this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
101 points (93.2% liked)

Asklemmy

49443 readers
355 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] weremacaque@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

I'd only be in it for the ability to buy a house, except that I'd share it with friends instead of getting married and settling down. I'm a bit too demiromantic for that right now.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 12 points 6 days ago

He was younger…. He wants to go back to a time when he was young and free perhaps

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In both cases, only a minority of us got to enjoy those benefits.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Yeah, I wish more of us could enjoy that today, but who will think of the poor investors

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 14 points 6 days ago

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

[–] juliebean@lemmy.zip 9 points 6 days 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.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 days 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.

He was young.

Being young, is nice. Mostly because you don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that e.g. a house, children and maybe the marriage is not as loving as it used to be.

So he misses being young, but instead of realizing that he was just young. He thinks about what was different and as your responses imply, he blames foreigner for the change. As you expressed that he thinks of you as just a girl, he is probably also sexist and the 50s were much more sexist as it still is.

In other words, culture changed, he didn't and he is old.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago

It is because he has a mythical view of that decade.

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days 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.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

~~Better~~ good wages

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Boomers were named after the Baby Boom, not the economic boom.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

There was also an economic boom, but that's absolutely not where the name comes from.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i completely agree. people felt the economic upwind and decided to have children because they could afford that.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It’s literally why they’re called β€œboomers”, it was an economic boom.

It's short for "Baby Boomers", because there was a huge baby boom after WW2.

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

By that logic, there must have been a baby zoom in the '90s

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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...

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (25 children)

I want the economy of the 50s

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

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Because white guys.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί