Chicks On Lit discussion

I was watching part of the Diane Sawyer coverage of this book last night. I was interested to hear some of these conversations and insight from the book and from Caroline.Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy

I am not a child of the 60s but I have to ask those that either were children or perhaps adults at this time was her attitudes typical of women at the time? She seemed very soft spoken and very submissive to President Kennedy in all areas. There was a part where they asked her what she likes or something like that and she said she supposes she likes whatever Jack dones. I don't know if anyone else saw it and I'm likely doing a poor job of showing examples but it got me thinking. My husband has been watching Mad Men on Netflix in the evening and he is constantly blown away by what the women put up with and how they are treated. I know Jackie was iconic to many women at the time so I just wondered was that attitude and acceptance of mens behavior and women's roles really so widely the norm?
If so it seems so much has changed in such a relatively short time. And I find myself asking myself would I have been the dotting unquestioning wife or would I be what I am now?

I didn't see the interview, nor have I read the book. But yes, what you describe was the norm. But there was a rising storm of protest that came about, especially in the early 70s.

What do you think caused the storm to rise Elizabeth? What was it about that time that made it possible to raise a storm vs another?

I have no evidence, but I suspect it was the advent of the birth control pill. Finally, women had some control over their own bodies. That in itself was liberating. There were likely other things, but if I had to point to a single thing, that would be it.

Kennedy was shot when I was a freshman in college. It's not like birth control suddenly made women aware they had more power, it took awhile. Word of mouth sort of thing, and not everyone took advantage of it immediately, of course. But it made for the sexual revolution of the 60s, and with it, women realized they could become powerful in other ways.

I think the other major thing that gave women power was the Vietnam War. Lots of young men going off to war required more women in the workforce, just as it did in WWII. Also, like Brenda, more women were going to college. The WWII generation was more affluent and could afford to send their children, girl children included, to college. Now there was the possibility of economic power.

At first, men protested that they were being asked to help care for children so that their wives could go to work. It took many years for them not to feel emasculated for doing what had always been women's work.

Only because it seems to fit into this conversation, I'll share my 25-year old granddaughters Facebook post today:

"Read this in my textbook today (it's from an 1894 booklet for young brides): One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

hahaha! Too funny!"

Things did change My mom was a 19 year old married and with a baby at the end of the 50's and She got an
annulment from her first husband. That was unheard of at the time.What she has said about that time is that she didn't have to put up with that kind of crap. reading what you said Elizabeth makes me wonder what she thought growing up, My grandfather was away for along time in WW2. So she would have seen my grandma raising her and her sisters by herself.
.

Dianne, that's a really good observation. Again, because of WWII, women had been called upon to do more and more, and they became more self-reliant. I always called the Women's Revolution the Women's Evolution, because the changes were never going to happen overnight. They took place over many years.

I think it gave you women choices as well my mom remarried but by 1974 my father died so she was single again her best friend in the neighborhood that I grew up in had gotten a divorce my mom and Sharon would go out and have a great time together BUT the husbands in the neighborhood where threatened by my mom and Sharon They did not want their wives going anywhere with them lol. They both owned their houses and worked for the school dept so we had health in. They both had 3 kids and did a great job.

I was born in the early 60's, so I was too little to know much about what was happening then. From things I've read (and people I've talked to) the women's movement was more of a 70's thing than a 60's thing (which surprised me - although, after reading books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, I could see that the 60's was more about men than women.)

Have you ever read Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women? It can be strident at times, and is somewhat out of date now, but at the time it came out, I found it fascinating. Faludi had some very interesting insights into how women were treated and how the women's rights movement came about.

here is a timeline for the women's rights movement in the us it's interesting. I thought the women's rights was more of a 70's thing also. But lets not forget all of these great ladies.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womens...

That's really interesting thanks Dianne

Going over and looking at some of the laws that went into place is amazing. the things we forget and sometimes take for granted.

Last night, PBS Newshour had some of the excerpts from the Jacquie tapes. Her voice is so breathy. I remember when she gave the White House tour after she did so many renovations that she was mocked "here is a painting, and here is another painting."

It was interesting to learn that she had so much more political influence than was thought at the time. We seem to think that Hillary was the first "partner" of the presidency, but many of our first ladies have had much more input for much longer, thinking particularly about Abigail Adams.

My mom and mother-inlaw have said that for years. They both get pretty pissy about that. Jacquie from what I have read was a very strong women who didn't need to stand out to get things done. She seemed to get her point across without looking bad or needing to scream and make other people look bad.

I wasn't born until 1978, so maybe what I have to say doesn't matter in this discussion (lol). ... But I suspect Jackie Kennedy was more powerful and opinionated than she let on in public.

How does the saying go? "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world ..." ? And I think most wives have quite a bit of influence on their husbands even if they do put out a demure facade on the outside.

Also, I think that Jackie Kennedy was trying to make a legacy for her husband when she did those interviews the book is based on. I don't know if she did it for her children or for the country, but it was in her interest to make her husband look good and make him look strong. She was not a dumb woman and she would know what it would take to leave a lasting legacy ...

I wasn't born until 1964, It's always interesting to see what different women and ages think of her and other women. One of the things that is a lot of fun is talking about women in history with my daughter's 23, nieces 22, 18 and my sister 51 and mom 73. We miss having my grandmother in on the conversation now but we always say You know what grandma Dot said about that!

JFK apparently liked women with breathy voices. Listen to Marilyn sing Happy Birthday. ;-)

Lots has changed. In 1963, TV was limited to only a few channels. We lived in a suburb of LA, so had more channels than anyplace else except New York and Chicago, which had the same amount. I think we had 7 channels. When Kennedy was shot, there was nothing on TV except the shooting on any channel for 4 days. Nothing else, and I mean literally nothing else. What gave anyone relief was the on/off knob and the fact that TV wasn't a 24-hour operation in those days.

I know this post isn't about the main topic, but in some ways it is. It addresses how what we thought was directed by those who had the mouthpiece, and that was in the hands of men.

I dropped out of college shortly after the assassination (not related to my decision), but ended up back in school about 10 years later. My Business Law professor, a woman, had gone to law school right after WWII. She was the only woman in her class. The dean of the law school called her into his office and told her she was going to have to be twice as good as any of the men just to graduate. So she graduated first in her class, at which point the Dean told her she had a mind like a man. And that, my fellow chicks, is where we came from.

Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "Wasn't there a president, Calvin Coolidge or Woodrow Wilson, whose wife practically ran the White House.

I will ask my husband when he comes home.

and, let not forget Eleanor Roosevelt."

It was Wilson's wife she was called the Secret President

Looking back at all of our first Ladies is a lot of fun

It would be great to find a book that talks about all of them going to have to do some research on that lol. Your right Brenda people just want to remember the bad things.

This is such a great conversation! I was middle school when Kennedy was shot and I remember it well. Yes - we only had four channels (ABC, CBS and NBC plus some PBS) and that is ALL that was on for days, except for the test pattern late at night.

I find it interesting how much Jacqueline Kennedy must have changed from the obedient, first lady to the editor she became later in life. I have a copy of Reading Jackie: Her Autobiography in Books which I am anxious to read.

My mother was a stay at home mom and we had numerous arguments about my wanting more out of life. She was terribly hurt. I wasn't sure because of health problems whether I could ever get pregnant, so I set my sights on a career instead - however traditional teaching (and nursing) were for women. I graduated from college, got a job and an apartment and she wept fiercely - and was extremely angry with me. I wasn't supposed to move out until I had a husband. AND YES I agree - birth control was extremely liberating. Probably why I didn't marry for another ten years after college... nuf said!

I wish more was shown and discussed on this topic. I think my generation and beyond are fairly uneducated on how much things have changed for women and what some of the big catalysts were.

The women's movement has been progressing for some time. Some of the feminist literature of the 19th Century is eye-opening, and what I've read doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. I keep hoping I'll stumble across more of it, and even read some of it on purpose. But then I always get side-tracked.

And then again, sometimes I think it happened so fast. In barely two decades, between the 60's and 70's, we were striving for higher levels of education, were much deeper into the workforce, in jobs that weren't just traditionally women's, delaying marriage or having a family because we were off discovering ourselves, realizing we had all kinds of new rights and freedoms, not just economically, but in the mental and physical realms.

My mother's life was so different, as most of the Moms in my neighborhood did not work outside the home. The only ones who did were widows, or the rare divorcee, which almost never happened. We had only one car. My mother didn't get her driver's license until I was in high school. Her life was so different than mine, and in turn mine so different from my daughter's. That seems to be more a function of rapid technological developments.

It was a big deal for women to keep their own name after marriage and I contemplated it. But friends who had done so had experienced serious problems filing joint tax returns. For years they had to send a copy of their marriage license to prove they weren't trying to pull one over on the government!

Last week or two, we had a reunion of classmates from high school. There were very few of us who had pursued careers. Some had waited until their kids were in college to strike out. Many had got married when they were 19[ arranged marriages]! In my daughters class- everyone of the girls is in a professional course. Marriage is in the distant future after they have worked for some time. Most have boyfriends and some will opt for an arranged marriage, but will shop around before finally agreeing to settle down.

I graduated from college in 1982 and then went on to get my master's degree. In my final semester, I got pregnant (happily), and then struggled to work full time and take care of first one, and then two, and finally three children (with the help of my husband.)

I felt *a lot* of pressure from friends to continue this crazy lifestyle of working full time while parenting, and when I decided to become a 'stay-at-home' mom, I felt like I was betraying every feminist ideal that I believed in. (My husband would have gladly stayed home, but his paycheck and benefits were *way* better than mine!)

Now that my kids are nearly out of the house, I'm *so* glad that I had my time with them. I'm certainly not saying that my choice was right for every woman, but it worked for us.

I guess my point is that the women's movement should give women the freedom to choose what's in their (and their family's) best interest and not feel guilty about that choices. Equal rights are there to liberate us, not make us think we have to be stressed-out super women all the time.

Michelle wrote: "I graduated from college in 1982 and then went on to get my master's degree. In my final semester, I got pregnant (happily), and then struggled to work full time and take care of first one, and th..."

Thanks for posting that Michelle. I think that's a common issue with women. Now that we have all this there is this thing that we sometimes feel less than if we decide to stay home and be the mom.

I think you're right that the women's movement should give us the freedom to choose. I think sometimes we as women are our biggest critic and judge and do more to tear that down than men.

The women's movement was about so much more than working outside the home. Women didn't have credit in their own name, for instance. But it was mostly about respect for being whole human beings.

And you're right - it SHOULD be about the freedom to choose. I think its also sad to say that we are still battling that "women should and can have it all" philosophy. Many women work just as much out of necessity as not. Often women truly are accepted for wherever they're at. But there are still those unfortunate stereotypes and lack of respect. I have seen professional women dismissive of stay at home moms - and I've seen stay at home moms assume working women are less effective parents. I wish, after all these years, we could be supportive and accepting of each other. That where the real empowerment comes from.

Nancy (NE) wrote: "And you're right - it SHOULD be about the freedom to choose. I think its also sad to say that we are still battling that "women should and can have it all" philosophy. Many women work just as much ..."

I am hoping my daughters generation will be different so far both of the girls seem to just accept people for who they are and what they decide they want to do. They also like to picket for causes at our state Capital

I agree with all that has been posted. The women's movement was about more than professional equality. It began with voting rights and political equality and grew to incorporate career, financial independence, legal status, and on and on. I hope that, as women develop the freedom to be full persons and not defined by their gender, the same will be true for men. Stay at home dads face as much or more social pressure to be productive as stay at home moms. Women are rational, good leaders, responsible. Men are creative, nurturing and compassionate. Now there is an ideal world.

