Without the work of women on the Home Front, Britain could not have won the First World War

Throughout the time of the war, women abandoned all aspects of their old lives. Suffragists and suffragettes suspended their campaigns for the vote. Instead they concentrated on setting up unions and leagues to actively encourage men to join the army. For example they published posters urging mothers, sisters, wives, daughters to persuade male family members to sign up. All men who wouldn’t sign up were given a white feather, more famously known as the symbol of a coward.

Not only did women concentrate on boosting recruitment; they soon replaced male workers doing dangerous and hard jobs in bad conditions where they were occasionally subjected to abuse. The analysis of the following sources will help to prove or disprove the question. Source A is written by a woman who lived through the war. It explains the work that she did after the war broke out and how much she was paid. The letter was written in 1976 but is a primary source. This means that the source needs careful consideration when deciding if it is reliable.

The woman’s memory may not be accurate so it could be inaccurate, exaggerated, or miss placing vital information. The source has a very one-sided view, as the author seems to only note to the positive aspects of her change in career. There is no suggestion of bad conditions, treatment or injuries as many other sources suggest. The source makes the working life of women seem pleasant and enjoyable. However many sources and other information do not agree with this. The source doesn’t directly agree with the question as it doesn’t show that women were helping Britain win the war but does stress that they were useful.

The source isn’t very reliable unless it is used in conjunction with another source to back it up. Source B is part of a book written by Sylvia Pankhurst in 1932. Sylvia was the daughter of Emily Pankhurst who was the founder of suffragettes and Sylvia was a firm follower. Suffragettes wanted the right to vote and used fierce campaigns often ending in violence and riots. They were strong, determined and single-minded women. Sylvia was especially this way. She set up unions to campaign for women’s rights. The source, therefore, could be biased and used to persuade people to support and join them.

Even tough it was written after the war women still weren’t seen equals and needed many people to help support them. The source could therefore be exaggerated to help make the writing more emotive and persuasive. This source is more informative than the one before, it shows us the disadvantages and seems much more like other information that has been published. For example the bad working conditions ‘it was common for six o more dope painters to be lying ill’. The source does agree more with the statement than Source A. It suggests that women were putting their lives at risk to help continue industry and help the war continue.

Source C, again, taken from a book, written in 1917 by a factory owner. This source completely contrasts with the previous source. It suggests that ‘women prefer factory life’. Being a primary piece of evidence, it may have been used to boost the number of female workers in the factories so may not be entirely reliable. Although the owner will be seeing the everyday work women are doing and how they do it. However this source doesn’t tell us what factory it is. If the factory is in good condition and the women there are working in an enjoyable atmosphere with good pay then they will be obviously enjoying their work.

The source does not tell us the numbers of women that enjoy factory life; it may only be a minority of the workforce. The source lacks in vital information, which could change the whole outlook of the source and has no evidence to prove what it is suggesting. It is hard to find sources that agree with this view unless they are obvious propaganda. The evidence in this source does not really with the statement because it is not proving that women are helping the war and is a biased piece of writing. Source D, on the other hand, is completely different.

It is a photograph taken in a munitions factory during the first world war. It doesn’t tell us when during the war the photo was taken. If it was taken at the start of the war it could mean that it is showing how men’s attitudes to women were still very poor. Also there is no suggestion of numbers and how the women themselves feel. No evidence of working conditions is shown. There is evidence to suggest that it is propaganda used to help women join the factories; it shows women doing highly skilled work. But more evidence to disprove this idea.

The women look depressed, unhappy and they are not smiling. Also there is a board at the back, which reads ‘when the boys come back we are not going to keep you any longer – girls. ‘ Suggesting men feel superior and better. This would not help women the workforce. The use of the work ‘girls’ makes the women seem young, helpless and insuperior. It could well be used to change male attitudes of women for the worse and may have been made by trade unions that disapproved of female workers. This source defiantly agrees with the statement.

It directly says how women are needed and has photographic proof of women working in the factories. Source E is a poster from the British government produced in 1916. This is undoubtedly propaganda. It was made during the munitions crisis and was made as a part of the DORA scheme. Therefore it is likely the source is biased and used to boost morale. Its main purpose, however, is to persuade the women to join the workforce. It shows a woman of middle class or higher and well dressed. She is young and obviously working as she is wearing an overall.

She looks like she is flying suggesting she is happy, on top of world maybe. This source looks similar to the one featuring Lord Kitchener about recruiting. It is appealing to you like that one by saying ‘these women are doing their bit’ so why aren’t you? But it is reliable even though it is propaganda because it shows that women were needed in factories and as many as possible. Evidence suggests that the government is actively encouraging women showing a change in society against the norm. This source however does have limits. We are not aware of numbers or how women feel about the work.

Or how much they are paid and how hard the work is. But the source fully agrees with the question. It is an essential poster; the government are saying ‘we need help – we need women to solve the munitions crisis’. Source F is written record of the numbers of employed in British industries in 1914 and 1918. The huge increase in transport, manufacturing, civil servants and teachers. Women are going into industries previously dominated by men. The only industry out of the group that decreased was domestic service, an industry that women worked in before the war.

It was long hours with little pay sometimes just(i??2 per month and women, as far as we can see from Source A ‘hated every minute of it’. This source is useful because it shows how many more women the government employed. There is no suggestion of what the women or government thought though. The source covers the whole period of the war including the time of the munitions crisis and DORA. Many of the women would have been employed because of either or both of these. The source is, therefore very reliable, because it is highly unlikely to be propaganda or biased.

However we do not know when it was published or why it was. The source does agree with the statement, because it proves that the number of women in industries from 1914 – 1918 was a huge increase for example in transport only 18, 200 women were employed in 1914 but by 1918 this number had increased to 117, 200! It shows women were needed to fill the places of men. Source G is an extract from an account of one woman’s experiences while working during the First World War. It is a primary piece of evidence as it was written in 1919, just after the war has finished.

The source tells us about what the male employees did to her. It is useful because we get an understanding of men’s attitudes to female employees. Many other sources have supported the idea that man’s attitudes are changing, they are respecting women and encouraging women. However this source completely disagrees with this. The foreman gave her ‘wrong or incomplete directions’ and she had ‘no tools’ to work with yet it was unquestionable to ask to ‘borrow from the men. ‘ The male employees would also treat her badly by drawer being ‘nailed up’ and ‘oil poured over everything in it’.

This source does not, however, tell us whether the boss knew or if he did, whether he did anything or ignored it. Also we do not know if the men’s attitudes changed during her experience, as there are no exact dates of events. But the woman does say ‘none of the men spoke to me for a long time’. This suggesting that maybe she was eventually accepted. This limits the reliability, although having said that, it does seem to be a reliable source as it was undoubtedly used as propaganda of any sort because it was published after the war had finished.

The evidence from this source disagrees with the statement because it suggests that the men do not need nor want the female employee in their workforce. They seem to be capable without her. Source H is part of an article in The Engineer published in August 1915 which makes it a primary piece of evidence. It is praising female workers and sounds surprised ‘women can satisfactorily handle much heavier pieces of metal’ and are disproving every man who under estimated women ‘than had previously been dreamt of’. It is useful in the sense that it suggests that men’s attitudes have changed for the better and the majority of men agree with this. 85 MPs in Parliament agreed to the vote of women.

However we do not know how many people agree with this and there is no proof that is was definitely written by a man. There isn’t evidence of what job it is or what the conditions were like. It was written at the start of the munitions crisis, when the government were persuading women to join the workforce. So it is possible that this source taken form a trade journal, was used to show women that people did support them, did believe in them and therefore making women warm to the idea employment. The evidence in this statement does support the statement.

People were realising, even form an early stage, how much effort women were doing in filling the men’s shoes and helping the war effort. Source I, published in 1918, is part of a report on Women’s Work in wartime. The source shows how women are losing their femininity ‘she has discarded her petticoats’. Women’s clothes were changing and evolving. People were becoming used to it, it seemed normal to have ‘girls at the wheels of the cars’. Women are becoming independent. The source also gives information on other work women did, not just the usual factory industry or munitions.

It suggests women are taking over the job industry in every aspect. The source was written at the end of the war meaning that a lot of men will have gone to fight so female workers were a huge majority. The source seems to be very reliable as there is a lot of information and it does not raise many queries. However there are no examples of what women have to say but there is a good gist of numbers in this source making it more useful. But there are no exact figures. This source completely agrees with the question. It shows women were employed in jobs in all areas.

Source I, an official war painting titled ‘For King and Country’ by E. F. Skinner done in 1917. There is frequent evidence in this source to show it could be propaganda. Firstly the title directly gives a patriotic sense of pride in your country and nation. Aimed at women to join the workforce, it shows a munitions factory almost completely dominated by women. They are smiling, working in good conditions with no obvious dangers although this painting was drawn after medical reports were published in 1916 showing the effects of factory working.

It is a very positive painting of the prospect of work. It is an extremely biased painting with no other purpose but to raise the sprits of women. The source is useful because it shows how much effort the government is putting into making propaganda pictures. Although it may not be useful because we get no idea of the down sides of factory life – everything seems so good. This makes the source unreliable because it is a very biased and exaggerated but still reliable in the sense that we can appreciate how much the government wants to keep morale high and spirits up.

The source does agree with the statement for the obvious reason that there is a picture full of female workers near to the end of the war. The majority of sources do agree with the question. Source B, D, E, F, H and I all agree. Source C does definitely not agree and Sources A and C seem to be in the middle. Many of the sources which support the view that ‘without the work of women on the Home Front, Britain could not have won the war. ‘ Much other information helps to support this; DORA was set up to solve the munitions crisis and it used women to help overcome it.

Suffragettes and suffragists set up many leagues and acts to persuade women to send their male family members to war. It is fair enough to say that without women, nobody would be there to persuade men to go to war, nobody would be there to supply men with ammunitions, and nobody would be there to nurse the injured soldiers. Not only were women coping with this but also had to face the prospect that they would never see their loves ones again. Without the work of women the war for Britain would not have been possible, let alone Britain winning.

Read more

The Changing role of women in Britain since 1900

Target 1: How useful is source A as evidence about attitudes towards suffragettes in 1908? Explain your answer using source and knowledge from your studies.

The attitudes towards suffragettes in 1908 were mixed; everyone had their own opinions of them. Some people were very supportive on what they were doing and some of them had a very negative response.

In source A there is a picture of a ‘suffragette demonstrations in London 1908’. Underneath the source the source it states “Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst leading a demonstration which 200,00 people are said to have attended.”

This source does not give enough evidence to prove this statement. I explain why.

In this picture it shows me the suffragettes having a peaceful demonstration they are smiling and at the same time getting what they want to say across, from my knowledge and understanding suffragettes were seen as violent and they were seen as a very confrontational group. In the source booklet under The WSPU- the suffragettes it tells me that In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters formed a breakaway group called the Women’s social and political union (WSPU), that was to campaign for the parliamentary vote for women on the same terms as it was granted to men, or would be in the future, their motto was “deeds not words” yet the photo paints a different picture.

In source booklet source 6 under Suffragette tactics it tells me that in 1908 the suffragettes would start occasional attacks on properties such as breaking windows, etc. But yet again from source A I cannot see this.

The source also states, “200,000 people are said to have attended” From source A it seems to me that at least only 1,000 people attended. In this source I can see only one policeman and he looks quite peaceful and undisturbed. If this were a demonstration where 200,000 people are said to have attended there would be hundreds of policemen on sight. This photo is very unreliable to its statement. The source says that Ms Pankhurst lead the campaign yet there is no proof to prove this.

This is supposed to be a demonstration but from my understanding a demonstration is 1) an outward showing or feeling. 2) A public meeting or a march for political or moral response. 3) A show of military force.

If this was a demonstration you would have seen exactly what they were demonstration from the use of banners and posters or even photos but I cannot see any of this.

This photo (source A) is very unreliable and does not give enough evidence to represent that it was a suffragette demonstration in London 1908.

This source is not useful evidence about suffragettes in 1908.

Target 2:Source D and E are both from 1910, yet they give different views about the campaign to gain women the vote.

Which is the most reliable source for investigating people’s attitudes in 1910 towards the campaign?

Source D is an article from the daily sketch (newspaper) in 1910. It is about a demonstration made by women in 1910.

This article is anti-suffragette; it’s against women for what they are doing. This article is about a suffragist attack on the House of Commons. The title “DISCRACEFUL SCENES”, and “120 arrests” gives you a dreadful view of the suffragettes. This source is also very negative against women because it puts them down. In the first passage it states “they caused even more violent scenes then before”. This gives you the impression that they were always violent and aggressive and that’s all they were good for. Also in the first passage it states “It was a picture of shameless recklessness”. This makes the women look disgraceful and outrageous.

In Passage two the first four lines say, ” One campaigner sprawled in the mud to the obvious disgust of decent men and the obvious delight of others”. This gives me the idea that some people found it a revolting and thought they were shameful, but yet some people saw it a something very positive.

This source is very negative towards the suffragettes and makes them appear violent and shameful. This really affected the way people viewed the suffragettes.

Source E is in favour of the suffragettes and are for the vote for women.

This source is a postcard issued by the suffragettes in 1910.

This postcard shows what a women may be, such as a mayor, a mother a doctor or even a teacher and still not have vote, then goes on to show what a man may be, such as a convict a lunatic, unfit for service or even a drunkard but yet still get the vote. Women were put in a lower category then these types of men; Suffragettes saw this as an insult.

However I feel that both Source D and Source E are very reliable for investigating people’s attitudes towards the campaign, but I think the most common attitude towards the suffragettes at that time was Source D.

Source D gives the most relevant information and is the most reliable source because these were the negative attitudes shown towards the suffragettes at this period of time. The community didn’t like to see women behaving as men or behaving inappropriately it made them look bad. This source investigates the minority of people’s attitudes towards suffragettes in 1910 but at the same time remains relevant for the investigation of people’s attitudes towards suffragettes in 1910.

Target 3: Without the First World War women would have not gained the right to vote in 1918″ Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?

I agree with this interpretation.

I believe that women would have never gained the vote without the First World War. So many men had gone of to war that the women were needed to fill their places this increased the number of women in the industry. The war made it adequate for women to work such jobs. People believed that women shouldn’t be prohibited from doing work they are fit for. While the men were sent of to war, women showed how equally they worked to men, the leaders saw this as an opportunity to show what women were capable of, they showed how capable they were of doing what was seen as a man’s jobs. The suffragettes broke the stereotype of how people viewed women, women were seen as housewives, they stayed home and cook and look after the kids. Men also thought that they didn’t have the intelligence or intellect to do a “mans job”.

In Source 27 on the source sheet written by E.S. Montague, Minister of munitions, in 1916 he states that:

“Women of every station…. have proved themselves able to undertake work that before the war was regarded as solely the province of men…. Where is the man now who would deny women the civil rights which she has earned by her hard work?”

Women were showing themselves how equally skilled they were to men, and that both sexes were equally alike. People started to see the women as people that played a likewise part in society as men and that they deserved the vote. People believed that the women earned their rights through their hard work.

In Source 29 on page 68 it also state that:

“… Many women had witnessed the suffering and anguish of men of men as they had not seen in the previous wars and had also worked side by side with comrades and friends. It was inevitable that this would start to change mutual perceptions of and the granting of the votes at last (to women over thirty) seemed totally appropriate.”

This gives me the impression that people did see the women working really due to the war and did all they could to gain the vote and the only resort and the most appropriate was to give them the vote.

In Source 19; Page 66 we are shown a female tram driver it does not give us a date but it shows it shows us that women were enthusiastically involved in a man’s role. This acts helped change the way people viewed suffragettes.

Before most people attitudes were biased towards giving women the vote, but after the war people attitudes change and

However in 1918 the barrier against women’s suffrage was broken and a partial victory won, under the Representation of the People Act, women over 30 years of age were given the parliamentary vote if they were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of �5 or more. About 8.5 million women were put under this new law. It was not until ten years later, however, that all women could vote on equal terms with men, at the age of 21 and over, the new bill becoming law on July 2, 1928.

Read more

What can you learn from this source about attitudes to women in Britain in 1914?

Source A basically reveals that women should pressurise their husbands/sons to fight in the war. Women should support men in their war and encourage them to volunteer/enlist to fight in the war even if they don’t want to. The Government are dependant on the women to get as many soldiers as possible to fight in this hostile war and this might help in getting the role of women in society to improve for the better.

The main purpose of this source is to get more men into war by manipulating peoples mind through propaganda, censorship, morale, patriotism, and Jingoism. Its one of the ways the Government tried to cope with the war-effect.

In title of the source to the ‘YOUNG WOMEN OF LONDON’ they have used bold, capital letters to emphasize that this source is directed at all the women in particular.

In the first section it’s tying to say that if your son isn’t in military uniform, don’t you think he should be (at the women)? They tried to show this by using a direct method of grabbing attention. The words YOU and THINK are in bold capital and underlined letters because to stress the point of recruiting more men into war by persuading their partner/women to make them go. It’s like the government is pleading for recruitment.

In the second that are trying to say that if he can’t be bothered to fight for beloved country and doesn’t think it is worthy is he really worthy of being a son or husband who will be needed in later life. If he doesn’t possesses the characteristics of being: strong, brave, willing, courageous and patriotic then he really can’t be called a man. The word worthy is underlined and in bold capital letters to get this point across.

Thirdly in the next point it is trying to say you shouldn’t feel sorry for lonely girls/wives because their husbands or sons are doing their rightful and lawful duty of fighting for their darling country. Also it is referring to the women as YOU which is in bold and underlined to tell them that their men are fighting for them and are repaying back their love for them. Being lonely for the women is actually better because they have a commanding role of running the family back home.

In the provenance it is basically if he doesn’t fight for his country (monarchy) then the women will also be neglected and left. If they don’t car about their country which gives them everything and how will they care about you. I think that the provenance is propaganda which is used to persuade and influence the minds of women.

Finally it says ‘join the army TODAY’ which is saying that that women should convince the men so quickly that they instantly join the army.

In conclusion I think that the attitudes to women in Britain in 1914 wasn’t much better as they were only were dependant by the Government in recruiting more men to war.

Some women might not want to send their husbands to war and were forced as other families did and if they didn’t; their family reputation would be diminished. Others might argue that the attitudes changed because they had more family responsibilities and ran the house by paying the taxes, bills and working in factory. Also they might say that they have been treated well as women and have become more dependant and useful.

Q3 Study Source C

This Poster produced in 1915

I think that this poster is produced in 1915 because it has been one year in to the war and as Britain is coping with the war effects its wants more recruitment.

The source is basically about women doing their bit for the war and they are getting themselves recruited.

The purpose of this source is to get more men and women to help in fighting the war and is trying to say if a woman is doing it then more should do as they are doing it for their beloved country. Another reason it could be produced is that they want more women to work in factories and this in a way changed their role as by 1915, the new style of war meant needed them to fill in the gaps left by men such as working in factories, T-unions etc. Women were helping the war effort by doing jobs such as: Voluntary Aid Detachments (VADs) or First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), and as drivers, cooks, mechanics and land army. Many women ‘munitionettes’ worked in the government’s munitions factories like it says on the poster’ learn to make munitions’ which is the most important job after the army of making the essential weapons needed to win the war.

This was one way the Government was organising/financing and running the war.

This picture essentially shows a happy women getting ready to put on her coat, ready to business for her country. This emphasizes patriotism and commitment the women are willing to take. In the background you can see people (men) leaving for the war and are getting cheered on as they go. This also shows the recruitment of soldiers the Government has made. Women also took on traditional men’s jobs and became firemen, coalmen and bus conductors to keep everything going perfectly back home.

This was also a chance for women to shows that they can do men jobs and should have an improved role in society. This source compares with source b by because that this one is showing that women are doing their both whereas the other contrasts a bit and is saying women running land army will help win the war

In conclusion I think the main purpose of this poster was for the Government to get more recruitment, men and women.

Read more

Nazi Policies Towards Women

The Weimar Republic had given women freedom to do what they wanted, but Hitler believed otherwise. Hitler believed in a master race, he wanted to build up a strong army and Aryan race- blonde hair and blue eyes a typical German stereotype. According to the graph 1st published in 1932 the amount of live births was 933,126 Hitler was taken aback by this information, this statistic was not helping his country to build into the strong and powerful nation he so desperately wanted it to be. So he decided to introduce special rules and rewards.

He encouraged the women to give up work and focus mainly on having babies and leading a family life. He encouraged them with his famous saying “kinder keuche kirsch” which meant children, cook and church. These were the things Hitler believed should and would make up a stable and “strong” family, and,by increasing those aspects – the German women would have more children bring them up with strong believes and make them tough enough to establish the master race As far as rewards go Hitler made a reward scheme he introduced medals for mothers, those who had 4 children were awarded a bronze medal, women with 6 children were awarded a silver medal and women with 8 or more children were awarded with a prestigious gold medal. Hitler gave 20 marks to the fifth child in the family this prospect urged women to reach that target; this was just another example of Hitler’s manifold of ulterior motives. E.g. the Hitler youth – where he got the children to come to extra curricular activities and then brainwashed them with his ambitions and Ideologies

In 1936 the Nazis began a breeding experiment called lebensborn, this consisted of fit, healthy, single young Aryan women were encouraged to visit these lebensborn centres were they could meet with SS soldiers and in a bid to encourage couples to have more Aryan children. Any married couples who failed to produce children were encouraged to divorce and try again with another mate. He went even further as to set a anti abortion policy which stated that women had no other option but to keep them, he made it even harder when he shut down all abortion clinics and stopped all contraception from being produced. He did this because he wanted every child conceived to be born so they could help build up the mater race.

