I'm taking another English class this semester, Composition II. I had class today, of course. I have every class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We got back the rough drafts of our first paper, which we had turned in last Thursday. I wasn't completely satisfied with mine, but had run out of time to work on it. When planning my writing time for the week, I'd hadn't counted on starting a new job on Wednesday. At least it was typed, and it was over the minimum length. I consoled myself with the thought that "It's just the rough draft," and planned to comment/apologize when I turned it in for just how rough it was. I ended up not saying anything, because the majority of the class had made similar comments by the time I got to the professor's desk, and I didn't want to seem repetitive. I was entirely prepared for it to come back dripping with red ink.
But it didn't. For one thing, he grades in blue. More surprising were his comments on the last page. "Good paper; description. No rewrite necessary. On A track."
This used to happen to me in high school sometimes. I'd turn in a paper that I knew to be substandard, and I'd get it back with a flaming red A. And so my perpetual writing puzzles returns: Am I really that good, or does the professor just have no standards?"
========================================================================
(the paper, if you're curious. It was on the myth of the normal family, i.e. 1950s, Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, etc.)
The 1950s are a popular focus of nostalgia in today’s society. People seem divided into two camps. There are those who feel the tug of that nostalgia and revel in it. Then there is the group that may or may not feel that pull, but resist is with every ounce of reason they possess. Danielle Crittenden, in her persuasive essay, “About Marriage,” is clearly an example of the people who approve of the 1950s. Although she agrees that America couldn't return to that decade exactly as it was, and wouldn't want to, she argues that we could greatly improve the present by bringing back many of the attitudes and roles of that time. She blames feminists for the current height of the divorce rate, refusing to acknowledge that there might be a larger underlying reason. A modern
marriage, where both partners share equally in all aspects of bread-winning, home care, and parenting seems like science fiction, or even fantasy, to her. Crittenden suggests that 1950s society had the right idea with its gender-based division of labor. She does concede that women of today would not be willing to go back entirely. However, she posits that modern women wouldn't be stuck in the home, as trapped as flies stuck to gluey flypaper, as were the housewives and mothers of the stereotypical 1950s were. Today, women would be able to connect with the outside world through their computers, enabling them to take a part-time job, or work from home … once their children start school. Of course, their primary, perhaps their only, career would naturally be as a wife and mother.
In “What We Really Miss About the 1950s,” Stephanie Coontz takes a much more analytical look at that time. She finds good things there, lots of them. The work week was shorter. Jobs were more secure because corporations stayed in one place instead of moving about constantly, searching for the cheapest labor force. Houses were more affordable in the 1950s, and wages were rising quickly. College was an option for many, especially for returning and former members of the military, but good-paying jobs could be had without a degree. The minimum wage would support a family of three at a rate about the poverty level! Perhaps the most seductive trait of that decade was the hope that seemed prevalent. Coming out of the two terrible decades of the 1930s and 1940s, the future seemed very bright after 1950.
Coontz goes on. Unlike Crittenden, she is not content to stop with this sunny picture. She excavates just a small layer deeper, until the darker underside of this nostalgic ideal is exposed. Racism was rampant. Discrimination against minorities of any type was the norm. The “ideal” applied only to upper- and middle-class white families. Blacks, Latinos, recent immigrants, homosexuals, Jews and other non-Christians, political minorities, and women who did not conform were judged harshly and often. Jobs that could support them and their families were difficult, sometimes impossible, to come by. Race riots happened in nearly every major city. The communist witch hunts spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy ran unchecked for a terribly long time.
Only one quarter of the marriages in the 1950s ended in divorce, but that is not necessarily an indicator of happiness. Many women and children were trapped in unhappy or abusive homes. They had no recourse, and no prospect of escape. Abused children were lucky in a way, or at least luckier than their mothers. The children would eventually grow up, and could then go out and find their own home, their own family. The wives were stuck. If they left, supporting themselves financially seemed an insurmountable task. Adding that to the knowledge we have today concerning the psychological effects of long-term abuse, there was no way out for them. A poor marriage choice in their late teens could, often did, haunt them for the rest of their lives. The advice given to wives and mothers by the popular media reinforced that they were important only for what they could do for others. Women must submit to their husbands and cater to every whim of these powerful beings. Mothers must give their children every opportunity for early independence. The nuclear family was celebrated, as long as it consisted of a father, mother, and minor children. Grandparents were allowed, but if they could not care for themselves, they were to be shunted off to a nursing home or other facility. Extended family didn't matter much. They might distract the wife and mother from her own family. Friends were even more strongly discouraged. A woman was a wife. If she was lucky, she was a mother. Anything else was a failure.
The 1950s might look attractive at first glance, but one need only watch a sitcom from that era, paying close attention, to begin to see deep and disturbing problems with the idyllic picture presented. Those who think we should return to it, even parts of it, must be looked at with cautious skepticism at the least. There were some good things about life in the 1950s. There are some good things now. No time in history has ever been completely ideal; no time ever will be. We must be careful that, in reaching for additional good points, we do not end up clutching the bad points as well.
(moved from old blog)
Comments:
Wiz: Guess you'll just have to accept it...you're a good writer!!!!!
Hugs,
Wiz
Frink: Gotta go with Wiz on this one: I really liked it! Well thought out.
Aibrean: Yep, I "third" that! Great job, Beccaie!
aubri
Me: I'm working on accepting it. It's just that I know I wrote this paper in about 1.5 hours, and finished it with practically no time to spare. I KNOW I didn't put much thought into it. Orginazation? HA! If I thought of something, I typed it, until I hit 3 pages. Figured I'd go back later to organize and otherwise polish it. I wonder what would happen if I really worked on a paper? lol
Have I told you all about the last paper I had to write in high school? It was for AP/Honors English, 10 pages. Mine was comparing _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_. I got an A. I still haven't read Macbeth.
Aibrean: LOL! Beccaie... I remember those days as well! I often wonder if I'd gotten even better grades if I'd worked harder... then again, I might've OVER-thought it. Of course, there's a difference between carelessness and natural ability -- I think you just have to come to grips that you're a natural, baby! ;-)
Moonie: Great paper Beccaie! :)
Bonnie: Wonderful! Beccaie, you are a very good writer!
No comments:
Post a Comment