Noel Edmonds was an Opium dealing villain!?
Nah, that is creepy even for the late 70s and the James Bond vibe prevalent in marketing at the time.
3 Likes
Yeah, all kinds of wrong here. The follow-up was equally terrible in a different way:
5 Likes
Had to look him up, but that’s spot on
1 Like
Well, they sure nailed the european soft-porn look there, didn’t they? Ew.
7 Likes
Lynn Peril!?! I still have a complete run of her hard-copy zine, “Mystery Date.” Very excited to go read all her HiLo posts. Thanks!
Ah. And ugh.
Utterly tasteless, at best.
5 Likes
Ah yes, a time when women would get fired for getting married or pregnant, when men could beat their wives unmolested, and where young girls were told that their core worth was based on their attractiveness… Good times. Clearly, the problem today is that women don’t know what makes them happy, which is waiting on men and hand foot… /s
15 Likes
Got ya covered!
9 Likes
Did find one they almost got right. It is from 1962. Stratego usually had military themes on the cover, but I had this version once. If you look to the right it says a wonderful Father-Son game, great for the whole family. It is rather remarkable in that day they would have had a mother playing her daughter in a (somewhat) strategy game.
6 Likes
Clearly there were plenty of serious issues in that era. There are serious issues in every era.
But honestly, some people are happy and fulfilled living in a traditional family structure. Nobody here is being forced into those roles, which was also the case in 1967. Plenty of people rejected those roles and did other things.
I grew up in a family that looked pretty much like that in that era, and none of the terrible things you mentioned were part of our experience. My older sister grew up helping mom with the dishes after meals, and has gone on to working as a physicist for the Dept of Energy.
Personally, I feel awkward not helping with the washing up, although I was never asked to do it when I was growing up. My sisters never had to split and stack firewood.
I guess my point is that some people can feel happy and fulfilled while living in such a household, with the privileges and responsibilities that go with it. Nobody has to choose that life, but those who do are not necessarily “horrifically sexist”.
3 Likes
Oh. I thought it was James Last.
3 Likes
Good call, right era!
4 Likes
Stratego was way smarter than most of the games of that era. Simple rules, but complex gameplay, and zero luck involved. This is an interesting counterexample to the Battleship cover that started this thread.
8 Likes
In 1967, a woman, even if she had a full-time job, couldn’t get a store charge card or a Diner’s Club card without her husband or male relative co-signing. She couldn’t get her own phone in her home under her own name without her husband or male relative co-signing. Same thing for apartment leases, and mortgages or small business loans were almost always out of the question. (I know these things through actual experience.) She couldn’t stay in her job as soon as she was noticeably pregnant (or even sooner, if it were known). And most types of jobs – especially the career path ones with better pay and benefits – were effectively not possible to be hired for, even when not pregnant or even married.
Being a truly independent woman wasn’t really possible. That’s not “free choice”. That’s dealing with the cards you’ve been dealt in life.
23 Likes
Sure and that’s fine. But few families can afford to only have ONE breadwinner and many women want something more than a life of service, even those who do choose to stay home and raise the children. We are not helpmates and we’re not adjacent to men. And even today, we STILL have to make choices men DO NOT have to make - do we go for career advancement or do we take a day off to go take our kid to the doctor.
This is simply and entirely untrue. Women were not protected by law in the work place, and their choices for employment was limited (though it was growing). Divorces in most states were still hard to get, birth control had only recently been legalized (griswold v. connecticut) and it was very hard for single women to get it, abortion STILL wasn’t legal, women could be fired for everything from complaining about harassment and being passed over for jobs they were well qualified for to GETTING PREGNANT.
And why didn’t YOU do that work, as well? What makes it “women’s work”.
And sometimes they are pretty sexist, actually. Even women. I suggest you look into the misogynistc rhetoric of the quiverfull movement, for example or some of the other right wing evangelical “traditionalist” movements, which see women as broodmares and lesser than men. Fuck all that noise straight in the fucking ear.
21 Likes
I haven’t played it, but there is DEFCON.
2 Likes
Your conception of “plenty” clearly differs greatly from mine.
9 Likes
I wonder what your mother would say today, as to how much of a free choice the domestic role really was for her in 1967. I think you underestimate the crushing weight of societal pressure. Yes, it was technically possible for a woman to reject the domestic role and do other things. But there was so little support or encouragement to do anything else, and even active discouragement, that it did not seem practically possible to many.
Peggy Seeger summed it up beautifully in 1979…
Lyrics (worth reading them all):
10 Likes
Downloaded the demo, thanks.
1 Like
