So somehow it started to bother me at work that a man was doing the same job and the man was doing [the job] a lot worse, like he was less capable, yeah, but because he was the breadwinner, he got four or five
hundred crowns more [than me]. That bothered me so much, and I thought that in the Women’s Union, they talked about things like that, if they were going to … manage to change something. […] Because men really were the breadwinners, and they did not have to do a good job but still earned more money. And that really bothered me.1
This was how one of the members of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union (cwu) (Československý svaz žen, čssž)—who I spoke with in 2021—explained her motivation for joining the organization in 1975.
Working women’s issues had always been one of the cwu’s core interests. The women’s organization defended women’s right to work and their important position in the socialist economy. The cwu was established in 1967 as the only state-wide women’s organization (i.e., it was not a trade union but a general women’s organization) in Czechoslovakia. Between 1952 and 1967, there was no mass nation-wide women’s organization, only the representative Committee of Czechoslovak Women (ccw) (Výbor československých žen), which boasted eighty members and a few rather non-functional women’s committees (výbory žen) affiliated to local national committees (Místní národní výbor), i.e., municipal committees.2
In the edited volume Vyvlastněný hlas: Proměny genderové kultury české společnosti 1948–1989 (The Politics of Gender Culture under State Socialism: An Expropriated Voice), an influential book covering women’s position in the socialist society of Czechoslovakia, Hana Havelková argues that the Communist Party expropriated the women’s agenda from the women’s movement.3 Moreover, Havelková spoke about Czechoslovak women’s activism during the state-socialist period as if it barely existed; such activism aimed at the proactive advancement of women’s issues and agendas was substituted by policies pursued by experts. Havelková argues that women’s organizations tended to delegate the women’s agenda to (women’s) experts and failed to deploy feminist discourse in their activism during the Prague Spring.4
Since 1967, women experts—sociologists, lawyers, or physicians—were the leaders of the newly established women’s organization the cwu. I show that women’s activists participating in the cwu were experts from different fields, uniting their activism with their scholarly and professional work. They took an expert approach to women’s issues and cooperated closely with the broader expert community and with scholarly institutions. The organization mobilized expert knowledge, initiated and managed research, and used their findings to propose policies designed to improve the status of women. As I will show, based on an analysis of archival records, specifically the records of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague (Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha, deposited in the National Archive in Prague) and the cwu’s magazine Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen (Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union), expert-activist women stood at the forefront of discussions and actions related to women’s work.6 This included a focus on paid work (i.e., labour regulated through the Labour Code) and (un)paid care work, as well as motherhood (i.e., maternity benefits and child allowances).
In contrast to Hana Havelková’s approach, my research shows that the cwu was highly active and critical toward the government during the period between its establishment in 1967 and 1969. For the cwu, the August 1968 occupation of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops had major repercussions, as by the end of 1969, the main leaders of the organization—denounced as right-wing opportunists—were forced to leave the cwu.7 In November
But still, some experts continued serving on the organization’s committees (i.e., Vlasta Brablcová and Jaroslava Bauerová), new women joined the organization, and the organization continued to cooperate with, among others, the State Population Commission, spoc (Státní populační komise, spok), an expert organization that produced studies on population issues for the government, even during the years following the occupation.10 Despite the fact that August 1968 halted many reforms, the reconstituted state establishment did not challenge the importance of expert knowledge for socialism; the new leadership utilized their reformist expertise, and the emphasis on scientific knowledge and productivity persisted.11 The cwu—in cooperation with experts—continued to propose pro-women measures. But as I show in this chapter, the cwu’s understanding of what was appropriate for women and how to handle women’s workforce problems changed.
In what follows, I will explore the influence of the cwu on the politics of women’s work in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and 1970s. The chapter discusses changes in the general context and the dominant discourse on women’s politics and changes in the composition and politics of the cwu. First, I will discuss the 1967 establishment of the cwu as an expert organization that promoted a more scholarly approach to women’s issues. Then, I will focus on the concept of freedom of choice promoted by the cwu: the freedom to stay at home with small children for up to 3 years or to be able to place them in a high-quality nursery. I point out that members of the cwu—especially its local chapters—concentrated their attention on (un)paid care for children in children’s homes (orphanages) and the shift to foster care. In the second section, I analyze the proposals and changes to the Labour Code that the cwu advanced in 1969 and 1975. Finally, I describe how the new cwu leadership in the 1970s approved of and/or subscribed to the (over)protection of women in the workforce and
I understand the activism of women within the official structures of the cwu as related to their ability to “manoeuvre” within the state-socialist apparatus. I draw inspiration from Jerzy Kochanowski and Claudia Kraft’s concept of rooms for manoeuvre, and trace how members of the cwu “created rooms for manoeuvre in which, under the conditions of the given political and social order, their own interests and goals were aligned with those of the ‘system.’”12 By rooms for manoeuvre, then, Kraft and Kochanowski mean the “social and institutional spaces in which individuals and groups combined the logics of action of the social system with their own interests, goals and values.”13
The rooms for manoeuvre concept functions as a research perspective or metaphorical space—not as a fixed physical space or zone—“less affected by the disciplinary power of the state.”14 Historical actors produced these rooms for manoeuvre constantly, through their ordinary, everyday activities within the given context. Not all historical actors had the same resources to produce the room to manoeuver. cwu members were restricted by the rules and position of the organization but simultaneously empowered by it. The cwu existed as the only official and legal social space for women’s activism that women could shape or expand their realm of action. Additionally, participation in this space allowed women to claim status as an actor who should be taken seriously by other official (male) actors in discussions about women’s, children’s, and family issues.
