The increase of population in the late 1700s was an important cause in the change in the economy in that it stimulated demand, but it also affected society, because industrialisation caused economic slumps. This increased the strain on Poor Relief as more and more workers were laid off. The rate of growth of the British economy was particularly marked between 1770 and 1850, and this encouraged the search for methods that were more time and cost efficient.
The development of proto-industry and economy evolved into an 'Industiral Revolution', which expanded prospects for female employment. Women, who were considered “unskilled”, entered the workforce as cheap and flexible labour that provided the foundations for the textile industry.
It is perilous to assume that women’s work was transformed in a radical and uniformed way by the Industrial Revolution. Some historians argue that change was equally balanced with continuity, so even the term “revolution” is queried. Some believe the Industrial Revolution caused the demise of the “golden age” of women’s work. Yet few believe that the pre-capitalist economy was ideal for women, but they feel too that the late eighteenth century to 1850 saw a narrowing in opportunities for women to work. Women were economically marginalised by the Industrial Revolution, because they had jobs that required a low level of skill and were low in productivity. This seems to continue what had characterised women’s work for centuries. Indeed, other historians argue that there was no “golden age” for women in the pre-industrial past, but the same restrictions were still enforced. The pre-existence of female subordination was the cause of capitalist advancement, and in fact the oppression of women was necessary for the industrial capitalism to keep on working and evolve. There seems little change from the early modern period. Capitalism, key to the Industrial Revolution, was a long established system in the economy. The only variant in the British economy was that it became industrialist. However, in certain industries and at specific times, there was an increase in women’s opportunities in the workplace. There was seemingly a balance of change and continuity.
Long standing ideas of women as inferior shows little change in social constructions of females from the early modern period. So why were they employed? It seemed these exact ideas of women’s inferiority, which provide the answer. (By the way, these notions of female inferiority in this period masked male anxiety of being pushed out of their spheres of employment by women workers.) The fact that women were cheaper and more flexible meant that they were employed because they could be dropped easily in times of recession or a settling down of the economy. Unlike men, they weren’t considered the provider for the family and wouldn’t need to depend on charities to support them when out of work. Wage rates of women varied nationally, but were generally one-third to one-half of the wage of men. In the North and the Midlands, women earned higher wages because of the rapidly expanding industries of textiles, metal wares and pottery. The wages remained cheap even when there was pressure on labour supplies as in cotton and wool spinning because women’s work was seen as low status and supplemental to the household income. Women workers were also likely to be agreeable to the discipline of the factory and less able to oppose the autonomous work practice that they had enjoyed under the proto-industrialised system. An important factor in the demand for female labour was organisational and technological innovation. The use of female labour with these innovations was to yield higher profits that were impossible to reach before.
Despite female labour being termed as “unskilled”, women were important and technological change during industrialisation could provide the conditions for the breakdown of sexual division of labour. Unfortunately though, there was a redefinition of gender notions at the same time, which resulted in the reassertion of male superior status in the economy. Assumptions of being women physically weaker and intelligently inferior have dated back hundreds of years. Combined with this, there were social issues that had an effect such as the declining age in marriage and the rising rate of marriage, which endorsed dependency of women on men. They were no longer individual economic agents contributing to the economy. It was in this time that the Victorian ideal of domesticity of women was supported by legislation and male campaigns for the ‘breadwinner wage’. The principle of patriarchy remained a constant shaping factor in nineteenth century British society, partly in response to economic developments, which threatened the system.
The demographic effects of the agricultural revolution were important. It released peasants from their work as fewer men were needed to do the work because of mechanisation and new innovations. They drew on these people to produce in greater volumes of goods and at a lower wage. This work supplemented the income of the household economy. Family units were needed to work together, rather than individuals alone, so peasants married younger because they needed to. They couldn’t afford to do otherwise. Women still had the same duty to bare children, but now it was for the added reason of producing workers. This shows that the whole idea of the family changed to accommodate the new economy made by the Industrial Revolution.
