Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As is well known after WWII once the men came back women were forced out of their jobs so that men could take their place and take advantage of the GI bill. Obviously thinking was quite different then, but how would have been a fair way to both men and women? On one hand you do have lots of men coming back and they do deserve to have a chance at college and getting jobs, but on the other women were pushed out after everything they did just so men could have more jobs and sent back to housewives. So what do you think would have been the best thing to keep both the men and women happy?
The point is moot: at the time the standards of the day simply were different. The economy faced different challenges, because the effects of the Great Depression were still relatively fresh in most people's minds, and the end of World War I had brought about several economic shocks. (There was a one-time burst of inflation in 1946, as well).
The emancipation of women is a much broader societal trend -- both world-wide, and the greatest single change within the lifetimes of most of the adults here The displacement of people within the work force was a minor bump in the road when compared with a bloody, two-act total global war, and the idea that "the Government should, or could have done something" is a root cause of many of our current problems.
The post-war "Thank-you-ma'am for building our bombs; now go back to keeping house" is exactly what triggered the entire Equal Rights movement for women. The struggle, mostly in the equal-pay-for-equal-work arena, continues today.
They touched on this in the film "A League of Their Own" which featured a scene where Mr. Harvey, who sponsored the women's league, is asked what happens to the women's jobs when the GIs return home.
Quote:
Ira Lowenstein: This is what it's going to be like in the factories, too, I suppose, isn't it? "The men are back, Rosie, turn in your rivets." We told them it was their patriotic duty to get out of the kitchen and go to work; and now, when the men come back, we'll send them back to the kitchen.
Walter Harvey: What should we do - send the boys returning from WAR back to the kitchen?
As is well known after WWII once the men came back women were forced out of their jobs so that men could take their place and take advantage of the GI bill. Obviously thinking was quite different then, but how would have been a fair way to both men and women? On one hand you do have lots of men coming back and they do deserve to have a chance at college and getting jobs, but on the other women were pushed out after everything they did just so men could have more jobs and sent back to housewives. So what do you think would have been the best thing to keep both the men and women happy?
Men would likely be unable or unwilling to volunteer to serve their armed forces or to submit to a draft without assurance that when they came home they could go back to their job. Congress passed a law doing exactly this. That law is still on the books today and is known as the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act.
Anyone should be able to see the necessity of such a law.
The women who were hired for the jobs that men left when they went off to war knew that the employment was temporary. It was never represented to them as being anything, but that. They took these jobs largely as a patriotic service. My hat goes off to them. The people who built the tanks, the airplanes, the jeeps, the trucks, and the guns did as much to win the war as soldiers on the front lines did in World War II.
However, at the end of the day, everyone knew when the war ended that the men would be getting their jobs back and life would be pretty much going back to the way it was before the war. The one difference was the prosperity that had been created by full employment and an economy that grew by a full third during the war.
There was no alternative to what happened. It had to be that way. I'm sure the readjustment was tough on both men returning from the war and women who had to return to home. Such is life. During a time of crisis, everyone is expected to sacrifice. Everyone did sacrifice and the nation benefited because of it.
The equal rights for women issue would surface and ultimately be dealt with, but that would be about 25 years later.
It's also important to remember that many of the jobs were gone once the war was over - the need for tanks, trucks, guns, etc. disappeared before most GIs made it home. The lack of work for returning GIs was a serious problem.
The drive to build new housing (primarily zero down, low interest loans through the GI bill) was intended to spur new construction and provide employment. The GI Bill education benefits were meant to keep a lot of returning GIs in the classroom and out of the labor force.
As is well known after WWII once the men came back women were forced out of their jobs so that men could take their place and take advantage of the GI bill. Obviously thinking was quite different then, but how would have been a fair way to both men and women? On one hand you do have lots of men coming back and they do deserve to have a chance at college and getting jobs, but on the other women were pushed out after everything they did just so men could have more jobs and sent back to housewives. So what do you think would have been the best thing to keep both the men and women happy?
A number of women STAYED at those jobs having proven that they could do them and not having a husband coming home alive it was that or starve and beg.
In fact, WW2 was what pretty much broke a lot of gender barriers.
Sure, it didn't fix things all the way but it was a pretty major start.
P.S. Also was pretty much a giant boost to the civil rights movement.
And people don't realize that the pre-World War II economy couldn't support as many jobs.
In 1941, about 1/4 o the population still lived on farms; farmers often came into town only once a week. That translated to fewer service and retail jobs. There was less travel, less entertainment, and if you grew up on a farm, you were expected to labor (and it was a lot more physical in those days) in return for your keep.
But of course, the same people who whine constantly about service-sector jobs that "don't pay a 'living' wage" usually have no oncept of how tight things were before the service-based economy evolved.
And people don't realize that the pre-World War II economy couldn't support as many jobs.
In 1941, about 1/4 o the population still lived on farms; farmers often came into town only once a week. That translated to fewer service and retail jobs. There was less travel, less entertainment, and if you grew up on a farm, you were expected to labor (and it was a lot more physical in those days) in return for your keep.
That's a pretty good summation, and it wasn't limited to service and retail jobs. Heck, many young men who had been farming all of their lives couldn't find work in that, um, "field" either. My father, who was born and raised on a farm, enlisted the Army in 1939 because he could find no other work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
But of course, the same people who whine constantly about service-sector jobs that "don't pay a 'living' wage" usually have no concept of how tight things were before the service-based economy evolved.
And that, I think, is a subject for another thread.
.............. So what do you think would have been the best thing to keep both the men and women happy?
What makes you think women as a group were "unhappy" going back to being housewives at the conclusion of World War II? Attitudes back then were not the same as attitudes today. Women had not been subjected to massive propaganda trying to convince them that there was something wrong with being a housewife and mother.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
