposed to a result of hard work, and my failures must be a sure sign
    of amazing incompetence, since things are so easy.  Phui.
    
    D! who always resents the fact that she missed the sexual revolution
       because just about the time she started discovering her sexuality,
       the rest of the world was discovering AIDS

    My mother used to love to talk about how hard it was in her day, & how
    we (her kids) have had it so easy. My brother jokes that she is still
    living in the depression , or thinks that it is always around the
    corner. I wonder HOW parents came up with always the same things to say
    like "walking 5 miles in the snow", etc. She also liked to talk about
    picking cotton all day. But now she agrees that some things are
    more difficult for young people, like buying houses.

    An interesting book that is marginally related to this topic is "More
    Work for Mother."  The basic hypothesis is that while advances in
    technology have made the individual tasks associated with motherhood
    easier and quicker (electric irons, washing machines, vacuum cleaners,
    store-bought food, etc.) the total amount of work a woman does today is
    *more* than back when things were *harder*.
    
    I'm not sure I was totally convinced, by the author (whose name I don't
    remember) made some very good points.  For instance, back when you had
    to wash clothes by hand, people typically had two outfits - one for
    everyday wear and one for church.  Period.  So although washing has
    gotten easier, your typical mother spends more *time* doing clothes
    today, when everyone has dozens of outfits and changes clothes
    fequently.
    
    I think a lot of the same argument could be applied to life in general. 
    Some specific tasks may be easier, or some specific areas of life may
    be "nicer", but maybe we have more things to do, or other things are
    less nice.
    
    D!

    Lisa, 
    
    I'm with you!  I think the world is a more tougher place to live now
    then when our parents were young.  They didn't have to very many
    struggles as we do today. To begin with; AIDS was not around.  Today
    you practically have to ask for a resume' or doctors note, if you want 
    to have sex with someone!  Also, as someone said by the time 'we' reach
    the ripe old age of retirement there probably won't be Social Security! 
    
    It just gets harder and harder for any young person to survive on there
    own.  Geez, wonder what its gonna be like for our kids (when ever that
    may be???)  At this point mine will probably be born in the age 2000.
    
    By that that time there will be a new method of having children! 
    ect...As I always say. "you'll be giving birth while suspended in air!" 
    A new way method of birthing!!!!!
    
    But all in all I suspect "our" kids will say the same thing out "there"
    generation.  My 9 year old neice already does!
    
    Deb

    I agree with .1
    
    The problems are simply DIFFERENT.  They were always there, and they
    always will be.
    
    ....Bob

The world is getting easier, and nicer, everyday. I want to live in the future.

	-- Charles

    re .10, I don't think the economy of the U.S. is getting nicer
    everyday.  Twenty-five years ago a woman with Lisa's (.0's) education
    could be buying her own house and whatever car she wanted.  Of course,
    there weren't many women back then with Lisa's education.  I think
    things (women's equality, etc.) are getting better in many ways but the
    economy is putting a damper on it.
    
    Lorna
    

>             Twenty-five years ago a woman with Lisa's (.0's) education
>    could be buying her own house and whatever car she wanted.

Though she probably would have needed at least a co-sign on the
loan from hubby or daddy.

Kathy

    re .12, True, but now she can't afford it anyway so she still can't get
    the house.  
    
    Lorna
    

	Twenty years ago, (one "generation") my grandparents house cost what
a friend of mine paid for her car a year ago and less than 1/6th of what my 
house cost this past May.

						--D

But what are house prices today as a multiple of salary? How about the number
of multiple income households? Yeah, real estate is screwy, but it's clear to me
that the trend is upward. Our standard of living is increasing, the world
standard of living is increasing. The things that worry me are the environment,
overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, and religious intolerance, but
I'm a basically optimistic kind of person - I think we'll solve them. The one
I'm depressed about is the pace of the space program. Sigh.

	-- Charles

    >Our standard of living is increasing
    
    From what I understand, this isn't true.  Houses are more expensive
    now, food is more expensive, cars are more expensive, even in
    relation to incomes!  Fewer people can afford to own homes now.  I
    don't think it is valid to say that *famlies* now make more money (with
    respect to the cost of living) than they did, because more families are
    two-income *because* of the increase in the cost of living with respect
    to salaries.  It used to be possible for one person to support a family
    of four, have two cars and a home. Now that is very rare.  
    
    *My* standard of living is increasing, but I think *our* (meaning our
    society as a whole) standard of living is decreasing.  (Remember the
    increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor.  The standard of
    living of the wealthy may be increasing, but the standard of living of
    the poor is decreasing and their numbers are increasing.)
    
    D!

	Re: standard of living.

	As I recall, in real terms, the average standard of living has
	been dropping for the last 5 years or so.



	>>AL<<

Year   Income    I%  100.00   CPI  100.00      0.00
1976  1391.20   9.9  109.98   5.8  105.80      4.18
1977  1540.40  10.7  121.77   6.5  112.68      9.09
1978  1732.70  12.5  136.97   7.7  121.35     15.62
1979  1951.20  12.6  154.25  11.3  135.07     19.18
1980  2165.30  11.0  171.17  13.5  153.30     17.87
1981  2429.50  12.2  192.06  10.4  169.24     22.81
1982  2584.60   6.4  204.32   6.1  179.57     24.75
1983  2838.60   9.8  224.40   3.2  185.31     39.08
1984  3108.70   9.5  245.75   4.3  193.28     52.47
1985  3325.30   7.0  262.87   3.6  200.24     62.63
1986  3531.10   6.2  279.14   1.9  204.04     75.09
1987  3780.00   7.0  298.81   3.6  211.39     87.42

Income is in dollars, I% is percentage income increase over the previous year,
the next column is normalized income. CPI is the CPI-U consumer price index
percentage increase over the previous year, the next column is normalized
CPI-U, the last column is the difference in the normalized figures. Note that
the gap between income and CPI is constantly increasing. Note that the increase
in income was greater than the increase in the CPI for every year except 1980.

I stick by my claim.

	-- Charles

Here are the housing figures:

                                             Payment
      Median             Average   Average   as % of
       House   Percent  Mortgage   Monthly    Median
 Year  Price  Increase      Rate   Payment    Income
 1980  62200               12.95    549.00     31.30
 1981  66400      6.75     15.12    677.00     36.30
 1982  67800      2.11     15.38    702.00     35.90
 1983  70300      3.69     12.85    616.00     30.10
 1984  72400      2.99     12.49    618.00     28.20
 1985  75500      4.28     11.74    609.00     26.20
 1986  80300      6.36     10.25    563.00     23.00
 1987  85600      6.60      9.28    565.00     21.80
 1988  90600      5.84      9.31    599.00     22.50

I still stick by my claim - even for buying a house. Unfortunately I don't have
figures from 20 years ago "one generation", but the 10 year figures look
promising.

	-- Charles

    I think that some things are better; some things are worse. Women
    will be paid on a par with men by...uhm...2050, say. OK, great,
    but will the planet be *liveable* in 2050? 
    
    Different generations, different problems. It's not a matter
    of eliminating all the problems of the future; it's a matter
    of dealing with the ones you have NOW. (which may help the
    former, but not necessarily)
    
    --DE
    

    Charles, I don't understand how to read the numbers you posted in 
    .18 and .19.  They may well illustrate (or prove) your point but I 
    have a very difficult time with charts like that.  (When I look at 
    charts like that, my brain goes weird.  It's like the feeling I get 
    when looking at certain black and white patterns, the kind that seem 
    to shift when you look at them long enough and that make your eyes 
    feel like they're spastic.)  It doesn't help that I don't know what 
    "normalized" means (I assume it means adjusted for something or
    other).

    Anyway, I called up my sisters and mother tonight and asked them to 
    tell me when they bought their houses, how much they paid, and how 
    much they were earning at the time they bought.  (My mother's figures 
    are the least accurate but they're in the ball park.)

        Year of      Cost of     Down        Yearly       Dual or single
        purchase     house       payment     earnings     income

        1953         $9,990      $2000       $4,160       Single
        1967         $18,500     $1500       $15,600      Dual
        1968         $18,000       ?         $6,800       Single
        1972         $30,990       ?         $25,000      Dual
   
    My sister and her husband bought the 1972 house and they got a 
    personal loan to make the down payment.  (I didn't think you could 
    do this!)  My mother has always been able to s-t-r-e-t-c-h a dollar, 
    but I am amazed that she could manage with mortgages that were just 
    about double her yearly income.  (Maybe I'm not amazed, thinking 
    back to what life was like...)  I do know that even if I suddenly 
    became as frugal as my mother, there are no houses for sale in my 
    area that are being sold for as low as 2 times my yearly income.  I 
    could probably buy a condo, though.  Interest rates have gone way up, 
    too, and probably all the other things that you have to pay on a 
    monthly basis, in addition to the mortgage.  (My mother remembered 
    that the interest rate on one of her mortgages was 4.5%.)

    CQ                                                   

    nowadays, with many mortgages, if you don't have at least 5% of the
    money yourself already, the minimum you can be gifted to make the
    downpayment is 20% (at least that's what they told me when I thought
    about buying something).
    
    In addition, you must realize the geocentricity of DEC itself as a
    factor (unfortunate but true).  In Massachusetts, 2 years ago houses
    within the 128 belt cost an average of $240,000 and houses in
    Massachusetts overall cost an average of $140,000.  This is VERY skewed
    from the rest of the universe, but about a third of all DEC employees
    live here.
    
    -Jody
    

From < Note 613.19 >

>>> Here are the housing figures:

For what? The world? The U.S.? Massachusetts? Are the figures adjusted for
inflation? Is that median household income? (Disclaimer: I ignore statistics
unless they're presented with enough data for me to figure out exactly what
they're saying. That rarely happens, of course.)

It's hard to know whether "standard of living" is increasing or  not, because
what exactly is "standard of living"?

For example, we have lots more toys today: microwave ovens, VCRs, four-wheel
drive cars. So if standard of living means inventions such as panty hose and
polypropylene, yeah, things are better today.

If standard of living means the sociological quality of life, it's a toss-up.
Women have more potential today than they've had in history, and we have more
all the time. So great! But the drug problem is worse now than it was in the
50s, for example. During the 70s you could get mugged, but you usually wouldn't
get killed by your mugger. There seem to be lots more random, nonsensical
murders now. 

As for money, I just don't think we as a nation (speaking of the U.S.) have as
much as we used to do. My siblings don't have as much as our parents did. And
my parents didn't have as much as their parents.

Maybe we have just as much money but are spending it on things we could do
without, such as the aforementioned microwaves, VCRs, and four-wheel drives. I
wish I knew.

Vicki Meagher

    re .Charles, I know a couple who bought a house in Massachusetts, just
    outside the Rt. 495 circle, in 1977.  They paid $35,000. for it.  They
    sold the same house, no improvements whatsoever, in 1987 for $149,000. 
    I know someone else who had a nice, 3 yr. old  home, valued at $200K, 
    in a nice neighborhood, on the market for the entire year of 1988-1989,
    and not *one* person came to look at the house.  Houses are not moving
    around here.  This should give you some idea how crazy the housing
    situation is in eastern and central Mass.
    
    Also, and I know I've mentioned this before in this notesfile to
    illustrate how crazy the economy has become, but my father who was a
    blue-collar worker, did not have a high school diploma, and for awhile
    actually worked as a school janitor, owned a house on 5 acres of land,
    had a wife who didn't work, a car, two kids, a dog, several cats, and
    always managed a two or three week camping vacation every summer.  This
    was in the 1950's and early 60's.  I think we all know that no janitor
    could afford this lifestyle in 1991.  I know engineers who couldn't
    afford this lifestyle today.
    
    Somethings is wrong, and my experiences force me to disagree with
    Charles.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    Are the  income figures average or median? The average may well be
    rising,  but  with the increasing disparity between rich and poor,
    the medians are not rising.

    My personal example is that 30 years ago my parents bought a house
    and the mortgage was 10% of my father's gross income. The mortgage
    on  my  house  is  about  18%  of  Cynthia's and my combined gross
    income.  So we both have to work, we pay a much larger fraction of
    our gross to the mortgage, and my parents' house is worth more.

    I'm not  better  off than my parents, despite being in engineering
    which usually pays more than academia (where they work).

--David

    
    
    I was scanning the real estate section in the <gasp!> Globe on Sunday.
    It said something like house prices on the average in Mass have gone
    down 20% +/- in the last year.
    
    Keep on coming! 8-)
    
    
    kath

The housing figures are for the U.S., they are NOT in constant dollars (sorry),
the income is personal not household, and the table SAYS that the income is
median not average.

The CPI versus income figures I believe are average income not median. The
normalized figures are based on the notion that if you had $100 in 1975 and it
increased at the same rate as either income or the Consumer Price Index, how
much money you would have or need. Basically it normalizes thing to 1975
dollars. So, for every dollar you made in 1975, you would make $2.99 in 1987,
and for every dollar something cost in 1975, it cost $2.11 in 1987. In other
words you're making more money faster than prices increase. (That's if you
believe the CPI-U measures anything reasonable. There is significant controversy
over the government's definition of the CPI.)

