For making it necessary for women to not only keep house, raise children and feed their families - but also to hold down a job while doing all of the above! Lol Thanks for that!
___________________________________________
Sometimes its better to be silent and thought a fool - than to speak and remove all doubt...
Many here are correct. The Suffragettes didn't demand that women be turned into corporate wage slaves. It was the second wave feminist that insisted that women be turned into corporate wage slaves. The Suffragettes did demanded special privilege that not even all men had at the time. Especially in Europe and Canada. As many men couldn't vote unless they had enough land or had to join the army to gain the right to vote.
shareHold down a job? What are you talking about? Back in the day when good & normal families were the norm (in contrast to the current norm which is terrible & broken families), women did not "hold down a job." Rather, their husbands bought everything for them and paid all their bills. In addition, they also owned 50% of all of their husbands' property and income, simply by existing.
As the character Wally Cleaver says in the show Leave it to Beaver, women under this arrangement "had it made!"
Research has proven time and time again that women were a lot happier living those good lives in normal families than they are today, when they instead lead broken homes, act like men, and worship their careers (as if any of that could ever make a woman happy, LOL!)
Only in the twisted fantasies of liberal revisionist history are the miserable lives that women lead today a "good" thing.
Women didn't enter the work force in droves because of feminism, they entered it because real personal income has fallen over the last few decades and for the last generation or two it's taken two incomes to support children and a mortgage. Feminism just gave women access to jobs in fields other than teaching, nursing, and other people's housework.
But regarding the film, the core of the story is about getting *both* parents to start paying some attention to their children for once! Middle-class ladies of that era did NOT hold jobs, but neither did they pay much attention to their children, as long as they could get some low-paid servant to do it for them. And having the neglectful mother be a dedicated sufferagist was original and topical, the usual assumption for that class and era would be the mother who's too taken up with her social life (or social climbing). Making a mother politically active was new for Disney and pretty new for Hollywood, and as I said, very topical. The Civil Rights movement was huge then, activism was becoming more fashionable, feminism was growing, and I think making Mum a feminist worked well for the story both then and now. It's something that makes her both sympathetic and unsympathetic; sympathetic because she's on the side of history, unsympathetic because her children are feeling neglected.