Modern life, more depressing than at any point in past 100..

Post Reply New Topic

I think the article (and the doctor that is referred to) - relies on an understanding of the reader that not everything can be contained within one approach to the theories of why people are depressed, now, versus 100 years ago, or on any topic.

It is easy to dismiss something because it is incomplete in its scope, but then that would lead to people dismissing most things.

I think there were a lot of women who would be happy not to have been a wage slave in the 1950's. Work is a source of depression for many women in the current day and money could buy a lot more back in the 1950's, and as I am sure you can imagine, many households relied on a man's wage.

Women were also viewed as second class citizens in the fifties. Both of my grandmothers were miserable in that time period.

The women’s rights movement did a lot to further the freedom and happiness of most women, and things have continued to improve for them over time.

The women's rights movement, liberating women by trading their 'second class citizenship' of not having to work and to look after children, for a full-time job that usually sucks, and to pay for childcare, or to live in poverty and marry the welfare state when they inevitably divorce due to disintegration of the institution of marriage.

The freedom of contraception, so that men can get it on with as many women as they like with less consequence. Etc.

Yeah, the same could be said about the Civil Rights movement or, heck, about freeing the slaves. Imagine how much easier it was when slaves didn’t have to make any decisions. They just had to follow their masters’ orders./s

The thing is, those slaves had less/or no rights, and had to work their socks off for nothing or little in return, unlike a lot the women of the 1950's where (mostly white) women benefited from social and financial stability by being housewives. You are comparing apples to oranges.

What do you mean “social and financial stability?” You seem to be buying into the mythos of that time period rather than the reality.

As a woman, I’m glad that I have the freedom to take birth control, choose a fulfilling career, and know that I have equal rights in spheres such as employment. There are also more laws regarding domestic violence and sexual assault. There always were laws regarding rape and sexual assault, but it’s expanded to ensure more justice for more people.

I don't think I am buying into the mythos of that time period. If you even looked into the subject of the 1950's with any seriousness for even a short time, (i.e, by looking at what a yearly salary for a man could buy his family) versus today where people cannot even buy homes and thus cannot take having a place to stay for granted, even when they have a full-time job - I imagine you would have a different opinion.

Choosing a fulfilling career is a luxury for people nowadays. Social mobility is almost nil if you haven't noticed?

The current day paradigm of life being easier for women than it ever was, is surely a myth, as is the assumption that progress goes hand in hand with the passage of time.

In my opinion, in many ways, society has regressed as of the current day versus 60 or 70 years ago.

I would not have a different opinion.

It’s not just about money although many people were poor and struggled to afford housing with just one salary even back then. I also value education and believe that it can improve one’s quality of life. However:

https://sites.lib.jmu.edu/sc-interviews ... the-1950s/

The teen birth rate was also much higher which kept fewer women from even attaining a high school diploma.

I think education being more egalitarian today is a positive development, though rarely does it seem to lead to increased employment opportunities in the current day as people might imagine.

Happiness does not boil down to just “employment opportunities.” Education can improve one’s quality of life in ways that are much more difficult to quantify. It can lead to personal fulfillment. Not every woman wants to be a wife and mother, but their options were much more restricted in the fifties+.

It’s certainly not a lifestyle that I (and many others) would choose. It’s okay to make that choice, but it’s nice to have choices.

Not every woman is straight. Some people are trans. I’m glad that I live in a time and place where people can often be who they are.

I realise that there are gay as well as trans women. (And that you fall into the former category).

I agree that education can improve one's quality of life in ways that are difficult to quantify.

I wouldn’t define myself as gay. I’m pansexual although, so far, I’ve only dated men. I made out with my best friend, but we never officially dated.

I thought you had said you were bisexual in a different thread, which is by definition a part of the gay spectrum.

If I have got that wrong then I stand corrected.

I do not label myself as gay because, to me, that means that I would only be interested in women. Sometimes I’ve said that I’m bisexual because not everyone knows what “pansexual” means. I didn’t know what it meant until a couple years ago. I’m basically such a demisexual that I don’t even care about a person’s biological sex.

It’s nice to know that if I fell in love with a woman (etc.) we could live together, marry, and be open about our relationship in ways that we couldn’t have been in the past. I wouldn’t be as restricted by homophobia (internal or external). It obviously still happens and is still a big problem, but at least my relationship would be recognized by most people.

I am not dismissing that mental health is a major issue in 2023, but heres the thing. I actually think it's obvious that standard of living alleviates most of the life stressors our great great grandparents had to endure in 1923. People living in all nations are much more prosperous (on average) than their predecessors most of whom were eeking out a living in order to survive.

The issues/things that are causing stress in 2023 are now more varied. But are they quantifiably and qualitatively the same as 1923?? How could the author possibly know they are comparable