Wartime Women in the 1940's
Karen Anderson’s Wartime Women: “Sex Roles, Family Relations and the Status
of Women during World War II” reexamines the various roles women occupied in
wartime America. Anderson argues that though some historians they attribute women’s
postwar employment changes simply to economics. Anderson implies that the 1940’s
period played a more prominent role in developments, helping to accelerate the economic
changes that would come after WWII. Moreover, though such studies exist in abundance
today, in 1981 few historians explored the effects of living in a society with severe sex
ratios. Anderson points out that despite continuing occupational sex segregation, a lack of
appropriate child care, and the lingering negative attitudes regarding female employment,
women persisted in gaining employment and opening doors for themselves and later
generations. The necessities of wartime America undermined a somewhat sex segregated
labor market and the ideas that perpetuated it. Lacking national uniformity, local
municipal government and attitudes greatly influenced the breath of change.
Such themes arose was mobilization where employed several rationales in
convincing women to pursue employment among them patriotism, the prestige of war
workers, and “a stress on women’s capacities for nontraditional work.” For women
themselves, several factors encouraged them to find work. While patriotism remained
one, others such as economic necessity, escape from the home, desire for social
independence, and preventing loneliness or anxiety provide a few examples. Though
rates of women’s participation in the workforce vary between Seattle, Detroit, and
Baltimore. In all three over ninety percent of the women workers living in family groups
contributed systematically to family upkeep, accustoming their families to the increased
financial security and material comforts that their additional income could
of Women during World War II” reexamines the various roles women occupied in
wartime America. Anderson argues that though some historians they attribute women’s
postwar employment changes simply to economics. Anderson implies that the 1940’s
period played a more prominent role in developments, helping to accelerate the economic
changes that would come after WWII. Moreover, though such studies exist in abundance
today, in 1981 few historians explored the effects of living in a society with severe sex
ratios. Anderson points out that despite continuing occupational sex segregation, a lack of
appropriate child care, and the lingering negative attitudes regarding female employment,
women persisted in gaining employment and opening doors for themselves and later
generations. The necessities of wartime America undermined a somewhat sex segregated
labor market and the ideas that perpetuated it. Lacking national uniformity, local
municipal government and attitudes greatly influenced the breath of change.
Such themes arose was mobilization where employed several rationales in
convincing women to pursue employment among them patriotism, the prestige of war
workers, and “a stress on women’s capacities for nontraditional work.” For women
themselves, several factors encouraged them to find work. While patriotism remained
one, others such as economic necessity, escape from the home, desire for social
independence, and preventing loneliness or anxiety provide a few examples. Though
rates of women’s participation in the workforce vary between Seattle, Detroit, and
Baltimore. In all three over ninety percent of the women workers living in family groups
contributed systematically to family upkeep, accustoming their families to the increased
financial security and material comforts that their additional income could