The institutional context of the cwu as an official socialist organization gave women a structural advantage and expanded their ability to create more space to shape the women’s agenda. The important question, then, is how women in the cwu used the established Czechoslovak state-socialist order—which they could not avoid or escape—for their own purposes. How could they—without leaving this order—“create a space for themselves to act.”15
Czechoslovak women activists’ expertise played a key role in expanding their room to maneuver. Consequently, my research relies on the conceptual-analytical tools of the sociology of expertise as articulated by Gil Eyal.17 In his point of view, expertise is a “network linking together agents, devices, concepts, and institutional and spatial arrangements.”18 By involving more actors and subjects that coproduce expertise, for example laymen, “a network of expertise becomes more powerful and influential by virtue of involving multiple parties […] in shaping the aims and development of expert knowledge.”19 Experts—as a group with superior knowledge in a given area—were (in my case) certain members of the cwu, who disseminated their knowledge among other members, and using their expertise and extensive networks, they promoted changes and organized activities designed to improve the lives of women and children.20
1
“Highly qualified women find in their employment the meaning and purpose of their lives. Different women have different degrees of interest and self-realization in employment and family,” cwu leaders wrote in the organization’s new 1968 Action Program.21 In contemporary public discourse, the 1960s are remembered as a period of political reform and liberalization in socialist Czechoslovakia. But women’s experiences of the changes that took place over the course of the decade were rather ambivalent because they confronted the new, anti-emancipatory tendencies of the regime and a re-traditionalization of their roles as primarily mothers and carers.22
During the founding congress of the cwu, Jiří Prokopec, a demographer and secretary of the spoc who produced studies on population issues and gender expertise on behalf of the government, warned that the position of women engaged in wage work might worsen and stressed the role of the cwu as a defender of women’s rights.23 Among the experts who opposed the employment of mothers with small children were economists as well as psychologists and pediatricians.24 By 1963, new expertise on childcare had emerged, and according to developmental psychologists, institutionalized care and the separation of children from their mothers at too young age led to emotional deprivation and caused developmental problems.25 Economists also started to question the goal of full employment for women and the associated collectivized childcare as expensive and inefficient and suggested reducing plans for the construction of nurseries.26
[W]e turn to you, Czechoslovak women, teachers, working women, you who work in agriculture, in offices, in the judiciary, in transport, in trade, at universities, and in research institutes; we turn to scientific workers and artists, physicians, educators, housewives, architects, to women of all ages and all careers with the call to participate with their opinions, needs, knowledge, and experiences in creating the Action Program. […] Especially, we call for the cooperation of scientific workers from different fields, who take an interest in participating in the analysis of the current situation of women and families from different perspectives, in looking for solutions and pushing for realizable improvements, of all whose theoretical work looks at the future of the youth and the next generation.27
The Women’s Committee will have more influence only when it takes the initiative to make proposals, suggestions, and comments on what to do to improve the social status of women, their working and living conditions so that they can find a place in society commensurate with their abilities. […] The political-educational work of the Women’s Committee among women will only succeed if women see at the same time that in the Women’s Committee, they have an advocate and spokeswoman who is willing, able, and, I underline, has the power to forward their views, proposals and demands to the appropriate bodies and to promote solutions.30
Already in the first half of the 1960s, the Committee of the Czechoslovak Women discussed economists’ concerns about the inefficiency of women’s paid labour and the related high cost of children’s facilities. One reason for economists’ opposition to women’s employment can be found in the economic crisis that struck Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the 1960s and economists’ efforts to find ways to save money.31
Experts were already involved in discussions around women’s issues in the 1950s. At that time, sexologists promoted an egalitarian approach to marriage. They recognized women’s right to sexual pleasure and promoted women’s emancipation in books on married life.32 Low birth rates in the 1950s and 1960s also attracted experts’ attention. In 1956, the state statistical оffice, which conducted the first research focused on women’s family planning, was established,33 followed by the spoc in 1958. The spoc produced studies on population issues for and lent their expertise to the government,34 and it included specialists as well as representatives of mass organizations and, according to Wolchik, delegates of the ccw. These experts advocated for expanded access to abortion,35 perceiving it—according to Lišková—as a path to women’s
2 “The Erudite Discussion of Experts”: Expertise, Differentiated Approaches, and the Czechoslovak Women’s Union’s Commissions
American psychologist and publicist Betty Friedan vividly described the new complications and difficulties the implementation of this model produced—including the model’s negative consequences for the wife, children, and husband—in her book The Feminine Mystique. Although developed in the context of developed capitalism in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, Friedan unwittingly confirmed Marx and Engels’s old thesis that a woman excluded from social activity stops developing as a human being. Friedan convincingly demonstrated that even the most devoted service to the family and children could not help women achieve self-realization and could not make use of all the talents, capabilities, determination, and energy equally present in women as well as men.37
In her defense of the importance of women’s employment, Háková creatively integrated Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and Marx and Engel’s writings, which also demonstrates the transnational influences and contacts between women from socialist and capitalist countries during the Cold War.38
In the meeting of the delegation of the cwu with President Ludvík Svoboda (on 25 September 1968), “Dr. Libuše Háková, Vice-Chairwoman of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, admitted that she had always been a bit of a feminist in that she always wanted to see all the problems of women’s equality solved first.”41 As Kristen Ghodsee points out, socialist activists “fought for women’s rights in their own way, using the rhetorical tools available to them within specific cultural and historical contexts.”42 Using the language of the party and citing Lenin, Marx, and Engels, women’s organizations could, on the pages of their magazines and publications—or in their speeches, as in the case of Háková—invoke authors considered “bourgeois” when discussing family models. In her text about Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, Libuše Háková used Marx and Engels and their argument to “defend” her use of a Western, second-wave feminist text. By citing socialist classics, Háková used the opportunity to share new texts and the ideas of Western feminism and, similar to the activists Ghodsee emphasized in her work, “reminded their male Party colleagues that women’s issues were a core concern of communism’s ideological fathers and could not be ignored.”43
Highlighting the importance of expertise, the chair of the cwu (between 1967 and 1969) Miluše Fischerová stated that an informed approach to all problems was crucial. Consequently, the organization itself created working groups,
Each commission collected expert knowledge about its respective charge, held discussions and seminars with experts, and proposed solutions to concrete issues. The commissions also arranged for their functionaries (funkcionářky) to attend training, lectures, and seminars.48 The strategy of the cwu assumed that if women activists became experts on the given topic, they would be more respected and could partner with other institutions; in this way, they would be more able to advance their agenda. According to cwu leaders, the distorted
3 The Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Women’s Paid Work, Unpaid Work, and Care Work
“The main idea of the fight for a more equitable position for women in society is overcoming the traditional, deep-rooted role assigned to a woman from time immemorial” and “in eliminating the prejudices against women’s work in people’s minds, which have been passed on from generation to generation and eventually elevated to ‘dogma.’”50 This is an excerpt from the speech given by Ing. Marie Nalbaryová during the “Seminar on the Current Problems of Working Women” held by the Commission for Employed Women’s Issues in 1968.
At the forefront of the cwu’s agenda was women’s work (including paid work, unpaid care work, and paid care work). As mentioned above, women’s activist Libuše Háková creatively merged contemporaneous Western feminist writings with classics such as Marx to argue that women’s employment was a necessary element of women’s emancipation. The cwu asked for equal opportunities for women, suitable changes in the Labour Code, and adequate regulations related to maternity benefits. Importantly, as I will show in the following section, women’s activists asked for freedom of choice for women to decide whether to stay at home with their child or children or to return to their paid work as quickly as possible.
4
We consider it our task—as a case of particular urgency—to create conditions for another extension of maternity leave (to two years) […]. We will take on this task because, in our minds, it will benefit children, families, and mothers, and it will increase and enhance the quality of the population.51
In 1968, the Commission for Issues of Family and Child Rearing organized a discussion with the members of spoc, the state statistical office, and the Ministry of Finance about pro-population measures.52 The cwu promoted extending maternity leave to two years (ideally to 2.5 to 3 years) and providing financial benefits to all mothers, not only those who engaged in paid employment. If necessary, the cwu proposed prioritizing mothers with two to four children.53
During the same year, maternity leave was indeed extended to 26 weeks; for single mothers and mothers of twins, leave was extended even further. As M. Fialová wrote in the cwu’s newsletter: “[T]he extension of maternity leave for single mothers (osamělé matky) from the current 26 to 35 weeks was based on our recommendations. The original proposal concerned only mothers of twins.”54 Moreover, the cwu played an instrumental role in advocating for other benefits related to maternity and child care, such as financial support
Financial support for maternity (also called basic maternity leave—základní mateřská dovolená) was extended for the first time in 1948, from 12 to 18 weeks; in 1964, it was extended further, to 22 weeks; in 1968, to 26 weeks; and finally, in 1987, to 28 weeks. Starting in 1964, after exhausting their paid maternity leave, women could take additional unpaid maternity leave (další mateřská dovolená) until the child turned one year old. In 1969, a pronatalist measure called the maternity benefit (mateřský přípěvek)—also called extended maternity leave (prodloužená mateřská dovolená)—extended paid maternity leave for one year (then to two years in 1971), but only starting with the second child. Child allowances were established already in 1945, but only for working women. The socioeconomic status of parents ceased to be decisive starting in 1969. The one-time subsidy for mothers after birth worked as a universal benefit, as mothers with insured family members were entitled to it.56 Significantly, starting in January 1969, all maternity benefits as well as childcare allowances included women who were not formerly employed but were registered as job seekers (i.e., in the case of recent graduates no later than six weeks after graduation).57
Because of the high cost of nurseries, there arise objections that the social costs for nurseries are higher than the value created by an employed mother. Those who argue this way keep forgetting that a mother creates value not only for society but also for herself […]. If a mother stops working, the cost of nurseries will be saved. However, someone has to compensate for the provision of food and clothing for mothers and their children so as to avoid decreasing families’ standard of living.58 [Furthermore], it is necessary to enable a woman who has qualifications and enjoys performing her work, as she will always want to return to it. Make this option available to women; it is advisable to continue developing nurseries so women can, without fear, entrust their child to a facility where they will be well taken care of.59
Moreover, the cwu referred to the research of the Institute for the Care of Mother and Child (Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě), which showed that collective child rearing could be a practical supplement to family care and the upbringing of children and that a limited time spent in nurseries was appropriate for children.60 The cwu translated their emphasis on freedom of choice into demands for accessible, high-quality childcare and extended maternity leave that was sufficiently long and included a financial maternity benefit. Because many highly qualified women desired to go back to work soon after giving birth, they could freely choose this option only if they knew that qualified personnel would be available to take care of their children. Women who wished to stay at home with their smaller children (which was the mainstream view articulated in the public, political, and some expert discourse) needed to have this option—made possible through extended maternity leave and a sufficient financial “reward” (maternity benefit)—as the cwu emphasized that “care for children [was] important work for society.”61
5
The cwu’s focus on care (work) also included care for “abandoned children” (which means children in children’s homes or orphanages). The organization promoted foster care or adoption instead of institutionalized care. In May 1968, the Ministry of Justice asked one of the main leaders of the cwu—lawyer Senta Radvanová—to prepare a white paper (věcný záměr) for a new Law on Foster Care (zákon o pěstounské péči) because between 1949 and 1950, foster care vanished from the Czechoslovak legal system.62 Among experts in the field, Radvanová was very well known for her expertise and interest in the topic in large part because in the 1960s she had played an important role in drafting the new Family Law (zákon o rodině)—Act No. 94/1963 on Family—which replaced the 1949 Family Law.63 Radvanová produced and submitted a white paper to the ministry; however, due to the political situation in the second half of 1968, preparations for the new law were halted. Despite this setback, Radvanová continued to promote foster care and continuously published and lectured on the topic. “It is to Senta Radvanová’s undeniable credit that she continued her efforts to pass the foster care bill and ensured that the bill did not disappear. The basic ideas and concepts of the law as she proposed them were eventually adopted in the new law (Act No 50/1973 Coll.).”64
Members of the cwu addressed the issue of foster care on the local level too. I can offer one example of the cwu’s local response to the issue: the District Committee in Třebíč and Gottwaldov (contemporary Zlín). In the Třebíč district, which had five children’s homes, women members of the cwu decided to find families for as many children as possible. Members of the cwu used the press to address the public and recruited several families who took a child with them on their (summer) holidays, on Saturdays, or for Christmas. In some cases, families decided to adopt a child.65
In children’s homes, there are a lot of children—so-called social orphans. Despite all efforts to return children to their parents or relatives or find them adoptive parents, a few “unwanted” children remain (surely in every
[children’s] home) either because they are unattractive or dark-skinned or because they have some physical handicap. We are concerned about rescuing these children so they do not have to grow up abandoned—without family.66
The local branch of the cwu repeatedly negotiated with the health, education, and finance divisions of the District National Committee (Okresní národní výbor, i.e., the district municipality), and in cooperation with the court, they were able to implement paid foster care in their district for a two-year trial period.67 The cwu in Gottwaldov was inspired by the successful efforts of women in the Olomouc district.68 “The work of social commissions is as diverse as problems of each district. […] The level of activities and specialization of commissions depends on their composition, their expertise, and their cooperation with other institutions in the district.”69 In other words, an expert background, especially the involvement of highly educated women (with university degrees) in the local chapters of the cwu, and their cooperation with public authorities and administration enabled women to advance their interests. Local women activists were not necessarily experts in the sense of academic credentials, but the sources show that highly educated women were very often involved in activism, especially in the various commissions of the cwu.
