ABSTRACT

As this part of the book spans both world wars, the focus will be on the effect that two world wars had on women’s employment. Summerfield states that there are two broad readings of the effect that the wars had on women’s employment opportunities. First, there are the accounts, like Fawcett’s, that suggest that war brought in significant changes and second, there are others that throw doubts on these claims.2 Although the circumstances of the two wars were very different, they both raised discussion around equality and difference and the debates around these issues reflect the time in which they were conducted. Summerfield states that Titmuss in 1958 argued that war defined women more emphatically as dependent on men through the implementation of allowances for the support of service men’s wives and children.3 Men were regarded as the breadwinner and while the breadwinner was away fighting for the country the state stood in for him. These allowances were often more generous than the housekeeping given by the breadwinner to his wife and so, Titmuss asserted, benefited poorer families. However, this benefit was short-lived as it ceased at the end of war and was not always adequate given the soaring cost of living during the war. Family allowances only became a permanent benefit with the introduction of the Welfare State after the Second World War. Further, Summerfield argues that during the First World War, allowances were also used to regulate women’s sexuality whilst their husbands were away. If a woman did not conform to the dominant

sexual mores of the day then allowances could be withdrawn. Summerfield concludes that war work and the higher standard of living that wages brought to a family probably accounted more for the better health of women and children rather than allowances but this is an issue that will continue to be debated.