Dorothy Sue Cobble. The Other Women's Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. xiv + 315 pp. $39.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-691-06993-7.

Reviewed by Joan Johnson

Published on H-1960s (November, 2005)

When exactly did the "frst wave" of the wom‐ bor feminists ofer clues as to how women can en's movement end and the "second wave" begin? best fght for rights both as women (thus empha‐ Dorothy Sue Cobble has written a history of labor sizing women's diference from men) and as citi‐ feminists which suggests that historians might do zen workers (emphasizing women's equality with well to consider a "long women's movement" in men). Extremely important, she reminds us that much the same way that Jacquelyn Hall recently labor feminists never chose between diference proposed a "long history" of the civil rights move‐ and equality--rather they wanted equality but also ment in which decades of activism preceded the special treatment when necessary. If the "mascu‐ dramatic events of the 1950s and 1960s.[1] Cob‐ line pattern" did not work for women, then they ble's history of labor feminists shows that they re‐ rejected being treated by the same standards as mained active and infuential from the progres‐ men and sought to change the pattern. sive era forward. This book, especially in its em‐ While was writing The Femi‐ phasis on employment issues and its inclusion of nine Mystique (1963), which detailed the inability African-American and non-college-educated wom‐ of mostly college-educated women to fnd fulfll‐ en, fundamentally challenges assumptions about ment in their roles as housewives, Myra Wolfgang the second wave of the women's movement. Cob‐ was president of HERE, the union of Hotel Em‐ ble explains that middle-class feminists (and his‐ ployees and Restaurant Employees. In this capaci‐ torians) often cast working women as opponents ty, she bargained with Hugh Hefner over the of because labor feminists opposed the working conditions of Playboy bunnies in his De‐ ERA (they feared it would endanger state legisla‐ troit Club, including the exact length in inches of tion designed to protect female workers). Yet Cob‐ the bunny suit and other grievances. Picketers ble insists that those who worked to improve surrounded the club with signs reading, "Don't be women's lives and eliminate discrimination a bunny, work for money." With her focus on the against women, no matter what tactics they used, Playboy Club and attention to sexual objectifca‐ should be considered feminists. Furthermore, la‐ H-Net Reviews tion, Wolfgang sounds like the radical feminists of values of, and would provide opportunities for, the late 1960s and early 1970s who protested the male and female workers. Thus Cobble argues Miss America Pageant. But Wolfgang and her fol‐ that just as the civil rights movement inspired col‐ lowers were also very diferent from both the rad‐ lege women, the union movement provided work‐ icals and Friedan. Wolfgang believed that union ing women with the experience, discourse, and membership was the key to solving women's op‐ training that helped spark the women's move‐ pression, and she prioritized employment issues. ment. As in the civil rights movement, women Furthermore, she was against the ERA until 1972. held few of the top national union positions, but When she and Friedan debated each other in gained power and experience in many of the sec‐ 1970, each accused the other of being an Aunt ondary positions and in state and local positions Tom. What struck Cobble was "that the Wolfgangs of leadership. of the world, far from being oddities, were, at Who were these women? Cobble points out times, the dominant wing of feminism" (p. 3). Cob‐ that many came from the pre-war leadership of ble's book draws much-needed attention to these women like Rose Schneiderman, while others be‐ labor feminists who did not see obtaining a career came active in the postwar period. Signifcantly, outside the home as a panacea to women's op‐ Cobble identifes many African-American women pression, because they had already experienced in leadership positions including Addie Wyatt, discrimination in the workplace. born in Mississippi and introduced to unions as a One of the most signifcant points Cobble teenager working at a meatpacking plant in makes throughout the book is that the United Chicago during World War II. Wyatt became vice States provided welfare to its workers not only president and then president of her UPWA (Unit‐ through government programs, but also and pri‐ ed Packing Workers of America) local, even marily through benefts received directly from though many of the members were white men. employers. Therefore labor feminists fought on She experienced frst hand the power of the union two fronts: they tried to use collective bargaining to address her grievances. She helped found the to force employers to improve pay and working National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966, conditions, and they lobbied the government for as did labor feminists Caroline Davis (NOW's frst laws that would protect and beneft workers. secretary-treasurer), Dorothy Haener, and Lillian By the 1940s, more and more women, espe‐ Hatcher. Wyatt was one of many working-class cially and wives, worked outside the women at the forefront of the labor movement; home. These women saw themselves as mothers there were also college-educated middle-class as well as workers, and they believed that if they women who helped run unions, like Esther Peter‐ were paid more while working fewer hours, they son, who became the highest-ranking in would become better mothers. Seeking to im‐ the Kennedy administration as the Assistant Sec‐ prove working conditions, hours, and pay, they retary of Labor. joined unions in record numbers. In 1940 there Cobble traces the focus of labor feminists on were only 800,000 organized women workers; this achieving higher pay as well as equal pay for number grew to 3 million during World War II equal work (or equivalent work). Although states and rose to 3.5 million by the mid-1950s. Women had been the frst to pass maximum hours and grew to represent 18 percent of organized work‐ minimum pay laws for women, the New Deal ers, while some unions, like HERE, had as many as brought workers the Fair Labor Standards Act 45 percent women. These women believed that which extended similar provisions to men and the rhetoric and demands of unions spoke to the women nationally. However, many women (and

