24. 1850-1950 Women’s Industrial Revolution
|
Summary
|
[Hook] The Industrial Revolution began in England because of the natural resources available and the shift toward capitalist endeavors. It resulted in so many changes to society that sometimes it’s hard to keep track, but it includes the basics: the type of work people did, where they lived, and what their daily lives revolved around. These foundational changes also lead to systemic changes like who held power and how and where. Women of the laboring class went from domestic servants, weavers, and shopkeepers to being factory workers. Their increasing involvement in life outside the domestic world and the horrible conditions in the factories led to their greater political involvement and eventually demands for political rights.
[RHP Introduction] Welcome to Remedial Herstory, where we ask what happened to the women? And put them in. In this series we tell the story of women’s history from era to era from the perspectives of differing and diverse women. Women are half of history. This is her story.
Before Industrialization: The Industrial Revolution transitioned English, then European, and later many other societies from small industries full of craftsmen and women, to the mass production of goods in factories using steam and water power.
In the pre-industrial world, women had immense control of their day-to-day lives. As their work shifted to the factory, women worked about the same hours but in back breaking and repetitive labor– and when they returned home, they were still responsible for their domestic duties. Caring for children in the pre-industrial world was possible because the children were always nearby, but in the Industrial world, children were also working– sometimes as soon as they could crawl! I literally cannot think of a single thing a crawling child could do in the workplace. (Pause) Human Roomba?
Midwives and Doctors: Midwives were one of the accepted ways that women have always worked outside the home around the world, and this job represented a huge shift in the labor force. Increasingly, governments worked to certify and professionalize industries– medicine among them. Midwifery was generally a safe option in birth for women. High maternal death rates led to scholars examining the field scientifically, and men entered the field as “trained” obstetricians. Many of the men drawn to this field had personally lost loved ones to birth. In the 1500s “The Rosengarten” became the first obstetrical textbook and was written by a male apothecary. It provided instructions, probably taken from common (female) midwife practices, on how to rotate the baby with pressure on the abdomen to get it into the proper position. It also introduced new methods and tools to extract the baby. Women at the time were largely illiterate, so how many of the midwives attending women at birth were familiar with the content of the text is hard to say, but the result of this and another text was tension between the midwives who had made paying careers in one of the fields available to them and male doctors stealing those careers. People, this is why we can’t have nice things.
This “professionalization” of midwifery really damaged female patients. Their physicians had never been through what they were going though, and Victorian gendered expectations respected women’s modesty and therefore sometimes the doctors wouldn’t even look! What could possibly go wrong?! Well, women died at higher rates under these male doctors, but still the doctors drove women out of their jobs.
In the battle between midwives and male doctors, it’s wrong to assume midwives weren’t using medical instruments for interventions. Sarah Stone and Margaret Stephen, both female midwives in the late 1700s, used them. But the male doctors won the battle for the MANopoly on birth. In America by the 1800s, especially among the wealthy and urban, doctors became the preference. No longer did women give birth with their female neighbors there for support and advice, but they rather gave birth alone with just their mother and a male doctor in attendance. In Philadelphia over a ten-year period, the number of midwives fell from 21 to 6. As men were not allowed to look at a naked woman–no peeking!--even during childbirth, male medical students weren’t allowed to watch births, so instead learned from textbooks! It’s all good, though. I personally can take out your spleen: I played Operation a few times and hardly ever made it buzz.
Throughout history, caesarian sections had been performed. The surgery was reserved for when it was evident the mother was dying or already dead and there was a chance to save the baby. Having a caesarian section was basically a death sentence. In 1814, a report from London announced that only 20-22 cesarean sections had been attempted in the empire and only nine had succeeded in saving the babies, while just two had succeeded in saving the mother. The first undisputed and well-documented caesarian section in Ireland took place in 1738 and saved both mother and baby; it was performed by a female midwife, Mary Donally. She was called to help Alice O’Neal, the thirty-year-old wife of an Irish farmer who had been in labor for twelve days. Good Lord, did I read that right? 12 DAYS?! Mary cut Alice’s stomach with a razor while an assistant walked a mile to get silk to stitch the mother up. Even though the surgery worked, the medical community in Europe would debate the validity of the procedure and few were willing to do it, even into the 1900s. In Britain, there was much more support for killing the baby to save the mother, and so much of the debate was about which life was more valuable (just like the pro-life vs pro-choice debate today).
Life without the C-section meant many women continued to die, regardless of their status and access to the best medical care. Most notably, in 1817, Princess Charlotte, George IV's only child died in childbirth at the young age of 21. The baby was two weeks late and labour lasted for 50 hours. The nine-pound baby was stillborn. Doctors removed the placenta with difficulty, and six hours later Charlotte died. The obstetrician, Sir Richard Croft, was harassed mercilessly by the masses. He shot himself a few days later. Tragic all around. Interestingly, King George was left without an heir, and the throne passed first to his brother and then to his niece, who became Queen Victoria.
An interesting and notable case of successful cesarean section occurred in South Africa in 1826, by Dr. James Barry, someone with unclear gender identity. Barry was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl by the name of Margaret Ann Bulkley. When his uncle died, he assumed the name James in his stead and used the new identity as an opportunity for self-betterment, enrolling in medical school in Edenborough and seems to have identified as male for the rest of his life. Barry had been raped as a youth and the resulting child was raised by his mother, but the stretch marks from pregnancy remained on him his entire life. Barry had a highly successful and controversial medical career, serving as a physician all over the world and in the Crimean War. While in South Africa, he performed a caesarian section that saved both the mother and child. The grateful mother named her new baby James in his honor. When Barry died years later, it was discovered that he was female or perhaps intersex. How he would have liked to be remembered is sadly unknown.
In hospitals, before germs were understood and sterilization common, doctors would go from surgery to surgery carrying infections to women in labor. By the 1800s, maternal death rate might reach between two and eight per 100 deliveries, around 10 times the rate outside the hospital. In New York, in 1840, 80 percent of women who gave birth in a hospital died. Yikes!
The discovery of anesthesia like chloroform was not far behind, but like the C-section, many were reluctant to use it in labor. Queen Victoria consented to its use during the birth of her eighth child and it quickly became widely accepted in obstetric practice.
Industrial Revolution: Changes were not just happening in midwifery. All over the world, the transition from an agricultural and cottage based society to an industrial one was painful, full of failures, insecurities, and tension.
The nature of work done by women and men often reveals the attitudes, beliefs, and values that a society holds about gender differences. In most of Europe and East Asia, it was believed that women, as opposed to men, were inherently docile, were used to using certain types of small muscles, and had a tolerance for monotony and detail. With these assumptions, women more than men were believed to be ideal assembly-line workers. Because of their supposed compliance, they would be willing to take lower wages and could handle repetitive assembly line work, doing tasks that were already defined as
womens’ work.
