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.
It can be inferred from the passage that early historians of women’s labour in the United States paid little attention to women’s employment in the service sector of the economy because
The extreme variety of these occupations made it very difficult to assemble meaningful statistics about them
Fewer women found employment in the service sector than in factory work
The wages paid to workers in the service sector were much lower than those paid in the industrial sector.
Employment in the service sector seemed to have much in common with the unpaid work associated with homemaking
Correct answer is (d). To answer this question, look at what the first paragraph says about the historians focus work. The historians disregarded service work and focused instead on factory work in part because it seemed so different from traditional, unpaid “women’s work” in the home. Since the two kinds of work are explicitly contrasted, it is reasonable to infer that what is not true of factory work is true of service work; service work is similar to traditional, unpaid “women’s work” in the home.
By: Kritika Kaushal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses