send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Read the passage and answer the following questions: Historians of women’s labour in the United States at first largely disregarded the story of female service workers – women earning wages in occupations such as salesclerk, domestic servant, and office secretary. These historians focused instead on factory work, primarily because it seemed so different from traditional, unpaid, “women’s work”. In the home, and because the underlying economic forces of industrialism were presumed to be gender-blind and hence emancipator in effect. Unfortunately, emancipation has been less profound than expected, for not even industrial wage labour has escaped continued sex segregation in the workplace. To explain this unfinished revolution in the status of women, historians have recently begun to emphasize the way A prevailing definition of femininity often determines the kinds of work allocated to women, even when such allocation is inappropriate to new conditions. For instance, early textile- mill entrepreneurs, in justifying women’s employment in wage labour, made much of the assumption that women were by nature skilful at detailed tasks and patient in carrying out repetitive chores; the mill owners thus imported into the new industrial order hoary stereotypes associated with the homemaking activities they presumed to have been the purview of women. Because women accepted the more unattractive new industrial tasks more readily than did men, such jobs came to be regarded as female jobs. And employers who assumed those women’s “real” aspirations were for marriage and family life, declined to pay women wages commensurate with those of men. Thus many lower- skilled, lower paid, less secure jobs came to be perceived as “female.” More remarkable than the original has been the persistence of such sex segregation in twentieth-century industry. Once an occupation came to be perceived as “female,” employers showed surprisingly little interest in changing that perception, even when higher profits beckoned. And despite the urgent need of the United States during the Second World War to mobilize its human resources fully, job segregation by sex characterized even the most important war industries. Moreover, once the war ended, employers quickly returned to men most of the “male” jobs women had been permitted to master.
According to the passage, historians of women’s labour focused on factory work as a more promising area of research than service- sector work because of factory work.
Involved the payment of higher wages
Required skill in detailed tasks
Was assumed to be less characterized by sex segregation
Was more readily accepted by women than by men
Correct answer is (c). Look at the first paragraph, which discusses historians of women’s labour. These historians disregarded service work in favour of factory work not only because factory work differed from traditional “women’s work, “but also because the forces of industrialism were presumed to be gender- blind.
By: Kritika Kaushal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses