Introduction
The author of the book In Pursuit of Equity, Alice Kessler-Harris is the Professor of R. Gordon Hoxie for American History which is at the University of Columbia located in New York City. Kessler-Harris got her B.A. degree from the College of Goucher in 1961 and in 1968; she received her Ph.D. from Rutgers. She dedicated herself to the history of American labor and the issues about the women and gender. Her book has been acknowledged and won a lot of spectacular awards. She has been the president of the Labor and Working-Class History Association and a vice president of the American Historians Organisation.
This reputable historian, Alice Kessler- Harris, has given much of her time for her profession writing about the effect of the beliefs of Americans about the issues in gender on American Institutions. In one of her books, Kessler- Harris blatantly showed how the jobs of women employees, the benefits that they get from the employers and the membership on unions were affected by the restrictions when it comes to gender roles on the society. Also, she widened her studies about the labor, the gender preferences and the nationality of the people to have a clearer view of the observations on gender and the satisfaction of the society (Martin et al., 2005).
Discussion
In maintaining with new speculative and historical literature on the interests of the state, Kessler- Harris visualizes the state of the modern American Welfare in a wider sense. Her studies take account of a lot of programs which has standard social entitlement like assistance for the public or social insurances. Not only that, she also concerns about income tax laws, laws for anti-discrimination, laws that protects labor employment, labor standards and job loss payment (Schieber et al., 1999).
Her descriptions gives the readers the ideas on the involvement on welfare state involvement during the twentieth century about the laws which limits women on working with typical and fair hours on the job by the implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Social Security, the construction and adjustment on the income tax law with regard to marriage, the opening of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the late 1960s as well (Jenkins, 1969).
Simultaneously, Kessler- Harris aims to convey the issues about how policy deliberates and gives relevance to the cultural and social beliefs or the way it is practiced. She also has an ear on the debates about the policies and judicial way of thinking for a large variety of characters which includes labor leaders, public servants, the government commissions, some feminist groups, businesses or companies and their groups, judges and of course elected politicians.
In the process she uses an extraordinary series of documents from the court, confidential papers, governmental files and hearings. Accustomed to the fine distinction and intricacy of disagreements in politics, Kessler- Harris made it obvious in a convincing manner that the guiding principles which come out unbiased on their face materializes from profound fixed conviction systems that draw the attention to politics in particular (Berkowitz et al., 1993).
The extremely fixed belief systems that the Kessler- Harris pictures out are about the belief on gender systems. With that in mind, she goes after the way of American and International feminist scholars who have expressed the stillness of gender ideology in the conception of public policy. The modernisation actually depends in the author’s own style of interpreting this kind of issue. Kessler- Harris submits to the gendered system of viewpoint held by policy creators as the gendered thoughts.
This kind of idea brings to mind both the personal or subjective scenery of ideology on gender, and its authority to have representative public descriptions. Kessler- Harris sheds light on how the policymakers and also the public held totally ingrained thinking about the appropriate responsibility of men and women in the labor force and in the family, and how these things should transfers into policies for the public (Mink, 1995).
The authority of the book came from the ability and knowledge of the author to show the results of the imagination about the gender which widely considers the different public policies in the midst of the actors in the politics and as the long period of time alters in the history of the life of Americans. It was focused o the essential public policy debates indeed, but the gendered thoughts did not stay unconcealed or unaffected over the time. For the viewpoints of the policymakers, the public debated the justice and equity for the latest social programs, laws for labor and other public policies. The policymakers reacted in many ways that display both the perseverance and modifications in their thoughts about men, the women and to the public as well as the private privileges and roles.
Alice Kessler- Harris positions the origins of the twentieth-century labor legislation. Studying the assortment of some judicial resolutions debates on the legislative issues, she showed that the law visualizes the men as the most important breadwinners that give assistance to their families and that their privileges to work focus in keeping up their sense of masculinity in being free and self-ruling. On the other hand, the law outlooks women as wives and mothers.
The main point on this insight is that the economic rights of women like they were likely to be dependent from the support of the breadwinners and protect them from any impairments that may arise. The responsibilities of the men were due to the employment privileges given to them.
This early agreement on gender, employment and privileges were some kinds of an extensive issue. Even though a small number of the same rights which the feminists did not agree to, the agreement continued from such prominent women reformers and public servants to labor merger, to the employers, the courts and actually even to the female and male workers themselves (Kessler- Harris, 2001).
