4 ms·

> 3) women who had been recruited to work in factories during the war were encouraged to go home and have babies and be full time wives so the returning soldier

> 3) women who had been recruited to work in factories during the war were encouraged to go home and have babies and be full time wives so the returning soldiers could get jobs (and many women were very happy to do that) This sounds like something straight out of a Communist playbook. If the govt today tried to tell women to quit jobs and have kids there would be a public outcry loud enough to hear from coast to coast.

Retric 12y ago
Governments don't need to be that direct. Long maternity leave, large subsidy's for having children ect can all work without any heavy handed tactics.
- analog31 12y ago
  Not to mention, good old social pressure. I grew up in a suburb at the tail end of that era. In my view there were some other factors as well: 1. Raising a family on a single income was fathomable. 2. Things like day care centers and summer day camps weren't as prevalent.
- kghose 12y ago
  I disagree - long maternity leave would encourage women to stay in the work force, and I strongly support this. I think, from seeing things first hand, we need 1 year maternity leaves to do things properly. Making women choose between raising/having children and going to work is no choice at all.
Mz 12y ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. Just before the war, the world was in the depths of The Great Depression. Four years later, thousands and thousands of men returned home with generous government benefits and money in the bank. You very suddenly had a large, well-off middle class -- something the world had never seen before in known recorded history. What you are saying is akin to claiming "That's nuts. Most lottery winners do not want to spend their newfound riches or indulge themselves in a life of luxury. They prefer to keep working in a coal mine." Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Not true. Some small percentage will do that. But most decide "It's party time!" and many promptly give their notice at work.

Retric 12y ago

Governments don't need to be that direct. Long maternity leave, large subsidy's for having children ect can all work without any heavy handed tactics.

analog31 12y ago
Not to mention, good old social pressure. I grew up in a suburb at the tail end of that era. In my view there were some other factors as well: 1. Raising a family on a single income was fathomable. 2. Things like day care centers and summer day camps weren't as prevalent.
kghose 12y ago
I disagree - long maternity leave would encourage women to stay in the work force, and I strongly support this. I think, from seeing things first hand, we need 1 year maternity leaves to do things properly. Making women choose between raising/having children and going to work is no choice at all.

Mz 12y ago

You have no idea what you are talking about. Just before the war, the world was in the depths of The Great Depression. Four years later, thousands and thousands of men returned home with generous government benefits and money in the bank. You very suddenly had a large, well-off middle class -- something the world had never seen before in known recorded history. What you are saying is akin to claiming "That's nuts. Most lottery winners do not want to spend their newfound riches or indulge themselves in a life of luxury. They prefer to keep working in a coal mine." Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Not true. Some small percentage will do that. But most decide "It's party time!" and many promptly give their notice at work.