Prior to the war, in 1940, women made up approximately 27% of the U.S. workforce. By 1945, this figure had risen to nearly 37%, with about 19 million women employed, accounting for over one-third of the civilian labor force.
Without denying the efforts from the USA and from US women, the tension on the workforce needs was mostly due to the intensity of the production. Therefore it's less significant than if you look at the European situation during World War I.
In 1914, women represented 23,6% of
You must be registered to see the links
, against between 37,7% and 46,7%, with 40% of the being married, in 1918. The reason why there's only an estimate for 1918 is due to the fact that many of them were farmers, taking over their father/brother/husband sent in France.
I failed to find data for France
(not searched too hard, it's late), but I remember that it was over 50% and, for some region, near to 90%, still due to the fact that they weren't limited to the industry. The difference with UK being due to the fact that the was was actually happening in the country. Not just because there were less men available to cultivate the lands, but also because there were more people to feed; Canadians, Australians, later Americans, were obviously not depending on the food sent by their countries, what significantly increased the production needs, and by there the workforce needs.
And the same apply even more for wars previous the industrial era. While those wars were generally in pause during harvest times, it's ignorance than to believe that there's nothing to do the rest of the time. And, obviously, it was women who were doing it since there were no men and, more important, since lands were way more split than they now are.
Statement is wrong in both directions. First, your timeline is off. Second, at no point was it 5 kids per family, it was either more or less. And it wasn't the war that was the catalyst for the greatest change, it was the great depression. Prior to 1900 it was roughly 7 children per woman. By 1900, the average had dropped to approximately 3.6 children per woman. During the 1930s, the Great Depression, the total fertility rate (TFR) further decreased to about 2.2 children per woman.
You must be registered to see the links
There's another point that you forget
(in that part, but addressed after), and that is way more important than societal factors like the great depression: infant mortality rate.
Yes, women had more children, but with an infant mortality rate
You must be registered to see the links
, birthing 5 times doesn't mean that you've 5 children, and even less than you'll have 5 adults. And, like you said further, the higher is the infant mortality rate, the higher the number of birth by woman will be. This in the obvious intent to have at least one or two that will survive and become adults.
Women couldn't vote until 1920 in the US. (Later in France).
21 April 1944, as an anticipated thanks for their efforts and sacrifice during the occupation.
Women couldn't open a bank account until 1974.
Not totally exact. In the USA they could, to the condition that their father/husband/guardian explicitly agree. But for a long time
(it was still the case in 1945) their salary was gave to their husband if they were married, even if they had a bank account at their name.
In the end, there's something relatively funny in all this. Women were more free prior to the industrial revolution, than they were until, globally, the 1970's.
They were seen even more as their father/husband/guardian property, but treated with more equity than during the industrial era. This being mostly due to the fact that their help was needed. Limiting them to household chores and children education would have been a waste of workforce. It's only when this need in workforce started to slowdown with the industrialization, that they started to be confined to the house. It's also at that time that they started to loose their rights, or more precisely to not acquire the rights that started to appear; I mean, everything you listed was irrelevant before the 19th century.
These threads really are just unintentional troll-traps. Well, unintentional in most cases. I do find them interesting though i'm not looking at them as sources of information but i do get from them what i expect.
