Women and labor
Restrictions and incapacities
Since the middle ages, a woman is under male authority, she is economically dependent of men who control all her life: since her birth, she receives the authority of her father; authority is given to her husband when she marries, for their domestic life; masculine authority follows her at work, under the orders of her employer…
When they had the chance to have a job outside of the family home, women were slowed by corporations (in the early modern period), because most did not accept the settlement of women in a male-dominated social world of work.
It is only at the end of the 18th century that corporations ended, especially in France with the d’Allarde decree in march 1791, and in Great Britain : from then on, women could join easily the industry. Therefore, they were seen in feminine fields such as in millinery or lingerie industries.
 |
| Les ouvriers du livre, Rébérioux Madeleine, 1981 |
Marriage and Civil code
The articles regulating the marriage in the 1804 French Civil Code sanctioned by Napoleon (who equally impacted its redaction in the Council of State and discussion in the Tribunat) reinstated and reinforced the incapacity of married women. Napoleon held dear that “a woman must know that when leaving the guardianship of her family, she is exposed to the guardianship of her husband”. It is worth noting that in France, guardianship (tutelle) is the most protective and restraining regime of adults’ judicial protection. Napoleon‘s adage cited above is illustrative of the full incapacity women had to deal with. Their incapacity was indeed general, whatever marital regime they were under. It was ‘public policy’, which means that it was an important rule and nobody could derogate. For example, women were prohibited to sue or be sued or to dispose of any property by legal act.
Women’s status around the world
French women were not alone to be impacted by legal incapacity: let´s look at Germany, for example. In 1875, during the First socialist Congress of Gotha, some delegates requested the prohibition of “women’s work when it could be harmful to health and morals”.
During the same Congress, delegates also elaborated the idea to conduct medical scientific studies to show that women were not physically capable to do “men’s jobs’.
Moreover, in Belgium, women were also considered as incapable due to the fact that Belgian copied the French Civil Code (see Lentl Vanhouche´s paper here).
Legislative evolutions and independence of women
In France, one of the first times women were able to claim their rights and be taken seriously was when -during the parliamentary and bourgeois Third Republic (1870/1874-1940)- a law passed in 1874 sought to reform the system. This law prohibited mining and underground work for women and children. Women used this law as an opportunity to request better protection through statutory labor law for all.
A Law of 1892 is adopted, sanctioned and published pursuant to women’s claims. The law limited labour time to eleven hours a day for women and children and it also prohibited certain activities at night or labour activities considered as dangerous for them.
Following the law of 1874, multiple measures were taken towards women and labor. Nevertheless, all nit statutory initiatives were favourable to women: for instance, a law enacted in 1900 showed the inking of the subjugation of women because it allowed them to have additional rest time … to prepare diner…
Women and their unionism uprisings
Women’s trade unionism in France
Women struggled to settle in trade unions. However, they started to take place little by little in union life to avoid another situation as the Couriau affair.
Being in a trade union allowed women to raise their voices : in the 1870-1880s, some organisations, such as the Workers’ associations of the North of France (a heavily industrialised region, e.g. with the port of Dunkirk, textile industry in Lille and mining) required the husband’s or father’s authorisation for women who wanted to speak during union meetings. Women are systematically submissive to men, in their domestic life, professional life and private life.
Moreover, many trade unions started to grow in specific ‘women’s’ sectors, for example in fabrics or apparel.
Focus on Marie Guillot: feminist and trade unionist
 |
| Marie Guillot (1880-1934) |
One of the most important women figures of feminism and feminine unionism was Marie Guillot. She was a teacher. She was mostly known by being the pioneer of teaching unionism. She has created the feminine commission in the CGT (the marxist-inspired General Confederation of Labor) in 1921. This commission provided a voice to women workers who wanted to claim their rights.
Marie Guillot was followed by Marie Popelin, a Belgian feminist figure who fought in Belgium for women’s rights (see again Lentl´s paper).
Focus on The Couriau affair
Emma and Louis Couriau were born in 1878. They were both typesetters for about fifteen years when the Affair started. The profession of typesetters was a privileged corporation, considered as an elite because their members were educated and they dealt with books and newspapers. This profession was corporatist and was mostly composed of men, who feared and loathed the competition of women.
