3 ms·

> barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years Pardon? 50 years ago was 1969. Not discounting the fact that lower class women have always

> barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years Pardon? 50 years ago was 1969. Not discounting the fact that lower class women have always worked, the 60s saw a huge growth in Women's liberation, with the first woman to be a Fortune 500 CEO happening in the 1972. To say Women were "barely allowed in the workplace" during the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's needs significant proof.

dahart 7y ago
Why not just look it up? It took 10 seconds. https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#CivilianLFSex https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#Civ... In 1969, the labor force participation rate of women was 37.8%, and today it’s 46.8%. That’s a big change, and you have to realize that this difference is also coming out of the men’s share; it’s a bigger change than it looks. Also the women’s share was much lower - only 29% - just 20 years before that in 1949. In 1920 it was 20%. And don’t forget 1920 was the first year that women were allowed to vote. So if you’re looking at the bigger point and don’t fixate on exact dates, the pattern is one of massive change in the last 100 years from almost nothing to now nearing 50%. FWIW, while the comment you replied to maybe seemed to overstate the claim a little for recent years, your response here doesn’t look particularly good in this sensitive/divisive topic, if you’re actually worried about being unfairly labeled. For example, the fact that the first woman Fortune 500 CEO happened in the last 50 years, after 1969, really goes straight to the parent comment’s point, and constitutes extremely clear proof that in 1969 women were barely allowed in some parts of the workforce.
- legostormtroopr 7y ago
  > In 1969, the labor force participation rate of women was 37.8% I would not call 38% participation "barely" in the workforce. And the point of noting the first female Fortune 500 CEO in 1969 was to highlight that while it is a shame it took so long, women would have been in senior roles well before 1969 to make her promotion possible.

dahart 7y ago

Why not just look it up? It took 10 seconds. https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#CivilianLFSex https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#Civ... In 1969, the labor force participation rate of women was 37.8%, and today it’s 46.8%. That’s a big change, and you have to realize that this difference is also coming out of the men’s share; it’s a bigger change than it looks. Also the women’s share was much lower - only 29% - just 20 years before that in 1949. In 1920 it was 20%. And don’t forget 1920 was the first year that women were allowed to vote. So if you’re looking at the bigger point and don’t fixate on exact dates, the pattern is one of massive change in the last 100 years from almost nothing to now nearing 50%. FWIW, while the comment you replied to maybe seemed to overstate the claim a little for recent years, your response here doesn’t look particularly good in this sensitive/divisive topic, if you’re actually worried about being unfairly labeled. For example, the fact that the first woman Fortune 500 CEO happened in the last 50 years, after 1969, really goes straight to the parent comment’s point, and constitutes extremely clear proof that in 1969 women were barely allowed in some parts of the workforce.

legostormtroopr 7y ago
> In 1969, the labor force participation rate of women was 37.8% I would not call 38% participation "barely" in the workforce. And the point of noting the first female Fortune 500 CEO in 1969 was to highlight that while it is a shame it took so long, women would have been in senior roles well before 1969 to make her promotion possible.