 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: "Pearl Harbor" Reconsidered posted by Auricle on August 12, 2002 at 06:46:55:
"The sensibility for women that pleased you was a typical movie anachronism, i.e. a 21st century attitude superimposing itself on a time when such attitudes didn't exist."I don't know about that.
Women were taking over men's job's in the workplace, and with it, the whole concept of contemporary sexuality, was being turned on it's head. With the entire world at War, and the concept of "living for the moment", it was a time of great liberation for Women, in every aspect of their lives.
That it is was only to be temporary, and last until the men returned home at end of the war, was inevitable...at least until the development of oral contraceptives and Family Planning, of the Fifties and early Sixties.
Follow Ups:
The seeds were planted for change during the war and but did not sprout until much later. We agree on the later, here is why I say "much". Rosey the Rivetter was (with only a few exceptions) much happier at home rearing kids and making dinner for hubby. And that is exactly where she went as soon as it was possible. Familly planning began to mainstream (with the resistance of the Catholic church) in the 60's. That mainstreaming was mostly complete by the 70's, but for the workplace the effects were (and still are) gradual.However, even imposing a 60's set of mores on a film set in WWII would be incorrect, much less 2000+ mores. Which was my point.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
