Three Guineas

In explaining women’s lack of earnings in the professions, Woolf refers to: the lack of educational opportunities available to women, as described in Part 1; the notion that more women stay home to care for their parents; and the idea that men’s participation in the civil service for 500 years gives them an advantage over women, who have only been allowed to participate for a few decades. She also references recent comments by the Prime Minister complimenting women in the civil service. Woolf points out the contradiction: Women are excellent workers yet are paid less and employed less often. The Prime Minister’s praise does not reflect objective reality. She presents this contradiction and offers to “try the case” as though they were in a court.

One of the first points in the trial is that the system is not a meritocracy, as Woolf notes that “it by no means follows that a clever man gets to the top or that a stupid man stays at the bottom” (47). Nepotism and favoritism play an important role in promotions, and these systems disadvantage women. She quotes from various newspaper articles and letters that show a distrust of women in the professions, a clear bias that would manifest in a nepotistic and non-meritocratic system. “It is likely,” Woolf suggests, “that a name to which “Miss” is attached will […] circle in the lower spheres where the salaries are small rather than mount to the higher spheres where the salaries are substantial” (49).

To explain this, Woolf refers to “atmosphere,” a “very mighty power” (50). Atmosphere refers to the mood and opinions evidenced in the above letters, the sense that women do not belong in the professions. Woolf describes this atmosphere as “the egg of the very same worm that we know under other names in other countries” (50), by which she means fascism. She compares one of the quotations to fascist ideas from Nazi Germany. Women fighting for equal rights in the workplace is akin, she suggests, to the fight against fascism, as the enemies have a similar idea at heart: that a woman should be at home, rather than in the professions. 

Woolf next addresses the idea that the expected roles of women—as wives, mothers, daughters, the people “without whose work the State would collapse and fall to pieces” (52)—do not entitle them to a wage. These are jobs without a salary, though they are equally important to society. Woolf raises the notion that a husband and wife are “one flesh” and “one purse” (52) but she dismisses this, as women demonstrably lack wealth even if they are married to rich husbands. Next, Woolf outlines the “markedly virile” (53) ways in which men spend money, framing the argument as though it were women who were lavishing money on clubs, sports, and parties.

Three facts, Woolf suggests, must be considered when thinking of how to prevent war. Firstly, “the daughters of educated men are paid very little from the public funds for their public services” (54). Secondly, these women are paid nothing from public funds for their private services. Thirdly, they cannot spend their share of their husbands’ income on causes that might help women. These restrictions greatly diminish the number of people who can possibly help prevent war.

Woolf says that she and the correspondent must now eliminate women “to whom marriage is a profession” (54), as they will have money to contribute to anti-war causes. She suggests that money must be given to the educational institutions for women, so as “to help them to have a mind of their own and a will of their own with which to help you to prevent war” (55).

But if this is the case, Woolf asks, how can they be sure that educating women will not leave them in the same position in the future, asking one another how to prevent war? To do so, conditions must be attached to the donation, an issue Woolf has warned against in previous paragraphs.