Lower class women, who, out of necessity, worked for a wage, were seen as “unsexing” themselves and entering into the cutthroat “man’s world.” This cult-like view of domestic labor dominated societies– yet again pitting women against each other.
But practically, women were seen as desirable employees. Teenage girls, who had already learned manual dexterity at home, were thought to have the “special skills,” which is code for they were manipulatable. Through the years employers used these supposed gender-based characteristics to direct women toward grueling, low paying jobs and away from work that required training or leadership. Rarely did anyone question that the ability to run large, complex machinery was anything but a “man’s job.” Hulk smash. For example, the more an expensive spinning mule, introduced later, became a male-operated machine, the male mule spinners’ union opposed the employment of women and children.
This pattern of gendered job segregation was notably true in Asia where deeply rooted gender norms and values played a large role in influencing labor patterns. At work, women were praised for “knowing their place,” for being more flexible than men, and for being subordinate to men and their masters.
Women’s earnings were always lower in jobs they held equally with men, and they were unlikely to have access to supervisory positions or promotional ladders. At first, Asian women had no mutual aid societies
and were largely excluded from collective action, such as strikes, work slowdown or stoppages. Accustomed to a patriarchal world in which male authority ruled, and with few alternatives for work, working class women took whatever pay and conditions offered them in order to feed themselves and their family.
Women in the factories and mines of Europe and Asia during the formative years of industrialization were subjected to similar forms of exploitation and control. Everywhere the work tended to be dehumanizing and monotonous. Fourteen to sixteen hour shifts controlled by the clock, under the watchful eye of sometimes harsh male supervisors,
were normal. The women worked six days
a week. Sexual harassment was fairly
common. The workplace environment
spurred epidemic illnesses, such as
cholera, TB, and dysentery. Safety
measures were weak, and accidents were
frequently reported, as were physical
deformities caused by hard, repetitive
work, and poisoning caused by the use of
unsafe chemicals. When factory work removed young women from their parental households, factory owners often established dormitories for the workers and acted as substitute fathers. This system restricted women’s leisure-time activities and socializing habits, while ensuring that their wages would be sent home. Married women, on the other hand, were encouraged to work at home if possible.
Transition: Around the world, working class women moved into cities and took up jobs, entering into the paid workforce in greater numbers than ever before. This changed the economic value of the unpaid domestic work women had been doing for milenia. The cultural effect of women earning a wage was that their domestic labor lost its value. The degradation of domestic work undermined its importance. Men of the working class could not earn enough to also pay for domestic labor, and thus families relied on the integral and unpaid labor of women.
Women played a crucial role in supplying the labor which underpinned early industrialization efforts. As household industries shifted into factories or centralized workshops, women in great numbers were sought to work in the mills. Most common was work in the textile mills; it has been said that the histories of industrial revolutions everywhere began with the work of women textile workers. Recognizing this, one Japanese worker’s song says, “Factory girls are treasure chests for the company.”
It was no coincidence that women, and children, made up much of the workforce of the early factories. Exploitation alert!
To jump start an industry, an owner needed cheap labor. Women in the 1800s and 1900s had few alternatives for work, and thus took whatever pay and conditions were offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Women also were sought as desirable employees because of age-old beliefs that they, more than men, were nimble-fingered, dexterous, careful, meticulous and quick. Accustomed to a patriarchal world in which male authority ruled, employers also counted on them to be compliant, docile workers. For example, the tradition which valued absolute allegiance to authority to a master was used to reinforce obedience at work among girls from Samurai Japanese families.
Families played an important role in sending daughters off to factories. In Europe girls’ incomes were important to their families, as well as to the girls’ dowries. Japan’s first workers in government mills were women from poor farm families who as “excess” daughters could be sent out. A daughter’s work away from home was seen as part of the patriotic effort to industrialize the nation as well as a requirement of their filial duty to contribute to the well-being of their parents. In China, a woman’s farm work was seen as less essential to the family economy than was a mans. Impoverished families willingly signed contracts committing their daughters to long terms as indentured workers in the mills in return for advance cash loans.
In all cases, large factories offered ways to protect their female workforce. Through promises to supervise young females and their morals, and in some cases provide safe, controlled housing in company dorms, factories became like second parents. Familial duties in a sense were transferred from the home to the patriarchal factory. Hmmm, what exactly does one get a factory for a father’s day gift?
The large demand for female labor was tempting for many women. In Europe, given the choice between taxing farm work or demeaning domestic service, many women chose factory work for the money and independence it seemed to offer. In Japan recruiters went into the countryside with tempting offers of good wages, pleasant working conditions, and tasty food.
Within the workplace, men and women’s work was different, and hardly ever equal. Women remained in lower-paid and lesser-authority positions throughout their careers, even in the industries, such as textile, where they dominated. Guess those dainty, nimble fingers just couldn’t hold as much cash as the manly ones could.
Spinning Jenny: The industrial revolution was spawned on by a legal system that encouraged invention and enforced patents. Thousands of inventions, big and small transformed the technologies used and thus made the economy and production more efficient. Women were likely behind many of these inventions, but customs credited the male head of house.
An important invention for women was the Spinning Jenny, which was invented in 1764 by James Hargreaves. This complex device cut down the time and effort needed to produce cloth and transformed the textile industry. Women no longer sat at spinning wheels; they stood, 12-14 hours a day at the Jenny, working eight spools at once! The work was excruciating. Hannah Goode described her day to a government official, stating, "I work at Mr. Wilson's mill. I think the youngest child is about 7. I daresay there are 20 under 9 years. It is about half past five by our clock at home when we go in....We come out at seven by the mill. We never stop to take our meals, except at dinner. William Crookes is overlooker in our room. He is cross-tempered sometimes. He does not beat me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right....I have sometimes seen the little children drop asleep or so, but not lately. If they are catched asleep they get the strap. They are always very tired at night....I can read a little; I can't write. I used to go to school before I went to the mill; I have since I am sixteen."
A mother, Mrs. Smith, had three children working at the same mill. She said, "We don't complain. If they go to drop the hours, I don't know what poor people will do. We have hard work to live as it is. ...My husband is of the same mind about it...last summer my husband was 6 weeks ill; we pledged almost all our things to live; the things are not all out of pawn yet… We complain of nothing but short wages...My children have been in the mill three years. I have no complaint to make of their being beaten...I would rather they were beaten than fined."
