So you're more for conformity than individual freedom?
I'm not sure. Over all it seems like it might weight more heavily on being bad for America.
Yes equality is a good thing. Are the bad things part of our current struggles, economic and societal?
More women in the market place:
Displaced men which forced more families to need 2 incomes.
Increased the standard of living for a short period but then the increased competition eventually depressed wages.
More and more Children ended up in the hands of babysitters or worse, home alone.
Decline of the nuclear family.
Divorce rate increase.
Single parent increase.
Birth rate lowered.
The Pros:
Women found more freedom.
Result? Good for women but bad for America?
Why do you blame all these things ON Women's Lib? There are many other factors that go into the reason for them being there.
PART of the reason why Women's Lib as we know it was able to take root in it's finality was WWI - and it was furthered during WWII. Men weren't HERE to do all those jobs, women had to fill the role. The men, not only were they sent to fight the war for a few years - many never came back.
We could keep going with that ball down the hill - cause and effect, cause and effect - it's an endless loop and if we were desperate enough we could trace the sociological norms all the way back to Ancient Greece if you so like.
And what pipe is everyone smoking when they REALLY think that a MAN working in a factory was able to bring home enough of an income so his wife didn't HAVE to work in, say, 1850? The fact is that men working in a factory brought in more money than a working woman but it often wasn't enough to sustain a solid family with modern amenities.
One fault HERE is that the modernization of the world brought more COST to the basics of living.
(example) instead of a single person's working income just paying for: food, clothing, shelter. . . it had to, also, covered more taxes. It also covered more refined foods that were imported as people (men and women alike) developed more of an interest in eating beyond the garden or farm. Along with modernization came: cleaning products (essential for a clean home!), health and beauty products. Clothing started to cost more - education became more costly . . .and so on.
The Industrial Revolution preceded our modern view of Women's Lib . . . and that can be traced back to when families *use* to live in homes that they built for themselves on the home front. Everything was done by HAND - hard labor for your family (men AND women shared the work on this) - the slow modernization of the world made it easier and easier to survive but it spiked the COST of living - you had to bring in FAR more money than someone 1,000 years ago could have dared to dream of ever SEEING.
Corporate greed took over, they produced 50 and sold it for profit at a higher cost than what a single person might have been willing to sell the same handmade product for just 10 years earlier.
Someone could live a satisfactory life 500 years ago - farming a field and selling that for a menial income, buy some seed - do it again. Could anyone do that NOW? YES!
BUT people in the US would never DARE dream of doing that, now. That's "3rd world living" or even "redneck."
Is this altered thought on how to live life, raise a family and the basic ideal of "having a home" purely because Women demanded that they be treated equally in the workforce? Of course not, don't be silly. Women's Lib finalized in our country LONG after the slow industrialization of the world altered the basic way in which we survive and exist.
This isn't even related to "Women's Lib" - this is the snobery of a '1st class country' IMHO and almost everyone is guilty of it.
Come on - I know a lot of you are smarter than *that* thinking.