Women were not encouraged to work but to mainly focus all there time and attention on nurturing their growing family. Job options were restricted and bleak, they were said to be “incapable of thinking without emotion”. To make this prospect even more attractive he gave newly married couples an interest free loan of 2000 marks as long as they pulled out of their jobs. This was to encourage more children to be made increasing his master race.

The Nazis wanted women to have no interest in fashion and make up; it was even frowned upon if women wore trousers. They were expected to be sturdily built and have broad hips – ideal for child bearing. The Nazis might have been a bit old fashioned with their views on women but they were not anti women infact Joseph goebbles once said ” of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world .This is not as un-modern as it sounds. The female bird preens herself for her mate and hatches eggs for him. In exchange, the male takes care of gathering food, and stands guard and ward off the enemy.”

Hitler believed that women were key to the future of the German nation upon which they could build a volksgemainschaft. The volksgemainschaft was one of Hitler’s most important ideas about the future of Germany. Because the Nazis still believed that Germany was still divided due to WW1 and that they could unite it by making the people feel as if they were part of a very important community .this motivated the German people to work together and build up the master race.

During the war women got better food rations and better shelter, this was because the Germans couldn’t risk losing women because this would stunt the growth of the vastly rising Aryan race. Despite the Nazis initially driving women out of work they were forced to reinstate their positions due to lack of man – they had gone to fight the war. To conclude Hitler made these policies to firstly Encourage more births and secondly To prevent the weakening of the master race. These policies may seem old fashioned now but the Germans held women in very high regard always making sure they had everything.

Read more

Before the Great War the position of women in society depended on birth, class, marriage, and men

Women had to live up to an ideal created by men. This meant women had to appear less intelligent than their husbands, women had to be well mannered, and modest in behaviour and speech. Women from richer middle and upper class families had servants to look after their homes and weren’t expected to work. Upper class women were brought up and educated to be a dutiful wife. Lower class women had to look after their husband, manage everything in the house as well as finance, be utterly faithful to her husband and willingly manage a large family

Some women did go to work; in 1901 55% of single women and 14% of married women were at work. In 1914 the largest employer of women was the Domestic Service with 1,600,000 this is because the Domestic Service was regarded as better than working in factories. About 656,000 women worked in the factories of the textile industry – especially the cotton mills of northern England. Lots of women were in work but many of them hardly made enough money to live on.

Married working class women faced a lot of problems. Families were large: 71% of women had four or more children and 41% had seven or more. Many women however lost children to diseases like Scarlet Fever, Diphtheria, and Tubercular. Children died because they didn’t have any health care and doctors were expensive and hard to find. Poverty, bad housing and child bearing affected the health of working class women probably because they put the health of their husbands first as they had to be at work to earn money.

Lots of women wanted the vote before the Great War. Suffragists wanted the vote and played by the law where as Suffragettes were more militant. The Suffragettes committed many acts of violence such as destruction of property and arson. Lots of people were against giving women the right to vote, even queen Victoria was. This meant women’s suffrage had to gain support, so they continued with their marches and put posters up to try to gain support. The government passed a cat and mouse act which allowed Suffragettes to be released when they became ill because of their hunger strike and as soon as they were better again they were arrested and sent back to prison to finish their sentence. The outbreak of the First World War brought an end to the Suffragettes campaign.

Read more

Abuse of Woman’s Rights

ABUSE OF WOMAN’S RIGHTS

A man once approached me and asked, “Could you describe a woman in three words?” I than asked “A woman from which century, the 15th or the 20th?” He than said “Both!” After a moment of thought I replied, ” A woman from the 15th century would be, gentle, loving and inspiring” than I paused… and confidently continued ” However a woman from the 20th century would be, greedy, greedy and greedy”.

You might all be wondering why I have such pessimistic views towards the woman of the 20th century even though I’m a woman, right? Since 1848, the birth of the Woman Liberation Movement, many women of the world have changed their traditional feminine ways just to obtain what they call as ‘equal rights’. I have no objections to the term ‘equal rights’ as every human being despite female or male deserve to be treated equally. However due to the expansion of this movement many beliefs have been misunderstood, for example a woman’s age is everything.

In this century, the 21st century, if a woman is less than 20 years of age they have no responsibilities, they call it freedom. If a woman is less than 30 years old their career is everything and marriage should just be a distant dream. However if a woman were less than 40 years of age they would have to juggle a family life and their career but soon confronted with a need to lead a free life. As woman gradually grow older they ‘free’ again just like they were when younger than 20. This is the message that ‘Hollywood’ brings forward to every woman of the world, but if you were to compare movies of the past to those of today the personality and role of woman have changed dramatically.

The Woman Liberation Movement did finally achieve their long wished dream, and that is to obtain equal rights. After awhile the movement was misunderstood and women of the world started rebelling/ protesting against nothing. All these women were just greedy for fame, money and mostly power. For many years these women demanded equal rights. However in the book of law it states that ‘women should be protected as they are the weaker species’.

Where is the just in that? If woman are the weaker species and every woman of the world agreed to this law why do they ask for equal rights? The equalization in opportunities, why? If they wanted equal rights so badly the first thing that should have protested against was this law. Why was this law made in the first place? That is because it was designed to protect woman, to protect woman from the outside world and this weaker gender could be very vulnerable if caught alone. That is why this law was designed. Why haven’t they rebelled against this law? That’s because they are all very aware of the dangers that lie before them if this law wasn’t present. The risk of anything happening to them would be twice the amount.

When Eve was first made wasn’t she made from one of the ribs of Adam? Eve came from a part of Adam. Doesn’t that make her not as equal in everything compared to Adam? Eve just came from one tiny part if compared against the rest of Adam’s body. Why do you think God made it that way? A woman is the carrier of life; they were designed for that one purpose. A woman’s body is not made built like a man’s, which restricts a woman from doing a man’s job.

Perhaps woman are bored doing nothing at home, not being able to obtain and education, or money to support them self. My point is not to go against any of this issues, my purpose is to restrict the obsessions in believing that woman deserve more at this current century. We, the women have asked for more than we can ever afford. If a woman was a president and she was pregnant does that make her exempted from her duties? Won’t that affect the country if she has to juggle parenting and ruling a country? A man doesn’t go through that phase, that’s why males are the leaders of the world, that’s the secret behind that.

I’m begging every single woman of the world right now, to get an education, get a start in your career but don’t let it affect anything especially your children, return the natural feminine ways that woman are created to be and don’t be greedy for more than you already have because if the Woman’s Liberation Movements really did care about the woman of the world less women would be raped every year, less women would suffer financial problems, less women would be illiterate and less women would die due to just being a woman. I’m now pleading to everyone to take a stand, don’t follow the temptations, and follow the true path because that path would lead you to the greatest success you can ever achieve. Thank you.

Read more

The Working Girls

Women are entering the labor market in greater numbers and are staying in it longer and for a larger proportion of their work lives (Looking 1996). When asked what they want, women respond in survey after survey” “pay equity,” “better wages,” or “more money” (Looking 1996). In other words, women believe they are not being paid what they are worth (Looking 1996). This is a common response up-and down the income spectrum, “women from the executive suite to the factory floor, from the office to the washroom,” all feel that they are underpaid (Looking 1996).

During the 1970’s, women earned 59 percent of what men earned, and today they generally earn approximately 72 percent of what men earn (Looking 1996). However, although women’s earnings have risen, about 3/5 of the narrowing of the gap is due to the fall in men’s real earnings (Looking 1996). Moreover, the wage gap grows as women and men age, the gap is relatively small for young women and men, but thereafter men’s wages increase sharply while women’s do not (Looking 1996). In fact, the average woman in her working prime, in her early forties, makes only about the same as a man in his late twenties (Looking 1996).

About fifteen years ago, it all seemed possible, to “bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, split the second shift with some sensitive New Age man,” however slowly the upbeat work-life rhythm has changed for professional women (Wallis 2004). Although many countries have given women the right to maternity leave and, sometimes, generous subsidies for child care, and some have even initiated a 35-hour workweek, however, the norm for most executives is still 50 hours a week for women (Wallis 2004). According to Catalyst, a U. S. esearch and consulting group, the average number for executives in the U. S. is roughly 70 hours a week (Wallis 2004).

And for dual-career couples with children, the combined work hours have grown from 81 hours a week in 1977 to 91 hours per week in 2002, according to the Families and Work Institute (Wallis 2004). The U. S. Census data reveal an increase in stay-at-home moms who hold graduate or professional degrees, these are the very women who seemed destined to blast through the glass ceiling, yet 22 percent of them are home with their children (Wallis 2004).

