The big idea: By 1960, millions of American women were living the life they were told to want — a house, a husband, children. Many of them were quietly miserable. That gap is where the protest movement begins.
After the Second World War, American culture pushed a clear message at women: your place is in the home. Magazines, adverts and TV shows all showed the same picture — a smiling wife in a clean kitchen, waiting for her husband to come home from work.
Historians call this the domesticity ideal. It told women that being a full-time wife and mother was not just normal, but the whole point of a woman's life.
But the real picture was more complicated. Even while this ideal was everywhere in the media, more and more women were actually going out to work.
- Rising numbers in work — by 1960, about one in three married American women had a paying job, nearly double the rate before the war.
- War-time habit — many women had worked in factories and offices during WWII and did not want to fully give that up afterward.
- Money pressure — a growing consumer economy (cars, TVs, homes in the new suburbs) meant many families needed two incomes to keep up.
- Low pay, low status — the jobs open to women were usually low-paid (secretary, teacher, nurse, shop assistant) with no path to promotion, so work brought income but not equality.
So women were living two lives at once: told by the culture that home was where they belonged, while more of them than ever were also working outside it. That contradiction built up quiet frustration in millions of households.
Picture it: A woman in a 1962 suburb of Chicago might spend her morning cooking, cleaning and driving the kids to school — then catch a bus to a part-time job as a typist, only to come home and start dinner. She is doing two jobs, but the magazines only ever show her doing one, happily.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
A turning point: In 1960, the US government approved the first birth-control pill. For the first time, women had a reliable, private way to decide if and when to have children.
Before 1960, avoiding pregnancy was difficult and unreliable. Some US states still had laws restricting access to contraception, especially for unmarried women.
The pill changed the maths of a woman's life. It let a woman plan her own future — finish an education, build a career, choose when to start a family — instead of her body making that decision for her.
1960 — approval
The US Food and Drug Administration approves the first oral contraceptive pill (Enovid).
Fast take-up
Within five years, roughly six million American women were using it — one of the fastest-adopted drugs in history.
1965 — married couples
The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut strikes down a state law banning contraception for married couples, on privacy grounds.
1972 — unmarried too
Eisenstadt v. Baird extends the same right to unmarried people, closing the legal gap between married and single women.
The pill did not just change biology — it changed who got to plan a woman's future: her, not her body.
This mattered for the protest movement because it gave women more control over their own time. A woman who could delay having children could stay in college, keep a job, or get involved in political organizing — all things that fed directly into the feminist movement of the later 1960s.
Don't overstate it: The pill was a huge change, but it was not available to everyone equally. It was expensive at first, and doctors sometimes still required a husband's permission. Access grew gradually through the decade, it wasn't instant for all women.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
The big idea: In 1963, writer Betty Friedan gave a name to the quiet unhappiness so many housewives felt. Her book The Feminine Mystique put that feeling into words for the first time — and it became a bestseller.
Friedan had graduated from a top women's college, but by the 1950s found herself, like many of her former classmates, a suburban housewife. She began to wonder why so many educated women felt unfulfilled despite having exactly the life they were told to want.
She surveyed other women from her college class and found the same pattern again and again: a vague, nameless dissatisfaction. She called it "the problem that has no name."
In 1963 she published The Feminine Mystique. The book argued that the domesticity ideal was not natural or freely chosen — it was a mystique, a myth sold to women by advertisers, magazines and psychologists to keep them at home.
- Names the feeling — gives millions of isolated housewives a shared word for their unhappiness, so they realize they are not alone.
- Challenges the experts — blames psychologists and educators for teaching women that ambition beyond the home was unfeminine or unhealthy.
- Calls for change — urges women to seek education, careers and identities of their own, not just roles as wife and mother.
- Sells huge numbers — over a million copies in its first years, and sparks countless letters, book clubs and conversations across the country.
The book is often treated as the spark that lit the women's movement. In 1966, Friedan went on to co-found the NOW, turning the feeling she had named into an organized push for change.
How a historian reads this: For Paper 1, don't just say 'Friedan wrote a famous book.' Explain its CONTENT (what argument it makes) and its CONTEXT (a white, college-educated, suburban woman writing in 1963, for a readership like herself). That context helps explain why the book spoke powerfully to some women — but also why critics later said it mostly reflected white, middle-class experience, not the lives of working-class or Black women.