Sex vs. Class

British Feminists and the Labour Movement, 1919‐1929

Bibliographic Data

ID17217696
AuthorsHarold L Smith (corresponding author), Harold Smith
Year1984
Volume47
Issue1
Pages19-37
Publication date1984-11-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHistorian (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0018-2370 • E-ISSN: 1540-6563
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1540-6563.1984.tb00649.x
OpenAlexW1993520489
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited2

Notes1. Neal A. Ferguson provides a useful bibliography of sources relevant to this essay in “Women in Twentieth‐Century England” in Barbara Kanner, ed., The Women of England: From Anglo‐Saxon Times to the Present (Hamden, Conn., 1979).2. The Woman's Leader 20 (21 September 1928), 255.I am indebted to David Doughin, Assistant Librarian at the Fawcett Library, for calling my attention to this reference.3. The 1919 Sex Disqualification (Removal) Art is often cited as evidence that women's suffrage led to important legislation designed to eliminate legal inequalities based upon sex, but the bill was opposed by feminist groups who made vigorous efforts to have it amended. For the attitude of the National LJnion of Societies for Equal Citizenship (previously NLJWSS) toward the measure see its Annual Report 1919, 31, Fawcett Library. An anonymous document in the Lloyd George Papers refers to the government's action in substituting the Sex Disqualifiration (Removal) Bill for the Women's Emancipation Bill as the “first great blow” to the faith of women voters who had believed the promises made by Lloyd George concerning women's rights during the 1918 election campaign. See the “Memorandum on Some of the Chief Reforms Desired By Women” [typescript dated February 19201, House of Lords Record Office, David Lloyd George Papers, G/119.4. 1n Hidden From History (New York, 1976), Sheila Rowbotham suggests that the lack of progress toward sex equality in the immediate post war years was due chiefly to the policies of the Coalition Government which were designed to exploit the antagonism between male and female workers, the conflicts between classes, and the differences between older and younger women. See Rowbotham, Hidden From History, 120. Brian Harrison places greater emphasis upon the conservatism of British women, especially the limited support even among suffragists for revolutionary change in sex roles. See Brian Harrison, Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women's Suffrage in Britain (London, 1978), 238. Also contributing to the weakness of the post‐war women's movement was the inability of women's groups to unite behind a single cause with the emotional appeal of the vote, and the cultural changes which made feminism seem unappealing to many younger women.5. Robin Jacoby has discussed the conflict between sex and class consciousness within the limited Context of the Women's Trade Union League between 1890 and 1925. She concludes that class feeling within the League prevented members from working with women from other classes in a broad campaign for women's rights. See Robin Miller Jacohy, “Feminism and Class Consciousness in the British and American Women's Trade Union Leagues, 1890–1925.” in Berenice Carroll, ed., Liberating Women's History (Urbana, Ill., 1976), 137–160. Women in the Labour Movement edited by Lucy Middleton (London, 1977) concentrates on relating the accomplishments of Labour women and ignores the issue of the relationship between feminists and Labour women. The need for a study of the relationship between Labour leaders and the feminist movement has been suggested by Pam Graves and Joseph White in their recent review essay, “‘An Army of Redressers:’ The Recent Historiography of British Working Class Women. International Labor and Working History 17 (Spring 1980), 1–17.6. The NUSEC Annual Report, 1924–25, 8 refers to Wilkinson's previous connection with that organization, and identifies her as a special friend of feminists among Labour women.7. See Martin Pugh, Electoral Reform in War and Peace 1906–18 (London, 1978). 21–25.8. Gail Rraybon, Women Workers in the First World War (London, 1981), 208.9. At the 1918 annual conference of the Labour Party Mary Macarthur made an appeal for an end to the increasing animosity between men and women workers. Report of the 18th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1918), 66. Also see Beatrice Webb's remarks on this point at the Fabian sponsored conference on “The Economic Position of Wonien” held in November 1919. Fabian News 31 (January 1920), 3.10. On the World War One campaign for equal pay see Harold Smith, “The Issue of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ in Great Britain: 1914–19,” Societas 8 (Winter 1978), 36–52.11. British Library of Political and Economic Science. Minutes of the Labour Party NEC, 24 June 1919 (Microfiche edition).12. On the reaction of feminists to the bill, see the issues of Common Cause for June‐August, 1919. Ray Strachey. Vice‐president of the NUSEC, publicly described the attitude of the trade unions on this issue as “barbaric.”Common Cause, 6 June 1919.13. See the pamphlet by Viscountess Rhondda, Women's Position in Industry (April 1919).14. Letter to the editor by Lady Rhondda in the Daily News, February 1919, cited in Ruth Adam, A Woman's Place 1910–1975 (London, 1975), 73.15. See the report of a clash between feminists and women Labour leaders at a meeting on “Women in Skilled Trades” in Common Cause 23 July 1919.16. Report of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1923), 60.17. See the official report of the conference proceedings in The Labour Woman 6 (November 1918), 76.18. Ibtd., 76–77.19. The official report of the conference proceedings appeared in The Labour Woman 8 (May 1920). 77–78.20. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the Joint Committee on Women in the civil Service, 8 March 1922.21. The Labour Woman 10 (June 1922), 92.22. The best informed discussion of the birth control campaign is provided by Audrey Leathard in The Fight for Family Planning: The Development of Family Planning Services in Britain 1921–74 (London, 1980). Also ser Peter Fryer, The Birth Controllers (New York, 1966) and Rosanna Ledbetter, A History of the Malthusian League 1877–1927 (Columbus, Ohio, 1976).23. The Labour Woman 11 (June 1923), 97.24. Leathard, The Fight for Family Planning, 30.25. The Labour Woman 12 (June 1924), 96.26. Leathard, The Fight for Family Planning, 30.27. Report of the 25th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1925), 191–92.28. Report of the 27th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1927), 230–34.29. Report of the 9th National Conference of Labour Women (London, 1928), 28–29.30. E. How‐Martyn and M. Breed, The Birth Control Movement in England (London, 1930). 31.31. The Conference was chaired by Mrs. Eva Hubback, an active feminist in NUSEC, who was also chairman of the joint NUSEC and Workers' Birth Control Group committee formed in 1929. On the final steps in the birth control reform movement see Leathard, The Fight For Family Planning, 41–43.32. The history of the rampaign for family allowances has been traced by Jane Lewis in “The English Movement for Family Allowanm, 1917–1945,” Histoire Sociale 11 (November 1978), 441–499. Also see John Macnicol, The Movement for Family Allowances, 1918–45: A Study in Social Policy Development (London, 1980).33. At the 1923 Labour women's conference an ILP member — Mrs. Johnson — insisted that proposals for family allowances involve a cash payment to the mother because “mother's endowment was the first step to the emancipation of women.” See the report of the conference proceedings in The Labour Woman 11 (June 1923), 94. Relations between feminists and male trade union members were probably not improved by the public statement by the President of the NUSEC, Eleanor Rathbone, that union men opposed family allowances because they preferred to have their wives financially dependent on them. See Lewis, “The English Movement for Family Allowances,” 457.34. Nusec, Annual Report 1926–27, 3.35. Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, Parliamentary Papers, 1919 (Cmd. 135), 307.36. TUC, Family Allowances (London, 1930), 3–7.37. Report of the 30th Annual Conference of the labour Party (London, 1930), 175–76.38. The marriage bar for women teachers continued until 1944; it remained in effect in the civil service until 1946.39. See Sarah Boston, Women Workers and the Trade Union Movement (London, 1980), 143–44.40. Labour Party, The Employment of Married Women (London, 1922), 4, 8.41. TUC Annual Report 1922, (London, 1922), 306.42. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the NUSEC Executive Committee 24 May 1927. On this issue the SJC agreed to a request from the NUSEC to join them in supporting a measure of sex equality. British Museum Library, Minutes of the SJC Executive 7 April 1927 (Microfiche edition).43. Fawcett Library, Memorandum presented by the LNSWS to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 18–19.44. Fawcett Library, Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service 1929, 354. Among the women members of the Civil Service Clerical Association 3,537 voted to keep the marriage bar and 1,396 voted to end it. See the CSCA, Annual Report 1929, 27.45. Report of the Royal Commission of the Civil Service, Parliamentary Papers, 1931 (Cmd. 3909).46. Wonfronted with a labour shortage during and after World War II, the government took the initiative in seeking trade union acceptance of an end to the marriage bar, and this was accomplished in 1946. See Eric wigham, From Humble Petition to Militant Action: A History of the Civil and Public Services Association 1903–1978 (London, 1980), 124.47. Report of the 18th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1918). 64–66. The 1923 General Election Programme of the Labour Party included a specific pledge that it was committed to “equal pay for equal work.”48. British Library of Political and Economic Science, Minutes of the Labour Party NEC, 24 June 1919 (Microfiche edition).49. See the London Society for women's Service, Annual Report 1918, (London, 1918), 8, 21.50. Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, Parliamentary Papers, 1919 (Cmd. 135), 5.51. 129 H. C. Debates 5s. (19 May 1920).52. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the Joint Committee on Women in the civil Service, 8 March 1922.53. Snowden refused to even meet with a deputation from the Joint Committee on Women in the Civil Service to discuss equal pay. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the Joint Committee, 26 September 1924.54. See the discussion in the journal of the Federation of Women Civil Servants, Opportunity 9 (July 1929), 112.55. Report of the 11th National Conference of Labour Women (London, 1930), 43.56. British Museum Library, Minutes of the SJC, 11 February and 8 April 1926 (Microfiche edition).57. British Museum Library, Minutes of the Labour Party NEC, 23 February 1927 (Microfiche edition).58. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the NUSEC Executive Committee, 27 September 1927.59. The best account of the thinking within the Cabinet on this issue is David Close, “The Collapse of Resistance to Democracy: Conservatives, Adult Suffrage, and Second Chamber Reform, 1911–1928,” The Historical Journal 20 (December 1977), 893–918.60. See the Minority Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, Parliamentary Papers, 1919 (Cmd. 135), 283. Webb's views were later cited by feminists in support of their position that protective legislation should make no distinctions based upon the sex of the workers involved. See the NUSEC pamphlet, The Case Against Differential Legislation for Women in Industry.61. See the SJC pamphlet, Labour Women on International Legislation (London, 1919), and The Women's Trade Union Review (July 1919), 7.62. At the request of the SJC Barbara Drake wrote a scathing attack on the feminist view of protective legislation in “Middle‐class Women and Industrial Legislation,” The Labour Woman 12 (August 1924), 123–25.63. Wera Brittain, “Women in Industry: Protective Legislation Again,”Manchester Guardian, 13 December 1927.64. Among the pamphlets issued by the open Door Council were: The Real Protection of the Woman Worker (London, 1926), Fallacies in Factory Legislation (London, 1927), Restrictive Legislation and the Industrial Woman Worker (London, 1928), and The Factories Bill (London, 1929).65. See the SJC pamphlets Protective Legislation and Women Workers (London, 1927), and The Open Door Movement and the Protection of Women Workers (London, 1929).66. The NUSEC sponsored a special conference on protective legislation held November 26, 1926 which opposed such legislation when it applied solely to women. On the following day the SJC held a special conference on the same issue which called for increased protection for women. Fawcett Library, Minutes of the London and National Society for Women's Service Executive Committee, 16 December 1926 and The Woman's Leader (3 December 1926), 381–83.67. Tee The Labour Woman 18 (January 1930), 7–8, and The Woman's Leader 21 (20 December 1929). 353.68. Sheila Lewenhak, Women and Trade Unions (London, 1977), 212.69. Recent studies of women and the trade union movement have drawn attention to the weakening of the influence of women within the trade unions after these independent women's organizations ceased to exist. See Lewenhak, Women and Trade Unions, 189 and Boston, Women Workers and the Trade Union Movement, 150.70. The Labour Woman 9 (June 1921), 9071. Ibid, 9172. Report of the 11th National Conference of Labour Women (London, 1930), 59–60. Also see Dorothy Jewson, “The Labour Women's Conference,” The Woman's Leader 22 (13 June 1930), 144.Additional informationNotes on contributorsHarold SmithThe author is Associate Professor of History at the University of Houston Victoria Campus

Art · Class (philosophy) · Feminism · Movement (music) · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Working class · Gender Studies · Historical Gender and Feminism Studies · Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes · Law · Philosophy · Political and Economic history of UK and US

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub