<p>The Wellesley article does not even have an author! </p>
<p>Here is a summary of a diary of a college woman in the 1930s. She was “very religious” but seemed not to have been unaware of (or shocked by) college sex and pregnancy. </p>
<p>BTW–I read something that said latex condoms had been massed produced in the US in 1936 at the rate of 1.5 million a day. The US population in 1936 was 128,000,000.</p>
<p>As the parent of a Wellesley student, I’m glad her horizons are beyond pouring tea and waiting for the right Harvard man. The only part of that article I’d like to go back is tuition at $2,500/year! What, pray tell, was “preferable” about that era, Beliavsky?</p>
<p>It’s a pity stay at homes moms generally aren’t very valued by society. It’s hard for me to understand handing your infant off to total strangers.</p>
<p>That Wellesley women went on dates, sober, and were more likely by their senior year to have found a partner in life, while their modern Penn counterparts are having drunken hookups. That is progress?</p>
<p>Unless any of the posters attended Wellesley in the 1950s, perhaps we might consider the memories of those who did. “Talking about sex into the morning.”</p>
<p>This is one of those things where correlation does not equal causation. </p>
<p>For example, I could provide an alternative explanation for less drinking: those who get married young are also more likely to be religious. Religious people tend to drink less. Completely unrelated to marriage age. </p>
<p>I, for one, am extremely glad that there’s less “ring by spring” culture. I went to college to get an education, not search for my husband.</p>
<p>Also, this view that there were “the good old days” when (white) women were chaste until married is just plain incorrect.</p>
<p>Between 1900 and 1944 the percent of white married women who had their first birth within 8 months of marriage ranged between 8 and 9 percent. Starting in 1945, the percent hit the 10 percent mark. In the period of 1955-59, the percent rose to 16 percent. </p>
<p>In other words, for white women the percentage of premarital pregnancies that resulted in marriage and birth DOUBLED between 1944 and 1959. For baby boomers born before 1960, there was a 1 in 6 chance that dear old mom was already pregnant when she and (maybe) dad got married!</p>
<p>I was pregnant when I married @ 23, in 1981. Unfortunately I had a miscarriage a few days later.
Before I married, my mil- to be read me the riot act, as if I was the only one responsible.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered ( along with her children)decades later, that she had been three months pregnant with H, when she married in 1954.</p>
<p>What I am really curious about is how several of my great aunts & my grandmother only managed to have one or zero children? I wonder if being one of ten girls had any thing to do with that.</p>
<p>There is a difference between changes in behavior, and changes in how people talk about their behavior. I think the latter has changed more than the former.</p>
<p>Stephanie Coontz has documented that the highest level of teen pregnancy was found in the late 1950’s. The difference was that in those dates, the “happy couple” were handed a ring and poof, miraculously, the 7 pound baby boy was a real heifer for having been born “prematurely.” Believing that there was some magical era in which people waited for marriage is both silly and wrong.</p>
<p>As for “That Wellesley women went on dates, sober, and were more likely by their senior year to have found a partner in life” – Yes, it was better they found their partners for life BECAUSE THERE WAS IMMENSE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK FORCE such that they couldn’t support themselves! For the most part, medical schools, law schools, etc. were closed to them. Good grief! Don’t you remember the stories about how Sandra Day O’Connor couldn’t find work despite being highly qualified because she was a woman and law firms didn’t want to give “men’s jobs” to women? Why on earth do you believe that’s “better,” Beliavsky? Do you think my daughter’s ambitions are less important than her twin brother’s?</p>
<p>As a Wellesley grad, I would just say that to put much credence in anything published by the Crimson on the subject of Wellesley is a mistake.</p>
<p>And by all reports, Mona Lisa Smile was ludicrous. I have not seen it, and don’t intend to see it, since I prefer to maintain healthy blood pressure. :D</p>
<p>They can different ambitions. For women, career attainment is negatively correlated with the number of offspring they have, but this is not true for men. Since my objective function for my children depends not just on how successful they are in their careers but on whether they have children, I will not advise my daughter to be as career-minded as my sons. Of course, they may all ignore my advice.</p>
<p>It’s not they shouldn’t work on career development. It’s that they need to be aware of the effect their career will have on their family aspirations. You can’t have it all. You can’t be a #1 in the region heart surgeon and spend a lot of time with your husband and 4 kids at home. Women will have to sacrifice whether it be their career or family.</p>
<p>so Niquii, you are saying women need to place family first and and be aware of the impact of career on family? but why is this “sacrifice” only on womens’ shoulders pray tell??</p>
<p>are you a student?</p>
<p>why can’t a married couple both place family first and make career sacrifices?</p>