To what extent did the Second World War herald a period of social change for women?

There was also limited social change where women workers in munitions factories and industries were concerned. This was particularly seen in the case of those women who were employed in the engineering works, as it seemed that one quarter of these women had already done jobs like these before the war. This is significant in demonstrating a lack of social change, especially for those women involved because it seemed that these women were not entering anything innovative, and therefore were not facing new challenges and benefitting from new experiences as such. Furthermore, there was a lack of equality for women in engineering works, especially in terms equal pay was concerned. This was especially seen in the case of Marjorie Masters, a 73 year old woman who worked at the Leicester engineering factory in 1944 and said in an edition of the Leicester Mercury newspaper that “it was very hard work and you only got paid half a penny an hour.” Master’s statement that women, especially in the Leicester area got only paid less than a penny illustrates the lack of social change because it shows that not only had women not achieved equal pay but also that it seems that women were rarely rewarded highly for their work. 

There was also no social change for women working in the industries because it seemed that a majority of women were still doing unskilled work. Calder supports this as he has argued that “endless repetition of the same unskilled or semi-skilled task of the kind that most women were given in the war industry was hardly emancipation.” Calder makes a strong argument here because it seemed that by women continuously doing the same work, they were unable to face new challenges in the workplace. Furthermore, for women to receive unskilled jobs further enhances this lack of social change because it seems to have re-inforced a continuous prejudiced view against them, and hence in the process strengthened rather than weakened the traditional sexual segregation that had been common between men and women prior to the war.

Furthermore, some industries such as textiles also showed that women experienced a lack of social change because this is seen by the unequal numbers in these types of industries. This is because there was a decline of women employed in these types of industries during the war, as there seemed to been a fall from 686,000 women in 1939 to 414,000 women in 1943. Although, many women had also worked in textile industries before the war, the fall in figures does indeed suggest a lack of social change because it seems that the war had been having an adverse effect on the employment of women in these types of industries. Therefore, as a consequence, it was industries such as these that were to fade away in the post-war era.

There was also no social change where women who worked in the Armed forces. This was particularly seen in the case of the Women’s Auxillary Services and the Women’s Air Forces where only those who were in the age group of 19-24 were recruited. This significantly demonstrates that women did not receive social change because  by only recruiting women who were only of these ages, this placed an obstacle to those women who were older and mature, who may had already experienced similar roles prior to the war. Furthermore, it seemed that there was no social change for women in these types of jobs because it seemed that only under half-a- million women were still working in the the Auxiliary Territorial Services and Women’s Armed Forces by the end of the war in 1945. The armed forces was also an occupation that provided very little social change for women because it seemed that there was no equality between men and women, and therefore women particularly were looked on unfavourably. Malcolm Pearce and Geoffrey Stewart support this as they have argued that “despite the very active service engaged in by women in the armed forces, the old prejudices seemed still to be at work because technically they were non-combatant so that they could not possess the same skill and bravery.” Pearce and Stewart make a strong argument here because although women joined the armed forces, it seemed that employers still held pre-war prejudices regarding sex segregation. Such prejudices are significant in demonstrating that social change was hindered because it seemed that women were never really given a chance in such muscular jobs and therefore their male counterparts in the armed forces did not view or treat them on an equal footing. 

This inequality of women in the Armed Forces was further enhanced at the end of the war where the Women’s Auxiliary Services were concerned as:

The auxillaries, unlike the fighting forces to whom their faithful services have been given, have no assured place in the post-war world. Called into existence by the greatest of all struggle, they have unlike the Army no tenacious roots in the social fabric and background of the history or tradition. Trophies of former wars, which tell of past fame and beckon to future service , do not decorate their mess rooms. 

The reluctance to retain the Women’s Auxiliary Services  hinders the social change that women could have gained because not only does this emphasise that the war work that women did not achieve  any rewards but also that they were deprived of gaining any experience within this role in the future.

 There was also limited social change where part-time married women workers were concerned. Penny Summerfield supports this as she has argued that “whether one is talking about manual or white-collar work, married women’s part-time work since the war had the lowest status and had been paid the lowest.” Summerfield makes a strong argument because it appeared that as a result of their domestic duties at home such as cooking, cleaning, child-bearing and shopping, part-time women workers were looked on critically and were not recognised, despite their efforts during the war. 

The war also demonstrates a lack of equality where industries were concerned because there seemed favouritism amongst certain occupations such as the armed forces as:

In matters where small personal habits and liberties are concerned women react more strongly against regimentation than men, though they are concerned about the wider and more theoretical liberties, democracies, priveleges. When women have been conscripted into factories which do not belong to the State and which are privately owned concerns...this feeling becomes more acute then when women are moved into the Services. In the W.A.A.F, for example they are working directly for the country and under equal conditions, with full responsibility taken for them and their proper use by the Government itself. They also get four regular weekly leaves a year, full pay, rations, allowances, and railway return tickets to any part of the United Kingdom. The industrial girl has no such facilities, and the distinction is likely to lead to future difficulty if ignored.