On the other hand, the textile industry saw a dramatic contribution from women as a workforce. In the 1790s, there were over 900 spinning cotton mills. This jumped up to over 1000 in 1800, and the majority of the workforce was, indeed, women. They were the spinners. They had spun back when proto-industry was in full swing and had taken six people to supply yarn to a weaver, but technological advancement meant that spinning became more efficient, which increased production in the long term. But when Spinning Jennies developed and got larger, men took over. Hand loom weaving had always been considered males’ work but women did work more often as weavers in the West Riding and the West Country. Silk spinning remained a women’s monopoly and the ratio of women to men was significantly higher than in the wool or cotton industries.
The long wars with France also provided an opportunity for women to fill the labour gap left by men, but in times of employment crisis, women were excluded by male weavers. Stitching, glove making and lace making expanded rapidly on the basis of cheap female labour. Journeymen in the industry of Calico printing demanded higher wages, but in 1790 employers introduced new machines, which dislodged the journeyman’s hold and brought in cheaper female labour to do the work. Wedgwood also employed female labour for printing and decorating, although the idea of it being “skilled” labour was never applied to it. It was still a male dominated word for their work. Women began to infiltrate the working world despite staunch patriarchal ideologies.
Mining was an industry that varied in female labour employment. There was little national conformity. Few women actually worked below ground and was on the decline anyway in the late 1700s as well as the 1842 Mines Act that banned women from working underground. This legislation hardly affected English mining as only 5% of the miners were female, but it was universally condemned in Scotland where 35% of the miners were female. The increasing options in other field of work would also draw women away from mining with the 14 hour days and the danger it involved. Still, women were involved on the surface and their prime task was drawing, but iron tracks brought this job within the capability of a child, and so they were gradually replaced by even cheaper children. Generally women weren’t involved in heavy industry, but they could be found in light metal ware industries in Birmingham because of their deft agility.
Mainly married women withdrew from industry, which decreased economic contributions to society because they could rely on their husband to be the breadwinner and contemporary ideology of a woman’s role was to be a good housewife. Unlike married women, single or widowed women had only themselves to rely on, and in the case of a lot of widows, children to support. The combined earnings of women and children were able to double the family income, which therefore increased home demands in the late eighteenth century. Many widows carried on their husband’s trade, which had departed from what had gone before. However, women were gradually being excluded as capitalist advance took more work from the home, and as population growth accelerated, people flooded the market.
It is perilous to assume that women’s work was transformed in a radical and uniformed way by the Industrial Revolution. Some historians argue that change was equally balanced with continuity, so even the term “revolution” is queried. Some believe the Industrial Revolution caused the demise of the “golden age” of women’s work. Yet few believe that the pre-capitalist economy was ideal for women, but they feel too that the late eighteenth century to 1850 saw a narrowing in opportunities for women to work. Women were economically marginalised by the Industrial Revolution, because they had jobs that required a low level of skill and were low in productivity. This seems to continue what had characterised women’s work for centuries. Indeed, other historians argue that there was no “golden age” for women in the pre-industrial past, but the same restrictions were still enforced. The pre-existence of female subordination was the cause of capitalist advancement, and in fact the oppression of women was necessary for the industrial capitalism to keep on working and evolve. There seems little change from the early modern period. Capitalism, key to the Industrial Revolution, was a long established system in the economy. The only variant in the British economy was that it became industrialist. However, in certain industries and at specific times, there was an increase in women’s opportunities in the workplace. There was seemingly a balance of change and continuity.
Long standing ideas of women as inferior shows little change in social constructions of females from the early modern period. So why were they employed? It seemed these exact ideas of women’s inferiority, which provide the answer. (By the way, these notions of female inferiority in this period masked male anxiety of being pushed out of their spheres of employment by women workers.) The fact that women were cheaper and more flexible meant that they were employed because they could be dropped easily in times of recession or a settling down of the economy. Unlike men, they weren’t considered the provider for the family and wouldn’t need to depend on charities to support them when out of work. Wage rates of women varied nationally, but were generally one-third to one-half of the wage of men. In the North and the Midlands, women earned higher wages because of the rapidly expanding industries of textiles, metal wares and pottery. The wages remained cheap even when there was pressure on labour supplies as in cotton and wool spinning because women’s work was seen as low status and supplemental to the household income. Women workers were also likely to be agreeable to the discipline of the factory and less able to oppose the autonomous work practice that they had enjoyed under the proto-industrialised system. An important factor in the demand for female labour was organisational and technological innovation. The use of female labour with these innovations was to yield higher profits that were impossible to reach before.
Despite female labour being termed as “unskilled”, women were important and technological change during industrialisation could provide the conditions for the breakdown of sexual division of labour. Unfortunately though, there was a redefinition of gender notions at the same time, which resulted in the reassertion of male superior status in the economy. Assumptions of being women physically weaker and intelligently inferior have dated back hundreds of years. Combined with this, there were social issues that had an effect such as the declining age in marriage and the rising rate of marriage, which endorsed dependency of women on men. They were no longer individual economic agents contributing to the economy. It was in this time that the Victorian ideal of domesticity of women was supported by legislation and male campaigns for the ‘breadwinner wage’. The principle of patriarchy remained a constant shaping factor in nineteenth century British society, partly in response to economic developments, which threatened the system.
The demographic effects of the agricultural revolution were important. It released peasants from their work as fewer men were needed to do the work because of mechanisation and new innovations. They drew on these people to produce in greater volumes of goods and at a lower wage. This work supplemented the income of the household economy. Family units were needed to work together, rather than individuals alone, so peasants married younger because they needed to. They couldn’t afford to do otherwise. Women still had the same duty to bare children, but now it was for the added reason of producing workers. This shows that the whole idea of the family changed to accommodate the new economy made by the Industrial Revolution.
On the other hand, the textile industry saw a dramatic contribution from women as a workforce. In the 1790s, there were over 900 spinning cotton mills. This jumped up to over 1000 in 1800, and the majority of the workforce was, indeed, women. They were the spinners. They had spun back when proto-industry was in full swing and had taken six people to supply yarn to a weaver, but technological advancement meant that spinning became more efficient, which increased production in the long term. But when Spinning Jennies developed and got larger, men took over. Hand loom weaving had always been considered males’ work but women did work more often as weavers in the West Riding and the West Country. Silk spinning remained a women’s monopoly and the ratio of women to men was significantly higher than in the wool or cotton industries.
The long wars with France also provided an opportunity for women to fill the labour gap left by men, but in times of employment crisis, women were excluded by male weavers. Stitching, glove making and lace making expanded rapidly on the basis of cheap female labour. Journeymen in the industry of Calico printing demanded higher wages, but in 1790 employers introduced new machines, which dislodged the journeyman’s hold and brought in cheaper female labour to do the work. Wedgwood also employed female labour for printing and decorating, although the idea of it being “skilled” labour was never applied to it. It was still a male dominated word for their work. Women began to infiltrate the working world despite staunch patriarchal ideologies.
Mining was an industry that varied in female labour employment. There was little national conformity. Few women actually worked below ground and was on the decline anyway in the late 1700s as well as the 1842 Mines Act that banned women from working underground. This legislation hardly affected English mining as only 5% of the miners were female, but it was universally condemned in Scotland where 35% of the miners were female. The increasing options in other field of work would also draw women away from mining with the 14 hour days and the danger it involved. Still, women were involved on the surface and their prime task was drawing, but iron tracks brought this job within the capability of a child, and so they were gradually replaced by even cheaper children. Generally women weren’t involved in heavy industry, but they could be found in light metal ware industries in Birmingham because of their deft agility.
Mainly married women withdrew from industry, which decreased economic contributions to society because they could rely on their husband to be the breadwinner and contemporary ideology of a woman’s role was to be a good housewife. Unlike married women, single or widowed women had only themselves to rely on, and in the case of a lot of widows, children to support. The combined earnings of women and children were able to double the family income, which therefore increased home demands in the late eighteenth century. Many widows carried on their husband’s trade, which had departed from what had gone before. However, women were gradually being excluded as capitalist advance took more work from the home, and as population growth accelerated, people flooded the market.
Despite all of this, one factor of the Industrial Revolution must be remembered. It was not nationally uniformed and varied regionally, so women received higher earnings and increased opportunities for earning were more characteristic of some areas. Neither did the increase in wages mean that they increased consumption. There was also some in society, who believed that factory employment of women was ‘unnatural’ as it had ‘ruinous consequences’ on the social order and children grew up wild like weeds’. Complaints were not just from fellow male workers either; it was people like the Utilitarians and Evangelicals, which included some women too. Society was divided over the matter of female labour, and to some extent female workers were considered by some male weavers to be as much the symptom as the cause of their problems. In short, the blame came to fall on the laps of the government and capitalist employers.
Women got involved in the rebellious movement, Chartism, as they were dissatisfied with their inferior status as “unskilled”, the appalling conditions in the factories and the low wages. The fact that these economic problems were not sorted out by either the employer or the government meant that they evolved into political problems, which resulted in riots and protests. The National Female Charter Association was set up and a vast amount of women were involved. Although many historians debate the effectiveness of Chartism, it is clear that the new roles of women in the factories allowed them to step out of their ‘inferior’ role and campaign for economic rights that extended past the economy and demanded a change in their social perception.
There was a slump at the end of the 1830s, which coincided with the organisation against factory girls by male workers. They became a target by the male workers as the cause for all their problems. The government realised something had to be done. The Factory Act of 1833 was hailed by its critics as being just a cosmetic exercise, as it did very little so as not to affect the employers or the economy. It however encouraged more females to work for the labour lost out on by barring young children from the factories. This did not abate the raucous protest of the male workers. In continued into the 1840s when people called for legislative controls over women’s work altogether. The male workers had a priority over female workers. This right was reinforced by the fact male workers had higher wages because they had the sole responsibility for the economic welfare of their families. In this respect women’s roles had become more restricted. It seems as they got more of a chance to make economic contributions, they were increasingly restricted because the male workers saw them as a threat. However other groups like the aristocracy and Evangelicals felt it was “unnatural” and went against a woman’s domestic role.
The Industrial Revolution changed the social structure dramatically. It was highly profitable for some and these formed a solid middle class. Also, a proletariat was formed because of the industrialisation which women were a part of. This period generally saw an increase in women being employed and the possibilities for greater female status and power were within sight. The economic changes had an adverse effect on society as gender division was created and held women back. The industrialisation of Britain, which gave women jobs, helped shake the foundations of the patriarchal society and from here onwards there is a gradual erosion of patriarchy in society (albeit there have also been some steps back since too!). Female labour was crucial to the economy as a whole and their earnings were a large part of the household income. They were also vital to the expanding out-put system for basic processes like spinning and knitting: “never before did such a large percentage of women participate in productive labour”. It became usual for women to be full time workers and they remained a strong presence in the textile trades. However, for all their economic contributions, they remained subordinate members of society dominated by males. It is surprising to see how little things had changed between1770-1850 considering it was supposed to be a “revolution”. Females rarely displaced male workers and sometimes were pushed out of the workforce. They were still poorly paid for all their labours and were not emancipated despite their contributions. This period seemed to be a sliding scale, in which events and issues in England affected which gender was employed more. For example, there were times like in the Napoleonic wars when men were in short supply, and then women were marginalised when there were slumps. In the end there was a change and it did increase women’s independence, but it wasn’t without problems. Their role remained fundamentally the same but it was slowly trying to evolve in the chances given to them by the Industrial Revolution. The structure of society was changed by the Industrial Revolution but some sections of society tried to keep the patriarchal sentiment present in it, but in the modernisation of industry and the need of workers to fill the demand, it was unlikely that women were going to be oppressed for long.
3 comments:
Isnt it funny how society has changed and continues to change.
This is interesting - I wonder have thibngs really changed for women?
Never thought of capitalism as dependent on flexible workers. This is certainly still true.
Women take the least paid work and are kore likely to take on roles such as cleaning, and caring professions.
However, society wouldn't perhaps need caring professions, if the world was a more caring place.
It's not so I digress.
Thanks Blue in Green and Psyconym!
Things do change, but whether as far as we think or as far as we want is another matter!!
Yeah, it surprised me too to realise that capitalism, no matter the sex, needed flexible workers! It is still true! And indeed, women do take on this flexible and often less appreciated work... btw, "cleaning and caring" still come strongly into the category of "women's work" which you wouldn't find men doing as freely.
And indeed, if we were a more caring world... gawd, how many things would be different eh? sigh... if only we could fix the world... :)
Post a Comment