Yes! It is so refreshing to see actual history referred to instead of mythical history used as an analogy! "Secular stagnation" didn't happen because it was government policy that it wouldn't happen, not because of anything wrong with the theory. World War II also "worked" because it was followed by World War III, A.K.A. "the Cold War". Those Interstate Highways commuters used to get home to their appliance-packed Levittowns were built in the name of national security -- as was new math and science education after Sputnik.

"all of which was built in factories that didn't employ women"

This statement is simply not factual. It is far too broad a generalization. Further, while it is true that many women left the workplace after the war and "went home" there were many more who did not. Why? Well, for one thing, most of the women who worked (like most of the men) had no choice in the matter. They either worked or the rent didn't get paid.

There were millions of people (and still are by the way), none of whom, regardless of gender, had any choice at all about whether or not to work regardless of the policy choices that were made to create suburbia, etc... Your tone and the thrust of your comments make it appear as though women only worked during WWII and then everyone quit once the war was won. That is true for a portion of the workforce but not all of it.

Additionally, prior to WWII and even WWI vast numbers of women worked. What about the girls of Lowell? What about all the Irish maids and other domestics? What about all textile workers nationwide who belonged to the ILGWU and the girls and women who made shoes all over the country? What about the immigrants who suffered in the sweat shops of New England and New York? What about the poor women (black and white) of the south whose toil in the fields began in the 18th Century? All of the farm women of America worked brutal hours as partners with their farmer husbands trying to scratch a living out of the earth. But of course, these were the poor, the common people who don't make headlines unless they cause problems so they don't get much notice in the narrative you are reciting. The main focus of the particular point of view you seem to come from is very much focused on the middle and upper middle classes. It barely notices the poor and working classes who worked or starved. That's a serious flaw in the anlysis if you ask me, albeit not at all uncommon.

I don't know about you, but at least two of my great-grandmother's, my paternal grandmother, my maternal grandmother, all her sisters (3 of them), my mother and all her female first cousins (there were 5 of them) worked from at least the moment they left school and some of them began working before leaving school. All of them had jobs outside the home their entire lives. They did whatever they had to do to make ends meet. I know this was true for a huge number of families in the past century. By way of illustration my maternal grandmother was a florist, her eldest sister worked for the local newspaper, another was the town postmaster, and the final sister was a book-keeper most of her life and spent her later years working in a bank as a teller.

While I don't disagree with the basic points you're making, I do think they would carry more weight if they weren't so dogmatic with respect to a certain strain of rhetoric and exaggerated claims.

Hello oleeb

Women who were working in the hi-skill, hi-pay sectors of the war machine were systematically fired. Few unions were sympathetic, even when women war-time workers had played key roles in organizing.

Of course there were women who were in the post war work force. The Victorian Ideal of the male-breadwinner/female-caretaker household was never a reality for everyone.

Nevertheless, the post War story is that women were driven out of well paid employment.

Remember the story about the man who checks his watch toward the end of a meeting and then excuses himself to go get the kids? His colleagues congratulate him on being a great dad. A woman does the same thing and her colleagues shake their heads because she's not serious about her career.

Writing forcefully about women and the economy is dogmatic. Writing forcefully about the economy (leaving out gender) is analysis.

Of course there were women who were in the post war work force. The Victorian Ideal of the male-breadwinner/female-caretaker household was never a reality for everyone.

Then what's your point?

The option to firing women and hiring men post-WWII would be to discharge millions of men, trained in warfare, to idle, frustrated unemployment in an economy that struggled in the late-'40s. Women did not recoil in collective horror at the idea of becoming housewives; it's what their mothers and grandmothers had done, and was a tradition that had evolved over many, many decades. Applying an instant moral appraisal here is shortsighted and deficient. In the working class, a woman's role in the home included managing the family economy and planning its schedule of work and (very limited) play; her role was much more profound than it's now fashionably portrayed. Husbands brought home a paycheck that was shared by and invested in the entire household. That was the way most Americans had to live at the time; they had very little "disposable income" to squander.

The constant charge of victimization has warped and distorted a complicated social process. The dogma is tired, old and discredited. Why does the left always fumble on subjects like this - proffering the lifestyle and constrictions of the elite as common among millions of Americans whose central intention was to provide the best they could for their children.

And try living without refrigerators, dishwashers, washers, dryers, vacuum cleaners and their vast array of accoutrements. I'm sorry, but you sound like someone who grew up with housekeepers and paid help to run those laughably pedestrian appliances.

What's important is that we remember that employing women was not a focus of either the recovery from the Depression or the postwar recovery. Women as a group were expendable--drawn into paid labor when needed, forced out when the need passed. (That some women continued to work is irrelevant--it's the policy with regard to women's employment that matters.) For instance, during the Depression, single women were not eligible for most employment--they were expected to reside with their parents or siblings (and I assume be supported by them).

thank you for posting porno izle her zaman.