I went to dinner with two of my male friends this evening, and as the meal was wrapping up one of them pointed to the framed print on the wall right next to him and said, "Look at this picture. Can either of you tell me what is significantly different about it from present time?" The other guy and I looked at it and made meagre comments about the physical structure of the street or the number of street cars on the road--it was a photo taken a hundred or so years back here in Toronto. The first guy said that wasn't it: "Look at the people. There are no women on the street. That was a better time."
"...no women on the street.
That was a better time."
I thought he was just kidding around--and then he kept saying it. The second guy, on the pro-liberation of women side, took his shots at guy number one and told him that his mother would slap him. Guy number one just kept it up, and I started to realize he might not be completely joking. Eventually I asked him for his three main reasons why it was a better time when women were not on the street, and here is a summation of his points:
.....1. No bars and brothels
.....2. Less Crime
.....3. Better children when mothers stayed home and raised them
And now, my response:
::NO BARS AND BROTHELS::
Some call prostitution one of the oldest professions, and with good reason as historical accounts show public brothels dating back to around 550 B.C. and the first temple brothels dating back to over 4,000 years ago. In the writings of the ancient Greeks, there are references to the sacred art of prostitution (think: Aphrodite), and brothels emerged in Athens around the 6th century B.C. To say that prior to women's liberation there were no brothels is a falacy at best, and malicious at worst.
Furthermore, commercial places where people come together to drink beer or other alcoholic beverages have existed for well over 5,000 years, the evidence of which shows women acting as tavern keepers (Sumeria, 3500 BC). Let's talk about pubs. In 10th century A.D., King Edgar of England decreed that villiages could have no more than one 'alehouse,' which is a testiment to their popularity. Again, we see false logic. To say that the liberation of women brought about an increase in the amount of bars in a city is to discount 5,000 years of history. The link provided between increased women on the street (walking here and there, working outside the home, ect) and the existance of brothels and bars does not stand, as history easily knocks out the contention.
SOURCES: Prostitution Facts & History
Prostitution: History. From Wikipedia
Tavern. From Wikipedia
::LESS CRIME::
Granted, there are more crimes committed today than there were in 1900. However, I'm not sure to what exactly he was indicating when he said that there was less crime, so I will attempt to address this as adequately as I can in a short amount of time.
If increased women on the street equals increased number of crimes committed, I fear he is sadly mistaken. Both in 1900 and today, males commit the majority of all crimes; therefore, women are not to blame for the increase in the number of crimes committed over the past 100 years.
And what about increased population rates? (Look at the graph below.) Might we dare to suggest that crime rates have risen throughout time as population numbers have increased? There are indeed more crimes today than ever before, but to blame it on the liberation of women is wrong.
::BETTER CHILDREN PRODUCED BY STAY-AT-HOME MOMS::
As my mother stayed home and raised me, I am well acquainted with this argument. As a woman with four more months to go until the completion of my masters degree (and who will be entering the labor force in the near future), I will have to work my ass off to get ahead in this world. My mind, dedication, friendly smile, and gift for languages will probably not get me as far as in this world as it might for any man with the same attributes. While I am no expert in this (HELLO, I'M 22), I wrote my senior thesis for my Political Science degree on the very topic of increasing female labor force participation rates--plus reducing the wage gap--and I feel competent to share a few notes.
First, employers on average unconsciously (or sometimes not) expect women to have intermittent work-lives (i.e. will be in and out of work while having babies and what not). This leads to women not being offered as much firm-specific job training, or are discriminated against in hiring and promotion by firms.
Second, while SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE, the gap between the average wage made by males and the average wage made by females still persists. Looking at women's earnings as a percentage of men's between 1951 and 2003, we see that women make about 75% of what men do on average.
Third, the 'liberation of women' does not mean that women are free to go work in taverns and brothels, it means that we have more opportunities today to truly choose to live our lives as we wish (within reason and circumstances), and we can hardly discount the difference that women have made in this world. Think about all the female authors, CEOs, journalists, politicians, professors, scientists, ect. To discount this is, in my opinion, a great mistake.
Well, according to the US Bureau for Labor Statistics, the number of working mothers with children under 18 years old has fallen slightly in the last couple of years. (SOURCE) There are a number of reasons for the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, but for whatever reason the sad reality for some women is that they are forced to raise a child (or children) on their own. No job = no $ = no food on the table.
Furthermore, families with two income earners (mom and dad both work) often need BOTH INCOMES to give their children what they need in life. Raising a child is not cheap. If I recall correctly from my microeconomics course back at UM-St. Louis, it costs well over $500,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18. Check out the cost of raising a child calculator.
Yes, more moms are working than ever before, but let's go back to the growing population rates. The liberation of women brought about increased education levels, and correspondingly, decreased fertility rates. It's somewhat frightening to consider what the world would look like if men continued to fill the universities and businesses while women stayed home popping out child after child.
::IN CONCLUSION, I will consider it a great accomplishment if I am able to be successful as a mother, wife, and as a labor force participant. Hearing someone say that the world was a better place when women stayed at home and left labor force participation for the men alone makes me sad. And if indeed this friend of mine was not joking regarding the subject, I am rather dismayed to comment that at this point I am truly disappointed in him. 
...thanks
and told him he should....uh (decided not to say as to not offend my mormon friends). And as for your concern with competing with men, well as a woman occupying a predominately male position I can tell you we have uh, charms, that if used ladylike are good for something. 
Thanks, Meka
, 
My back hurts and I don't feel like getting any more grumpier so all I will say to him is....
Thanks for sticking up for us!!!
So what good is an education to a woman if she can't go out on the streets. As far as his first two points. Women on the streets has nothing to do with bars and brothels. In fact brothels seem to be more likely, fewer women serving more men -- simple logic here. Bars, well there have always been bars.
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
here to say hello 
bravenet.com