The local chapters of the cwu focused on the same or similar topics as the central organization. But very often, they did it in their own way, one that took the local context and conditions into account. Additionally, on the local level, cwu members were recognized as actors in charge of women’s, children’s, and family issues; in other words, they were considered on par with other authorities. Importantly, the local activities of the cwu and local problem solving became quite characteristic of what is called the Normalization period (normalizace) in Czechoslovakia, which began in 1969. During that era, women tried to solve problems at least at the village or district level, even if it was not possible to make changes at the national level.
6
In 1968, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs began the process of revising the Labour Code (Zákoník práce) and asked the cwu to identify (what it considered to be) necessary adjustments and evaluate the revisions proposed by the labour unions (Revoluční odborové hnutí).70 The Central Committee of the cwu assigned this task to the Department for Employed Women’s Issues (Úsek problematiky zaměstnaných žen), led by Ing. Marie Nalbaryová. Using the feedback of the district committees of the cwu and their expert groups, as well as specialized literature and consultations with experts on labour and social law, the department prepared eleven concrete suggestions, which were very different—more pro-women—than those submitted by the labour unions.
took note of the report on the incorporation of five comments of the cwu into the final text of the draft law amending the Labour Code. [The cwu] insists that the demands that were not applied—concerning women’s night work, women’s work in hazardous workplaces, and the protection of all pregnant women [from dismissals justified by] organizational
changes at the workplace—be incorporated in the next stage of the revision of the Labour Code or in the adoption of other legal provisions.72
The newsletter was not specific about the five changes the ministry accepted. However, in course of the reform of the Labour Code, the ministry implemented some among the proposals listed above already in 1969, while some others were implemented only in 1975, when the Labour Code was revised again.
For years, the cwu focused much of its attention on the obviously widespread violations of regulations contained in the Labour Code. The cwu emphasized issues related to hiring, changes in and the termination of employment, women’s working conditions, women’s health and safety at work, and then suggested imposing economic sanctions against organizations that violated regulations. The 1969 revision included severe sanctions. The District National Committee could impose fines totaling 100,000 Czechoslovak crowns (Československá koruna-czk)against any organization that violated the Labour Code for the first time, and fines in the amount of czk 500,000 for subsequent violations. At the time, these amounts represented heavy sanctions for violators of the Labour Code.
In my view, the most important changes included in the revised Labour Code related to the addition and/or expansion of women’s workplace protections—specifically those prohibiting discrimination against pregnant women. According to the 1965 Labour Code, when an enterprise or institution sought to dismiss an employee for organizational reasons, it had to find appropriate jobs for displaced unmarried workers, workers caring for children younger than 15, and disabled workers. Otherwise, the organization could not fire these workers.73 The 1975 Labour Code implemented the cwu’s demand to include in this paragraph all pregnant women.74 This new Labour Code also required “organizations [to] provide workers with factory meals in all shifts that comply with the principles of good nutrition and provide them with appropriate beverages at or near their workstations.”75
Another change that the cwu proposed in 1969 concerned the prohibition of night work and certain types of hazardous work (such as working underground) for women that had been introduced in the 1965 Labour Code.76
I disagree with the decision that from the January 1968, women in our factory in Ervěnice will stop working night shifts. Years ago, we were matched with this job; they persuaded us to start working night shifts. Where I am from, five women stokers work shifts. We had to learn a lot, we passed many exams, and today, after gaining qualifications [and experience] we are supposed to leave the job? I like this job. I have been working here for 12 years. Why should I leave work now, when my children have already grown up (I have three sons, and I am a single mother), since this work was not bad for me when my children were small and the situation was difficult. Where should I go to work?78
In accord with these women’s complaints, the cwu proposed passing only a general regulation on banned work instead of an exhaustive list (including many types of workplaces). Then, the enterprises and institutions could engage in concrete negotiations with women (potentially) working night shifts/employed in banned forms of work and members of the health administration. But according to the undersecretary of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Přemysl Tomášek, the ministry regarded the prohibition of women’s night work as a suitable measure.79 Moreover, as stated by Tomášek, the invalidation
7 Women’s Workforce—Different Workforce
During the Normalization period in the 1970s, the cwu’s emphasis on the freedom of choice vanished, and instead the cwu began supporting policies related to the (over)protection of women in the workplace. After changes in the cwu at the end of 1969, the Commission for Employed Women’s Issues was re-established and again chaired by sociologist Dr. Jaroslava Bauerová.83 But in harmony with the emphasis on the family and women’s maternal role characteristic of era, the cwu’s approach to women’s work changed.84
Women’s employment involves a challenging system of protection for women’s work, as women represent a workforce that is different from men. This includes improving working and living conditions and the work environment for women, improving sanitary and social facilities, respecting legal limits on handling [heavy] loads, reducing overtime work, and eliminating exceptions to the ban on night work for women.86
Although the leaders of the cwu emphasized the importance of women’s work, they considered women’s work as different from men’s and considered working women to be a distinct group that required special treatment in the world of work.87
At the same conference, the new chair of the cwu Marie Kabrhelová emphasized the need to improve women’s working conditions and reduce the proportion of women performing heavy physical labour. Already in 1973, the cwu declared that as one its goals: “[In] the search for an optimal solution to questions concerning the status of women, the Czechoslovak women’s organization will focus primarily on: adapting working conditions to
In 1983, Jaroslava Bauerová and Jolana Jančovičová (the latter also was a sociologist and a member of the Central Committee of the cwu and the Commission for Women and Family Care) published an article about the “Position of Women and Families in Czechoslovakia” in the Czech Sociological Review. Bauerová and Jančovičová emphasized the significance of paid productive work for women’s emancipation. But again, they asserted need to protect women in the workplace because of women’s role as mothers: “women, as bearers of new life, cannot do all the work men do, and therefore, they enjoy special protections under the law.”89
Sociologists from the cwu did not see the feminization of work as a problem. According to Bauerová and Jančovičová, “wages are slightly lower in sectors with a high concentration of women, but women are more likely to have favorable working conditions there.”90 According to the authors, “the division of many jobs into male and female ones will take a long time and will only be eliminated by full automation.”91 Bauerová and Jančovičová did not see involving women in every area of paid work as a solution. On the contrary, in some cases, they considered the feminization of work an advantage.
During the Normalization period in the 1970s, the cwu focused on women’s (un)paid work, childcare, and securing appropriate conditions for employed women. But the meaning of what was “appropriate” for women had changed. Whereas in the early days, the cwu advocated for equal opportunities for women, during Normalization, the union called for the special treatment and protection of women in the workforce in accordance with the Czechoslovak state’s overall approach to women.
8
The focal points of the cwu’s agenda were women’s (un)paid work, care for children, and the establishment of appropriate conditions for employed women. The cwu also addressed the interests of women who wished to care for children exclusively. From the very beginning, the women’s organization pushed for a differentiated approach, which meant considering the different experiences, needs, and interests of various groups of women and, thus, promoting the freedom of choice for women—to stay at home with their children or to return to paid employment as soon as possible. To ensure this freedom, the cwu emphasized both access to high quality childcare facilities as well as extended maternity leave and financial support for mothers.
The cwu always promoted women’s right to engage in paid work. That is why in the 1960s, a period when the socialist goal of achieving gender equality through the labour mobilization of women was repeatedly challenged in Czechoslovak public and expert discourse, women activists used their expert knowledge and networks to argue against the return of women to the home. Under socialism, especially between 1967 and 1969, women sociologists, lawyers, and economists played crucial roles in the organization. The cwu’s leaders conducted research, worked as experts, and used the results of their research for their activism on behalf of women. They tried to use their expert knowledge to push state organs to solve women’s problems and issues related to children and the family. The question of the Labour Code and compliance was one of the cwu’s main interests during the entire state-socialist period. As I have shown in this chapter, activists were instrumental in promoting changes to the Labour Code and maternity and childcare benefits.
Even during the Normalization period in the 1970s, the new leadership of the cwu continued to promote pro-women measures, but the discourse about what was best for women had fundamentally changed. At the same time, the cwu continued to stress the importance of women’s work—paid and unpaid—for building a socialist society. Compared to the cwu’s early years (1967 to 1969), when leaders of the organization promoted women’s access to all areas of employment, during the Normalization period, the cwu highlighted the need to protect women in the workplace because they regarded women as a distinct group of workers due to their (potential) maternal role.
Overall, women played various important roles in the cwu as leaders of the Central Committee and as members of local chapters carrying out a wide array of tasks. Because of their participation in the cwu, these women enjoyed formal standing among a larger group of actors, and they were invited to add their perspective to discussions and in negotiations. At the same time, they were
Members at the local level of the organization played different but equally important roles. On the one hand, women from local chapters could gain knowledge, access instruction, and also achieve formal status thanks to efforts made at the central level of the organization. On the other hand, women from local chapters worked to solve “their” concrete, local issues using strategies adapted to their local conditions.
This research was financially supported by a research project at Masaryk University, Project Number muni/a/1567/2021 (Society in Times of Crisis). Unless otherwise indicated, translations are mine.
According to Denisa Nečasová, most of these committees existed only formally and did not organize or participate in any activities. See Nečasová 2011a; 2011b; 2014.
H. Havelková 2015.
The Prague Spring marked a boom in scientific and general intellectual development thanks to the abolition of censorship and enhanced state support for science, including the social sciences and the revival of sociology as a discipline. See Kolář and Pullmann 2016, 148.
Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], Národní archiv České republiky [National Archive Czech Republic] (hereafter na), Prague, Czech Republic.
Although, there is no exhaustive list of women removed from their positions in the cwu, it is possible to compare the list of leaders. See “Usnesení Československé rady žen,” 1969.
In the Socialist Bloc, the position of technocrats was growing stronger, and state-socialist countries were generally obsessed with scientific-technological revolution and more efficient planning. See Mark and Apor 2015, 882; Pula 2018, 65–107. For example, James Mark and Péter Apor have stated that Hungarian socialism legitimacy was based mainly on economic and technocratic competence. See Mark and Apor 2015, 886. Moreover, socialist experts—capable of influencing various state policies—were embedded in transnational expert networks and institutions. They served as mediators between the socialist regime and agendas of international institutions. In this way, experts “internationalized issues, experiences, and skills acquired in their home countries; on the other, they brought in their countries debates and disciplinary priorities, which they assimilated as part of their institutional socialization abroad.” See Iacob et al. 2018, 149. The United Nations Decade for Women (1975–1985) serves as great example of the global connections between women (often also experts) from the Socialist Bloc and women activists from the Global South and Western countries. See Ghodsee 2019; Bonfiglioli 2016.
Lišková 2018, 157–180.
From the mid-1960s onward, the pages of the daily and periodical press began to discuss the necessity of high female employment ratios. According to Bauerová, the prominent figures questioning the economic effectiveness of women’s full employment included economist Radoslav Selucký. Bauerová 1974, 124.
Lišková 2018, 164.
Wagnerová 2017, 86; B. Havelková 2014, 57.
Všem československým ženám (Praha 11. dubna 1968), 8. schůze předsednictva úv čssž 9.4. 1968 [To All Czechoslovak Women (Prague 11 April 1968), 8. Meeting of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union], Box 35, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Výbor československých žen: Diskuze na plenárním zasedání dne 13. a 14. dubna 1966 [Committee of Czechoslovak Women: Discussion at the Plenary Session of 13 and 14 April 1966]. Box 10, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Lišková 2018, 120.
Dudová 2012a, 2012b, 2009; Wolchik 1983. From 1 January 1958, abortion could be performed at the request of the pregnant woman, but the approval of the abortion commission was necessary. These commissions had three members: an elected official of the national committee, a gynecologist, and a family and youth care worker. See Jechová 2008, 120–121. Most women’s requests were approved (around 90 percent). See Lišková 2018, 109–110.
Lišková 2018, 104–105.
Betty Friedan’s book was not translated to Czech/Slovak. Háková probably acquired this book during her trip to England, where she was to meet with members of women’s organization as a delegate of the cwu. The only Western feminist text translated into Czech at the time was Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex in 1967.
Ghodsee 2019, 25. Ghodsee mentions women such as Elena Lagadinova, Maria Dinkova, Sonya Bakish, Ana Durcheva, Chibesa Kankasa, Lily Monze, and Senior Chieftainess Nkomeshya Mukamambo ii, women from Bulgaria and Zambia who participated in the official state women’s organizations during the Cold War.
Ghodsee 2019, 52.
For example, the cycle included training about “Employed women,” “Women’s position in agriculture,” “Contemporary family and its development,” or “Upbringing of the children and youth.”
Stanovisko pléna úv čssž k vypracování akčního programu Čs. svazu žen, Praha 11. dubna 1968 [Position of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union to the establishment of the Action Program of the cwu, Prague 11 April 1968], Box 35, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Stanovisko úv čssž k dalšímu prodlužování mateřské dovolené—ministerstvu financí (náměstku ministra financí Lérovi) [Position of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union to Another Lengthening of Maternity Leave—for the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance—Lér], Box 37, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Fialová 1968. In Czechoslovakia, around 10,000 children were born per year to single mothers (including singles, divorced, widows), see Manclová 1969. The situation of Vietnamese women guest workers was not discussed. About discrimination against them, see Alamgir 2020.
Rákosník and Šustrová 2016, 49, 50, 62, 64, 65, 67.
Act No. 182/1968 Coll.
K některým problémům žen—matek malých dětí v souvislosti se společenskou funkcí jeslí, účelností a rentabilností tohoto zařízení. [About some Problems of Women—Mothers of Small Children in Connection with Social Function of Nurseries, Purposefulness, and Profitability of this Facility], Box 35, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
The quote is from the same document.
The research was conducted in 1967 or earlier. The precise date is not, unfortunately, stated in the archival materials.
Family Act No. 265/1949 Coll.—zákon o právu rodinném.
About the first Labour Code from 1965, see Vojáček 2014.
“Připomínky k Zákoníku práce 1.10.1968” [Comments on Labour Code 1 October 1968], Box 37, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Act No 65/1965 Coll.
Act No 65/1965 Coll. Neither discussion about Labour Code included migrant workers.
Act No 65/1965 Coll.
“[W]omen were protected from different kinds of physical, biological, and chemical agents, processes and working conditions […]. [W]here a female workforce was necessary for the smooth running of factories, sectoral exceptions were passed” (Havelková 2017, 51–52).
Act No 65/1965 Coll., see 152.
bulletin redakce Vlasty č. 13. Ohlas na články Vlasty za měsíc červenec—srpen 1967 [Bulletin of Editorial Department of Magazine Vlasta no. 13. Reactions to Articles in Vlasta from July-August 1967], Box 19, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
About the Convention no. 89, see Politakis 2001. In comparison to Czechoslovakia, Hungary denounced the 1948 ILO Night Work (Women) Convention no. 89 in 1977. Widdows 1984, 1057.
“Připomínky k Zákoníku práce 1.10.1968” [Comments on Labour Code 1 October 1968], Box 37, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
“This retraditionalization of gender had help from an unusual ally: the economists. The same expert groups that tried to reinvigorate socialist nationalized economy also calculated tax benefits and family bonuses, and proposed policies including longer maternity leave so that mothers could stay at home and care for their children” (Lišková 2018, 19).
The conference was organized by the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union. In the two-day conference, 120 experts participated, including sociologists, lawyers, economists, members of unions, and undersecretary of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
Bauerová 1976, 104.
Symptomatic of this time was also the dissolution of the commission on the issues of employed women, which was replaced in 1974 by the Commission for Women and Family Care. Usnesení předsednictva úv Československého svazu žen ze dne 19.6.1974 k bodu: Zásady pro činnost stálých komisí úv čssž [Resolution of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the cwu of 19 June 1974 on the Item: Principles for the Activities of the Permanent Committees of the Central Committee of the cwu], Box 38, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Sekretariát čsrž 30.1.1973. Obsahová náplň činnosti organizace československých žen [Secretariat of the Czechoslovak Council of Women 30 January 1973. Content of the activities of the Czechoslovak Women’s Organization], Box 24, Fond 360 Československý svaz žen—ústřední výbor, Praha [Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union, Prague], na.
Bauerová and Jančovičová 1983, 229–230.
Bibliography
“182/1968 Sb. Vyhláška ministerstva práce a sociálních věcí o dávkách v mateřství a o přídavcích na děti uchazečům o zaměstnání” [Decree No 182/1968 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs about maternity allowance and child allowance for job seekers]. 1968. In Sbírka zákonů Československé socialistické republiky vydána dne 29. prosince 1968 [Collection of laws of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic published on 29 December 1968]. Prague: Ministerstvo spravedlnosti, 1968.
Akční program Čs. svazu žen 26.–27.6. 1968 [Action program of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union]. 1968.
Alamgir, Alena K. 2020. “‘Inappropriate Behavior’: Labor Control and the Polish, Cuban and Vietnamese Workers in Czechoslovakia.” In Labor in State-Socialist Europe, 1945–1989 : Contributions to a History of Work, edited by Marsha Siefert. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Bauerová, Jaroslava. 1976. “Informace o celostátní konferenci pořádané k Mezinárodnímu roku ženy „Co dal socialismus ženám a jak ženy přispívají k rozvoji socialistické společnosti“ [Information about the nationwide conference organized for International Women’s Year, ”What Socialism Gave to Women and How Women Contribute to the Development of Socialist Society”]. Sociologický Časopis [Czech sociological review] 12: 103–111.
Bauerová, Jaroslava. 1974. Zaměstnaná žena a rodina [Employed woman and family]. Prague: Práce.
Bauerová, Jaroslava, and Jolana Jančovičová. 1983. “Postavení žen a rodin v čssr” [The position of women and families in Czechoslovakia]. Sociologický Časopis [Czech sociological review] 19, no. 2: 225–237.
Besnik, Pula. 2018. Globalization Under and after Socialism: The Evolution of Transnational Capital in Central and Eastern Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bonfiglioli, Chiara. 2016. “The First UN World Conference on Women (1975) as a Cold War Encounter: Recovering Anti-Imperialist, Non-Aligned and Socialist Genealogies.” Filozofija i Društvo [Philosophy and society] 27, no. 3: 521–541.
“čsrž odsuzuje” [Czechoslovak Council of Women denounce]. 1970. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union].
Dudová, Radka. 2012a. Interrupce v České republice: zápas o ženská těla [Abortion in the Czech Republic: The struggle for women’s bodies]. Prague: Sociologický ústav av čr.
Dudová, Radka. 2012b. “Regulation of Abortion as State-Socialist Governmentality: the Case of Czechoslovakia.” Politics and Gender 8, no. 1: 123–144.
Dudová, Radka. 2009. “Interrupce v socialistickém Československu z foucaultovské perspektivy” [Abortion in socialist Czechoslovakia—A Foucauldian perspective]. Gender, rovné příležitosti, výzkum [Gender, equal opportunities, research] 10, no. 1: 25–36.
Eyal, Gil. 2013. “For a Sociology of Expertise: The Social Origins of the Autism Epidemic.” American Journal of Sociology 118, no. 4: 863–907.
Fialová, M. 1968. “Několik poznámek k práci sociálních komisí [A few comments on the work of the Social Commissions].” Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 12: 12.
Ghodsee, Kristen. 2019. Second World, Second Sex: Socialist Women’s Activism and Global Solidarity during the Cold War. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Háková, Libuše. 1967. “Prosazovat marxistickou koncepci ženské otázky [To promote a Marxist conception of the woman question].” Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 1, no. 1: 12.
Havelková, Barbara. 2017. Gender Equality in Law: Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Havelková, Barbara. 2014. “The Three Stages of Gender in Law.” In The Politics of Gender Culture under State Socialism: An Expropriated Voice, edited by Hana Havelková and Libora Oates-Indruchová, 31–56. London: Routledge.
Havelková, Hana. 2015. “(De)centralizovaná genderová politika: Role státní populační komise” [(De)centralized gender policy: The role of the State Population Commission]. In Vyvlastněný hlas: Proměny genderové kultury české společnosti v letech 1948–1989 [The politics of gender culture under state socialism: An expropriated voice], edited by Libora Oates-Indruchová and Hana Havelková, 125–168. Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství.
Hoppe, Jiří, Markéta Škodová, Jiří Suk, and Francesco Caccamo. 2015. O nový československý model socialismu. Čtyři interdisciplinární vědecké týmy přičsava UK v 60. letech [“Striving for a new Czechoslovak model of socialism.” Four interdisciplinary scientific teams of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and Charles University in the 1960s]. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny av čr.
Iacob, Bogdan C., Corina Doboș, Raluca Grosescu, Viviana Iacob, and Vlad Pașca. 2018. “State Socialist Experts in Transnational Perspective. East European Circulation of Knowledge during the Cold War (1950s–1980s): Introduction to the Thematic Issue.” East Central Europe 45, no. 2–3: 145–159.
James, Mark and Péter Apor. 2015. “Socialism Goes Global: Decolonization and the Making of a New Culture of Internationalism in Socialist Hungary, 1956–1989.” The Journal of Modern History 87, no. 4: 852–891.
Jechová, Květa. 2008. “Cesta k emancipaci. Postavení ženy v české společnosti 20. století. Pokus o vymezení problému” [The road to emancipation. The position of women in Czech society in the 20th century. An attempt to define the problem]. In Pět studií k dějinám české společnosti po roce 1945 [Opposition and society after 1945], edited by Oldřich Tůma and Tomáš Vilímek, 69–129. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny av čr.
Knoblochová, Jarmila. 1968. “Jedná v zájmu žen” [Acting in the interest of women]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 12: 13.
Kochanowski, Jerzy, and Claudia Kraft, eds. 2021. Rooms for Manoeuvre: Another Look at Negotiating Processes in the Socialist Bloc. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kodymová, Pavla, and Renata Honsů. 2020. Věra Pohlová: sociální práce a život ve 20. století [Věra Pohlová: Social work and life in the 20th century]. Prague: Karolinum.
Kolář, Pavel, and Michal Pullmann. 2016. Co byla normalizace? Studie o pozdním socialismu [What was Normalization? A study of late socialism]. Prague: Lidové noviny, Ústav pro studium totalitních režimů.
“Komise úv čsž zahájily činnost” [Commissions of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union have started their activities]. 1970. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union].
Koželková, Soňa. 1968. “Setkání nejpřátelštější” [A meeting of the friendliest]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 10: 2.
Lišková, Kateřina. 2018. Sexual Liberation, Socialist Style: Communist Czechoslovakia and the Science of Desire, 1945–1989. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lišková, Kateřina. 2016. “Sex under Socialism: From Emancipation of Women to Normalized Families in Czechoslovakia.” Sexualities 19, no. 1/2: 211–235.
