The First World War affected Britain in many ways both on the front line and on the home front. While men were fighting, women were left with new roles and responsibilities within the public sphere. Women were sprung into the workplace and given more opportunities to promote equality. Prior to the outbreak of war in 1914, most women were seen to be tied to the domestic sphere. The campaigning of the Suffragettes and Suffragists was to emphasise that women had the ability to have more responsibility within society and after the war, the Government analysed to see if this was proven. This essay will highlight that gender relations in Britain were affected, but to an extent. This essay will examine this by analysing the gender relations in Britain pre-war, the war and its effects on women and society and the post-war legislation that showed changes to gender relations in Britain.
Before considering if the First World War had any effects on gender relations in Britain, it is important to note gender relations prior to the war. Significant characteristics of gender relations pre-war are employment, the suffrage movement and legislation which were prevalent to the argument. Prior to the war outbreak in 1914, women were mainly tied to a world of domesticity and many of their roles were largely connected to the home and private sphere. Before the war, there had been a highly charged debate about women’s social role and rights, thus, when the war began there was already the foundation for its portrayal. The argument of many historians is that women were discriminated against for employment before the first world war, however this argument was mainly focused on middle class women, numerous working class women had been working in Britain since the industrial revolution. Contrary to popular mythology, the war did not give women the opportunity to get jobs: millions of working class women worked before the war as a necessity.
In terms of employment before the war, women were undoubtedly limited. The rate of women’s employment prior to war outbreak was 23.6% of the working age population, these jobs were varied in roles of domestic service, industrial factory work and the fishing industry. Women were paid less than men because it was assumed that they were living with husband or fathers who were also working…. They argued that as women were classed as dependents, men’s employment should be given priority
Consequently, women’s employment in Britain had been well established before World War One. Undoubtedly, the war did effect gender relations in Britain by increasing the opportunities for women to work and highlighting their strengths and abilities to do so.
Furthermore, legislation for women before the first world war was very scare and limited. The Married Women’s Property Act (1870) allowed women to take possession of their own earning’s legally. Before this legislation was in place any money that a woman made either through working or through inheritance became property of her husband. Thus, the identity of the wife became legally absorbed into that of her husband, effectively making them one person under the law. This act was repealed by the Married Woman’s Property Act 1882. Moreover, the Matrimonial Causes Act (1878) allowed married women abused by their husbands to obtain protection from magistrate’s court, a judicial separation which also gave them custody of their children. Additionally, other acts of legislation which in effect changed gender relation in Britain were the 1873 Infant custody act, 1872 education act, and the 1894 Local Government Act. Subsequently, this emphasises the lack of legislation available specifically for the promotion of women’s rights before World War 1. Although the Women’s Property and Matrimonial Causes Act did in effect give women some rights , these rights were very limited and did not give women voting representation or political representation universally.
The outbreak of war in August 1914 brought to a halt the suffrage campaign for women in Britain, however prior to this the suffrage campaign was one of the most proactive and pressing matters of early twentieth century Britain. By that time, the suffrage campaign has attained the size and status of a mass movement, commanding the time, energies, and resources of thousands of men and women and riveting the attention of the British public. In the years leading up to World War One, the campaigns of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) had done much to highlight the political injustice women endured. Formed by leader Millicent Garrett Fawcett, The NUWSS, more commonly known as suffragists, were widely known, respected and regarded as peaceful protests. Using pamphlet’s and leaflets, the suffragists believed in a gradualist strategy and using non-violent tactics to persuade the country that women deserved the vote. Suffragists came from all parties, with the middle-class movement apparently abominated by liberals, yet more and more evidence is coming to light of the strength of suffragism among working-class women.
The Labour Party had been moving gradually and reluctantly towards support for suffrage however some Labour members grew suspicious that the NUWSS would try to influence party decisions. The NUWSS ceased to concentrate its hopes on a policy of persuading the House of Commons to pass a private members suffrage bill, and turned its attention to achieving electoral support for suffrage. The Women’s Social and Political Union was formed in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia. The Suffragettes motto was ‘Deeds Not Words’. They wanted to heighten the profile of the suffrage movement in the media and parliament as well as achieve success more quickly than the NUWSS was allowing.
