There are two especially influential interpretations of nineteenth

There are two especially influential
interpretations of nineteenth-century British
feminists’ opposition to efforts to restrict women’s
hours of work: that of liberal legal historians on the
(5) one hand and that of labor historians on the other.
For legal historians, the nineteenth century was an
“age of collectivism,” in which an emphasis on
welfare replaced the emphasis on individual rights,
and the state came to be seen as a protector of its
(10) inhabitants rather than as a “referee” among
citizens. Women and children were the first
beneficiaries of maximum-hours restrictions that
would eventually spread to men as well. British
feminists, according to these scholars, could not
(15) afford to seem to favor these “special” laws for
women because their single-minded campaign for
women’s suffrage relied so heavily on arguments
derived from eighteenth-century theories of
individual rights and equality. Most labor historians,
(20) on the other hand, explain the feminist opposition
to protective laws as coming from middle-class
women who blindly ignored the injustices against
which such laws’ supporters struggled continuously.
Labor historians attack the feminists for having a
(25) selfish ideology, one that asked that privileged
women be allowed to enjoy equal treatment with
privileged men, but not that the economic bases of
social relations be rethought.

Recently, however, feminist historians have
(30) begun to uncover plentiful reasons for feminist
mistrust of government and trade-union efforts to
protect women. Their studies of women’s trade
unions reveal, as the earlier histories did not, the
tensions between women and men within the
(35) trade-union movement. They document that
male-dominated trade unions often supported, and
sometimes even sponsored, protective labor
legislation aimed at forcibly excluding women from
wage labor, either in order to maintain a husband’s
(40) right to his wife’s unpaid labor in the home or to
preserve jobs for men. Such gender conflicts were
complicated, as other feminist scholars have
demonstrated, by self-interested government
policies that alternately enticed women into jobs in
(45) order to end labor shortages or pushed them out to
provide jobs for men. Finally, the studies show that
state labor policy toward women was always deeply
influenced by a desire to control female morality
and to influence child-bearing decisions.

(50) Whether protective labor legislation for women
is just or expedient is still in dispute today, and legal
scholars disagree on what criteria to use to evaluate
such laws. The labor historians’ class-based analyses
are no more fully adequate than the liberal legal
(55) historians’ benign evolutionary depictions. Feminist
historians have a major contribution to make to
both the reconstruction of the historical record
dealing with women and labor legislation and to
broader theories of law as an instrument of social
(60) control and of social change.

1. It can be inferred from the passage that by “age of collectivism” (line 7) the author means a period in which

(A) coalitions among various social classes began to be established in order to promote common legislative goals
(B) legislators began to treat workers as members of a social class rather than as individuals when drafting labor legislation
(C) the competing interests of the various social classes were commonly harmonized by subordinating them to the needs of the state
(D) only needs and goals common to all classes in society became part of society’s legislative agenda
(E) the state’s role as active promoter of social welfare took precedence over its role as guarantor of individual liberties


2. The passage suggests that histories of nineteenthcentury British protective labor laws written by liberal legal historians would be most likely to differ from those written by labor historians in which one of the following ways?

(A) The former would represent such laws as the gradual outgrowth of a general shift in societal ideas; the latter would represent such laws as hard-won reforms that were resisted by powerful elites.
(B) The former would analyze the philosophical underpinnings of arguments in favor of such laws; the latter would dismiss the practical consequences of such laws for those who espoused them.
(C) The former would approve of the motives of feminists who opposed such laws; the latter would refuse to consider seriously the ideology of such feminists.
(D) The former would dispute the existence of inequities in nineteenth-century British society; the latter would examine the historical record carefully in order to highlight such injustices.
(E) The former would portray the effects of such laws as overwhelmingly beneficial; the latter would treat such laws somewhat unsympathetically because of the laws’ negative impact on many workers.


3. It can be inferred from the passage that feminist historians believe that one inadequacy of most labor historians’ studies of nineteenth-century feminist
opposition to protective labor legislation for women was that the studies

(A) minimized the contribution of enlightened members of the middle class to the passage of such laws
(B) ignored the philosophical shift in women’s perceptions of the state’s role that preceded these laws
(C) overlooked the disadvantages such laws may have presented for nineteenth-century working-class women
(D) misread the degree to which nineteenthcentury feminists focused exclusively on obtaining the vote
(E) underestimated the potential benefits workingclass women would have derived from political equality with men


4. The author implies that liberal legal historians believe that British feminists withheld support from laws restricting women’s working hours for which one of the following reasons?

(A) The feminists felt that society would not benefit from such laws until such laws were drafted to include everyone who worked.
(B) The feminists feared such support would undermine their arguments in favor of women’s suffrage.
(C) The feminists were unaware of the contributions such laws could make to improving the quality of life of women workers.
(D) The feminists believed that the enfranchisement of women was the quickest way to prevent the exploitation of women workers.
(E) The feminists feared that special laws for women, however beneficial, would be a prelude to other laws that restricted women’s rights.


5. The author’s characterization of the views of labor historians as “class-based” (line 53) most strongly suggests that such historians

(A) dismissed philosophical arguments deriving from concepts of individual liberty that ignore class
(B) tended to limit their arguments to those that can be used to promote the interests of the working classes
(C) were willing to equate gender and class by according women the status of a separate class within society
(D) relied on historical explanations that depend on the supposed class allegiance of various individuals and groups
(E) asserted that an unjust political and economic system was responsible for the oppression suffered by the working classes


6. According to the passage, studies by feminist historians suggest that British feminists opposed both nineteenth-century protective labor laws for women and government labor policies primarily for which one of the following reasons?

(A) Feminist support for such laws and policies could be construed as evidence of philosophical inconsistency, given feminist arguments in favor of women’s suffrage.
(B) Such laws and policies were often intended primarily to promote the interests of male workers or the British government rather than the interests of women workers.
(C) Women trade unionists actively solicited feminist support in the campaign against such laws and policies because they could find few allies among male trade unionists.
(D) The potential impact of such laws and policies on women workers had not been recognized by legislators, who, according to feminists, should instead have focused on promoting women’s well-being by enfranchising them.
(E) Male trade unionists, who had previously earned feminist hostility by ignoring the demands of women trade unionists and excluding them from decision-making, favored such laws and policies.