Discuss the different kinds of work women do, and what kinds of women do which kinds of work. How does women working either reinforce or threaten gender dynamics?
Women and Law Summer 2019
Women and the Law, Summer 2019, Hunter College
Discuss the different kinds of work women do, and what kinds of women do which kinds of work. How does women working either reinforce or threaten gender dynamics?
According to Dublin, women have always worked yet compared to men, it was always in a domestic setting and unpaid. Enclosed in a private sphere, women obviously did not have the same freedom as men when looking for different jobs or even communicating with different types of people on a daily basis. By doing the same routine that requires being obedient and being dependent on others, women had no self-ownership and self identity without being compared to others. However, as the textile industry started to become more popular and began urbanizing society, women slowly became financially independent and socially independent. We see an example of Harriet having a chance of “occupational mobility” where she starts to receive more responsibilities and challenges and getting paid more for those skills. However, her career came to an end as soon as she got married. When it comes to the maintenance of the machines and carrying heavy objects, you’ll most likely see men do the job. However, when it comes to knitting, spinning, and weaving, you’ll see women do it.
Women becoming more economically sustainable due to the growing textile industry brings even more challenges. Although this was the beginning of women taking ownership of themselves and their skills, there seems to be a repetition of women unable to work as soon as they are married. In fact, almost all the women who work are single even though single and married men are able to work. It makes sense that the women who are working want that independence (economically and socially) so they choose to work there rather than being forced to.
I agree with your feedback Sadia. To your final point, and based on the Dublin reading, one can conclude that between 1826-1860, marital status added a new level of subjugation for women. Women were already subjected to private life during that time, to strenuous and unpaid labor, and thus given no rights in the public sphere. Married women received an extra blow, during the growth of the textile industry.
I agree that for many woman the opportunity to be paid for the work they would normally do for free was an extremely milestone for the woman’s liberation movement. Woman now having independent jobs could now not only have the ability to live by themselves but also enabled them to think for themselves as well. However with many jobs, even into the 1960’s, woman were expected to quit their jobs when married in order to focus on the family and depend on the mans salary for support. Even today we see this is still common, not so much when a woman gets married but when the woman has a child, many people will ask pregnant woman what their plan is and wether or not they will continue working. It is in this case where people make the assumption that it is still the woman’s role to care for her child and not the mans. However today more and more men are becoming stay at home dads and are slowly changing the outdated stereotype.
“Women at work” by Thomas Dublin is a reading that brought up memories of different readings that relate to the topic that the author rises. When textile industry started to grow in the US, a lot of working women (whose characteristics were young, working class, mostly white, religious but not fanatic) moved to the bigger cities to work in and save up money for themselves ( for their dowry, for their own activities, partially sending some money back home). Women’s work in the industrial cities meant three very important things. First, it did not elevate their status from proletariat to the middle and upper class. It is very important that the social structure of the society did not allow these social and economic lifts even with making more income and living outside the rural areas. Young women’s migration for work was not cultural or social but more economic, and this factor was important in a later female movements that started as economic. Second, the families that the women left behind, continued working and living without these women’s investment which meant that the economy overall was shifting from family-based to wages-based. Third, a very important pattern that stands in opposition to economic, is historical. There has been a history of women taking the major role of mothers, wives and caregivers prior to any occupational success. Hence, even though the capitalist machine opened the window for women to grow, and we see Harriet as an example of it, it still came down to women’s domestic role as dominant for them, since as soon as they got married they stopped stepping up in the career ladder and were becoming care providers for their husbands who did not leave the occupational field and continued to develop and grow as professionals.
The reading reminded me about one of my favorite books “Sister Carrie” by Theodore Dreiser. Almost all his books can relate to topics of rising capitalism in the USA, about possibilities and open roads FOR MEN and secondary / supporting / care providing role of women, like in “The American Tragedy”, “The Financier”, “The Titan” and others. But his “Sister Carrie” and “Jennie Gerhardt” show the same class of young proletariat women who moved to big cities and were mesmerized by the idea of the American dream. The might of Chicago, its metro loop, its huge capitalist industrial complexes of the 19th century are shown almost magical in “Sister Carrie”. The main idea of my parallel is that no matter what talent and skills (both social and hard-working economic) Carrie had, it all came down to men being in power of making a change to their and their women’s lives. It took very long for women to speak up about all the matters brought up by Dublin, and we still are experiencing a lot of inequalities and backlash of women’s historic inferior role.
I love your summary. I love how you talked about the three important things that work in industrial cities meant for women. You did an amazing job of tying together the history of women as domestic workers. I liked that you mentioned what happens when women get married and how they would basically stop working. its astounding to me how it was basically expected of them. As for your analysis, I agree that it does come down to men being in power. They are the ones that end up changing women’s lives through marriage or otherwise. Why is it that men feel that they have so much power? Even today, we are not completely equal and it is in infuriating.
Dublin’s “Women at Work” provides an overview on the history of women in the workforce. Prior to the industrial revolution, women’s work was confined to the home. The growth of the textile industry changed this by creating a demand for unskilled labor. Women filled these roles in factories. As a result, more women were able to receive a disposable income. This impact was limited, however, given that factory owners colluded to keep wages low. Additionally, the majority of the women in the workforce were young, given that most left their jobs after marriage. Factories provided housing which forced the employees to live away from their families. To fight back against the workplace oppression, women began to strike. Among the issues they fought for was the ten hour work day. Factory owners often forced workers to endure long shifts. This cause mobilized women to fight for their rights in the workplace.
The fight for women’s rights in the workplace is never ending. Dublin’s article focuses on a specific sector of the labor force. This is because women were excluded from nearly all skilled sectors of the workforce. Societal constructs prevented men from hiring women to work in, for example, an office setting. Before women could even advocate for better working conditions they had to get a foot in the door. Today women are still excluded from several areas of the workplace. Women are often undermined in the office when they are hired. This force is what creates issues such as the wage gap. Sexual harassment is also rampant in areas in which women work. The fight for equality in the labor force is ongoing.
I think you provided a great summary of the Dublin reading and I really like the analysis that you provided at the end. I completely agree with you that societal norms make it difficult for companies to hire women. I know that one issue many women face that is highlighted in the Dublin reading, is the issue of children. Some companies do not want to hire young single women because they know that some of them will get married and have kids, and then stop working in order to raise their families. However, this is not something that is ever a concern for companies regarding young single men. I think it is really upsetting that woman have made so many advices in the workplace, but as you mentioned, the fight for women’s rights is never ending. A good more recent example of this is with the Women’s National Team winning the World Cup, they are paid significantly less than the men’s team even though they create more revenue and they won.
Dublin’s analysis of the transformation of work and community between1826-1860 puts women in the center of society. Yet, it shows that women were (and– to your point– are still today) undervalued for their roles in society– roles they that were mandated not chosen. Thus pressure from cultural practice and public policy told women that their role was to get married, bare children, raise the children according to society’s standards, and sustain the family.
Women were forced to be the backbone of society yet received little to no reward for it. In the past, I’ve argued that the American government punishes poor people because they don’t contribute to society as much as middle to upper class folks do. My argument was that contribution validates citizenship. However, I think I was wrong. Women contribute immensely to society but there are still so many unfavorable policy towards them. In many ways, practices today mirror that of the 19th century, as Dublin wrote, women were relegated to unpaid labor.
It is ridiculous: this huge need for women in private life didn’t come with any power or rights. Dublin articulates a divide between single and married women during the textile industry boom. Single women saw a bit more liberties, it seems, because they could work and married women could not. Using Crenshaw’s framework of intersectionality, it’s difficult (and quite sad) to picture the hurdles faced by a poor married woman of color. In some instances, single women could own property, but married women could not. In true backwards fashion, women are relegated to a subsidiary position in a society all while being required to assume what are arguably the most important roles in that society.
Christine Stansell “City of Women” chapter “female work and poverty”
Christine Stansell in “City of Women” in chapter “female work and poverty” is talking about various jobs women could do in New York City in early 19th century. Stansel states that domestic service, the “help”, was the most common form of waged employment for women at that time. While white women helped mostly in neighborhood arrangements, black women worked for wealthy families, because it was prestigious to have a black servant as sign of affluence. Another kind of women’s employment that Christine Stansell talk about in her article was providing lodging, laundry, lawn dressing and summer trips to the nearby farms in order to earn some money by harvesting, canning and preserving. Some women at that time walked from house to house with baskets full of fruits, vegetables and candies with the intention to sell them. Very common work for black women at that time was street peddling. Very few women at that time were lucky enough to establish a small proprietorship business. Some of these business ladies owned a stand with refreshments and some rented stalls in the public market to sell their goods. Only few women owned a small food shops.
From this article we can see that in the beginning of 19th century, only one family income become a struggle for many families. With only one man working there was not enough income to support the whole family, thus women were forced to search for an opportunity to earn some extra cash. Unfortunately women at that time didn’t have as much opportunities as men and had to accept any potential job. As for me, its not surprising that women didn’t have as much employment opportunities at that time, because of a lack of skills, education and very patriarchal lifestyle. Most of the women in need took jobs that involved physical labor and wasn’t very stable. In my opinion, even though the employment situation for women at that time was hard and unstable in general, we can see a very positive dynamic. Instead of taking care of home and childcare women got an opportunity to earn some money on their own.