The rising divorce rates parallel the falling birth rates of the time. Thus providing another explanation for the rise of women in work. Rather than purely an increase in more ‘women’s jobs’, the growth in employment could be explained with regards to the changes within the household. Statistics show a marked change in the trend of birth rates, there was a clear decline between the 80years before 1911 compared to the 80years after 1911. Although birth rates continued to increase, they only increased by 15million in the 80years after 1911, where as in the 80years before there had been a rise of 22million (Edward Royle, 1997: 47). Women were seen as the carer and so were expected to stay with the child leaving no time for paid labour. The decline in birth rates offered women more freedom with regards to time and so many more women were able to go out and work, without the responsibility of caring for a child. However there is the problem with the cause, effect relationship between the falling birth rates and rising employment. Although the rise of women in paid employment could have indeed been partially to do with the decline in birth rates. It could also be argued that the decline in birth rate was a result of more women going into paid employment due to an increase in ‘female jobs’.
There was another way in, which women were able to overcome the obstacle of children and still work, through the changes brought about to work by post-fordism. As a result of post-fordism work was fragmented into small tasks, which could be carried out repeatedly by low-skilled labour with very little training. It suited employers to employ part-time labour to these smaller positions as it enabled them to soak up fluctuations in demand and avoid the legal aspects of having to dismiss full-time employees (Beechey 1986: 28-9; Keith Grint 1999: 201). This shift to more flexible patterns of employment not just suited employers who could now get cheaper labour and avoid legal complexities. It also suited women with families as it enabled them to choose: to an extent: the hours and amounts, of which they worked. It made it much easier for family women to take up paid work and so this could help to explain the huge rise of women in employment, especially in part-time work, ‘In 1951 only 4% of workers were employed part-time but by 2001 part-timers were 21% of those in employment…. 93% of these jobs are done by women’ (Social Trends 2002: 71; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 624). So the growth of women in work could be explained by the huge rise of women in part-time work due to the changes to production brought about by post-fordism.
There was another household issue, which prevented women from working, other than children and that was housework. The strong idea of patriarchy, dictated that women should stay home and look after the house. However there is evidence of a decline in the amount of housework and domestic labour women had to perform. One reason for the fall in domestic labour for women was the growth in technology during the industrial revolution. There was much technological advancement, which aided women in their everyday tasks around the home. Due to the new technology they were able to save a lot of time enabling them to pursue other tasks such as working. Another explanation for the fall of domestic labour for women is the increase of men doing housework. Gershuny (1992) did a study in, which he used detailed diaries to measure the time spent on each partners various daily activities, including housework and paid work. He found that ‘the proportion of housework done by men had been increasing and the total work (paid and housework) done by men and women had become almost equal’ (Gershuny 1992; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 478). Statistics support the Gershuny’s findings as they show a decrease of 14% in the amount of housework done by women between the years 1975 and 1997 (Sullivan 2000: 443; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 479), suggesting a rise in the amount of housework done by men. The decline in the quantity of housework done by women would have meant that they had more time in, which to pursue other ventures, such as working. However it could also be that because of a rise in ‘women’s jobs’ more women were going into work and so had less time to devote to housework, meaning a replacement had to be found e.g. men and machinery.
The growth of men doing more housework and the increase of women in employment may also be a result of the challenges to patriarchy, which aimed at the domination by men and the subordination of women. The ever-growing education of women meant women were now able to rival men as contemporaries to what were previously seen as ‘male jobs’. Between the years 1975 and 1999 it can be seen, with relation to a-level examination results that women performed better against men, especially with reference to having two or more a-levels or three or more higher’s (Social Trends 2001: 68; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 338). So due to the growing education of women more job opportunities were being opened up, women no longer had to stick to ‘women’s jobs’. The advancement of women’s education was mainly to do with the feminist movement.
