Awkwardian Era

May 3rd, 2009

Awkwardian Era - Black And White

Yep, even old-timey folks did it.

(submitted by Jeff)

415 Responses to “Awkwardian Era”

  1. Kyle says:

    here’s a picture that one-ups the evolution of man drawing

  2. Brandon Burt says:

    This family’s sense of geometric exactitude is nothing if not impressive. Obviously, Mother was required to bear children at precisely timed intervals, while the offspring’s growth rate was controlled by a tightly managed regimen of botanical nutrients, calisthenics and (where necessary) mechanical stretching. All this was strictly administered by Nanny (not pictured) who, obviously, was an expert at the top of her field.

    What’s up with the youngest (daughter in pinafore/son in christening gown) though? He/she is slightly too short–did Mother and Father neglect the breeding schedule? I’m afraid it must have meant extra sessions on the rack.

  3. Stacy says:

    Anyone notice that the man and woman are not wearing wedding rings…Odd…

  4. Stacy says:

    Anyone notice that the man and woman are not wearing wedding rings…Odd…And I think the smallest child is a girl.

  5. cremenoir says:

    the monocle. that is all.

  6. thehamburgla says:

    old pictures like this creep me out…

  7. rob says:

    All the brown hair. I wonder where the milk man was when the little blond boy was concived?

  8. cptwentworth says:

    Awkward, yes. But only by our standards. In order to take a picture at the time, the subjects had to stay completely still for several minutes. So, no smiling. As for the in-line pose, well they probably really liked their symmetry. Every family has to be proud of something.

  9. andrea says:

    Am I the only one who sees the start of the Fibonacci sequence? 1, 1, 2, 3…..

  10. SW says:

    Sadly, the critics of this beauttiful picture are the ones that can’t spell. Obviously they have no appreciation for the effort it took to make that family portrait. Not to mention that they have no appreciation or respect of how rare it was to be able to take a family photo then, and that that family was an important part of American history. Lucky you (whoever posted that pic) that has the opportunity to trace back your family history. Wish all of us could do so, then maybe we’d all appreciate the effort it took for you to become the little unappreciative snot you are to think that this was an akward moment…You were only given the opportunity to become what you are due to those “akward” people. You should appreciate it more.

  11. Chris says:

    more bars in more time periods that is the AT&T way

  12. LUPERCINIO says:


  13. cynthia says:

    Where is that woman’s eye?!!?!?!?

  14. j says:

    The last 2 kids are the mailman’s! blondies

  15. whoa says:

    I’m wondering how the heck they got the 2 little ones to hold still. I can’t get my little guys to hold still for anything!

  16. FunYl says:

    Ok,itยดs a girl!Done!

  17. sg says:

    ah, the good ol days of child labor. i’d have 5 too if i could put em to work.

  18. Peter says:

    The fact that their heights are in perfect, even increments is kind of scary…

  19. John says:

    Every 9 months – new hand-me-downs YEAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!

  20. Cheryl says:

    That is WILD that they are so PERFECTLY spaced apart in height! Bizarro!

  21. Veggiesaurus says:

    I’m pretty sure they actually make up a perfect slope! Let’s put a piece of plywood on their heads and do some jumps!

  22. Brightened_day says:

    What you can’t see in this photo is the toboggan flying in just off camera to attempt the human ski jump world record.

  23. mrsal says:

    That is genius! How the photographer go everyone posed so precisely is beyond my comprehension.

  24. laughing_hard says:

    Awkward Things:
    1.) the heights are so perfect
    2.) the youngest boys are dressed like their mom
    3.) they all have the same shoes
    4.) they’re not smiling
    5.) it seems like they’re looking right at you
    6.) 1/2 the kids match one parent, 1/2 the kids match the other
    7.) it looks like the child in the very center has high socks with shorts
    8.) they all have a *we were forced to do this look*
    9.) the kid in the very center almost smiled
    10.) the backdrop doesn’t go to the very left
    *and there is plenty more*

    • mrsmarvel says:

      These things aren’t actually awkward, they are out dated for us, and some of your points are just nit picky for no reason. #2 Why are the two young boys dressed like their mom? Why does anyone dress alike for a family portrait? #7 The boy in the middle probably does have knee socks with shorts. Boys didn’t move into long pants until they were teenagers. #10 actually, it does go all the way to the left but the design changes. It does not go all the way to the floor.

