Marriage bar

A marriage bar is the custom and practice of restricting the employment of married women in general or in particular professions or occupations; and sometimes the practice called for the termination of employment of a woman on her marriage, especially in teaching, clerical and other occupations, and sometimes widowed women with children were still considered to be married preventing them from being hired.

The practice never had an economic justification, and its rigid application could be disruptive to workplaces. It was justified during depression years as a social policy to find jobs for more family units, but the policy persisted beyond such economic times. The practice was common in some Western countries from the late 19th century to the 1970s. Marriage bars created a disincentive for women to marry, at least until they were ready to give up work, and some women, including Ruby Payne-Scott, kept their marriage secret to keep their jobs. Marriage bars did not affect employment in lower paid jobs, and therefore lowered incentives for women to acquire education. Marriage bars were widely relaxed in wartime.

Since the 1960s, the practice has been regarded as employment inequality and sexual discrimination, and has been either discontinued or outlawed by anti-discrimination laws which may also deal with discrimination based on marital status. In the Netherlands, the marriage bar was removed in 1957, and in Ireland it was removed in 1973.

Generally, marriage bars can be classified as the “hire bar” preventing the hiring of married women, and the “retain bar” preventing the retention of married workers.

Marriage bars also meant that often female employees were classified as supplementary staff, rather than permanent. This was the case, for example, at Lloyds Bank until 1949, when the bank abolished its marriage bar.

In Ireland in 1932 the marriage bar was introduced; this prevented any married woman from working in the public sector.

An 1946 article in The Spectator, a British conservative magazine, gave (and dismissed) a few reasons for the implementation of the marriage bars. Arguments included: women who were married were supported by their husbands, therefore they did not need jobs. Marriage bars provided more opportunity for those whom proponents viewed as "actually" needing employment, such as single women. Another argument The Spectator makes states unmarried women are more reliable and mobile than married women. As single women did not have a family or other pressing responsibilities, they were more reliable and flexible than married women. The last point made by this magazine involves the turnover rate. The turnover rate for women in these jobs was high because lots of young single women eventually got married. Since they did not hold their positions very long, it gave them less of an opportunity for advancement and promotions.

...
Wikipedia