Hisstorical_Commentary__Woman's_Changing_Role_at_the_Turn_of_the_20th_Century

New Statesman: At the turn of the 20th Century women’s position in society was an extremely controversial topic due to the rise of feminism and an increasing number of women working in industry. In early 1914 the New Statesmen, a traditionally left-wing magazine, published a collection of articles which highlighted the pressures of women working in manufacturing and production, and how it was believed that females had “fewer needs of body and mind” (document) than their male counterpart. This essay will examine who wrote the articles, their contents and whether the document as a whole aids historians in understanding how women lived and worked in the early 1900’s. The document “Special Supplement on Women in Industry” was written by members of the Fabian Women’s Group, an organisation which had sprung from the Fabian Society. Both were socialist movements who “believed capitalism had created an unjust and inefficient society” (website Spartacus). The Fabian Women’s Group fought for women to be given the same rights as men and for financial state support for mothers. The society was founded by Maud Pember Reeves, who co-writes the closing essay in the New Statesmen document, in 1907 and conducted a study five years later which examined four working class families. A book which included the findings of the study was later produced, entitled Round About a Pound a Week, which called for the government to introduce aspects of a welfare state such as child benefits and a certain amount of free health care. The collection of essays published in 1914 was obviously the Fabian Women’s Group continuing to highlight the struggles of working class families, however it focused on women’s roles within these homes and their struggles in industrial workplaces. In the articles’ introduction, Mrs. Sidney Webb discusses the “double service” females were expected to provide, that is caring and bringing up children as well as earning an income to help support the family. She also attacks the “idle rich”(document), those who use large amounts of the world’s services and products, but do very little in working to create these goods themselves. Webb deliberates that working women with families are constantly threatened by the Poor Law, the social security policy in Britain which gave money to those with little or no income, as it declared if someone needed help they would be sent to the workhouses where conditions were deliberately made harsh. Mrs. F.W. Hubback goes on to speak about women’s wages during the early 1900’s, and provides accurate figures for the number of women deemed to be “occupied” or in employment at that time. She describes the main cause of women earning less than men to be that it is because of their gender, and that their male counterparts’ work is classed as “skilled”, while female work is largely thought of as “unskilled”. Hubback declares that women are paid “half to two-thirds” (document) of what a male receives for completing the same work, and that women are penalized from receiving a rate of pay due to taking more sick days. She also divides younger female workers into two categories, those who wish only to work until they are married and so look only for a job with immediate wage return, with no prospect of training to obtain a higher rate of pay. The second category is those girls who come from a slightly upper working class and need only money for leisure and personal products. Miss. B.L. Hutchison’s essay discusses women’s roles in trade unions, declaring an increase in females participating in trade unions, and also their part in bringing about the Trades Board Act, a form of minimum wage in the UK. However, her essay does not provide any figures for the amount or percentage of women actively involved in trade unions at the turn of the century. Mrs. Pember Reeves and Mrs. C.M. Wilson offer the final essay in the document, which calls for women to be paid for their work within home and to unite together within their place of employment when there are changes in their workplaces, so as men can understand that they are genuine in the quest for equality. As this document was written by a group of women of behalf of a women’s rights group, it is important to read the document with care no male viewpoint has been offered. Maud Pember Reeves and Beatrice Webb were also from a wealthy background and so have never lived as a poor, working class mother. However, it is evident through use of Census figures in Mrs. Hubbacks’ essay and the Fabian Societies studies into working class families, that this document provides consistent factual evidence. It allows a historian to question why it took so long for reforms such as equal pay and child benefit to come into place, and why so many men, such as the mill manager mentioned in Mrs. Hubbacks piece, did not understand that a women’s work was just as valuable as a mans in so most cases.