Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:38 am Post subject: pages 57-69
So this sentence pretty much sums up what we've been learning about before tonight really nicely:
"The biggest women's action since the parades of the suffrage movement, the Women's Strik for Equality succeeded in capturing the attention of the media and, thus, the country; in so doing, it communicated the desires of a new women's movement to a nation familiar with social unrest but larely unready for the seismic shift in gender relations already being legislated in the halls of government and beginning to play out in kitches and bedroom across America. (Dicker, 5
I found tonight's reading really really interesting. I liked looking at how the roles of women and men changed during World War II. While women were being trained for more "hearty" jobs (manufacturing machinery, armaments, aircrafts, ships, etc), they not only proved their ability to work at the same jobs as men, but briefly got to escape the domesticity.
However, according to the reading, the women were fired from their jobs after the war was over, which got me thinking. While women were only doing men's jobs in the industries while they fought at war, they were also greatly benefiting from the experience. They seemed to act as substitutes; a second choice.
After the war, though, the idea of the "American Dream" emerged, including a hard working male figure with a high-end sturdy job, a wife committed to the family and her many children, and cars and appliances such as dishwashers and refrigerators.
My questions are:
1. Do you think that women would have the same job opportunities that they have today if World War II hadn't happened?
2. How do you think the "American Dream" has changed since the 40s?
3. What was the "American Dream" for black people?
I don't know if this is allowed but I want to respond to my question because no one else has posted.
I don't think that women would have the same job opportunities today if World War II hadn't happened. I think that despite all of the negative consequences of it, it was a time that women stepped up and finally got a chance to prove themselves worthy of equal opportunities. Without World War II, women possibly would still be following the "American Dream" after giving up hope for equal jobs. I guess it's true when they say that at a certain point, things can't get any worse. Some good will come out of the bad
Last edited by hlipkin on Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Heather, you always have really interesting questions. So to go with Martha said today, I’m only going to answer it and ask a question. To answer number one:
I definitely don’t think that if the war hadn’t happen women would have the same job opportunities. With the war in progress, women were getting their hands “dirty” because “men’s work” had to be done by them. They had to learn so many things and working was in seen in a new light. Now they had things to do beside be in the kitchen. When the war was over it felt as if “what now?” for women. It even stated that some women had to be fired in order for them to leave. They love their jobs. And without the war I don’t think women would have known how they love being something more than just a wife and a mother. With women working I think its also brought a change to the “American Dream”. Now the American dream just isn’t for the dad to be working, it’s for both parents to have a great job, with great kids, and a great home.
Question:
What was the negative and positive role the media played in women’s day to day lives? Like how did the women empower women? And did it make women powerless?
[if you don’t understand tell me quick]
Ummm okay, I think I may not be understanding Helen's question completely, but heres my general answer... Because communism was so feared a lot of the advertising was an effort to discourage women from becoming communists. Women also went back into the workforce, just to be taken back out again. Advertisements were directed at the housewife, or single women joining the workforce. Some of the ads had a negative impact on the women, well, most of them. Though not explicitly, many ads served to keep women in the house, like we said in class. Women were encouraged to be "good mothers," and the media enforced this in many ways.
Question: It says that Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, though a version that was very diluted, saying that gender aside, people would be payed equally for comparable work. How did this change anything? If women were already being paid less, by preforming lower ranking jobs, how would being payed for "comparable" jobs change anything if theyre in different jobs anyway?
Helen, good question- but I wanna answer Heather's second question.
2. How do you think the "American Dream" has changed since the 40s?
Well for one, the "American Dream" changed because America, Americans, and their roles changed. During the fourties-fifties, the "American Dream" was the idea of a family that consisted of hard-working Dad that provided an income for his family, a Mom that cooked, cleaned, and cared for the children, and had a home in the suburbs, a car etc. The role of a man at the time was only to work and bring home money for his family. A woman maintained her place in the kitchen; she wasn't allowed to work, and belonged in the home- her family was her top priority. The "American Dream" was created according to these roles. Today however, the roles of men and women have drastically changed and become more "equal". The "American Dream" now, is basically just attaining a good job, having a good family, a nice home etc.
1. The Dicker talks about how the feminism movement sort of disappeared once women were granted suffrage- why do you think this is so? Why do you think women were at first fine with their roles as mothers and wives, when they could finally vote?
2. In order to resolve women's issues with receiving less pay than men, the Equal Pay Act was passed. Do you think this would actually help? If not, what other issues do you think branched from this?
It says that Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, though a version that was very diluted, saying that gender aside, people would be payed equally for comparable work. How did this change anything? If women were already being paid less, by preforming lower ranking jobs, how would being payed for "comparable" jobs change anything if theyre in different jobs anyway?
