If you are asking "is it accurate to say you were fired? Forced to resign? How would you characterize this?" you may simply not know much about a discriminatory practice that was AN ACCEPTED NORM until, like, five minutes ago & that still happens even tho it is officially illegal
In her 2014 book Waren writes that the "principal did what I think a lot of principals did back then--wished me luck, didn't ask me back for the next school year & hired someone else for the job." Even in 2014, she's describing it as something she understood BECAUSE IT WAS NORMAL
If you didn't live through this being something so ubiquitous and acceptable that it did not even require (& often lacked) explicit expression, that's fine. But learn the history before you go around asking authoritatively demanding questions of those who DID live through it.
Also: the kinds of social & family pressures applied to women around work & child-rearing mean that many people wouldn't necessarily have told a story about employment discrimination in a way that tracks with contemporary sensibilities.
Warren has written about her mom & 1st husband's attitudes re working mothers, pressures not to go to school or work. To have told (or even understood) the story as one of discrimination & not as part of natural course of events would itself have been a violation of expectations.
In conclusion, in the words of my colleague @bridgetgillard, Hi this shit is sexist.
@bridgetgillard Wait, I got more, based on some of my reply guys: Insisting that a woman who has described (& perhaps understood) her own professional trajectory in different ways at different points in her life is "obfuscating" contributes to the sense that those who've faced discrimination...
and felt confused or ashamed about it, can't be trusted to tell us that they've experienced it. Rendering subjects of discrimination untrustworthy narrators, bc they can't prove it, or perhaps aren't even sure if it was definitely wrong--is part of how discrimination works.
