As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.

  • LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Because the propaganda aimed at getting women to remember their place and get back to domestic chores, still lingers today and people think that’s HOW it was, not that they had to try and shove a cat back in a bag, somehow. When women had to do all the blokey jobs while the men’s were all at war, and realised, yeah, they’re capable of this, sometimes better at it, earning a wage, something unheard of for women, as they would still need a man to have a bank account or credit card or sign anything or have a lease on a house, until the 1970s, in some places. But yeah. It wasn’t like that. Women were miserable and oppressed and drugged up just to get by. Grandma’s hydrangeas were sometimes the only way to leave a violent relationship. But yeah, probs was fine for the blokes. They got to fight in a war, pocket some trauma to take home, force themselves back into the daily grind with no recognition of that trauma and nowhere to outlet it… I’m not going to start on intergenerational trauma, I promise.

    Either that or, the grass is always greener… Yk.

  • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    It’s never about the real past for them. It’s about the fake shallow image of the past they yearn for.

    The 50s, yeah, when ‘howl’ was published and every single adult was on meth qaaludes cocaine and a BAC that would today get you rushed to the ER for just about every waking moment. But thats not what they remember. They get the simplified idealized propaganda version, and like it. Everything is fantasy rp to them.

    Same with the crusades, early america, and everything else they like.

  • 🔰Hurling⚜️Durling🔱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Personally, I want to go back to the way in the 1950’s had livable wages where people could afford housing, food, and health services. I would also like to go back to an internet before corporations destroyed it with all their AI and tracking.

  • juliebean@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    22 hours ago

    people that wax nostalgic for the 1950s are either:
    A) folks who only see how advantageous it was for a white middle class cis straight man with a GI Bill, and just forget and ignore the rest of the reality of the era, or
    B) folks that actively want to roll back civil rights for minorities, and would probably prefer the 1850s, if only they had pickup trucks back then.

  • folaht@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The USSR existed back then and the USSR was doing very well at the time up until 1975,
    right after the petrodollar scheme was made and SWIFT was introduced.
    Because of that, the US had strong labour unions.
    Socialism was popular back then,
    although the US was also able to propagandize that it was explicitly not doing that in the slightest.

    Nowadays, the US will have to fight again against capitalism.
    And capitalists are warring to survive, not just abroad,
    but at home as well.
    Their ideology currently is that capitalism has won,
    communism has lost and therefore any concessions to the left
    will no longer have to be made.

    And US Social democracy isn’t coming from the top this time,
    when FDR decided to take a turn for the left and continued going left,
    up until Jimmy Carter was replaced by Ronald Reagen.

    This time it’s coming from Zohran Mamdani
    and this time it looks like it’s taking the form of democratic socialism,
    a step more to the left than social democracy.

    With better job availibility, your father would have had a much easier time
    maintaining a good income and thus a family.
    You however, would have a trade-off.
    Better job security, but little to no knowledge of your sexuality.
    Also terrible medical practises, barbaric in some fields.

  • Owl@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Buying a house, a car, a golden retriever, having a wife and two kids by the age of 22.

  • scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you were a straight, white man it was a good time to exist economically with a high degree of social cohesion. Oppression was worse, but it probably was much less visible to your dad’s sort of person.

    And the economy was booming. My own dad went to college full time and worked 20 hours a week loading trucks in his 20s. On this salary, he was able to buy a starter house, marry his first wife, have 2 kids, and complete his degree.

    It fucking sucked if you were literally anyone else though. Married women were barely better than property, and they frequently killed themselves to escape their husbands. Spousal abuse was common and not really looked down on in many communities unless you took things “too far” and sent them to the hospital. Being queer was just straight up illegal, and you’d be imprisoned and ostracized if you were caught. Racism was…worse to say the least.

    While things might have been better in the past for a specific population or from a specific point of view, always remember that we have made substantial progress even in the past decade or two. Living in the past is a fool’s paradise.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    Social safety nets were stronger and income inequality was lower, largely thanks to the post-war economy retaining a lot of its state planning towards full employment, and largely due to the expansion in safety nets under FDR as a response to the Soviet Union’s massive improvement in safety nets. Time was good, if you were a hetero white man. The US was also emerging as the clear imperial hegemon.

