In 1963, Betty Freidan’s book, The Feminine Mystique was an immediate best seller. For many years Freidan’s interpretation of the 1950’s has been the backbo

1. In 1963, Betty Freidan’s book, The Feminine Mystique was an immediate best seller. For many years Freidan’s interpretation of the 1950’s has been the backbone of discussions surrounding women’s history during this era. Her premise, however, is countered by Joanne Meyerowitz in this week’s reading. Like Freidan, Meyerowitz bases her research on prominent women’s magazines from the 1950’s, studying the material to gain a better understanding of the underlying messages women were receiving. 

In her studies, Freidan came to the conclusion that women were deeply, if not openly, dissatisfied with their home-bound lifestyle in the 1950’s. In her study of women’s magazines, Freidan believed that the messages and material “narrowed [a] woman’s world down to the home, cut her role back to housewife” (Meyerowitz 1455), creating a world where female opportunity was limited. This conclusion is the premise of Freidan’s writing. In repeating a similar process, Meyerowitz’s research turned up very different, and more balanced, results. Meyerowitz showed that of magazine articles from this era that focused on individual women, “only 15 percent…focused primarily on women as mothers and wives” (Meyerowitz 1461). In fact, most of these articles offered “overt admiration for women whose individual striving moved them beyond the home” (Meyerowitz 1458). In reality, women’s magazines supported female movement and achievement tremendously. In fact magazines often featured uniquely motivated or brave women in “hero” stories–idolizing their achievements and advertising their individualism. There are many reasons that magazines may have chosen to feature such stories, to create a sensation to attract readers or simply to support various female roles, nevertheless, the sole message that limited women to home that Freidan sensed does not appear to be accurate.  Although it is true that magazines featured articles devoted to maintaining one’s home etc., magazines had “a bifocal vision of women both as feminine and domestic and as public achievers” (1459). This more balanced outlook more accurately represents the time. As female employment grew during this era, women’s magazines needed to reflect the change in their readership and present material that would speak to working women as well as the housewife. It was this transition that Freidan missed in her understanding of the messages of this era.

2. Two key historical developments during the 1950s and early 1960s that greatly shaped 20th-century women’s history were the expansion of women’s roles in the workforce and the experiences of Mexican-American women, particularly in agriculture and in relation to immigration policies. First, women’s entry into the workforce during this time period, though often depicted as part of the idealized “middle-class domesticity,” also reflected economic necessity. Women began to fill roles in healthcare, education, and other sectors, challenging traditional gender roles. In the agricultural workforce, Mexican-American women worked alongside men, showing their ability to perform jobs like thinning and hoeing lettuce, sometimes even more efficiently than men (Document 1). This helped Mexican-American women support their families but often forced them into low-wage, unstable work.

Simultaneously, U.S. immigration policies, such as Operation Wetback, had a profound impact on women’s roles. The deportation of Mexican families disrupted households, where women, often already employed as caregivers, found themselves without affordable childcare, exacerbating their struggle to balance work and domestic responsibilities. As mentioned, “Some mothers are applying for relief because illegal Mexican women they have employed to take care of children…have returned to Mexico” (Document 10). This shows how immigration policies affected not only the lives of immigrant families but also middle-class white women, who had relied on Mexican-American women to manage household labor.

For Mexican-American women, their experiences of domesticity were more complex than the mainstream white middle-class ideal. While American women were often shown in TV shows as perfect housewives, Mexican-American women, especially in Bracero families, had to take on both domestic and economic roles, often without the modern conveniences that middle-class American women had, like dishwashers or washing machines (Document 15, 16). These differences highlight how race, class, and gender intersected to shape women’s lives during this era, showing how Mexican-American women’s labor challenges contrasted with the more sheltered roles expected of middle-class white women.