      You might actually want to focus on the awkward things rather than the unfamiliar things.

      • Stacy says:

        Also, I don’t understand why #5 is awkward. Why wouldn’t they appear to look right at you? It’s a freaking picture! People are supposed to look right at the camera, as if they are looking at the people…

        • Kathryn says:

          Actually, I believe ALL the boys are in shorts and stockings, while the youngest son hasn’t been breeched yet (and probably wouldn’t be for at least another year). I think what looks like the bottom of trousers on the two older boys is the slight reflection of the leather of the high-top boots. I don’t believe any of them are old enough to be in long pants yet.

  25. laughing_hard says:

    Why are the two youngest boys dressed like their mom?? *awkward thing about this photo #356*

  26. lorie l says:


  27. mary says:

    wait till you see HIS mom

  28. Jenn says:

    I love the ears!!!

  29. hrag says:

    More Bars in more places at&t its where u wanna be

  30. John says:

    I was able to expand the photo beyond what can be seen on this site, and there’s one lanky kid off to the side that seems to be crying uncontrollably. I think he looks taller than his dad. Wassup w’ dat?

  31. Araxie says:

    I’m sorry, that is just nuts… cool nuts, but nuts… The neatest thing to come out of a culture of way too many children per family…

  32. Patric says:

    I kinda feel like pushing the dad a little bit just to see how the domino effect works.

  33. Chris says:

    Is the mom wearing a monocular?

  34. Brendon says:

    More bars in more places!

  35. sebo Christo says:

    Makes you wonder if smiling was invented back then

  36. mjd says:

    Lay a board across their heads and you have a ramp.

  37. Ben says:

    More bars in more places.

  38. krissy says:

    I like the little boy in the dress :]
    I actually love this picture, not awkward at all.
    I love the dad behind the mom ๐Ÿ˜‰

  39. Eric says:

    What a joy for a follower of Phytagoras Theorem!

    • Sami says:

      lol! love it..and the adopted comment. and how serious and almost angry ppl sound replying to comments. ๐Ÿ™‚

  40. Jane says:

    Awkward or not, I want to know how that woman is so thin after birthing five children!

  41. wu_wei_lion says:

    Connect the tops of their heads and you get a perfectly straight line!

  42. Mark Bergseid says:

    that was photoshopped!

  43. ZenGugs says:

    They look like a statistical regression chart – seriously – what a nice straight line :-). Or it’s like one the older “Got Milk” commercials that show the kids growing up and the various stages. But what’s the likelihood that there would be a family where the heights one after the other would produce such a straight line.


  44. TCH says:

    before the availability of birth control. Bless her heart. Looks like she popped out a kid for every year of marriage.

  45. Anna G. says:

    Omg They All Look alike!!!

  46. erika says:

    the smallest one is a boy not a girl because girls around that time had to wear long skirts like the mother in the picture that didn’t show the girls shoes.

  47. GrittyGranny1 says:

    Enjoyed this one as have some photos my ancestors looking equally uncomfortable. I note someone’s ‘finally got a girl’ reference smallest child. Not necessarily so – boys were dressed in garb like that until about three in that era.

    • Gleno says:

      Yeah, I’d say that the littlest one is actually a boy. Granny’s right.

      • kate says:

        no, it’s a girl. Why else would she be wearing something different?

        • SNiP says:

          Well, as was said, “boys were dressed in garb like that until about three in that era.” That is a reason why they would be dressed differently, the next child up appears older than 3.

          • Survival Guy says:

            Maybe they just gave up on having a girl with the last one and decided to just raise “Susie” as a girl?

          • Princess says:

            I believe that it is a boy. In that time frame, I believe you could tell by the way the hair is parted. All but mom parted the same side. Just a thought.

  48. Cristy says:

    What an odd pic.

  49. Jess213 says:

    I like it, thats how they did photo’s in the olden days…

  50. Aquariansiri says:

    I think referenced is spelled with a “C”. Who cares if the AT&T thing has been pointed out so much. It is still funny. Lighten up and pick up a dictionary.

Leave a Reply

View Mobile Site
spread the awkwardness