I’ll be joining the passport bro movement

[World]

Historians argue that the census doesn’t give us an accurate picture though. contemporary household budgets reveal that more women did in fact work than what was officially revealed.

also, the whole voluntary point I made was merely a theory. I was linking the rise of male trade unionism ect but it turns out I was wrong. Oh well.

YeAh, that we already discussed when I mentioned the household budget source. Household budget along with actual first hand Victorian reports is what historians used to get an insight of women’s work.

The British census intended to capture regular employement, so whilst more men and women might have worked, it was casual and therefore not included.

For example being a son/daughter/wife of a farmer was regarded as an occupation in 1851 however in 1881, they were regarded as unemployed unless they worked full time on the farm themselves.

As for the pre census data:

“In the pre-census era, the data available on the participation of women in different occupations can be characterized as partial, sporadic and error-laden. As a result, historians using different data sources often propose dissimilar occupational structures for women. For example, church court records indicate that making clothes and laundry were the most important female occupations the eighteenth century (Earle 1989) whereas criminal court records suggest shop keeping and the selling of food & drink dominated women’s work (Erickson 2008).”

Your source of 66 % married women working used 1161 households which i don’t think is a large enough sample size to represent the entire UK population which was recorded at 26 million in 1881 unlike the british census which recorded every single person in the UK. The sample size was collected from contemporary social commentators, parliamentary papers, local archives,provincial record offices,and working class autobiographies. There are small irregular geographical pockets in the UK where married women work >35 % but the average is less than <5 %. A wife who helped their husband once a week on the farm for an hour would also be considered employed.

 

[Angelina]

The British census intended to capture regular employement, so whilst more men and women might have worked, it was casual and therefore not included.

For example being a son/daughter/wife of a farmer was regarded as an occupation in 1851 however in 1881, they were regarded as unemployed unless they worked full time on the farm themselves.

As for the pre census data:

“In the pre-census era, the data available on the participation of women in different occupations can be characterized as partial, sporadic and error-laden. As a result, historians using different data sources often propose dissimilar occupational structures for women. For example, church court records indicate that making clothes and laundry were the most important female occupations the eighteenth century (Earle 1989) whereas criminal court records suggest shop keeping and the selling of food & drink dominated women’s work (Erickson 2008).”

Your source of 66 % married women working used 1161 households which i don’t think is a large enough sample size to represent the entire UK population which was recorded at 26 million

Fair enough

in 1881 unlike the british census which recorded every single person in the UK.

Yep it did, but it wasn’t accurate. They simply didnt record a lot of women and it wasn’t just casual workers might I add.

Women's work was often not included within statistics on waged work in official records,

https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/19th-and-early-20th-century

Women that worked casually on farms as help wouldn’t really be getting paid. It wouldn’t be waged work, unless you have evidence otherwise

The sample size was collected from contemporary social commentators, parliamentary papers, local archives,provincial record offices,and working class autobiographies.

Hold up, where is your proof That working class authobiographies and other forms of contemporary sources indicate that married women hardly worked? I would have thought it was the opposite. It is through contemporary social commentators that made them realize a lot more married working class women worked.

Am I misunderstanding you, I’m half asleep loool.

There are small irregular geographical pockets in the UK where married women work >35 % but the average is less than <5 %. A wife who helped their husband once a week on the farm for an hour would also be considered employed.

I doubt she’d be considered employed if he helped for an hr as she obviously wouldn’t be getting wages. Historians literally talk about women that make money who are still not recorded in the census.

 

[World]

Hold up, where is your proof That working class authobiographies and other forms of contemporary sources indicate that married women hardly worked? I would have thought it was the opposite. It is through contemporary social commentators that made them realize a lot more married working class women worked.

My point is that the areas where working clsss autobiographies and other contemporary sources are written such as local archives and parliamentary papers is likely heavily urbanised areas like the capital where 75 % of females worked.

