 |
Reproduced from the
website of
The National Archives |
As the
war drew to a close, public opinion was divided on the question
of women, especially married women, remaining in the workforce.
However, to ask the question, ”What will happen to women
after the war?” was significant in itself. Women had been
called into industry during World War I, but at war’s end,
“neither women war workers nor the public believed there
was any question since most women would obviously return to their
homes.” 87
A survey of working women, published in the June 1944 issue of
Ladies Home Journal showed that when as if they planned to stop
working after the war, 44 percent replied “Yes,” 47
percent replied “No” and 9 percent were uncertain.
While young married women were overwhelmingly anxious to stop
working after the war to have families, the women of the Journal
survey agreed that if she did not marry, or if her husband was
unable to support the family, she did not intent to fall into
a “position of helpless feminine dependency.” 88
This sentiment was echoed by working women interviewed by Independent
Woman magazine. “Our country must recognize that many women
will be the sole or major support of their families, either as
wives or mothers of killed or wounded men.” 89
These women went further, however, than those in the Journal survey,
arguing that “we think that it is a right that belongs to
the individual, man or woman, to decide whether or not he or she
wants to work. Industry, business, or government should not make
that decision.” 90
However, in a survey of the “Reader-Reporters” of
Women’s Home Companion, “three out of four women –
75.5 percent to be exact – said yes” when asked if
women should relinquish their war jobs after the war. One “Reader-Reporter”
was quoted as writing “Give the boys back their jobs, that’s
what they are fighting for. Let’s be good mothers, better
homemakers, and thankful wives.” 91
An editorial, in an earlier volume of the Ladies Home Journal
contended that “the ideal of every normal woman is to find
the right husband, bear and rear his children, and make [for them]
a cozy, gay, happy home." 92
While women’s organizations and the Women’s Bureau
of the U.S. Department of Labor urged the full inclusion of women
in programs for post-war workers, they ran squarely into opposition
by management. A rarity among employers, industrialist Henry Kaiser
was “sympathetic” to the plight of women war workers,
hoping to keep as many as 50 percent of his women workers. However,
“unless business is booming,” he said, “and…unless
there is plenty of credit available,” he would not be able
to “hold to that ratio of 50 percent.” 93
The state of the economy and the looming period of reconversion
concerned many business leaders. They believed that the situation
of women in the post-war world would “depend to a large
degree on the extent to which the nation’s entire economy
can develop a high level of employment.” 94
An economics professor at Amherst College, Colston E. Warne, echoed
this belief that the fate of women post-war was largely dependent
“upon forces unrelated to [their] abilities or needs…should
a depression be experienced during the reconversion period,”
women would certainly “be among the first to taste unemployment."
95
Beyond simple economic concerns, it was the traditional family
unit – with mother at home – that loomed large in
the eyes of many employers, “so large that [women were discharged]
at the first sign of cutbacks in war orders.” 96
Nationally, by June 1945, over 300,000 women war workers had been
discharged. In the face of these cutbacks and layoffs, the Women’s
Advisory Committee of the War Manpower Commission published a
list of “recommendations with respect to the separation
of women from wartime jobs.” 97
However, the low level of interest by industry in the post-war
work problems faced by women was evident in its lack of representation
at a 1945 meeting of national organizations called by the Women’s
Bureau. While both the A.F.L. and C.I.O. were represented, no
organization of employers participated, and industry was only
minimally represented by two companies, each sending a low level
manager from its industrial relations department. 98
