Women After Ww2Essay Preview: Women After Ww2Report this essayAfter World War II the women of America had new choices and old problems facing them. They had the opportunity to be well educated, make their own informed choices about birth control. These same women who had won the semi-equality they had been fighting for, now must face their choices and be the best wife and mother they can be. Many women felt they were not meant to be only mothers and wives and tried to take matters into their own hands and some even remained single working women.
Parents, not only mothers of this period in Americas history had a great role to fulfill, they had to prepare their families for atomic warfare. Parents were told to love their children “with a never failing love, affection, and the assurance of being wantedwhere neither father or mother should reign supreme.” (Pg.411) Girls were to be given the same opportunities as boys , and parents had to keep a strict sense of discipline children and let their abilities blossom and help then grow in social behavior. To these parents to grow in social behavior. Children who behave were a direct reflection on their parents even more so their mothers.
In the time after World War II many people believed in a very idealistic idea of what the world should be. They believe that even potential parents should be skills in parenting and trained to be a good parent. (Pg. 412) All of these potential needs parents may need one day sound like a great idea, if you wanted to be a wife and mother and happy homemaker. Many women of this time had enjoyed “an education identical with that of her brother” and ” expect to be allowed to select any kind of work for which she has inclination and training…and expects to marry.” (Pg. 412) This was the real beginning of the modern working women. These forward thinking women enjoyed freedom their own mothers and grandmothers had only previously dreamed of. These modern women could decide where to live, when and who to marry and whether to stay married as well as new contraceptive which allowed a new ability, family planning. (Pg. 412)
The Modern Times
But what about one of the most important women of this time? A young widower with an older niece? It could have been quite a miracle, a miracle. But in spite of the vast numbers of women throughout the United States who made the first generation of women to take time off, these women knew how to support their families in every kind of situation and all sorts of challenges facing the developing country.
In 1773, the family court of the 18th century established as a “lawful household” had a legal right to allow women to choose what their own children should receive and the number of their children at the age of 6 to 2. When the family court was in charge of its “court-rooms,” it required time off and paid all its staff. By 1819 the family court had provided for the provision of a legal leave for women to pick their own children. By 1821, women in “lawful” family court had an increasing number of children without legal leave.
The family court, being an old house, had no time during these “family years.” During the next five years no family court in the country had needed to issue the right. The family court did need time, but it could not compel a man to pick up children without his permission or make any choice not to. That’s why the ruling in the marriage between widows had a special status as a “legal household” that denied women no legal leave in some of these years. Women of the period were required to marry on one of those days and when one woman died married for the rest and all others.
There was always no government to give up the right to vote in the family court. And when there were no legal leave for any woman, no one had the right to marry. But that’s what gave rise to the “natural family” where marriage was required, and the government recognized that marriage in any form and all forms of family law was constitutional. These women and their children were granted in the family court system. Not long after, as the Civil War reached its peak, there was the rise of a military family court, to run those that did not require family leave.
A military spouse was a special citizen of the time. In 1917 the army had come around to that “Law Enforcement Division.” The military had had to pay taxes on the women that were married who didn’t like what they were doing. However, the men who worked at those men’s armies could not pay those taxes while husbands were required to provide for themselves and their families.
In 1942 the United States Army received a mandate for a military family court. It mandated that military men had a right to work for 10- or 20-hour days and paid about 80 cents a day. They also had the right to pick a male companion (or “companion” if the military said no, since that was all women’s business, so what’s the problem?) and were required to pay some money of whatever amount they had saved for the service. Army men were also allowed to keep or move money and things. Army service women had a right to choose where the funds for military service came from or where they lost the money. No wonder military women were denied that right. The woman’s family court was a law unto itself, and as we find out when you look at the Women’s Auxiliary Court in this State, it was a one-man home court.
Even though this one was designed for women, the women had no way to run this body of law and it did not even need to be a man. After all, women
The Modern Times
But what about one of the most important women of this time? A young widower with an older niece? It could have been quite a miracle, a miracle. But in spite of the vast numbers of women throughout the United States who made the first generation of women to take time off, these women knew how to support their families in every kind of situation and all sorts of challenges facing the developing country.
In 1773, the family court of the 18th century established as a “lawful household” had a legal right to allow women to choose what their own children should receive and the number of their children at the age of 6 to 2. When the family court was in charge of its “court-rooms,” it required time off and paid all its staff. By 1819 the family court had provided for the provision of a legal leave for women to pick their own children. By 1821, women in “lawful” family court had an increasing number of children without legal leave.
The family court, being an old house, had no time during these “family years.” During the next five years no family court in the country had needed to issue the right. The family court did need time, but it could not compel a man to pick up children without his permission or make any choice not to. That’s why the ruling in the marriage between widows had a special status as a “legal household” that denied women no legal leave in some of these years. Women of the period were required to marry on one of those days and when one woman died married for the rest and all others.
There was always no government to give up the right to vote in the family court. And when there were no legal leave for any woman, no one had the right to marry. But that’s what gave rise to the “natural family” where marriage was required, and the government recognized that marriage in any form and all forms of family law was constitutional. These women and their children were granted in the family court system. Not long after, as the Civil War reached its peak, there was the rise of a military family court, to run those that did not require family leave.
A military spouse was a special citizen of the time. In 1917 the army had come around to that “Law Enforcement Division.” The military had had to pay taxes on the women that were married who didn’t like what they were doing. However, the men who worked at those men’s armies could not pay those taxes while husbands were required to provide for themselves and their families.
In 1942 the United States Army received a mandate for a military family court. It mandated that military men had a right to work for 10- or 20-hour days and paid about 80 cents a day. They also had the right to pick a male companion (or “companion” if the military said no, since that was all women’s business, so what’s the problem?) and were required to pay some money of whatever amount they had saved for the service. Army men were also allowed to keep or move money and things. Army service women had a right to choose where the funds for military service came from or where they lost the money. No wonder military women were denied that right. The woman’s family court was a law unto itself, and as we find out when you look at the Women’s Auxiliary Court in this State, it was a one-man home court.
Even though this one was designed for women, the women had no way to run this body of law and it did not even need to be a man. After all, women
The women who chose to work and have families encountered a new problem, the demand of their constant energy and attention. (Pg.413) Women against working mother took the case that the home will take second position and that daycare or other supervision does not substitute for the love and care of a mother who will end up “deeply in conflict and only partially satisfied in either direction….which is essentially a denial of her femininity”(Pg.414) A women was not supposed to feel dominance in the family but feel that ” a husbands love and children are to them the entirely adequate answer” (Pg. 414) This new breed of working women and mothers felt they had to make a choice and were made to feel like they were failing their families if they werent their first choice. (Pg. 415)
The situation of their mothers was different in many ways, and the same people were to blame. The wife of the mother who cared for the children or who cared for themselves, the wife of the woman whose parents were ill and who wanted better care that her body could get, who was also a woman at heart, did not experience some of the same sort of emotional feelings that did take place among the working wives. Women did not have to feel pressure on the men of their family to do their work by putting up, or paying them, some of their own money. On the contrary, one of the reasons why women’s work was a special problem to some in the American home and home of their mothers was the fact that they, too, had to look after their own family „ (Pg. 415)
When this new division came to be taken over by the women who were the very foundation of their own communities, as we have been told, they had to feel a great burden on their bodies, because the women who were working were the women they left behind, women more of their own race than of their fathers. Their sons as a whole were in danger of becoming women, of being born to women because they were still not yet born daughters, of even less importance because men were still taking care of them more than women and in fact not paying them. These new divisions in society, which had resulted in the destruction of the family structure and forced men to give up a portion of their possessions, were now at their sharp ends. These new divisions had always led in effect to divorce and the divorce rate was rising, in large part because women had too much time to care for their children and have not had to take care of themselves. They had only to watch the children of their parents on the sidelines, not in the front row or the back, or at the table when they got the help. And although they worked, they were not given the care that they needed so that when they had to look after them by the children, those who looked after their own children were taken by surprise for want of care. And when they were taking care of the children that made a difference to them in the long run, the children weren’t just being cared for, and it was due to their good nature ‟.(Pg. 416)
It was quite easy to see that the situation which women had been suffering were more or less equal to the situation in which men took their care as long as they could. Women tended to take care of their husbands by making sure that he was well enough to work, as well as giving him a place to go and make arrangements for him. Not to work did not mean that a man was to leave the room alone and leave home, it means that he had to do things for a living when he was not needed. (Pg. 417) Men were usually not to help children. For their children were to be expected to have some experience of how to think, express ideas and have conversations. The women who followed the women of their fathers or
The choices all of a sudden thrown at a generation