End of the Womanly Woman

In keeping with the same theme as SeaBreeze's thread... "end of the manly man", found here - https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/end-of-the-manly-man.2319/

I'll start. When I was growing up (1960's), regardless of whether a woman was a fulltime homemaker, a fulltime stay-at-home mother, or whether she held down a fulltime or part-time job, women looked good and carried themselves well.

Hair and makeup, impeccable, their dress, clean, neat, and stylish, their fingernails, manicured and painted... a definite stark difference to that of what I often observe today.

Children were always dressed nice, they were kept clean and fed, they were well-mannered, respectful, and more often than not, children were seen, not heard... a reflection as to how women themselves were back in the day, the values they lived by, in addition to the values they instilled upon their children... boy, have times ever changed.

Homes were meticulous, the laundry washed, dried, stacked, folded, and neatly stowed away, everything was organized, homemade meals were prepared from scratch and with pride, and all was served within a specific timeframe in accordance with the day. i.e. Children arrived home from school at such and such a time... the man of the house arrived home from his day in the office at such and such a time.

There was no need for a man of the house to hold the woman of the family's hand (figuratively speaking), for the woman ensured all in the home was taken care of, and she took her job seriously, and she did it without whining or complaining. She made sure she lived up to her end of things, and she was always together.

She mended, fixed, repaired, and altered clothing, she canned, cooked, baked, took care of the children, and cleaned, and if that weren't enough, she took care of the shopping and bill paying, too. The womanly woman really was on top of her game.

I know, because my own mother was a womanly woman, and they just don't make them like that anymore, and the ones that exist today are few and far between... a rarity.
I grew up where the laundry was done regularly, allowance was given upon the chores were done, Mom did not work-she worked on the home and raising kids and dog. Dad worked hard and came home and kept the lawn, did some gardening, golfed in later years. We learned cleanliness, going to church, watched language, and morals were enforced. Family gatherings on a weekly basis and that was important.
 

I prefer nice over macho any day.

You are right. Not everyone has the same life experiences. We are all raised in different states with different lifestyles.



I appreciate the fact that you have the wisdom and good sense to prefer nice over macho. Sadly, however, it has been my experience that you are in the minority as the vast majority of women I've known much prefer macho over nice. Even when I was in law school where we had so many intellectually gifted women, the majority much preferred the macho guys.

Maybe others have had different experiences but that's what I saw over the years.
 
i don't follow studies. i base my information on what i see in real life not in some study. I'm not stereotyping or generalizing anyone. I'm just giving an opinion based on what I see happening in my daily life. It just doesn't jive with what you think things are like.
I would just remind folks that one data point does not a statistic make. The biggest mistake we all make at one time or another is taking our own experiences and projecting them into some generalized conclusion on how things really are. I have always told my kids, cohorts, friends, family, etc. is that reality extends way beyond your own perceptions and experiences. That said, I wish you the best.
 

To the poster who has a blue eyed blonde cheerleader for a wife...most of us weren't one of those kinds of women. I will never be cheerleader type pretty. And frankly don't care to be. I see some of these women who are so pretty and they spend all their time with men fawning over them and telling them how beautiful they are. That would make me sick.

And as for generalizations...I think to that poster, it's unfair to assume that a woman dressed in pants and tshirts isn't feminine.

This is what most men want...
View attachment 150741

But in reality this is what most of us look like.
View attachment 150742

Number two has far more initial, visual appeal if you're not some testosterone-laden teenager, horndog or someone who has the hots for seemingly-sultry blonds (who're likely high maintenance).
 
If you ever take the time to look at studies of what men look at first in a women, you will find it goes something like this, with variations by age and maturity:
  1. Eyes
  2. Smile
  3. Breasts
  4. Hair
  5. Weight
  6. Legs
  7. Clothing
  8. Derrière
  9. Height
  10. Skin
Not this guy

Mine goes something like this

1. Derrière
2. Derrière
3. Derrière
4. Derrière
5. Derrière
6. Derrière
7. Derrière
8. Derrière
9. Derrière
10. Derrière

Can nay be helpt
Age?
Maturity?
Been that way since the Jackie Gleason dancers

Guess I'm the exception
 
Not this guy

Mine goes something like this

1. Derrière
2. Derrière
3. Derrière
4. Derrière
5. Derrière
6. Derrière
7. Derrière
8. Derrière
9. Derrière
10. Derrière

Can nay be helpt
Age?
Maturity?
Been that way since the Jackie Gleason dancers

Guess I'm the exception
You're not the exception, Gary, you're what I see as the norm, I know, because my husband is the same! LOL!
 
Not this guy

Mine goes something like this

1. Derrière
2. Derrière
3. Derrière
4. Derrière
5. Derrière
6. Derrière
7. Derrière
8. Derrière
9. Derrière
10.

Can nay be helpt
Age?
Maturity?
Been that way since the Jackie Gleason dancers

Guess I'm the exception
I read somewhere that Derrière had risen up in rank in the last decade or so. Unlike the eyes, can't think of any romantic poems, phrases, songs or phrases that have been written about buttocks. Given your preference, I trust you know about the women who had two such things, complete with 4 legs and 4 buttocks (i.e., Myrtle Corbin, 1868-1928,) . She was apparently quite the lady and I am thinking her legs perhaps got the first or second look.

b85e15d2-f10d-4121-bfb0-c00b23093b4b_x365.jpg
 
Everything you say, Tony, spot-on.

As for children today being out of control, showing no direction, in and out of trouble, lacking good old-fashioned discipline, I see it all. Society, and our world today is plagued with it, it's become chronic.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, today's mentality of tripping over one another to acquire the biggest and nicest house on the block, the nicest vehicles in the driveway, along with the flashiest lifestyles, has all come at the expensive of the children.

Children are the ones who are being left out, forgotten about, and essentially, neglected, account the self-serving nature of parents today bent on fulfilling their own lifestyles and needs ahead of the lifestyles, needs, and well-being of their children.

I suspect it won't be long before someone comes along and mentions how expensive life is today, and yes, it's true, life... things... none of it has gotten cheaper, however, at the end of the day it boils down to good old-fashioned priorities... what's important, and judging by all that I'm witnessing today, it's apparent why so many children are falling through the cracks.

Home-time and family-time in a majority of homes today no longer exists.
For many of us, it never did. So much neglect, abuse, etc of both wives and children flourished hidden in the rosy denial of the good old days. My experience was extreme to say the least, but in my practice I have counselled dozens
of people whose lives were hell. Good luck getting any help from the police, or any govt agencies during that time. To,

all intents and purposes, wives and children were property. A husband would not even be prosecuted for raping his wife, or beating his children unless they were severely injured. No one would have dared raise the spectre of incest

due to the shame attached. I am delighted for those people who had wonderful experiences during those years, many did not. Certainly, if one happened to be a person of colour, life was

challenging to say the least. To the sadly all too often silent legions of us who suffered during that time period, it is excruciatingly painful to hear how much better family life was then than it is now.😪
 
For many of us, it never did. So much neglect, abuse, etc of both wives and children flourished hidden in the rosy denial of the good old days. My experience was extreme to say the least, but in my practice I have counselled dozens
of people whose lives were hell. Good luck getting any help from the police, or any govt agencies during that time. To,

all intents and purposes, wives and children were property. A husband would not even be prosecuted for raping his wife, or beating his children unless they were severely injured. No one would have dared raise the spectre of incest

due to the shame attached. I am delighted for those people who had wonderful experiences during those years, many did not. Certainly, if one happened to be a person of colour, life was

challenging to say the least. To the sadly all too often silent legions of us who suffered during that time period, it is excruciatingly painful to hear how much better family life was then than it is now.😪
I agree. There was no Leave it to Beaver crap going on in our home growing up. My parents had two of us with Tourette's and bills to pay. I spent a good portion of my younger years being verbally abused and sent to my room. We didn't have the money for mom to doll up to go to the grocery store. And my father had an affair years later with her friend. So I don't think these years are as rosy as everyone seems to recall. They may have been for appearances sake but behind closed doors things are just different.
 
Sorry, not buying it. Most men like real women, not some artificial rendition. Except Burt Reynolds....I'll never understand why he dumped Sally Field for any reason, much less over Lonnie Anderson.
I agree with you about the Lonnie Anderson remark. But when's the last time you saw someone buying a magazine with a Sally Field type on the cover. Those types don't end up in Playboy.
 
I'd like to know where these men live that have so much to offer. They ain't in Kansas. LOL
 


Back
Top