    Reactionary rhetoric tries to turn the clock backwards, to when the contradictions of society weren’t as sharpened. It’s usually a petite bourgeois conception, but can also be a part of other classes. It’s the opposite of progressive movement, trying to move the clock forward into the next mode of production, socialism in the case of the US.

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 days ago

    Most people have an idyllic view of certain childhood years, usually around the ages 5 to 10 or so. It’s before you start to understand just how broken the world is, and your worldview gets more complex and nuanced.

    Many people wrongly assume that the world really was simpler when they were that age. The truth is, the world was just as messed up–they were just blissfully unaware.

    Next time your dad complains, remind him that we still have milkshakes and racism.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      Agreed on all points, and also would like to point out most of the people who want to “go back” are not the ones who were oppressed during that time. It’s no surprise that the people who want to go back are mostly those who grew up in the white suburbs and small towns, where it was simple and easy.

      The oppressed are conveniently left out of those conversations. Where were the black people, or the gay people during those times? They existed, but in a very simple worldview it’s easy to forget that.

  • Alaik@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I want the economy of the 50s and civil rights for everyone.

    Sadly, it seems like we’re moving the economy further away from the 50s and only bringing civil rights back there…

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I want the economy of the 50s

      so, prosperity based off of genociding and overworking brown people abroad?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        There were plenty of local jobs that paid better than jobs today do (adjusted for CoL) and needed less education etc.

      • Alaik@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        We both know you know what was meant. Don’t be like a republican. Have a good day.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          no, you don’t seem to know what i meant.

          your comfort and booming economy is a direct result of your imperialism and owning the world’s currency. “the economy of the 50s” was fueled by blood.

          don’t be an apologist for it. don’t be like a republican.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              19 hours ago

              yup. and the us was specially positioned to take advantage of it the most after ww2.

          • Alaik@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Oh I know what you meant, exactly. It’s grade school history. It’s also the same take repeated endlessly on internet forums where pedantry and needing to spell out every single facet rule supreme. So I guess I’ll spell it out. “The economy refers to the fact someone was able to pay for a home, family, and yearly vacation on an entry level, high school diploma as the only requirement job. The civil rights and liberties people are stating as the one thing they didn’t want to bring to modern times.”

            I’m going to assume you know why someone would want that without the abuse of minorities, immigrants, or third world countries.

            Or you can just pull the same thing everyone else does and state, “A society like that couldn’t exist without that exploitation.” like the true unique free thinker you are. To which I say prove it. We’ve always had a rich parasite class that needed exploitation, those who are fine without being far wealthier than others are perfectly capable of doing fine without the exploitation, its the leeches that require it.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              It’s grade school history.

              that you appear not to know. which is easy for you because you were not on the receiving end of the violence.

              I’m going to assume you know why someone would want that without the abuse of minorities

              you are arguing with a strawman. thats not what us capitalism did in the 50s.

            • zenforyen@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              Ah it’s always the same with those ideologically blinded people.

              Capitalism is inherently bad blah blah

              Socialism can never work blah blah

              It’s all bullshit. Capitalism does not matter, socialism does not matter. How we call it does not matter. What matters is that a society is healthy, sustainable and prospering.

              The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality - each set of values or ideology is as much worth as the people who (supposedly) follow it.

              In any system we ever built, there are greedy, corrupt, powerful people, who like shit, always somehow end up swimming at the top. And then everything begins to rot.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you’re divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.

              • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago

                The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality

                heres the actual material reality: western capitalists control the world, they are fucking us over. it was only ever “prosperous” to a select few countries.

                socialism is historically one of the only ways to defeat it, i get the people who like it.

                • zenforyen@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  Socialism was never implemented in good faith. Oh, you’re talking about the Soviet Union? Try to run a planned economy on a scale of a modern society. And tell me about equality and freedom where you gotta be in the party to have access to better stuff.

