Rosie the Riveter

[jetgirl]

I'm new here, maybe I'll be flamed

I just wanted to offer myself as being part of the post 60's and 70's generation of women who considers herself a feminist. I am college educated, but I also work in a an industrial artist community which is decidedly more working class.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Nobody gets flamed here, don't worry about that.

I think one of the interesting ways class differences manifest themselves in discussions of historical feminism is the way in which the idea of "choice" is expressed. For most of the women of the era who worked, it wasn't a choice at all -- it was a necessity, as much as it is for many working women today.

Where I grew up it was very common to see middle-aged women with missing fingers -- thanks to a slipped knife in the sardine canneries where they worked. Those women didn't *choose* to work, they had to because of their economic circumstances. The idea of real "choice" for a woman was a meaningless concept for them. By contrast, the feminists of the fifties and sixties were looking at "choice" from a completely different perspective -- that of well-educated middle/upper class women who were stifled by the whole idea of postwar suburbia -- which was something completely incomprehensible to the working class sardine-cannery ladies of those days. My mother was a working gal when I was a baby -- a telephone operator -- and she had no idea who Betty Friedan was. She still doesn't, to this day, and that's because the movement Friedan represented simply didn't relate to her way of life. How do you explain "choice" to someone who's never had the "choice" to *not* work?

You can look at the continuing popularity of Rosie, therefore, as a way of bridging that gap -- there's something in her that both working-class and middle-class women can identify with, from their own perspectives. And I think that was intentional from the very start.

 

[SayCici]

Lenore, I am not a confrontational person either, but when someone's "opinion" is that feminism "eats families for lunch" and implies that my purpose is to stay home and pop out babies, it's kind of hard to just sit on your hands and ignore it. There is no way I can take someone suggesting that women should be subservient and inferior to men not personally. I can only be grateful I was born when I was, and do not live in a world that lives up to Foofoogal's standards. She is clearly anti-feminist and so far her position is based on emotions and conjecture.

"Feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing more rights and legal protection for women."

Feminism is about providing an equal playing ground and CHOICE to women. The choice to work or stay at home, and enjoy or find fulfillment in either (among other decisions). And yes, feminism can be taken to extremes by certain people. ANYthing can be taken to an extreme, there are always "bad apples", but that should not take away from the essential purpose or goal (like Lenore so graciously pointed out).

And, contrary to popular belief, feminism hasn't reached its goal and isn't over. Look at our current situation: a woman has run for president, and yet every single day in the media, women are assaulted with the idea that beauty is being a bag of bones and that there's always 10 more pounds to lose.

BTW, Foofoogal your position of women in the workforce being a detriment to families and society is actually sexist towards men, as well. Many men are single fathers or would like to stay home with their children, but feel the same pressures women do to fill a certain role.

No one is trying to "re-write history". No one has "accosted" Rosie. As Lady Day has said, many of the members of the FL are history buffs, and part of being a historian is to analyze, interpret, and ask questions. No one has determined that all or any women in WWII were activists, or feminists. No one here has an agenda!! If anything, you are doing just as much projecting of your "imagination" as anyone else you are accusing.

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.

 

[Foofoogal]

I had to take a break for life but not once have I said this:

implies that my purpose is to stay home and pop out babies

this statement right here or ones like it is what "feminist" means to me.
I guess sometimes eating bonbons come into play also. Oh, and soap operas.

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

what exactly is your definition of Feminism

You asked this and I told you.


LD

They projected their imaginations on families and women that did not understand the outcome of these imaginations and harm they would entail.

=Women that did that and still do that.

I find it appaulling a moderator would address me like this.

LizzieMaine has been trying to help me get my point across but no one is listening.

As far as now it is up to what the woman and man think best about their households and should of always been.
I partly do blame the men as they did have a role in it but the idea none of the 70% staying home in the suburbs were content and were unfulfilled is ludicrous at best.
Do I believe the children and women in general as well as families would of been better off and our nation as a whole better off if the ones that could of would of stayed home. Most definitely.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I am new on here and I can tell this place can get WAY TOO DEEP. In the words of the Comcast Cable DSL turtle on tv.."Why don't you like fun?" Unless you think getting all fired up is fun, then well, go ahead and write it up. The last time I checked no one saved the friggin world with a thread on Fedora Lounge, geez!

Participation in overly deep topics is optional.

Some of us enjoy such discussions and if this is our version of fun......

 

[Amy Jeanne]

How do you explain "choice" to someone who's never had the "choice" to *not* work?

Thanks for bringing this up. I have no "choice" but to work, either. I would like an explanation to this, too. My dream is to be a housewife -- I thrive in the home doing "girlie" things. I actually love to cook and clean and help my husband. But, alas, I am working class. My "CHOICE" to be a housewife will probably never come to fruition.

