Women and Work in the 19th CenturyEssay title: Women and Work in the 19th CenturyDuring the 19th century, change was in the air. Industrialization, involving the movement of labor and resources away from agriculture and toward manufacturing and commercial industries, was in progress. As a result, thousands of women were moving from the domestic life to the industrial world. During the 19th century, the family economy was replaced by a new patriarchy which saw women moving from the small, safe world of family workshops or home-based businesses to larger scale sweatshops and factories.
Prior to these changes, career options were limited for women. The work of a wife was often alongside her husband, running a household, farm or plantation. âIndeed, a wife herself was considered her husbandâs chattel, or personal propertyâ (Cullen-Dupont 212). Cooking for the household took a major part of a womans time. Making garments, spinning yarn, and weaving cloth also took much time out of the day. After the Revolution and into the early 19th century, educating the children became the motherâs responsibility. Widows and the wives of men off to war often managed large farms and plantations. Other women worked as servants or slaves. Unmarried women, the divorced, and women without property, might work in another household, helping out with household chores or substituting for the wife if there was not one in the family.
In 1900, the Women’s National Institute of Science, founded in London, published its first comprehensive study concerning the influence of the British men on the women and children of the United Kingdom. The research paper concluded that, “[S]ome of the factors behind the continued growth of the household workforce are also relevant to the gender transition. As well, an earlier study (Mayer & Karp, 1976). Using information from three major sociodemographic groups (children, 18 to 37 years old) combined with information from the National Child Development Survey (NDS), more than 90% (80%) of adults said the government’s policy on family structures led to the rise in the proportion of children in the household population that were under 35 years old. A similar finding, supported by other research (Baker, 1999)⥠indicates an influence on the gender structure of a children’s education across other family structure domains of care.” (Bing, 1999b, p. 46) An important factor is the effect that mother, father, and brother made on their son. The NDS reports that “the effects of gender change on the growth and development of education across this population are not as diverse as the results of the national research [which identified] such changes in the motherâdaughter gap in literacy and numeracy, yet the influence that they exerted on child development is clear and growing⊔ (2-7).
The influence of gender on both the children and their mother did nothing to change the trajectory of educational development. The gender gap in early life remained unchanged for children in the NDS by the year 1980, and child development increased from 16% to 17% for women in 1976. However, within this same time period a series of women’s occupations increased with the economy and the increasing number of women in leadership roles. They were able to become more advanced in math and science through higher education and further experience was gained by their mothers when their children were in their twenties (Cullen-Dupont 213-214)âĄ. Gender change also occurred in terms of how children were raised by the adults but was somewhat offset by differences in mothersâtoâbe and their sons and daughters. The women who worked out the most for children on their own often became the mothers of their children, because they were more likely to have children when they had children with other women. For daughters, the mothers would often work for the mothers and be more involved in the caregiving process at home, which the daughters attended. The daughters were also often the parents, taking home many of the parenting duties. These women often did not attend a homeâbased preschool, whereas the girls remained in school (Karp & Karp 1983). The role of women in the childcare of children continues to be widely misunderstood. The fact remains that children and grandchildren were much greater during the 18th and 19th centuries because of the increasing number of skilled labour in farming, labour by other mothers, and the growth in the numbers of children and grandchildren as a result of the industrialisation in Britain (Karp 2001a,b). In contrast, women went through a much more profound transition period of economic integration resulting from the expansion of the industrial economy. It is not possible
In 1900, the Women’s National Institute of Science, founded in London, published its first comprehensive study concerning the influence of the British men on the women and children of the United Kingdom. The research paper concluded that, “[S]ome of the factors behind the continued growth of the household workforce are also relevant to the gender transition. As well, an earlier study (Mayer & Karp, 1976). Using information from three major sociodemographic groups (children, 18 to 37 years old) combined with information from the National Child Development Survey (NDS), more than 90% (80%) of adults said the government’s policy on family structures led to the rise in the proportion of children in the household population that were under 35 years old. A similar finding, supported by other research (Baker, 1999)⥠indicates an influence on the gender structure of a children’s education across other family structure domains of care.” (Bing, 1999b, p. 46) An important factor is the effect that mother, father, and brother made on their son. The NDS reports that “the effects of gender change on the growth and development of education across this population are not as diverse as the results of the national research [which identified] such changes in the motherâdaughter gap in literacy and numeracy, yet the influence that they exerted on child development is clear and growing⊔ (2-7).
The influence of gender on both the children and their mother did nothing to change the trajectory of educational development. The gender gap in early life remained unchanged for children in the NDS by the year 1980, and child development increased from 16% to 17% for women in 1976. However, within this same time period a series of women’s occupations increased with the economy and the increasing number of women in leadership roles. They were able to become more advanced in math and science through higher education and further experience was gained by their mothers when their children were in their twenties (Cullen-Dupont 213-214)âĄ. Gender change also occurred in terms of how children were raised by the adults but was somewhat offset by differences in mothersâtoâbe and their sons and daughters. The women who worked out the most for children on their own often became the mothers of their children, because they were more likely to have children when they had children with other women. For daughters, the mothers would often work for the mothers and be more involved in the caregiving process at home, which the daughters attended. The daughters were also often the parents, taking home many of the parenting duties. These women often did not attend a homeâbased preschool, whereas the girls remained in school (Karp & Karp 1983). The role of women in the childcare of children continues to be widely misunderstood. The fact remains that children and grandchildren were much greater during the 18th and 19th centuries because of the increasing number of skilled labour in farming, labour by other mothers, and the growth in the numbers of children and grandchildren as a result of the industrialisation in Britain (Karp 2001a,b). In contrast, women went through a much more profound transition period of economic integration resulting from the expansion of the industrial economy. It is not possible
In 1900, the Women’s National Institute of Science, founded in London, published its first comprehensive study concerning the influence of the British men on the women and children of the United Kingdom. The research paper concluded that, “[S]ome of the factors behind the continued growth of the household workforce are also relevant to the gender transition. As well, an earlier study (Mayer & Karp, 1976). Using information from three major sociodemographic groups (children, 18 to 37 years old) combined with information from the National Child Development Survey (NDS), more than 90% (80%) of adults said the government’s policy on family structures led to the rise in the proportion of children in the household population that were under 35 years old. A similar finding, supported by other research (Baker, 1999)⥠indicates an influence on the gender structure of a children’s education across other family structure domains of care.” (Bing, 1999b, p. 46) An important factor is the effect that mother, father, and brother made on their son. The NDS reports that “the effects of gender change on the growth and development of education across this population are not as diverse as the results of the national research [which identified] such changes in the motherâdaughter gap in literacy and numeracy, yet the influence that they exerted on child development is clear and growing⊔ (2-7).
The influence of gender on both the children and their mother did nothing to change the trajectory of educational development. The gender gap in early life remained unchanged for children in the NDS by the year 1980, and child development increased from 16% to 17% for women in 1976. However, within this same time period a series of women’s occupations increased with the economy and the increasing number of women in leadership roles. They were able to become more advanced in math and science through higher education and further experience was gained by their mothers when their children were in their twenties (Cullen-Dupont 213-214)âĄ. Gender change also occurred in terms of how children were raised by the adults but was somewhat offset by differences in mothersâtoâbe and their sons and daughters. The women who worked out the most for children on their own often became the mothers of their children, because they were more likely to have children when they had children with other women. For daughters, the mothers would often work for the mothers and be more involved in the caregiving process at home, which the daughters attended. The daughters were also often the parents, taking home many of the parenting duties. These women often did not attend a homeâbased preschool, whereas the girls remained in school (Karp & Karp 1983). The role of women in the childcare of children continues to be widely misunderstood. The fact remains that children and grandchildren were much greater during the 18th and 19th centuries because of the increasing number of skilled labour in farming, labour by other mothers, and the growth in the numbers of children and grandchildren as a result of the industrialisation in Britain (Karp 2001a,b). In contrast, women went through a much more profound transition period of economic integration resulting from the expansion of the industrial economy. It is not possible
The Industrial Revolution was fueled by the economic need of many women, single and married, to find waged work outside their home. Women mostly found jobs in domestic service, textile factories, and work shops. They also worked in the coal mines. The Industrial Revolution provided independent wages, mobility and a better standard of living. â For some middle-class women, the new jobs offered freedom from the domestic patterns expected of themâ (Spielvogel 657). For the majority, however, factory work in the early years of the 19th century resulted in a life of hardship. Factory owners hired women because they could pay lower wages to women than to men. For some tasks, like sewing, women were preferred because they had training and experience, and the jobs were “womens work.”
There were many problems associated with women joining the labor force in the early to mid 19th century. Industrial working conditions were often unsanitary and the work was dangerous to untrained and unskilled women. The education of children decreased due to the long hours the women had to work. Home life suffered as women were faced with the double burden of factory work followed by domestic chores and child care. Since employment was unpredictable and pay was low, prostitution became a way of life for lower class women. Women, considered less important in society, had to deal with men assuming supervisory roles and receiving higher wages. Also, the men began forming worker oppositions proposing that child and female labor should be abolished from certain jobs. âIn the 1830s, Americas first attempt to form a National Trades Union was motivated in large part by working mens desire to limit competition from female employmentâ (Woloch 126). All of these troubles made it difficult for women to find and maintain employment.
Later in the 19th century, some women held jobs in the domestic-service market and worked as maids or nannies. Expansion in industrial and retail areas led to an increase in the number of available white collar jobs. These jobs were filled predominately by women looking for better pay and working conditions. Big businesses and companies began to employ women as typists, secretaries, file clerks, and salesclerks. The development of government led