Economic Independence: Bedrock of Freedom

Women's Economic IndependenceA room of one’s own

In 1929 the English writer Virginia Woolf inserted a famous phrase into feminist history: “a room of one’s own.” The main theme of her extended essay by this name is that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” or, more generally, to live according to her own convictions. She need a room with a lock — a safe and private place. In short, economic independence is the bedrock of all other freedoms.

Woolf was among the fortunate few who inherited money and so inherited her independence. The vast majority of women needed to earn it through sustained labor. Her elite status may explain why Woolf’s commentary missed a key factor defining the status of poor women surrounding them.

Although Woolf correctly denounced social prejudice as a barrier to women’s economic advancement, it was only when prejudice was embedded into law that women were consigned to the kitchen or unskilled labor. Whenever the law was weakened, poor women surged into rooms of their own.

Nevertheless, Woolf’s essay is honored as an early blast at patriarchy and an indictment of the unfettered marketplace. Instead of recognizing how regulation harms poor women, Woolf’s descendants have called for an ever more shackled marketplace.

What were the circumstances for English working women in 1929? A tug-of-war was occurring between the repeal of economic legislation and its imposition. The first led to greater opportunity for women; the second closed doors. Both phenomena sprang largely from the same cataclysmic event: World War I (1914-1918)

War Years

During the war years, an estimated two million women stepped out of the kitchen to fill the jobs vacated by enlisted men. Millicent Fawcett, president of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (1897-1918), declared, “The war revolutionised the industrial position of women — it found them serfs and left them free.”

After the war women’s economic status blurred, with many employers replacing women with returning men. Three factors ensured that women would remain in the workforce, however.

  • Some women embraced their wider sphere and would not willingly retreat into economic shadows.
  • Britain’s huge death and casualty rate in the war meant that abled bodied men were less available. Approximately 750,000 men died, with 2.5 million claiming disability.
  • Many women faced a future as widows or spinsters responsible for their own sustenance.

British law reacted to women’s changing status in contradictory ways. The Sex Disqualification Removal Act of 1919 eliminated legal barriers to women in the civil service, courts and universities, thus recognizing their wider role. When this legal barrier was lifted, women surged forward. Carrie Morrison became the first female solicitor three years later. Overwhelmingly, however, the act benefited well-to-do women.

Although the civil service might have served as a stepping stone for all poor women, it became regulated at the urgent request of women themselves. Despite fewer employable men, Britain experienced the general unemployment brought by the Great Depression. Widows and spinsters wanted married women who sought the same jobs discriminated against. For example, in 1921 an estimated 102,000 female civil servants pushed forward a resolution to ban married women; it remained in force until 1946.

Over and over the preceding scenario replayed during the twentieth century. Laws were repealed and all women advanced; laws were passed and some women were set back.

Protection Equals Privilege

Even laws intended to protect women, like the civil service restriction, ended up privileging one class of women at the expense of another. This too has escaped the notice of Woolf’s descendants who have lobbied passionately for the restriction on free employment, from affirmative action to pay equity, from mandated quotas to paid maternity leave.

I’ve had reason to notice. I once needed a room of my own. And I know on a personal level how laws can harm those they intend to protect. I ran away from home at 16 years old because the streets were safer than my family. Unfortunately it was Canada in December and sleeping in a church with an open-door policy was a stop-gap measure at best. I needed a room with heat and a door that locked.

I was lucky because I was 16-years-old. Child labor laws designed to protect children from exploitation did not apply to me, and so I was able to get a minimum-wage job in a furniture store, filing years worth of boxed papers.

wendy mcelroyIf I had been “protected” either as a child or a female from being able to negotiate for less money than other applicants demanded, I would not have been able to to rent a room in a boardinghouse. Instead, I would have been “protected” into begging, stealing, dealing drugs, or sex work. Like most runaways, I would not have “turned myself” into the authorities known as social services.

What saved me was the ability to contract on my own terms so that I could buy a room with a lock and go on to build a life.

Wendy McElroy
The Free Life

Comments

  1. dusty says

    This libertarian tripe against the protection of individuals and the refinement of society by laws such as minimum wages demonstrates an ignorance of live on the streets of life. That as a run away this woman could undercut other workers and work for less so she could have a room of her own ignores the fact that perhaps others including workers with children needed jobs that paid enough to provide not just a room but food on the table for the family and so forth. This selfish, narcissistic, argument about her room first and the hell with everybody else can be extrapolated to justify slavery (well slaves had a place to live and food), pimping and sex slavery (being a prostitute may not be a great job but it buys a room). It is time for libertarians to grow up and get out of their selfishness and begin to look and live in the real world, not in ivory towers. While they have some good ideas about and around the drug war, wars for imperialism, etc they lack any understanding of human compassion and empathy. They succumb to a dog eat dog mentality and the rule of the market for everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *