To those of you who ***** and moan that women decided to go to work and become "feminists" for no good reason, what do you think about this?
Others can also answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter
2007-12-30
02:53:31
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Fex
6
in
Social Science
➔ Gender Studies
Yeah, that's what I thought!
2007-12-30
03:03:27 ·
update #1
Yes, the Mrs., it is I. I'm a little crabby maybe because I took a nap that turned out to be a three hour thing. I hate that... But I'm not quite two dimensional as some might have you believe anyway. It's just a question.
2007-12-30
06:51:00 ·
update #2
I would not Ro, and if we look at things, we didn't start the war... and most mothers would not want their kids to go to war (and possibly fathers)... BUT - it happened, and women stepped up to do a "man's" job when they were needed, but as soon as (as you said) women like your mother tried to apply for a man's job, they got rejected. Unless women were all masochistic, feminism was inevitable. I'm not even trying to start a fight - I'm just trying to point out the cause and effect. Men at the time acted and women reacted - that's all I'm getting at. Thanks for clearing that up ;-)
2007-12-30
12:12:33 ·
update #3
I also wanted to comment on what Planet said - I see many people have no notion of historical context. If we take things like these out of context, we might as well not talk at all.... And maybe if there was no war we'd still be living like Leave it to Beaver... so my advice to war enthusiasts is - be careful what you wish for...
2007-12-30
12:16:07 ·
update #4
K - you can't really steal a concept... once it's out there it becomes public domain...
2007-12-30
12:18:47 ·
update #5
The lack of historical prospective of many of the feminist bashers here is amazing to me. The Rosie the Riveter icon was created by the government to get those 6 million women into the factories during the war. There were ad campaigns to get women to cut their hair so they'd be safe in the factories and ad campaigns to get them to plant victory gardens at home after working 12 hours shifts and to get the Rosie's to go back to home and hearth after the guys came home from the war so they could have their factory jobs back again. Almost all of the Rosie's did go back except a few whose husband's got killed. Check out the retirement roles of any factory where WWII era people have left the work force with their 30 years in and you'll quickly see that very few women of that age stayed in the factories after the war. The feminist push to enter the work place came later.
EDIT to Chris: You don't know what you're talking about. The Rosie's didn't complain about what they were doing or benefits the guys got, and they still don't---the ones I know and I know many. They left their children every day in the care of grandparents and went off to make sure their men had the best equipment to fight with that they could build. It was long hours and they worked hard and fast. My dad worked in one of those factories with the women because he was classified as having an essential skill that was needed at home in arms manufacturing and it couldn't be learned by women over night like production work which is that the women did. (He couldn't get drafted or sign up by law.) Those years were very hard on the people back state side----totally different than now when you hardly even know there is war going on overseas, if you didn't turn on the TV.
EDIT to the Mrs. (below): I could be wrong, but think this question is a follow up on another about Rosie that came up last night.
EDIT to I'm not too sexy (below): You said "when a real war does comes along"...... What kind of a statement is that? I'm sure our men and women service people who have lost their lives in the CURRENT war would have said that this war is as REAL as it gets. I know their families feel that way.
EDIT to not too sexy: My understanding is that women are not in the front lines because of the rulings made in the pentagon by old men with a lot of bars on their shoulders and not because there's aren't women who are willing to serve up front. I'm not going to try to out guess these military minds who have made it their life's work to study war. But perhaps, given the part of the world the war is being staged in, keeping women off the front lines makes sense war tactics wise. If we were fighting else where, they might be making an entire different judgment call. Not every thing is life is feminism vs. sexism.
2007-12-30 03:26:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
12⤊
3⤋
Psshhyaahhh she was. Back in those times, the women were just expected to sit home, take care of the kiddies, cook dinner for the men, and clean up after everyone and everything. they were supposed to be a perfect housewive, they had dreams of course, like any human did, and well, they weren't allowed to fufill them and take on a career, only the men were. rosie, however, encouraged the woman, they decided they should be EQUAL with the men, not below them. so yes, it was about working.
2016-04-02 02:03:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Women have always worked. What happened during WWII was that they left their mostly female dominated jobs and went off to work in the factories at jobs that were mainly held by men. My mother didn't work at one of these factories because she was going to college at the time but she had friends who did. These jobs did pay a lot better than working as a secretary or a teacher. Then what happened was that the women were fired to make room for the returning veterans. My mother had graduated from college and tried to get a job as a journalist at the local newspaper. They wouldn't hire her because they said they were holding the job for a man. This sort of discrimination was what really led to feminism. How would you like it if you couldn't get a job that you knew you were quite qualified for simply because of your sex?
2007-12-30 08:20:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by RoVale 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
I think it would have been a better demonstration of women power if the six million women told the government to "f*ck off and build your own bombs". Now that would have been girl power, instead of just doing what they want.
2007-12-31 04:46:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by Johno 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the "rosies" served their country & deserve respect for it.
The feminists use them as a symbols of strength & tout their efforts.
In the very next breath however, they will condemn men for "starting all the wars" & completely neglect the fact that many of the "rosies" fully supported the war & would have voted in favor of it had they been in the political position to do so.
No, I'm not going to let the anti-male sexist nature of the feminist movement off the hook because of the efforts of women that were doing their part to support a war.
Feminists weren't responsible for the "rosies."
The natural inclination of women to help in crisis took care of that.
2007-12-30 03:36:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by hopscotch 5
·
7⤊
4⤋
Is this a rant? I see your point and what Rosie represents. I completely agree with you, but what are you accomplishing by asking this? I don't think you will changes minds with a hostile attitude and one icon as a use of evidence.
Is this the real Sex Fairy?
2007-12-30 03:31:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
Rosie's icon (symbolism) was jsut stolen by feminists, nothing more.
Chris has a point - when a real war does come by, feminists will be very, very difficult to find when they have the opportunity to show their equality to stand by their Brothers in arms.
ETA: The Planet.. You have a point in addressing a 'real war'.. nonetheless, where exactly are all these feminists who can do everything? I don't see them on the frontlines and I see nothing from organisations demanding that quotas be in place (like they would with a well-paying job). So, where are they?
Pudding, meet proof!
2007-12-30 03:39:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
9⤋
Hehe, I don't think you'll get anything but answers you don't want from the crowd you're addressing, but I'll chime in and say I think Rosie's terrific.
2007-12-30 03:56:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by vintner 6
·
5⤊
6⤋
So?..
That's completely irrelevant. Men are the one that actually risk their lives and fight for this country..
2007-12-30 04:56:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
5⤋
The entire concept of Rosie makes me ill.
American men fought and died. Men would have loved to have a job stateside building airplanes - more safety, and more food being just two of the reasons. Men had buried millions of their comrades prior to returning home after the war.
That Rosie and sister would dare complain that these men not receive first benefits from US society is an outrage.
During the next war - and it *will* come - Rosie and her feminist friends can go to the front line. But, no doubt, feminists will suddenly be unavailable.
2007-12-30 03:13:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
13⤋