American Working Women in the “Roaring Twenties”
How the First World War was Indecisive for the Changes in the Work Force for
American Women
Carmen Walter
3669815
27 June 2014
“MA Thesis, American Studies Program, Utrecht University”
Word count: 23.391
Contents
Introduction
Page 4.
Chapter One: Women’s Work from Seneca Falls to the
Wake of the First World War
Page 18.
* Introduction
Page 18.
* Seneca Falls and the Start of the Women’s
Rights Movement
Page 19.
* The Civil War and the Progressive Era:
Times of Change for Women
Page 25.
* Consequences for the Working Woman
Page 32.
* Conclusion
Page 41.
Chapter Two: American Working Women during the
First World War
Page 44.
* Introduction
Page 44.
* Why Women had to join the Work Force During
the First World War
Page 46.
* Where American Women Worked During
the War
Page 51.
* Positive and Negative Consequences of
the Rise of the Working Woman
* Conclusion
Page 59.
Page 62.
Chapter Three: Working Women in the “Roaring Twenties:”
Changes or Continuities?
Page 65.
* Introduction
Page 65.
* Working Women in the Roaring Twenties
Page 67.
2
* Women in the Public in the 1902s:
Voting and Flappers
* Conclusion
Page 78.
Page 84.
Conclusion
Page 86.
Bibliography
Page 92.
3
Introduction
After the First World War and before the crash of Wall Street in October 1929, the
United States went through a period known as the Roaring Twenties.1 In this
decade, often referred to as the Jazz Age, the United States underwent many notable
cultural and economic changes. One of them is the economic growth in the Northern
urban areas in its early years.2 This growth brought along social changes as well
from which especially women benefited. Women gained more opportunities in the
work force and more women than ever before had a job outside the house.3
Furthermore, these new opportunities, especially the accomplishment of
voting rights for women in 1920, caused that the younger generation of women in
the 1920s started to resist the existing ideals of how a woman should be.4 Especially
1890s idea of the Gibson girl was resisted. The Gibson Girl was the example of how a
woman should look like and behave in American society. This style was especially
popular among urban middle- and upper-class women, and was seen as the ideal
beauty style for American women.5
The Gibson girl was slender yet curvy, and typically she wore a swan-bill
corset that created an hourglass figure. Her hair was pinned onto her head but some
curls had to fall out of it. The Gibson Girl portrayed an elegant woman who was
intelligent, but did not fight for equality between men and women on any level, and
therefore did not participate in the Women’s Suffrage Movement.6 That was the
Kelly Boyer Sagert, Flappers: A Guide to an American Subculture (Westport: Greenwood Publishing,
2009), XI.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 3.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., XI.
1
4
biggest reason for resistance towards this style, because suffrage was extremely
important for women to gain more equality in the work force and fight for better
wages and work conditions. Especially since there was a rise of 6% in female
participation in the work force between 1900 and 1920, and now almost 24% of the
work force was female.7 More women in the work force meant more women
wanting better working conditions and better wages, and they needed suffrage to
accomplish this.
The 1920s women who resisted the style of the Gibson Girl were mostly born
around the turn of the century, and had experienced the First World War while they
were teenagers. They experienced important changes during the war, as more
women were forced to work and for the first time women worked in men’s jobs.8
Additionally, the right to vote was achieved in 1920. This gave them a sense of
confidence to be politically active and fight for equal education and equal work
among men and women, while the Gibson Girl believed in the more traditional idea
that women were supposed to take care of the children and the household.9
For decades, women had been fighting for the right to vote, but society at
large, including many white women themselves, believed a woman had no place in
politics.10 Therefore, as a member of the middle- and upper-class society, the Gibson
Girl felt no reason to participate in the Suffrage Movement. This movement was a
Women’s Rights Movement that started in 1848 and its main focus was gaining the
voting right for women, but better economic and educational opportunities and
better chances in the work force were discussed as well. All these factors are related
Michael E. Parrish, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941 (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 7.
8 Parrish, Anxious Decades, 141.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
7
5
to each other, and therefore all of these will be discussed in this thesis. More
educational opportunities meant women would be able to get jobs, or to get better
jobs, and more women working and paying taxes meant more women willing to
fight for suffrage in order to improve their work conditions. The Suffrage Movement
also fought against the separate spheres men and women were in and wanted
women to be able to position themselves outside the house, thus in the public
sphere, especially in politics.11
Moreover, the First World War accelerated several points the Women’s
Rights Movement fought for, eventually leading to the right to vote in 1920.
One point is that the war made it possible for women to wear more practical
clothing, which is closely related to the participation of women in jobs previously
only available to men. During the war, white women took over jobs left behind by
men who were sent abroad, such as working in steel factories, and this required
practical clothing.12 Many women saw this change of clothes as a step towards more
freedom. This gave the new generation courage to fight for their rights in different
aspects of their lives. The older generation, however, was mostly satisfied with the
right to vote. They grew up around the end of the nineteenth century, where the
demand for voting rights, work rights and better education were still very
controversial issues.13 Therefore, for them the accomplishment of the right to vote
was revolutionary and ended the fight which had started in 1848.14 But since the
younger generation grew up during the war and saw women in men’s positions in
the work force, this generation was convinced they could achieve more and fought
Parrish, Anxious Decades, 141.
Maurine Greenwald, Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the
United States (Connecticut: Praeger, 1980), XX.
13 Ibid., XXI.
14 McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 2.
11
12
6
for equality in education and work.15 Therefore, it is arguable that the war changed
gender relations in the United States, and women fought for more equality.
To further show their resistance, the new generation of white women
embraced the Flapper style.16 This style included cutting up the dresses until the
knees, having short, bobbed hair, wearing excessive make-up, drinking and smoking
in bars, listening to Jazz music, and using slang language.17 Mostly young, single,
white, middle- and upper-class women from Northern, urban areas adopted this
style, because they had the time and the money to buy these clothes. Nevertheless,
they were not invisible in the work force, but often were employed clerical jobs
where the work conditions were considerably better.18 Their behaviour,
nevertheless, was not accepted, especially not when upper-class women embraced
this style, as they were expected to serve as role models for all women in American
society.19 Particularly American men saw their behaviour as foreign; a white,
American woman was not supposed to act like this, women were supposed to stay
in the private sphere, not in the public.20 Flappers were also very active in politics
and they fought for better opportunities for women in education and in the work
force. Even though the Flappers represent only a small part of women in the 1920s,
this image still is a popular view of women in the 1920s, with ordinary people as
well as with scholars.21
However, not all women identified with the Flapper style. Women in the
Southern states detested it, as women were more conservative in the South and
McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 3.
Sagert, Flappers, XI.