The WSPU were notorious for being proactive and outrageous by being the opposite of the NUWSS and using violent protest and tactics to try and promote suffrage for women. Outrages took the form of bomb explosions, golf course mutilations, window breaking, arson and personal assaults on the Prime Minister and the members of the Government. These activities attracted far more attention from the public, the press, and the Parliament than the tame proceeding of the constitutional suffragists. Legislation as a result of the suffrage movement came in the form of the Prisoners, Temporary Discharge for Health Act or more commonly known as the Cat and Mouse Act. This act was implemented to weaken the suffragettes, as this gave power to professionals to be able to force feed women who were starving themselves. Yet, this backfired for the government as “The Cat and Mouse act” made the public sympathetic to the suffragette’s actions.
Consequently, Gender Relations pre-war showed little affect in terms of gaining women’s political, social and economic rights. Although, legislation such as the Married Women’s Property Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act did in effect give women some rights however, these rights were very limited. Additionally, the acts of both peaceful suffragists and provocative suffragettes did cause reaction to the Government and public, before the war there was hardly any voting powers and subsequently very little effects to gender relations in Britain.
The Great War impacted on society, politics, the home front and Gender Relations in Britain. With the introduction of conscription, men left the island of Great Britain and headed for the trenches of France, leaving women to man industries and occupy male jobs. Significant aspects of how the effects of the war impacted on gender relations in Britain are the experiences of the home front, women in work and the public image of women.
The popular conception of war is that it a radicalising experience both for soldiers and to lesser extent for those on the home front. However, a whole range of experiences stemming from war acted to maintain and encourage a commitment among aristocratic and middle class women to the nations and victory in the war. The declaration of war had nearly unanimous support from the public due to the expectation that this would be a “short” war. The original thought was that the war would end around Christmas time, no one believed that it would span over four years. With the outbreak of war, there was an increase in unemployment, leaving for a desperate need for women’s labour. The war provided opportunities for women to work in industries which beforehand were male orientated and dominated. In Scotland, women were particularly used in munitions factories and by 1917, 30000 were working in this industry. Likewise, In Woolwich many women migrated there to the munitions factory as it was very well known and women who became unemployed in areas such as domestic service at the outbreak of war migrated there in hopes of gaining employment. The women in Woolwich were vastly underpaid and over-worked however did gain employment away from the domestic service. The factory did not detach women from detach women from domesticity, it helped to reproduce a domestic ideology and extend it to the state.
The home front developed a femininity, the product of loss of men to serve in the armed forces. By 1917, the rate of women munitions workers in Great Britain increased by 376%, however earned just over half of their male counterpart. The issue of men was as follows: if women were employed during wartime in jobs formerly done by men, at women’s rates of pay, employers might be tempted always to pay for that job at the women’s rate and to continue to employ women in it after the war. Trade unionists argued during both wars that women should be given men’s jobs, even in exceptional circumstances of war; if however this was unavoidable, women should be paid the same rate as men. For women, it appears the impact of the war was just as important in fostering the long-term and large-scale growth in employment in distributive services as in the short-term and highly. Women were still paid much less than men although the war narrowed the gap in pay differentials between skilled workers.
Indeed, the opportunity for women to work was an emancipation for them to part away from the private sphere, and strive towards the public domain. Nevertheless, with this new sense of freedom for women, there were challenges and obstacles. Women faced hardships economically, socially and faced abhorrent working conditions. The press also reported the complaints of the Women’s Trade Union League regarding long hours, low pay and poor conditions, and space was often given to the discussion of possible cases of exploitation, particularly where women were working with such dangerous substances as aircraft dope or TNT, both these substances could kill, and women who worked with them were in immediate danger. Accidents due to poor working conditions were common but were kept out of the press to ensure morale and to maintain peace on the home front. Women were established as quick, docile workers, ideal for machine minding, but they were also seen increasingly as men’s competitors.
The fear that women were taking men’s jobs had been prefigured in recent memory by the industrial experience of the First World War when women had been seen to be doing the same work as men, if not- and the distinction is vital – receiving men’s training or pay. The attempts to maintain morale and uphold the home front was significant during wartime. This is highlighted by renowned 20th century writer Virginia Woolf:
“No air raid; no further disturbance by our country’s needs…upon return I see London remains unchanged”.
This shows that even though many atrocities were being faced in the trenches, it was significantly important for women and the Government to preserve normality at home and allow women go resume their ordinariness.
Not only did women have challenges and obstacles in employment, they also faced difficulties socially through the public image of woman during the war. Throughout the war, much attention was paid by journalists and writers to women workers, their role in life, their future, and the attitude of ‘experts’ towards them, not least because of the suffragettes had drawn attention to the position of women before the war. Society was still struggling with the idea that women were more than mothers, wives and domestic angels. The unprecedented opportunities made available to women by the Great War – their increased visibility in public life, their release from the private world of domesticity, their greater mobility- contrasted sharply with the conditions imposed on men at the front.
Additionally, public perception of women concentrated on a women’s morality and femininity. With women coming more and more in the public sphere, women’s sexuality was criticised and scrutinised. Some Britons emphasised on traditional feminine behaviour as a reassurance against the shock of war. Women were coming into more contact with men due to their work, which horrified traditionalists. Similarly, In the First World War, fears expressed that a rising tide of immortality would result from women working long hours alongside men, travelling to and from work at night, and mixing with soldiers in barracks near large towns.
Consequently, the war did change gender relations in Britain to an extent. On one hand, the desperate need for a labour force in Britain due to men’s conscription allowed women to promote equality and highlighted that they were more than just servants of the private sphere. Nevertheless, women were still subjected to harsh conditions and were also subjected to criticism in fears that this new sense of freedom would encourage promiscuity. Hence, women were still limited and further relations in gender had to been changed upon the armistice.
The war evidently did allow more women to enter the world of work, and gave women more opportunities on the home front. Moreover, it must be analysed the effects of the war and acts of legislation, it is however, important to note the limitations of the war’s effects on gender relations in Britain. On one hand, when the war ended, enfranchisement was granted to men over the age of twenty-one and to women over thirty who were married to or were a member of the Local Government Register or owned property. Certainly, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was a step forward for women, however was unequal and disproportionate and full enfranchisement was not implemented in Britain for women until 1928. It is argued Enfranchisement in the First World War is undoubtedly significant, even if it was not a direct reward for women’s war work. Nevertheless, this act enfranchised 8.5 million women, however was less than a third of the female population of 24.5 million in 1918, highlighting the inequality women in voting.
Furthermore, it terms of employment, gender relations in Britain were effected to an extent. On one hand, The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 made it illegal for women to be persecuted or omitted from jobs purely based on their sex. On the other hand, the 1919 Restoration of Pre- War Practices Act compelled women to leave their wartime duties as men returned (those who did) to work. Moreover, this left high levels of unemployment for women post war and created more challenges for women in terms of pay , expressed by Sir Robert Horne:
“The disparity between the amount of unemployment donation payable to women and the amount they were able to women and the amount they were able to earn in many employments before the war, and can now, has created a very natural reluctance to go back to work so long as the donation lasts.”
Overall, this shows that there was some advancement on gender relations in Britain, however this was limited and disproportionate in terms of voting and employment.
In conclusion, the effects of the First World War impacted Gender Relations in Britain to an extent. On one hand, the desperate need for a labour force in Britain due to men’s conscription allowed women to promote equality and highlighted that they were more than just servants of the private sphere. Additionally, legislation imposed after the war, such as The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 and Representation of the People Act 1918 provided more opportunities to a degree, however were still disproportionate to men. On the other hand, women were still subjected to harsh conditions and were also subjected to criticism in fears that this new sense of liberty would promote promiscuity. Thus, women were still limited and further relations in gender had to been changed upon ceasefire. Furthermore, 1919 Restoration of Pre- War Practices Act compelled women to leave their wartime duties as men returned (those who did) to work leaving high levels of unemployment for women. Overall, the First World War did effect gender relations in Britain to an extent, however did not achieve much equal gender relations to much later in the twentieth century.
2016-11-28-1480365914