A study by Catalyst found that one in three women with M. B. A. s are not working full-time, compared to one in twenty of their male peers (Wallis 2004). Sylvia Ann Hewlett, economist and author at Columbia University in New York City, who sees a brain drain throughout the top 10 percent of America’s labor force, says “What we have discovered in looking at this group over the last five years is that many women who have any kind of choice are opting out” (Wallis 2004).

According to a new study released in March 2006 by Accenture, a global management consulting company, women executives around the world still face an uphill battle in workplace equality, despite significant gains during the past ten years (Most 2006). The study, entitled “The Anatomy of the Glass Ceiling: Barriers to Women’s Professional Advancement,” is based on a survey of 1,200 male and female executives in eight countries (Most 2006).

The respondents were asked to score factors they believed influenced their career success across three dimension: individual (career planning, competence, assertiveness, etc. , company (supportive supervisors, transparent promotion processes, etc. ), and society (equal rights, government support of parental leave, etc. ) (Most 2006). The differences between male and female respondents’ answers were sued to calculate the current “thickness” of the glass ceiling, a term used to describe an unacknowledged barrier that prevents women and other minorities from achieving positions of power or responsibility in their professions (Most 2006).

According to the study, 30 percent of women executives and 43 percent of male executives believe that women have the same opportunities as men do in the workplace, thus supporting the existence of a glass ceiling (Most 2006). Although there has been some progress in shattering the glass ceiling over the past twenty years, organizations and societies need to understand how important it is to capitalize and build upon the skills of women (Most 2006).

In the Bem Sex Role Inventory, researcher Pamela Butler focused questions on real problems women face in changing stereotypical perceptions (Merrick 2000). According to Butler, there is intense pressure for professional women to conform to stereotypical roles such as “cheerfulness,” “tenderness,” and even “gullibility” (Merrick 2000). As women move into management in increasing numbers, it has become more apparent that these stereotypical beliefs ten to limit their advancement (Merrick 2000).

The ‘Catch 22’ is that when women try strategies of gender-reversal and adopt the so-called male characteristics, they often find that they face another set of problems, that of alienation and hostility, because as Butler points out, becoming one of the boys is harder than it looks (Merrick 2000). According to Butler, it takes cooperation from peers on the job to make strategies work, because research shows that attitudes held by those around a woman, even herself, hinder working relationships between women and men, and these attitudes ultimately are realized in losses of productivity and of real dollars to organizations (Merrick 2000).

The purpose of Butler’s research was to explore the ethics of perpetuating gender stereotypes in management, and to investigate how the woman manager operates under the system with feminine traits that are perpetuated by socialization and, vice versa, as well as how she operates under the system when she adopts masculine traits that break gender roles (Merrick 2000).

The choices of leadership styles pose ethical dilemmas for women, because to get along, the new-age woman manager often finds that she has to act one way on the outside while being driven by a very much different psyche on the inside (Merrick 2000). Moreover, she may discover that in the same way, her male colleagues act toward her one way on the outside yet feel very much differently about her on the job (Merrick 2000).

The new-age woman manager also might find herself playing a cruel double game in which she is utilized to show the organization has non-discriminatory hiring practices, “and at the same time she find she has to handle covert hostility from her colleagues in the workplace, who feel they have been forced to work with her to avoid trouble with the powers that be” (Merrick 2000). Data collected by L. K. Brown reveals that 5 percent of the total worldwide managers in 1947 were women, while only 6 percent of all managers in 1978 were women (Merrick 2000).

In the United States, the figures were 14 percent in 1947, compared to 22 percent thirty years later (Merrick 2000). However, most of the managerial positions held by women are in the fields of health administration, building supervision and restaurant management, meaning there are more women managers in fields that have traditionally been perceived women’s work (Merrick 2000). A survey carried out by Fortune, found that only ten of 6,400 people who worked at managerial positions in 1,300 of the nation’s largest companies were women (Merrick 2000).

Moreover, according to Brown, only 3 percent of women managers in the United States earn more than $25,000 annually (Merrick 2000). Brown concludes that larger companies are not promoting women on a large scale, and that women seeking top management posts may prefer smaller companies instead of large male-dominated companies (Merrick 2000). According to a Canadian survey, 55 percent believe that it is easier for men to advance in the workplace than women, and 42 percent of female executives who were surveyed believe that gender-based discrimination will never completely disappear from the workplace (Pollara 2000).

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp