The sexism in this show really annoys me - The Brady Bunch (1969) Discussion

[–] Owlnut73 9 years ago

I guess the times were different and it shows. Until the early '70's girls couldn't wear pants to school. I was born in the early 70's. I noticed that in the earlier episodes the girls always had on dresses when they went to school, but it seems around season 5 they were able to wear pants to school.

reply

[–] donnayankee 9 years ago

By 1969 or 1970 girls were allowed to wear pants to school. Most school districts said yes. By 1972 Congress said girls were not required to wear dresses/skirts to public school.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

'Until the early '70's girls couldn't wear pants to school. I was born in the early 70's.'
---------------------
Girls wore low-rise hip hugger jeans in the early 70's; I was in class with them. If you were born in the early 70's, how do you know?

reply

[–] deem_bastille 9 years ago

there is good and bad sexism.

I don't see much of a problem with 'let me take care of you' sexism with households. I DO see a problem with 'I work all day, you pick up my socks from the floor' sexism.

I am of, course, cool with 'girls can be anything' but in an encouraging, not forcing way.

and enough of the 'have to have it all' crap. something has to give when a ceo wants the kids to call her mommy and not the au pair.

the worst form of sexism is: what are you doing washing our neighbor's clothes for money? >slap< when the house needs money to stay afloat and the father keeps on drinking his wages away.

Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more. Edmund Blackadder.

reply

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

there is good and bad sexism.

I respectfully disagree. 

I don't see much of a problem with 'let me take care of you' sexism with households.

I do. Let me explain: I have *NO* problem whatsoever with a woman being in the 'let me take care of you' role in a household, as long as that's her choice--just like I have no problem with a MAN being in the 'let me take care of you' role if that's his choice. My husband and I have both done that, at different periods in our lives, and it was by choice and agreement, so everything was cool.  What I do have a problem with is the assumption that women, by virtue of being born with ovaries, I guess, are the ONLY ones who can/should fill that role in a family.

I DO see a problem with 'I work all day, you pick up my socks from the floor' sexism.

In my world, people pick up after themselves, regardless of which spouse is in the homemaker role. But, also in my world, the homemaker (male or female) does the nitty-gritty stuff of running a household: the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking, the shopping, the vacuuming, etc. That's because that's their "job" so to speak.

I am of, course, cool with 'girls can be anything' but in an encouraging, not forcing way.

And what's your stance on 'boys can be anything'--is that also in an encouraging, not forcing, way?

and enough of the 'have to have it all' crap. something has to give when a ceo wants the kids to call her mommy and not the au pair.

I'm assuming you're referring to both male and female CEOs, correct?

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] gcarras 9 years ago

The Brady Kids and US are contemporaries....actually by the late 60s the sexism was almost over... there is the good type like on the show and the bad type (Frank Sinatra et al beating up female reporters after having Mob connections and just wanting the gossip to go away, a la the Catholic priests and child molestation more recently).

Actually with mini skirts back then even, the girls WERE getting MUCH more liberation fashion-wise than, say, 1950s girls (the Screen Gems cuties like Mary Stone of "Donna Reed", the Anderson chicks - my favorite kind of sexism - on Father knows Best,etc.). THOSE teenage girls wore the SAME long lovely dresses as did their mothers. 

BTW In 1961 on "The Dick Van Dyke Show" Laura Petrie already was popularizing pants--capris in this case--in 1962 "The Jetsons" had Judy Jetson in both short wolf wqhistle slitted Minis (like something Tex Avery would design for Hanna-Barbera, given his 1940s slit-dressed hot chicks) AND capri pants..no naked legs! Jane Jetson though, kept the dress and no pants thing.)

Amanda Bynes is hot and Lindsay Lohan is not.
Profile pic: Courtney Thorne-Smith.

reply

[–] LiteraryLane 9 years ago

Actually with mini skirts back then even, the girls WERE getting MUCH more liberation fashion-wise than, say, 1950s girls

And women as well. Compare Elizabeth Montgomery's look in the last season of Bewitched to her look in the first. That show started in the mid '60's and lasted until the early '70s. By the final season she had grown her hair longer and started wearing mini skirts. Montgomery was always stunning, but I loved her look in the later seasons.

(the Screen Gems cuties like Mary Stone of "Donna Reed", the Anderson chicks - my favorite kind of sexism - on Father knows Best,etc.). THOSE teenage girls wore the SAME long lovely dresses as did their mothers.

Additionally, the shirtwaist dress was popular in the early '60s. I have read a few debates about whether the early part of he decade or the later part was better when it came to music, fashion etc. I think the early and late '60s both had hits and misses.

"It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves."

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

I think that's it, the contemporary aspect. When it's before your time, you see it as just how it may have been. When though it's during your time, you're aggravated that they weren't more empowered.

The Brady Kids are a bit older than me. I too was bothered by the sexism, especially in that episode. I did like when Jan said that boys should use hairdryers because many of them have longer hair than some of the girls.

It though was a sign of the times. There were strong women throughout history. These shows though were the sign of the times for their television eras.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

The Brady Kids are a bit older than me. I too was bothered by the sexism, especially in that episode. I did like when Jan said that boys should use hairdryers because many of them have longer hair than some of the girls.

That was a funny line since the boys all had short hair. Just once the show showed a guy with longer hair, the ice cream shop episode.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

They supposedly saw people outside their personal neighborhood. They had television. Davy Jones was considered to have long hair during the height of his popularity.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

His hair was not long! How would anyone consider that long?

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It was the sign of the times. It isn't long by today's stanards but long and shaggy during his era.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I've seen other pictures of guys during that era - with hair far longer than his was.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

So? A woman today may have long hair but many others could have hair even longer. It isn't a competition but a stereotype of that era.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I am a female. But one thing I never liked, was women wanting it both ways.

Like, they want to be fire-fighters, and to be eligible for all the fire-fighting jobs men do. But then they want certain requirements (like weight carried) changed for them. Which can cause a real liability, if she is physically unable to do the job.

Or, as someone else pointed out. The birth-giving woman says "here you go, stranger" and hands a two-month old baby to a nanny, day care worker, etc. Because her "ca-REER" means everything to her. Then has a tantrum when the kid bonds more with the person raising him than with her. Or the nanny tells her the kid took his first steps, etc.

reply

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

I am a female. But one thing I never liked, was women wanting it both ways.

So you've also never liked *MEN* wanting it both ways, correct? In other words, you have just as much of a problem with men who want to be parents but also want to have their careers, right?

Like, they want to be fire-fighters, and to be eligible for all the fire-fighting jobs men do. But then they want certain requirements (like weight carried) changed for them. Which can cause a real liability, if she is physically unable to do the job.

My [late] brother was a firefighter/paramedic for the Los Angeles City Fire Department and, back in the day, he bemoaned the fact that women were infiltrating its ranks. However--in the end--he had to admit that the female firefighters he'd worked with were every bit as capable as their male counterparts. The training and requirements are murder, but anyone, regardless of gender, who can pass them is qualified for the job.

Or, as someone else pointed out. The birth-giving woman says "here you go, stranger" and hands a two-month old baby to a nanny, day care worker, etc. Because her "ca-REER" means everything to her. Then has a tantrum when the kid bonds more with the person raising him than with her. Or the nanny tells her the kid took his first steps, etc.

Again, I'm assuming that you're every bit as indignant at the MALE parents who do this, right? Last time I heard, it took TWO people to make a child, so it wouldn't make any sense for your disgust to be aimed ONLY at one gender.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

My [late] brother was a firefighter/paramedic for the Los Angeles City Fire Department and, back in the day, he bemoaned the fact that women were infiltrating its ranks. However--in the end--he had to admit that the female firefighters he'd worked with were every bit as capable as their male counterparts. The training and requirements are murder, but anyone, regardless of gender, who can pass them is qualified for the job.

Maybe it depends on the department. I do know that my local fire department has (or at least last I knew they did) different weight-carrying requirements for males and females. I know because a female friend wanted to be a fire-fighter.

Again, I'm assuming that you're every bit as indignant at the MALE parents who do this, right? Last time I heard, it took TWO people to make a child, so it wouldn't make any sense for your disgust to be aimed ONLY at one gender.

