For some reason, the males of society have, by and large, long prevented women from enjoying the same freedoms that they have had. In western society, however, women have declared that they're not going to take it. They have done so in three waves, the last one having been evident since the 1990's. The first wave was in the suffrage movement of the late 19th-early 20th century, which resulted in women being given the right to vote. However, the second movement is the one that is of particular interest to Baby Boomers.
Women's Lib, as the movement came to be called, began in the early 60's. The show Mad Men makes this evident, as can be seen from the character Peggy Olson climbing from a secretarial job to that of an advertising executive, thanks to a forward-thinking boss. I'll bet she's not making the same money as her male cohorts, though.
Women's Lib gained a big jolt in popularity with the 1963 release of Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique. The book was written from the perspective of a housewife and mother, and it focused on what it was about society that was keeping her and her type from excelling. It made a lot of women mad, and made Friedan a leader in the movement.
As the 60's progressed, Women's lib became a familiar catchphrase. Truth be told, the Libbers were a minority, but there's no denying that their loud voice caused western society to make changes for the better.
In 1996, Friedan founded NOW, the National Organization of Women. Women's magazines such as The Ladies Home Journal, McCalls, and Cosmopolitan gave NOW and the movement press time (some more than others), and so did more mainstream publications. The nightly news would frequently feature Libbers marching in their parades. The women liked to make their point in front of the cameras, and there were plenty of cameras watching.
In 1963, the movement gained another powerful voice in the form of investigative reporter Gloria Steinem. That year, she went undercover as a Playboy bunny in order to write an article about the way they were being treated at Hugh's mansion. It caused quite a stir, and got her name in the newspapers. As the decade wore on, she became more and more involved in women's rights. In 1971, she, along with Congressmen Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, as well as Betty Friedan herself, formed the National Women's Political Caucus. The caucus established three main issues: reproductive freedom, affordable childcare, and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.
That last point was one of the few failures that the women's movement suffered. The ERA was introduced in every Congressional session between 1923 and 1970, but hardly ever reached the floor for a vote. Only once, in 1946, was it officially defeated by a close 38 to 35. However, in 1972, it was passed by both the House and the Senate. Despite that, it failed to be ratified into the Constitution, and was dropped in 1982.
Steinem also founded Ms. magazine in 1971. That term first arose in 1961. Sheila Michaels was illegitimate and single, and conceived of the title Ms. to show that she was indeed a woman, but without any reference to a relationship with any men. It took a while to catch on, but by 1971 was quite popular.
The magazine, on the other hand, was a powerful voice for women seeking equality. It still continues to be published today.
The always-quotable Steinem "came up" with one of my favorites: A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Steinem actually attributed the quote to Australian politician Irina Dunn, but the phrase will forever be associated with Gloria.
Did the movement accomplish its aims? It's debatable, but conditions for women are certainly better in the western world nowadays than fifty years ago. While equal pay is not mandated by law, there are few businesses who would dare to pay a man more because he's a man. While no woman has been elected President or Vice President, the appearance of one on the ballot is no longer as shocking as it was when Mondale and Ferraro ran in 1984. Many predict a female President within the next ten-twenty years.
One thing's for sure: women in today's society owe a debt of gratitude to those courageous ones of the 1960's who stood up and demanded to be treated equally.
Comments (13)
Perhaps I should change my name to motor mouth, eh? WEll, here is yet another set of my thoughts to inflame and outrage the powers that be.
This was a cool topic to bring up, given the time it started, so close to many hearts who visit here. I have mixed feelings toward it all. I deplore that both parents should, of necessity, have to both work to support a family, yet I do believe it has come to that for many. A man (or the woman if you prefer) should be entitled to receive enough money to support, adequately, their entire family, including the at home child caring spouse.
But because the govmnt would prefer to brain wash, I mean, teach, your kids their way rather than you do it your way, they force both partner to work so that your kids can be “babysat” at the indoctrination center, Oh, I’m sorry, I mean prison and abuse center, oh, there I go again. Sorry, I meant school, really ;-) So off to work you both go.
But since the govmnt requires both to work and women are often left to raise kids on their own, which is deplorable as well, and since equal rights mandated by law require all men and women to be labor slaves with no real rights reserved, it is only fair, right, and moral that women be paid equally with men for equal work. However, I do not agree with lessening standards in some occupations so that someone not qualified may then become so. If the standard is reasonable, then it should be enforced.
But I do find something quite objectionable today. It is women being permitted to participate as soldiers in the military. I do not object because they can not do it. I believe they can. I do not believe they should. First, there should not be so little opportunity (as there is) that one should be forced to enter the military in order to find adequate employement. But if they did not keep us poor, no one would likely volunteer. I’m all for it.
But really, it is the fact that we happily send women off to be tough, hard, maybe calloused, as it is hard not to become those things and if we truly appreciate the feminine counter part, we ought not to be asking her to be something she should never have to be. To me, a feminine nature is one that should be appreciated and preserved, allowing her to remain the more gentle and compassionate, leaving at least one of the parents free from the psychological harm that many soldiers receive.
There is a certain dignity that should be preserved and protected in a being a child and also dignity and value natural to a woman that ought to be cherished and maintained and not sacrificed so sacrilegiously.
Many things changed in the 60s and 70s. changes continued in the 80s. But seldom have the changes been much good after the 70s and what changes were good, even then, were far outnumbered by the bad. What if we could travel back to 1860 and those of that time found out that we were now sending out women out to help fight our battles. They’d have a fit! They might be tempted to slay us on the spot as not worthy of being called decent human beings. I am sure of it.
Now today, we think nothing of it. But remember, I know the economy was made to be meager so that both women and men would need to enter the military, due to few options. I say that is deliberate planning. But what I marvel at is how they managed to convince us it was what we all wanted to do. Have we come to place so little value on that nature more common to women than men? I can not see another conclusion.
Poverty, especially when it is deliberately contrived and engineered so that we can be exploited at will, is a pretty sad commentary on our “wonderful” world but I believe it is the truth. So yes, as that old cigarette add used to say in the late 60s or early 70s for sure, You’ve come a long way, baby! Or should it be, You sure have lost a lot of ground, b#$%^. That implied word is not my choice but was expressed as being the choice some others might make in view of what they have done to women and their options/choices, which is take them all away.
Like so much in the 60s, the old pendulum went from one extreme to another. I sure would like to see that pendulum brought under some control. I am tired of changes, tired of seeing everything I ever knew shot down and destroyed. The 60s were wonderful compared to now. Do we really love now more than then? Would we want to go back? I know I would. But time only goes forward. Only policies go downward. Problem is, it looks like a bottomless pit from my view. How about yours?
Posted by Scott Irv | October 18, 2009 5:33 PM
Posted on October 18, 2009 17:33
Ron,
Enjoyed reading your post and especially the quote, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
As post-menopausal boomer women lose that loving feeling toward the man in their life, their dog, cat and an artifical sweetener may become satisfactory male companion substitutes.
Actress Suzanne Somers sympathizes with women suffering from what she calls "The Seven Dwarfs of Menopause: Itchy, Bitchy, Sleepy, Sweaty, Bloated, Forgetful and All Dried Up." As she's done in her best-selling books, Ms. Somers, age 62, credited a custom-made blend of "bio-chemical" hormones with maintaining her youthful zest and says that the hormone debate boils down to a choice between "restoration versus deterioration."
Posted by John Agno | October 19, 2009 8:31 AM
Posted on October 19, 2009 08:31
Scott Irv -- I am offended by your characterizations of the military, women in the military, and women in general.
Posted by Donna B. | October 19, 2009 4:52 PM
Posted on October 19, 2009 16:52
Well, Donna, darling, I can't say that I am surprised. You are or would be offended by anything I say or do.
so what was it I said about women that ticked you off?