Despite the mother’s hearty perspective, society was concerned about the way women in these factories were treated. One popular balad sang out: “Laboriously toiling, both night, noon, and morning/ For a wretched subsistence, now mark what I say. She's quite unprotected, forlorn, and dejected/ For sixpence, or eightpence, or tenpence a day. Come forward you nobles, and grant them assistance/ Give them employ, and a fair price them pay/ And then you will find, the poor hard working seamstress/ From honour and virtue will not go astray.”
Coal Mines: For women of the working class, the best occupation one could get was in service. Following that in a factory, and the worst was in a mine.
A six year old girl described her grueling work, "I have been down six weeks and make 10 to 14 rakes a day; I carry a full 56 lbs. of coal in a wooden bucket. I work with sister Jesse and mother. It is dark the time we go."
Maria Gooder’s testimony shows how despite her constant working, she still had very little. "I hurry for a man with my sister Anne who is going 18. He is good to us. I don't like being in the pit. I am tired and afraid. I go at 4:30 after having porridge for breakfast. I start hurrying at 5. We have dinner at noon. We have dry bread and nothing else. There is water in the pit but we don't sup it."
Mary Enock worked in the mines with her sister and was just eleven years old. She said, “We are door-keepers in the four foot level. We leave the house before six each morning and are in the level until seven o’clock and sometimes later. We get 2p a day and our light costs us 2 ½ p. a week. Rachel was in a day school and she can read a little. She was run over by a tram a while ago and was home ill a long time, but she has got over it.”
Middle and Upper Classes: Industrialization brought the decline of the British aristocracy and the rise of the middle class. Women of the middle classes represented the ideal woman, in contrast to her lower class counterpart. A man who could provide enough for a wife to be spared working outside the home was a sign of one’s class. Thus working men of this time began to agitate and unionize to protect their wages in order to provide for their wives– at the expense of working women. Middle class and upper class women were mothers, homemakers, moral guideposts, and emotional havens. They were expected to strive for perfection in every aspect of their lives, and in return, women of this class were to be protected from the harsh realities of the capitalist world beyond the domestic sphere. That’s right, ladies: look fine and stay in line to avoid the mines. Thus the gendered archetypes of the industrious man and the domesticated woman emerged as the new definition of elite and civilized society.
Over time, this idealized woman came to be believed as biological and natural– even though historical records tell us otherwise. In Japan and China there was contradictory government rhetoric calling for more women to join factory work but also pressure for women to remain strictly in the home. Talk about mixed messages.
Across the globe, Europeans had long held that manliness required the silencing of women. As the expanding empires interacted with more cultures that didn’t have such strict gender divisions, it reinforced racist attitudes about those people. Afterall, if the men in these places weren’t exploiting women– were they even men?
Women were encouraged to maintain “fine” homes that included the latest decor, clothes, and were neat and clean. Women of this time often had large families and thus the pressure on her to meet all of these social demands necessitated domestic servants. Demand for servants rapidly increased and became one of the most common jobs for English women in the 1800s. Unmarried women who previously labored in family businesses and on farms shifted to working as domestic servants.
Servants provided middle and upper class women with more leisure time. Women became avid readers (and writers) which made them one of the most educated groups of women in history. These brainy ladies threw themselves into the socially acceptable charitable work and social reforms addressing the ills of industrialization– ironic. Thus, while we have a plethora of middle class female voices from this period, the everyday experience of working class women was largely ignored and overlooked.
Upper class women became advocates for poor women and children, speakers against alcoholism (known as Temperance Reformers), abolitionists (against slavery), worked to end child labor, and more. The idealized version of womanhood was ever present. Some of these elite women, out of touch with the realities of the poor, claimed paid labor was unsuitable for women, as it was detrimental to her domestic duties. But how were these women supposed to feed their families?
This work forced upper class women to become political in ways yet seen by mass groups of women. They advocated for the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and 1882, which gave women the right to control their finances even within marriage. This also resulted in sweeping new laws that aimed to protect women, but ultimately created massive hurdles for working women. They claimed women’s bodies were too weak and delicate for some types of work and blocked women from competing with men in certain industries.
Some middle and upper class women became teachers (until they were married) in order to provide the education needed in an industrialized society. Girls received education related toward domestic skills for their futures as housewives and domestic servants. In Britain, women were barred from colleges and universities until the 1870s. Some European women did attend college, sat for exams, but the schools would not issue them degrees on account of their sex. Guess we know why they call them bachelor not bachelorette degrees.
Labor Unions and Protest: Eventually the realities of industry were investigated by a government commission in Britain. The documents revealed that women on average earned one-third to two-thirds of male salaries. It was a contrived pay scale to protect the male provider and head of house, just one of many ways industrial society was designed to protect men and their wealth. Trade Unions, for example, often barred women from entering and denied them training in advanced skills.
But women will only take so much before they stand up and demand change. Some women became politically active and formed unions. The Women’s Trade Union League formed in Britain in 1874, resulting in a massive influx of women’s union activity.
Similar patterns were seen in Japan when women organized massive strikes in the 1880s over low wages and contracts that forced them to live in housing away from home. There, women showed agency by running away from their jobs to be with their families.
There were differences in women’s behaviors based on marital status. Married women tended to participate less in militant activities. These women were responsible for their jobs as well as their unpaid domestic work.
Male unions resisted female labor and unionization, as it posed a real threat to male jobs and wage security. Unions enforced a gender hierarchy that promoted the patriarchy, describing women as cheap, unskilled labor.
Women’s involvement in labor unions resulted in incremental change. Pay, working conditions, and living conditions improved wherever unions took root– but it wasn’t fast enough.
Voting Rights: Industrialization took women and girls from farms, cottage industries, and domestic work and dragged them into the world dominated by men. Unionization led to slow change– and many women were fed up. Industrial labor and the failure of the unions and law to protect women from exploitive pay, sexual harassment, and dangerous working conditions, hurled many women into political advocacy, where they eventually demanded the right to vote on matters of politics and law. They wanted the ballot, just like men.
New Zealand gave women the right to vote, known as enfranchisement, in 1893, making it the first nation to allow women to vote in national elections! Australia followed, when they became a federal state in 1901, Australian suffragists were able to protect rights they had as smaller states. Muriel Matters and Vida Goldstein, were two of the many women who fought for women’s political recognition in Australia. Australian women were both admired and feared around the world– classic.
Vida Goldstein became the first Australian to visit a present at the White House. President Theodore Roosevelt found her fascinating as she had more political rights than any US woman. He said, “I’ve got my eye on you down in Australia.”
Australia continues to lead the world in female leadership. Mostly because they focused their efforts on reforming the structures and systems that made it difficult for women to participate in politics and leadership. Their model, and countless academic studies show that where women lead there are enormous benefits, not only for women and girls, but all of society.
Muriel Matters didn’t stop with Australia. Once suffrage was secure there, she headed to the United Kingdom, where suffrage had been a hot topic since the 1860s. In 1902, 37,000 women and girls who labored in the textile mills of Northern England petitioned Parliament for the right to vote– but nothing changed.
By 1905, British women were fed up with inaction on suffrage. It was then the mother daughter trio of Emmeline, Christabel, and Sylvia Pankhurst championed the militant wing of the English suffragette movement, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), adopting the motto, “Deeds not Words.”
In 1907, 75 WSPU suffragettes were arrested when they attempted to storm the Houses of Parliament— it was war. They picketted, smashed mainstreet store fronts, bombed parlamentarian mailboxes, and performed a whole variety of stunts to get suffrage on the front page of the newspaper. Their international organization promoted militancy and pageantry as a means to an end.
Matters, the Australian, went down in history AGAIN, when in 1908 earned the title of the first woman to speak in the British House of Commons in London because she chained herself to the grill that barred women’s view of parliament and shouted demands for women’s rights– get it.
Security cut her off the grill and dragged her out by force. You bet she was still hollering her demands.
Of course not all women liked these tactics. Some left the Panhersts for the more moderate Women’s Freedom League (WFL), while other women formed the UK’s first anti-suffrage league.
But the suffragists kept fighting. In 1909, Marion Wallace Dunlop went on hunger strike while in prison and others soon followed her. Instead of releasing the women from prison, the jailers force fed them (a form of torture) to keep them alive.
Women began refusing to pay taxes until they could vote for the people who taxed them. They organized into the Women's Tax Resistance League (WTRL) with the slogan “No vote, no tax.”
Sophia Duleep Singh stood out among the suffragists because of her position and heritage. She was the youngest daughter of the king of northern India. When her father was young he was bullied into an unequal treaty with Queen Victoria that surrendered his country to her. He and his family were banished from India. In the United Kingdom, Sophia became Victoria’s goddaughter and led an opulent life and attended every social party. Eventually she and her sisters snuck back to India where they bore witness to the harsh realities of poverty and racism. She was a celebrity in London, but there she was just another brown face. Upon return, she threw herself into the suffrage cause, slamming into Parliamentarians and demanding suffrage. She was eventually taken to court over her refusal to pay taxes.
In 1909 a Conciliation Bill was proposed to give women who owned a certain amount of property the right to vote, but the bill failed. In response Pankherst and Singh led 300 women to march on Parliament where they were met with police brutality in an event known as Bloody Friday. Singh personally fought an officer off a sister.
Still women did not back down. Militancy peaked in 1912 with more window smashing and arson attacks. Then in 1913, Emily Wilding Davison attended the Epsom Derby where the King was racing. She stepped out onto the track with a suffrage banner as he raced by and his horse trampled over her, creating a martyr for the suffrage cause. Thousands of suffrage sympathizers attended her funeral.
World War I disrupted woman suffrage activities, but slowly as women served in lower level positions, and eventually Nancy Astor became the first female MP, women took hold of power. Finally in 1928, women in the UK won the right to vote.
Women around the world were awed by the achievements of the New Zealand, Australian, American, and British women. Slowly most places in the world followed suit, especially after World War II, but in some authoritarian places today women remain disenfranchised. The vote didn’t transform everything. In fact many of the gendered expectations of women remained for decades and remain today. One could argue that the vote did little without changing the structures that deny women equal opportunity to hold power.
Conclusion: Industrialization overall improved women’s lives, perhaps more than it did men’s. Urbanization led to somewhat better medical care in pregnancy (especially after germs were better understood). Women and men in industrial work did better economically than their agrarian peers and the standard of living increased considerably. Despite low wages, some women did find means of supporting themselves, and a few even acquired considerable wealth.
Women also became consumers, and with that new role came great power to influence production. Industrialization also upended the patriarchal norms in some ways because it challenged the idea of a “male provider,” as it was increasingly obvious that more and more women needed to work to make ends meet– clearly the system wasn’t protecting women!
Industrialization fueled western imperial expansion. Factories could produce more weapons, making military conquests in Africa, Asia, Siberia, the Pacific islands, and the western Americas uneven in terms of military strength. Whether in positions of leadership or in missionary efforts, women supported imperialism and fought against it.
Industrialization changed the global make up, shifted power structures, and allowed the Global North to impose their systems on others– including their views of women.
[Setting up the Inquiry] By the end of this era, so much remained in question. How did class and region change the effects of industrialization? Did the benefits of industrialization outweigh the costs? How would women’s role in the labor force influence policy and social change? Would women be able to enter industries considered “male”? How would society adapt to allow for women to be wage earners and mothers? What would it take for women to earn the vote?
[RHP Introduction] Welcome to Remedial Herstory, where we ask what happened to the women? And put them in. In this series we tell the story of women’s history from era to era from the perspectives of differing and diverse women. Women are half of history. This is her story.
Before Industrialization: The Industrial Revolution transitioned English, then European, and later many other societies from small industries full of craftsmen and women, to the mass production of goods in factories using steam and water power.
In the pre-industrial world, women had immense control of their day-to-day lives. As their work shifted to the factory, women worked about the same hours but in back breaking and repetitive labor– and when they returned home, they were still responsible for their domestic duties. Caring for children in the pre-industrial world was possible because the children were always nearby, but in the Industrial world, children were also working– sometimes as soon as they could crawl! I literally cannot think of a single thing a crawling child could do in the workplace. (Pause) Human Roomba?
Midwives and Doctors: Midwives were one of the accepted ways that women have always worked outside the home around the world, and this job represented a huge shift in the labor force. Increasingly, governments worked to certify and professionalize industries– medicine among them. Midwifery was generally a safe option in birth for women. High maternal death rates led to scholars examining the field scientifically, and men entered the field as “trained” obstetricians. Many of the men drawn to this field had personally lost loved ones to birth. In the 1500s “The Rosengarten” became the first obstetrical textbook and was written by a male apothecary. It provided instructions, probably taken from common (female) midwife practices, on how to rotate the baby with pressure on the abdomen to get it into the proper position. It also introduced new methods and tools to extract the baby. Women at the time were largely illiterate, so how many of the midwives attending women at birth were familiar with the content of the text is hard to say, but the result of this and another text was tension between the midwives who had made paying careers in one of the fields available to them and male doctors stealing those careers. People, this is why we can’t have nice things.