Again, it has to do with experience. So far, I have only seen women have fits that the nanny (or whoever) has more of a bond with the child than the "mother" does. But as long as we are on the subject - how would you feel about a man choosing to be a stay-at-home dad so the child can have one parent who actually raises him/her? I usually hear the terms "dead-beat" and "she's carrying them" when that happens.

Another example of wanting it both ways - she will keep her last name after marrying, make a big showing of how "independent" she is. She will make decisions without consulting him, because she is so "independent". She will always be showing how "independent" she is. Then, if they divorce, suddenly she wants spousal support. What happened to all her "independence"?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

First, I want to say I hope I didn't come off sounding snippy earlier--I was feeling like crap, and it may have shown! 

Maybe it depends on the department. I do know that my local fire department has (or at least last I knew they did) different weight-carrying requirements for males and females. I know because a female friend wanted to be a fire-fighter.

Yeah, it probably does depend on the department.

Again, it has to do with experience. So far, I have only seen women have fits that the nanny (or whoever) has more of a bond with the child than the "mother" does. But as long as we are on the subject - how would you feel about a man choosing to be a stay-at-home dad so the child can have one parent who actually raises him/her? I usually hear the terms "dead-beat" and "she's carrying them" when that happens.

You're not going to find me in that group! As I said earlier, I have no problem at all with a man OR woman choosing to stay home--like my husband and I each did at different times in our lives--as long as it's what THEY want to do, and their spouse is in agreement. The way it worked for us was that early on in our marriage, I stayed home at various times, and he was the stable breadwinner; I had a difficult pregnancy, then I wanted to be at home for a while, then I had a near-fatal illness. Later, after I was established in my career, and was out-earning him by more than double, he wanted to stop working, and I was all for it. In both cases, whichever of us was the stay-at-home spouse, that's who did the homemaker-ish stuff, like cooking and cleaning and laundry.

Another example of wanting it both ways - she will keep her last name after marrying, make a big showing of how "independent" she is. She will make decisions without consulting him, because she is so "independent". She will always be showing how "independent" she is. Then, if they divorce, suddenly she wants spousal support. What happened to all her "independence"?

You'll NEVER find me supporting that way of thinking. Ever! Oh, I'm absolutely fine with married women keeping their names (I wish my daughter had done that, actually), but the rest of it? No. As far as I'm concerned--and, hopefully, the courts are, too--spousal support should only be a factor when one spouse heavily out-earns the other, regardless of gender, or when one stayed at home per their mutual agreement and now has no marketable skills. In that latter case, I'd put a time limit on it. Just because someone didn't work BEFORE doesn't mean they can't work NOW.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

First, I want to say I hope I didn't come off sounding snippy earlier--I was feeling like crap, and it may have shown!

We all have times like that - even me 😄

My focus on the women wanting it both ways was due to the thread being sexism, and what some see/saw as bias against females.

But (on a side note) believe me, I know of men wanting it both ways - was married to one. He wanted the modern wife who was the breadwinner and covered most (if not all) of the bills, so he could work a "fun" type of job. But he also wanted the 50s wife who did all the women's work - cleaning, cooking, laundry, etc. We lived in an apartment, so the only "man chore" for him was carrying the trash out, and most of the time there was an argument to get him to do that. Needless to say, the marriage didn't last (and I took my own name back after the divorce).

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It doesn't have to be to one extreme or the other. Equal means everyone is given an equal chance not preferential treatment.

Women have to go through the same tests as men for jobs such as firefighters, police, etc. Some men don't keep themselves up and some are slackers. To say that it's gender specific is prejudice.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It doesn't have to be to one extreme or the other. Equal means everyone is given an equal chance not preferential treatment.
Women have to go through the same tests as men for jobs such as firefighters, police, etc. Some men don't keep themselves up and some are slackers. To say that it's gender specific is prejudice.

Why is okay for fathers to work but not mothers? Some companies provide in building day care. Some parents today need to be at least two income families.
It's better to have sitters than to sponge off others who are working and thus take money out of their households because you (used generally) may be too lazy to work and/or just want to stay home.