FWIW my house costs about four times my annual salary - about three times our
household salary. But I live in a known screwy housing market - the SF Bay
Area. Massachussets is another such screwy market. We have a biased view of the
country based on where we live and what we do.

I *still* think the world is becoming a better place to live, I would be
(will be) happy to live in the future.

	-- Charles

    Charles,
    
    We've been living in the future for about two years now.  :-)
    Haven't you noticed?
    
    Sure, things are better now -- even the facial tissues are better
    quality.  (My delights are simple: full plumbing, central heating,
    and soft paper products.)  World War III doesn't hang *quite* so
    closely over our heads as it used to, the fears about Social Security
    drying up haven't changed, and people aren't as rabid about People
    Who Are Different as they used to be.
    
    There are other problems and worries now.  Fine.  They're real
    problems, real worries, and I will not call them lesser.  Each
    difficulty should be faced and hacked away at, not demeaned because
    there have been other problems (whether perceived as more horrendous
    or not) before.
    
    						Ann B.

I agree - we still have problems, and they're nasty ones, but I'm an optimist.
We'll solve them, or muddle through some how, and in any case I feel the world
today is a better place than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. I expect the
trend will continue, that's all, so the world in 10 or 20 years will be even
better.

	-- Charles

    I guess one reason that I get down about the future is that I don't
    think a lot of the problems are in the people's hands.  Like the bank
    failure thing.  This is serious and could have dire circumstances for
    our economy.  I can't control this.  The power to change this was in
    the hands of the rich bank presidents who kept all their investments
    secret and falsified all sorts of documents.
    
    How can I change whether World War III will occur.  All it takes is one
    looney to sell nuclear capability to Quadaffi and BOOM.....
    
    How can I really change what goes on in the Supreme Court?  I didn't
    have a say in who went up there.  Oh I guess I did in that I could
    place my vote with the Congressman for my district who could then be
    one of 400 people who approve the person and as long as the justice was
    appointed during the time period in which I was allowed to vote.
    
    I feel like we're losing control.  The only way to make a difference is
    if you have lots of money (it sticks out in my mind the time there was
    a peace rally in NY and 500,000 people showed up and Reagan dismissed
    it because "there really wasn't a significant amount of people there."
    Companies don't make decisions based on the good of the people, they
    never have and never will. 
    
    Humans are greedy....and the ones who make it into the high positions
    of power are the greediest of the lot.  They wouldn't have made it to
    where they are unless they were cutthroat.  After all the abuses of the
    80's and the mess that we are in now it makes it hard for me to believe
    in the overall goodness of those in high places.
    
    And people don't learn from the mistakes of the past.  They keep making
    the same mistakes.  Except the disasters that result from the mistakes
    keep getting bigger and bigger.....
    
    Lisa

[Just call me Pollyanna]

> Like the bank failure thing. This is serious and could have dire circumstances
> for our economy.  I can't control this.

Some true, some not.

> The power to change this was in the hands of the rich bank presidents who kept
> all their investments secret and falsified all sorts of documents.

Umm, that's not how I see it. The power to change this was in the hands of a
Republican administration (Regan) that deregulated banking while keeping in
place the Federal guarantees, such that owning a bank was a license to mint
money - at your and my expense. The way the scam works is this - you use your
bank's money to make extremely risky and speculative, but potentially high
risk investments. If they pay off - you get rich, if they don't the Feds bail
you out. Basically the Feds guaranteed a failure floor while removing the
controls. This encouraged investment with a higher standard deviation (to
borrow from another thread.) Unfortunately those Federal guarantees have to
be funded from *somewhere*...
    
> How can I change whether World War III will occur.  All it takes is one
> looney to sell nuclear capability to Quadaffi and BOOM.....

Make sure that the major powers are at peace and are willing to do whatever
necessary to supress the looneys. Looks better today than it has in decades.
    
> How can I really change what goes on in the Supreme Court?  I didn't
> have a say in who went up there.  Oh I guess I did in that I could
> place my vote with the Congressman for my district who could then be
> one of 400 people who approve the person and as long as the justice was
> appointed during the time period in which I was allowed to vote.

No. More important is who was elected president. The 1984 election was *crucial*
for that reason alone. If you voted for Reagan in '84 you will have no right
to complain about the erosion of Civil Rights, personal privacy, defendants
rights, and reproductive freedom that will result from the appointments of
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. The Senate simply
ratifies the nominations - and they reject only the most egregious. You DID
have a say, we all did. If you said "Reagan" then that's *your* problem. If you
didn't then you have my profoundest sympathies and we'll just have to wait till
next time - and there will be a next time.

> Companies don't make decisions based on the good of the people, they
> never have and never will.

That's not quite true. I claim we've made great progress from the times of
workhouses, the Railroad Trusts, slavery, and child labor. I expect things
will continue to get better.

People seem to forget how bad things were, even in the very recent past. We're
on a roll folks...

	-- Charles

    As a member of one of the older generations, I understand why you feel
    that this generation has it worse than others have.  This is a note to
    the 25'ish people.  I don't want to make light of what you have to deal
    with - coming to maturity is difficult.  Part of becoming an adult is
    the realization that the state of the world is not quite as wonderful
    as your protective childhood environment led you to believe.  
    Realizing that you (your generation) are now in charge, and the thing
    you are now in charge of is flawed, is a difficult and traumatic time.
    
    I hated it when I was in my twenties and older people did not take me
    seriously.  I hope that's changed now - we all know what difficult
    times these are, but you cannot go through life thinking that because
    things are bad that it's unique to your generation.   Nor should you
    believe that change is beyond your control.  Your situation is
    different, as pointed out in previous replies, but not harder than
    previous generations.   A few items to compare to history -
    
    Banks closing - that's bad.   It was bad in 1929, too, though. 
    
    Jobs being unavailable - that's also bad.  But it was bad in the '30s
    and '60s, too.  And in the early '30s, we didn't have unemployment.
    
    Drugs - a new ill.  We didn't have any drug problems in the '60s.
    
    Diseases like AIDs are also new - Polio, smallpox, tetinis are small
    in comparison, and measles was a childhood disease that we were all
    expected to get. Most mothers did not expect all of their children to 
    live to maturity before 1950.   My mother only lost two of her six 
    children to the normal stuff like polio and blood poisoning, and most of 
    her friends had lost at least  one child (by child, I mean anyone
    under age 18).  
    
    Medical treatment is better than ever before.   Small things, like
    ear infections are small only because we have new drugs.   Ear
    infections used to be treated by lancing the inner ear (not very long
    ago, either).
    
    Bigotry is still here - but things *are* better.   We just can't sit
    still, or we lose ground.  
    
    Not being able to go to the school of your choice is a hardship, as
    well.   But 30 years ago most people didn't have a chance for *any*
    college education (and many fewer women than men were able to get that
    education).  That's why your parents probably thought that if
    you were smart and went to college, you were all set for life.
    
    War?   It has never ended.  The scale gets bigger, but the fears regarding
    real personal loss are the same.  I hate being the mother of a
    draft-age child.
    
    No carreer opportunities?   Talk to the baby boomers stuck in dead end
    jobs.   
    
    The bottom line here is that you can look at all the awful stuff your
    generation has to put up with, or you can look at all the really good
    things that have been left for you, and what you can do with your life.    
    
    Dare to make a difference.

    Oh Madeline, thank you for your note.  I don't think I could have put
    it better.  It's so hard to learn how to cope, your own personal self,
    with the fact that the world is not the way it's SUPPOSED to be.  I'll
    be 40 next year, and am still working on it...

RE:  Will the future be better or worse than the preset?

I don't know, I'll tell you when I get there!  ;-)

But seriously, does it matter?=  Ideally, I just focus on making the
present better - I'm sure the future will take care of itself.  I'm
afraid I lack the necessary supernatural capabilities to predict the
future.

john

    Russell Baker  wrote  a  section  of his autobiography called "The
    Good  Times".  (I  highly  recommend this and the earlier "Growing
    Up").  It  covers  the  period  from shortly after World War II to
    shortly  before  (John)  Kennedy's  Assasination. He believes that
    (for a white male) those were the best times he knows of.

    No major  wars  (except  Korea),  a  steadily  growing standard of
    living,  protection  from  most  of  the childhood diseases, and a
    confidence  and  sense  of  hope which has almost disappeared. I'm
    inclined to agree with him.

--David

    re:.35
    
    	� No major wars (except Korea) [...] �
    
    No major wars, period. Remember, Korea was a "police action". I
    suspect that the Persian Gulf situation will be referred to by the
    same phrase.
    
    --- jerry

    re .35, I agree with that, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    As far as the participants and victims are concerned, there is no
    difference between a war and a "police action".
    
    -- Mike

    re: .35
    
    I agree that those years were probably really good for the generic
    general public (white males who could prove they had no communist
    connections whatsoever, along with Donna Reed).   
    
