ForcesTransformedWomensLives
Google

What forces most transformed the lives of women Between 1900 and 1940 ?

The lives of women through the 19th Century seemed to be one ruled by a patriarchal society in which they were slaves to men. With little earnings and the trappings of marriage women’s lives seemed bleak. However as the 20th century dawned, the social sphere of Britain was changing with the ascendancy of industrialization. By the 1900’s women were in a position where they could work, and live more independent of man. Between 1900 and 1940 this freedom was to grow, and as I point out through a number of factors, women would be better emancipated. This would eventually lead to a stage where they could work in jobs never before allowed, and objection to their growing importance would dwindle. However in order to show women’s lives between 1900 and 1940 I must first quickly describe the conditions they had to endure in the late 1800s so that this change can be better illustrated.

Lightbulb

The late 19th Century saw women alienated from men; they were repressed by church, marriage and traditional values. In the 1880’s women emerged objecting to the traditional balance of the sexes. Feminist ideas gained ground and spread, and a movement was being born. This movement mainly consisted of upper and middle class women due to its bourgeois origins. Viola Klein described it as starting in “ middle class drawing rooms ” . Industrialization multiplied the number of underpaid women, “ at every level of work, in the town as well as country, the economic exploitation of women aggravated the social inferiority of their sex” . Year by year the struggle for emancipation grew and grew, as new industries took women out of the home they were seen to be more valuable hence oppression grew smaller. However barriers to women’s freedoms still remained, although they were earning a wage men still held the power. Marriage was the key to this as John Short Mill described, “ No slave is a slave to the same lengths, and in so full a sense of the word as a wife is ” . This image of women was slowly being dissolved though towards the end of the 19th century as concessions were being made. In 1870 and again in 1882 Property Acts were announced to give women the right to belongings after divorce, and in 1884 women could no longer be put in prison for not returning to the conjugal home. However authors like Cicely Hamilton were still talking about “marriage as a trade” it was really only until the next century by 1914 that aid was given so that all women could divorce. The transition between the 18th and 19th century was to be aided by changes in family life, including marriage and birth, the industrial context and of apparent significance World War One
            In 1903 the Women’s Social and Political Union was formed. With cries of              “ Votes for Women” the WSPU acted as a pressure group and claimed lots of publicity. However there was little real success and the group split in to two. One of these was the suffragette who started to use illegal violent methods, hence making more impact. The idea of a family wage was being dispersed as women went out to earn wages primarily for themselves. Women soon occupied 27 % of the labour force, and with a greater increase during World War One feminist’s hoped this signaled long-term change. Married life still remained a constant burden though, George Orwell in 1937 describes events when he offered to help a women, her reaction was to tell him “ lads up here expect to be waited on ” females in many regions maintained the mother and wife persona. Half as many married women worked as those who were single. However there was also a different view that could be taken as Ivy Penchbeck writing in the 1930s illustrated that behind men, better wages freed women from the, “ burden of work inside the home ”. This is could be seen as being due to a family now being able to afford a maid. In the interwar period working class women could hope to have gas, or think about moving to a home with a bathroom. Whilst middle class women could expect to have many labor saving devices, allowing them to have much more leisure time. As well as this factor birthrates were also going down due to a demographic transition, so this meant that women had in general more free time in which they could go out and pursue a job, or promote feminist ideas. Yet it is easy to think that women were active and making new demands but there were still those who were loyal to their husbands and really only wanted to acquire respectability. It was respectable for married women not to work, and to keep the house tidy, and those that did acquire jobs had to have respectable ones like factory work. World War One can be seen as a point in which many women were forced in to the workplace and help the effort, this to had been respectable.
            The Great War of 1914 had huge consequences on the domestic population. As brave men went abroad to fight women were left to take their places, which allowed them to strengthen their emancipation. Jobs provided them with money, freedom and a general feeling of helping the cause. Thus war lead to a great expansion of female employment. Large numbers were drawn into war work, agricultural and clerical roles. Some women wanted even more, calling for ‘rights to serve’. Emmeline Pankhurst one of these supporters’ organized demonstrations in July of 1915. 1914 saw 212,000 women employed in engineering and munitions factories; by 1918 this had escalated to almost 1 million. War had accelerated female roles in the workplace, pre war 3 million had been employed in commerce and industry, and by 1918 this had reached 5 million . However as men returned when the war finished they took back their old jobs, meaning that many women lost their jobs and returned to their traditional roles. Therefore the war can be seen as only a temporary effect on women’s roles in society. In reality they had been given a taste of work and individual freedom.  Women’s status improved as men gained respect for them as they had been of great value to the effort. Although immediately after the war female employment went down, between 1911 and 1921 female workers had gone up by a quarter of a million. In the short-term war appeared to have had a great effect on women’s lives, yet in the long term it had little real significance. In reality as John Stevenson points out, “ the war only accelerated and intensified the movement towards the emancipation of women” , as there were no real lasting affects.
            Change for women had been moving at a great pace well before world War one however, Edwardian women were more politically aware, and active in relation to this. Education had also proved important to women, yet old boy networks still maintained an upper lip towards women in schools. However the increasing number of women being taught in these proprietary girls schools was creating a new breed of ambitious girls, who easily loosened family ties and were strong feminists. Opposition was always evident though, a prominent educationalist in 1911 described that girls need to be taught “ gentleness, and care for the young and helpless ” however opposition was being gradually worn down.  Gradually women were being better heard in the house of commons, with men like George Butler talking about women’s suffrage bills in the house of commons between 1907 and 1912. Militant suffragettes and groups like the mother’s union became intent on protecting the status and dignity of women, and with involvements in trade unionism men could not ignore the plight of them. By the 1900s women had acquired the beginning of an equal legal framework to men, they could now divorce, or enter in to contracts at work, no longer having an obligation to the husband. It is right to believe that many women became individualistic working for their own satisfaction. However there were still a large number of unskilled poorly paid women in 1940 and so not all saw significant changes in the period.

