Jump to content

Protective laws: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
New article (stub).
 
Added the Feminism sidebar, added a law stub template, and corrected my error in a comment visible to editors and misidentifying a template.
Line 4: Line 4:


The name is not a formal one, but is a widely-used colloquial term.
The name is not a formal one, but is a widely-used colloquial term.

{{Feminism sidebar |expanded=all}}


== Range of laws ==
== Range of laws ==
Line 32: Line 34:


{{Fem-stub}}
{{Fem-stub}}
{{US-law-stub}}
{{Law}}<!-- This is a stub, for law. -->

{{Law}}<!-- This template links to other law articles. -->


[[Category:History_of_women's_rights_in_the_United_States]]
[[Category:History_of_women's_rights_in_the_United_States]]

Revision as of 02:26, 28 May 2010

Protective laws were enacted to protect women from certain hazards or difficulties of paid work. These laws had the effect of reducing the employment available to women, saving it for men. These were enacted in many U.S. jurisdictions and some were in effect until the mid or late 20th century.

The name is not a formal one, but is a widely-used colloquial term.

Range of laws

Over a thousand laws affected work hours, wages, occupational choice, mandatory seating, homework, and rights to do business and make contracts.[1]

Rationale for passage

Protection of women was not the only rationale for the enactment of the laws. An organization in 1836 adopted a resolution that said, "Whereas, Labor is a physical and moral injury to women and a competitive menace to men, we recommend legislation to restrict women in industry."[2]

Criticisms

They were criticized on several grounds.

  • They failed to require protection from the hazards or difficulties for all workers who needed those protections.
  • They denied jobs to women who did not need the protections at all, or who needed the jobs more than the protections and could make that choice.
  • Many denied jobs rather than required changes, either at the workplaces or elsewhere, that would have reduced any reason for protection.
  • Few, if any, of these laws applied to women's unpaid work at home or with families, which could be more hazardous or difficult than some of the restricted employments.
  • While some women may have advocated for such laws, many were put into effect when women did not have the vote or the right to hold electoral office,[1] so the people ultimately responsible for legislating them were almost exclusively men, and they were responding to voters who were men.
  • The laws favored the employing of men. Many men believed that to be right and just. Many women believed denying jobs to women to be wrong and unjust.

Modernity

Eventually, most or all were amended, repealed, ruled unconstitutional (i.e., in violation of the U.S. Constitution and thus invalid), or not enforced anymore because they singled women out for unequal treatment. (Laws in the U.S. may not be enforced if they are unconstitutional or otherwise unauthorized in law.) Some of the laws have been replaced by laws that apply to both genders, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

An argument for protective laws still sometimes arises, as with debates over the U.S. military's continuing legal ban on women in certain combat positions, when it is argued that the ban should remain in effect because women might be killed or raped.

Worldwide

Nations other than the U.S., in modern times, may have laws with comparable intent or effect and that constrain employment of women or of other groups of adults defined by characteristics at birth, although the laws may not be called by the same name.

References

  1. ^ a b Grant, Jane, Confession of a Feminist, in The American Mercury, vol. LVII, no. 240, Dec., 1943 (microfilm), pp. 684–691, esp. pp. 688–690.
  2. ^ Grant, Jane, Confession of a Feminist, in The American Mercury, vol. LVII, no. 240, Dec., 1943 (microfilm), pp. 684–691, esp. pp. 688–690 (quotations per p. 689 (italics in Jane Grant's article)).