Before 1932, the federal government was one place where women could continue to work after marriage. Federal law made this possible, even though many women faced “marriage bars” from other employers in the early 20th century. These policies meant that once married, a woman was required to quit her job. Marriage bars were not always strictly enforced, depending on hiring needs, but the Great Depression brought new scrutiny to women’s employment.
In 1933, Roosevelt took office with many new ideas about how to handle the Great Depression. His New Deal aimed to expand government intervention, but did not include any plans to remove Section 213. Just 12 days after his inauguration, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) spoke out once more against Section 213. Speaking on the radio, Secretary-Treasurer Esther Penn demanded an employment standard “not based on sex or marital status.” AFGE President E. Claude Babcock called Section 213 “foolish,” questioning whether it was a crime for spouses to support each other and their families financially.
Women found hope in Roosevelt’s administration. He appointed Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor, the first-ever female cabinet member. Women federal employees soon turned to Perkins and Eleanor Roosevelt for support.
But Perkins limited her support for working women. She spoke out against women who worked only to enrich themselves: “The woman ‘pin-money worker’ who competes with the necessity worker is a menace to society,” Perkins said, “a selfish, shortsighted creature, who ought to be ashamed of herself.” Perkins herself had long worked out of necessity, and certainly supported women in similar positions, but she did not trust that all married women needed their income.
Initially, Perkins believed that Section 213 wasn’t even being enforced, but she soon learned she was wrong. Under Roosevelt, the Adjutant General’s office fired 45 married women, all with dependents. In 1934, Helena Hill Weed of the National Woman’s Party highlighted the devastating impact: These women lost “not only their incomes, but the right to reappointment and to a civil pension, toward which they had been contributing for years.” They were seen as expendable because they “have husbands to support them,” an official explained. According to Weed, at least 1,600 women lost their government jobs — a loss that affected more than 4,000 dependents.