I said I understood why men and women joined the military and I can not hold that against them. You were not offended by what I said of the government, apparently. What did I say about women in general that you did not like?
As for the military, clearly you like what the leadership does with it. I don't. You are welcomed to be offended. But you know what I would really like to see, Donna? I would like to see you actually address something about the subject yourself, rather than base all your writing on me.
Though I am flattered by all the attention, it seems to me that you come here, not for the nostalgia or to take a 2nd look at how we got from then to now, but merely to take your shots at me. Clearly I have upset you and many of your friends by my words.
And you ought to be upset, for none of you are able to answer me or show me why I am wrong. In fact, I did not see you answer questions from the last topic I posted to you and I have no doubt you will not answer what I asked here, either.
You are obviously from your "father" and carry out his will, although you are not very good at it. Why not get a few more of your friends to come over and make this more interesting. I can can on an unlimited number of idiots and still shine.
Truth can not be buried or suppressed if God does not allow it. Oops. Sorry from bring up another word you not doubt detest. Have a nice day!
Posted by Scott Irv | October 20, 2009 12:57 AM
Posted on October 20, 2009 00:57
Aw, c'mon, Scott and Donna. Let's just relax and enjoy a little reminiscing with a glass of wine before a crackling fire! :-)
Posted by Ron Enderland | October 20, 2009 3:32 PM
Posted on October 20, 2009 15:32
Ron, your suggestion is good and sensible, but surely you must see that I did not start this fight but I am not going to sit by and let people distort and twist what I say without defending myself. Donna is not likely going to stop, I suspect, or she would not have started. Her only purpose in even coming here was to make trouble for me. Where Donna comes from, they hate free speech, truth, or even decency, I suspect. I'll stop when the attacks stop. Till then, you can be assured, my sword is sharp, ready and eager for more blood.
But I ask Ron, why don't you ask her what her problem is? Have I said something out of line? Am I a monster? Maybe you cold suggest that she address the topic you post, rather than simply come here to attack people or make trouble, without good reason. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Scott Irv | October 20, 2009 4:40 PM
Posted on October 20, 2009 16:40
Just 4 you, Donna!
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
-- George Orwell, 1984
"I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein
Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perennially rejuvenated illusions.
— Albert Einstein
It’s the lack of honesty in describing or admitting the scope of the problem, the real issues involved and what must be done to solve them.
Me!
Posted by Scott Irv | October 20, 2009 8:02 PM
Posted on October 20, 2009 20:02
Scott Irv -- I am not "against" you in any way and it is quite laughable that you think I take your ramblings in some sort of personal way.
I do not. I am not interested in you personally at all. I do, however, find your rambling ideas to be somewhere outside and beyond reality.
#1 - whether both parents choose to work often depends on the lifestyle they choose. It is not my place or yours to judge whether someone else's lifestyle should or should not be entitled to support by governmental decree.
#2 - we might be in agreement that some public schools are "indoctrination centers" but that does not hold true for all of them and... there are alternatives for parents who desire to put the effort into it.
#3 - the government does not actually require that anyone work. Few jobs that have been now opened up to women require less of them than of males employed in the same.
You might also be thoughtful of jobs previously held by women that are now opened to men - nursing being the most obvious.
#4 - it is really not up to you or me whether women "should" serve in the military. It is the individual woman's choice. There is no compulsion. Who is it that is keeping "us" poor so that no one would volunteer for the military otherwise?
You do realize that the voluntary military in the U.S. was built during one of the best economic times in the U.S., don't you?
There is little economic incentive to join the military because the requirements are much higher that you likely think and the benefits are likely less than you think.
#5 - the military does not produce hard calloused people of either sex.
#6 - Most soldiers gain psychological well-being rather than psychological harm. No matter how many headlines are generated by PTSD or other "military" maladies, they are news because they are outliers... a minority.
#7 - You write: "There is a certain dignity that should be preserved and protected in a being a child and also dignity and value natural to a woman that ought to be cherished and maintained and not sacrificed so sacrilegiously."