I work in an office now, but for 10 years of my life I packed glassware in a factory (standing on my feet for upwards of 12 hours working swingshift!) and drove a forklift. I had to -- it was the only gig in town other than McDonalds or Wal-Mart. And I hated every second of it. To be a housewife and have a "traditional" role would be PARADISE to me. This is just me personally, though, and all the experiences I've been though which make me come to my conclusion.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One of the most stimulating things about the Lounge is that we don't all think alike, and as long as we can keep it friendly, discussions like this can be interesting and enlightening. I think one of the biggest problems in modern culture is peoples' tendency to split off into exclusionary little subgroups where everyone thinks the same way -- here at the Lounge, we've got just about every point of view you can imagine, and it's refreshing to be able to hear different points of view in threads like this. If you go thru life associating only with people who agree with you, you don't end up a very well-educated person, no matter how much schooling you get.

Personally, my point of view on just about any cultural issue boils down to this: don't tell me how to live my life, and I won't tell you how to live yours. I don't think of that as a feminist point of view so much as I do a common-sense one.

And I had an aunt who was a real-life Rosie: possibly the first female longshoreman on the coast of Maine. She didn't have man-arms, but she certainly developed a man mouth.

 

[C-dot]

Unless you think getting all fired up is fun, then well, go ahead and write it up. The last time I checked no one saved the friggin world with a thread on Fedora Lounge, geez!

See, to me this reads "fired up like a matchstick" and a "novel" to "berate" people.

One need not include a storm of emotions to express an argument (I say argument, not opinion. An opinion is what someone thinks, an argument is backed up with facts.)

Personally, I find discussions to be lively and informative. If one wishes to live their life dealing only with the superficial, then go ahead - Just keep away from the "deep" end.

Personally, my point of view on just about any cultural issue boils down to this: don't tell me how to live my life, and I won't tell you how to live yours. I don't think of that as a feminist point of view so much as I do a common-sense one.

Exactly - You are not me, and I am not you. No one can tell you how to run your own life.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

She didn't have man-arms, but she certainly developed a man mouth.

lol lol
Yep, I got my "man mouth" from driving a forklift all those years. Never got "man arms" from lifting boxes for 10 years, though....

 

[LizzieMaine]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have no "choice" but to work, either. I would like an explanation to this, too. My dream is to be a housewife -- I thrive in the home doing "girlie" things. I actually love to cook and clean and help my husband. But, alas, I am working class. My "CHOICE" to be a housewife will probably never come to fruition.

I work in an office now, but for 10 years of my life I packed glassware in a factory (standing on my feet for upwards of 12 hours working swingshift!) and drove a forklift. I had to -- it was the only gig in town other than McDonalds or Wal-Mart. And I hated every second of it. To be a housewife and have a "traditional" role would be PARADISE to me. This is just me personally, though, and all the experiences I've been though which make me think this.

I hear you. I worked in a factory printing t-shirts for a while, and it's the only job I've ever had I walked out on. Pretty near killed me, and I was only 24 years old. But it was the same kind of thing -- you take the work you can get because there isn't anything else.

My mother is very bitter to this day because she didn't get to live the traditional-housewife life -- she got married right out of high school expecting everything to work out like in the movies, but it turned out my father's idea of taking responsibility was to volunteer to rack up the next game down at the poolroom. So there wasn't much choice for her, and she feels like she got cheated out of everything she should have had.
She raised me to have very low expectations, as a result, and I've had to fight against that mindset ever since.

I think when you come from that kind of background, it makes it very difficult to really relate to lot of 60s-70s era feminist thought -- because it simply isn't relevant to the kinds of lives we've lived. To me, oppression wasn't about men, it was about getting up at 3am to go to a job I hated.

 

[SayCici]

I had to take a break for life but not once have I said this:

"implies that my purpose is to stay home and pop out babies "

this statement right here or ones like it is what "feminist" means to me.
I guess sometimes eating bonbons come into play also. Oh, and soap operas.

What? I did not say you said that, hence the use of the word "imply". But, I could have used a better choice of words.

the idea none of the 70% staying home in the suburbs were content and were unfulfilled is ludicrous at best.

And again, no one said this.

I wasn't berating anyone, I was taking part in a discussion. :| Thank you, C-dot!

Also, I completely understand and agree with what LizzieMaine has said about those who find themselves in circumstances where maybe their choices are made for them, but I do not believe this to be at all the discussion I am, or was, involved in. Essentially, I am a humanist, so I do not expect to see eye to eye with everyone, but that doesn't mean there's no point in talking. Conflict breeds knowledge.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Essentially, I am a humanist, so I do not expect to see eye to eye with everyone, but that doesn't mean there's no point in talking. Conflict breeds knowledge.

Exactly. There's nothing I hate more than closing threads, so please -- everyone reread the above sentence and think about it before posting. This is too interesting a discussion to get derailed by petty bickering.

 

[Foofoogal]

Quote:
the idea none of the 70% staying home in the suburbs were content and were unfulfilled is ludicrous at best.

Yes. I am responding to this:

The romantic notion that women of the time were content with just what was given to them is just farce.

LD stated it.

part of the problem is we have too many ideas going at once here.