                  Or you are talking about China? Well, they are pragmatic and apparently learned. That’s why China is not a planned economy, but state capitalism. Sadly, it’s heavily authoritarian.

                  Capitalism and the idea of markets is not the problem. The problem is if it becomes an end in itself. So if you ask me, economically, the model that China is doing right now is right and obviously pretty successful. It is the rest I would rather not copy.

                  I neither want to live in a country run by oligarchs, nor by a self-serving elite of authoritarian bureaucrats. The rotten form of capitalism is the neoliberal dystopia we see in the west right now, the rotten form of socialism is what the Soviet Union was by the end.

                  You want a socialist revolution? Good luck. But please think about how to prevent just shifting the wealth and power from one group of bad people to another over the course of a few decades.

              • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                19 hours ago

                Could not agree more. I’m a democratic socialist. I firmly believe that the ideas of that ideology, properly implemented, can drastically improve the standard of living for a huge percentage of the population.

                I live in a country where our democratic socialist party is fantastically corrupt, lazy and completely bereft of any motivation to do anything that doesn’t directly benefit themselves. Consequently, I don’t support them. Results over ideology is an important mantra no matter what you believe.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  All socialism is democratic, “democratic socialism” normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The 50s were objectively a time of prosperity and entitlement for the US. It’s literally why they’re called “boomers”, it was an economic boom. We had high taxes on the rich, people saw those tax dollars translate into quality public services like highways, corporate competition was high, education was affordable, housing was plentiful. It was undoubtedly the best time to be a while male in US history.

    And then capitalism did its efficient best to buy up the govt and begin squeezing all that prosperity into their pockets. And here we are.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It’s all the same post war boom. It all happened, and is named for the same reason. People didn’t suddenly have a lot of babies because they were on hard times. There’s nothing to nitpick here.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            I thought it was more about coming back from the war combined with advances in healthcare. The economic aspect makes sense, but families were bigger throughout history even in poorer economic times.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              The successful end to the years-long world war that the whole country felt unified behind, and the sudden influx of money away from that war and into disposable income made it very easy for families to flourish in the US.

              Advances in healthcare played a part, sure, but not that much in that short of time, and eventually the baby boom faded but the advances continued.

    • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s literally why they’re called “boomers”, it was an economic boom.

      It’s short for “Baby Boomers”, because there was a huge baby boom after WW2.

          • DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Just a stupid joke on the tendency people have to try to reconstruct etymology from the top down rather than bottom up, often using tenuous logical connections lol

            Boomers are called that because they were born after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

            Zoomers are the generation of high speed rail and fast cars

            Gen alpha are all chads due to the hormones used in agriculture

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think people who think the past was better are all white men, and it’s because they didn’t have to think about other people. They want to go back to ignorance.

    He literally says that to you? The 1950s? Have you asked him specifically why? My mom had a great time in the 1950s and no way would she ever have wanted the world to go backwards to that time. She recognized, as she became older, how bad things were for her mom, for black kids (her school was segregated), for so many people.

    The only reason I can imagine wanting to go to the past, is to try to make this future better, but I know better than to fuck with the timeline and can’t imagine I’d be able to do anything about it anyway.

    • Anthony@lemmings.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      well, for one, i think he said because something to do with white people. the same reason he likes europe. europe is primarily white people, he says, and segregation was still a thing in the 50s.

      • RBWells@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your dad is a racist.

        I would say it’s a shining example of my theory. He wants to go back to when he was ignorant of the struggles of other people. They did exist, he just didn’t know and now he does.

      • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Europe is primarily white people

        Hah, that’s telling. Just FYI, there’s been generations upon generations of racism and ethnic hatred here in Eastern Europe. I guess we have the advanced racists: the ones who don’t hate you for your skin colour, but who your parents were, religion and primary language.

        I’ll bet that if your dad grew up here in Romania, he’d be complaining about those sneaky Szeklers trying to steal Transylvania and Roma people being subhuman.