Till 1910, the ‘Fédération du Livre’ (the printers’ trade union) was antifeminist and against women joining the trade union. It decided to exclude women of its ranks due to “their attendance, which can constitute a danger of degradation of the work force”.
However the ‘section lyonnaise du livre’ (the Lyon section of the printers' trade union) confirmed the admission of women to unions, after a Bordeaux Congress vote in 1910. Following this ruling in 1912, Emma Couriau requested her admission in the ‘Section lyonnaise du Livre’.
Emma’s request was refused in April 1913 because the Federation believed that accepting women was just a possibility, ergo not an obligation, so the members were entitled to refuse a woman. By the same decision, the federation fired Louis Couriau, her husband. The union’s executive organ justified its decision by stating that it “is prohibiting under penalty of exclusion any member married to a woman typesetter from allowing her to work”.
So the eviction of Louis Couriau was justified by the fact that he did not prevent his wife to not work. When Louis protested that he had no power to withdraw his wife from her work, the secretary reminded him that legally the husband had complete authority over the wife. Louis refused, upoj which the executive committee expelled him from the room.
The affair was brought in front the general assembly of the union’s ‘Section Lyonnaise’ in July. The assembly confirmed the decision of the eviction.
Louis Couriau requested to be admitted individually in the union, but again it was refused by the Central committee in August.
In July, Emma approached the Feminist federation of southeast. The federation demanded that the couple should be reinstated because “union should accept women”.
 |
| Emma Couriau's article, La bataille syndicaliste, 1913 |
Media were informed of the affair and contributed to its circulation in public opinion. Emma published articles herself, to claim her rights and her husband’s rights. A feminist movement was developing to support the Couriaus. In September, Emma participated to the creation of a feminist union in Lyon.
The impact of the Affair was clear: a separate union movement for the defense of married women workers emerged. Accessorily, it contributed to spread the ideology of revolutionary unionism.
The affair went beyond the geographical limits of France and also interested international historiography. A famous article was published by the historian Charles Sowerwine in The Journal of Modern History in 1983, wherein he describes the different steps of the Affair and how women in general were seen in the work industry in France. He also delves into their marital situation.
 |
| Sowerwine Charles, Journal of modern history, 1983 |
In conclusion, the Couriau affair exposed the connectedness between positive law (especially, Civil Code) and social movements. The antifeminist vision of the Napoleonic Civil Code had an impact on labor movements and unionism in the 19th century. Moreover, the ambition and bravery of women as Marie Guillot or Emma Couriau to participate in the social world of industrial labour contributed to free up female unionism.
Hence, misogyny was and still is a permanent brake to women; to raise socially, to have a real job that she chooses, or to join a party or a group to empower her claims. In France, we can still feel a mistrust of man towards female workers.
Even if we can see some evolutions, the vision of a woman who works and who wants to talk and claims her rights is not completely tolerated yet.
Maéva Le Bot
Bibliography
Battagliola, Françoise, Histoire du travail des femmes, 2000
Duby, G./Perrot, M., Histoire du droit des femmes en Occident, vol. III : XVIe-XVIIe siècles ; vol. IV : XIXe siècle ; vol. V : XXe siècle, 2002
Filleuile, Olivier/Roux Patricia, Le sexe du militantisme, 2009
Frevert, Ute, Women in German History, 1989
Lefebvre Teillard, Anne, Introduction historique au droit des personnes et de la famille, 1996
Loiseau, Dominique, Femmes et militantismes, 1996
Louis, Marie-Victoire, « Cette violence dont nous ne voulons plus », Syndicalisme et sexisme, N° 7, Mars 1988, pp. 33-37
Olszak, Norbert, Histoire du droit du travail, 1999
Rebérioux, Madeleine, Les ouvriers du livre, 1989
Sowerwine, Charles, « Workers and women in France before 1914 : the debate over the Couriau Affair », Journal of modern history –Vol. 55, No. 3, Sep, 1983, pp. 411- 441
La Bataille syndicaliste : quotidienne, une, Paris, 21 août 1913
Comments
Post a Comment