[Olog-hai]

---

How the heck did you come to that conclusion?

---

Their targeting of young married women, who would most likely be starting families. Given the year (1943), they would be out working while their husbands would be off in the war, too; easier to influence them with a leftist agenda while on the job, via whatever union(s) would have been in the workplace.

Art thou a Marxist?

[Mr. Impatient]

I just didn't know that unions were trying to rope people in like that back then.

I assumed that, back in the 1940s, unions were actually helpful/beneficial.

[A_perfect_lady]

If they are starting families while their husbands are off to war, Marxism isn’t the biggest problem there.

[Cheburashka]

Their targeting of young married women, who would most likely be starting families. Given the year (1943), they would be out working while their husbands would be off in the war, too; easier to influence them with a leftist agenda while on the job, via whatever union(s) would have been in the workplace.

---

These were temporary jobs available due to shortages of men, who were off in the military. When men returned from Europe and the Pacific after the war the women were fired to give the jobs back to men. In the 60’s and 70’s the change to women employment started.

[longtermmemmory]

no that does not track.

you women would have a baby and leave, this meant she was not a threat to career minded men. She was replaced.

In that day, baby meant end of career.