I have seen professional women dismissive of stay at home moms - and I've seen stay at home moms assume working women are less effective parents.

Here, here!!

I hope that, as women develop the freedom to be full persons and not defined by their gender, the same will be true for men.

Again: here, here!!

If we want equality, then we need to extend those ideas to our male counterparts. For a while there, I couldn't stand to watch sit coms on TV because all the men were portrayed as such doofuses while the women were always the smart ones.

Michelle wrote: "I graduated from college in 1982 and then went on to get my master's degree. In my final semester, I got pregnant (happily), and then struggled to work full time and take care of first one, and th..."
When I train women in gender and law, I emphasize that its not about SAHM vs working mother but the right of choice and respect for those choices from the state and community and family. Its generally accepted by the participants, as I have been both and I have changed my work to get home on time for my younger kid's return from school.

Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "I was a child of the sixties. Only 6 when Kennedy was shot. I don't remember much about them because television did not have all the things that it does now in way of news shows and news-tainment..."

The 70's saw economic freedom and a recession. There was growth of unions and movements for peace and counterculture. So the times were turbulent and change was in the air- new research and technology fueled economic growth and incidentally, led to more avenues for women to explore.

Michelle - I totally agree. And I believe the original feminists/suffragists wanted women to be able to choose.

Sadly, I feel like the feminist movement has been hijacked and perverted into something far different. Now it seems to be a way to strong arm women into going in the workforce and sleeping around (not necessarily related - lol) and not supporting them in whatever they want to do.

I think if today's "feminists" really cared about women and empowering women, they would be doing a lot more about the plight of women and girls in many arab countries. You know, the places where it's illegal for girls to go to school.

That's where today's fight should be. Not with each other and not dreaming up perceived "inequalities" that dont' really exist.

Yes, we do need to stand in solidarity with our empoverished and exploited sisters throughout the world, everything from restrictive laws in the Middle East to sex trafficking in Eastern Europe and Asia, polygamy and female circumcision in Africa and so on. But, inequality does remain in the US. Women still make around 75 cents to the male dollar. Glass ceilings are ever-present. Female headed households are far more often in poverty than male headed households. Women still assume the lion's share of care giving. And, I know that many sahms feel pressured or criticised by working women, many who need to work are crippled by lack of child care and other supports allowing them to do what they feel is in their family's best interest. My greatest concern is that many younger women are unfamiliar with the struggle and the gains made by those who fought for the equality of women over the past 150 years and are becoming complacent.

My greatest concern is that many younger women are unfamiliar with the struggle and the gains made by those who fought for the equality of women over the past 150 years and are becoming complacent.

I think that's true.

I worked with an African American woman who worried that her daughter wouldn't understand what had happened in Birmingham during the sixties, and about what went on in the U.S. before that time (in regards to segregation.) This woman said that she was glad that her daughter didn't seem to feel the effects of discrimination, but at the same time, she didn't want the girl to take it for granted.

If our kids don't realize what it took to bring us to where we are, I guess in a way that's a good thing. However, I want them to understand the history so it isn't repeated.

Michelle wrote: "If our kids don't realize what it took to bring us to where we are, I guess in a way that's a good thing. However, I want them to understand the history so it isn't repeated. "

I don't disagree. But they have their own battles and issues. I wouldn't want to steal that from them. Just now, for instance, there's the subject of the economy, which is in a not dissimilar condition to that of the 1930s. We didn't have to fight that battle.

Yes, and had we learned from the excesses of the roaring 20's, would we have found ourselves coming off the boom 90's with this economic situation? Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Irene wrote: "Yes, and had we learned from the excesses of the roaring 20's, would we have found ourselves coming off the boom 90's with this economic situation? Those who do not learn from history are bound to..."

I think you have to recognize something is broken before you want to do anything to fix it. Boom times don't seem like something you shouldn't want. (Is that a double negative? My Mother would be horrified.)

