Abstract
The new constitutions of most modern revolutionary societies embody the idea of equal rights for women. In the last two decades or so, equal rights for working women have appeared as policy objectives in most liberal democracies too. Their introduction has often been followed by anger and frustration among feminists at their ineffectiveness. This book compares the origins and implementation of equal employment opportunity laws in two liberal democracies: Britain and the United States of America. The first aim of this introductory chapter is to show why a comparison of these countries is of interest both to those who actively seek to promote women’s equality and to students of politics and comparative politics. In setting out these reasons, the plan of the book is also outlined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
End-notes
J. Walker, ‘The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States’, American Political Science Review, vol. 63, no. 3 (September 1969).
D. P. Moynihan, SSRC Newsletter, No. 10 (1970).
R. Goodin, ‘Banana Time in British Polities’, Political Studies, vol. xxx, no. 1 (March 1982) pp. 42–58.
S. Nagel (ed.), Policy Studies and the Social Sciences (Lexington: D. C. Heath & Co, 1975).
D. Ashford (ed.), Comparing Public Policies (Beverley Hills: Sage, 1978) especially pp. 12–14, 82, 83.
G. Routh, Occupation and Pay in Great Britain 1906–1960 (Cambridge University Press, 1965).
W. Creighton, The Development of the Legal Status of Women in Employment in Great Britain, Doctoral Thesis (Cambridge University, 1973).
J. Kreps (ed.), Women and the American Economy (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976) p. 13. United States Department of Labor, 1975 Handbook on Women Workers, Bulletin 297 (Washington, 1975) p. 156.
L. Mackie and P. Patullo, Women at Work (London: Tavistock, 1977) p. 41.
Department of Employment (1976) Gazette, 1396.
Office of Manpower Economics, Equal Pay Report (London: HMSO, 1972) pp. 51, 67–83.
C. Hakim, Occupational Segregation, Research Paper No. 9 (London: Department of Employment, 1979) pp. 3–4, 8–13.
Routh, Occupation and Pay in Great Britain, pp. 44–8. Census data 1961, 1966 (10 per cent sample). Department of Employment (1976) Gazette, N. Seear, Research Paper 11, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (London: HMSO, 1968) 2, 3.
The following paragraph is a summary of information gathered from: Census data 1961 and 1966 (10 percent sample). Seear, Research Paper 11, p. 3. New Earnings Survey Data, Office of Manpower Economics, Equal Pay Report, p. 51.
B. Chiplin and P. Sloane, Sex Discrimination in the Labour Market (London: Macmillan, 1976).
R. Barron and G. Norris, ‘Sexual Divisions and the Dual Labour Market’, in D. Barker and S. Allen (eds), Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage (London: Longmans, 1976) pp. 47–69.
Confederation of British Industry and Engineering Employers Federation, Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of House of Lords Select Committee on Anti-Discrimination Bill (London, 1972/3). Report of the Committee on Private Employment, President Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women (Washington, 1963) 34–9.
L. Thurow, Generating Inequality (London: Macmillan, 1975). Hakim, Occupational Segregation, argues that, depending on different historical circumstances, gender, region, race or religious affiliation may come to service as screening devices in differentiation between groups.
Labour Party, Discrimination Against Women (London, 1972).
United States Department of Labor, Bulletin 297, p. 232. United States Department of Labor, Women in Apprenticeship — Why Not?, Manpower Research Monograph No. 33 (Washington, 1970).
Some useful sources for the following paragraphs are as follows: P. Dunleavy and K. Hope, Social Mobility Study, Nuffield College, 1974.
M. Fogarty, A. Allen, I. Allen and P. Walters, Women in Top Jobs (London: PEP, Allen & Unwin, 1972).
M. Fogarty, R. Rapoport and R. N. Rapoport, Sex, Career and Family (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971).
A. Hunt, Survey of Women’s Employment (London: HMSO, 1968).
A. Hunt, Management Attitudes and Practices Towards Women at Work (London: HMSO, 1975).
P. Jephcott, N. Seear and J. Smith, Married Women Working (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961).
J. King, Sex Differences and Society, Manpower Paper No. 10 (London: HMSO, 1975).
N. Seear, V. Roberts and J. Brock, A Career for Women in Industry (London: LSE, 1964).
Seear, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations, Women and Work: A Review, Manpower Paper No. 11 (London: HMSO, 1975). Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of House of Lords Select Committee on Anti-Discrimination Bill (London, 1972/3). United States Department of Labor, Bulletin 297. United States Department of Labor, Bulletin 2080.
J. O’Sullivan and R. Gallick, Workers and Allies (Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1975) p. 11.
W. H. Chafe, Women and Equality (OUP, 1977) p. 14.
R. Sennett and R. Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class, discussed by M. Best and W. Connolly, The Politicized Economy (New York: D. C. Heath & Co., 1976) pp. 82–3.
Copyright information
© 1985 Elizabeth Meehan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meehan, E.M. (1985). Why Study Equality Policies?. In: Women’s Rights at Work. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17735-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17735-6_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-36126-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-17735-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)