2 H-Net Reviews people of color) were left out because the jobs found they could not simply adapt men's policies they worked--especially in agriculture and domes‐ to women, because, practically speaking, it did not tic service--were excluded. When women fought work. They wanted child care facilities and an for , they had difculty end to the practice of fring and refusing to rehire fnding positions where women performed the pregnant women. Few labor feminists were con‐ same work as men, because employers forced to cerned that special treatment for pregnant wom‐ pay the same wage to both sexes generally pre‐ en might mark them as diferent and therefore ferred to hire men. Therefore labor feminists less able. Rather, they argued that, because preg‐ changed their demand to equal pay for compara‐ nancy was "a social function," society had a duty ble work. Cobble also provides examples of to support pregnant women (p. 128). When labor unions that, paradoxically, both supported and re‐ feminists debated childcare needs, they argued sisted women's demands. that although providing better and cheaper child Labor feminists also debated the idea of a care was helpful, it ultimately did not change the family wage--one with which a worker could sup‐ fact that women had to work long hours for little port a family of four. On the one hand, this ap‐ pay. Instead, they proposed that women be al‐ proach elevated men's wages. On the other, it en‐ lowed to work a six-hour day for more pay. Men shrined women in the home. Countries in Europe did not necessarily agree with this approach and increasingly turned to the concept of an individu‐ were more willing to work longer hours, because al worth wage, but their governments provided they were not expected to take on domestic duties support for families through state family al‐ and identifed more with the workplace than with lowances or state wage supplements based on the domestic space of the home. Women also wor‐ number of children. The had (and ried that without a maximum hours law, volun‐ still has) no universal paid maternity leave, no tary overtime was never really voluntary. universal system of family and child allowances In 1961 John Kennedy announced the Presi‐ (direct income supplements paid to parents), and dent's Commission on the Status of Women; the no universal, publicly funded infant care pro‐ Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and grams. Cobble suggests that American policy de‐ amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act veloped without these supports because there was (FLSA) soon followed. Cobble correctly reminds us no widespread support for minorities and the that these occurred before the rise of the mass poor, and because Americans did not want to movement--and that therefore credit must go to grant government support to those who were not the labor feminists who had been pushing for in the labor force. Interestingly, the American changes that afected working women. The frst Federation of Labor (AFL) was more interested in national inter-union women's conference was tax breaks (that is, tax exemptions for depen‐ held in June 1961, and it called for far-ranging dents) for workers than in a direct supplement, changes. These included an end to discrimination because the union believed it would be most ben‐ in hiring and wages, equal pay for equal or com‐ efcial for workers to receive a family wage while parable work, prohibition of sex discrimination in government aid was reserved for the disabled or both private and public sector jobs, extension of elderly. the minimum wage to workers in service occupa‐ Labor feminists struggled with the "double tions, support for child care, and higher tax ex‐ day" that women commonly worked, trying to en‐ emptions. able women to work for wages while successfully Notably, women took men in the unions to raising children and maintaining the home. They task, complaining that unions had not adequately