This “professionalization” of midwifery really damaged female patients. Their physicians had never been through what they were going though, and Victorian gendered expectations respected women’s modesty and therefore sometimes the doctors wouldn’t even look! What could possibly go wrong?! Well, women died at higher rates under these male doctors, but still the doctors drove women out of their jobs.
In the battle between midwives and male doctors, it’s wrong to assume midwives weren’t using medical instruments for interventions. Sarah Stone and Margaret Stephen, both female midwives in the late 1700s, used them. But the male doctors won the battle for the MANopoly on birth. In America by the 1800s, especially among the wealthy and urban, doctors became the preference. No longer did women give birth with their female neighbors there for support and advice, but they rather gave birth alone with just their mother and a male doctor in attendance. In Philadelphia over a ten-year period, the number of midwives fell from 21 to 6. As men were not allowed to look at a naked woman–no peeking!--even during childbirth, male medical students weren’t allowed to watch births, so instead learned from textbooks! It’s all good, though. I personally can take out your spleen: I played Operation a few times and hardly ever made it buzz.
Throughout history, caesarian sections had been performed. The surgery was reserved for when it was evident the mother was dying or already dead and there was a chance to save the baby. Having a caesarian section was basically a death sentence. In 1814, a report from London announced that only 20-22 cesarean sections had been attempted in the empire and only nine had succeeded in saving the babies, while just two had succeeded in saving the mother. The first undisputed and well-documented caesarian section in Ireland took place in 1738 and saved both mother and baby; it was performed by a female midwife, Mary Donally. She was called to help Alice O’Neal, the thirty-year-old wife of an Irish farmer who had been in labor for twelve days. Good Lord, did I read that right? 12 DAYS?! Mary cut Alice’s stomach with a razor while an assistant walked a mile to get silk to stitch the mother up. Even though the surgery worked, the medical community in Europe would debate the validity of the procedure and few were willing to do it, even into the 1900s. In Britain, there was much more support for killing the baby to save the mother, and so much of the debate was about which life was more valuable (just like the pro-life vs pro-choice debate today).
Life without the C-section meant many women continued to die, regardless of their status and access to the best medical care. Most notably, in 1817, Princess Charlotte, George IV's only child died in childbirth at the young age of 21. The baby was two weeks late and labour lasted for 50 hours. The nine-pound baby was stillborn. Doctors removed the placenta with difficulty, and six hours later Charlotte died. The obstetrician, Sir Richard Croft, was harassed mercilessly by the masses. He shot himself a few days later. Tragic all around. Interestingly, King George was left without an heir, and the throne passed first to his brother and then to his niece, who became Queen Victoria.
An interesting and notable case of successful cesarean section occurred in South Africa in 1826, by Dr. James Barry, someone with unclear gender identity. Barry was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl by the name of Margaret Ann Bulkley. When his uncle died, he assumed the name James in his stead and used the new identity as an opportunity for self-betterment, enrolling in medical school in Edenborough and seems to have identified as male for the rest of his life. Barry had been raped as a youth and the resulting child was raised by his mother, but the stretch marks from pregnancy remained on him his entire life. Barry had a highly successful and controversial medical career, serving as a physician all over the world and in the Crimean War. While in South Africa, he performed a caesarian section that saved both the mother and child. The grateful mother named her new baby James in his honor. When Barry died years later, it was discovered that he was female or perhaps intersex. How he would have liked to be remembered is sadly unknown.
In hospitals, before germs were understood and sterilization common, doctors would go from surgery to surgery carrying infections to women in labor. By the 1800s, maternal death rate might reach between two and eight per 100 deliveries, around 10 times the rate outside the hospital. In New York, in 1840, 80 percent of women who gave birth in a hospital died. Yikes!
The discovery of anesthesia like chloroform was not far behind, but like the C-section, many were reluctant to use it in labor. Queen Victoria consented to its use during the birth of her eighth child and it quickly became widely accepted in obstetric practice.
Industrial Revolution: Changes were not just happening in midwifery. All over the world, the transition from an agricultural and cottage based society to an industrial one was painful, full of failures, insecurities, and tension.
The nature of work done by women and men often reveals the attitudes, beliefs, and values that a society holds about gender differences. In most of Europe and East Asia, it was believed that women, as opposed to men, were inherently docile, were used to using certain types of small muscles, and had a tolerance for monotony and detail. With these assumptions, women more than men were believed to be ideal assembly-line workers. Because of their supposed compliance, they would be willing to take lower wages and could handle repetitive assembly line work, doing tasks that were already defined as
womens’ work.
Lower class women, who, out of necessity, worked for a wage, were seen as “unsexing” themselves and entering into the cutthroat “man’s world.” This cult-like view of domestic labor dominated societies– yet again pitting women against each other.
But practically, women were seen as desirable employees. Teenage girls, who had already learned manual dexterity at home, were thought to have the “special skills,” which is code for they were manipulatable. Through the years employers used these supposed gender-based characteristics to direct women toward grueling, low paying jobs and away from work that required training or leadership. Rarely did anyone question that the ability to run large, complex machinery was anything but a “man’s job.” Hulk smash. For example, the more an expensive spinning mule, introduced later, became a male-operated machine, the male mule spinners’ union opposed the employment of women and children.
This pattern of gendered job segregation was notably true in Asia where deeply rooted gender norms and values played a large role in influencing labor patterns. At work, women were praised for “knowing their place,” for being more flexible than men, and for being subordinate to men and their masters.
Women’s earnings were always lower in jobs they held equally with men, and they were unlikely to have access to supervisory positions or promotional ladders. At first, Asian women had no mutual aid societies
and were largely excluded from collective action, such as strikes, work slowdown or stoppages. Accustomed to a patriarchal world in which male authority ruled, and with few alternatives for work, working class women took whatever pay and conditions offered them in order to feed themselves and their family.
Women in the factories and mines of Europe and Asia during the formative years of industrialization were subjected to similar forms of exploitation and control. Everywhere the work tended to be dehumanizing and monotonous. Fourteen to sixteen hour shifts controlled by the clock, under the watchful eye of sometimes harsh male supervisors,
were normal. The women worked six days
a week. Sexual harassment was fairly
common. The workplace environment
spurred epidemic illnesses, such as
cholera, TB, and dysentery. Safety
measures were weak, and accidents were
frequently reported, as were physical
deformities caused by hard, repetitive
work, and poisoning caused by the use of
unsafe chemicals. When factory work removed young women from their parental households, factory owners often established dormitories for the workers and acted as substitute fathers. This system restricted women’s leisure-time activities and socializing habits, while ensuring that their wages would be sent home. Married women, on the other hand, were encouraged to work at home if possible.