The feminist movement liberated women and enabled a shift in the commonly held opinion that women belonged in the home and should be deterred from the workplace. It was the second wave feminism of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1960’s that had the greatest effect on the Western society (Banks 1981; Pilcher 1999; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 182). It was through the challenges made by the separate feminist groups to the patriarchal society that women were able to redefine their position with men and enable them to change the traditionally held beliefs that women should not work outside of the home. It also challenged the traditional gendering of occupations, and there was a vast increase of women to managerial and professional careers. For example the proportion of solicitors who were women rose from less than 1 per cent in 1946 to 31 per cent in 1994 (Elliot 1997: 12; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 627). So as a result of feminism challenging the traditionally held views of women and work, there was an opening-up of more senior positions and increased opportunities for women.
Despite the feminist movement jobs still remained very much dictated by gender and it is due to this that the growth of ‘women’s jobs’ may have caused the rise in female employment. The growth of service work can be attributed to the technological advancements, which emerged at the time of industrialisation. The new technology meant that there was less demand for physical labour much of the work became white collar, and concerned with customer service. Due to the fact that even today many jobs are still dictated by gender, employers saw such service positions as better suited to women. ‘Employers seek to recruit women for customer service work involving ‘emotional labour’, because of the widespread assumption that women ‘by their very nature’ have emotion skills’ (Fulcher and Scott 2003: 627). Statistics show that ‘female jobs’ such as teaching, clerical, customer service and other types of ‘emotional labour’ gained increasingly more female workers as the rate of women in work rose. 2001, United Kingdom, statistics of employees and gender shows 15% more of the employees in personal services were women (Social Trends 2002: 76; Fulcher and Scott 2003: 627). It could be argued that due to advancements in technology, service work and other white-collar professions grew and due to the stereotypes held of women employers actively chose to employ more women into these positions. So the rise of women in employment could be seen to be a result of a growth in more ‘women’s jobs’.
So it could be said that the growth in women’s employment was a result of the economic pressures put on women at the time as a result of changing industrial relations, the growing unemployment of men and the growing divorce rates. However there is the problem of the cause, effect relationship between divorce rates and the growth of women’s employment (Also an issue between falling birth rates/housework and the growth of women’s employment. It could also be argued that due to certain responsibilities: children and housework: becoming less through technological advancements and the changing attitudes towards gender, women were enabled to work. The changing attitudes towards gender brought about by the growing education of women and the feminist movement of the 1960’s may have also attributed to the growing employment of women, by altering the views held that women should not work and widening the career opportunities for women. However the persistence of gender stereotypes may have meant that due to the growth of ‘women’s jobs’ as a result of industrialisation, more women were employed into such positions due to their female characteristics and that could also explain the rise in female employment.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, N. and Warde, A. (1992) (eds.) Social Change in Contemporary Britain, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Banks, O. (1981) Faces of Feminism: A Study of Feminism as a Social Movement, Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Beechey, V. (1986) Women and Employment, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bradley, H. (1999) Gender and Power in the Workplace: Analysing the Impact of Economic Change, Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD.
Elliott, J. (1997) What do Women want? Women, Work, and the Hakim Debate, Sociology Review, 6/4: 12-18.
Fulcher, J. and Scott J. (2003) Sociology: Second Edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gershuny, J. (1988) Change in the Domestic Division of Labour in the UK, 1975-1987: Dependent Labour Versus Adaptive Partnership, in Abercrombie and Warde (1992).
Gittins, D. (1993) The Family in Question: Changing Households and Familiar Ideologies, London: Macmillan Press LTD.
Grint, K. (1998) The Sociology of Work: Second Edition, Great Britain: Polity Press.
Hakim, C. (1993) The Myth of Rising Female Employment: Work, Employment, and Society, London: Athlone Press.
Pilcher, J. (1999) Women in Contemporary Britain, London: Routledge.
Sullivan, O. (2000) The Division of Domestic Labour: Twenty Years of Change, Sociology: 34/3.
Thompson, P. and Warhurst C. (1998) Workplaces of the Future: Critical Perspectives on Work and Organisations, London: Macmillan Press LTD.
Royle, E. (2002) Modern Britain: A Social History 1750-1997, New York: Oxford University Press.
