It is a common belief or, at least, a blurring or dismissal that women are rare or do not work within the framework of British railways’ and their history. The word ‘railwaymen’ appears far more than ‘railwaywomen’. Whether this is prejudice, lack of scholarship, intrigue, or knowing cannot be certain, but what is a fact is that women have always been employed within rail since its very beginning.
Unfortunately, women in rail history is still a lacking area of research, but there is research material out there to read if you know where to look. Helena Wojtczak can perhaps lay claim to being a profound expert and has written extensively well-researched texts on the subject – some of which have been extremely useful in the writing of this article. Wojtczak also holds the highly commendable title of being British Rail’s first female guard appointed in 1979. It is not until 1977, two years prior, that the first female train driver, Karen Harrison, would be employed. It hits a note of joy to know that a female historian is doing the work of uncovering, like so many others like her in various historiographical fields, the histories that the ‘male gaze’ conveniently missed.
The railways, from the onset, liberated the travel and movement of women provided they could themselves pay for their fare. As prices were lowered and society’s permission for women to travel alone was granted, women could now attain the same mobility a man could. Previously, women would have had to rely on the company of a trusted escort or companion by horse-drawn coach and would not have the luxury of the rare ‘Ladies Only’ carriage until the mid to late nineteenth century. There can be no doubt that the freedom to travel allowed women to make their emancipation manifest exponentially.
‘Women’s work’ is an umbrella term used for labour, jobs, or skills that are considered suitable – relying on stereotypes, gendered binary roles, or political beliefs – for, and only for, females. Any labour conducted outside this feminine sphere contradicted the feminine ideal at the time and was deemed too arduous, too unsuitable, or impractical. These involve the usual slew of washing, caring, cooking, cleaning, submissive servitudes, or towards the more ‘white collar’ clerical assigned tasks that involve a secretarial or assistant type of employment. This is fundamentally still labour, regardless of the gendered lenses being used, and the difference of pay or rights is no excuse.
The history of women and labour was often an overlooked subject until their wartime industry’s efforts during the mid-twentieth century propelled them into such a light that it would be deliberately ignorant not to study their efforts. Even put quite simply, railways would not have survived without them during the World Wars. During wartimes, barriers that barred women from entering jobs were usually removed to meet the demand if no male replacements could be found quickly enough. The essentialism of the railways during war was paramount to the nation’s ability to continue to work at standard capacity.
However, this initial progress resumed back to the status quo when wars ended as ‘old’ sexist ways and employment practices were hard to break:
Efforts were immediately made to safeguard men’s employment rights, in terms of pay and their return to work in their previous posts in rail, mostly. There seemed to be a begrudging attempt by the National Union of Railwaymen when they allowed women to join in 1915. In the subsequent years that followed on from this alarmist attitude, there was a continual protest by women, quite rightly, at the disparity of pay, hours, and rights; and some protests did occur by women employed in transport, but there was little to show for it in the end. The campaign for the right for women to vote and universal suffrage swallowed most of the arguments pertinent to industrial relations at the time.
Men, however, had extensive jurisdiction over what work women did, often in vile, unfair, demeaning and manipulative fashions. For example, the gap between male and female wages was monstrous and followed the usual patterns of anxieties from men fearing they will lose their positions to notably cheaper labour and female frustrations at the discrepancy of monetary gain. If married, women were instantly dismissed and, if pregnant, usually replaced – which was typical for most, if not all, industries before gender equality found its way into employment laws.
Within the context of rail, women were often employed as waiting room attendants, cleaners, receptionists, manageresses of lodging-houses, typists, copyists, on-board ladies’ attendants for female-only carriages, crossing-keepers, refreshment room staff, and surveyors/heads of these areas. They were employed in railway company hotels, workshops, printing presses, and other tertiary extensions of railway cooperations. In workshops, specifically, women could be machinists, painters, polishers, needlers, or general labourers. When technology was advanced, women were given the reigns of telephones, telegrams, and typing (but were still confined within these specific areas without possible advancement).
“In 18 months [during the First World War] 34,000 [women] were engaged, as clerks, carriage cleaners, porters, goods porters, ticket collectors, engine cleaners, electric truck drivers, horse-van drivers, number-takers, messengers, operators of lifts, cranes, and points, and in many other grades. [In response] They attracted considerable press attention, and the influx generated extensive debate among railwaymen.”
– (H. Wojtczak, p. 564).
Efforts were immediately made to safeguard men’s employment rights, in terms of pay and their return to work in their previous posts in rail, mostly. There seemed to be a begrudging attempt by the National Union of Railwaymen when they allowed women to join in 1915. In the subsequent years that followed on from this alarmist attitude, there was a continual protest by women, quite rightly, at the disparity of pay, hours, and rights; and some protests did occur by women employed in transport, but there was little to show for it in the end. The campaign for the right for women to vote and universal suffrage swallowed most of the arguments pertinent to industrial relations at the time.
Men, however, had extensive jurisdiction over what work women did, often in vile, unfair, demeaning and manipulative fashions. For example, the gap between male and female wages was monstrous and followed the usual patterns of anxieties from men fearing they will lose their positions to notably cheaper labour and female frustrations at the discrepancy of monetary gain. If married, women were instantly dismissed and, if pregnant, usually replaced – which was typical for most, if not all, industries before gender equality found its way into employment laws.
Within the context of rail, women were often employed as waiting room attendants, cleaners, receptionists, manageresses of lodging-houses, typists, copyists, on-board ladies’ attendants for female-only carriages, crossing-keepers, refreshment room staff, and surveyors/heads of these areas. They were employed in railway company hotels, workshops, printing presses, and other tertiary extensions of railway cooperations. In workshops, specifically, women could be machinists, painters, polishers, needlers, or general labourers. When technology was advanced, women were given the reigns of telephones, telegrams, and typing (but were still confined within these specific areas without possible advancement).
Sources Used:
Simmons, Jack, ed. The Oxford Companion to British Railway History from 1603 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.