I understand that sometimes unforeseen things happen such as the loss of a job. However, welfare was meant to be a temporary aid until one could get back on their feet. It isn't meant to be a way of life. Parents should only have as many children they can afford. If they want more then they'd better start saving and be prepared to use sitters. If the children began to suffer then jail the parents for neglect/abuse and place the children in protective care and maybe even up for adoption. If one parent earns enough money so that the other can stay home then that's great for them if they choose to do so.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I am not talking about cases like that. I am talking about "parents" who decide that a bigger house (guess what? I grew up in a three bedroom, one bathroom home and I am alive and well, no scars or damage today) and fancier car (oh, they can't drive a $20,000 car, must be at least double that!) is more important than their children. And then act like they are "victims" when the kids have no bond with them at all.

And then if something goes wrong (kid gets in trouble) of course, they are not to blame. How can they be to blame when they had nothing to do with raising their own kid?

I agree about welfare, but that is a totally different story. May of those cases the "parents" stay home, and even though they are home have little to do with raising their kids.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Inattentive parenting can happen no matter the size of the bank account. Some wealthy parents can be wonderful at parenting. People shouldn't be penalized for success. Much of that money is for homes in good communities, good schools, learning devices, etc. Teaching children to work hard can be a positive.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

It's not about criticizing for success. It's about paying little to no attention to your own child, then acting butt-hurt because that child has bonded with the person raising them, instead of you. (And I don't mean you directly here, I am talking these types of parents.) Or acting like a victim when something goes wrong.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Wealthy people can pay as much or as little attention to their children as those of any other means. Remember how it was agreed upon that some stay at home parents don't always pay adequate attention to their children.

Many, wealthy or not, often try to blame others when things go wrong. You're generally sweeping.

It's more about parenting skills than money. Money though does help to provide things children need and want.

reply

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

Growing up in the 1970's, while women were forging careers in traditional male dominated roles, there was a huge divide between the genders in school as to what were deemed acceptable pursuits. When I watch 'The Brady Bunch', I understand that the gender inequality portrayed on the show does not exist now, but that it reflects how things generally were.

That said, the show did have its moments where it showed that the girls/ women were equal to men. Does anyone remember the big driving test between Greg and Marcia? How about Marcia's foray into the Frontier Scouts? Don't forget the female doctor played by Marion Ross in season 1 !

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

That's another thing that makes me ask what are women always complaining about. In just about every show I have seen that have a male vs females type of competition, the females always win. What's more, the males are usually shown being incompetent, cheating (and still failing) and just so stupid that it's not even funny.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It's because it's the loud mouth male who usually starts it all and the female sees it as a chance to get even. People who don't feel they have anything to prove usually aren't taunting another so no contest then comes into play.

Marcia had to prove herself and did to join the Frontier Scouts. All Peter had to do to become a Sunflower was sign up.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

The point was which required competition. Up until Marcia joined it was assumed that Frontier Scouts had to be boys. They set up competiton even among one another.

What do you mean should in regards to being a girl. Yes, it's more of a stigma for a boy to do girlish things than a girl to do boyish things but it shouldn't be that way. Things should be equal and accepted easily.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

Keep in mind that's the way the script is written 😃

And exactly my point. Men are shown as loud mouth know-it-alls who always end up failing. The women are always shown as successful, saving the day, etc. And women complain about how they are shown? Just imagine showing a woman as totally incompetent at something.

Another example of the double-standard. Remember the movie Serial Mom? I know women who LOVED that movie. Imagine Serial Dad? Same type of thing - women would be SCREAMING.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It isn't always life imitating art but often art imitating life.

Many men don't have the antiquated idea that a man would always win at everything over a woman. The ones that do run their mouths and challenge capable women.
Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs. A woman struck out Babe Ruth. There's quite a few examples.

There's been plenty of movies that have favored men. Men have been killers in movies too. Serial Mom was a comedy. Most of the time a woman is shown to even be equal to a man in a film she had to have had help from a man.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I know Serial Mom was a comedy. Would you laugh at a man running around killing women? Maybe cutting a woman's boobs off?

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Many have laughed during the Friday the 13th movies, the Nightmare on Elm Street ones, Chucky, etc.

Women are now sometimes shown as getting revenge in a film because it was the media status quo for quite some time that a woman was to be subservient. Times are slowly changing. It's a slow walk more than a run.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

Males and females both get killed during those films. And when I laughed, often it was the bad acting or just how ridiculous the scene was.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

They usually included a pretty female who tried to run in high heels and bared her breasts. Breasts were shown often in movies long before a penis was ever shown.

It isn't though just about you. You asked for examples and I provided them.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

Breasts were shown often in movies long before a penis was ever shown.

As a curious kid, that used to annoy me 😀

All I am saying is the "sexism" isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. And it seems some people want it both ways, not truly equal. But that goes for a lot of people, which could be a totally separate discussion.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

It;s been bad. It's been getting better but will happen over time.

Wanting it both ways? It's about equal opportunities and choices. There's no two ways about that. I don't object when a man or woman holds open a door for me and I too have held doors open for men and women. I would though object to a male being given a job over a more qualified woman.

Equality is about equal opportunities. Nothing about anything being given. It also doesn't mean we can't appreciate and be appreciated by our loved ones. We can all have it all.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

As I said, this spirals into another discussion.

Equal means equal, in every way. And some people only want equal when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

One of my points. I know women who are always yelling about "equality" who feel women should not be drafted, or sent to war zones. But should still get all the benefits, just like the men who do those things.

Another thing is the ones who remove the choices from other women. Just because one woman likes wearing man-style suits to work, does not mean she should dictate all the women in the office have to. A friend of mine actually had to quit her job because her (female) boss refused to allow her to change her name when she got married. All her work records (including paychecks) would have to stay in her maiden name. Which would cause problem when she tried to cash her paycheck (they didn't offer direct deposit) and her check was in one name and her ID in another.

reply

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

One of my points. I know women who are always yelling about "equality" who feel women should not be drafted, or sent to war zones. But should still get all the benefits, just like the men who do those things.

I have a LOT of friends and relatives who are veterans, including my best friend (100% disabled, medically retired Marine) and her daughter (Marines). I don't know ANYONE who thinks women should get the same benefits as men if they're not performing the same jobs in the military! Not one person.

A friend of mine actually had to quit her job because her (female) boss refused to allow her to change her name when she got married. All her work records (including paychecks) would have to stay in her maiden name.

Seriously?!  What state are they in? I cannot even IMAGINE how that can be legal, but maybe it is...somewhere. Employers have to follow certain laws/rules in terms of dealing with the government; for example, they have to have proof from applicants that they're US citizens (or have the right to work in the US), they have to have the employee's Social Security number, they have to report the employee's income to the IRS and Social Security, etc. I don't see how the employer could get away with continuing to issue checks--and report to the IRS and make payments to SS from the employee's withholding--with an employee's name that was no longer valid. Doesn't make sense.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I don't know ANYONE who thinks women should get the same benefits as men if they're not performing the same jobs in the military! Not one person.

I haven't known many, but I have known a few. Especially one, who was a real piece of work. She hated men, yet she hated anything feminine. She'd cry rivers for criminals (especially if they did while committing a crime) but felt nothing when a cop or fire-fighter was killed in the line of duty, because "it's part of the job, they should know that's possible when they take the job". When I pointed out that being killed was also a possibility of criminal activity, and the criminal should know that's possible when they decide to commit a crime" she said I was "cold". A liquor store owner shot and killed a would-be robber (who pulled a gun on him) and she felt the owner should be prosecuted for murder (again, he should have known being robbed was a possibility when he decided to own a business). I could go on and on.

I don't see how the employer could get away with continuing to issue checks--and report to the IRS and make payments to SS from the employee's withholding--with an employee's name that was no longer valid. Doesn't make sense.

We are in the state of NJ. She was nineteen when she married, and just never thought to look up the laws about that. I didn't either, we both just assumed it was a private company so the owner could set her own rules. (Now that you mention it, I'd like to see what the law is concerning that. Not that it matters for her anymore.) And that was the issue - they didn't have direct deposit. So there would be issues cashing her check, having her social security card not match, etc. Her choices were keep her maiden name or have all kinds of problems.

reply

[–] buchookie 9 years ago

If women ran the world there wouldn't be all these pointless wars.

reply

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

If women ran the world there wouldn't be all these pointless wars.

bzzzt. Wrong.

reply

[–] deem_bastille 9 years ago

what wars had POINTS?

and srsly, the things that make wars are the anger and intolerance of others. not to mention ignorance and prejudice. not saying that women DON'T have these things but let's look at the facts...

Hitler was a man. Osama was a man. Hussein was a man. most of the leader of the powerful countries in the world are/were men.

Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more. Edmund Blackadder.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

Not sure if women wanted equality in war.

Yes, we did, that's why we fought for the right. (I'm using "we" to represent my fellow females.) My best friend and her daughter were Marines. My friend became disabled while on active duty and had to retire medically. Both of them were willing and able to go to combat. Her daughter was deployed to Afghanistan, and would gladly have participated in combat had that been an option.

Along with that will come the draft.

Why?  I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other. However, if the draft ever returns, then the women affected by it will just have to do their duty...just like men will.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Which is more often the men.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are replying to.

The women who think they should get all the same benefits, but not have the sane requirements (battlefield, draft)?

The women who feel their choices should be all women's choices?

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Who said that women feel they shouldn't be on the battlefield or eligible for the draft? We don't even have a draft at present time. Many men don't choose to be on the battlefield and have escaped the draft, when there was one, for whatever reasons. Many women signed up by choice and were as effective, if not more, as many of the men. A weapon doesn't know if the operator has a penis or vagina.

There were women in the line of fire during all the American wars. They could be fired at but weren't supposed to shoot back. That's ridiculous.

Some men are afraid of quality because some women may be better at something than they are and thus surpass them. Again, nothing is given, just equal opportunities to try and many have and others will succeed.

Do you just like being disagreeable to keep the debate ongoing?

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

Did you read what I wrote? I said I have known women who feel that way. Just because you don't know any, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

It does seem that you think your experiences mean it's that way everywhere. As I said in another post, I knew a woman who tried out for a local fire department in my area and SHE SAID that the weight carrying requirements (and a couple others) were different for men and women to allow more women to "qualify". Maybe it's changed since then, I don't know.

And you didn't comment on the women taking choices away from other women. Why should my friend be forced to keep her maiden name if she doesn't want to, because her boss felt that all women should do that?

Do you really think your experiences mean it's the same way everywhere? And that it is how it's always been?

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

You seem to believe that your experiences are all that matter.
I've posted about the overall.
You need to study women in history and current news regarding women and equality.

I'm a lightweight woman and have been told by fireMEN that I could easily pass and do the job of the physical requirements of lifting. They're heroic but they've said the weight lifting isn't an issue.

That woman may have just been a slacker or was trying to come up with an idea to attract women to certain occupations. Not all ideasd are good ones for any and everything in general. They are plenty of women in fire department jobs that have passed the same requirements as men and are succeeding alongside the men in their jobs.

Not all men are strong and many too complain.

Your fiend cannot be forced to keep her maiden name. That is just stupid. If she's fired because of it then tell her to get documentation, hopefully a recording and many phones today have such capabilities.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

No, I am not the one thinking only my experiences matter. Because you still keep saying the requirements are the same, when the FEMALE friend told me the requirements were different. (By the way, she still couldn't pass.) Or did you just assume the friend was male? You seem to have a bitterness against men, always thinking the worst of them.

And yes, the other friend's boss told her that her work documents (including paycheck) would not be changed for her married name. Which (try to follow) means that (since they didn't have direct deposit) every time she would go to cash her check (in her maiden name) she would have a problem, since you need to show ID. So, that would mean she either could not change her driver's license or she would always have to bring along her marriage license also to cash checks. It would also mean that her social security card would have to match, couldn't change name there either. So she just quit.

(And there was no way to get documentation. She brought her marriage license in to work, and then was told by her boss that it was not done in that company. Her boss was a "very liberated" woman and didn't believe in "antiquated men-serving policies).

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

You mentioned a couples of experiences and then joined in the conversation on the general subject. I and another poster discussed your personal comments with you. We also discussed the topic in general.
You mentioned a female said she wanted to lessen the requirements. I don't know what male you're tabling about. So she didn't pass. Some women don't. Some men haven't either.
I don't have a bitterness against men. That's ridiculous. I also haven't always thought the worst of them. That's silly.
I believe you just like to keep an argument going.

I've mentioned nothing but equality. I've continued to post about one gender not being give, tokenism, over the other but having equal opportunities.
The only thing a man can do naturally better than a woman is urinate while standing. I didn't state that a woman could then automatically do everything else better. However, that's how I believe you and some others may take it. The statement actually says that he isn't automatically better. It doesn't state that she is. The point being that all should have equal chances to try. Most job performances have nothing to do with whether or not a person has a penis or a vagina or both, in some cases.

Your friend then could contact a lawyer. It depends on the the laws in her state what her options would be. Quitting sounds like she just gave up. It doesn't seem that she needn't the job. Hopefully she was able to find another.

I meant documentation against the discrimination. That is why I mentioned many cell phones of today having the capability to record in person conversations.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

You said that my friend who told me about the requirements being different (less for the women) must have been a "slacker". Why would you say that?

I do agree all should have equal chances to try. And I do believe in TRUE equality in everything (not just gender) but that's another discussion.

As for the name change, I think that was just the "final straw" that really pushed her to quit that job. I am just saying they didn't speak on a cell phone or even office phone. She went to the boss with her documents for the name change, and was told no.

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

I never did. Here's the paragraph to which you must be referring:
"That woman may have just been a slacker or was trying to come up with an idea to attract women to certain occupations. Not all ideasd are good ones for any and everything in general. They are plenty of women in fire department jobs that have passed the same requirements as men and are succeeding alongside the men in their jobs."

No, it's been within this discussion.

Really?!?! You don't have to talk on the cell phone. It can work as a recorder. Documentation is proof but not always documents. If she had documentation about the discrimination then she could have taken it to a lawyer. Laws can vary by state.
She could have changed her name if she wanted to do so. She then could have told her employer it was done. She would have had to change her status at the bank too.
It sounds like your friend just wanted to quit. Maybe she should just carry around a copy of her marriage license as a just in case measure.

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

Ok, I misunderstood what you said/meant. I thought you were assuming it was a male who didn't make it who said that. As I said, it might be changed now anyway.

Yes, she had other issues with the woman, I think the name thing was just the final thing, and she just felt like she'd rather quit and start over than put up a fight to be a place that she wasn't happy anyway. Then there's the chance of the boss retaliating, and it just becoming a vicious circle.

Her issue (the way she was thinking) was that if she changed her name on her license, bank accounts, etc., and it was different on her paycheck (her boss also refused to use direct deposit) then she would have problems.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

The women are always shown as successful, saving the day, etc. And women complain about how they are shown? Just imagine showing a woman as totally incompetent at something.

Like in the BB episode where Carol hopelessly screwed up building a playhouse for the girls--and then "the men" came to their rescue, and relegated them to fetching lemonade...you know, women's work...while the guys did men's work...  Or how about when Mike and Carol swapped roles, and Carol failed miserably? (Of course, Mike failed, too. )

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

I actually have not seen either of those in a while. But I do remember thinking (when I saw it) that Carol and the girls did poorly on purpose so the guys would come out and take over.

reply

[–] Jennie_Portrait 9 years ago

I agree with you and I am a female contemporary--- of Cindy.

The show does reflect a lot of the prevailing sentiment back then of the different treatment for boys and girls.

I remember when i was in junior high, the girls were AUTOMATICALLY assigned to Home-Economics Class while the boys went to wood shop. I had to get special permission to have my class switched to wood shop since that's what I was interested in doing. Turns out, within a year, they changed the policy entirely and allows kids to pick what they wanted to take.

But I think the Brady Bunch always seemed to be behind the curve when it came to these things. It lagged by several years what people actually did.

When it comes to I Love Lucy, I just want to smack Ricky. Let's face it, Lucy was a 40 year old woman--- not a young ingenue and he treated her like she was a kid.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

You then should know better than to refer to a woman as a "broad".

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Why are you being rude? Is it just your nature? Let me now know if it is so I can place you on my ignore list and we'll no longer need to interact. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt but that's about it.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

The thing I hated most about women's lib is that you went to work to "fulfill your destiny", and left your kids for someone else to raise or come home to an empty house.

