“Housewives and Consumer Organizing” by Judith Rosenbaum personal thoughts and reflections
History and historiography are not similar. Marginalized individuals, including women, need to act as sharers and keepers of stories about their roles in social change because men generally can not tale women’s tales with justice. Regarding the 1902 meat boycott, actions are better than inaction because if women decide to stay at home and sob, what good will result from the in-action. When the danger and immediacy are explicit, even previously politically uninvolved women will get involved. Participants of the meat boycott were not young, or active in the labor movement; they were around 39 years with an average of four children. The women (both immigrants and those that were born in America) viewed the cause for the boycott as something relevant and vital to their lives, such as feeding their families and saw community outreach as an effective way to achieve desired outcomes.
The establishment of links among women of diverse backgrounds works with efficacy. Battles are not always won all at a single boycott. The 1935 boycott led by women as well crossed all racial, cultural, economic, and religious lines resulting in women striking across the united states; Chicago, Detroit, and other states. In New York, the women involved in the strikes were African-American and Jews, while nationwide strikes comprised of all women backgrounds. Women are strong when united by a particular issue, and they fight against injustice in good efficacy. However, men always and will always keep on suggesting that women go not understand how the world works. The 1902 magistrate informed women that they could not fathom the conditions of the beef market, although, after the boycott and protests, beef prices reduced. The statement is invalid and inaccurate; thus, it is the initiative of women to tell their tales and fight for what they perceive unjust.