Following the 1918 Representation of the People Act the organisation formerly known as the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) transformed into the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (NUSEC). Despite their main object ‘to secure a real equality of liberties, status and opportunities between men and women’ there was tension and disagreement within the organisation regarding how ‘equality’ should be defined, and what reforms should be followed in its pursuit. [1]
Throughout Eleanor Rathbone’s leadership of NUSEC, their policies encompassed what might be termed ‘new’ or ‘welfare’ feminism. Rather than focusing specifically on reforms designed to improve equality between the sexes, NUSEC included in its immediate programme issues concerning welfare, such as birth control and health insurance. Family allowances (child benefits) were championed by Rathbone who believed that they were a necessary precursor to the achievement of ‘equal pay for equal work’ between men and women.
The inclusion of such policies into NUSEC was the cause of some disagreement. This is evident in the statements given by members of NUSEC standing for election to the executive committee, particularly in the years 1927 and 1928. Mrs Elizabeth Abbott, for instance, stated:
‘I believe there is a grave danger of the NU becoming one society among many for promoting social reforms – instead of a living instrument for the liberation of women.’ [2]
Numerous women pointed out that a distinction should be drawn between the personal opinions of individuals and what should be included as ‘equality’. Chrystal Macmillan personally supported policies on family allowances and the League of Nations, but ideologically objected to their inclusion in the NUSEC programme as ‘neither has any connection with equality’. [3] Mrs Robie Uniacke agreed, adding:
‘Whether I personally am or am not in favour of these reforms does not appear to me to come into the question. I can work for them outside the Union if I so wish. The same applies to every member of the Union.’ [4]
In this view, the resources and energies of NUSEC should solely be directed towards equality feminism.
Nevertheless, others insisted that the new impetus on welfare policies was a question of equality, defined in a broader sense. As Mrs Stocks stated:
‘It is a poor sort of feminism which confines itself to the formula: “because men have this, we want it . . .” and fails to relate its demand or equal opportunity and self determination to the problems of women’s largest single field of activity, motherhood and the home.’ [5]
It was disagreement over ‘protective’ legislation which ultimately divided NUSEC and saw the creation of the Open Door Council in 1927. ‘Protective’ legislation in this respect can be defined as regulations which placed limitations of women’s work, but not men’s, under the guise of protection. Both welfare and equality feminists were in agreement that placing limitations on the hours women could work, or banning women from working with certain substances, was not truly ‘protective’. It was instead ‘restrictive’ as it limited women’s employment opportunities and forced them into lower-paid jobs. The disagreement lay in how organisations should tackle this problem; should they push to include men, and thus expand protective legislation to both sexes, or oppose all such legislation all together.
NUSEC took the former approach. In Rathbone’s view, ‘equality should be sought through extension to both sexes, not through opposition’. [6] A year later, she expanded on this view, stating:
‘In Industrial legislation, for the Union to disregard every aspect of human well-being except the equalitarian would be, I believe, not merely a grave tactical error, certain in the long run to retard equality, but a sin against citizenship’. [7]
Nevertheless, the view that such legislation should be opposed remained, and ultimately led to the establishment of the Open Door Council, which focused on economic and employment rights of women, ideologically rooted in equality feminism.
In 1927, the British branch of the Open Door Council was established at the home of Chrystal Macmillan, who would later become president of the international branch formed in 1929. Its founding members included a number of former NUSEC feminists, including Abbott, who became chairman of the British branch, and the Viscountess Rhondda, founder of the equality-feminist Six Point Group.
By Katie Carpenter
Katie Carpenter is a Citizens project intern researching material from the Women’s Library collection at the LSE Library. Katie is also a PhD candidate at Royal Holloway, University of London.
[1] NUSEC, Annual Report for the Year 1920 (1921), p. 2, LSE Library, Women’s Library Collection, 6B/106/2/NUSEC/C3.
[2] NUSEC, Statement of Views on Immediate Programme by those Standing for Election to the Executive Committee, p.2, (1927), LSE, WL, 6B/106/2/NUSEC/B1/1.
[3] Ibid., p. 4.
[4] Ibid., p. 5
[5] Ibid., p. 5.
[6] Ibid., p. 1.
[7] National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, Statement of Views on Immediate Programme by those Standing for Election to the Executive Committee (March 1928), p. 1, LSE, WL, 6B/106/2/NUSEC/B2/5.
