Might be a good place
The title given to this article in the RealClearScience reference made it seem worth reading: "How Cold War US Booted Women out of Science."

The article itself is a toxic pile of feminist genocide. I stopped reading after 10 words. Already tired and irritated today, no need to soil my brain any farther.

But the RCS version of the title is true, and a factual non-toxic article could be written on the point. (Reminds me of the old Okie joke, when eating in an awful cafe: "Say, this might be a good place to build a restaurant!")

Feminist destroyers have laid waste to history, leading us to believe that women were not allowed out of the kitchen until Satan Fried[m]an began spewing cyanide all over the landscape.

A hundred years ago most academic fields had plenty of women. Looking through various scientific journals from the 1910-1920 era, you'll see anywhere from 10% to 40% female names (depending on the subject) as authors of monographs or articles. It's clear that women who found those fields interesting were able to work and teach and publish in those fields.

Same in business. In the 1920s lots of businesses were owned and operated by women.

Same in entertainment. Radio comedy or variety programs in the '30s were always hosted by a male and female, generally but not always a married couple. Both were equally important. Since 1950, TV comedy and variety shows are all male.

Movies of the '30s had constant interactions between men and women, and the films wouldn't have worked without both sides. After 1960, movies were strictly about male-male interactions, with females occasionally popping up to provide a headless pair of tits.

Simple fact: Feminism grabbed power at the same time when women disappeared from science and entertainment. Since feminism has faded, women are starting to return to science, but they still haven't returned to their 1930's position in business or entertainment.

Which way does the arrow of causation run? Truly hard to tell. Feminism looks like the leading variable, but I wouldn't bet either way.
  ¶ 1:05 PM