I'm not an expert on the 1950s, however, I'll take a stab at your question. To start, I think your question is framed in a dangerous way that could lead to a rather skewed representation of American history, and history in general. Describing a time period as a "good time to live", except (and this is a big modifier) for all the racial and gender based oppression is a scary way to look at America. The largely white communities ("little boxes on the hillside") which began to proliferate in the 1950s did not exist in isolation, they were dependent on a wide variety of factors in nearby cities and towns, and, in communities all across the nation, that were not so racially homogeneous. Looking at the life of the "American white male" in a vacuum is akin to celebrating the golden age of the Portuguese or achievements of the American south, while ignoring the significant role slavery had in the success of both. It skews the reality of the situation and, perhaps, also creates some of the romanticism (conservatives or similar types yearning for a "whiter", greater America) you mentioned. With this in mind, I'll still do my best to answer the question as asked.

Although there were significant opportunities in the 1950s for white males, and other groups, these opportunities often required significant sacrifices or adjustments of one kind or another. The most obvious is the readjustment of returning veterans to civilian society, although the myriad benefits of the GI bill (largely restricted to whites) softened the blow to an extent. This bill allowed veterans to gain a academic or technical education and find a foothold a foothold in a changed society. The government also insured a certain number of mortgages for veterans, making home ownership far more accessible. As such, an overarching theme of the period was an emphasis on settling down, buying a nice, little home and raising a family in a safe (middle-class white), suburban environment. Removed from the terrors of the battlefield, this was an attractive prospect to many. However, societal critics like Sloan Wilson (The Man In The Gray Flannel Suit )or William H. Whyte (The Organization Man) decried the exchange of individual creativity for conformity, an empty suburban life and the all-powerful dollar. Other contemporary writers, such as the "Beat generation" and particularly Jack Kerouac, described the existence of " a hidden America", far removed from the technicolor glare of newly resurgent television- and ad-men. While shows like Mad Men have done a passable replication of the corporate culture in the 1950s, few have captured the spirit of the Beat generation and the grimy but vibrant spaces where they made their existences, for better or worse.

In the higher reaches of Washington, McCarthyism reached a fever pitch, eventually spilling out into American communities and encouraging suspicion of "the communist other", whoever that may be (ethnic characters, professors, artists, etc. some examples). Lives, careers were ruined, all in the name of some sort of perverted form of statism. That communists had played a significant role in defending the rights of African-Americans for the past half-century did them no favors. So, while there was great advancement and achievements in business, science, and technology for America and Americans, problems were still endemic in society, not least of all with the aforementioned racial-, poverty, and gender-related problems not discussed here. I'll leave it up to you as to whether the 1950s were necessarily a good time to live (my opinion: probably as good as any other) but, at the very least, I hope this acts as a intro of sorts to the time period and, perhaps, to a slightly fuller version of history.

Could you be a little more specific with your question? Its not clear to me where, how, and why the 50's are being romanticized. There's a lot of dystopian views of the 50's in media - for example, lots of eerie post apocalyptic games and TV shows frequently have a 50's backdrop. Some famous examples include the Fallout series of video games. The concept of Mad Men, another dystopian TV show, also has its roots in the 50's advertising culture on Madison Avenue. So I would be interested in hearing where the 50's are being romanticized, because that may inform the answer.

I've been mulling on whether or not to attempt to answer this question and I think I'll take a stab at it.

Ultimately this very question highlights several core problems in the study of history. One is the sources problem, or the streetlamp problem. Being that it's always tempting to be drawn into studying what is available, and not being as conscious of the limitations of those sources as one should. This is a problem in all of science but history has it worse than most because often it's inordinately difficult to acquire other sources. And this isn't just a problem of "the victors write the history", it's much worse than that, it's a matter of only literate people writing history about the things that matter to them. There are great swaths of time where the only records we have from a few sources are a few myths, names of kings, and accounting documents, because that's what people felt important enough to write down. Much of more recent history tends to focus on the lives of the elite, since they led the most notable lives (at least by the standards of the time), were the most literate, the most able to dedicate time to writing, and so forth.

Beyond that there's the preservation problem. History is a bit like a relay race, and if anyone along the way drops the baton for any reason, perhaps even intentionally, then those sources can become lost to future generations (namely, us). Worse yet, there is the potential for distortion and bias along the way either through selective filtering of which sources are carried forward or through editing or retelling. Looking at the past is thus a matter of looking through a long series of lenses, each applying its own distortions, some of which may be difficult to perceive. And then there's the matter of viewpoint, which colors not only the preservation and promulgation of sources and narratives but also how we in the present approach history. Often times people approach history with a preconceived notion of what they expect or want to find, sometimes people look at the history of a particular period with a desire to prove some aspect of it was a certain way, for example.

So all of that is the burden here in addition to the difficult problem of defining what a "good time to live overall" even means, per se. Of necessity any answer would have to be more or less subjective. That said, let me put forward some bits and pieces to "paint a picture", though it's not going to be any less influenced by all of the issues outlined above.

Firstly, what was it like growing up? The school system had a disciplinarian bent, corporal punishment was common, both at home and in the class room. Bullying was common, as were regular fist fights in school. It was an environment that punished non-conformity. It was an environment that didn't appreciate diversity of any sort, not just of gender, race, or sexual orientation, but also of interests, passions, belief systems, intellectual pursuits, ideologies, etc. You could easily be ostracized for having musical interests outside of the mainstream, or for liking books outside the mainstream. And god help you if you decided you no longer believed in the religion your parents held or your family held a religion that was extremely uncommon in the area where you lived.

It was also an era where there was no appreciation for issues of learning disabilities, different ways of learning, the existence of ADHD, depression, bipolar, etc. If you needed to learn in a different way than the rest of the class you were out of luck. You would either be left behind or left to fend for yourself, resulting perhaps in becoming disaffected with the educational establishment (perhaps dropping out of school before finishing, which was extremely common) or being stuck on a remedial track. Also, other "disorders" such as autism were not well understood and were horribly stigmatized by society at large. Being significantly different from the norm was practically a death sentence. Consider, for example, the story of the sister of president John F. Kennedy, Rosemary. Due to poor care during the birth process she was born with an intellectual disability, in her early 20s she was given a lobotomy to make her more placid. There are numerous similar stories of tragedy for folks with autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, or other "difficult" mental disorders from that era. Many of them were treated poorly in mental institutions that were no better than prisons, most treatment concentrated on making them easier to control with little concern for their well-being, they had very little ability to re-enter society and they were typically ostracized by their communities and even their own families.

There were also very intense expectations on young boys to live up to the masculine ideal. Boys who loved books more than sports, boys who were awkward, shy, anxious, etc. were frequently (though not universally) mentally, emotionally, and physically abused by their parents. Meanwhile, it was not the innocent, crime-free era that many romanticized portrayals make it out to be. Sexual abuse, incest, and rape (by adults or by peers) was common though generally unreported because children and teens were often treated as second class citizens.

Secondly, what was it like for adults? Like any era there was the good and the bad, I'm tending to focus on the bad here to highlight the issue of romanticization. One issue not to be missed is the draft. In the 1950s specifically around 1.5 million men were drafted in the US, many of them would serve in the Korean war. Tens of thousands of American men were killed, even more were wounded, and vastly more were forced to experience the horrors of war and had to live with those memories for the rest of their lives. In an era where war was glorified, "weakness" or sensitiveness in men was vilified, and PTSD was not widely appreciated or well-treated this left a lot of war-ravaged lives.

A lot of smaller towns in that era were very insular and protective of their communities, to an almost paranoid degree. As a traveler making their way around the country if you were a stranger in a town and you were "different" in some way (say, with long hair) then there was a good chance the local police would hassle you and make it clear you weren't welcome. And again, it was not a crime free utopia, as homicide and violent crime rates were actually fairly similar to today.

Anyway, I could go on, but this is probably enough. In short, no, it was not a period that was universally excellent even for straight white men.

(I'll try to add some references tomorrow when I get a chance.)