To me, this sounds as if you are equating women with children... and dignity with childishness. If you meant to equate childhood with innocence, I would agree. But adult women are not childish and are not innocent because of their sex.
Women have always been warriors of one sort or another. Have you not seen "Gone With The Wind" or not read of Boudicca?
#7 - No one is forced to enter the military and there is no grand economic conspiracy to make the military the place where one lands to meet merely economic needs.
#8 - I do agree with you that poverty is sometimes contrived and engineered, but it is not done so with regard to one sex only. When either sex is impoverished, the other is also.
#9 - I am nostalgic about the 60s in many ways, but I do not want to go back any more than my parents ever wanted to go back to the 30s, even though they were nostalgic about the family cohesiveness that tough times brought to the surface.
#10 - Time does only go forward, but policies are swinging on the pendulum you mentioned. They go from good to bad to mediocre and back again... ad infinitum.
From my view, I do not see a bottomless pit, and I am sorry that you do.
It is not a personal attack on you that I disagree with your views. If you choose to interpret it as such, that really is your problem, not mine.
I started reading this site and linked it in my blogroll because I thought the articles were a fun reminder of the past.
That you think I visit here merely to "attack" you is really sad. You are not and can never be that important to me or to anyone else... as I cannot be either.
Though I don't feel I started anything, I am going to stop. This will be my last comment here, and likely my last visit to the site.
There is interesting conversation all over the net and I need not waste my time with a psychotic fool.
I'd like to point out that calling you a psychotic fool is actually the only personal attack I have ever expressed toward you. Every other "attack" you've merely imagined... which explains the psychotic part.
Posted by Donna B. | October 20, 2009 11:03 PM
Posted on October 20, 2009 23:03
Please don't leave, Donna. Seriously. Just stop reading after the article is finished. I have to take that approach with a lot of my favorite sites.
Posted by Ron Enderland | October 21, 2009 2:38 PM
Posted on October 21, 2009 14:38
So Donna, you say it was in the best of times that people voluntarily joined the army. Your welcome to believe that, but I don't. People who do not have rich parents have few options for education and employment. If you do not believe that, I can not change that.
But I take my father to the VA for medical treatments and I see the limbs blown off and the people suffering from PTSD. and you say war builds them up? Wow! I have nothing to say about that. I guess we are not on the same planet.
Nor did I equate women with children. That was you trying to twist and distort what I say. I simply pointed out that both groups are severely slighted in our society. I am glad that you have it so good. But I don't believe many women would agree with you. The news just reported that 2 thirds of households are now supported by women alone. that's just wrong. But I am sure you feel otherwise.
What I do note, is that you do not offer opinions on subject matter here. You have only ever shown up here to try to rip me up. So don't try to pretend, for there is not a soul here who can't see through you.
I suspect it would not matter what I said or posted on any subject, you are going to pick a fight. I leave you in the hands of God, which I seriously doubt you have any faith in. Your in His hands now. Good luck!
Posted by Scott Irv | October 22, 2009 8:47 PM
Posted on October 22, 2009 20:47
nice post you have managed.
Posted by computer desk | November 4, 2009 12:02 AM
Posted on November 4, 2009 00:02
You should listen to and read
The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank $6 CD
and
The Conservative Nanny State by Dean Baker
Free Download
Posted by Dave S | February 18, 2010 8:38 PM
Posted on February 18, 2010 20:38
About Dave S post:
The Conservative Nanny State looks very interesting. I look forward to reading more of it.
The Wrecking Crew looks like all the blame being put on the Conservatives. As I see it, Conservatives and Liberals or whatever else you want to call either of them, are 2 sides of the very same coin. I can't tell the difference between either one of them. They all sit at the table together and speak nothing but lies to us all. I don't care for politics.
I just want to make sense of the world. Still, I think Dave for a very good recommendation. Such input is always appreciated by me.
Posted by Scott Irv | February 18, 2010 9:42 PM
Posted on February 18, 2010 21:42