Transition: Around the world, working class women moved into cities and took up jobs, entering into the paid workforce in greater numbers than ever before. This changed the economic value of the unpaid domestic work women had been doing for milenia. The cultural effect of women earning a wage was that their domestic labor lost its value. The degradation of domestic work undermined its importance. Men of the working class could not earn enough to also pay for domestic labor, and thus families relied on the integral and unpaid labor of women.
Women played a crucial role in supplying the labor which underpinned early industrialization efforts. As household industries shifted into factories or centralized workshops, women in great numbers were sought to work in the mills. Most common was work in the textile mills; it has been said that the histories of industrial revolutions everywhere began with the work of women textile workers. Recognizing this, one Japanese worker’s song says, “Factory girls are treasure chests for the company.”
It was no coincidence that women, and children, made up much of the workforce of the early factories. Exploitation alert!
To jump start an industry, an owner needed cheap labor. Women in the 1800s and 1900s had few alternatives for work, and thus took whatever pay and conditions were offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Women also were sought as desirable employees because of age-old beliefs that they, more than men, were nimble-fingered, dexterous, careful, meticulous and quick. Accustomed to a patriarchal world in which male authority ruled, employers also counted on them to be compliant, docile workers. For example, the tradition which valued absolute allegiance to authority to a master was used to reinforce obedience at work among girls from Samurai Japanese families.
Families played an important role in sending daughters off to factories. In Europe girls’ incomes were important to their families, as well as to the girls’ dowries. Japan’s first workers in government mills were women from poor farm families who as “excess” daughters could be sent out. A daughter’s work away from home was seen as part of the patriotic effort to industrialize the nation as well as a requirement of their filial duty to contribute to the well-being of their parents. In China, a woman’s farm work was seen as less essential to the family economy than was a mans. Impoverished families willingly signed contracts committing their daughters to long terms as indentured workers in the mills in return for advance cash loans.
In all cases, large factories offered ways to protect their female workforce. Through promises to supervise young females and their morals, and in some cases provide safe, controlled housing in company dorms, factories became like second parents. Familial duties in a sense were transferred from the home to the patriarchal factory. Hmmm, what exactly does one get a factory for a father’s day gift?
The large demand for female labor was tempting for many women. In Europe, given the choice between taxing farm work or demeaning domestic service, many women chose factory work for the money and independence it seemed to offer. In Japan recruiters went into the countryside with tempting offers of good wages, pleasant working conditions, and tasty food.
Within the workplace, men and women’s work was different, and hardly ever equal. Women remained in lower-paid and lesser-authority positions throughout their careers, even in the industries, such as textile, where they dominated. Guess those dainty, nimble fingers just couldn’t hold as much cash as the manly ones could.
Spinning Jenny: The industrial revolution was spawned on by a legal system that encouraged invention and enforced patents. Thousands of inventions, big and small transformed the technologies used and thus made the economy and production more efficient. Women were likely behind many of these inventions, but customs credited the male head of house.
An important invention for women was the Spinning Jenny, which was invented in 1764 by James Hargreaves. This complex device cut down the time and effort needed to produce cloth and transformed the textile industry. Women no longer sat at spinning wheels; they stood, 12-14 hours a day at the Jenny, working eight spools at once! The work was excruciating. Hannah Goode described her day to a government official, stating, "I work at Mr. Wilson's mill. I think the youngest child is about 7. I daresay there are 20 under 9 years. It is about half past five by our clock at home when we go in....We come out at seven by the mill. We never stop to take our meals, except at dinner. William Crookes is overlooker in our room. He is cross-tempered sometimes. He does not beat me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right....I have sometimes seen the little children drop asleep or so, but not lately. If they are catched asleep they get the strap. They are always very tired at night....I can read a little; I can't write. I used to go to school before I went to the mill; I have since I am sixteen."
A mother, Mrs. Smith, had three children working at the same mill. She said, "We don't complain. If they go to drop the hours, I don't know what poor people will do. We have hard work to live as it is. ...My husband is of the same mind about it...last summer my husband was 6 weeks ill; we pledged almost all our things to live; the things are not all out of pawn yet… We complain of nothing but short wages...My children have been in the mill three years. I have no complaint to make of their being beaten...I would rather they were beaten than fined."
Despite the mother’s hearty perspective, society was concerned about the way women in these factories were treated. One popular balad sang out: “Laboriously toiling, both night, noon, and morning/ For a wretched subsistence, now mark what I say. She's quite unprotected, forlorn, and dejected/ For sixpence, or eightpence, or tenpence a day. Come forward you nobles, and grant them assistance/ Give them employ, and a fair price them pay/ And then you will find, the poor hard working seamstress/ From honour and virtue will not go astray.”
Coal Mines: For women of the working class, the best occupation one could get was in service. Following that in a factory, and the worst was in a mine.
A six year old girl described her grueling work, "I have been down six weeks and make 10 to 14 rakes a day; I carry a full 56 lbs. of coal in a wooden bucket. I work with sister Jesse and mother. It is dark the time we go."
Maria Gooder’s testimony shows how despite her constant working, she still had very little. "I hurry for a man with my sister Anne who is going 18. He is good to us. I don't like being in the pit. I am tired and afraid. I go at 4:30 after having porridge for breakfast. I start hurrying at 5. We have dinner at noon. We have dry bread and nothing else. There is water in the pit but we don't sup it."
Mary Enock worked in the mines with her sister and was just eleven years old. She said, “We are door-keepers in the four foot level. We leave the house before six each morning and are in the level until seven o’clock and sometimes later. We get 2p a day and our light costs us 2 ½ p. a week. Rachel was in a day school and she can read a little. She was run over by a tram a while ago and was home ill a long time, but she has got over it.”
Middle and Upper Classes: Industrialization brought the decline of the British aristocracy and the rise of the middle class. Women of the middle classes represented the ideal woman, in contrast to her lower class counterpart. A man who could provide enough for a wife to be spared working outside the home was a sign of one’s class. Thus working men of this time began to agitate and unionize to protect their wages in order to provide for their wives– at the expense of working women. Middle class and upper class women were mothers, homemakers, moral guideposts, and emotional havens. They were expected to strive for perfection in every aspect of their lives, and in return, women of this class were to be protected from the harsh realities of the capitalist world beyond the domestic sphere. That’s right, ladies: look fine and stay in line to avoid the mines. Thus the gendered archetypes of the industrious man and the domesticated woman emerged as the new definition of elite and civilized society.
Over time, this idealized woman came to be believed as biological and natural– even though historical records tell us otherwise. In Japan and China there was contradictory government rhetoric calling for more women to join factory work but also pressure for women to remain strictly in the home. Talk about mixed messages.
