The era of inventions and resulting business activity has therefore
changed materially the condition of affairs within the household.
Before this time all women shared in preparing and cooking food; they
spun, wove, and made the clothing, and were domestic manufacturers in
the sense that they changed the raw material into forms suitable for
consumption. But modern inventions and the resulting change in the
system of manufactures, as has been seen, necessarily affected household
employments. The change has been the same in kind, though not in degree,
as has come in the occupations of men. In the last analysis every man
is a tiller of the soil, but division of labor has left only a small
proportion of men in this employment. So in the last analysis every
woman is a housekeeper who “does her own work,” but division of labor
has come into the household as well as into the field, though in a more
imperfect form. It has left many women in the upper and middle classes
unemployed, while many in the lower classes are too heavily burdened;
in three of the four great industries which absorb the energies of the
majority of women working for remuneration—manufacturing, work in shops,
and teaching—the supply of workers is greater than the demand, while in
the fourth—domestic service—the reverse is the case. But it cannot be
assumed that all of those in the first three classes have necessarily
been taken from the fourth class. It has been well said that “through the
introduction of machinery, ignorant labor is utilized, not created.” Many
who under the old order would have been able to live only under the most
primitive conditions, and whose labor can be used under the new order
only in the simplest forms of manufacturing, would be entirely unfit to
have the care of an ordinary household in its present complex form.
One more effect must be noted of this transference of many forms of
household labor to large centres through the operation of inventive
genius. It has been seen that many women have thus been left
comparatively free from the necessity of labor. The pernicious theory
has therefore grown up that women who are rich or well-to-do ought not
to work, at least for compensation, since by so doing they crowd out of
remunerative employment others who need it. It is a theory that overlooks
the historical fact that every person should be in the last analysis a
producer, it is based wholly on the assumption that work is a curse and
not a blessing, and it does not take into consideration the fact that
every woman who works without remuneration, or for less than the market
rates, thereby lowers the wages of every person who is a breadwinner. It
is a theory which if applied to men engaged in business occupations would
check all industrial progress. It is equally a hindrance when applied to
women.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account