17 Ibid., 6.
18 Ibid., 1.
19 Ibid., 2.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
15
16
7
strongly believed the place of a woman was in the home.22 Nonetheless, In the
Northern, urban states, where this style was most popular, it was also limited. Only
middle- and upper-class women were part of it. Working-class and African
American women did not necessarily disagree with the ideals of the Flappers, but
because they did not have the time nor the money for it they did not live it.23
Especially the fight of the Flappers for better work opportunities and equal
wages for women became important in the 1920s, as the number of women
participating in the work force was growing. More women than ever before lived in
cities and were active members of society. In 1920, around 24% of the work force
was female; while in 1900 this percentage was only 17%.24 After the war there were
more women working than ever before. Besides, more white women worked
outside their houses to earn money, but often the work they performed remained
domestic work, such as waitressing. Thus the general idea that women should take
care of the household remained popular in American society, also in the 1920s.25
Nevertheless, as Kelly Boyer Sagert argues, women gained a sense of independence
that had not been present before the First World War started.26 Therefore, one can
argue that the war played a decisive role for changing the role of women in the work
force in the 1920s.
It is clear that the Roaring Twenties were a decade of change for white
American women and many scholars see these changes as specifically part of the
Sagert, Flappers, 9.
Ibid., 4.
24 Michael E. Parrish, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941 (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 141.
25 Ibid.
26 Sagert, Flappers, XI.
22
23
8
1920s.27 As will be shown below, there is not one particular view of women in this
decade, especially not in relation to the work force and the effects of the First World
War on it. Many scholars disagree whether or not the First World War played an
important role for the changing role of women in this decade.28 Therefore, this
thesis will look at women in the work force in the 1920s and compare them to
women who worked during the war and female employment before the war, and
see if the war brought important changes along. None of the consulted literature has
made this comparison, while it is crucial to do so in order to investigate what
changed in the work force for women, if there even were changes at all.
Consequently, this thesis will offer that comparison in order to conclude that even
the changes related to women in the work force were limited during the war and
that the situation of women in the labor market in the 1920s differs little compared
to the work force before the war, but yet brought very important changes and
opportunities along. Moreover, female employment in the discussed time period
proves to be very under-discussed in literature, as many of the consulted authors
only focus a part of a chapter on this, or sometimes just two or three pages.
Since women in the 1920s underwent changes in almost every aspect of their
lives, and it is impossible to investigate all the extensive changes within the limited
scope of the thesis, the focus will be on the work force. After all, the First World War
gave women opportunities to work in jobs that were unavailable for them before it.
The percentage of women working in the 1920s was higher than ever before, and
consisted of a rise of 6% since 1900, which is a lot when only 17% of the entire
labor market in 1900 was female. Therefore it is arguable that the employment of
Susan Zeiger, “Finding a Cure for War: Women's Politics and the Peace Movement in the 1920s,”
Journal of Social History Vol. 24, No. 1 (1990): 69.
28 David J. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.” OAH Magazine of
History Vol. 21, No. 3 (2007): 9.
27
9
women in jobs previously unable to them continued after the war. The research
question this paper thereby will answer is: To what extent has the First World War
been decisive for the changing role of white, Northern, urban women in relation to
the work force in the 1920s? When the word “women” is mentioned in this thesis, it
refers to white, urban women in the Northern states. Any other reference to women
will be stated so, and especially African Americans will be covered too, in order to
provide a comparison between African Americans and white workers to show the
specific situation of the white working-class in society. Paid as well as unpaid work
will be discussed, since both aspects underwent important changes and the unpaid
work that women performed was very important to keep the economy going.
Nevertheless, when the “work force” is mentioned, it refers to paid work. In order to
see if the war has been decisive, several aspects of the work force will be covered,
such as wages, working conditions, where women worked, the amount of working
women, and what kind of women worked. Furthermore, as the focus of this thesis
will be on the work force, it is impossible to avoid political and economical changes,
just as regional, racial, ethnic, and class differences.
As Robert H. Zieger describes in his book America’s Great War, the First
World War already brought issues involving race and gender to light, and the
discussions in the 1920s are therefore a continuation of these issues.29 From the
start of the war in 1914, white women as well as African Americans, were able to
perform in jobs previously unattainable to them, such as steel factory work. Due to
the fact that there was so much work to do in the factories, there were often not
enough employees available. Zieger explains that especially women were mobilized
Robert Zieger, America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience (Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2001), 115.
29
10
to work during the First World War. “For millions of ordinary workers, the period of
the Great War, most definitely including the year before U.S. Entry, accelerated
demographic, economic and social trends that were underway before 1914,”30 and
therefore also for women. Because the war was raging in Europe, American factory
life was focused on producing resources for its allies in Europe.
When the United States entered the war itself in 1917 and troops were sent
to Europe, even more women started to work in places they never have had the
possibility to work in.31 Not only men went to Europe, but also white women, to help
American soldiers. This was the first war in which women were sent overseas as a
part of the army. Often they still fulfilled typical “female” jobs such as nursing or
operating as a translator between France and the United States.32 But white women
were also put to work in less “female” jobs. For instance, some 13.000 women joined
the Navy and the Marines during the Great War.33
Therefore, some scholars argue that the First World War has played a major
role in the changing role of women in the 1920s. As Dorothy M. Brown states in her
book American Women in the 1920s: “World War one quickened the pace of women
moving from agriculture and domestic service into manufacturing and clerical
positions as women patriotically responded both to Uncle Sam’s call to form ‘the
second line of defense’ and to the reality of new opportunities and higher wages.”34
The war changed women’s work in the United States majorly. Men were sent abroad
in millions to participate in the war, and white women filled the jobs they left
Zieger, America's Great War, 116.
Ibid., 117.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., 122-123.
34 Dorothy Marie Brown, Setting a Course: American Women in the 1920s (Boston: Twayne, 1987), 77.
30
31
11
behind in the United States.35 This was influential for the distinctive role of women
in the 1920s, where women drove automobiles, participated in sports more often,
and sometimes even flew airplanes.36 All these changes had their roots in the First
World War, according to Brown. However, she explains little about the changing
jobs in the work force. As the quote implies, there had been a transition in the sort of
jobs women performed, but yet Brown does not focus on this transition in her
chapter about working women in the 1920s.37 Consequently, her research does not
provide a complete answer to all the changes women in the work force underwent.
But she mentions one very important change: the rise of married women in the
work force, which is a direct consequence of the First World War.38
The transition of women in the work force during the First World War is
worked out in great detail in the book Women, War, and Work, by Maurine Weiner
Greenwald. “The international crisis of 1914 and America’s official entry into the
Great War in April 1917 served to hasten the economic and social changes which for
50 years had been transforming American business and American labor, but the war
also created new circumstances which directly affected the employment of
women,”39 states Greenwald. She closely investigates the changes the war brought
along for working women and indeed shows that during the war much changed in
American society. However, this is where her book ends, which is entirely the
purpose of the book because she explicitly states she only looks at female wage
earners during the war.40 But it is not clear whether or not those changes were
permanent or only temporary. She does not provide evidence if the transition that
Brown, Setting a Course, 77.
Ibid., 33.
37 Ibid., 77.
38 Ibid., 87.
39 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, XX.
40 Ibid., XIX.
35
36
12
occurred during the war had a lasting effect and whether or not the war has been a
catalyst moment in the history of women’s employment in the United States.
Lynn Dumenil proposes a different view in her book The Modern Temper. She
argues that many scholars often see the end of the First World War in 1918 as a
natural break in history.41 It was the start of a new age, the 1920s, often seen as a
very distinctive, modern period filled with prosperity, and many scholars saw all the
changes this age brought along as a result of the First World War. But Lynn Dumenil
thinks otherwise: “In characterizing the 1920s as modern, I recognize that the
essential transformations began in the late 19th century, with the triad of rapid
Industrialization, sprawling urbanization, and massive immigration.”42
Consequently, Dumenil does not see the war as a catalyst moment that brought
many changes between pre- and post-war times. However, in relation to women in
the work force, her book falls short. Only a small part of a chapter in her book
focuses on this topic, and here she fails to give a concrete view on the work force for
women in the 1920s as she does not give a full comparison of working women
before, during, and after the First World War. This comparison is necessary in order
to see what specifically changed and whether or not the war truly was a catalyst
moment.
Furthermore, there even are scholars who completely dismiss the First
World War when looking at women’s roles in American society in the early
twentieth century. Holly J. McCammon, Lyndi Hewitt, and Sandy Smith write in their
article "No Weapon Save Argument" about the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and
Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York: Hill and
Wang, 1994), 3.
42 Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 4.
41
13
they do not mention the First World War at all.43 She argues that the changes that
occurred in the work force for women are a cause of the “increased participation of
working-class women in the Suffrage Movements.”44 The main influence on these
changes was the new influx of young women in the Suffrage Movement; they had
new methods and new arguments in order to win suffrage and to change other
institutions, like the work force. Nevertheless, they fail to include that the main
reason for this increased participation is the increase in female employment during
the war. Furthermore, they focus mostly on political changes for women, but they
claim that the Suffrage Movement caused all the changes working-class women
underwent, and the war had no role in it.45
David J. Goldberg, a history teacher at Cleveland State University,46 agrees
with McCammon, Hewitt, and Smith, as he argues that the entire present view of the
1920s needs to be reshaped.47 He gives in his article “Rethinking the 1920s” an
historic overview of works about the 1920s and argues that throughout the entire
twentieth century the views of the 1920s have constantly changed among
historians, including how the role of women was viewed. For example, for a long
time the Flapper style was widely accepted as a portrayal of women in the 1920s,
while actually only a small part of all women embraced this style.48 He continues
arguing that even though it is good that there are works that focus on the role of
women, those works are also incomplete and still often give stereotyped views.49 He
argues in his book Discontented America that “too often the mythic allure of the
Holly J. McCammon, Lyndi Hewitt and Sandy Smith, “No Weapon Save Argument: Strategic Frame
Amplification in the U.S. Woman Suffrage Movements,” The Sociological Quarterly Vol. 45, No. 3
(2004): 529.
44 Ibid., 537
45 Ibid.
46 Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” 1.
47 Zieger, America's Great War, 8.
48 Ibid., 116.
49 Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” 9.
43
14
‘Roaring Twenties’ has deafened our ears to the real voices of those who lived
through the decade.”50 Nevertheless, neither in his article nor in his book he gives an
extensive view of women in this decade, but he does make it clear that it is
important to keep in mind that throughout the entire twentieth century historic
views of the 1920s have changed.51 He says that the 1920s remain fascinating to
historians, but that women’s history often still is pushed into the background.52
Even though the focus of the thesis will be the 1920s, the time frame ranges
from 1848 to 1929. The reason to start in 1848 is based on the fact that the first
Women’s Rights Convention took place in said year and it was the start of the
Women’s Rights Movement. The special focus on the 1920s has numerous factors. In
1920 women finally achieved the right to vote, which gave them courage to fight for
better work opportunities and work conditions.53 Furthermore, many scholars see
the 1920s as a special decade of economic growth, locked between the war and the
Depression. Michael E. Parrish describes in his book Anxious Decades, that when the
Depression hit America in 1929, many women were forced to leave their jobs, and
their working situation returned to how it was before the war. Also, as Kelly Boyer
Sagert says in her book Flappers: A Guide to an American Subculture, the Flapper era
ended the moment the stock market crashed in October 1929.54 The crash affected
everyone economically which meant the Flappers could not spend much money on
their looks anymore, and therefore could not keep up with the new trends.55
Therefore, this thesis ends in 1929.
David J. Goldberg, Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s (Maryland: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1999), 2.
51 Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” 7-10.
52 Zieger, America's Great War, 116.
53 Ibid.
54 Sagert, Flappers, XI.
55 Ibid.
50
15
In order to provide the most complete answer to the research question, this
thesis will start with a chapter on the role of women before the First World War, in
particular in relation to the work force. The subquestion this chapter will answer is:
What was the role of women in the work force between 1848 and 1914? A second
chapter will focus on the First World War itself and the roles women played during
this war in the work force. The subquestion that chapter will answer is: What
changes did American women experience in relation to the work force when the
First World War started? The entire period of the First World War will be discussed,
so from the start of the war in 1914 until the end in 1918, and not only America’s
military participation from 1917 on. Due to the fact that as Zieger mentions, the war
already mobilized changes in the work force in American society before America’s
entry, as factory life focused on the production of supplies for their European
allies.56
The first two chapters are mostly descriptive to provide the reader with a
background in order to be able to give the most complete answer possible to the
research question. The third chapter will be more analytic, and the subquestion it
will answer is: What changes did women undergo in the 1920s in the work force in
relation to the First World War? Ultimately, this thesis will end with a conclusion in
which a short overview of the findings will be given, an answer to the research
question, and some possibilities for further research.
This study will consist of secondary sources, because in the limited time
frame no primary sources were available. This of course comes with some
shortcomings, namely that this thesis is entirely based on researches of others.
Nevertheless, this thesis contributes to the academic discussion because none of the
56
Zieger, America's Great War, 115
16
consulted literature focuses on the three time frames this thesis focuses on. None of
the referred scholars compared these three time frames to one another, and
therefore the results of this thesis are, to some extent, different than those of the
consulted scholars. Moreover, this comparative thesis specifically focuses on women
in the work force, while most of the consulted works have not used this specific
focus. Often it is a small part of a chapter, while, as shown in this thesis, the work
force proved to be an important part in the lives of many women, as around 24% of
the entire work force was female in the 1920s.
17
Chapter One:
Women’s Work from Seneca Falls to the Wake of the First World War
Introduction
“… For the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades,
professions and commerce.”57 This quote derives from the Declaration of
Sentiments, a document written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and read at the Seneca
Falls Convention in 1848, which was the start of the Women’s Rights Movement.58
At this convention, 300 men and women gathered to discuss gender inequality.59 As
the quote shows, the main points were better opportunities for women in education
and in the work force. The most important point, however, was the fight for the
voting rights for women. No voting rights meant limitations in other areas: “Having
deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her
without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all
sides.”60 Even though women gained suffrage over seventy years later, in 1920, in
the meantime women underwent important changes in American society.61
Especially the work force for women changed, as in 1900, 17.2% of the total
working force consisted of women, which is a major change since before 1848
almost all work women performed was unpaid.62
Not only the Women’s Rights Conventions that took place annually after the
Seneca Falls Convention were of influence on changes in the female work force, the
‘The Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls: A Lesson Plan,” OAH Magazine of History Vol. 3,
No. 4 (1988): 53.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid., 55.
61 McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 70.
62 Ibid., 71.
57
18
Civil War and Industrialization played a major role too.63 All of these events are
important factors to look at when one discusses the research question: To what
extent has the First World War been decisive for the changing role of white,
Northern, urban women in relation to the work force in the 1920s? Therefore, this
chapter will look at women in the work force from the Seneca Falls Convention on to
the start of the First World War in 1914 and provide an answer to the question:
What was the role of women in the work force between 1848 and 1914? The reason
for choosing this time frame is because the first major changes for women in the
United States happened after the first Women’s Rights Convention in 1848.
Generally, the movement this Convention triggered ended in 1920 with the voting
right for women, but since this chapter focuses on the work force and the First
World War has brought unique, though temporarily, changes in female employment,
the time frame ends in 1914.64
Seneca Falls and the Start of the Women’s Rights Movement
The general opinion of the history of white women in the nineteenth century
in the United States is that they did not work at all.65 The truth could not be more
different, as this view is only applicable on middle- and upper-class women. Women
have always worked, but they did not always earn wages.66 Nevertheless, unpaid
work that women performed was very important to keep American society on its
feet. For example, African American women (and men) toiled heavily under the
McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 71.
Zieger, America's Great War, 137.
65 Gail Bederman, Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United
States, 1880-1917 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 183.
66 Ibid.
63
64
19
system of slavery in the South, and white, working-class women had to take care of
the entire household, which among the consulted scholars is also seen as work.67
Before women joined the labor market in paid jobs, they were only
responsible for household jobs. They prepared food, raised children and animals, as
well as being responsible for making clothes and preparing meals.68 Because white,
working-class women took care of the household, their husbands could work long
hours. This separation of spheres was a fundamental aspect of life in the nineteenth
century in America.69 Sometimes a woman would do these kinds of household jobs
outside their homes, for other families. This way she could earn a little money, but
until the Civil War started in 1861 this was not a common image.70
However, from 1848 on, women’s work changed and a small number of
women started to work for wages. White, working-class women could earn little
money as servants, sewing-women, keepers of boarding houses, or in factory jobs,
as in 1850, around 225.000 women were working in factories.71 Middle-class
women sometimes worked too, but not in household jobs like the working-class did.
An educated, middle-class woman would often work as a teacher.72 Working-class
women were often in need of a job in order to support their families, but a woman
had little opportunities in the work force. When she had a job, she remained
responsible for all the household work in the meantime. Often, those working
women were young, single daughters that were forced to work in order to earn
Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 183.
Andrew Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman (Washington: Harper & Row
Torchbook TB 1887, 1975), 140.
69 Ibid.
70 Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, 142.
71 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 217
72 Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, 139.
67
68
20
some money to help out their family.73 Consequently, a distinction that needs to be
made between women in the work force is the one between married and unmarried
women. Despite the general idea that characterized American society, that women
were not supposed to work, it was not rare for single woman to work. An unmarried
woman sometimes worked outside the house in the second half of the nineteenth
century, to earn some money until she got married. A married woman rarely
worked outside her own household. In essence, she was not supposed to work at all,
which will be discussed later in this chapter.74
In American society the ideal of a woman belonging to the house and taking
care of the children and the household was so strong, that even industrial
advancement did not cause a major rise in women’s employment.75 Before 1848, it
was tradition that women were subordinate to men and therefore women lacked
legal and political rights. Women were seen as too emotional and unable to make
decisions for themselves. Even though there was a rising demand for labor,
employers were hesitant in hiring women. 76
Nevertheless, the nineteenth century was a century in which white, middleand upper-class women started to mobilize themselves and wanted to change the
prevailing notions of gender.77 In 1848 the first step for the fight for equality
between men and women took place at the Seneca Falls Convention.78 Those 300
white, middle-class women and men discussed the position of women in American
Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, 139.
Claudio Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” The Journal of Economic
History Vol. 40, No. 1 (1980): 81.
75 Vicki L. Ruiz, The Practice of U.S. Women's History: Narratives, Intersections, and Dialogues (New
Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 83.
76 McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 4.
77 Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States
(Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959), X.
78 Ibid., 71.
73
74
21
society. 79 At this convention women insisted that they were equal to men. Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, a Northern, urban, middle-class American social activist, abolitionist,
and head figure of the Women’s Rights Movement, was the lead organizer of the
convention.80 She had the most extreme views of all. She demanded suffrage for
women, something that was extremely radical to demand during this time, since
politics was part of the public sphere, where only men were allowed. Not all women
agreed on this point for suffrage either; actually, only very few did.81 But the points
of the declaration that focused on work and education for women were popular
among most attendees of the Convention.82
Stanton drafted the Declaration of Sentiments, based on the Declaration of
Independence, and read it at the Convention.83 This Declaration of Sentiments
consisted of twelve resolutions focusing on the unjust laws that denied women
access to education, the work force, property rights, and the right to vote.84 But it
went further than that. She made a radical calling to “overthrow the male rulers.”85
This calling and the call for voting rights was too extreme for most women present
at the convention, they wanted more freedom, but they did not see any benefits in
voting rights and many actually believed men were supposed to rule.86 Stanton
hoped everyone at the convention would sign her declaration, but only 100 of the
300 attendees signed it,87 proving Stanton’s views, especially related to the voting
rights, were too radical for that time.
McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 71.
Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 39.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid., 40.
87 The Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls: A Lesson Plan,” OAH Magazine of History Vol. 3,
No. 4 (1988): 53.
79
80
22
Nowadays, this Convention is unknown to most people; generally only
students of American history or women’s history have heard of it, and yet historians
see it as the start of the fight for gender equality that continues until today.88 The
convention brought the subordinate status of women in question and would have a
bigger impact on American society than was expected at the outset.89 According to
Sally McMillen, this convention was responsible for changing views on women in
American society in the nineteenth century.90 It was the first time in American
history that women, and few men, mobilized themselves for gender equality, and
more conventions followed.91 The goals this movement achieved, which ended in
1920 when women were granted voting rights, were limited, but yet very important
for the status of women in American society.92 Women achieved voting rights,
higher education, and the start of women working in professional jobs.93 But it was
not easy to achieve all these new liberties and rights, and not only the conventions
were responsible for bringing change, the Civil War and Industrialization would
have a major impact on women in the work force as well.94
Until the Civil War, women’s rights conventions took place annually, except
in 1857 due to the recession.95 In this short period since the Seneca Falls
convention, women received educational opportunities and married women gained
the right to own their own property.96 Nevertheless, until the Civil War the
conventions did not change the work force for women, and women working for
McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 3.
Ibid.
90 Ibid., 3.
91 Ibid., 4.
92 Ibid.
93 Flexner, Century of Struggle, X.
94 Ibid.
95 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 93.
96 Ibid.
88
89
23
wages were still rare, especially married women.97 But the Civil War brought along
important changes in the work force.
Many economical and property changes for women had occurred since the
Seneca Falls Convention, and the Civil War enhanced those changes and brought
along some new changes as well, such as a rising participation of women in the work
force. The Women’s Rights Movement itself also underwent some changes, as it
gained more support. Most women who supported the movement were also
abolitionists. Now that slavery was abolished in 1865 and African Americans were
citizens and male African Americans had earned the right to vote (at least in theory
they were citizens and had the right to vote), the white American women felt left
behind.98 Whereas Miss Stanton in 1848 was one of the very few women who had
wanted suffrage, many women now hoped to gain the right to vote, too.99 In an
attempt to gain this right, many pamphlets and articles were spread after the Civil
War, which caused more women to believe they deserved the right to vote.
Especially the abolition of slavery stirred this rise in the number of women who
believed they deserved suffrage.100
However, the view that women deserved the right to vote was only popular
among women in the North; Southern women did not have any problems with
current gender relations.101 The Seneca Falls Convention, the first step towards
gender equality, was held in New York, thus in a Northern, urban area.102 All the
other conventions held before the Civil War started were held in Northern cities
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 78.
Ibid., 145.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 37.
97
98
24
too.103 Thus the Women’s Rights Movement was already well known and quite
active in the North. Furthermore, the fact that most people in the North were against
slavery plays an important role too, particularly for women.104 As slavery was
abolished, many women in the North were hopeful it would bring changes for them
too, especially voting rights.105 Additionally, women that participated in the war saw
that gender relations could be different and more equal, and joined the
Movement.106 After the Civil War, the Women’s Rights Movement also moved to the
Southern states in hopes of gaining support from the women there, but this turned
out to be a lot harder than they hoped.107 Southern white, rural women were more
conservative and most of them did not support the Women’s Rights Movement. 108
The Civil War and the Progressive Era: Times of Change for Women
This new interest in gaining suffrage for women led to the creation of the National
Women Suffrage Association in 1869 in New York City. Again Elizabeth Cady
Stanton was one of the founders. Even though this association focused on women’s
suffrage, it also paid attention to women’s rights in the labor force.109 Women’s
rights were not limited to political issues anymore. Though, in the early years of the
association the NWSA had the most success. In 1869, Wyoming was the first state to
grant women voting rights. However, by 1910, only four states had granted women
suffrage.110 Women were still seen as unable to participate in politics, and the
traditional image of the female role was still linked to the domestic sphere and
McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement, 37.
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 159.
105 Ibid., 160
106 Ibid., 159.
107 Ibid., 158
108 Ibid., 145.
109 Ibid., 160.
110 Susan Ware, Modern American Women: A Documentary History (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education, 2001), 131.
103
104
25
limited jobs. Women only were able to work in domestic life or in clerical jobs. This
continued until the First World War.
Nevertheless, between the start of the Civil War and the start of the
Progressive Era in 1890, the position of women in the work force underwent some
very important changes. Throughout the Civil War women were forced to take over
the roles of men, as men left for the front. Furthermore, during the war, many
women were recruited as nurses. Most of these women were farmer’s wives or lived
in small towns and took care of the household. Entering the war caused them to
broaden their horizons of what they could achieve and many of the nurses found
jobs in hospitals after the war ended.111 Furthermore, the impact the war had on
women, the harsh conditions, the many deaths, and wounded they encountered,
made them stronger.112 Therefore, the number of women working rose strongly
after the Civil War compared to the number of women working before the war, and
many women were still present in men’s jobs, because their husbands died or
returned crippled and could not earn money anymore.113 Nevertheless, this was
only a small part, and after the Civil War ended, gender relations in society returned
mostly to the way they were before, as many soldiers returned healthy and went
back to their old jobs, forcing women to return to their household jobs.114
Another important change that occurred after the Civil War was that higher
education became available for women, which would mean better job opportunities.
However, in practice it proved to be very hard for a woman to get a higher
education. Only higher- or middle-class white women had the opportunity, because
they had enough money to afford an education. Nonetheless, they faced a lot of
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 108.
Ibid., 107.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid., 108.
111
112
26
resistance. Not many schools allowed women, and universities and colleges were
even less fond of having a woman in their community. But after the Civil War there
were schools that opened their doors for female students, and even schools that
only allowed girls erupted.115 An educated woman had more advantages and
opportunities in the work force.116 Despite the fact that a woman had an education,
she still had a hard time getting a different job than factory work or domestic work,
because many employers did not want to hire them.117
Industrial development also played an important role in the rising number
of women working after the war, as household jobs, like hand-weaving, had been
taken over by factories.118 Factory work was something that previously was
unconnected to women. In 1850, around 225.000 women were working in factories.
The business of the textile mills flourished in the 1840s and 1850s, and they
welcomed young, rural women in their factories.119 By 1860, some 270.000 women
worked in factories, but by 1870 this number had risen to 325.000.120 Even though
it was the first time in American history that women in great numbers worked in the
labor system, even in factories they still did jobs they used to do at home, such as
making clothes. Most women who worked in manufacturing worked in textiles,
clothing, shoes, and in non-household jobs such as cigarmaking, and printing.121
Those women working in factories were often of lower, working-class, and worked
between the ages of fourteen and twenty-four. Usually when they married they quit
working in factories and started to take care of the household. A married woman
Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, 140.
Ibid., 144
117 Ibid.
118 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 78.
119 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 217.
120 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 134.
121 Ibid., 78.
115
116
27
was not supposed to work, but some women in the working-class did not have any
other choices besides getting a job because their families were too poor to live on
just one wage.122 However, there were no numbers available to see how many
married women worked, but in 1900 this number was below 3% of the female work
force. Since it was controversial for a married woman to work, it can be assumed the
number of married women in 1870 was even lower than the 3% of 1900.123
The Progressive Era was responsible for the biggest changes in women’s
work. This Era refers to the period between 1890 and 1920, and it had got its name
due to many reforms and activisms that took place in it.124 Industrialization was
reaching a peak and made household jobs for women a lot easier. For example,
factories now produced clothes in bulk, and they were affordable. A woman
therefore did not have to make clothes herself anymore; she could buy cheap,
factory-made clothes.125 This saved a lot of time in the household and made it
possible for a woman to combine her household chores with a job.126
Furthermore, urbanization and mass immigration played important roles in
the rise of women in the work force.127 More and more families moved from rural
areas to live in the urban cities in the hopes of finding better jobs and earning more
money, since industry had boomed in the North and there was a rising demand for
cheap laborers.128 This gave a woman also better opportunities in finding a job. Yet
factories still preferred men to women and were extremely hesitant about hiring
female workers, because the general idea that a woman belonged at home remained
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 78.
Ware, Modern American Women, 66.
124 Ibid., 3.
125 Ibid., 2.
126 Ibid., 4.
127 Ibid., 2-3
128 Ibid., 3.
122
123
28
strong. Nevertheless, in certain factories women proved to be better workers than
men, such as sewing factories, as women already performed this skill at home.
Therefore women participating in the work force rose.129
The 1880s and 1890s saw major industrial changes as well, the most
important changes for women in the work force were caused by Industrialization.
Factories produced goods in great numbers and sold them cheaply, and factories
took over more and more of the household jobs of women.130 The difference was
that in the factories they were paid, at home they were not.131 This was a major
change for women, since women working for wages still was uncommon. However,
not all scholars agree that this change was positive for women in the work force.
Gail Bederman writes in her book Manliness and Civilization that when factories
replaced typical household jobs, the gap between men and women became even
bigger in terms of earning money.132 Despite the progress women in the work force
made, that more women started to work in factories, they became even more
dependent on the income of a man. Working-class women earned so little and
worked so much that the husband still needed to take care of her, financially, and
with her long work hours she gained less opportunities to become part of the public
sphere.133 Therefore, she had less time to organize herself politically to fight for
better work opportunities. But as will be shown later, single women found a
solution to be independent and to take care of themselves.
Industrialization also had a negative effect on middle- and upper-class
women. Traditionally they did not work, especially not if they were married, but
Ware, Modern American Women, 3.
Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, 139.
131 Ibid.
132 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 81.
133 Ibid., 75.
129
130
29
now the factories took over their household jobs (whether they did them
themselves or a servant did them for them), women had less freedom in their
marriage.134 They were not allowed to work, nor to place themselves in the public
spheres, and their household jobs were taken from them.135 Bederman argues that
industrial capitalism and democratic revolutions (such as citizenship for African
Americans) did not have a positive effect on women in relation to men.136 Therefore
it caused women to think more about gender inequality, especially in the middleclass, since they were not supposed to work and her job was to be a good mother
and depend on the income of her husband.137 In fact, the so-called “separation of
spheres” became even more visible. This separation of spheres meant that women
and men were both destined for certain jobs based on their gender. Men were active
in the public sphere and women in the private.138
Despite the rising number of women working in factories, the kind of work
women performed in the household remained a very important part of the family
economy.139 This way more family members, like sons, could work outside the home
to earn money. Because women performed domestic work, the husband could work
long hours outside the house and families could survive on one income.140 Workingand middle-class women still sewed and managed the finances at home. This
continued far into the twentieth century. Many men questioned if the work force
was a good place for a woman, as she was highly emotional and her initial task was
Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 82.
Ibid., 80.
136 Ibid., 81.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid.
139 Ruiz, The Practice of U.S. Women's History, 84.
140 Ibid.
134
135
30
taking care of the children and the household.141 Married women were simply not
supposed to work.142 Married women were so depending on their husbands that
often when they became widowed they needed familial, charitable, or state
assistance.143 Widows had few opportunities to earn enough money to take care of
themselves and their children.144 Therefore, the general idea of a woman as
homemaker had not changed since Seneca Falls, but society became more open to
single women in the work force, as long as they still would get married and then quit
their jobs.
The 1890s also marked the start of a new kind of woman, the Gibson Girls.
This new woman got her name because of the new style of clothes she wore. The
general clothing style for women in the second half of the nineteenth century
included heavy corsets and petticoats. The Gibson Girl wore comfortable clothes,
such as long skirts with a blouse, but this change of clothes is not seen as a
revolution since the Gibson Girl was the image of a perfect woman. Moreover, this
new woman had more educational and work opportunities.145 The Gibson Girl was
often a middle- or upper-class woman, thus a woman with status and often with
money.146 Therefore she, or her family, could afford to give her an education. The
higher education that had been opened up for women after the Civil War had
become more popular and more accessible at the turn of the century, thus more
women received an education.147
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 85
Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, 191.
143 Ibid.
144 Ibid.
145 Ware, Modern American Women, 120.
146 Ibid.
147 Ibid., 122.
141
142
31
In 1900, some five million women worked outside their house. Still most of
those women worked in domestic service, which means the idea of a woman as
homemaker still had not changed.148 But it was not impossible to get a job in “male”
professions.149 Some educated women became writers or poets, such as Eleanor
Hallowell Abbott.150 Others entered journalism, business, law, or the church.151
Consequences for the Working Woman
In 1900, 17.2% of the entire work force consisted of women. The majority of those
women were single. In “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” Claudio
Goldin states that “single women dominated the female labor force in the United
States from 1870-1920.”152 An estimated number of 75% of the working women in
this time period was single, and married white working women did not even reach
3% of the total working women. Furthermore, almost all employed women were
working-class. Middle- and upper-class women rarely worked, and if they worked, it
was in different positions than working-class women, such as teaching and
nursing.153 However, most working-class women either still worked in household
jobs, like waitressing, or in factory jobs.154 Below is a table of the industries in which
most women with factory jobs worked. Striking is that the highest numbers of
female workers are still found in jobs they performed at home, like clothing
manufacture and laundries and cleaning.
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 82.
Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman,144
150 Ibid.
151 Ibid.
152 Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 81.
153 Ibid.
154 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 197.
148
149
32
155
Nevertheless, this table shows that the types of jobs women worked in were
changing. Factory work became immensely popular and important, despite the fact
that most work performed in factories was still seen as typically female. What is not
shown in this table, is that there was a rising number of women working in clerical
jobs, which in the nineteenth century was considered a man’s job.156 This means
that a shift occurred in the Progressive Era, and more jobs were available to women.
Whereas women’s work in the early stages of the Suffrage Movement was
considered a personal service for the husband, women now worked for themselves.
This removal of a man’s control on the property or earnings of a woman made way
for a stronger sense of political participation for women.157 As Eleanor Flexner
writes in her book Century of Struggle: “due to the rapid pace toward
Industrialization and urbanization, the position of women had altered far more
drastically than that of men. The worst disabilities had been eliminated, while
others had been reduced.”158 Women became more active in the economy, in
culture, and in politics.159
One of the consequences of the rise of working women in the work force was
that they worked under abominable conditions. Now that women worked in
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 198.
Ibid., 197.
157 Ibid., 237.
158 Ibid., 235.
159 Ibid.
155
156
33
factories, they were outside the house, but the conditions were so horrid and their
hours were so long that they had even less time to try to position themselves in the
public.160 Their jobs were mostly very repetitive and despite it did not demand a lot
of physical exertion, a working day could easily be thirteen hours long. Besides that
the woman still had to work at home and be a good wife and mother.161
Furthermore, the conditions women worked in also raised social concerns,
mostly about infertility. A popular argument to keep women out of the work force
was that the bad conditions and the long work hours could seriously endanger a
woman’s health, since a woman was not built to work so many years in such ill
conditions. It could make her infertile and this would endanger the future
generation.162 Often they worked in buildings that were old and falling apart. The
buildings and sanitary had never been cleaned, or lacked a sanitary. Additionally,
because the buildings were in such a bad shape, fire hazards were extremely high.
