thepresentpast
@thepresentpast@lemm.ee
- Comment on Remember the good old days? 1 week ago:
I am responding specifically to the original point that the 50s represented a time where women somehow worked less than ever before. That’s just not true. I am not arguing against the idea that women performed valuable labor roles.
- Comment on Remember the good old days? 1 week ago:
No, I am arguing with the fact that you said the that the 50s were a “blip” of non-work in women’s working history, when in fact, all the same types of work that had been available to women for hundreds of years continued to be available to them.
Yes, there was a reactionary advertising push toward the Domestic Housewife image that happened in the 50s, but that was a direct response to the fact that in the 50s women were transitioning from home work to society work.
- Comment on Remember the good old days? 1 week ago:
Sure, but women still did all of those activities in the 50s. That didn’t change. And none of it is the same as holding a job. There were a small array of activities available to us, and we were expected to give most of them up upon marriage or at the latest pregnancy. And you couldn’t have a bank account or keep your earnings in any meaningful way. So the 50s were no different from the 30s or 10s in that regard, EXCEPT that women were entering the paid workforce in greater numbers than ever before, which is the opposite of your original point to which I am responding.
- Comment on Remember the good old days? 1 week ago:
I mean that’s just not true. I thought everyone learned about how WWII offered women the opportunity in mast numbers for the first time because of the crucial roles that were left open by the men who were off to fight. That’s what sparked the transition toward women’s right to work at all. Before that, there was no such right. Unless you are counting cooking and cleaning at home, or tending the family farm, as “work”, but I don’t believe that’s what people mean when we are referring to “a woman’s right to work”.