Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Can I ask a question about women's history.....a bit embarrassed that I don't understand it

89 replies

susannahmoodie · 27/12/2014 11:35

I'm reading a book at the minute set in 1920s....there are a lot of references to women having to give up work when they got married. I know this happened, a lot later than the 20s to I think but I don't really get why- what was the rationale behind the idea that you couldn't be married and work at the same time? Also was it related to social class?

Sorry for being ignorant....

OP posts:
YonicSleighdriver · 27/12/2014 15:25

Oh,we had a big thread on that years ago. Let's see if advanced search likes me today

nickeljrismybabesitter · 27/12/2014 15:25

True - too many women choosing not to share a house (ie get married) with a man means too much demand not enough supply

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 27/12/2014 15:26

Wage stagnation hasn't helped has it.

I bought a flat in the late 90s and was looking earlier how much and it was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cheap!!!!

stripeysettee · 27/12/2014 15:26

This has been a really interesting thread - had no idea how recently some of this went on, and it helps contextualise some of my parents' generation's attitudes, such as pil (late 60s, so hardly ancient) thinking that childcare is something we need because I work, rather than because dh and I work (and both work at the same times).

Would be interested to read some sort of analysis as to the costs of living and whether there has really been growth in the number of women working/number of dual income households and whether latter has affected former.

House prices are surely a big part of it, and are beyond all reason now - but my impression is that this is more to do with decades of growth in number of households (people living longer, and more smaller households as people marrying later, divorcing more) and bog-all building, relative to this need. Think the solution is in building more homes, rather than banning anyone from work or divorce.

tilder · 27/12/2014 15:28

It's not just the fault of the two income families. It's all those single women wanting their own homes. Surely they know they should stay in their fathers home until they are married? Then there is the whole issue of divorce and even more homes required.

Women, know your place.

YonicSleighdriver · 27/12/2014 15:32

Will link the thread in my next post but here is a brilliant post on it from HerBeX:

Hmm, it's not just the increasing mortgage capacity because of both people going out to earn money that has raised the price of houses, but just for the sake of your argument, let's pretend that that's the only cause.

You shouldn't be blaming feminism for high house prices, you should be blaming men. The fact that their wife went out to work meant that they could work less, therefore they should have lobbied for the right to work part time - at that time unions were quite powerful and society and attitudes were changing rapidly, so they would probably have won that right. Then both parties could have worked 20 hours a week instead of 40, both could have done the housework (instead of most of it being dumped on the woman of the house) and houseprices would have remained pitched at the level of an income of 40 hours a week rather than 80. Instead of working with women to lobby for this change, men en masse took the piss out of the demand for equal pay and the right to work after marriage and opposed every effort at equality. So now a family needs to work 80 hours instead of 40.

(I don't really believe that btw because globalisation and the freeing up of the financial markets have had a big impact on house prices too, but am just arguing the toss. Put the blame where it lies. Feminists don't run the country, don't run the banking system and don't run the world. It's mad to blame people who don't have power, for what is happening economically. If feminists ruled the world, you'd have a point.)

tilder · 27/12/2014 15:33

There is a chicken and egg thing here too. Cost of living goes up, more work needs to be done to maintain living standards. I think blaming the rise in the cost of living on women because they went out to work is a bit of an oversimplification.

Jollyjingles · 27/12/2014 15:34

I think in the 50s nurses were not allowed to be married?

After the Second World War women who had been working in factories and on the land were pretty much forced back into the home because they were taking jobs away from the returning men.

Lilymaid · 27/12/2014 15:58

There were also formal/informal restrictions on women at universities until the 70s.
I applied to Oxford a couple of years before any of the then men's colleges accepted women. This meant that it was much more difficult for women to get into Oxford and Cambridge. For my subject there were 13 places per year for women and around 300 for men. When women were admitted to men's colleges there was concern about the fall in academic standards that would inevitably occur!
At other universities, lack of accommodation for women was used as an excuse not to give them places. Sex Discrimination Act saw the end of this.

tilder · 27/12/2014 16:05

I did know this level of discrimination existed in the 70's, its just shocking really to see it written down.

Makes me wonder what stories I will have for dd in 40 years

Threesoundslikealot · 27/12/2014 16:05

Lilymaid, at my college my (female) senior tutor said that when it went co-ed, she was the first female fellow, and when questioned on the changes required to accommodation, had said the only thing the women would want that men didn't was a full length mirror.

sashh · 27/12/2014 16:15

tilder

I got my first propper job in 1986, at that time we were not allowed to discuss pay with other employees, all women worked 9-5 and men 8.30-6.30m this was the excuse for discrepancies in pay.

The company did not employ married couples, if a couple got together at work and married one had to leave.

It was well known that another local company did not employ women with children. Now at the time maternity leave was quite new but women did return to work after having a baby, but the other company would just offer a huge amount of money to not come back after maternity leave.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 27/12/2014 16:23

Goodness Yonic, that thread was an odd one even for AIBU

That moonferret chap was a card, non?

EBearhug · 27/12/2014 16:28

I did know this level of discrimination existed in the 70's

The civil service didn't end its marriage bar till 1973.

Companies still don't like women having children - Apple and Facebook are offering to freeze female employees' eggs: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/10/15/freezing-eggs-or-freezing-moms-out-of-high-tech/

ConferencePear · 27/12/2014 16:46

At my secondary school in the 70s teachers were allowed to get married, but if they were pregnant they were expected to leave as soon as it began to show.
The female staff were not allowed to wear trousers either.

treaclesoda · 27/12/2014 17:08

conference I left school in the 1990s and female teachers weren't allowed to wear trousers at my school!

Also, the employer who I mentioned a few posts back, when I started working for them, also in the 1990s, female staff weren't allowed to wear trousers either.

It completely blows my mind to think that I am not even 40 years old and yet even since I joined the workforce in my 20s, the world of work has changed a lot for women.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 27/12/2014 17:16

When I started working in the 80's trousers were completely unacceptable for women. It was in my contract that I would only wear office attire, and that, for women, trousers weren't that. (or words to that effect).

mindifidont · 27/12/2014 17:17

treaclesoda, in my sons school girls are allowed to wear trousers "if it's very cold". 2014!

treaclesoda · 27/12/2014 17:20

mindifidont I should probably have added that the female pupils in my old school still aren't allowed to wear trousers. In fact, I've mentioned this before on MN, but where I live when I look around at the secondary age kids going to school, I have never seen a girl wear trousers, so I am 99% sure that none of the schools around me allow them, as I can't imagine they all wear skirts out of choice, although obviously some would.

I know that my SIL fought a battle with the secondary school that my niece attended (she has since left school) because they refused to allow the girls to wear trousers but the school wouldn't back down at all. That is only within the last three or four years.

Boomtownsurprise · 27/12/2014 17:43

A friend worked at Coutts. Skirts had to be a certain length. It was done by kneeling on the floor. Skirt reached floor it was ok. Skirt didn't and was sent home. No trousers for women...

The year? 2000...

I think this has since stopped btw

SenecaFalls · 27/12/2014 17:50

A valiant mumsnetter is fighting the skirts-only policy at her daughter's school:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2256688-Uniform-thread-update-MP-meeting-tomorrow

grimbletart · 27/12/2014 19:32

Another example of how it's all women's fault. The fact that boys have been trailing in education compared to girls is, we are often told, the effect of feminisation of the curriculum through courseware; coursework being more suited to girls etc.

That is the square root of bollox.

I took the 11+ exam in 1954. At that time and for years before and some time after, girls had to get higher marks than boys to gain a grammar school place. That was because the authorities wanted a 50/50 split between girls and boys in grammar schools. The problem was that girls were consistently outperforming boys in the 11+ (which was a sudden death exam - so no coursework - and should, under the modern theory of boys doing better in sudden death exams, have favoured boys).

Therefore the pass mark was increased for girls to maintain parity.

Every time I hear so-called experts spouting about girls doing well because coursework favours them I want to drag them kicking and screaming back to the 1950s and rub their noses in the facts.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 27/12/2014 20:56

The idea that schools are somehow feminised is a bloody joke.

All the talk about how children sitting still and being attentive favours girls... All I can suggest is that they look back at the style of education favoured in most of the 20th century, where children sat at desks, learned by rote and did exams, all of which favours boys, and, as Grimble says, they STILL didn't perform as well.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 27/12/2014 21:10

This exam / coursework stuff confuses me.

If they are worried then just make it 50% exams and 50% coursework. Job done no arguments.

I perform much better in exams incidentally and have girly bits in my knickers unbelievable innit.