As women in other occupations such as the Women’s Air Force were receiving more privileges and benefits than those in the industries and factories, is significant because it seems that not only was there favouritism  amongst certain professions where women worked, but also that there was no general consensus amongst women’s roles’ regarding equality at all.

The war also did not bring about social change for women by the way that women did not achieve equal pay. However,  despite this Arthur Marwick had argued that “in a previous generation, the symbol of female rights which had been gained at the end of the previous war was the vote; now though there had be no organised movement comparable with the suffragists and the suffragettes; the symbol was equal pay.” Although, there was indeed a struggle for equal rights, Marwick fails to take into account that equal pay was not achieved because although  last year of the war saw the appointment of a Royal Commision had been appointed with the help of the Women’s committee led by Edith Summerskill to discuss this issue,  this did not materialise on a wider scale, because not only did the Churchill coalition Government reject such proposals. However, it had also seemed that the government had no intention of introducing equal pay for women alongside men, and therefore such an issue was not to be placed on the Government’s post-war agenda. 

The Women’s Land Army could also be seen to have not benefitted from equal pay as this is seen by the way that some land girls did not gain any entitlements after the war had finished. This was most evidently seen in the case of Lady Denman, the director of the Land Army for England and Wales who complained to the Minister of Agriculture in 1945 that:

The Land Army is a uniformed service recruited on the national basis by a Government department, and the work which its members have undertaken, often at considerable financial sacrifice is in my view as arduous and exciting as any branch of women’s war work and of as great importance to this country. Yet they have been refused post-war benefits and privileges accorded to such other uniformed and nationally organised services as the W.R.N.S and the A.T.S and the W.A.A.F, the Civil Nursing Reserve, the Police Auxilaries, and the Civil Defence Service.

Denman’s complaint evidently highlights a lack of social change here because it seemed that by the land girls being deprived of such benefits at the end of the war, this demonstrates that these women were not rewarded financially for their wartime role, and hence in doing so illustrates , like the historian Harold Smith had argued, that the sexual divisons between men and women had continued rather than altered.

Women also achieved little social change due to a lack of equal pay where compensation for war injuries was concerned. This was particularly seen in 1943 when Mrs Laughton Matthews, the director of the Women’s Royal Nursing Service complained that:

In certain branches of work there were all sorts of reasons for women being paid less than men, but she had not heard any reason for women being compensated less – except that they were paid less. From the human point of view an injury might be even more serious for a woman than for a man. 

 Matthew’s comment here demonstrates a lack of equality because by women being compensated less than men; it seems that not only are women treated with prejudice but are also treated harshly and unfairly through no fault of their own.

Women also never achieved social change during the war due to role of Government intervention. Harold Smith supports this as he argues that:

“Government policies also helped ensure that the position of women would not be greatly altered by the war. The government mobilised the nations’ woman power reluctantly, made pre-determined efforts to maintain its pre-war practice of sex differentiation among its own employees and facilitated the movement of women workers back into the homes once the conflict had ended. “ 

Smith makes a strong argument because it seemed that the Government did not really aid women to achieve better prospects during the war and to encourage them further. This is because it seemed at the start of the war that the Government had made it very clear that the roles of women during the war would not change and were only a temporary option, and therefore it appeared that the female pre-war domestic roles were to be restored once the war had finished.

The Second World War did not create a period of social change for women. Although, the war was a time when women could take on various roles and professions traditionally occupied by men, any social change or benefits that women achieved within these roles were ultimately limited and counter-productive. Not only was social change limited for women due to government intervention but also due to inequality and prejudice that was prevalent within the workplace. It was these obstacles that would need to have been overcome in order to successfully achieve female egalitarianism in the near future.  

Word Count: 2,723 words

Bibliography

Anon, The Times, Saturday 18th April, 1942

Anon, The Times, Friday 8th January, 1943

Anon, The Times, Tuesday 30th November, 1943

Anon, The Times,  17th February ,1945

 Anon, Leicester Mercury ,D-Day Supplement, June 1994

Bravatti, Brian and Harriet Jones (eds.) What difference did the war make? (Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1993)

Calder, Angus The People’s War: Britain 1939-1945, (Jonathan Cape Ltd, London, 1969),

Childs, David Britain since 1939: Progress and Decline (Palgrave, 2002)

Illustrated Leicester Chronicle, 1st July, 1944

Mackay, Robert, The Test of War: Inside Britain 1939-1945 (London, 1999)

Marwick, Arthur, Britain in the Century of Total War: War, Peace and Social change 1960-1967, (London, 1968)

Marwick, Arthur (eds.) , Total War and Social Change (London, 1988)

Pearce ,Malcolm and Geoffrey Stewart, British Political History 1867-2001: Democracy and Decline, 1992, 3rd ed. (London, 2002)

Pugh, Martin , Britain since 1789 (Palgrave, 1999)

Smith, Harold L. ,War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986),

Summerfield, Penny, Women Workers in the Second World War: Patriarchy and Production in Conflict, (London, 1984)

---