Why do you STILL have the belief system that it's the female's job to stay home and raise the kids? You're aware, aren't you, of MEN who choose to fulfill that role, right? Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? And if you're only upset about women "fulfilling their destiny" by working in a career, why? Where's the outrage over men who do that? Why the difference? Kindly explain in LOGICAL terms, in other words, do not fall back on meaningless, stereotypical arguments like, "because...she's the mother!"  Provide actual, logical reasoning as to why a female parent should be vilified for working in a career, but a male parent shouldn't.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

Oh, I don't know. Why was the mother tending the kids over the years? It just seem natural until the 60s, then it wasn't natural any longer.

Women were oppressed in the US and had to fight for basic rights, like voting and working and being able to get credit in their own names. So, during those oppressed years, yes, it was the mother tending the kids--but not necessarily because that's what she really WANTED. Opportunities for women were scarce prior to the '60s or '70s; women were seen as flukes of nature if they were in medical school or law school--and they were expected to drop everything and become a "housewife" once they married, or certainly once they had children. Men were never faced with that kind of crap.

This is modern day so families decide who is going to stay home. I was was talking about the situation where both work and day care raises the kids.

I see your point, and actually agree with it, as long as we're talking about BOTH parents, not just the one born with ovaries. 

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

You're rude and obnoxious. You pick at people just for the sake of being disagreeable.
I remember you from awhile back on another board. You were okay for a bit and then started your games. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt this time. I'll just add you to my ignore list to avoid the displeasure.

BTW, there isn't any agenda. It's equality for all regardless of race, creed, color, sex, etc. You're young and like to play games but one day you may mature. No one believes you're as old as you claim when you've posted the ridiculous things you have.

reply

[–] Htos_Drol 9 years ago

But I think the Brady Bunch always seemed to be behind the curve when it came to these things. It lagged by several years what people actually did.

I'm guessing that The Brady Bunch (and most shows of that era) was behind the curve because it was written by men of an older generation. Secondly, I'm guessing that the writers honed their craft in the television and/ or film industry. Sure, they tried to incorporate women's liberation and generation gap scenarios, but their natural biases came through.

reply

[–] Jennie_Portrait 9 years ago

Exactly. Sherwood Schwartz was 53 years old when he created the show in 1969. I am sure that he felt he was being progressive just by having the story being about a blended family.

reply

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

But I think the Brady Bunch always seemed to be behind the curve when it came to these things. It lagged by several years what people actually did.

Yes, I think you're right about that. It was kind of like they WANTED to dabble in the equality issue--and did, in a few episodes--but they also wanted to stick with the old-fashioned "Dad is the breadwinner, Mom stays home" model. I think it's the earliest seasons that bother me the most in terms of sexism. As I stated from the get-go, because I'm a contemporary of the Bradys AND because I was brought up to believe I could do or be ANYTHING, the sexism bugs me! It's simply not a true snapshot of what my life was like in the '70s.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraceFromSoCal 9 years ago

The wife could work if she wanted to. The kids could be anything they wanted to be.

Perhaps we've been watching different shows! The Brady Bunch I've watched has very definite separation between "women's work" (washing dishes, sewing, cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, doing the laundry, etc.) and "men's work" (eating food the women cooked, eating food the women shopped for, working on cars, mowing the [AstroTurf] lawn, etc.).

You sexists see things when it's not there.

Who are you calling sexists?  As for what *I* see in this TV show, there's no imagination involved; it is what it is, with very definite male/female sexism.

As I said, when you don't get your way, you cry about the way your treated.

The way my treated...what? (Or do you mean "the way you're treated"?)

Once again how do you feel about your little darlings being drafted or is that too much liberation?

What on earth are you talking about? The US hasn't had a draft in ages. But, hypothetically speaking, let's pretend it comes back. You're never going to hear me complaining about women being drafted. You see, I'm NOT sexist, which means I believe in equality, period.

--

http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

reply

[–] freebird1987 9 years ago

Women's lib was a thing back in the 70s. The writers incorporated it in the show.

reply

[–] NyuckNyuckNyuck 9 years ago

That's true it seemed Marcia was just being a bitch but she was a womens libber.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]