Before the Great War, the reality of nineteenth and early twentieth century women was one of oppression and extremely limited freedom, no matter her station. Women were expected to be demure, passive and obedient to their husbands and other men in society. In legal terms, once a woman was married, she ceased to exist in the eyes of the law and her whole identity was consumed by her husband. Even before marriage, women were under the legal control of her male relatives.
Middle and upper-class women were expected to care for the children and home. Women did have some engagement with the public sphere but it was minimal. Philanthropy and charity was a common activity and was actively encouraged. This could be called a freedom with limitation as they are active in society but still practice feminine ideals such as caring and mothering. Engaging in politics was even less common, the extent of women’s participation being accompanying their husbands when they went to vote.
Female employment for working-class women in the 1850-70s however, appears to have been higher than any recorded again until after World War Two. Around 30-40% of women from working class families contributed significantly to household incomes in the mid-Victorian years, particularly if their husband’s wage alone could not provide for the family. In fact, poorer streets had a higher proportion of female-headed households.
While a big employer was the textile industry, the largest employment for a Victorian working-class woman was in domestic service such as maids, cooks, or nurses living in their employers’ house. In 1911 there were approximately 1,400,000 (out of a female population of 15 million) women in private domestic service. Many young women went into service as soon as they left school and would not work in a large stately house. Instead, they might be the only servant in a middle-class town house. For these women, their jobs tended to mean working long days for very low pay, obeying strict rules with little time off.
The Edwardian period (c.1901-1910) also saw an expansion of white-collar work for women, in particular the expansion of clerical work and of school teaching. These positions offered new opportunities for non-manual work to the daughters of the respectable working class, the labour aristocracy, and the emerging lower middle class. Between 1905 and 1913, almost 29% of the female students attending polytechnic evening classes were estimated as being in white-collar occupations.
Alongside paid work, women’s neighbours played a pivotal role in contributing to their income. Small sums of money, such as a penny for the gas, would often be passed back and forth between households. Even on poorer streets, women could launch collections which went towards major expenses such as funerals. Domestic items such as linens, washtubs and clothing could also be borrowed to gain immediate money.
Routinely pawning items of value would also make up part of women’s income. Neighbourhood women often performed pawning collectively, with one person gathering the pawnable items from each house on Monday mornings and distributing the item tickets to their owners. This often took place without men’s knowledge, despite the fact that pawning often took their Sunday suits and overcoats.
In working class households in London, an ‘internal wage’ system operated in the majority of homes. The system involved husbands handing the largest portion of their weekly earnings to their wives, whilst retaining some pocket money for things such as tobacco, transportation to work, and insurance. Husbands generally expected their wives to handle all household expenses through this system, which gave many working-class women considerable domestic power. At the same time, it made women the person solely responsible for providing for their families in difficult circumstances.
During the Edwardian period, the role of women as a mother was stressed more than their role as a wife. The life and health of children gained an important place in public discussion. This was reinforced by the emphasis on the value of a healthy population as a national resource. Imperial enthusiasts in particular saw birth rate as a matter of national importance – children belonged not only to their parents, but to the community as a whole.
The emphasis on children’s health meant that greater responsibility was placed on mothers for the survival of their children. If a child’s health was in question, the mother’s competency in caring for her child would also be brought into question –if the nation needed healthy citizens as future soldiers and workers, then mothers had to improve. This also led to greater state intervention in children’s upbringing. As child-rearing was becoming a national duty, the state could intervene if it was not done right.
Significantly, the ideology of motherhood transcended class. Along with health concerns, emphasis on the importance of women not ‘shirking’ motherhood was also partly related to the belief that middle- and upper-class women were pursuing new opportunities in education and employment instead of marrying.
Written by Museum Volunteer, Angela Mascolo
Bibliography
Davin, A., ‘Imperialism and Motherhood’, History Workshop, 5 (1978), 9-65
Mason, A., ‘12 Things You Didn’t Know About women in the First World War’, Imperial War Museum, 3 January 2018, <https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/12-things-you-didnt-know-about-women-in-the-first-world-war>
Ross, E., ‘Survival Networks: Women’s Neighbourhood Sharing in London Before World War 1’, History Workshop, 15 (1983), 4-27
Sutherland, G., ‘Self-education, class and gender in Edwardian Britain: women in lower middle- class families’, Oxford Review of Education, 41.4 (2015), 518-533