Anxiety for their men folk in war, the pressures of employment, combined with the need to perform housework in straitened circumstances and the inadequacy of social services exacted a heavy toll. It also made the withdrawal of women back into their homes after the war less surprising. This return to full-time domesticity was not, however, wholly voluntary.
In many instances, contracts of employment during World War One had been based on collective agreements between trade unions and employers, which decreed that women would only be employed 'for the duration of the war'. Employed mothers were stung by the closure of day nurseries that had been vastly extended during the war. Reinforcing these pressures were the recriminatory voices of returning servicemen. As unemployment levels soared immediately after the war, anger towards women 'taking' jobs from men exploded.
Women were also divided, with single and widowed women claiming a prior right to employment over married women. For instance, Isobel M Pazzey of Woolwich reflected a widely-held view when she wrote to the Daily Herald in October 1919 declaring that 'No decent man would allow his wife to work, and no decent woman would do it if she knew the harm she was doing to the widows and single girls who are looking for work.' She directed: 'Put the married women out, send them home to clean their houses and look after the man they married and give a mother's care to their children. Give the single women and widows the work.'
In some occupations, single women insisted on excluding their married sisters. For instance, in 1921, female civil servants passed a resolution asking for the banning of married women from their jobs. The resulting ban was enforced until 1946. There were other setbacks. During World War One, hospitals had accepted female medical students: in the 1920s, women were rejected by the hospitals on the grounds of modesty. The National Association of Schoolmasters campaigned against the employment of female teachers. In 1924, the London County Council make its policy explicit when it changed the phrase 'shall resign on marriage' to 'the contract shall end on marriage'.
Finally, some historians believe that the war was a key element in the granting of the franchise to women over the age of 30 years who held property in 1918. However, gratitude for women's war work cannot explain why only women over the age of 30 got the vote while it was the younger women who had done the work. Rather, it is more convincing to argue that the lobbying of the feminist movement and the commitment of the Labour Party to a wider franchise were crucial factors. In addition, it was a case of the suffragists being around at the right time.
In 1917, the government became aware of the need to call an election. The problem was that, according to the law, only men who had been resident in the country for 12 months prior to the election were entitled to vote, effectively disenfranchising a large number of troops who had been serving overseas. This dilemma forced Parliament to revise the franchise. At this point, the arguments of Millicent Fawcett and the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies proved particularly persuasive and, by drawing attention to the work of women during the war, persuaded the Liberal leader, Asquith, to grant a minority of women the vote. But it was not until 1928 that women over the age of 21 were finally allowed to vote. In effect, this meant that in 1918, 8.5 million women were enfranchised, or 40 per cent of the total number of women. In 1928, this was boosted to 15 million, or 53 per cent of total number of women.
