The CBB :: View topic - Married Members of Staff

#1: Married Members of Staff Author: Susan, Location: Carlisle

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 1:11 pm

I have a calendar in work which gives a fact and a quote for each day.

The fact today reads:

1944 - In Britain, the ban was lifted on women teachers marrying.

That was when the ban was lifted but how long did it take for it to be an easy thing to do?

#2: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 1:27 pm

That recently ! Shocked

#3: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 3:43 pm

Yes, when a female teacher married, she was obliged by law to resign her post.

Until maternity leave was introduced, it was customary to resign with effect from the end of the term before the birth of the baby.

#4: Author: Ally, Location: Jack Maynard's Dressing Room!!

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 3:54 pm

One of the reasons why my Grandmother never became a teacher, was that she wanted to marry and have children, and she could not combine them both. Sadly she missed this opportunity due to a few years and the war, it just makes you realise how lucky we are for our opportunities.

Thank you for a very useful piece of information Sue!

#5: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:06 pm

A lot of the staff of my school were hideous old relics who'd chosen a career over the joys of matrimony at first, then found that they'd missed the boat when tha law changed.

#6: Author: Angel, Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:19 pm

It's how my grandmother got out of teaching - they were somewhat furious O.O

#7: Author: claire, Location: South Wales

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 6:54 pm

I'm pretty sure that it used to apply to civil service as well

#8: Author: Sugarplum, Location: second star to the right!

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 8:14 pm

I had no idea it was that recent ..... but I suppose it makes sense that the law was changed when the 1944 Education Act was introduced.

#9: Author: lizarfau, Location: Melbourne

Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:59 pm

I wonder how long it would have taken for such legislation to be brought in if the Second World War had never happened? It was the fact that so many employment-age males were away fighting the war, or dead or injured, that meant women were essential to the workforce - married or otherwise.

#10: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 1:40 am

I haven't been able to identify a uniform date for legalization of married teachers here, as things are pretty much a patchwork from state to state and even between local school boards, but found this interesting:

Quote:

Among the hurdles that female teachers had to overcome was the right to keep their jobs when they married. When teacher Mary Murphy was fired for misconduct after marrying in 1901, she took the case to court. The judge ruled in her favor, noting that "marriage was not misconduct" and was not, therefore, grounds for dismissal. In Massachusetts in 1915, however, the prohibition against marriage remained, one of a number of rules that also enjoined teachers not to leave town without the school board's permission, not to stay out past eight in the evening, and not to wear a dress that was more than two inches above the ankle. http://womenshistory.about.com/library/prm/bleducation2.htm

#11: Author: Susan, Location: Carlisle

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 9:00 am

Freedom is a wonderful thing indeed. Can you imagine if modern women were faced with those restrictions?

#12: Author: Lesley, Location: Rochester, Kent

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 9:26 am

The problem would be if they were suddenly reintroduced, we take our freedoms now for granted - if they were suddenly to be curtailed then there would be uproar.

#13: Author: Angel, Location: London, England

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 6:37 pm

Read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood to see how it might be done...

#14: Author: Guest,

Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 11:26 pm

I've read the Handmaid's tale quite a few times now and each time it makes me shiver because I can envisage the train of events in the book actually happening given the right catalyst/situation.

#15: Author: Rachel, Location: Plotting in my lair

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 7:37 am

Having not come across this book, anyone care to give me a synopsis?

#16: Author: Katarzyna, Location: Preston, Lancashire

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:26 am

Both the book and the film are extremely good if somewhat disturbing.

Am no good at links but handmaids tale should bring you to the amazon page for the book

HTH

ETA: By Nell for wide post post/long url

#17: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 10:44 am

It looks very good - I might try it. But I never could get into Margaret Atwood's books - for some reason I think she's trying too hard - the one I did read (can't remember the title) reminded me too much of Sylvia Plath's Bell Jar, so I was put off it because that is a book that can't be repeated.

Back on topic!! Yes, in Ireland anyway, women in teaching jobs and the civil service had to quit their jobs - this was until like the 1970s or something insane like that!

#18: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 3:52 pm

It can take a long time for real civilisation to set in.

#19: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 8:56 pm

Just read it (The Handmaid's Tale) and finished it within two days - it's very very good! And freaky! I'm impressed - and might give my other Margaret Atwood's a chance.

#20: Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster

Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 9:06 pm

Yet my mother says that her mother was teaching not only post marriage, but post her as well!!! Mum is 91.

#21: Author: Guest,

Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 12:28 am

It's only been relatively recently that the practice of asking about marriage/children has been regarded as discriminatory. I know numerous women who have gone to job interviews and been asked questions like
"Are you married?", " What does your husband think about you taking this job?", "Do you have children?", or "Are you planning on having children?". Needless to say, the men don't get asked these questions. The basic premise behind this is that if a woman has children, or is planning to, she will be less productive and less dedicated to her career, and therefore a less desirable employee.

In academia, there's a pronounced tendency for female scientists to marry male scientists (more so than the other way round). This, historically, has led to the practice where a department would hire the husband as a full, tenure track, faculty member, and his wife as non tenured teaching staff or a research assistant (at much lower pay, greatly reduced research resources and less job security), knowing that she's not going to go somewhere else for a better offer.

#22: Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks

Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 11:37 am

When I applied for a job at the Inland Revenue (nothing high powered) around 1985, a big thing was made of whether I would be getting married and having kids (at that point Andy & I had been living togehter for about a year), so I crossed my fingers firmly and said "no" and got the job!

#23: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 11:24 am

And did you?

#24: Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks

Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 11:49 am

Got married in 1987 and then left when I had Jess in 1988 Embarassed

In fairness it was the oldest member of the management team who asked (must have been very close to retirement age by the time I left) and he did buy me some drinks when I announced I'd got engaged.
And I certainly wasn't the shortest length of employment by any means (maybe that was why he asked the question though as he was fed up with women leaving!)

#25: Author: Dreaming Marianne, Location: Devon

Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 9:17 pm

I was interviewing for a fairly senior job in a heavily male-dominated industry aged nineteen, four years ago. The interview was going really well, I was sure I had the job in the bag....until one of the (all male) panel asked me:

"So, apart from being a woman, do you have any disabilities that you feel we should know about?"

Shocked

#26: Author: Cazx, Location: Swansea/Bristol

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 11:44 am

What did you say to that? I would have been tempted to walk out of the interview!

#27: Author: Rachel, Location: Plotting in my lair

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 12:24 pm

The obvious response is:

"While for you gender is a serious handicap, I consider my own gender to be an enhancement of my personality. You do realise you can get therapy on the NHS?"

#28: Author: jackie green, Location: Rotherham

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:22 pm

I wouldnt have got the job, and the interviewer would still be limping.

#29: Author: Carola, Location: Nepal

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 6:17 pm

When I applied for a job in 1988, I was asked by one of the consultants, "So...are you going to get married and go off to have children then?" I refused to answer the question...but got the job! I didn't have enough confidence then to say what I REALLY thought, but like to think that I do now!!!

#30: Author: Lesley, Location: Rochester, Kent

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 6:25 pm

Dreaming Marianne wrote:

What did you say????

(Would have liked to reply as follows -

"Well only the one - an urge to kick the goolies of any mysogynistic MCP into the next century - it manifests itself fairly frequently!")

#31: Author: Susan, Location: Carlisle

Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 9:12 pm

Would agree with all the above. Our company prides itself on being equal opportunity BUT until fairly recently women were encouraged not to add to their company pension until they were over 45 as this was when it was considered they would not be leaving to have children.

#32: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:31 pm

That was typical of the attirudes then, never mind about the pension, they'll have a man to take care of them, or they ought to!

#33: Author: Sarah GG,

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:38 pm

My dad has just taken a job in Jersey and the laws over there state that my step-mother cannot take a job in any service where she might meet up with him in the course of her job! He is in the prison service so she can't take any job to do with any aspect of the law or social services- we get the impression they really expect her to play little wifey and stay at home baking all day! In 2004...

#34: Author: Amanda M, Location: Wakefield

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:42 pm

[quote]My dad has just taken a job in Jersey and the laws over there state that my step-mother cannot take a job in any service where she might meet up with him in the course of her job! He is in the prison service so she can't take any job to do with any aspect of the law or social services[/quote]

That's me snookered then, both me and my boyfriend are nurses (makes mental note not to look at Jersey for jobs).

Star Wars

#35: Author: ellend, Location: Bow, London

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:55 pm

I think the ban on married female teachers, only applied in state schools. I'm sure in private schools married women could teach. There was also a similar ban in the Post Office and other government based organisations. The assumption was that woman now had a husband to support them and if they remained working they would be depriving others, mainly men, of the opportunity to earn.

In the civil service, women resigned on marriage for many years, and this probably only ended in the 1940s. However, even after that married women became 'disestablished civil servants', which meant that they had no security of employment. The up side was that they couldn't be complusorarily moved to another part of the country, as all civil servants at executive officer grade and above are expected to be mobile and willing to serve anywhere in the UK. Nowadays, other than MoD, this is rarely enforced and most people forget. The different treatment of married civil servants stopped in the 1970s following the Equal Ops Act.

The impact of the bans on married women meant couples lied about being married or didn't both but discretely maintained a sexual relationship. It is clear this was done in the Dorothy L Sayers books, as she did herself.

#36: Author: claire, Location: South Wales

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:06 pm

ellend wrote:

all civil servants at executive officer grade and above are expected to be mobile and willing to serve anywhere in the UK. Nowadays, other than MoD, this is rarely enforced and most people forget.

Oh, it still gets mentioned now and again, they have recently upped the daily travelling distance for those under EO to 1 hour 30 minutes and can transfer within those times and it was mentioned then (never known any one be made to go but in my contract it states that I am a mobile grade (now I am full time, part timers are also non-mobile whatever the grade)

#37: Author: Grembles, Location: Norwich

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:14 pm

How odd - my last essay involved me researching the Marriage Bar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/timeline/1940.shtml

talks about the marriage bar under the entry for 1946

This whole timeline is fascinating and I spent way too much time reading this instead of researching my essay!

#38: Author: ellend, Location: Bow, London

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:06 pm

Even with all the recent announcements about cutting civil service numbers and moving more of us of London, there's been little mention of complusory moves. A few years ago when they moved a unit from London to Southampton area, volunteers were sought who wanted to move to the area and they did a head to head swaps. And when the Highways Agency went to the Midlands, their staff no moving were eligible for vacancies within the Department.

As my own Department has a relatively small HQ in London, much of our work is done in by executive agencies based around the country, we're getting off fairly lightly. However, when a colleague advertised a post across all Government Departments on level transfer, she got 50!! inquiries and no fewer than 14 applicants. This was for a post no-one in our Dept wanted. Unsurprisingly there were a large number of applicants from DfES, DWP and DTI, all of which are losing large number of posts and or moving our of London. Who says civil service jobs are jobs for life these days?

My Department had the first female permanent secretary (Sir Humphrey from Yes, Minister) and possible the first female Secretary of State with Barbara Castle in the 1960s. Having said that when I arrived 18 years ago it was very male dominated. I didn't realise how much until I bumped into my boss's boss in the ladies loos and realised that was the first time that had happened since joining the civil service four years before. Since then, I've had a female in my management chain for all but 3 years and for several years two female managers.

BTW Thanks for the website Grembles it was very interesting. I hadn't realised civil servants were supposed to get equal pay from then

Ellen

#39: Author: Sue, Location: Tunbridge Wells

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:01 pm

The C of E was refusing to give 2 stipends to a clergy couple. It was presumed that the women would work voluntarily. Then some kicked tha habit, and a few men took the unpaid work. Now it's improving.
But a church can still legally refuse to have a woman as vicar.

#40: Author: Samantha, Location: London

Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:16 pm

When I told my grandmother I was getting married her second sentence (after congratulations, etc) was "Won't you have to stop working now?" She had some excuse - at that stage she was almost 90. However when I was pregnant my mother-in-law kept hinting/saying that I should stop work. It became rather annoying.

#41: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:18 pm

Another book that deals with this issue which i think is considerably more human that Atwood (from the times I've skimmed her work) is The Kingdom of the Rose. The author's name escapes me at the moment. Margaret somebody! Embarassed

The CBB -> Anything Else

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod, All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1