There was no fresh air in the building and the smell was terrible too, as the windows
were completely nailed shut.163
The wages also raised major concerns. Women earned less money than men,
because it was taken for granted that women would eventually marry and the
husband would then provide the income.164 With the rise of factories in the
Northern states more women took jobs in them. However, migration numbers rose
too, not only from the Southern states, but also from Europe. Most of these migrants
could only get jobs in factories, causing the wages to drop, as there were more
Estelle Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism,
1870-1930,” Feminist Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1979): 581.
161 Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman,138.
162 Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 82.
163 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 248.
164 Ibid.
160
34
laborers than jobs.165 At the turn of the century, factory conditions improved
slightly, child labor under the age of twelve had been abolished, which allowed more
women to work in factories, yet in typically female jobs. Domestic work was still
leading as the main sector women worked in, but it was slowly declining.166 This is a
very important improvement for the status of women, as they gained more and
more opportunities in the work force.
Because women worked such long hours and had to take care of their
household besides that, they were unable to organize themselves in trade unions
nor were they able to start a union themselves. But this changed when women
started to mobilize themselves between 1903, when the Women's Trade Union
League founded was founded, and the start of the First World War. 167 This union
organization fought for better working conditions for women and higher wages.168
All people in the middle- and higher-classes had advantage of the industrial
developments, since they could afford all the products made possible by
Industrialization. This gave the middle- and higher-classes more time to organize
themselves in union organizations, which is why most of them were led by these
classes.169 The working-class was less lucky and did not benefit a lot from most
industrial advancements, but Industrialization urged the working-class women to
be more active in unions.170 The first attempt at a labor union for women had
already been made in the 1880s, when the Knights of Labor started to treat men and
women equally171 Women from all kinds of jobs joined this union in the hope of
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 83.
Ibid.
167 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 39.
168 Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy,” 519.
169 Ibid.
170 Ware, Modern American Women, 5
171 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 234.
165
166
35
changing their working conditions. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful in
bringing change, as only around 10% of the members were female and therefore
most of the attention went to the male members.172
The Suffrage Movement also underwent a rapid change due to the growing
numbers of women participating in the work force. Many of the supporters of
suffrage during the 1840s and 1850s were dead or retired, and a new generation
took their place. Women of the new generation came up with new arguments for
women’s suffrage.173 The number of women in the work force was rising and they
argued that the participation of women in the modern work force was an important
reason women should be granted the right to vote.174 More and more women
demanded this right, and this rising demand was closely linked to the rising number
of women in the work force.175
Another consequence of women participating in the work force was that a
large number of women wanted to prove to be no longer dependent on the income
of a man and stayed single for their entire lives.176 Generally women worked when
they were young and stopped working when they got married, but some women
wanted to continue working and stayed single, despite the low wages. It is estimated
that around 10% of the women in the Progressive Era remained unmarried.177 This
is a relatively high number in a society that expected women to marry while they
were still teenagers. Because women earned so little and it actually was necessary
to marry someone to survive, the single women started to live together.178
Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy,” 519.
Flexner, Century of Struggle, 237.
174 Ibid.
175 Ibid.
176 Ibid., 238.
177 Ware, Modern American Women, 3.
178 Ibid.
172
173
36
Moreover, this shows that women became more aware of their own possibilities and
realized they did not need a man to take care of them; women could be independent
and take care of themselves. This influenced the rising demand for the voting right
too.
Single women, however, were considered controversial within American
society.179 First of all, their morals were questioned. Their decision to remain single
was in contrast with tradition and was seen as “unhealthy.”180 A woman was meant
to marry and have children and take care of the household. A woman working until
she married was acceptable, but remaining single to work their entire lives was
shocking. Single working women were seen as sexual objects by their male
colleagues and thus created possibilities of endangering “good marriages.”181
Furthermore, single women were now also visible in trades unavailable to them
before 1870. They took jobs that were previously engaged only by men. This raised
questions about the gender roles in American society, in particular in the work force
as men were concerned about their economic position.182
Not all women stayed single on purpose. Those who did wanted to make a
statement, but some women did not have a choice. Women usually started working
at the age of fourteen, and by the time they were twenty-four they were expected to
have found a partner suitable for marriage.183 However, after the Civil War, in which
many men had died, there was a so-called shortage of men and not all women had
the chance to find a husband. Sometimes women were just unlucky in their search
and when a woman became older than twenty-four, she was already seen as too old
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 82.
Ibid.
181 Ibid., 81.
182 Ibid., 82.
183 Ibid.
179
180
37
to marry. In other instances a woman had been married but her husband had died.
184
These women were forced to stay in or re-enter the work force in order to
support themselves. Often single women lived together to share household jobs and
lower the costs and to get emotional satisfaction. But the women who did stay single
on purpose, were often in a relationship with each other, which caused more
protests against the working woman.185
Even though women’s roles in the work force had changed and women were
more active in American society, the right to vote was a step too far. Antisuffragists,
a political movement that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, were
opposed to women’s suffrage. They used several arguments as to why a woman
should not be granted the right to vote.186 From a theological point of view women
and men were meant for different functions, and politics was something God
intended to be for men.187 The biological argument that was often used was that a
woman was too delicate. She would be too emotional and fragile to cope with the
turbulence of politics.188 These arguments were nothing new; the exact same
arguments were used decades earlier when women wanted suffrage, and were used
to withhold women from the work force.189
The antisuffragists’ arguments to show why a woman was not supposed to
work or vote were only applicable to white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant, and middleclass homes. These homes were the ideal of American society in which the woman
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 85.
Ware, Modern American Women, 3.
186 McCammon, Hewitt and Smith, “"No Weapon Save Argument," 548.
187 Aileen S. Kraditor, The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement: 1890-1920 (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1981), 15.
188 Ibid., 20.
189 Ibid.
184
185
38
was the ruler of the house, but she was never allowed to leave it.190 This image was
the strongest in the Southern states, where the Suffrage Movement was the least
successful.191 In this region many white women were more drawn to the gender
roles of the nineteenth century, in which the husband worked and the wife stayed at
home. Most women also did not see why women in the urban regions were so
desperate for the right to vote, because politics was something for men.192 Only a
fraction of the changes the urban areas underwent in relation to women’s rights
were visible in the rural areas.193 People in the South, including women, were more
conservative and clung to old traditions, where the women belonged in the home.194
However, when one looks at African American women in the rural areas, the
differences between the rural and urban areas are smaller than when one looks at
white women.195 After the Civil War, African Americans were officially American
citizens, but society still perceived them as second-class citizens.196 This status
meant that African American men were unable to get well paid jobs like white men,
and often worked for the lowest wages. As consequence, the wives of African
American men were forced to work outside the house to earn some money too in
order to support their family.197 The number of married African American women
that worked outside their houses was high, especially compared to married white
women, usually as a domestic servant or plantation worker. Around 25% of married
Kraditor, The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movemen, 123.