 

[Angelina]

@World

One issue that has been raised by historians in the past is that the census isn't a reliable tool for analysing women's work.

Even more convincing was the argument that husbands might have been ashamed to admit that their wives had to work, and that their labour wasn't enough to support their family, and so they left their wife's job off the census.

So wives didn't work in the 'good old days'? Wrong | Amanda Wilkinson

Amanda Wilkinson: The idea of the 'angel in the home' is an illusion. The Victorian working class counted on having two wages

amp.theguardian.com

What I was trying to explain to you and as various historians and articles say as that the census is simply not accurate. Even women that worked everyday for wages were omitted. Also, your theory that only ‘casual’ helpers who worked once a wewere not included, isn’t accurate tbh, unless you


On the contrary, in districts of Norwich, for example, more than 50% of women who are recorded as having a job are married. In towns in East Anglia and in London on average more than 30% of married women are recorded as working, and this matches with what other historical records can show us.


Dr Amanda Wilkinson is a researcher and teacher in the department of history at the University of Essex

 

[Darood]

Saxib, if you read how terrible the rate of child mortality was and the inhumane conditions which resulted in various diseases, you wouldn’t be enthusiastic to bring it back . Whilst I’m thankful for the industrial revolution which propelled us to modernity, it truly was a bleak time in British history. Reading up on factory work, trade unionism and the workhouse act made me realize that the British were not only cruel to the natives they colonized, but also to their own working class natives.

He’s not familiar with Oliver Twist or William Blake I guess.

 

[Angelina]

My point is that the areas where working clsss autobiographies and other contemporary sources are written such as local archives and parliamentary papers is likely heavily urbanised areas like the capital where 75 % of females worked.

That’s an interesting theory. You could be right. I believe so too actually. I’ll look into it.

I think it’s hard for historians to get a very accurate picture because pride and middle/upper class culture impacted the truth of actually how many women were employed. They all believe though without doubt that it was a lot more married women working.

Rich/middle class men thought the idea of a woman working as ceeb and low-class and I can imagine working class men felt even more disheartened as they were impacted by the views of the times but they had no choice but for women and even their children to work. What makes it even worse was that these women were not like the women of today who can get access to dignified jobs with good pay checks. They were overworked like donkeys with terrible pay.

So it makes sense why so many women’s occupation wasn’t written down. In many cases it could have been about protecting the husbands ego.

 

[World]

@World

One issue that has been raised by historians in the past is that the census isn't a reliable tool for analysing women's work.

No, the past census are the main tool which historians use. Even your own source striking-woman states this:

“However, women’s work has not always been accurately recorded within sources that historians rely on, due to much of women's work being irregular, home-based or within a family-run business. The sources you are posting are contrarian and trying to to against the established opinions of historian.

Even more convincing was the argument that husbands might have been ashamed to admit that their wives had to work, and that their labour wasn't enough to support their family, and so they left their wife's job off the census.

It’s just a made up theory that millions of husbands forced their wives not to tick a box on a piece of paper saying their occupation and if they worked because they were embarrassed, there is no proof for that.

So wives didn't work in the 'good old days'? Wrong | Amanda Wilkinson

Amanda Wilkinson: The idea of the 'angel in the home' is an illusion. The Victorian working class counted on having two wages

amp.theguardian.com

What I was trying to explain to you and as various historians and articles say as that the census is simply not accurate. Even women that worked everyday for wages were omitted. Also, your theory that only ‘casual’ helpers who worked once a wewere not included, isn’t accurate tbh, unless you

Historians accept it. I just find it hard to take random blog posts seriously without any sources that I can check.

On the contrary, in districts of Norwich, for example, more than 50% of women who are recorded as having a job are married. In towns in East Anglia and in London on average more than 30% of married women are recorded as working, and this matches with what other historical records can show us.

Dr Amanda Wilkinson is a researcher and teacher in the department of history at the University of Essex

I’ve said that the average of married women working in the Uk was below 5 % according to data. The data agrees with you that East Anglia, London and other isolated pockets are the exception, where >35 % married women work. But if all women in the UK are recorded it’s less than 5 %. Look at the purple:

 

[World]

That’s an interesting theory. You could be right. I believe so too actually. I’ll look into it.

I think it’s hard for historians to get a very accurate picture because pride and middle/upper class culture impacted the truth of actually how many women were employed. They all believe though without doubt that it was a lot more married women working.

Rich/middle class men thought the idea of a woman working as ceeb and low-class and I can imagine working class men felt even more disheartened as they were impacted by the views of the times but they had no choice but for women and even their children to work. What makes it even worse was that these women were not like the women of today who can get access to dignified jobs with good pay checks. They were overworked like donkeys with terrible pay.

So it makes sense why so many women’s occupation wasn’t written down. In many cases it could have been about protecting the husbands ego.

Middle class and working class have different cultures though. It may be embarrassing for a middle class woman to work but not for a working class. They would laugh at that idea. There are areas where 80 % of women were working, why would they be embarrassed by what some rich people they don’t associate or befriend with think? I don’t think they were forced to work either, but they chose to because why not make more money? Also domestic services such as maids made up 40 % of working women’s occupation, it’s not that different today in most of the developing world.

 

[Angelina]

Middle class and working class have different cultures though. It may be embarrassing for a middle class woman to work but not for a working class. They would laugh at that idea. There are areas where 80 % of women were working, why would they be embarrassed by what some rich people they don’t associate or befriend with think?

The theory is plausible when you read quotes of that time period, especially concerning the trade union. I’ll try and find it.

I don’t think they were forced to work either, but they chose to because why not make more money? Also domestic services such as maids made up 40 % of working women’s occupation, it’s not that different today in most of the developing world.

Lol World, read up on the working conditions of the working class in the 19th century. I don’t think anyone that has an understanding of how society operated then would ever say that they wanted to work especially in those conditions and incredibly low wages. if you’re going to compare Victorian England to a modern country but third world maybe Bangladesh but 5x worse.


Mothers were sending their 6-7 yr old sons to work. What does that tell you? Btw, this isn’t an opinion, but a fact. There were high child mortality rates due to these factories and being child chimney sweepers and women too would work more than 12hrs and they’d be breathing in toxic smoke. If they didn’t work and there husbands didn’t have enough, they’d be sent to the workhouse. Read up on that as well. Also look into trade unionism and how it started.

Btw, I’m sure you’ve read Oliver Twist? Yes, it’s a novel, but it gives you a great snapshot of the cruelty of Regency and Victorian Britain towards the poor. There is a reason why it’s a staple in British schools.

 

[World]

@Angelina i found this example record of the british census in 1851, pretty cool. sad how more advanced britain 170 years ago is compared to somalia today:

 

[Angelina]

@Angelina i found this example record of the british census in 1851, pretty cool. sad how more advanced britain 170 years ago is compared to somalia today:

View attachment 246427

Advanced yes, but the things is World people look at the UK in awe but we need to understand that a lot of things we take for granted in the UK like fair pay, holiday pay, kids having a childhood, not being sent to a workhouse to die ect and the Welfare state was literally the blood, sweat and tears of the working class. They treated a good % of their pop like slaves.

They also had a lot more social issues as well. I’d much rather be a free nomad, than an underclass/working class. our ancestors probably had higher life expectancy than Brits of the past.

 

[Journey.]

I've said that the average of married women working in the Uk was below 5 % according to data. The data agrees with you that East Anglia, London and other isolated pockets are the exception, where >35 % married women work. But if all women in the UK are recorded it’s less than 5 %. Look at the purple:

View attachment 246424

Is this looking at women of all classes or just working class women?

 

[World]

Lol World, read up on the working conditions of the working class in the 19th century. I don’t think anyone that has an understanding of how society operated then would ever say that they wanted to work especially in those conditions and incredibly low wages. if you’re going to compare Victorian England to a modern country but third world maybe Bangladesh but 5x worse.


Mothers were sending their 6-7 yr old sons to work. What does that tell you? Btw, this isn’t an opinion, but a fact. There were high child mortality rates due to these factories and being child chimney sweepers and women too would work more than 12hrs and they’d be breathing in toxic smoke. If they didn’t work and there husbands didn’t have enough, they’d be sent to the workhouse. Read up on that as well. Also look into trade unionism and how it started.

I think in 200 years time, our working conditions will be viewed as barbaric as well. People will call us slaves for working in Amazon warehouses. 12 hours with minimal breaks breaking our backs picking up boxes, the horror. £12 an hour? you can’t even pay for a box in a house with that.

tho i agree working in a factory was horrible i can’t see how working as a maid or babysitter is that much harder than today, and that’s what 40 % of women were employed in.

Plus i don’t think bangladesh is a good example to use as 4.7 million children between the age of 5-14 are working there.

 

[World]

Is this looking at women of all classes or just working class women?

all women. the british census didn’t seperate by class.

as u can see it asks for address, name, relation to head of family, condition, age, occupation, place of birth, and if u have any disability

 

[Angelina]

I think in 200 years time, our working conditions will be viewed as barbaric as well. People will call us slaves for working in Amazon warehouses. 12 hours with minimal breaks breaking our backs picking up boxes, the horror. £12 an hour? you can’t even pay for a box in a house with that.

LOL warya, read up on conditions in Victorian England. I just know you failed English literature and History. Nah I’m joking

tho i agree working in a factory was horrible i can’t see how working as a maid or babysitter is that much harder than today, and that’s what 40 % of women were employed in.

It was harder as there was none of the tech we had.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Plus i don’t think bangladesh is a good example to use as 4.7 million children between the age of 5-14 are working there.

perfect example as child labour was also common in Victorian Britain with kids living in squalor.

 

[Angelina]

all women. the british census didn’t seperate by class.

View attachment 246430
as u can see it asks for address, name, relation to head of family, condition, age, occupation, place of birth, and if u have any disability

I get jealous when I watch ‘Who do you think you are’ and then these cadaans whip up the census and then they’re able to find out what their great great grandfather worked as.

Oh watch the Dani Dyer episode. It was crazy.

 

[World]

It was harder as there was none of the tech we had.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

true it probably depended on your employer. tho post 1860 it was illegal for your employer to beat you. i honestly think it was better in britain than khaleej, the latter would treat you worse.

 

[Mozart]

That’s an interesting theory. You could be right. I believe so too actually. I’ll look into it.

I think it’s hard for historians to get a very accurate picture because pride and middle/upper class culture impacted the truth of actually how many women were employed. They all believe though without doubt that it was a lot more married women working.

Rich/middle class men thought the idea of a woman working as ceeb and low-class and I can imagine working class men felt even more disheartened as they were impacted by the views of the times but they had no choice but for women and even their children to work. What makes it even worse was that these women were not like the women of today who can get access to dignified jobs with good pay checks. They were overworked like donkeys with terrible pay.

So it makes sense why so many women’s occupation wasn’t written down. In many cases it could have been about protecting the husbands ego.

This is accurate. I remembered seeing a professor explain this in a Twitter thread a few days ago

 

[Angelina]

This is accurate. I remembered seeing a professor explain this in a Twitter thread a few days ago

I know. There are other sources on Jstore I would love to show @World but I can’t remember my password and it’s kinda late now. I can’t be asked.

The professor is mostly talking but Ancient Mesopotamia which I don’t know much about, but fascinating. I even read somewhere that even during the Islamic empire age, many women used to work as spinners and weavers.

 

[World]

This is accurate. I remembered seeing a professor explain this in a Twitter thread a few days ago

idk what the relevance is between 19th century britain and a civilisation from 4000 years ago. the former is far closer to us than the latter.