The way that the mom is just supposed to stay at home, cater to her husband's every demand (make me some dinner for 30 people, pronto!), and basically be a housemaid.
I find it very insulting.
Well firstly it is pointed out IN the movie how wrong and chauvinistic that is.
Secondly, it hasn't aged poorly. It's set in the 70s and it remains an accurate representation of some of the attitudes of the time.
You might as well pick up a history book about the Ancient Egyptians and say "Oh this has aged poorly. Slaves building pyramids for their pharos? I find that very insulting!!"
It's how things were. What do you want the filmmakers to do, go back in time and change the world and then re-film it?
Great response.
You know, that Little House on the Prairie has aged poorly, too - the woman aren't allowed to vote or own property.
I find that very insulting.
LOL :D
shareGet over it.
That is what it was like back then. I'm not insulted in the slightest.
http://www.myspace.com/red_bored_london
Well, unmarried women could own property, however when they married, the husband became the legal owner.
shareSorry, but this HAS aged poorly and it's not a criticism of the film itself. It was filmed in 1976 and presents lifestyles and attitudes that were normal back then but seem a little odd 40 years later. The whole notion of the housewife being her husband's virtual slave is one thing, but even things like Ben calling cooking a "sissy" thing to do, Ben sitting in the front seat of the car with his dad with no seatbelt on, Ellen as Annabel being perplexed by an eletric typewriter, and even the very dated 70s style music make this an interesting time capsule of that time period.
share^ this
Ya, it is insulting, but it's just how the times were. It's different now, thank God.
[Marcia and Charlie kiss]
Charlie:"Marcia I gotta go...something suddenly came up!" ;)
You might find it insulting, but such marriages were less prone to divorce.
shareOnly because the women had nowhere else to go. Their parents wouldn't take them back in most instances, and they wouldn't get paid enough to live on their own. You might as well use that as a validation for women being their husband's property as many places in the world do.
Also, I'd love to know what the instances of cheating were in those days. Y'know, the old joke about the Milk Man being the father of the kids? Just because its less prone doesn't mean its a good relationship.
And today we are all slaves to the youth market, or the internet. The more things change, the mroe things stay the same.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star?
Also, I'd love to know what the instances of cheating were in those days. Y'know, the old joke about the Milk Man being the father of the kids?
^ this
That's *beep* The wives were essentially trapped, they were expected to stay with their families and not go back to their parents. At that time the women's lib movement was only about ten years old and conditions hadn't changed drastically yet. What the hell is the point of staying married if you're married to an overbearing dominating *beep* You must not be a woman to make that comment.
shareit's meant to be dated. that's why it's history
Let's not forget that the whole "Male chauvinist pig" remarks were coming from the daughter, not the mother, and that it seemed like that day was just particularly busy. After all, I doubt the dad had a big business deal every day or that the mom always borrowed her friend's hairdryer, plus it was payday for the services that the parents had employed, and for all we know, they could've already agreed prior to the event that if the deal with the food fell through, she would do the cooking for the gala, which was implied to have been planned for sometime prior to the day we were seeing.
Truck or Squad. What side are you on?