I find it really weird that it's so late, and no one has posted yet. I don't wanna be first but oh well. I guess we're just making general responses to the reading.
One thing is made clear of the early 1950's: the new found freedoms (of women specifically) were quickly becoming rejected and being replaced by new ideas. Complete freedom and independence were no longer associated with the ideal image of the woman, and she eventually found herself back in the kitchen as the traditional mother and wife. Women were looked to as those who could "restore security in our insecure world" and she could not do so with the extreme sexuality she once possessed. It was important for her to have a good marriage, have children, and provide her family with a good life. This image too changed though, when “sexual attraction was linked with marital prospects”, and in a way a woman had to be sexy in order to be wanted for marriage.
What I found most interesting, was how the change in the role of women always appealed to men: no matter how much the role of women changed (for the better or the worst) she was always molded into something that a man would want. When she was wanted to be conservative, or sexual, she was. In this way, she never actually attained any sort of freedom and independence. In relationships between men and women, men always held the power and control.
It seems like policemen often exerted their power in the wrong way. "Police harassment of gay and lesbian bars became commonplace." (pg 245)
I'm finding that the more I learn about injustices and segregation in the world, I also learn about the policemen that not only help settle the issue, but made it worse, as well.
Seventeen magazine "told the young woman that she was a partner of man... not his rival, his enemy, or his plaything. Your partnership in most cases will produce children, and together you and the man will create a haven, a home, a way of life for yourselves and the children" (pg 245-246) This really stood out to me because it was the first piece of advertisement/media (if you will) out of our readings that seemed to appeal to younger audiences. This new message was being communicated to girls around the age of 17, changing their outlook on themselves and their responsibilities to men.
I also found it really interesting to read about Marjorie Sutton. It said that she "cooked and sewed clothes for her four children, worked with the Campfire Girls and the PTA, did charity fund-raising, [go marjorie], sang in the choir, entertained fifteen hundred guests a year, and exercised on a trampoline 'to preserve her size 12 figure.'" (pg 250)
1. She certainly didn't live like most housewives as stated in the reading
2. 1500 guests a year is a lot of people. who did she entertain?
3. exercised on a trampoline? seemed a little weird to me
4. it's cool that she wasn't an extremely slender woman, but she still seemed to have a lot of good connections to her community and was very involved. This reminded me of what we were talking about in class about how in the past, women who were heavier were seen as "wealthy" because they could obviously afford more food.
My question is: A second income could be earned if the women were simply helping out. How do you feel about this? If you were a woman in the 50's what would your argument be regarding this issue? Would you care?
Andd:
what would you teach your children regarding the "uniqueness of each individual human being"? (pg 255)
what values would you emphasize and how do you think your bias, sexuality, race, gender affect these values?
This section really seemed to highlight the idea that women should be able to 'do it all.' While there were more and more women getting jobs there was also an expectation that housework be done more thoroughly (because of new technology) and that women be involved more with family AND that they maintain the correct balance of innocence and sexy. All of these new standards would put a ton of pressure on women, but even on top of that "'it [was] for a women, actual or vicarious, to restore security in our insecure world'" (245). Not only did a women need to be a worker, mother and wife, it was also her responsibility to make the country feel safe again. That's a lot to ask in my opinion.
Unfortunately though, as women are taking on more and more, their accomplishments are being negated. When a women had a job, it could only be seen as unnecessary and only for 'helping out,' or else the family could risk the social status of being in the middle-class. Not only would this potentially make women feel unimportant (there's a word for that... and I can't think of it) but "it also denied the economic or psychological importance of jobs for the women who held them and masked the continuing realities of discrimination and denial of opportunity" (255).
So after all of this invalidation, and new pressures, and clitoral orgasms causing depression, and an apparent loss of a sisterhood, do you guys think this was actually much improvement from before suffrage? Presumably there isn't as much domestic violence going on, but outside of that and the rib-breaking corsets, do you think women could have felt more isolated and stressed than before, when their social expectations were clearly defined and they had a common goal to be striving for?
This reading brought up a lot of interesting points. It started off talking about the US fear of nuclear war and communism and how women played into that fear. There was an idea that women teachers were a danger because they were “some of the most loyal disciples of Russia.” It also said that because of the struggle that women had to go through, which created hate and anger, they were lashing out by becoming loyal to the Soviet Union. I thought it was interesting that they would state such a huge claim that could ruin many female teachers reputations. Also the reading did not give any evidence for this accusation, which, aside from it being such a long shot concept, made me skeptical.
The reading also talked about how women’s roles quickly became that of the community builder. Their main role was now to improve the town that they lived in but doing so without any real control. I thought this was interesting because throughout the reading the idea that women had reached all of their goals was repeatedly brought up.
Before this reading I did not think that the media could effect the social behavior of people so much. The media played such a huge role in deciding how women should act and used its power to force business. Advertisers were constantly shifting their appeal to make sure it fit the standards of how women should act.
They also made the world appear to just be the white middle class America which, as the reading stated, “blurred differences of ethnicity and class.”
I really enjoyed the reading; I found it fascinating to get into the fifties, a time that I think we all associate with starkly defined images of masculinity and femininity. I thought the point that the renaissance of the female form was related to a sort of pendulum swing back from the foggy pragmatic roles of the war years was interesting. Also it seemed as if the movement of women from out of the public eye in the far past to culturally central in the twenties and fifties was not as beneficial and cultural centrality would imply, but instead they were simply being put on a pedestal, as sexy in the twenties and motherly in the fifties, but still kept from actual positions of power. I am a bit tired so perhaps this point is not well articulated, but what I mean to say is that in the fifties women were a powerful and beloved symbol of the elysian capitalist American ideal, they were beautiful, and loving, and baked pies, and wore lipstick, and nylon, and used gas ranges, but as beloved as this icon was it did not aid women in moving into more powerful roles in society.
As for feminine mystique, I had never thought of that of the idea that men have little understanding of women’s genitals could be as tool to avoid concerning themselves with the woman’s satisfaction. Feminine mystique always seemed like a tool for women to use on their male partners, but upon closer inspection it seems to be a construction with which to remove the fear of being short lived from the male brain.
I know I did not cover very much of the reading, but I was just highlighting my very favorite parts.
Also a question. Did the author ever explain what brought about the increase in the number of women in the workforce?
Like Heather, I was struck by the reference to the "How To Be A Woman" article in Seventeen. There was a sort of fake, superficial happiness to women in the '50's, a cheery facade, that I found very disturbing. As Stephenie pointed out, the conflicting expectations of women were both staggering and unrealistic, and they did not represent the liberation that society wanted to pretend it did. I found the section about the development of the typical "Minivan Mom" to be especially frustrating, because women were simply getting involved in their communities in order to distract themselves from an inability to obtain women's rights in their private and public lives. To answer one of the questions posed earlier, I think that the relegation of women to simply working to help out the family would have offended me, because my work would not be respected enough to merit the status of a major breadwinner. Like Ryan, I found the connections to the Cold War really interesting because the way feminism operated seemed to mirror the sneaky, overpowering, brooding tone of communism, where all individuals felt betrayed or stymied by the government structures then in existence.
Oops...I forgot to ask a question. Here goes: Are the roles of mother and citizen, worker and homemaker, mutually exclusive? Women today are known to try and "have it all", balancing these roles in an often chaotic lifestyle. Is this a healthy way to try and prove oneself, or does this phenomenon arise from the female need to be, simultanneously, everything that men want them to be? In short, is the taking on of multiple cultural roles more helpful or harmful to women?
I really liked this reading. Women were definitely becoming more independent and needed by men. They weren’t just seen as housewives but also a person that could do something outside of the kitchen. This goes back to Heather’s question when she was talking about how women were needed to make second income in the family. Honestly, I felt as if it just helped isolate white people from black people. That was the first thing that I was thinking about. As black moved into the cities, the suburbs came about because white people didn’t want to live near blacks. But back to the question on how I would feel, if I were a woman in the 1950s and my husband said get a job I would be like “sure”. Having a job, shows that you are worth something more than just a maid to your family.
I don’t know why, but I’m still confused on the relationship white women had with black women, can care to just give me a straight forward explanation?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