It is optimistic to think that between 1900-1940 all the problems of female emancipation could be solved. There was a great deal to be made up between the two sexes to bring equality, including legal, social, political, and economic factors.
This has therefore caused many debates on what the important factors are that gained equality for women, Richard Titmuss has argued that “changes in patterns of pregnancy and childbirth were much more important for explaining the changes in women’s position in society than the acquisition of legal rights ” . Women’s legal rights must not be ignored though and were an important factor, as it gave them identity and worth in society. Pregnancy and childbirth were important as they freed up women’s time, yet as wages increased this allowed for more labor saving devices, which aided this. And woman gaining more rights in the marriage was also important; the right to divorce for all by 1914 let them move away from a slave like relationship. War did not create profound changes in relation to equality of the sexes, although it did accelerate the situation and so this is really an important factor. Whilst pressure groups also had influence, therefore it is easy to say there was not one definitive factor that changed women’s lives between 1900 and 1940. A combination of changes in law, more political awareness, war, and changing social attitudes allowed for women to become more equal, yet they never acquired totality. In today’s times women’s work still remains characteristically low paid, and sexually segregated from men, hence women’s lives at the time were only slowly evolving in an industrial context. 

Therefore it is my belief that Stalin was not concerned with improving the countryside by improving efficiency, in my opinion it appears he simply wanted it to be stable and able to harness.  Preobrazhensky had taught about ‘Primitive socialist accumulation through exploitation of the peasantry’.  He believed that socialist centralisation would cause an enormous amount of economic loss, and this is seemingly what happened.  If we go back to Table I we see that in 1929 grain procurement was 10.8million tonnes, this represented 16.2percent of total production.  This was the problem Stalin was concerned with, by 1930 this had increased to 22.5percent procurement, and by 1935 procurement had reached a massive 40.8percent.  This represented 25.7million tonnes; by 1928 31.5million tonnes were being extracted from the countryside.  Stalin was not concerned with a modern efficient countryside, he was not concerned with its population, what he wanted was control over it so that a procurement crisis would never threaten Russia’s roll towards super power status.
By summer 1929 the free market had been largely eliminated, procurement quotas had been established with penalties for non-deliveries, and by autumn the attacks on Kulaks increased.  By December Stalin had announced that they needed to be ‘liquidated as a class’.  Although hostility developed between the peasant and the regime, the villages were strongly united against the Kulak whom the state had created as a scapegoat.  What happened to the Kulaks can be described as an ‘Ethnic disaster’ however it appears that this focus of anger merely gave the state better protection against a potentially superior revolutionary force than the one it represented.  The total number of deaths between 1930 and 1937 is the subject of much speculation however many believe it to have been as high as 14 million people.   This showed that for the countryside collectivisation was a social disaster for the people living there. 
Due to this social catastrophe some historians have hypothesised how the Russian economy would have faired if the system of NEP had remained in to the 1930s.  Robert Allen who is one of these historians believes that under an economic framework of the 1920s growth would have been more rapid.  However he believes that collectivisation accelerated industrialisation by increasing the rate of rural to urban migration.  Between 1928 and 1932 the urban population increased by 12million, it was believed at 10million peasants left the countryside to become wage earners.   However what Allen also suggests is that due to decreases in rents and real taxes in the 1920s peasants had been consuming more of their own products and selling less to the towns, this he saw as the main stimulant of the procurement crisis.  Aswell as this the consumption of manufactured goods by peasants was seen as stifling large-scale industrialisation and so collectivisation represented a turning of the tables against the peasants, no longer allowing them to be consumers but producers.   Therefore when we find that in 1935 peasant consumption was lower than that of 1890 this is not necessarily a bad thing.   In fact it demonstrates that peasants were not able to hoard their goods but had to sell them in order to survive, whether it be starvation or persecution.

Next Page

Google
     

 

Part of the BuytheMap.com Network

Click here for Links & Domains for Sale