Female employment post WW1
Find my blog through this link?
Fine. There's a comment space below so that you can explain simply and clearly what exactly you were looking for. Then at least we can figure out just how lost you are.
From Maud and Amber Ruth Fry pg 83-85
The FWG (Fabian Women’s Group) had foreseen some of the problems that would arise for women when they had to give up their wartime jobs, but no one was prepared for the bitter attacks, the anxieties and jealousies which ousted women and barred their progress. The public in general assumed that all women could once again be supported by men, and women who went on working, whatever their reasons, were seen as unpatriotic and wilful. They were frequently jeered at and taunted by fellow workers.
In 1919, the writing was on the wall for Amber. In August, Humbert Wolfe, poet and leading public servant, wrote on her behalf to Sir Matthew Nathan, the secretary of the Whitley Council. He pointed out that, in the current drive for economy, Amber’s appointment was due to be terminated, chiefly on the grounds that she was a married woman. He believed it was ‘really stupid’ to let her go from the Public Service when first-rate women were so rare. He wondered if Sir Matthew could suggest some other employment.
A Public Service career had long been an attractive prospect for men with appropriate qualifications. The struggle for the entry of women to anything but the routine and subordinate grades had begun, but it was not till 1925 that the first three women were admitted as ‘administrative cadets’, a minor concession in the long haul towards equality. There was no way in which Amber could develop a fitting career in the Public Service, except, perhaps, through influence. To begin with, this worked, and she was employed by the Board of Trade.
[…]
In 1921, having taken up the women workers’ cause with extra vigour, Amber found herself up against ex-servicemen who, through their associations, exercised considerable power. She was told that a deputation of MPs had gone to the Minister and said that no ex-serviceman could sleep in peace while she remained in the Civil Service. The secretary of her department, whom Amber found pleasant but lacking in moral courage, had given way and she received her dismissal notice. Amber was to miss the salary, but she also felt frustrated that the work she had begun, such as an investigation into the falling wages of women in Birmingham light metal trades, would simply be dropped.
Late in the same year, there was a crisis on the Whitley Council. In Amber’s view, they had gone back on a promise that employment opportunities for women would be maintained. They appeared to have been intimidated by Civil Service staff members, fearing for their own hopes of advancement. Amber wrote, ‘…so I thought that on the whole I had better resign over it. And so I have.’
Except for a spell with the Ministry of Labour in 1922, Amber’s hopes of continuing work in the Civil Service were dashed, and she bitterly regretted it. She worked on her book and went for walks on the heath which left her haunted by a frowsy spectre of suburban loneliness. She wrote:
‘The life of washing up dishes in little separate houses and being necessarily subordinate in everything to the wage earning man is I think very destructive to women and to any opinion they may influence. It is humiliating and narrowing and there is nothing to be said in its favour. I think on the whole I am a cheerful creature and I have plenty to play with, the book and painting and reading the ever-rolling volumes of M. Marcel Proust. But oh how I should like some hard work again that brought one up against outside life.’The honour of an OBE for her services was no real consolation.
Amber was college educated (Newnham College, Cambridge) as her mother before her had been (Maud attended Canterbury College NZ in 1890 as a married mother). Both women were wealthy enough to employ servants, including a nursemaid for the children. Amber, denied her job, wrote another novel drawn on her experience in a government department – ‘Give and Take’.
In more than eighty years significant progress has been made in the acceptance of women who work and the allowing of opportunities for them to work outside the home. But we are far from equality, and me suspects there are still many women who are utterly denied the chance to step through their front door.
Until the early nineties, my mother was. She and my father had often discussed whether or not she should work, and each time she was forbidden, even though her training would allow her to take a job that would earn more than Dad was bringing home.
That was fifteen years ago, and on the say so of one man, that woman had not been permitted to work outside the home for nearly twenty years. There are no others? I don’t believe it. Most likely there are still many women not permitted to work, by their husbands or partners.
When Mum began work, no change to the husband/wife split of household chores was discussed or made. What Mum had done, I did. What Dad had not done, he continued to not do. He remained as much a stranger to us as ever.
And in circumstances where women are permitted to work, what then?
Why then they got to get themselves a job – which means they must convince an interviewer that they’re worth employing. Then they’ve got to keep their job – which means they must prove that they are as good as or better than the men, while still doing all the housework and arranging childcare and looking after their man and doing all the ‘dogsbody’ stuff at their job in addition to their actual job description.
Then they gotta stay sane in an often hostile environment.
And dare they start to look for job security or wage increases or promotion – why then they gotta prove that they’re as good as three men. And watch lesser men promoted ahead of them without making a fuss while they work up to that standard.
Women are welcomed in low paid, casual jobs. And in areas where women traditionally have been employed, usually utilising their supposed innate ‘nurturing’ or ‘cleaning’ skills. For some women, these jobs are a means to earn money to support a family, an activity to get them out of the house and among other adults or a way to fill in time before marriage and family, or until they find a job/career they really like. Perhaps a job like this is to support that career, by paying for college or the set-up costs of an enterprise.
In jobs like these, with a few exceptions, a low skill base is needed and employee turnover is high. ‘Temping’ agencies allow businesses to hire casual staff for as little as a week or two, laying them off again without any need to commit to holiday pay, insurance or sick pay entitlements. While large numbers of women work, their presence in temporary and poorly paid jobs leaves very few women following the sort of dedicated career a man is expected to, with the more certain income and benefits that entails.
For those who do choose the career path they still – in the 21st century – have an uphill battle to be recognised for the work they do. I read a book about women at work (I don’t think I took note of the title and author though) recently which studied a group of women who were successful in male orientated jobs. In the anecdotes, we discover that female executives are by unspoken expectation left with the burden of looking after visitors to the business and making cups of tea. We find women on business trips left out of evening drinks, and later discovering that their colleagues have completed all the necessary business transactions during these casual encounters, to which the woman was specifically not invited.
Another story where a business offers as bonus a holiday for employees and wives – but husbands are not welcome, and women are given a cash bonus instead of the holiday.Time and again, women find that to gain recognition for the work they do they must be more than perfect, more than competitive. When they are passed over for promotion, they may discover that it is for such reasons as ‘she has children to take care of’ or ‘women are fickle – she won’t stay’ or ‘she might get pregnant’.
In my industry, employers will cite lack of physical strength or inability to manage the complexities of the business. Or they might stereotype women and say they need a higher level of engineering skill than they presume a woman will have.
But more often, if they hear a women’s voice on the other end the phone enquiring about the offered job, they will either politely deflect them, or simply put the phone down.
They do not want to waste their time interviewing women.
I work, and have worked exclusively for people who believe women can do a good job working with cattle – for that reason. No one else will employ me. Every female in farming has tales of applying for jobs and someone refusing to talk to them once they realise they’re female.
Some of the people I’ve worked with have expected me to do the whole job, and trained me where training was necessary. Others have split jobs into ‘what the girl can manage’ and ‘the boys’ jobs’ and have gone to sometimes great effort to find a male to do the ‘boys’ job’ – even when it may be something I’m trained for and perfectly capable of doing.
I’ve had a relief milker tell me that if he was employing, there’s no way his wife would allow him to employ me. (My, unspoken, response to that: Well why in Hell aren’t you someone your wife can trust?) There are many others – women who will not allow their husbands to employ women because in farming we often work together in remote locations for hours at a time – how is the wife at home to be certain her husband and the female employee aren’t having a roll in the hay?
I’ve been lucky in my farming career. I’ve met a lot of good people who have helped me progress. But I’ve also seen my share of discrimination, and even done more than my share of cooking and childcare in the name of work. Sometimes I’ve had to fight for the right to do my own job, been condescended to by people in the agric support industry and been sidelined by other farmers.
But on the whole, it’s been good. I’m lucky to be able to compete on an almost equal footing with the males. Just not quite equal.
Fine. There's a comment space below so that you can explain simply and clearly what exactly you were looking for. Then at least we can figure out just how lost you are.
From Maud and Amber Ruth Fry pg 83-85
The FWG (Fabian Women’s Group) had foreseen some of the problems that would arise for women when they had to give up their wartime jobs, but no one was prepared for the bitter attacks, the anxieties and jealousies which ousted women and barred their progress. The public in general assumed that all women could once again be supported by men, and women who went on working, whatever their reasons, were seen as unpatriotic and wilful. They were frequently jeered at and taunted by fellow workers.
In 1919, the writing was on the wall for Amber. In August, Humbert Wolfe, poet and leading public servant, wrote on her behalf to Sir Matthew Nathan, the secretary of the Whitley Council. He pointed out that, in the current drive for economy, Amber’s appointment was due to be terminated, chiefly on the grounds that she was a married woman. He believed it was ‘really stupid’ to let her go from the Public Service when first-rate women were so rare. He wondered if Sir Matthew could suggest some other employment.
A Public Service career had long been an attractive prospect for men with appropriate qualifications. The struggle for the entry of women to anything but the routine and subordinate grades had begun, but it was not till 1925 that the first three women were admitted as ‘administrative cadets’, a minor concession in the long haul towards equality. There was no way in which Amber could develop a fitting career in the Public Service, except, perhaps, through influence. To begin with, this worked, and she was employed by the Board of Trade.
[…]
In 1921, having taken up the women workers’ cause with extra vigour, Amber found herself up against ex-servicemen who, through their associations, exercised considerable power. She was told that a deputation of MPs had gone to the Minister and said that no ex-serviceman could sleep in peace while she remained in the Civil Service. The secretary of her department, whom Amber found pleasant but lacking in moral courage, had given way and she received her dismissal notice. Amber was to miss the salary, but she also felt frustrated that the work she had begun, such as an investigation into the falling wages of women in Birmingham light metal trades, would simply be dropped.
Late in the same year, there was a crisis on the Whitley Council. In Amber’s view, they had gone back on a promise that employment opportunities for women would be maintained. They appeared to have been intimidated by Civil Service staff members, fearing for their own hopes of advancement. Amber wrote, ‘…so I thought that on the whole I had better resign over it. And so I have.’
Except for a spell with the Ministry of Labour in 1922, Amber’s hopes of continuing work in the Civil Service were dashed, and she bitterly regretted it. She worked on her book and went for walks on the heath which left her haunted by a frowsy spectre of suburban loneliness. She wrote:
‘The life of washing up dishes in little separate houses and being necessarily subordinate in everything to the wage earning man is I think very destructive to women and to any opinion they may influence. It is humiliating and narrowing and there is nothing to be said in its favour. I think on the whole I am a cheerful creature and I have plenty to play with, the book and painting and reading the ever-rolling volumes of M. Marcel Proust. But oh how I should like some hard work again that brought one up against outside life.’The honour of an OBE for her services was no real consolation.
Amber was college educated (Newnham College, Cambridge) as her mother before her had been (Maud attended Canterbury College NZ in 1890 as a married mother). Both women were wealthy enough to employ servants, including a nursemaid for the children. Amber, denied her job, wrote another novel drawn on her experience in a government department – ‘Give and Take’.
In more than eighty years significant progress has been made in the acceptance of women who work and the allowing of opportunities for them to work outside the home. But we are far from equality, and me suspects there are still many women who are utterly denied the chance to step through their front door.
Until the early nineties, my mother was. She and my father had often discussed whether or not she should work, and each time she was forbidden, even though her training would allow her to take a job that would earn more than Dad was bringing home.
That was fifteen years ago, and on the say so of one man, that woman had not been permitted to work outside the home for nearly twenty years. There are no others? I don’t believe it. Most likely there are still many women not permitted to work, by their husbands or partners.
When Mum began work, no change to the husband/wife split of household chores was discussed or made. What Mum had done, I did. What Dad had not done, he continued to not do. He remained as much a stranger to us as ever.
And in circumstances where women are permitted to work, what then?
Why then they got to get themselves a job – which means they must convince an interviewer that they’re worth employing. Then they’ve got to keep their job – which means they must prove that they are as good as or better than the men, while still doing all the housework and arranging childcare and looking after their man and doing all the ‘dogsbody’ stuff at their job in addition to their actual job description.
Then they gotta stay sane in an often hostile environment.
And dare they start to look for job security or wage increases or promotion – why then they gotta prove that they’re as good as three men. And watch lesser men promoted ahead of them without making a fuss while they work up to that standard.
Women are welcomed in low paid, casual jobs. And in areas where women traditionally have been employed, usually utilising their supposed innate ‘nurturing’ or ‘cleaning’ skills. For some women, these jobs are a means to earn money to support a family, an activity to get them out of the house and among other adults or a way to fill in time before marriage and family, or until they find a job/career they really like. Perhaps a job like this is to support that career, by paying for college or the set-up costs of an enterprise.
In jobs like these, with a few exceptions, a low skill base is needed and employee turnover is high. ‘Temping’ agencies allow businesses to hire casual staff for as little as a week or two, laying them off again without any need to commit to holiday pay, insurance or sick pay entitlements. While large numbers of women work, their presence in temporary and poorly paid jobs leaves very few women following the sort of dedicated career a man is expected to, with the more certain income and benefits that entails.
For those who do choose the career path they still – in the 21st century – have an uphill battle to be recognised for the work they do. I read a book about women at work (I don’t think I took note of the title and author though) recently which studied a group of women who were successful in male orientated jobs. In the anecdotes, we discover that female executives are by unspoken expectation left with the burden of looking after visitors to the business and making cups of tea. We find women on business trips left out of evening drinks, and later discovering that their colleagues have completed all the necessary business transactions during these casual encounters, to which the woman was specifically not invited.
Another story where a business offers as bonus a holiday for employees and wives – but husbands are not welcome, and women are given a cash bonus instead of the holiday.Time and again, women find that to gain recognition for the work they do they must be more than perfect, more than competitive. When they are passed over for promotion, they may discover that it is for such reasons as ‘she has children to take care of’ or ‘women are fickle – she won’t stay’ or ‘she might get pregnant’.
In my industry, employers will cite lack of physical strength or inability to manage the complexities of the business. Or they might stereotype women and say they need a higher level of engineering skill than they presume a woman will have.
But more often, if they hear a women’s voice on the other end the phone enquiring about the offered job, they will either politely deflect them, or simply put the phone down.
They do not want to waste their time interviewing women.
I work, and have worked exclusively for people who believe women can do a good job working with cattle – for that reason. No one else will employ me. Every female in farming has tales of applying for jobs and someone refusing to talk to them once they realise they’re female.
Some of the people I’ve worked with have expected me to do the whole job, and trained me where training was necessary. Others have split jobs into ‘what the girl can manage’ and ‘the boys’ jobs’ and have gone to sometimes great effort to find a male to do the ‘boys’ job’ – even when it may be something I’m trained for and perfectly capable of doing.
I’ve had a relief milker tell me that if he was employing, there’s no way his wife would allow him to employ me. (My, unspoken, response to that: Well why in Hell aren’t you someone your wife can trust?) There are many others – women who will not allow their husbands to employ women because in farming we often work together in remote locations for hours at a time – how is the wife at home to be certain her husband and the female employee aren’t having a roll in the hay?
I’ve been lucky in my farming career. I’ve met a lot of good people who have helped me progress. But I’ve also seen my share of discrimination, and even done more than my share of cooking and childcare in the name of work. Sometimes I’ve had to fight for the right to do my own job, been condescended to by people in the agric support industry and been sidelined by other farmers.
But on the whole, it’s been good. I’m lucky to be able to compete on an almost equal footing with the males. Just not quite equal.
posted by sophie | 9:44 AM
|
0 comments