        Also, he seems the type to pine for Europe because “We’re all Christian!”. Trust me, you haven’t seen “Christian love” like state religions persecuting people of the wrong sect. Orthodox Christianity is the state religion here, and Protestants of all stripes get treated like heathens.

        • Vanth@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          Ah, but discrimination against Roma isn’t racism because they actually are all dirty thieves!

          • said to me by an actual European lacking all self-awareness
  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well, having sat with people of that age bracket when they were sick or dying, when most people drop pretence, I have a different opinion than those already presented.

    It isn’t necessarily about “simpler times”, though some folks that age use the term. And it isn’t about racism or sexism either, because it isn’t just white folks or men that express the idea.

    There is a big dose of nostalgia involved, but you don’t see the desire to return to the era of childhood or teen years as much in older or younger generations.

    The common thread that makes 50 kids yearn for the era is largely that they lost a sense of their place in the world. The 50 were before vietnam made the big schism it did, before men and women needed to examine their own expectations for themselves, and before the post war wave of optimism faded.

    You gotta know, the kids and teens in the fifties, despite the cold war and nuclear bomb drills, had an optimistic world around them. Well, in the “western” world mostly. The good guys won the war, and regardless of what anyone else thinks now, that’s what the perception was. To someone growing up then, the prospect of being able to have a career, family, and eventually retirement with relative ease was real.

    Again, this isn’t just for white men. Black people have expressed to me that despite the awareness there was going to be a fight for equality, the hope of success was strong. Little girls had moms that had worked during the war, and gained the prestige that comes with it, but came back to being moms and wives because they didn’t need to work (again this was perception, and that matters more than current ideas about that for this purpose).

    That post war generation, the literal boomers, had hope, even the ones that were dirt poor, even some of the black people, and most of the women. By the time the sixties came around, that hope was changing. They were reaching young adulthood among the earliest boomers, and they started to see that the world wasn’t what they thought it was.

    Sexual revolutions, the pill, the civil rights struggle, vietnam, things were no longer as rosy as they were promised, though many of them were finding freedoms as much as they were finding struggles. They just couldn’t look at the world with those rosy, optimistic glasses any more. Shit got complicated and confusing and it was the boomers and the younger segment of the preceding generation that drove some of the positive changes at the same time they were being chewed up by the meat grinder of capitalism and war.

    Who wouldn’t look back at a period of optimism as a better time? If the eighties had been as promising as the fifties, I’d be looking back on it as a golden era too.

    But hey, us Xers and millennials, we will look back on the nineties as a better time most likely. We saw a lot of good happen. It’s largely being undone now, but damn it was nice while it lasted seeing the expansion of acceptance of gay people, reduced barriers between black and white people in specific (less so with other “races”) as the freedom to marry and blend together worked its chemistry. Even some of the racists backed off once their grandbabies were mixed.

    Yeah, like the fifties, that optimism covered an ugly reality, but it was still better than the seventies had been, and we thought that the worst aspects of the Reagan era were going to eventually get fixed.

    Now, OP, I can’t speak for your dad. The above definitely didn’t apply to everyone I’ve ever known from that generation. Some of them were racist assholes even then. Some of them still think women are only good for one thing (and some of those are women). And you’re definitely right that living queer back then would be horrible even in more accepting cities. To gain access to all those things people were optimistic about, you’d have to be closeted and very very careful.

    But it isn’t as simple as folks tend to think. Your dad’s generation wasn’t a monolith, and even the more progressive among that peer group often look back on the fifties as a great era to be born into. I can’t even entirely disagree tbh. Looking back on it from now, the thirty years after 1950 were amazing in the amount of progress made socially, technologically, and economically for a lot of people. It’s easy to ignore the bad parts when we’re/they’re sitting here with these magic devices in our hands.

    Conservatives are more prone to wanting to return everything to the way life was then, but plenty of us liberals, progressives, general liberals, and even full on leftists can see that we lost some of the good stuff when we had to root out the bad (despite failing to do so)