Abstract This article examines the unexpected defeat of the Child Labor Amendment (CLA) by focusing on gender’s central role in the arguments of both its proponents and opponents. In foregrounding the plight of teenage girls toiling in factories, those supporting the CLA capitalized on widespread concerns with protecting future mothers. Meanwhile, opponents focused on the allegedly disempowered teenage boy, who would supposedly lose his right to work and become a “self-made man.” Arguments about gender regularly intersected with those around childhood, age, and race. This article augments the existing literature on the CLA’s downfall, which largely points to the post-World War I Red Scare as a primary culprit. By analyzing the rhetoric of both sides through the lens of gender, it becomes evident that even arguments about governmental overreach were often framed through gendered images, myths, and stories. Moreover, by analyzing state-level child labor laws rather than focusing only on the more prominent federal ones, we gain additional insight into how labor regulations in this era aimed to delineate distinct roles for boys and girls in the workplace—and outside of it.
Jonah Berger (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: