into the anti-nuclear campaigns. Like the technical information, this is based on the necessarily apply to Britain in all respects The overall conclusion is, however, applicable everywhere:
...the people who have been so callous and deceitful on nuclear power are the very same people who have control over ween some watch erre enever centure means of destruction.
pamphlet, called Not Nuclear Power is of the best antiFemale hbk £10 descriptions more of all aspects of nuclear economic, and serious unnecessary however, relatively nuce Dower explained as as the risks from the technology the myths capitalism justifiable Howevel, should oppose nuclear power theoretical and arguments Ine pampniet os from saying exactly sociologists 'conservative gives us enough Braverman Bureau, equal At presentation classically women.
Since agrees the ience'.
Later dialogue Bureau, labour undercut abnormal Hurst extremely , the Idris equal pay and an naturally into unintended - snowing a tirm continuil KIUW La sulle clear and which informative 'the girls'. 'Women for Hire: A study of the Meal. McMillan 1979 pbk 24.95 Office Worker Fiona I FIND it difficult to generate much of a positive response to this book. As an attempt to fill the gap in industrial sociology left by the absence of a study of women office workers, it does perhaps perform a useful function. At the same time, suffers inadequacies of traditional sociology.
McNally is concerned to explode surrounding women r waged work which assume them to be home-centred and passive and expose them as ideological justifications for the exploitative systems of and patriarchy. aim which Marxistfeminists would agree to.
because there is no political analysis classic reformist style: must overcome their assumptions' that women passively accept the fact of limited occupational alternatives.
The book is also marred by what appears as an obsessive concern with sociological 'scientificness'. •McNally lumps together quotations from and references to the most disparate and incompatible sources, skipping from the Alfred Mark. from Marcia Williams to Gerald Nabarro, and from the Daily Express to Spare Rib, giving them all weight effort undauntingly to prove her point.
point, a 5-page of the of secretaries' job dissatisfaction (drawn heavily from secondary sources) ends abruptly with a quote from Bernar Marks, of the Alfred Marks Bureau which not surprisingly describes the secretary's supportive (read subord inate) role as 'an absolutely natural, appropriate role They want to feel needed (and) wanted...'.
the statement is offere uncritically, one assumes Ms McNally Mr Marks assumption which is indeed confirmed 9 lines later with 'it is important therefore that one does not overstate degree of work dissatisfaction which secretaries subjectively experwe have an interesting between Marx and Eric Hurst, chairperson of Brook Stree over whether temps can be considered part of the reserve army of and as such are used the pay permanent workers, as was (rightly) claimed by NALGO a few years ago. Mr Hurst allays these fears by assuring us that 'the main role for temps is to supply •and peripheral requirements and not to provide competition with permanent workers'.
Faced with both arguments, Ms McNally rejects Marx in favour of and difficult concludes that to resolve it the is competing claims and it may be that in those cases where the hire of temps wages of permanent staff, this was unintended consequence consequence of the employers' actions'. (!)
It seems to me that if we are going to think, critically about women's employment and not just attempt to redress the sociological balance, ther we must locate women's work within a socially critical analysis — a move McNally explicity rejects. And I wish she wouldn't kee referring to women office workers a!
Socialist Challenge 10 April 1980 Page 15