Rosie the Riveter

[Foofoogal]

And the majority of women DIDN'T work back then, or they worked then married. Not all, but most. Even up to the 1950s it was around a 30/70 split when it came to women who worked versus women who stayed at home. It was even less before then. It is safe to assume that most women were homemakers back then because it is fact. That and they were not career women as we know them today by a long stretch. The women who went to work during the depression did so because they needed to eat, not because they decided they wanted a "caree-ah". Prior to the depression the small percentage of women who worked were overwhelmingly of the lower working classes.

this is a good explanation of why I find it so personally terrible to basically "throw the 70% of those women under the bus" IMHO.
What these 70% did was work and kept us all alive. Made homes, raised children, helped their husbands.
I so wonder what this present time would look like if those 70% would of stayed home.
http://sandysfancypants.blogspot.com

 

[Lady Day]

this is a good explanation of why I find it so personally terrible to basically "throw the 70% of those women under the bus" IMHO.
What these 70% did was work and kept us all alive. Made homes, raised children, helped their husbands.
I so wonder what this present time would look like if those 70% would of stayed home.

Those women stayed home because most had no choice but to be homemakers. Now, to take pride in that work sans situation is a completely different story, but I could see a stigma, even a resentment from that generation to their daughters who did have easier opportunities to pursue things outside of the home. Perhaps there was backlash from these new young women to their mothers, and there may have been where resentment grew and is still here to this day.

LD

 

[Foofoogal]

Those women stayed home because most had no choice but to be homemakers.

Do you really believe this? Most did it because they loved being homemakers and their families.
They took pride in doing it and doing it well. Look at all the vintage textiles and such.
Embroidery, fancy aprons etc.
I will always believe women can be bullied and they were bullied in the 1970s by other women.
Like pet rocks having a career was the "popular" thing to do. Now it is almost a necessity to do without great imagination.
yeah, we have come a long way baby.

BTW: A lot of younger women are now asking ?'s and rejecting "feminism."
Thank goodness.

 

[cecil]

this is a good explanation of why I find it so personally terrible to basically "throw the 70% of those women under the bus" IMHO.
What these 70% did was work and kept us all alive. Made homes, raised children, helped their husbands.
I so wonder what this present time would look like if those 70% would of stayed home.
http://sandysfancypants.blogspot.com

Eh? 70 percent DID stay home. The minority were employed.

 

[Foofoogal]

that is correct. the 70% that stayed home and worked and worked hard keeping their home and families.

http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=705439

 

[cecil]

that is correct. the 70% that stayed home and worked and worked hard keeping their home and families.

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying then. That you're wondering what it would be like if the statistic stayed the same? I guess we'll never know!

I see what you mean by women bullying each other, we're now being told to have children as well as work. I do believe that women of previous generations, however, may have frequently been bullied into not working. I have a women's interest magazine that ran an article on a mother who felt restless at home when her children hit school age, and so took up a part-ime job. The majority of readers who wrote in about it ripped her to shreds! Hardly fair. It was from around 1958. I guess they'd forgotten about the Rosies by then?

Hey, there's a question. Was there an average age for the Rosies? The propaganda seems to be targeted at young women with boyfriends serving. Were they mostly misses, or did wives and mothers help too?

 

[analiebe]

surely as women we can have pride, support & respect for ALL women and their individual choices - whether to make the choice to be a homemaker and undertake all the hard work that entails, to pursue a path outside of the home in whatever field that may be and undertake all the hard work that also entails or to choose a combination of both...

no doubt there were women who were homemakers because no other option was available or possible for them, just as there were (and are) many who would make no other choice... as no doubt there were women who felt "bullied" into pursuing a career, just as there were those who felt great joy to be able to


either way... thank goodness there are amazing women in the home, in the workforce, in the arts, in science, in sport etc so that young women today are able to find role models that help them realise that whichever path they take it is valuable and important and worthy

 

[LizzieMaine]

And the majority of women DIDN'T work back then, or they worked then married. Not all, but most. Even up to the 1950s it was around a 30/70 split when it came to women who worked versus women who stayed at home. It was even less before then. It is safe to assume that most women were homemakers back then because it is fact. That and they were not career women as we know them today by a long stretch. The women who went to work during the depression did so because they needed to eat, not because they decided they wanted a "caree-ah". Prior to the depression the small percentage of women who worked were overwhelmingly of the lower working classes.

Here in the US, the workforce was about 43 percent female at the dawn of the fifties, and you're quite right that most working women were working class, which is a big part of the reason many working-class women to this day fail to connect with organized feminism: it was a movement originally focused on the issues of the college-educated middle and upper classes, which prior to the 1950s were a very small percentage of the population. This wasn't just because women didn't go to college much before the fifties -- nobody did. Less than 4 percent of the entire US population held a college degree in 1940. Stephanie Koontz goes into this in detail in her book "The Way We Never Were."

Among that college-educated group, though, you'd find most of the "career women" of the day, and interestingly, the newer industries of the day seemed most receptive to providing opportunities for women, perhaps because they hadn't had the time to become hidebound and traditional in their views. There were quite a few women in positions of power and influence in the broadcasting and advertising business during the thirties and forties, for example -- the very same industries which were responsible for heavily promoting the "Rosie" concept during the war. Coincidence? Likely not..

 

[analiebe]

Hey, there's a question. Was there an average age for the Rosies? The propaganda seems to be targeted at young women with boyfriends serving. Were they mostly misses, or did wives and mothers help too?

according to what i could find it was 25 years of age

found this quote... "Interestingly, even though factories were desperate for laborers, older women had a difficult time finding work." - Working Women on the Homefront in WWII

most of the photographs i've found of factory gals seem to show they appear to be in their 20s..

 

[Lady Day]

Do you really believe this? Most did it because they loved being homemakers and their families.
They took pride in doing it and doing it well. Look at all the vintage textiles and such.
Embroidery, fancy aprons etc.
I will always believe women can be bullied and they were bullied in the 1970s by other women.
Like pet rocks having a career was the "popular" thing to do. Now it is almost a necessity to do without great imagination.
yeah, we have come a long way baby.

Did you even read the sentence I wrote after that one? 'Belief' in this statement is completely irrelevant, I put no emotional investment in my reply. Im stating obvious situation, and women who decided to take pride in what they were given in no way detracts from their purpose, but its unwise to say that would have been chosen by default if society gave them other avenues to peruse.

And by the by, what exactly is your definition of Feminism, because you keep throwing the word around like it is some sort of cultural boogieman.

LD

 

[Foofoogal]

some sort of cultural boogieman

good description. Feminism was and is a boogieman that will eat families for lunch sad to say.
---------------

 

[Foofoogal]

There were quite a few women in positions of power and influence in the broadcasting and advertising business during the thirties and forties, for example -- the very same industries which were responsible for heavily promoting the "Rosie" concept during the war. Coincidence? Likely not..

LizzieMaine.

You most definitely are correct on this. I just take issue with Rosie being accosted and the assault by "feminist" trying to rewrite history.
Nothing new under the sun though as I see an all out effort by same "feminist" mindset to brainwash young women about the same age now.
I just wish the most vocal feminist of the past would admit they failed women in many, many ways.
They projected their imaginations on families and women that did not understand the outcome of these imaginations and harm they would entail.

which is a big part of the reason many working-class women to this day fail to connect with organized feminism:

Ditto.

 

[Lady Day]

So.....you have no definition? Just an emotional response to a word you have associated with something, but you cant define what?

LD

 

[Lenore]

Okay ladies, deep breaths.

My personal opinion is that "feminism" has been taking to extremes just as all viewpoints can be taken. There is nothing wrong with having a career. There is nothing wrong with being a housewife (unless your like my school mate who sits on her butt all day doing nothing letting her child destroy her home, but that's another matter.) I think the crux of the matter is choice.

Many women didn't feel they had a choice to do anything but what was the norm for their time. Granted some women take it too far, but it is because of the people who did in the past that we have the opportunity to make that choice for ourselves now with little interference from outside politics and peer pressure. Personally, I'm happy to feel that I have the option to choose whether or not I am able to stay at home with my daughter and keep house, or go to work.

Maybe I'm really miss non-confrontation, but can we not all agree to disagree?

 

[Lady Day]

There is nothing wrong with having a career. There is nothing wrong with being a housewife (unless your like my school mate who sits on her butt all day doing nothing letting her child destroy her home, but that's another matter.) I think the crux of the matter is choice.

This is quite true, period.

Its just having to preface every comment you say with this in order to be PC about the point you want to make gets a bit tiresome every single time.

The romantic notion that women of the time were content with just what was given to them is just farce. Rosie in many respects was a mascot for women who wanted to help with not just with hope and well wishes buy actual physical effort.

LD

 

[Lenore]

The romantic notion...

I think you would be hard pressed to find a time period that isn't romanticized in some form or another. I second the book Lizzie rec'd earlier "The Way We Never Were." The author makes a fantastic point about human nature to only remember to good and gloss over the bad using children coming back from summer vacation as an easy example. When kids come back to school they're "eh.." about their holiday. Sure they had fun, but there was a lot of boring stuff in there too... If you ask them to make a list of the good and bad about their holiday, the lists would be about equal. Ask the same kids to do this sporadically through the year, and the further you get from the holiday, the less bad things they remember, and the more good until it's time for the next and they're excited for it to begin.


As far as all women being happy with staying home, when have you ever known all women to agree on anything?

 

[Blondie]

but can we not all agree to disagree?

Good for you Lenore, i was just about to say this myself !!!

 

[Lenore]

Good for you Lenore, i was just about to say this myself !!!

::blushes and mumbles:: ...thank you...

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's what I love about this place -- it pretty much moderates itself.

Nonetheless, here's the Official Statement from the mods -- Part of free choice is acknowledging that the every person has every right not to go along with our own point of view, and to express that point of view without being personally attacked. But note also -- *debate* of a viewpoint is not attack unless it gets personal. We've shown in other threads that we can discuss controversial issues without letting it get harshly personal, and this one is no different.

Respect, discuss, debate. In that order.

 

[Lady Day]

...but can we not all agree to disagree?

Debate isnt about confrontation, its about getting information from all view points and forming opinions from it. How else can we grow in understanding how people agree differently from us, or not at all.

Im missing information from the other party, so I cant form an opinion to their responses, or a response of my own. Its frustration, but its not confrontational.

Anytime your definition wants to be posted Foofoo, I would be more that eager to hear it.

LD