Why was the womens movement of the 1970s so successful?

• During this period, across the anglo nations (America, the United Kingdom and Australia), the womens movement achieved several key landmarks which were put into law, more or less, in all these nations. They were: The right to equal pay for equal work. The right to be free from discrimination in the workplace. The right to work in almost any profession or job (a few exceptions persist) Reproductive rights including the right to abortion (some caveats exist) The right to equal education opportunity. There is no dispute that these rights were both protested for and obtained, yet, amongst the feminist movement itself, there is very little introspection about why these rights were granted. There are many assumptions that rights were won because of the "power" of the womens movement, and its scope, but I wonder myself how much weight these arguments actually carry. Are they in fact true, and if they are, then, how much of the truth do they tell? The 1970s was a time of huge political upheaval, from the Vietnam war and the social unrest that went along with it in the early 1970s, which affected the US and Australia deeply. In the UK, the Union movement was agitating for better wages and strikes were a perpetual feature of the political landscape as large nationalised industry floundered in an increasingly global economy. The streets of America and England were filled with rioters marching for peace, social justice, healthcare and the minimum wage. At the same time, and often, with many of the same people involved, the womens rights marches took place, using the same organizational backbone infrastructure as the peace marchers and unionists. Governments rules by consent, which is mostly obtained by conceding freedoms in the face of mass protest and pressure. The freedoms most easily granted tend to be the ones which have little or no effect on the ruling political and economic elites which define the power structures of western civilization. Unlike peace or the minimum wage, or declaring peace, granting rights to women undermines very few of the key pillars of the establishment. Yet it does pacify unrest. Also, any party seen to be a party "friendly" to women creates immense political capital for itself, as long as it can do so without at the same time alienating itself from men. Obviously, I am hinting at a few of the reason I think the womens movement was so successful. I haven't found any books of feminism which examine it from this perspective, mostly they are keen to talk about what protests happened when, and who organized them, and the manner that certain laws came to pass. All of which is important, but little of which looks at the question being asked here. Why was the womens movement of the 1970s so successful?

• Answer:

  Well, where are you talking about? The women's liberation movements of the 1970s weren't just a big amorphous 'event', they were for the most part ~ the 'largest' part, lol, made up of lots of individual women forming groups and coalitions and responding to various situations locally. And, seriously, while we tend to focus on the western world, this stuff wasn't just happening in the west, and while the protests and activism were eyecatching and important, it's worth remembering that much of what occurred did so because of a long back history which is not always recognised or acknowledged outside the groups themselves. For example, in 1974 in Sydney a group of women set up the first Australian refuge for women and children escaping domestic violence, which led to lots of headlines. But where di that impetus come from? These gals just didn't all get up one day and say 'hey, let's do this'. This was an action that grew out of long years of private involvement by these women, of providing homes as places of refuge, of struggling to change laws and customs and meeting with indifference and hostility. Similarly (and at around the same time), Dr Nawaal El Sadaawi was sacked from her government job in Egypt, because the small women's health magazine she'd published for many years was suddenly deemed too radical because of its frank approach to women's lives. This began a new era of persecution for Dr El Sadaawi which led to her coming to the attention of the media, but she and supporters had been doing this type of work for years before the 'event' made her name public. What can explain both these 'events' and the success and/or failure of one or the other (depending on your point of view)? I suspect in answer to your central question of 'why' could be simply answered by saying that ~ as for other liberation movements of the time (such as Vatican 2, the growth of hippie culture and the spread of liberation theology in the central americas) the times were right, with an unusual but not historically 'rare' synchronicity of factors ~ a relatively wealthy/leisured middle class, an educated working class, mass media technology and a variety of other circumstances which all created a certain atmosphere in which 'liberation' became possible because people began to think it was. I guess we could liken it to other eras where a kind of public consciousness helped shape the direction political and civic leaders took ~ such as the frenetic energy of pre-WW2 European politics, and the sense of 'destiny' which marked "British" expansionism in the late 1800s and early 1900s (which saw its final flowering just prior WW1). But I'm also sure it was more profound than that, and in fact reflected one of those occasions when the currents of history meet, drawing together the flotsam and jetsam of aeons, events and ideasm, concepts and considerations all meeting in a single confluence that led to sweeping change. The successes of women's liberation movements of the 1970s were in fact quite far reaching, but in line with feminist theory many were systemic and affected the way we do things quite fundamentally, rather than just changing things superficially. Part of the reason for that success also lies in the fact of the very many women of intelligence and detrmination who were prepared to work very hard in order to ensure success, often on a voluntary or unpaid basis, in the consciousness of the need for change. Also, listing a number of 'successes' pre-supposes that working for superficial change within the existing system was the aim of feminist activists of the 1970s, which I am not sure ever was the case. Fundamental social change, some of which has been achieved at such a level it's barely noticed today, is more likely to have been the goal. I'm sure there's more, but it's late. Interesting question. Cheers :-)