Across the globe, Europeans had long held that manliness required the silencing of women. As the expanding empires interacted with more cultures that didn’t have such strict gender divisions, it reinforced racist attitudes about those people. Afterall, if the men in these places weren’t exploiting women– were they even men?
Women were encouraged to maintain “fine” homes that included the latest decor, clothes, and were neat and clean. Women of this time often had large families and thus the pressure on her to meet all of these social demands necessitated domestic servants. Demand for servants rapidly increased and became one of the most common jobs for English women in the 1800s. Unmarried women who previously labored in family businesses and on farms shifted to working as domestic servants.
Servants provided middle and upper class women with more leisure time. Women became avid readers (and writers) which made them one of the most educated groups of women in history. These brainy ladies threw themselves into the socially acceptable charitable work and social reforms addressing the ills of industrialization– ironic. Thus, while we have a plethora of middle class female voices from this period, the everyday experience of working class women was largely ignored and overlooked.
Upper class women became advocates for poor women and children, speakers against alcoholism (known as Temperance Reformers), abolitionists (against slavery), worked to end child labor, and more. The idealized version of womanhood was ever present. Some of these elite women, out of touch with the realities of the poor, claimed paid labor was unsuitable for women, as it was detrimental to her domestic duties. But how were these women supposed to feed their families?
This work forced upper class women to become political in ways yet seen by mass groups of women. They advocated for the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and 1882, which gave women the right to control their finances even within marriage. This also resulted in sweeping new laws that aimed to protect women, but ultimately created massive hurdles for working women. They claimed women’s bodies were too weak and delicate for some types of work and blocked women from competing with men in certain industries.
Some middle and upper class women became teachers (until they were married) in order to provide the education needed in an industrialized society. Girls received education related toward domestic skills for their futures as housewives and domestic servants. In Britain, women were barred from colleges and universities until the 1870s. Some European women did attend college, sat for exams, but the schools would not issue them degrees on account of their sex. Guess we know why they call them bachelor not bachelorette degrees.
Labor Unions and Protest: Eventually the realities of industry were investigated by a government commission in Britain. The documents revealed that women on average earned one-third to two-thirds of male salaries. It was a contrived pay scale to protect the male provider and head of house, just one of many ways industrial society was designed to protect men and their wealth. Trade Unions, for example, often barred women from entering and denied them training in advanced skills.
But women will only take so much before they stand up and demand change. Some women became politically active and formed unions. The Women’s Trade Union League formed in Britain in 1874, resulting in a massive influx of women’s union activity.
Similar patterns were seen in Japan when women organized massive strikes in the 1880s over low wages and contracts that forced them to live in housing away from home. There, women showed agency by running away from their jobs to be with their families.
There were differences in women’s behaviors based on marital status. Married women tended to participate less in militant activities. These women were responsible for their jobs as well as their unpaid domestic work.
Male unions resisted female labor and unionization, as it posed a real threat to male jobs and wage security. Unions enforced a gender hierarchy that promoted the patriarchy, describing women as cheap, unskilled labor.
Women’s involvement in labor unions resulted in incremental change. Pay, working conditions, and living conditions improved wherever unions took root– but it wasn’t fast enough.
Voting Rights: Industrialization took women and girls from farms, cottage industries, and domestic work and dragged them into the world dominated by men. Unionization led to slow change– and many women were fed up. Industrial labor and the failure of the unions and law to protect women from exploitive pay, sexual harassment, and dangerous working conditions, hurled many women into political advocacy, where they eventually demanded the right to vote on matters of politics and law. They wanted the ballot, just like men.
New Zealand gave women the right to vote, known as enfranchisement, in 1893, making it the first nation to allow women to vote in national elections! Australia followed, when they became a federal state in 1901, Australian suffragists were able to protect rights they had as smaller states. Muriel Matters and Vida Goldstein, were two of the many women who fought for women’s political recognition in Australia. Australian women were both admired and feared around the world– classic.
Vida Goldstein became the first Australian to visit a present at the White House. President Theodore Roosevelt found her fascinating as she had more political rights than any US woman. He said, “I’ve got my eye on you down in Australia.”
Australia continues to lead the world in female leadership. Mostly because they focused their efforts on reforming the structures and systems that made it difficult for women to participate in politics and leadership. Their model, and countless academic studies show that where women lead there are enormous benefits, not only for women and girls, but all of society.
Muriel Matters didn’t stop with Australia. Once suffrage was secure there, she headed to the United Kingdom, where suffrage had been a hot topic since the 1860s. In 1902, 37,000 women and girls who labored in the textile mills of Northern England petitioned Parliament for the right to vote– but nothing changed.
By 1905, British women were fed up with inaction on suffrage. It was then the mother daughter trio of Emmeline, Christabel, and Sylvia Pankhurst championed the militant wing of the English suffragette movement, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), adopting the motto, “Deeds not Words.”
In 1907, 75 WSPU suffragettes were arrested when they attempted to storm the Houses of Parliament— it was war. They picketted, smashed mainstreet store fronts, bombed parlamentarian mailboxes, and performed a whole variety of stunts to get suffrage on the front page of the newspaper. Their international organization promoted militancy and pageantry as a means to an end.
Matters, the Australian, went down in history AGAIN, when in 1908 earned the title of the first woman to speak in the British House of Commons in London because she chained herself to the grill that barred women’s view of parliament and shouted demands for women’s rights– get it.
Security cut her off the grill and dragged her out by force. You bet she was still hollering her demands.
Of course not all women liked these tactics. Some left the Panhersts for the more moderate Women’s Freedom League (WFL), while other women formed the UK’s first anti-suffrage league.
But the suffragists kept fighting. In 1909, Marion Wallace Dunlop went on hunger strike while in prison and others soon followed her. Instead of releasing the women from prison, the jailers force fed them (a form of torture) to keep them alive.
Women began refusing to pay taxes until they could vote for the people who taxed them. They organized into the Women's Tax Resistance League (WTRL) with the slogan “No vote, no tax.”
Sophia Duleep Singh stood out among the suffragists because of her position and heritage. She was the youngest daughter of the king of northern India. When her father was young he was bullied into an unequal treaty with Queen Victoria that surrendered his country to her. He and his family were banished from India. In the United Kingdom, Sophia became Victoria’s goddaughter and led an opulent life and attended every social party. Eventually she and her sisters snuck back to India where they bore witness to the harsh realities of poverty and racism. She was a celebrity in London, but there she was just another brown face. Upon return, she threw herself into the suffrage cause, slamming into Parliamentarians and demanding suffrage. She was eventually taken to court over her refusal to pay taxes.
In 1909 a Conciliation Bill was proposed to give women who owned a certain amount of property the right to vote, but the bill failed. In response Pankherst and Singh led 300 women to march on Parliament where they were met with police brutality in an event known as Bloody Friday. Singh personally fought an officer off a sister.
Still women did not back down. Militancy peaked in 1912 with more window smashing and arson attacks. Then in 1913, Emily Wilding Davison attended the Epsom Derby where the King was racing. She stepped out onto the track with a suffrage banner as he raced by and his horse trampled over her, creating a martyr for the suffrage cause. Thousands of suffrage sympathizers attended her funeral.
World War I disrupted woman suffrage activities, but slowly as women served in lower level positions, and eventually Nancy Astor became the first female MP, women took hold of power. Finally in 1928, women in the UK won the right to vote.
Women around the world were awed by the achievements of the New Zealand, Australian, American, and British women. Slowly most places in the world followed suit, especially after World War II, but in some authoritarian places today women remain disenfranchised. The vote didn’t transform everything. In fact many of the gendered expectations of women remained for decades and remain today. One could argue that the vote did little without changing the structures that deny women equal opportunity to hold power.
Conclusion: Industrialization overall improved women’s lives, perhaps more than it did men’s. Urbanization led to somewhat better medical care in pregnancy (especially after germs were better understood). Women and men in industrial work did better economically than their agrarian peers and the standard of living increased considerably. Despite low wages, some women did find means of supporting themselves, and a few even acquired considerable wealth.
Women also became consumers, and with that new role came great power to influence production. Industrialization also upended the patriarchal norms in some ways because it challenged the idea of a “male provider,” as it was increasingly obvious that more and more women needed to work to make ends meet– clearly the system wasn’t protecting women!
Industrialization fueled western imperial expansion. Factories could produce more weapons, making military conquests in Africa, Asia, Siberia, the Pacific islands, and the western Americas uneven in terms of military strength. Whether in positions of leadership or in missionary efforts, women supported imperialism and fought against it.
Industrialization changed the global make up, shifted power structures, and allowed the Global North to impose their systems on others– including their views of women.
[Setting up the Inquiry] By the end of this era, so much remained in question. How did class and region change the effects of industrialization? Did the benefits of industrialization outweigh the costs? How would women’s role in the labor force influence policy and social change? Would women be able to enter industries considered “male”? How would society adapt to allow for women to be wage earners and mothers? What would it take for women to earn the vote?
Draw your own conclusions
Power Point for Teachers
Include the basics in what you already teach.
Bibliography
Adams, Carol, Paula Bartley, Judy Lown, and Cathy Loxton. Under Control: Life in a nineteenth-century Silk Factory, Cambridge University Press.
British Library Editors, “Womens Suffrage Timeline.” British Library. N.D. https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/womens-suffrage-timeline.
Children Working Underground Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru National Museum of Wales, 1979.
ENGEL, BARBARA ALPERN. “WOMEN, WORK AND FAMILY IN THE FACTORIES OF RURAL RUSSIA.” Russian History 16, no. 2/4 (1989): 223–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24656506.
Factory Inquiry Commission, Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1833. Found in Hellerstein, Hume & Offen, Victorian Women: A Documentary Accounts of Women's Lives in Nineteenth-Century England, France and the United States, Stanford University Press.
Gillard, Julia. “A global story: Women’s suffrage, forgotten history, and a way forward.” Brookings Institute. September 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/a-global-story/.
Jackson S, Ho PSY. Interconnected Histories: Locating Women’s Lives in Time and Space. Women Doing Intimacy. 2020 Jun 12:47–86. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-28991-9_3. PMCID: PMC7286840.
Reese, Lyn. “WOMEN’S WORK IN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS PRIMARY SOURCE LESSONS FROM EUROPE & EAST ASIA,” Women in World History Curriculum, 2005.
Strayer, R. and Nelson, E., Ways Of The World. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
British Library Editors, “Womens Suffrage Timeline.” British Library. N.D. https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/womens-suffrage-timeline.
Children Working Underground Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru National Museum of Wales, 1979.
ENGEL, BARBARA ALPERN. “WOMEN, WORK AND FAMILY IN THE FACTORIES OF RURAL RUSSIA.” Russian History 16, no. 2/4 (1989): 223–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24656506.
Factory Inquiry Commission, Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1833. Found in Hellerstein, Hume & Offen, Victorian Women: A Documentary Accounts of Women's Lives in Nineteenth-Century England, France and the United States, Stanford University Press.
Gillard, Julia. “A global story: Women’s suffrage, forgotten history, and a way forward.” Brookings Institute. September 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/a-global-story/.
Jackson S, Ho PSY. Interconnected Histories: Locating Women’s Lives in Time and Space. Women Doing Intimacy. 2020 Jun 12:47–86. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-28991-9_3. PMCID: PMC7286840.
Reese, Lyn. “WOMEN’S WORK IN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS PRIMARY SOURCE LESSONS FROM EUROPE & EAST ASIA,” Women in World History Curriculum, 2005.
Strayer, R. and Nelson, E., Ways Of The World. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
Primary AUTHOR: |
Kelsie Brook Eckert
|
Primary Reviewer: |
Jacqui Nelson
|
Consulting Team |
Editors |
|
Kelsie Brook Eckert, Project Director
Coordinator of Social Studies Education at Plymouth State University Dr. Nancy Locklin-Sofer, Consultant Professor of History at Maryville University. Chloe Gardner, Consultant PhD Candidate in Religious Studies at Edinburgh University Dr. Whitney Howarth, Consultant Former Professor of History at Plymouth State University Jacqui Nelson, Consultant Teaching Lecturer of Military History at Plymouth State University Maria Concepcion Marquez Sandoval PhD Candidate in History at Arizona University |
Amy Flanders
Humanities Teacher, Moultonborough Academy Ron Kaiser Humanities Teacher, Moultonborough Academy Chris Canfield Humanities Teacher, Moultonborough Academy ReviewersAncient:
Dr. Kristin Heineman Professor of History at Colorado State University Dr. Bonnie Rock-McCutcheon Professor of History at Wilson College Sarah Stone PhD Candidate in Religious Studies at Edinburgh University Medieval: Dr. Katherine Koh Professor of History at La Sierra University Dr. Jonathan Couser Professor of History at Plymouth State University Dr. Shahla Haeri Professor of History at Boston University Lauren Cole PhD Candidate in History at Northwestern University Modern: Dr. Jack Gronau Professor of History at Northeastern University |
© The Remedial Herstory Project 2022
|
|
|
|