It is all a bit mute point as our children are raised. It just makes me mad a few loud mouth no clue women ruined it for everyone to have a "real choice"
Has there always been sorry men and women. Yes.

Oh, what really chaps me is the children have most definitely paid the price for this experimenting in "I am just not satisfied and you shouldn't be either women. Let me demean you enough and convince you there is so much more."
Pure crapola.

 

[SayCici]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have no "choice" but to work, either. I would like an explanation to this, too. My dream is to be a housewife -- I thrive in the home doing "girlie" things. I actually love to cook and clean and help my husband. But, alas, I am working class. My "CHOICE" to be a housewife will probably never come to fruition.

I work in an office now, but for 10 years of my life I packed glassware in a factory (standing on my feet for upwards of 12 hours working swingshift!) and drove a forklift. I had to -- it was the only gig in town other than McDonalds or Wal-Mart. And I hated every second of it. To be a housewife and have a "traditional" role would be PARADISE to me. This is just me personally, though, and all the experiences I've been though which make me come to my conclusion.

Also, I want to make it clear that I don't have problems with your dream, Amy Jeanne, in case that wasn't! It would be fruitless and hypocritical, as I like so many of the same things! I love cooking, baking, sewing, embroidery, etc., and my life goals revolve around many of those things which I would consider to be my passions. If something makes you happy and doesn't harm others, I have no qualms with it.

 

[C-dot]

If something makes you happy and doesn't harm others, I have no qualms with it.

Exactly! I too share Amy Jeanne's dream, but if I ever want to buy a house with my sweetie to live the dream in, I must work. I'm just thankful to all the ladies way back when who rebelled when they did, so that we can have the choice to be housewives, or working women. Unfortunately modern views on feminism attack the former as backward - But the original point was about choice.

I offer a condensed history of early 20th century family dynamics: Before the first World War, women were decorations - To be seen and not heard. When the men were shipped out, the ladies had to hold down the homefront, and realized that they really could serve a purpose besides looking nice and raising kids. Many decided they preferred work to homemaking. However when the men came home, they expected their wives to go back to the old roles - For some spunky spirits, this was unacceptable, so they began the fight for choice. Of course, lots happened later, which gives everyone a different view. We need all these different views to learn from one another.

It's been said before, but I really recommend Koontz's The Way We Never Were. One of the most enlightening books I've had the fortune to read.

It is harder to convey your attitude with letters. Everyone has personal words that make them angry and it is hard to tell how the user MEANT them.

Which is why we assume the user meant no harm - Diplomacy and benefit of doubt always.

 

[SayCici]

LD can stick up for herself, but I do not believe she was arguing that no woman enjoyed being a housewife, she was just countering your argument that all women found it to be satisfying.

What I am having trouble understanding is:

Oh, what really chaps me is the children have most definitely paid the price for this experimenting in "I am just not satisfied and you shouldn't be either women. Let me demean you enough and convince you there is so much more."
Pure crapola.

It just makes me mad a few loud mouth no clue women ruined it for everyone to have a "real choice"

You keep saying things like this, but I'm not sure what, if anything, you are basing those statements off. Who and where are these suffering women and children? What has been ruined?

It is in the nature of EVERYTHING to evolve. Plants, animals, culture, society, bacteria, diseases.. the very Earth as we know it was once Pangaea. We couldn't be stuck in the 50s forever.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One thing that really stands out in all this discussion is how Rosie seems to be an inkblot test -- whatever we see in her and however we interpret her comes out of our own experiences more than anything else. To ideological feminists, she is an ideological feminist. To practical feminists she is a practical feminist. To working-class women, she's a fellow wearer-of-the-blue-collar. To housewives, she just wants to get the job done so she can get back to the house.

That, to me, is the genius of the whole campaign. They came up with an iconic figure in which *any* woman can see exactly what she wants to see, just as we're all doing here sixty years later.

 

[*martini*time*]

But the original point was about choice.

:eusa_clap sure was. I choose what I choose. Plain and simple.

 

[C-dot]

That, to me, is the genius of the whole campaign. They came up with an iconic figure in which *any* woman can see exactly what she wants to see, just as we're all doing here sixty years later.

Then the creators of Rosie did their job - She riveted everyone, because she related to anyone

 

[Lily Powers]

Yes. I am responding to this:
LD stated it.

part of the problem is we have too many ideas going at once here.

It is all a bit mute point as our children are raised. It just makes me mad a few loud mouth no clue women ruined it for everyone to have a "real choice"
Has there always been sorry men and women. Yes.

Oh, what really chaps me is the children have most definitely paid the price for this experimenting in "I am just not satisfied and you shouldn't be either women. Let me demean you enough and convince you there is so much more."
Pure crapola.

Foofoogal, I'm curious; who are the women your refer to as 'loud mouthed' and 'no clue?' And why do you think the children have paid a price? How do you think the children's lives would have been better if their mothers were more 'traditional,' for lack of a better word.