WOMEN AT WORK.

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 75, 26 September 1933, Page 6

WOMEN AT WORK.

When Sir^ Herbert Austin speaks he expresses the views of-an efficient Midlands manufacturer. His name has never been associated with • any particular brand. of social reform. He is right outside the class often (though sometimes unfairly) dubbed i "cranks." There is, therefore, more j significance to be attached to his advocacy, of the removal of women from industry. He does not approach. the issue from the theoretical angle of equality of the sexes,,but from the strictly practical side of distribution of employment. Women in Britain, jhc told a conference of works directors, managers, and. foremen, had built round themselves a position which they did not occupy before the War. Industry was not a woman's place. He was confident that if all women were removed from industry,! except perhaps the cotton industry,' it Would solve unemployment. The advocate of women's rights will ask at once: What are the women to do? Probably Sir Herbert Austin would answer: What they did before the War. There were women' in industry then—in factories, shops, and offices —-and they were becoming steadily more numerous; but the War accelerated the movement. The women were then 'called upon to take the place of men Avherever it was possible for them to do so. Their response was wonderful. It is partly because the work then was so well done that the women have remained in the jobs which they entered tern--1 porarily. Some commentators may see in this a sign of social progress; but that is not necessarily so. In some of ; the most backward civilisations 'women do far more work—hard, manual toil on the land and in industry—and the State- is deemed back-! [ward on that account. History hasi no general' lesson to teach on this' point. Feminists.may say that England was,never more glorious than in the days of Elizabeth (born just 400 years ago) and Victoria. And the other side may trace much evil in earlier times to the Medici women or earlier still to the influence of the daring and ruthless women rulers of Macedon (of whose stock came Cleopatra) . We must consider the facts as we find them today. Some of these facts which have , influenced Hitler and are considered important by Sir Herbert Austin are that women now do work which formerly was done by men—and some of the-men have:nothing to do. The women have gained in economic independence, but there are certain losses to be set against that gain. Because they have ousted some of the men, the latter are not so well able to marry and to maintain a home after marriage^ Moreover, the diversion of women from domestic' to industrial occupations means that the married woman must often do without help in the home. Before marriage she sees all the arguments in favour of outside work— office, factory, or shop. After marriage she realises that this; is ' not without its drawbacks. '■:*,-.

Herr Hitler has taken direct action to turn women back from industry to the home. How far is this justifiable, or* even possible in a democracy when women have equal political rights.with men? There are probably few politicians who would care to answer the question. They would prefer to say: Encourage marriage by making the men more prosperous and the women will naturally turn to home. But if the displacement of men by women in industry is one of the causes of male unemployment, where is the change to begin? The unemployment of men has even led in some instances to more competition from women. Wives and daughters have gone to work because husbands and fathers cannot support them. Government action to change this would be attended with danger of great hardship. The strongest argument that can be advanced for any form of intervention by authority is the argument that places responsibility for finding work upon, the Government. A Government which is required to provide some work or minimum sustenance for the unemployed is entitled to inquire how available work is distributed. It has done so in New Zealand, and has decided, for example, that many men with 35 years' service and a claim to superannuation can no longer be employed. This cuts across the old-time sole consideration, the capacity and efficiency of the employee; and introduces a new factor, the necessity of the workers. It is a big principle, and if carried to its logical conclusion would have far-reaching consequences on the emjployment of women.