hmmmm..I kinda straddle the fence on the whole issue. I think women's lib hurt women as much as it helped. Yes, we gained the right to vote and work, but we lost much more. We lost the ABILITY to stay at home and raise our kids because with the increase in family income d/t 2 incomes, came an overall increase in cost of living. Although I'm "allowed" to work now, I'm still expected to do the same things that women did PRIOR to this "right". Women, in general, are still the home-makers, primary child-raisers and yes, husband nurturer. So, through these "rights" we gained, we also increased our responsibilities.
Then, let's see. We want equality, then we want men to open the doors and do all the things that make us feel "protected" or IMHO "weaker". Don't get me wrong, I love to see a man hold the door, step back and allow a female to exit the elevator, etc. BUT, I think we're unfairly asking for both independance and dependance.
I have a real problem with the term "women's liberation". It irritates me that it took a movement or group to change the attitudes toward women and furthermore, that group set the precedent that all women feel they must follow. I am not a women's lib'er, I am a confident woman. I do not appreciate the fact that a "group" of radicals set the future expectations of me. In my mind, I AM equal, but not because of the liberation, but because of how I present myself.
How much did it actually change other than the right to vote and the expectation that we'd work? Very little. Although men, in the presence of women, will claim we are equal, in the privacy of male conversation, women are still seen as the weaker sex. Perhaps this is because, in general, we are. We will always be physically weaker and many of us look to men as our leaders. If true equality had been gained, then the issue raised in Florida would be nothing more than political humor, we wouldn' t continue to hear abortion issues debated..there wouldn't be a bunch of men sitting in congress determining what we can and can't do with our bodies. We wouldn't still see more men, than women, in upper-management, politics and as CEO's. We wouldn't be working 8 & 12 hr shifts, coming home and still having the responsibility of feeding the family, cleaning the house and seeing that all the other needs of the family are met. No, instead, we'd be able to work for "equal" pay (and not have the need to work OT) and still have the finer things and life and time to properly raise our kids.
So, one more time..
exactly WHAT did we gain in the "women's lib" movement???