    -m

    
    RE:.35
    
    	I grew up during those years I'd have to agree with that.  I
    miss the drive in movies the drive in restaurants and the car hops,
    the occasional 6 pack we could get somebody to buy.  There where
    no drugs to speak of, at least not around my area.  All in all
    a much easier time to grow up in my opinion.  It's a shame that 
    this generation can't experience what I did.
    
                                               Joe

    re:.38
    
    Mike, my comment about it being a "police action" was meant as
    sarcasm.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .35, .40
    
    Well, they sure as hell weren't good times to be a poor white
    woman growing up!  And I'll bet they were even worse for people of
    color of either sex.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .42, well, I was also a poor white female growing up in those years
    and I thought the economy was a heck of a lot better back then even if
    I didn't know about women's rights.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Perhaps my point of view only applies to my own experiences. 
    Perhaps it had something to do with watching my grandmother
    working in the store until her feet were so swollen she could
    barely walk, and then putting in an evening shift on a potato
    picker, and that just to put aside a little bit in case of medical
    emergency.  Perhaps it was knowing my mother was forced to drop
    out of school after 8th grade because it wasn't worth educating a
    girl.  Perhaps it's because the lucky ones were the women who had
    jobs serving at the driveins Joe remembers so fondly and who
    didn't have husbands who drank it all up.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .44, yeah, I guess viewpoints always depend on personal experiences. 
    Neither my mother or her mother ever worked outside the home after they
    were married, whereas I always had to.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .45
    
    Working outside the home was just the norm where I grew up. 
    Everybody worked from the time they were old enough, if there was
    work available.  And if there wasn't paid work available, you did
    what you could in the home to make it easier for the ones who were
    working to bring in money.  Or you did something to help reduce
    the household expenses, like baking or working in the garden or
    sewing, so the money would go farther.  
    
    So I grew up with the idea that everybody carried his or her fair
    share in the family, and it was really great that I could work at
    a good job that I enjoyed.  I guess if I had grown up thinking
    that married women didn't have to work, then I'd feel pretty
    cheated by life if I had to.
    
    --bonnie

    re .46, Bonnie, it seems to me that the problem is that women who were
    brought up thinking that married women don't have to work, and then
    found out that they had to for economic reasons, often weren't trained to
    do interesting or high paid work since they hadn't expected to have to
    work anyway.  So, the real problem is not that they have to work, but
    that they had never been prepared to do something they might enjoy and
    that would pay well.
    
    Also, although my mother never worked outside the home after marriage,
    she definitely did her fair share at home.  She always did all the
    cooking, laundry, cleaning, childcare, as well as lawn mowing, snow
    shoveling and vegetable gardening.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .47
    
    Right.  Our expectations are set very early on by what we see our
    parents doing and how they view their world.  My parents were
    happy with their life together and the way they had chosen to
    divide their world, and I don't remember ever ever thinking that
    my mother "didn't work" because she wasn't getting paid by a third
    party.  We all did what we could.
    
    The concept that I should enjoy my work, or that it should be
    interesting, is new to me.  I've had to try to come to grips with
    it as I've moved into the regular middle class.  I'm used to work
    that is necessary, work that is often dangerous or painful or
    degrading, and if you've got a job that pays well and doesn't
    interfere with your home life too much, you don't worry that it's
    not rewarding, you thank your lucky stars.  It was quite some time
    before I could adapt to the new circumstances and admit I could
    change my job and find one I like better.  But it's still a luxury
    to me. 
    
    --bonnie

	My father worked all the hours he could work, and if that included
	Christmas day, then he still worked.

	My mother did everything she could at home, there were 4 of us to
	keep under control - as we became older, we all did what we could.

	All of us could iron/clean/hang wallpaper/paint......... my mother
	wanted us all to be able to be independant.

	I worked weekends to fund some of the costs to keep me in school
	until I was 18, however university was out of the question.
	This never bothered me, I always expected to help fund the family, and
	I ensured I had a carreer that I would enjoy, and also paid well.

	However, just because my mother had 4 children, and stayed at home,
	it didn't mean I expected myself to do this. I never liked children, so
	I set out to ensure I would have a like that I could enjoy, and also
	fund myself, when the family could afford to be without my income.

	After only my youngest brother was at school, then my mother went
	out to resume her nursing career after a 20 year break - she never
	envisaged doing this, but she never envisaged having so much spare
	time either.


	This may be unusual decision for a girl of 12 to make..........but
	there you go......


	When was I brought up - well, my teenage years were in the mid 60's, 
	early 70's.


			Heather