In the untimely conformity on the right of men and women with regard to the work and family, it grew into a crucial thing in expertise on some of the most essential legislation of the New Deal in the twentieth century. In the course of the insurance in unemployment, the federal government made a program that straightforwardly intended to assist the workers and compensate them with benefits for their work accordingly. Kessler- Harris disagrees with this best placed on their work which the federal policy makers paid attention to describe who was measured as worker. She illustrated gender like a major component in that characterization.
The American Federation of Labor and central makers of the policies customized the meaning of worker as to defend the dignity of male workers and their facility to shore up themselves and their families as well. However, the procedural policymakers deliberately expelled a majority of women and some who were assumed to be lopsided employees and held up by a male who takes the lead on the household (Skidmore, 1999).
Gratifying and giving the opportunities to the male breadwinners was also the main rule in the ability of old age insurance, or in the Social Security. Other historians are presenting some ideas which are not likely the same as what Kessler- Harris promotes but still she gives importance on the issue through paying attention primarily on the expression of masculinity after the program. To give some support for a new and inexperienced program, the Social Security activist described it as a way to respectably assist the working man to help himself and his family when the time comes that he retires from being employed.
Some insights did not even shape into the discussion over which kind of jobs would be enclosed or if they were just measured as too peripheral to the matters of the labor force. Even though the policymakers made the insurance for the survivor’s program in 1939 for the widows, they were not trying to give equal opportunities for the women to attain their safety and stability (Myers, 1993). To a certain extent, the insurance for the survivors was just a line of attack to be used to gather Social Security excess in a manner that would be accepted and viewed as fair and just to the working men. It then permitted the social security board to declare that it was helping the working men in sustaining the needs of their families even after their deaths or retirement.
Conclusion
The answer to the question why did the gender equity policy have been very hard to attain on the twentieth century is because of the facts stated in the discussion of her book. The fairness and equality for the treatment among the workforce of men and women have been tackled and pointed out the discrimination for the part of women in the society. it has been an idea that women will perform well as housewives whom will take care of the working men which accordingly will support them. But in the writer’s point of view, such things are present because the skills and potentials of women are seen as second only to the things that a man could do and benefit the government widely more than a typical can (Ouadagno, 1994).
The author Kessler-Harris restricts her explanation on the problems of work-family to women who were unfortunately blessed, the perceptions regarding the workforce may extend to the class of women who belongs to the middle society which nowadays manages to work and take care the responsibilities at home in a balanced manner. In spite of everything, the backside of Alice Kessler- Harris is just about the matter of choosing whether to work for the family or stay at home to think that everyone now can handle both things in an excellent way.
Preferences of the women on working will be a matter of being essential for the benefit and stability of the whole family and not just to be a thing to do in a spare time. Having the privilege to work is like an obligation to work, most especially for those needy or unfortunate ones. Despite the fact that this direction to economic citizenship has brought benefits that depends on the employment such as the Social Security, unemployment insurance, and just legal protections on the job to a lot; it has brought difficulties and hard times to handle the family at home more.
But one way to resolve this problem would be to strongly continue and pursue the rights of citizens to assist the families and at the same time having convictions for working. Kessler-Harris does not expect about this instance though. She still points out that women can not dominate the scene by just giving extra care and if the disagreement for rights according to on the roles of the family did not work out for women; it may be suited for men.
The rights for the welfare movement during the 1960s and early 1970s such that the demands that caring should be seen as economically valuable and for a fact that since the 1970s the women who get paid for the care that they give are included in the computations of the Gross National Product(Kessler- Harris, 2001).
Reference
Berkowitz, E. D. and. Kingson, E. R. Social Security and Medicare: A Policy Primer. Auburn House, 1993, pp. 214.
Gamber, W. The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 2, History and September 11: A Special Issue (2002), pp. 599-600.
Jenkins, S. et al, eds. Social Security in International Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns. Columbia University Press, 1969.
Kessler-Harris, A. In Pursuit of Equity: women, men, and the quest for economic citizenship in 20th century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. p. 131.
Martin, P. P. and Weaver, D. A. “Social Security: A Program and Policy History,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 66 No. 1, 2005.
Mink, G. The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the welfare state, 1917-1942. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. p. 127.
Myers, R. J. Social Security. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1993.
Quadagno, J. The Color of Welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 7.
Schieber, S. J., and Shoven, J. B. The Real Deal. Yale University Press. 1999.
Skidmore, M. J.; Social Security and Its Enemies: The Case for America’s Most Efficient Insurance Program. Westview Press, 1999.