Manclová, A. 1969. “Osamělé matky potřebují pomoc” [Lonely mothers need help]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 3: 13.
Nalbaryová, Marie. 1968. “Dvojí role ženy” [Double role of women]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 12: 10.
Nečasová, Denisa. 2014. “Women’s Organizations in the Czech Lands, 1948–89: an Historical Perspective.” In The Politics of Gender Culture under State Socialism: An
Expropriated Voice, edited by Hana Havelková and Libora Oates-Indruchová, 57–81. London: Routledge. Nečasová, Denisa. 2011a. Buduj vlast—posílíš mír! : ženské hnutí v českých zemích 1945–1955 [Build your homeland—You strengthen the peace! The women’s movement in the Czech lands in 1945–1955]. Brno: Matice moravská.
Nečasová, Denisa. 2011b. “Výbory žen při místních národních výborech—pokus komunistického vedení o novou etapu ‘ženského hnutí’ v Československu” [Women’s Committees at local National Committees—an attempt by the communist leadership to create a new stage of the “Women’s Movement” in Czechoslovakia]. In Bolševismus, komunismus a radikální socialismus v Československu. Svazekviii [Bolshevism, communism, and radical socialism in Czechoslovakia. Volume viii], edited by Jiří Kocián, Jaroslav Pažout, and Jakub Rákosník, 61–91. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny av čr.
Nešpor, Zdeněk R. 2017. “Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze—Sociologická encyklopedie” [University of Economics in Prague—Sociological Encyclopedia]. Sociologická encyklopedie [Sociological encyclopedia]. https://encyklopedie.soc.cas.cz/w/Vysok%C3%A1_%C5%A1kola_ekonomick%C3%A1_v_Praze.
“Od akčního programu neustoupíme” [We will not surrender the Action Program!]. 1968. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 9: 1–2.
ov čssž Gottwaldov. 1968. “V Gottwaldově se starají o děti” [In Gottwaldov, they care for children]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 5: 2.
Politakis, George P. 2001. “Night Work of Women in Industry: Standards and Sensibility.” International Labour Review 140, no. 4: 403–428.
“Předsednictvo úv čsž v dubnu 69” [Presidium of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Women’s Union in April ‘69]. 1969. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 5: 3.
Procházka, Karel. 1969. “Dávky v mateřství i nezaměstnaným ženám” [Maternity benefits for unemployed women]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 6: 14.
Prokopec, Jiří. 1967. “Tvořit předpoklady pro spokojený život žen” [Creating the conditions for women’s happy life]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 1, no. 1: 11.
Rákosník, Jakub, and Radka Šustrová. 2016. Rodina v zájmu státu: Populační růst a instituce manželství v českých zemích 1918–1989 [The family in the interest of the state. Population growth and the institution of marriage in the Czech lands, 1918–1989]. Prague: Lidové noviny.
Sb írka zákonů Československé socialistické republiky 65/1965 Sb. Zákoník práce [Collection of laws of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Order No 65/1965 Labour Code]. 1965. Prague: Ministerstvo spravedlnosti [Ministry of Justice]. Sommer, Vítězslav, Matěj Spurný, and Jaromír Mrňka. 2019. Řídit socialismus jako firmu: technokratické vládnutí v Československu, 1956–1989 [Running socialism like a company: Technocratic governance in Czechoslovakia, 1956–1989]. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny av čr, vvi.
Šprincová, Veronika. 2015. “Postavení žen v Československu v období let 1948–1989 v dobových sociologických výzkumech a datech” [The status of women in Czechoslovakia during 1948–1989 in period sociological research and data]. In Vyvlastněný hlas: Proměny genderové kultury české společnosti v letech 1948–1989 [The politics of gender culture under state socialism: An expropriated voice], 83–124. Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství.
“Usnesení Československé rady žen” [Resolution of the Czechoslovak Council of Women]. 1969. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 12: 4.
Víšková, Marie. 1969. “Rozetněme řetěz minulosti” [Let’s break the chain of the past]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 3: 6.
Vojáček, Ladislav. 2014 . “Zákoník práce z roku 1965–základ československého pracovního práva ve druhé polovině minulého století” [The Labour Code of 1965: The basis of Czechoslovak Labour Legislation in the second half of last century]. Historický časopis [Journal of History], no. 03: 501–523.
Vybíralová, Pavla. 1968. “Z činnosti a práce ov čssž v Třebíči” [From the activities and work of the District Committee of the cwu in Třebíč]. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 4: 14.
Wagnerová, Alena. 2017. Žena za socialismu: Československo 1945–1974 a reflexe vývoje před rokem 1989 a po něm [Woman under socialism. Czechoslovakia 1945–1974 and reflection of the development before and after 1989]. Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství.
Widdows, Kelvin. 1984. “The Denunciation of International Labour Conventions.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 33, no. 4: 1052–1063.
Winterová, Alena, and Jan Dvořák. 2009. “Životní jubileum doc. JUDr. Senty Radvanové, CSc” [Anniversary of doc. JUDr. Senta Radvanová, CSc]. In Pocta Sentě Radvanové k 80. narozeninám [Tribute to Senta Radvanová on her 80th Birthday], edited by Alena Winterová and Jan Dvořák, 11–12. Prague: aspi–Wolters Kluwer.
Wolchik, Sharon L. 1983. “The Scientific—Technological Revolution and the Role of Specialist Elites in Policy-Making in Czechoslovakia.” In Foreign and Domestic Policy in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, edited by Michael J. Sodaro and Sharon L. Wolchik, 111–132. London: Macmillan Press.
“Z činnosti komisí úv čsž” [From the work of the Commissions of the cwu]. 1968. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 2, no. 2: 4.
“Zeptali jsme se za vás: odpovídá náměstek ministra práce a sociálních věcí soudruh ing. Přemysl Tomášek” [We asked for you: The Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Comrade Ing. Přemysl Tomášek]. 1969. Zpravodaj Českého svazu žen [Newsletter of the Czech Women’s Union] 3, no. 2: 8, 9, 14.