I don't think it did change very much. Since women could only be guaranteed equal pay for the 'same' work the law didn't affect many women as they had a totally separate job market from that of men (especially Black women. Even though it may not have actively forced that many changes, I do think it was a sign of changing times. The fact that the President and Congress were discussing and, more importantly, passing laws that acknowledged the inequality between the genders could only be a good thing for the movement. Dicker says it nicely, "In spite of this significant change in wording... the Equal Pay Act represented a step in the right direction, getting on the books a crucial principle that would pave the way for future legislation and executive orders" (69). It may not have affected actual wages very much, but it changed the outlook on gender issues within the country.
How did people feel about the section on page 66 that talked about how feminist activism always seems to occur when other changes are being made in the country, especially racial changes. Did this seem smart on the part of the feminists, cheap as though they were 'riding the coat tails' of minorities who were struggling, or simply a natural and unavoidable happenstance? Or something else entirely? <-- unspecific open-ended question FTW.
By the by Steph, I adore your question. In reading the page which you make reference to the notion slipped by me relatively unnoticed, but after reading your question I really considered it, and though I may not have an exact answer I hope it is a thoughtful and thought-provoking one. I believe that the reason women's movements are always at their most active during times of large scale social change not because the time is particularly geared towards change, but simply because there are at that moment no other "distraction" to pull the public eye from social change, as the great depression, the sex-plosion of the twenties, and McCarthyism did. One can think of it like one's own life when there are big events, like the death of a pet or a big test you simply don't have the time or patients for self improvement and introspection, and I think each individual member of society feels this way during large historic events, "I'm busy with the war, come back later!" I hope this wasn't too self involved and peculiar to answer your question.
My question: On page 58 of the Dicker the strike involved a variety of women, old, young, educated, uneducated, mothers, housewives, single women, etc. Firstly do you believe that the feminist movement has lost the breadth it once possessed? And if so why.
Sticking to the format of tonight's posts, I think that the women's movement did not lose any breadth between the first and second waves of feminism. Although feminism did "stop" for about four decades, when it returned to the scene in the 1960's, it was stronger than ever. The inclusion of a diverse group of women only signified that feminists were coming to truly accept all women, as they had not during the first wave. Since the civil rights movement was also a big issue, women could not ignore the fact that "women", for the first time, meant all women. In addition, the "second incarnation" of the U.S. women's movement had more breadth than the first because it was not a social justice movement focused on just one issue. For the first time, women came to understand that gender equality meant much more than simple suffrage. Now, the women's movement supported such diverse issues as reproductive rights, prevention of domestic violence, professional equality with men, educational opportunities, and media conceptions of women. As Heather brought up, I think that this newfound awareness of their inequalities had a lot to do with the experiences they gained in the industrial work force during World War 2. So...my question is: what, to you, was the most important issue in the women's rights movement, in your opinion. If you're a girl, which reform in specific do you think has affected you the most, and why?
The Dicker talks about how the feminism movement sort of disappeared once women were granted suffrage- why do you think this is so? Why do you think women were at first fine with their roles as mothers and wives, when they could finally vote?
Asha to try to answer your first question I think women became comfortable with their roles as mothers directly after they gained suffrage because they had just gained a huge millstone. I am guessing that because they just got these hugely life altering rights as human beings that their roles in family seemed to be miniscule in context. Also they had just become burdened with the obligation to vote and this was probably very shocking at first. In the first wave women’s movement women set their main goal for suffrage. They spent all this time and effort trying to reach that goal. Once they reached the goal it was almost like they were being shielded from their social oppression by their success. I’m guessing that most women during the first wave feminist movement generally accepted their roles as mothers and men’s helpers. This is why once suffrage was achieved they were fine with their position as mothers. The reading also talked about the idea that once suffrage was gained that women no longer hand any unifying goals that they were aware of, making it difficult for them to form groups to address some of the issues that each mother was encountering.
My questions are: The reading talked about how domestic violence was not discussed or even considered by law at the time. Why do you think this is?
Why do you think after the end of World War II, when the veterans returned, women gave up their jobs so easily to men?
The Dicker talks about how the feminism movement sort of disappeared once women were granted suffrage- why do you think this is so? Why do you think women were at first fine with their roles as mothers and wives, when they could finally vote?
I think this question gets into the idea that much of the oppression women suffer(ed) is covert- but suffrage was definitely OVERT. So, women realized they were being treated unjustly and found immediately a very articulatable and obvious way- the inability to vote. Once they achieved this, there were still loads of injustices but none of them as "in your face" as suffrage was. This set up women PERFECTLY for "the question that has no name" or whatnot- america's white housewives then had EVERYTHING they were supposed to want: the kids, the appliances, the money, the husband. At one point, they even worked in industrial jobs, the SAME jobs their husbands usually had. On paper- they weren't being denied anything. but they still felt it.
If feminism wanted to make a come back after the suffrage movement, it would involve women saying that they weren't satisfied with their roles as mothers and wives. And that would have been pretty far out for that time period.
question: As I was writing this post, I realized how important it was that I specified that i was talking about white women. So then I wanted my question to relate back to what black women and women of other races in america were doing at this time, but I realized very little is said about that in the Dicker.
How should the struggle of women who are NOT middle class and white be told and integrated into the history of feminisms?
I know steph, hardy, ryan and hannah have been moving the conversation in a different direction but I LOVED heather's second question of "How has the American dream changed since the 1940's?" a lot because its something even before this class that I've thought a lot about. (Not necessarily in terms of the 40's as a starting point but instead the evolution of the dream.)
While Asha makes a great point that since this time period the roles of men and women have changed drastically (which in many respects, is true,) I don't think the American dream has changed at all.
My understanding of the American dream has always been the concept that hard work will always bring riches and financial success. Furthermore, success can only be defined by financial gains and worth because money and the freedom of consumption (according to American rhetoric) will inherently make you happy. So of course, hard work to gain money is the American dream. The cute suburban home, quiet wife and clean children are only accouterments to this dream and come with money (women want men who perform their role as bread winner just as men want their women pigeonholed into domesticity.)
Therefore, I don't think the American Dream has changed in and of itself since the 1940's but just instead, who it pertains too. With white women having much more power and independence since then, as well as both genders in all minorities, now everyone just wants money, not simply the husbands and, indirectly, the wives. MONEY MONEY MONEY! (Money, Money, Money..)
My question is (unrelated..): After finding such joy, freedom and newly realized self esteem when allowed to really contribute while the men were away during WWII, why does it appear women were put right back in their traditional roles upon their return without much/any fuss? That bothered me.
i keep thinking about the film "a league of their own" (anybody seen it? it's fantastic. geena davis is total glamour)
to answer rachel's question (and asha's, too, i think):
i'm not sure women were ever seen really as equals in the workplace during the war. sure, they were able to fill in for men who were overseas but i don't think they were ever acknowledged for doing the same amount of work. for instance, in "a league of their own," women play baseball in the place of men, but they have an entirely separate league that focuses mainly on theatrics and short skirts. needless to say, one doesn't watch the all-american women's league for displays of athleticism and tobacco-spitting masculinity. women in the workplace seemed almost a distraction from the absence of men. this is why, after men returned from the war, people were eager to have them back in the positions they previously abandoned.
another answer: when men came back from the war, they expected to return to normalcy. they wanted to come home to a housewife who would have dinner on the table by 5 o clock and raise their children whilst they brought the proverbial bacon. catering to men's preferences, women were forced to abandon their posts in the workplace and resume their domestic obligations.
so now i have a question
how did world war two affect the prototypical american family? what was normal pre- and post-war and what's the difference?
I'm going to reply to Rachel Levinson's question: After finding such joy, freedom and newly realized self esteem when allowed to really contribute while the men were away during WWII, why does it appear women were put right back in their traditional roles upon their return without much/any fuss?
I think that the Cold War atmosphere along with propaganda about femininity caused women to return to their traditional roles without that much fuss. I feel that Dicker summarized this on page 65 when she said "It would be incorrect to assume that all men and women freely chose these roles; social, economic, political, and cultural forces made people believe that such roles were normal, desirable, and necessary."
I feel that McCarthy-ism and fear of being accused of being a Communist forced many people to just go along with changes without objecting much. Propaganda also reinforced the traditional view of femininity as in women in the kitchen, men makin' money, and that probably caused women who didn't conform to those definitions to be labeled as outcasts or lesbians, labels which might hinder them from finding husbands and consequently that "American Dream"
My question: On page 66 Dicker pointed out that "feminist activism has thrived when the cultural climate is generally conducive to reform; just as the first wave of the women's movement arose alongside-indeed, out of-abolition, civil rights work in the 1960s led to a culture more ready to fight for women's rights."
-> How do you think the second wave women's movement would have evolved and been received without the civil rights movement having already been moving and shaking things for a while??
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
talks about how the feminism movement sort of disappeared once women were granted suffrage- why do you think this is so? Why do you think women were at first fine with their roles as mothers and wives, when they could finally vote?
ahahahaha.
