Did Colonial New England Women Enjoy Significant Economic Autonomy?
Essay Preview: Did Colonial New England Women Enjoy Significant Economic Autonomy?
Report this essay
The question, “Did Colonial New England Women Enjoy Significant Economic Autonomy?” could be argued to some degree either way. However, I do not believe women had significant economic autonomy. Women in New England were treated differently by society of the time. Womens typical contribution to society was limited to house wife duties such as “cooking and sewing, while boys could learn the “secrets” of any number of trades, including blacksmithing, husbandry, shop management, milling, carpentry and seamanship” (Koehler, pg. 10). Two authors who wrote extensively about New England women and economic autonomy were Gloria Main and Lyle Koehler. Gloria Main believed that Women in New England were given sufficient participation in the economic affairs of the region and were valued for their quality of labor and contribution to New Englands economy. On the other hand Lyle Koehler believed that the women in New England were discouraged by Puritan beliefs. This caused them to be unproductive and unable to provide major economic contribution to the region. It can be argued both that colonial New England women did and did not enjoy significant economic autonomy. Some factors helped women in New England to enjoy some economic freedoms, but there were many restrictions that contributed to a rise in discontentment by the more progressive women of the time.
After reading both sides of the argument I believe that there is not enough evidence presented to show women enjoyed significant economic autonomy. In the 1600s to 1700s women had fewer economic freedom and opportunities than men. One example includes: When a daughter had a wealthy father who left property inheritance, she could not fully use the property to its full benefit because of property right restrictions against women and cultural taboos. Koehler wrote that an inheritance provided “some immediate purchasing power, but did little to increase their occupational possibilities” (Koehler, pg. 10). However, the amount of the inheritance was typically not enough for purchasing a home or even enough to “rent a shop and stock it with goods” (Koehler, pg. 11).
Despite the few instances of economic autonomy, most women of the time were greatly limited in their ability to obtain moderate wealth, and purchase the property needed to generate long term return. For example, when fathers did leave an inheritance for a daughter, it was typically a modest sum of money. Even in rare cases when fathers did share a large portion of the family estate, the daughters share would not be enough to invest into a long term money making endeavor. Lack of available work for single women also meant that few could join the property-holding elite, which controlled capital investment and land. Paltry wages of midwives, physicians, teachers, and wet nurses, along with the husbands control over their income, further prevented wives from securing income which would enable them to own property. Although some women had both money and status they only owned small scale businesses. A very small percentage of women owned small businesses “as early as 1640” (Koehler, pg. 14). “Philippa Hammond operated a shop at Boston. So did Widow Howdin (1645), Alice Thomas (before 1672), Ann Carter (1663), Jane Bernard (1672-76), Abigail Johnson (1672-73), Mistress Gutteridge (1690), Elizabeth Connigrave (1672-74), Rebecca Windsor (1672-74), and Mary Castle (1690)” (Koehler, pg. 14). Most women that owned shops were able to use their training as house wives to open businesses like coffee houses and small restaurants. Koehler speaks of two women who ran a slaughter house with two men in 1693 and two other women who kept shops during 1685 and 1691, but whether the women were owners of these