1 Palmieri, Patricia Ann In Adamless Eden: The Community of Women Faculty at Wellesley (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz Alma Mater: Design and Experience in the Women's Colleges from Their Nineteenth-Century Beginnings to the 1930s (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984); and Freedman, Estelle “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512–529. Horowitz has examined the manner in which these colleges adapted to some of the concerns about women's colleges in earlier decades, but her study generally ends before the 1940s when the feminist backlash intensified. One exception is Margaret Rossiter who, in her examination of American scientists at women's colleges, speaks of the years between 1945 and 1968 as the “golden age” of women's colleges. Rossiter's supporting evidence, however, is nearly all from the period 1950–1968. Furthermore, she characterizes the years between 1945 and 1968 as ones of “overwhelming antifeminism” and notes that in the late 1940s “even groups that had been supportive of academic and professional women had been so undermined from within and intimidated from without that they were unable or unwilling to speak out forcefully.” Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action 1940–1972 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 38, 27.Google Scholar

2 Scott, Anne Firor “The Ever Widening Circle: The Diffusion of Feminist Values from the Troy Seminary 1822–1872,“ History of Education Quarterly 19 (Spring 1979): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For a good summary of these inherent tensions, see Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), chapter 1.Google Scholar

4 As, e.g., in the case of Emma Perry Carr at Rossiter, Mount Holyoke. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Anion, 20.Google Scholar

5 See Tidball, M. Elizabeth and Kistiakowsky, Vera “Baccalaureate Origins of American Scientists and Scholars,“ Science 193 (1976): 646–652; and Tidball, M. Elizabeth “The Search for Talented Women,” Change 6 (1974): 51–52, 64.Google Scholar

6 As, e.g., in the case of Anna Harrison at Rossiter, Mount Holyoke. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 212–213. Rossiter also contends that female faculty largely acquiesced—and in some cases led—the “masculinization” of their faculties.Google Scholar

7 Horowitz argues that there had always been a “negative undertow” working against these colleges which increased considerably after World War I. For a discussion of the origins in the 1920s and 30s of some of the changes discussed here, see Alma Mater, chapter 17.Google Scholar

8 Less than three percent of G.I. benefits did go to the 64,728 women who served in World War II. Hartmann, Susan M. The Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 1940s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982), 106. Rossiter reports a total figure of 7.8 million who benefited from the Bill, G.I. She adds that women veterans were often “overlooked” by the men who administered benefits. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 31.Google Scholar

9 Solomon, Barbara Miller In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 190. By examining print media during this time, Clark, Daniel A. has studied the way in which the public's perception of education shifted as a result of the G.I. Bill. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of collegiate images are of men, and those of women “acted most often to strengthen their traditional roles.” Clark, “‘The Two Joes Meet -Joe College, Joe Veteran': The Bill, G.I. College Education, and Postwar American Culture,” History of Education Quarterly 38 (Summer 1998): 187.Google Scholar

10 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 31. In 1946, several articles in the Journal of the American Association of University Women discussed the worrisome trend of “Doors Closing for Women Students.” See, e.g., Hosp, Helen M. “Higher Education on the American Scene,” Journal of the American Association of University Women 39 (1946): 167–170.Google Scholar

11 See, e.g., New York Times, 24 September 1947 and 5 February 1950; “Alma Mater Asks for $2 Billion,” Fortune, February 1948; and Wellesley Magazine, April 1948. Cutlip, Scott M. in his Fund Raising in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965), cites 1933 as the nadir of college giving and surprisingly does not focus on the late 1940s as a difficult era. If one considers merely the increasing dollar contributions and disregards other factors such as inflation, lower investment returns, and growing capital needs, these might appear to have been good years.Google Scholar

12 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 214–219.Google Scholar

13 “Alma Mater Asks.” For a discussion of the growth in fund-raising at women's colleges after World War II, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, see Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 218–220.Google Scholar

14 Chafe, William H. The Paradox of Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), chapter 9. See also Hartmann, The Home Front, chapter 5; and Solomon, In the Company, chapters 11, 12.Google Scholar

15 See Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, chapters 1–2, especially 10, 25, 27–28. Barbara Solomon speaks of the contradiction between the “revolutionary changes in women's work patterns” and the “pervasive rhetoric.” Although she emphasizes that a majority of college women did work at least for a while after graduation, two alumnae surveys at Radcliffe College illustrate the impact of the new rhetoric. Solomon, In the Company, 187, chapters 11–12.Google Scholar

16 May, Elaine Tyler Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 57–59, 75, 89–90.Google Scholar

17 In her study of the five-decade period 1910–1960, Tidball discovers that “graduates of women's colleges were more than twice as likely to have been cited for career achievement as were women graduates of coeducational colleges.” Tidball, “The Search,” 51. Statistics collected by the Alumnae Association of Mount Holyoke College reveal that for only one five-year period between 1902 and 1936 did a majority of respondents to an alumnae survey report their occupation as “homemaking.” The most frequently reported occupational categories were teaching, other professions, secretarial and clerical, and business. Unfortunately no distinction is drawn between full-time and part-time work. One Hundred Year Biographical Directory of Mount Holyoke College, 1837–1939 (South Hadley, MA: Alumnae Association of Mount Holyoke College, 1937), 707. See also Tidball, and Kistiakowsky, “Baccalaureate Origins.”Google Scholar

18 See Rupp's, Leila “Survival of American Feminism: The Women's Movement in the Postwar Period,“ in Reshaping America: Society and Institutions 1945–1960 ed. Bremner, Robert H. and Reichard, Gary W. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1982), 33–65.Google Scholar

19 For an excellent discussion of Wellesley's early years and the separate women's culture there, see Palmieri, In Adamless Eden. Google Scholar

20 McAfee, Mildred H. “Segregation and the Women's Colleges,“ American Journal of Sociology 43 (July 1937): 18.Google Scholar

21 Idem., “College Women Face a New Century,” The Forum and Century 98 (July 1937): 27–29.Google Scholar

22 Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll “The New Woman as Androgyne: Social Disorder and Gender Crisis, 1870–1936“ in Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) 245–296.Google Scholar

23 Palmieri, In Adamless Eden, and Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy.” College women, even at women's colleges, were divided on such important issues as women's suffrage, but they provided a few well-known advocates such as Mount Holyoke's President Mary Woolley. Solomon, In the Company, 111–112.Google Scholar

24 See Rosenberg, Rosalind “The American Prism: The New View of American Women,“ in Women of America: A History eds. Ruth Berkin, Carol and Beth Norton, Mary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979), 319–341; and Rosenberg, Rosalind Beyond Separate Spheres: Intellectual Roots of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), passim. Google Scholar

25 Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct, 256 266 ff.; See also Solomon, In the Company, 162–163; Cott, Nancy F. The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 159–161, 279; and Faderman, Lillian Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Penguin, 1991), passim. Google Scholar

26 Wells, Anna Mary Miss Marks and Miss Woolley (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978), especially chapter 11. See also Horowitz, Alma Mater, 304.Google Scholar

27 Horowitz, Alma Mater, 314. This had, by the 1940s, become a point of pride on these campuses. For example, a promotional brochure from Smith College c. 1943 boasts that “in keeping with the modern trend, most of the rooms in the new dormitories are single.” Publications Admissions Picturebook 1944–45, Smith College Archives, Northampton, Massachusetts [hereafter SCA].Google Scholar

28 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, chapter 10.Google Scholar

29 No one offers complete data for the period under consideration and scholars may not use comparable criteria or sources. Bernard, Jessie in Academic Women (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964), 55–56, reports that the percentage of female faculty at Wellesley in 1940–41 was 90.1% but provides no figure for the late 1940s. Rossiter, in Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 224 who supplies no data for Wellesley in the early 1940s, reports that the percentage of women faculty in 1949–50 had fallen to 75%. Rossiter discusses the large decrease at Smith where, by the late 1950s, men held 51 % of faculty positions. A detailed analysis of the decade of the 1940s is not provided by either scholar.Google Scholar

30 Palmieri, In Adamless Eden, 260; and Edmonds, Anne Carey A Memory Book: Mount Holyoke College 1837–1987 (South Hadley, MA: np., 1986), 122. See also Horowitz, Alma Mater, 293.Google Scholar

31 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 230. Interestingly, Rossiter suggests that the original, nineteenth-century tradition of hiring women faculty may have been “as much the result of their poverty as any overt feminism.” Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies, 9.Google Scholar

32 Bernard, American Women, 44. See also 37, 43, and tables 70–71.Google Scholar

33 Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct, 246.Google Scholar

34 Deutsch, Helene The Psychology of Women: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1945), especially volume II, passim. Google Scholar

35 Klein, Viola The Feminine Character: History of an Ideology (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1946), 34.Google Scholar

