I disagree. Considering my mother was highly skilled and employed throughout the 1950's as were many women. Pre-1920's suffragette movement, yes. But the idea that there were no female professionals or executives by some sort of imaginary decree is nonsense. Women were already free to do what they wanted. My mother's sister never married and had a very successful career and was happy for it. She was born in 1928 and entered the workforce with a college degree just after WW2. 1960's feminism was not necessary and was a cancer. I lived through it and you will never convince me otherwise.
I never said that. I'm saying radical feminism wasn't required for the normalization of women in the workforce because it was ongoing and becoming more commonplace on it's own. Women held prominent positions in the 1930's and were boosted tremendously by the labor shortages caused by WW2. If you think women are somehow better off now than they were in the 1950's you need to really examine what changed starting in the 1960's because the ultimate losers of feminism were women.
Nah I agree with you that women are worse off as a whole actually because I think most are actually the housewife/Etsy store on the side type. My mom I think would have been happier as a housewife rather than a working mom. I’m just saying, feminism did benefit the minority of women who wanted some else, not necessarily more, in life.
I disagree. Considering my mother was highly skilled and employed throughout the 1950's as were many women. Pre-1920's suffragette movement, yes. But the idea that there were no female professionals or executives by some sort of imaginary decree is nonsense. Women were already free to do what they wanted. My mother's sister never married and had a very successful career and was happy for it. She was born in 1928 and entered the workforce with a college degree just after WW2. 1960's feminism was not necessary and was a cancer. I lived through it and you will never convince me otherwise.
Are you really going to sit here and say it was just as easy to be a female banker or scientist in 1950/60s as it is now lol?
I never said that. I'm saying radical feminism wasn't required for the normalization of women in the workforce because it was ongoing and becoming more commonplace on it's own. Women held prominent positions in the 1930's and were boosted tremendously by the labor shortages caused by WW2. If you think women are somehow better off now than they were in the 1950's you need to really examine what changed starting in the 1960's because the ultimate losers of feminism were women.
Nah I agree with you that women are worse off as a whole actually because I think most are actually the housewife/Etsy store on the side type. My mom I think would have been happier as a housewife rather than a working mom. I’m just saying, feminism did benefit the minority of women who wanted some else, not necessarily more, in life.