I quite agree that women today should recognize the need to protect the hard won equality battle. But I also think they should take it for granted, that equality should be the norm. And then they should adamantly oppose any attempt to deny them of said equality. Battle what must be battled - there is no point in fighting a fight already won.

I guess I am not convinced that the battle is won.

And, yes, no one wants to change boom eras because we do not perceive a problem. The lesson we need to learn is "everything that rises must fall", including the economy. It is not that we "fix" the boom era, but that we walk through them with a bit more humility and recognition that it is temporary.

I disagree about the boom times. There is something wrong with them. There is an underlying cause that is wrong. The housing bubble was a wrong that should have been fixed, but no one wanted to do anything about it. (And by the way, it was recognized at least 3-4 years before the fall. I listened to talking heads on financial channels using the very words "housing bubble" in 2004.)

Yes, I agree that the housing bubble was problematic and recognized years before the pop. I was thinking of the 90s with the tech boom and the market growth that it brought. But, I realize that it could be argued that the market was artificially inflated during that period also. I really don't have any background in economics, so I don't understand the forces. I guess I am under the impression that there are cycles of highs and lows n the economy. I am not convinced that these need to be artificially leveled by some omnipotent invisible (or visible) hand. But, had folks realized that this market could not rise forever, that booms are usually followed by busts, that credit will come due, maybe the wreckless spending, the sky's-the-limit aquisition of debt, the imprudent failure to save, might not have occurred, at least not in such proportions. So, what have we learned from the 30's and 40's that might help us navigate through this economic down turn?

I don't see that we learned anything from the depression of the 1930s, else we wouldn't be doing the same things. And the tech boom of the 1990s was an artifical bubble. The NASDAQ, mostly a reflection of tech stocks, was at 5000, now 11 years later, it's at 2600.

Irene; the pay inequality is actually non-existent if you take into account a few factors:

1 - Women will leave the workforce to care for their children, even if only for a few years. A man who stays in the workforce during that time will continue to advance in his career.

2 - Women tend to take lower paying jobs. A lot of time it's because of the flexibility and a lot of times it's because women just tend towards subjects that don't pay as well. (Secretaries are just going to make less than chemists - that's how the world works. It doesn't mean their work is less important, just that there's more supply of secretaries than chemists.)

3 - Women tend to work fewer hours. Mostly because we also tend to be the primary caregivers for our children.

If you compare men and women with similar work place experience, similar hours, and similar jobs, the "pay gap" pretty well disappears.

As a society, we value women's work less than men's traditional work. We pay those who care for our children, nurse our elderly, rescue the abused less than those who work in construction, labor on plant floors or work as engineers. I think it is not that we value people less than things, but that we still see women's work as somehow worth less. As more men enter nursing and teaching and other traditional service sector women's professions, I am seeing their status and saleries rise. Maybe my opinion is unfairly scued due to my professional situation. I work in an environment with a concrete ceiling.

Irene wrote: "As a society, we value women's work less than men's traditional work. We pay those who care for our children, nurse our elderly, rescue the abused less than those who work in construction, labor o..."

As a society we should see that women who want to have children and continue working, should have the facilities to do it.Or, there should be a way of adjusting work and pay so women or men, who want to be caregivers don't face an all or nothing situation.

Priya wrote: "Irene wrote: "As a society, we value women's work less than men's traditional work. We pay those who care for our children, nurse our elderly, rescue the abused less than those who work in constru..."

Well said Priya My daughter is one of the lucky ones she is able to take her daughter to work with her when her husband is working now. She is a personal trainer and the only one at her work with a child her boss told her when he found out she was having scheduling problems due to Bella to just bring her in and let her go to the daycare program set up for the clients at the gym. Because of the kindness of her boss she has more clients and she is now learning the billing / accounts receivable side of the business

Totally agree Prya. People should not have to choose between family and career, between the husbands career and the wife's career. But, I don't see that happening in the US in the near future.