Nothing New Under the Sun

From the November 1957 Atlantic, Nora Johnson's "Sex and the College Girl". Some portions seem to be describing a very different world. Others are strikingly familiar to our own:

In other ages, women were not educated to expect so much, and consequently they were less frequently disappointed. A really mature girl can, of course, absorb her disappointment by saying to herself, "I can't do all the things I wanted, but, instead of trying to, I can be much happier by doing my best in the few things that are possible to me." Others never give up the hope of being able to manage everything—a husband, a career, community work, children, and all the rest. A few exceptional ones can manage it, but others end up with an ulcer, a divorce, a psychiatrist, or deep disappointment.

To read the whole thing you'd need to subscribe, which I recommend. Not only is the magazine great, but I find these archival bits fascinating.

Comments

O/T, but related to reminding ourselves of history: the BBC has a very impressive series called "The Twenties In Colour", and I recently had the opportunity to watch the episode on Europe just after WW1. Seeing it all in color seems to make the time period all so much more real. Watch for it.

Posted by El Cid | November 17, 2007 5:36 PM

I used to be an Atlantic subscriber, but have honestly found the blogs here to be a far superior product than the magazine (with the exception of McMegan).

During that era in which I received it, which was only a few years ago, it was neither that informative nor that interesting commentary-wise; it was very much a creature of the Establishment, and it had the execrable Mark Steyn as its obit writer, which was just the last straw for me.

Obviously, Matthew has material reasons to try to attract subscribers, and I don't begrudge him that -- everyone's got to make a living. But I do want to offer a different view on the (frequently self-congratulatory) Atlantic.

Posted by Ben Cronin | November 17, 2007 6:30 PM

The Atlantic is a great magazine but I think you'll get more takers on subscribing if you pimp the short fiction in the archives than old social commentary.

Posted by joejoejoe | November 17, 2007 6:55 PM

How about "Tapping a Maple on a Cold Vermont Morning"? I'm wondering if it holds up.

Posted by Kyle | November 17, 2007 6:59 PM

I found this amusing:
-Sex and the College Girl-
In other ages, women were not educated to expect so much, and consequently they were less frequently disappointed.

Yes, I am terribly immature.

Posted by Kolohe | November 17, 2007 7:35 PM

The Atlantic has James Fallows and William Langewiesche, who are among the best writers operating anywhere. But unfortunately it seems to have low quality control. When it gets good writers they do great work. But at the other end of the scale you get thought-free pieces like the recent "Why Presidents Lie" or the 150th anniverary issue with its major article on how the American Navy ISN'T BIG ENOUGH OMG.

I'm a current subscriber, and it's super-cheap, and I'm not really strapped for cash, so I'm not planning to unsubscribe. But I have a sneaking suspicion that, pompous though it is, Harper's is pound-for-pound better.

Posted by william | November 17, 2007 10:02 PM

Sometimes when I read your blog, I feel like it is 1957. "With everything going on in the world today" obsessing over the status of American women (e.g., men get coffee faster at Starbucks..boo hoo) in the country in which women have the highest (relative) status in human history seems, I don't know, like you really think it is still 1957 -- or maybe 1857. Spend some time in the Third World or in Asia or the Middle East and then get back to us on the pressing issues of Starbucks service and the sex lives of American college girls.

Posted by jim | November 18, 2007 12:19 AM

I subscribed a few months ago - in large part due to the blogs. It's a good.

Posted by Mike | November 18, 2007 12:33 AM

in the country in which women have the highest (relative) status in human history

This is not true. You need to travel, or failing that, read.

Posted by kali | November 18, 2007 3:01 AM

Boy, this is going to be an enlightening comments thread.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 18, 2007 3:09 AM

I am not a subscriber, and I was able to read the article.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 18, 2007 5:41 AM

Sometimes when I read your blog, I feel like it is 1957.

You know, I was really expecting this comment to continue with something along the lines of "...because so many of your commenters seem to have missed out on feminism completely."

The situation in the Third World and the Middle East and Asia is no reason to ignore the unequal status of women in the U.S. And the coffee service thing isn't a big issue in itself, but because it's symptomatic of the way women are treated in general.

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 18, 2007 7:50 AM

If I were Matt's editor he'd be applying burn ointment to his ears. The article he refers to is a lot more interesting than Matt's post, considered as either plug or thought.

After all, it's certainly not new to ruminate that there is nothing new about some people wanting to fulfill numerous roles, and failing. Surely among the scribes considering Cleopatra's demise there was one who said "Well, if she had been content to be a queen, and not tried also to be a wife, she'd be alive today".

A subscription to the Atlantic might be a better deal if they just sent you the issue that appeared 50 years ago this month. Because, believe it or not, there actually are things in the world that are new- even if they happened 50 years ago.

Posted by serial catowner | November 18, 2007 1:16 PM

>After all, it's certainly not new to ruminate >that there is nothing new about some people >wanting to fulfill numerous roles, and failing.

And yet, in our culture, a man who plans on having a wife, a career, children - and yes, even community work - doesn't think twice about it. How many anguished essays are written by men: "Well, I'd love to have a great career as a lawyer, but you know, I'd really like to have children one day as well ... can I really have it all?"

They take it for granted.

Posted by Zoe | November 18, 2007 10:42 PM