36 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 41.Google Scholar

37 Lundberg, Ferdinand and Farnham, Marynia F. M.D., Modern Woman: The Lost Sex (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1947), 185–186.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., chapter 5. Joanne Meyerowitz in her study of post-war mass culture locates Farnham and Lundberg “at the conservative margin” and “by no means typical of popular discourse” during this era, but the “center” had arguably become more conservative and the “margin” somewhat more vociferous. Meyerowitz, Joanne “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946–1958“ in Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945–1960 ed. Meyerowitz, Joanne (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 247.Google Scholar

39 Havemann, Ernest and West, Patricia Salter They Went To College: The College Graduate in America Today (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1952), 54. Solomon, Barbara has examined various data sources and documents a general increase in marriage rates at women's colleges during the early decades of the twentieth century. The increase was particularly dramatic at Wellesley where the rate jumped from 83.3 percent in the 1920s to 92 percent in the 1940s. Although women college graduates tended to marry later (which could affect survey results), this difference, too, began to diminish as the twentieth century continued. Solomon, In the Company, 119–122.Google Scholar

40 See, e.g., “Books Versus Babies,” Newsweek, 14 January 1946, 79; and Havemann and Salter West, They Went To College,. Google Scholar

41 Solomon, In the Company, 185. See also chapter 11, especially 173. Tidball finds that between 1910 and 1960 unmarried women graduates of all colleges were “seven times more likely to be cited [for career achievement] than those who were married.” Tidball, “The Search,” 51.Google Scholar

42 Solomon, In the Company, 182–185.Google Scholar

43 E.g. “American Woman's Dilemma,” Life, 16 June 1947, 101–116. For a fuller discussion, see Hartmann, The Home Front, chapter 10. Margaret Mead's view that humans are “exceedingly plastic” and that gender roles are (as we say today) socially constructed, was not widely held in the 1940s. Her suggestion that women be given choices—including sharing jointly the responsibilities of parenthood with husbands—clearly did not represent the majority view. Mead, Margaret “What Women Want,“ Fortune, December 1946, 218. Elsewhere Mead argues that the popular ideal of motherhood is not “an attempt to reproduce the past” but rather a “dream of the future.” Margaret Mead, Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1949), 255.Google Scholar

44 “The Fortune Survey,” Fortune, August 1946, 5–14; see also Fortune, September 1946, 5–6.Google Scholar

45 May, Homeward Bound, chapter 1; and Elaine Tyler May, Barren in the Promised Land (New York: Basic Books, 1995), chapter 4.Google Scholar

46 First in his speech to the American Association of University Women in 1947, and later in his book, Educating Our Daughters: A Challenge to the Colleges (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950).Google Scholar

47 Higher Education for American Democracy: A Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), I, 56. Clark notes a greater emphasis upon the “practical and vocational applications” of a college education resulting from the G.I. Bill which is wholly consistent with these recommendations. Clark, “‘The Two Joes Meet,”’ 177.Google Scholar

48 Horowitz, Alma Mater, 306.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., 283–4; and Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz Campus Life: Undergraduate Culture from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), 195–201. Although more women attended college in the 1940s than in previous decades, the percentage of college students who were women actually declined.Google Scholar

50 Meyerowitz, “Beyond the Feminine Mystique,“ 231.Google Scholar

51 Smith-Rosenberg refers to the woman college student of the previous era as a “perennially liminal figure.” Disorderly Conduct, 257.Google Scholar

52 “Wellesley Today” (1947), unpaginated, Brochures, Wellesley College Archives [hereafter WCA], Wellesley, Massachusetts. Such a change in tone was consistent with President Horton's occasionally light-hearted manner of speaking about serious matters. After citing a 1786 law binding women legally to their husbands, she exclaimed, “We don't much care whether or not you make contracts or bind his interest separately or not, just so long as you get your husband and all other friends to believe in the higher education of women.” “Women's Place is in the Home: 1949 Edition,” The Wellesley Magazine, April 1949, 269.Google Scholar

53 “Smith College,” Admissions Picturebooks 1947–48, unpaginated, SCA.Google Scholar

54 Mount Holyoke—everybody's college (1948), unpaginated, Admissions Office Publications, Archives and Special Collection, Mount Holyoke College [hereafter ASC, MHC], South Hadley, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

55 “The right uncle” (1948), 8, 14. Public Relations Office (News Office), SCA.Google Scholar

56 Solomon, In the Company, 92–3, 103.Google Scholar

57 Records of Development Office: Fund Raising, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

58 “Wellesley Today,” n.p.Google Scholar

59 Mount Holyoke - everybody's college, n.p.Google Scholar

60 Ibid.Google Scholar

61 Letter distributed to students, 1 December 1947, records of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary Fund Drive (1945–1950), WCA.Google Scholar

62 “Wellesley College, A Hand Book of Information” and “Wellesley and the World,“ Brochures, WCA.Google Scholar

63 Admissions Picturebook 1948–49, SCA.Google Scholar

64 E.g. “How 10,000 Women Raise $1,000,000 for Holyoke, Mount Look Magazine, 26 April 1949; “Smith College Has More Fun Than a Circus,” Look Magazine, 1 February 1949, 13–16; and “Smith College,” Holiday, May 1950. See also Friedan, Betty The Feminine Mystique (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963) chapter 2 for an early discussion of images of women in the media during this era.Google Scholar

65 Mount Holyoke—everybody's college, n.p.Google Scholar

66 “The Mount Holyoke Society,” Development Office, Fund Raising, ASP, AGoogle Scholar

67 “The right uncle,” 56.Google Scholar

68 As quoted in the Springfield Sunday Republican, 13 June 1948.Google Scholar

69 Cover of untitled brochure, Alumnae Fundraising, 75th Anniversary Fund: Appeals and Publicity (1947–50), WCA.Google Scholar

70 The New York Times, 20 October 1949; and Boston Post, 19 October 1949.Google Scholar

71 “They Both Hope to Get Married,” McCall's, January 1948.Google Scholar

72 Brochures, c. 1949, WCA.Google Scholar

73 “You as a Wellesley Husband,” Fundraising, Alumnae 75th Anniversary Fund: Appeals and Publicity (1947–1950), WCA.Google Scholar

74 Letter dated 12 July 1945, Mildred McAfee file 1936–53, Publicity Office, WCA.Google Scholar

75 “Ham, Roswell G. Gertrude Bruyn And Boardman Bump Discuss ‘Family’ Finances at College Mass Meeting,” The Mount Holyoke News, 13 December 1946, 1, 6–7.Google Scholar

76 Ibid., 6.Google Scholar

77 Mount Holyoke—everybody's college, n.p. In 1947, for example, the Houston Post in the article “What Can We Do About Divorce?” featured a large photo of two beaming Mount Holyoke students with a group of pre-schoolers as they “study problems of rearing children. Training like this [declared the Post] makes for happier marriages.” “What Can We Do About Divorce,” Post, Parade section, 7 September 1947, 7.Google Scholar

78 Public Relations Scrapbook, Public Relations Office (News Office), SCA.Google Scholar

79 “Wellesley Today,” n.p.Google Scholar

80 Clapp to Luce, 24 October 1949, records from the Seventy-fifth Anniversary Fund Drive (1945–1950), WCA.Google Scholar

81 “Social Studies,” Admissions Office Publications, c. 1940s, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

82 Mount Holyoke—everybody's college, n.p.Google Scholar

83 Reports, Annual 7 June 1945, 5, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

84 Memo from Office of Director of Public Relations to Mr. Dewey, 2 October 1947, records of Public Relations Office (News Office), SCA.Google Scholar

85 Memo from the Office of Director of Public Relations to Members of the Public Relations Policy Committee, records of Public Relations Office (News Office), n.d., SCA.Google Scholar

86 E.g. “A Career in Public Relations,” no source, n.d., Scrapbook, Public Relations (News Office), SCA.Google Scholar

87 Report dated 1 Jan. 1949 – 1 Jan. 1950, Public Relations Office (News Office), SCA.Google Scholar

88 “A History of the Publicity Office,” 19–21, records of the Publicity Office, WCA. One can only speculate about the reasons for Wellesley's request. Cross-dressing at a women's college, even by a man and for sport, must have raised serious concerns for administrators.Google Scholar

89 President's Report, September 1948, 9, Annual Reports Number of the Wellesley College Bulletin, WCA.Google Scholar

90 Memo from Glasscock to Mrs. Horton et al., 4 September 1946, 5–6, records from the Seventy-fifth Anniversary Fund Drive (1945–1950), WCA.Google Scholar

91 “Alma Mater Asks,” 144.Google Scholar

92 Attachment to letter from Vida Buist to Robert Duncan, 21 November 1946, 3, records of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary Fund Drive (1945–50), WCA.Google Scholar

93 Correspondence of Jean Glasscock, 22 September 1949, records of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary Fund Drive (1945–1950), WCA.Google Scholar

94 Reports, Annual 31 May 1944, 3, and 7 June 1945, 2, Public Relations Office, ASP, MHCGoogle Scholar

95 Reports, Annual 9 June 1947, 4, Public Relations Office, ASP, MHC.Google Scholar

96 Reports, Annual 2 August 1948, 4, Public Relations Office, ASP, MHC.Google Scholar

97 Report of the President 1948–49, 14–16, Mount Holyoke College Bulletin, ASP, MHC.Google Scholar

98 Cutlip, Scott M. The Unseen Power: Public Relations. A History (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994). See especially the Prologue, chapter 9, and 527–529. Advertising experienced similar post-war booms, the first coming in the 1920s, the second immediately following World War II. Between 1945 and 1950, the total amount spent on advertising in the U.S. doubled. Stephen Fox, The Mirror Makers: A History of American Advertising and its Creators (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1984), chapters 3 and 5.Google Scholar

99 Wellesley, Fall 1998, 22, WCA.Google Scholar

100 “A Career in Public Relations,” n.p., n.d., SCA.Google Scholar

101 See Cutlip, The Unseen Power, chapter 9, and Cutlip, Fund Raising, 244–245.Google Scholar

102 Cutlip, The Unseen Power, 169 176. Cutlip's characterization of Ms. Fleishman is from her 1980 obituary in the New York Times. Google Scholar

103 The long-term impact of the new image on students, a subject that might be deserving of future study, would be difficult to determine because so many of the larger societal factors—which the new image reflected—operated in concert with it.Google Scholar

104 Green, Elizabeth Alden “School for Marriage…As We on Campus See It,“ Mount Holyoke Alumnae Quarterly, May 1945, 6–8.Google Scholar

105 Reports, Annual 7 June 1945, 2–3, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

106 Alumnae Biographical File, AQ notices and clippings, 1936 biographical form, class letter 1970, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

107 Advisory Committee on Community Relations, Mount Holyoke College Faculty Committees Records, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

108 Reports, Annual 2 August 1948, 1–2, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC. For more biographical information about Green, see press release issued 9 April, 1992, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

109 Mount Holyoke—everybody's college, n.p.Google Scholar

110 E.g., Look Magazine article, see fn. 65; as the president of the Alumnae Association pragmatically told campaigners: “If women would prefer to buy cosmetics, sell them cosmetics.” Letter from the Campaign Director, 5 March 1948, records of $2,000,000 Campaign, 1947–51, ASC MHC.Google Scholar

111 Interestingly, Rossiter notes that faculty at women's colleges in the nineteenth century often developed closer ties with faculties at nearby men's colleges than with those at other women's colleges. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies, 17.Google Scholar

112 Materials from a 1932 Conference for Seven Women's Colleges, ASC, MHC. Horowitz emphasizes these colleges’ tradition of being “conscious of each other… [E]ach knew what the other was doing and sought to imitate, adapt or move in a new direction.” Alma Mater, xxii.Google Scholar

113 See records from Admissions Office Series E Publications, records from Seven College Conference 1946–1955/56 and Annual Reports, 31 May 1944, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

114 “The right uncle,” n.p.Google Scholar

115 “Sample Material” for campaigners, records of Alumnae Million Campaign 1949–50, Development Office: Fund Raising, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

116 Reports, Annual 31 May 1944, 1, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

117 Reports, Annual 2 July 1946, 2, Public Relations Office, ASC, MHC.Google Scholar

118 Green, Elizabeth “Blue-Jean College Crowd Doing Some Heavy Thinking,“ Providence, RI Bulletin, n.d.; Ibid.Google Scholar

119 I am indebted to Carroll Smith-Rosenberg for the notion of intentionally ironic male metaphors in her essay “The New Woman as Androgyne” in Disorderly Conduct. Google Scholar

120 Class letter 1979, See fn. 106.Google Scholar

121 Mount Holyoke - everybody's college, n.p.Google Scholar

122 For a discussion of androgyny as the New Woman's ideal, see Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct, 288.Google Scholar

123 Meyerowitz, “Beyond the Feminine Mystique.“ See especially 230 and fn. 3.Google Scholar

124 Ibid., 231.Google Scholar

125 Ibid., 252.Google Scholar

126 Scott, “The Ever Widening Circle,“ 4–5.Google Scholar

127 Komarovsky, Mirra “Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles,“ American Journal of Sociology 52 (November 1946): 184–189.Google Scholar