World War II fell like a hammer on the European continent, shaking the foundation of their principles and cultural values. Declared formally by Britain and France against Germany in 1939, no one knew exactly how this war would change the world. Labor shortage created by the millions of men fighting against the Third Reich led Britain to bend former ideologies. Where once women belonged in the kitchen or tending to children, they were either given the opportunity to enter the "men's sphere" of work, or were conscripted to work in other areas. Leaving their homes to enter war work, they did so for two main reasons: they felt compelled by patriotism to aid the war effort (and simultaneously discovering their identities outside the family unit) or because they were simply conscripted by the government. While the men were fighting abroad, these women worked tirelessly to keep the war effort going by both "typical" women's work, and the "atypical" men's work.
Penny Summerfield describes these two different types of women in her book Reconstructing Women's Wartime Lives. First she discusses female "heroes" who boldly entered the war effort, throwing themselves in the way of gender relations and breaking the mold of society. These were the women who signed up for uniformed jobs, and gladly donned overalls and dungarees. On the other hand she describes what she calls "stoics". Stoics were compelled by the government to fill the labor shortage, bemoaned the interruption to domestic life, and searched for ways to preserve their femininity. Her assessment of "stoics" is unfair, however. Although they were compelled by the government rather than an overwhelming sense of patriotism, they still heeded the call of duty; and occasionally experienced pride in their accomplishments. Many of these stoics simply returned to work similar to what they had done before WWII, versus the heroes who decided to take the new job opportunities provided by war.
Before the war and the labor shortage, several young and unmarried women worked as clerks or secretaries. Such white collar work was regarded as un-skilled and monotonous, and thus was labeled "women's work" (11). Most women who were employed were barely trained. Believing their employment was only temporary, employers thought job training to be a waste of time. It would end as soon as they became settled with a family. Summerfield punctuates this by saying, "It was seen as irrelevant for women to acquire skill, since marriage accompanied withdrawal from paid work was assumed to be their universal destiny" (10). Popular belief was that girls were only employed until a husband came along to "free" her from her employment bondage. However, this was not always the case. Women occasionally hid their marriages to avoid being terminated (due to the marriage bar) (15). Others worked because of necessity; they had no husband to support them. Generally however, women were expected to be dependents, and working was only for the young and unmarried.
With the coming of war, a labor shortage was created and women were regarded as a precious resource of untapped labor. Eventually, if they hadn't already volunteered, they were compelled to enter the work force by legislation such as the "National Service Act" (1941), the "Registration of Employment Order" (1941), and the "Employment of Women Order" (1942) (Connelly 173). Because all women 18-24 were forced to register with Employment Exchange, there was no way to avoid filling the shortage caused by men at the front lines. The government could, and did, compel women into what was considered "useful war work" which encroached on private life considerably (Summerfield 45). The stoics resented this intrusion, but did what they had to. They often returned to the familiarity of clerical work, or light industrial work.
These women continued to operate within the women's sphere of work, and did what was expected of them. Summerfield explains this as taking the "option that caused the least disruption to their feminine identities," (92). They chose not to cause conflict, or act brashly against societal norms. Jean Baker Miller M.D. believes their avoidance of conflict is inherent in the nature of subordinates (which these women no doubt embraced the idea of their own subordination) (12). To openly confront their roles in society and ask for them to be changed, or act in ways against them would be contrary to the female character. Perhaps these stoics feared the ramifications of being considered a feminist, or wanted to embrace the socially described idea of what a woman should be. Psychologists such as Helen Deutsch (1884-1982) and Clara Thompson (1893-1958) would theorize that these stoics had proper feminine identities, and it was correct for them to continue employment doing "women's work" (Williams 36).
The stoics regarded most aspects of their employment with a passive acceptance of their temporary condition. During this era, women's work was considered an entirely different category than "men's' work". It could be paid differently. The classically feminine employees noted the difference, but were much less defensive about it than the heroes. Believing they should be glad that they're getting anything, they resigned themselves to accept their poor pay as part of being female (Summerfield 128). Their passiveness wasn't only consigned to their pay scale; it was also shown in their attitude towards what today would be considered sexual harassment. Men would wolf whistle, or make comments that these women described as "pleasant camaraderie" (139). One woman described several occasions where one male trainee would pull the chairs out from under young women as they were about to sit down (139). Another described the verbal teasing that often carried with it sexual connotation. Male coworkers went so far as to consider their female coworkers as available sexual partners (134). Men would attempt to make women blush, or get upset, but as one woman said, " you just got that you took it all in your stride, or you just ignored it" (140). Completely accepting their traditional female roles, their employment during the war was seen by many as a passing through. They did what they had to, and ached to return to domestic life once their service was complete. However, a vastly different story is told by those who willingly went to work, those Summerfield considers heroes.
The heroes registered with the Employment Exchange willingly, and jumped into the labor pool with enthusiasm and gusto. They wanted to contribute more to the war in a manner that was tangible. Rather than resigning themselves to the clerical work they had done in the past, over half a million threw themselves into organizations such as the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS), Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF), Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA), First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), and the Land Warriors (Connelly 175). These jobs were highly active, dirty and often required an astonishing amount of strength and endurance. These women experienced entirely different work demands as they flocked to become female pilots (ATA), mechanics (WRAF), truck drivers, road diggers, carpenters and electricians (ATS). Although none of them were actively involved in battle, they often saw it as field nurses driving between front lines and hospitals (FANY).Women were discouraged from taking these jobs, and met great opposition from employers. From their sheer stubbornness, they were given jobs that infringed upon the men's sphere. Because of this infringement, these heroes found themselves working twice as hard to prove their competence, and their right to be there (Summerfield 135). They were far from their passive, stoic sisters, and openly addressed the differences in pay. However, their grievances were ignored because they failed to unionize (131). To them, unionization was a double-edged sword. With it there came the possibility of better treatment, but at the cost of being dependent on the trade union men to negotiate on their behalf (131). If they were going to gain equal pay, they wanted to do so without the trade union men negotiating for them. Without a union, they had no basis on which to argue for better treatment; the individual dissenting voices were simply ignored. Fearing workplace reprisal, many women believed their situation would be better if they did not unionize (131). Because of this, the women did not advance their cause.
Their involvement in "men's work" was not a blatant disregard for their gender, but an expression of their patriotism and an assertion of their individuality. As wives and mothers, or even as single women, they had long lived under others' rule and orders. It was rare that they did something for themselves and therefore their identity was created on the basis of service to their family. However war posters displayed during that time offered an enticing alternative: leaving the comfort of home and taking men's place in the workforce. Miller describes this extraordinary event as "when women have struggled through to develop themselves as strong, independent individuals, they did and do threaten many relationships, relationships in which the other person may not tolerate a self-directed woman" (95). Aggression against the heroes was caused by this low tolerance.
However, in response to the intolerant and often closed-minded coworkers, these women became seemingly androgynous internally and to those around them. They "idealized masculine work performance and at the same time feeling that they had to deny any feminine weakness in themselves" (Summerfield 137). Heroes found themselves adhering to a male super-norm, and worked hard to prove their abilities. They blurred the gender lines by their involvement, and proved themselves over and over again as competent and productive (despite numerous direct or indirect tests of their ability). Therefore the negativity felt by the stoic experience was frequently missing within the heroic experience. Overall this harassment was not as troublesome as one would think. Time and again, they became "one of the guys". Summerfield states that "[Androgyny] promoted solidarity in the group, because desexed women were no longer defined in terms of conventional gendered roles" (137).
Unlike the stoics, these heroes failed to assimilate their femininity into their employment. Many didn't seem the least bit disturbed by this, and enjoyed their newfound freedom. Helen Deutsch believed that these women had "a readiness for identification with men and a willingness to experience their own selves through such identification," (Williams 42). The rejection of their femininity was due to their need to recognize men as equals, and to discover their own identity outside the home. Another psychologist with an interesting view was that of Clara Thompson. She believed that as women moved from their sheltered domestic life, they had no idea how to be successful. Their desire for success leads them to emulate those who were already successful: men (74). According to her theory, the heroes had a need to be successful, while the stoics were complacent in their feminine role.
Regardless of whether or not the stoics were completely complacent, they still headed the call of duty. War time needed clerks, teachers, and other "women's sphere" type duties. Although stoics embraced their femininity, they believed they were more respected for remaining composed during wartime chaos. In sharp contrast, heroes went above and beyond, challenging cultural ideologies and changing the world even if they were unaware of it. They were employed in areas that had previously been closed off to women. Dirty, dangerous, grungy jobs were the highlight of their experience, as well as the swell of pride in their outer-home accomplishments. Unlike the stoics, they longed to search for their identity outside the home and beyond what had been offered before. The heroes took advantage of the new opportunities provided by the war, while the stoics lamented its interference into their lives. Either way, World War II was the catalyst for immense social change.
Works Cited
Connelly, Mark. We Can Take It! Britian and the Memory of the Second World War. London: Pearson Education Ltd. 2004.
Miller, Jean Baker. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.
Summerfield, Penny. Women Workers in the Second World War. Londen: Routledge, 1989.
Summerfield, Penny. Reconstructing Women's Wartime Lives. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998.
Williams, Juanita H. Psychology of Women: Behavior in a Biosocial Context. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1974.