3 H-Net Reviews represented women. Neither the conference nor would still be denied. Surprising everyone, the the President's Commission endorsed the ERA, but Equal Employment Opportunity Commission instead favored a more targeted approach. The (EEOC), set up to enforce Title VII, was inundated Equal Pay act passed in 1963 requiring equal pay with women claiming sex discrimination, in addi‐ for "equal" work rather than "comparable" work, tion to claims of race discrimination. despite some labor feminists' desire to pursue the The coalition of labor feminists began falling more inclusive language. Thus, while the act was apart at this very moment of success in the 1960s. a victory because it was the frst federal law to Some supported NOW; some were against NOW tackle the issue of equal pay, it excluded millions and against the ERA. A few helped found NOW of women. The President's Commission recom‐ and then withdrew a year later when NOW en‐ mended support for pregnant women, child care, dorsed the ERA, while some were simply getting allowing housewives to build equity in Social Se‐ older, eclipsed by younger women. Working wom‐ curity as housewives, equal opportunity for wom‐ en were divided about the benefts of state protec‐ en in federal contracts, and voluntary afrmative tive legislation. Women in service and retail sec‐ action in the private sector. It also proposed that tors benefted from the laws and favored them for protective legislation (such as maximum hours decades, while women in industrial jobs came to laws) at the state level remain in place until Con‐ reject these laws earlier, because they wanted the gress extended the FLSA to cover more people promotions and higher pay that maximum hours (the President's Commission agreed, however, laws denied them. Women in the United Auto that the FLSA should continue to require time and Workers (UAW) were the frst to defect to the side a half for overtime over forty hours rather than of the ERA, professional women, and NOW. They extending maximum hours laws to men). believed protective labor laws were harmful, not Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also brought helpful. But other labor women disagreed, be‐ critical changes for women. Cobble delves into cause even in the 1960s, they were not ready to why Howard Smith, the conservative senator challenge the division of labor within the home. from Virginia, proposed an amendment adding They sought fewer hours at work and more hours the word "sex" to the law. Smith mocked women at home with their families. Ultimately, the EEOC by reading a letter that complained there were sided with NOW and ruled that state protective not enough men for every woman to be married. laws were in confict with Title VII. By the late It seems likely that of the National 1970s, most labor women had accepted this con‐ Women's Party (NWP) had two of her colleagues clusion and come around to supporting the ERA. ask Smith to propose this change to Title VII, be‐ In the 1970s, labor feminism briefy came to cause they thought it would derail the civil rights resemble second-wave feminism, when women bill. The NWP did not actually want sex included, broke with male unions and formed female because it would endanger the ERA by making the unions which focused more directly on issues re‐ amendment seem unnecessary. One wrote about lated to gender. Flight attendants, for example, members of Congress, praising those "who will utilized Title VII to resist mandatory retirement use their brains and energies to prevent a mon‐ for women still in their thirties and rules which grel race in the US and who will fght for the prohibited married women from working as fight rights of white citizens in order that discrimina‐ attendants. They both infuenced the new move‐ tion against them may be stopped" (quoted, p. ment and were infuenced by it, as they moved 175). Other southerners argued that without the away from hiring discrimination to issues of sexu‐ inclusion of sex, black women would be entitled ality and exploitation. Flight attendants resented to rights as African Americans that white women

4 H-Net Reviews and resisted airline attempts to market them as lenged gender roles and formed the basis for the sexually alluring through revealing uniforms and claim of radical feminists that the personal was "Fly Me" buttons (some wore "Go Fly Yourself" political. buttons in response). Branif even "promised a In this important book, Cobble forces us to re‐ midair striptease like fashion show" (p. 209). In consider the role that labor feminists played in response, female fight attendants organized fe‐ the decades leading up to the 1970s. Given the male unions, and developed closer connections to prominent role of labor feminists in NOW, Cobble other middle-class feminists than to the male- also challenges our understanding of that group. dominated unions. NOW has commonly been portrayed as the "con‐ Ofce workers also organized around issues servative" wing of the movement, with its com‐ related to the treatment of women rather than mitment to a legal strategy and liberal reform. But wages or hours. But this trend faded as labor fem‐ the philosophy of some of its founders would sug‐ inists increasingly returned to the original issues gest that perhaps scholars should rethink NOW's of equal pay, maximum hours, and working con‐ place in comparison to both labor and radical ditions. And women continued to debate how best feminists. And Cobble suggests that, given the suc‐ to deal with pregnant workers, whether to treat cess of biracial coalitions of working women, his‐ the same as any other disability, or to torians can and should ofer an additional and al‐ have state laws protecting pregnant women as a ternative story to the common tale of how middle- special class. Ironically, as labor women gained class white feminists excluded women of color more control within the labor movement, the la‐ from their movement. The Other Women's Move‐ bor movement as a whole lost its power. ment makes a clear and compelling case that Cobble ends this major work with her hope scholars of the 1960s must now reevaluate and re‐ that a future will remember defne their understanding of the modern wom‐ this phase of the women's movement and direct en's movement. more attention to employment issues and the Note working class. She succeeds brilliantly in chal‐ [1]. Jacquelyn Hall, "The Long Civil Rights lenging historians to rethink the women's move‐ Movement and the Political Uses of the Past," ment of the 1960s and 1970s in both ideological Journal of American History 91 (March 2005): pp. and temporal terms. Some labor feminists were 1233-1263. sidelined by the anti-communist fervor of the Cold War, as were many African-American labor activists. But, as Cobble points out, the majority of the labor feminists of the 1940s and 1950s were still lobbying for women in the 1960s. Their disap‐ pearance from the typical history of the women's movement comes largely from their successes-- such as the Presidential Commission, Title VII, and an Equal Pay Act--which spurred other wom‐ en to more radical and memorable protests. But labor feminists themselves were already challeng‐ ing the double shift, the exclusion of women from men's jobs, the devaluation of women's house‐ work, and other issues which fundamentally chal‐

5 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-1960s

Citation: Joan Johnson. Review of Cobble, Dorothy Sue. The Other Women's Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America. H-1960s, H-Net Reviews. November, 2005.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10948

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6