The women's liberation movement had been ongoing since the mid-1800s. It might have helped things, but things were already going in that direction, and that's an effect which didn't show up until the late 50s/early 60s--a decade later.Jim North wrote:It promoted women's lib and boosted the American economy.
Now be fair. It seems to me that you do this a lot NakedElf. You asked what was so great about the WWII era, and Jim said that it boosted our economy, which was true. And it promoted women's lib, which was also undeniably true.NakedElf wrote:As for the economy, so 50 million people died so Americans could have cars and big houses a decade later? Yeah, that's a great trade-off. -_-
No, that was the 1950s and 60s for commies (wasn't real trendy by the 70s), the latter is only with a small minority and it's out of sheer ignorance and bigotry.NakedElf wrote:You missed commies and brown people labeled 'terrorists'.Laemkral wrote:It provided the basis for countless first person shooters involving killing Nazis, one of the three enemies you are always allowed to kill and not feel guilty about at all. The other two are the undead and demons. And Return to Castle Wolfenstein had all three!NakedElf wrote:I'm not sure that makes sense to me. What exactly was good about the WWII era?
Thing is, I'm not actually questioning that there were good *results* from WWII. I'm all in favor of getting Hitler out of power and stopping the Holocaust, ending the Depression, women's lib, and so on.rkolter wrote:Now be fair. It seems to me that you do this a lot NakedElf. You asked what was so great about the WWII era, and Jim said that it boosted our economy, which was true. And it promoted women's lib, which was also undeniably true.
He did not say that it started the women's lib movement. Nor did he suggest that fifty million lives was a fair trade for an improved economy.
:-?
Actually, I was being snide about American politics. I don't really have a good enough memory for forum-names to keep track of people very well in a setting like this unless someone does something really spectacular, and even then I'm fairly likely to forget it in a week. It's not that you guys aren't memorable, it's just that, well, my memory sucks. I couldn't target folks if I wanted to.Laemkral wrote:No, that was the 1950s and 60s for commies (wasn't real trendy by the 70s), the latter is only with a small minority and it's out of sheer ignorance and bigotry.
See Jim, she's picking on me too. Her comment was merely more snide and underhanded.
I went into a Hot Topic and the girl said if I knew what bands "my kids were into" she could help me pick something out.Col wrote:One distinct moment of feeling out-dated for me....
Both of my examples were indeed things that happened during WWII. Both the economy and womens' situation actively improved a great deal during wartime, not just afterwards. Heck, the two things put together meant that unemployment was reduced to almost nothing during the war. Separately, women gained a good deal more pride in themselves and their work, and industrial manufacturing went through the roof due to all the materials and products needed to fight that there war. And more! But I'm too lazy to remember/look them up at the moment.NakedElf wrote:But the original question was specific to the WWII era *itself*.
Your question was not whether we'd want to live there, tho'. It was about what was good about it. McDuffies' post before yours didn't say anything about wanting to live in turbulent times either, but that they are good for providing precious cultural values. And they do. Many wars and social upheavals and the like do bring about great change, many times for the best. The promotion of women's rights during WWII is just one of a myriad of positive changes brought about by and during otherwise negative times and events. It's not necessary to want to live in those times to appreciate the good parts of them.I wouldn't want to live during WWII, and I highly doubt most of the rest of us would, either.
I find the expansion of Existentialism and the post-Dada art world that Sir Yeahduff mentioned to be far more interesting, personally, but meh.I responded to you because your answer was more interesting to me.
That's also interesting, but not something I have a remotely intelligent response to.Jim North wrote: I find the expansion of Existentialism and the post-Dada art world that Sir Yeahduff mentioned to be far more interesting, personally, but meh.
What makes that really funny is how they always have Metallica, Ozzy and Misfits stuff in there. And those bands have been around for 20+ years.Col wrote:Warren wrote:I went into a Hot Topic and the girl said if I knew what bands "my kids were into" she could help me pick something out.Col wrote:One distinct moment of feeling out-dated for me....
Me, too! You'd think if anyone had any, it'd be them. But I've been to HTs here in Branson, in Springfield, and up in St. Louis . . . and nothin'! I should write an angry letter. Rar!NakedElf wrote:None? That seems weird to me.
Hey, maybe Cosmic Fish up in Springfield would have one; that's where I finally found a new Darwin fish. Remind me tomorrow and we'll go there and look (If I hadn't posted that, I never would've remembered it myself)Jim North wrote:Me, too! You'd think if anyone had any, it'd be them. But I've been to HTs here in Branson, in Springfield, and up in St. Louis . . . and nothin'! I should write an angry letter. Rar!NakedElf wrote:None? That seems weird to me.
You might try Kaliedoscope, too, over by St. John's. They might have some. http://www.kscope4fun.com/Kat North wrote:Hey, maybe Cosmic Fish up in Springfield would have one; that's where I finally found a new Darwin fish. Remind me tomorrow and we'll go there and look (If I hadn't posted that, I never would've remembered it myself)Jim North wrote:Me, too! You'd think if anyone had any, it'd be them. But I've been to HTs here in Branson, in Springfield, and up in St. Louis . . . and nothin'! I should write an angry letter. Rar!NakedElf wrote:None? That seems weird to me.