Sinclair, The Emancipation of The American Woman, XXVI.
192 Ibid.
193 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 190.
194 Ibid.
195 Ibid.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.
190
191
39
African American women had to take a job in order to support her family, while only
3% of married white women had to do so.198
Even though they had a great need for work, African American women had
the least economic opportunities. The South had not had an industrial boom like the
North had in the 1880s and 1890s, but the African American women that lived in the
North were denied industrial jobs as well. “In the North, barred from industrial
work, black women were heavily represented in domestic service, laundry work,
and in the rural areas, where most of the African Americans still lived at the turn of
the century, as agricultural workers.”199 However, African American women tried to
organize themselves into the unions white women were organized in, in order to
fight for better work conditions and equal treatment with white women, but they
were not accepted.200
Not only racial differences played a role in the work opportunities of a
woman, class played an important role too. An upper-class daughter never had to
work at all. Her family was rich enough and she only had to marry someone of equal
class, so finding work was not necessary for her or her family.201 Men in middleclass families sometimes made enough money for their wives not to work outside
the home either. When the wife did have to work, she could often get a higher status
job, such as teaching or clerical work, because she was an educated, middle-class
woman. And often these jobs were more charitable than actually necessary for the
family.202 Even though the wages for these jobs often were lower than factory work
wages, middle-class women preferred these jobs purely because it matched their
Ware, Modern American Women, 66.
Ibid.
200 Ibid.
201 Ibid.
202 Ibid.
198
199
40
status.203 Generally, only white, native born, American middle-class women could
get jobs like these. African American women often were not a part of the middleclass, but the ones who were also worked as teachers or in clerical institutions,
albeit in black, not white, institutions.204 For white, American-born, working-class
women it was possible to move upward to a similar job, though it rarely happened.
However, for African American it was nearly impossible.205
Conclusion
To conclude, this chapter has looked at the role of women in the work force in the
time period 1848-1914. The question this chapter has answered is: What was the
role of women in the work force between 1848 and 1914? As shown, this had
changed considerably since the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. In the years before
the Civil War, the typical role of a woman was to stay at home to do household jobs
and take care of the children, while the man was working to earn money. The Civil
War, however, changed these gender relations. The men left for the front to fight,
and women took over some of the work men did. After the Civil War ended, gender
relations in society returned mostly to the way they were before the war, because
the soldiers returned and wanted their jobs back.
Nevertheless, women saw how different things could be during the war and
the abolition of slavery and citizenship for African Americans raised a sense of selfawareness among women. They started to mobilize to fight for a society that was
more gender equal. Initially their starting point was the right to vote, but the
Ware, Modern American Women, 67.
Ibid.
205 Ibid.
203
204
41
movement erupted in something much bigger. Women wanted property rights,
access to education, and work rights.
The work force for women underwent many important changes when
Industrialization boomed. After the Civil War ended more women were working,
and during the industrial boom of the 1880s and 1890s this number rose rapidly.
Nevertheless, the kinds of jobs women performed were mostly still jobs associated
with the female gender, such as household jobs or teaching, and they often
performed household jobs in factories. They could hardly ever enter male
professions. Furthermore, the work conditions were terrible and they worked long
hours for extremely low wages, so that they were still mostly dependent on the
income of a man. Class, racial, and regional differences played an important role too
in the kind of work a woman performed or if she even had a job. Roughly there were
three classes, the working-, middle-, and upper-class. Upper-class women
traditionally did not work, as they did not need to. Middle class women sometimes
had to work, but they took jobs fitting their status, regardless the wage. Workingclass women were more often forced to get a job in order to support the family.
Even though the working-class did not have much money and actually
needed a double income to support the family, still only 3% of the white, married
women actually worked during the Progressive Era. A married woman was not
supposed to work, she only worked from her teenage years onwards while she was
single. In the African American community women often did not have a choice. Still
being second-class citizens, African American men could only get the lowest paid
jobs, forcing their wives into the work force as well. Here some 25% of the married
women worked. Since the largest number of African Americans still lived in the
Southern States, they did not enter the industrial work in large numbers. The rural
42
South was focused on agriculture, in which most people, African American and
white, worked. Due to the lack of industrialization traditions stayed more intact in
the South and white, Southern women were less in favour of a working woman or
the right to vote. As shown, the work force underwent many changes, just like the
role of women in American society, the most important ones caused by
Industrialization. These changes are very important for the role of women in the
First World War, and especially in the 1920s, as will be shown; not much had
changed compared to the changes during the Progressive Era.
43
Chapter Two:
American Working Women During the First World War
Introduction
In August 1914, the First World War broke out in Europe. Many, including president
Wilson of the United States, expected the war to be brief and over in weeks.
Therefore, Wilson declared America to be neutral to avoid American participation in
this European conflict.206 Nevertheless, as Robert H. Zieger argues, America’s
neutrality did not mean that American society remained unaffected by the war, and
eventually Wilson saw no other option besides entering the war in 1917.207
Zieger claims that American society had been captivated by the war from the
moment it started in 1914, which is visible in the first war-related policy of
President Wilson:208 “Wilson’s state department disapproved of extending American
loans and credits to belligerents, but by October 1914, such a policy seemed
perverse as it became clear that the war might continue for months or even
years.”209 Therefore, the United States was forced to extend loans and credit to its
belligerents in order to keep American economy rolling. To continue this ban for
months or even years would have influenced American society profoundly and
would have caused an economic crisis.210 Thus America had been forced to
“participate” in the war since 1914 on. This economic participation alone in the war
already strengthened the existing discussions about race and gender in American
society. These discussions were especially high in the work force, since there was a
Zieger, America's Great War, VVI.
Ibid.
208 Ibid.
209 Ibid., VIII.
210 Ibid., VVI.
206
207
44
rising demand for employees during the war and therefore better opportunities for
women. Nonetheless, whether or not women belonged in industrialized jobs
remained a central point of discussion.211
The entire American society was mobilized for the war since 1914, even
women, African Americans, and children. Not a single person or family remained
unaffected.212 The scope of the war was so great that it brought, at least according to
Susan R. Grayzel, profound changes to gender relations in American society.213 Just
as during the Civil War, women were mobilized in war-related jobs. However,
during the First World War, American women left their domestic spheres en masse
for the first time and were found in places of society they had not been present
before, such as steel factories.214 Yet, how much did the war really change? This
chapter will look at the role of American women in the work force during the First
World War. This chapter is of importance because only this way the influence of the
war on women in the 1920s can be studied. The question this chapter will answer is:
What changes did American women experience in relation to the work force when
the First World War started? The first subchapter will look at reasons as to why
women had to join the work force during the war. The second subchapter then looks
at the places women worked in, while the third subchapter discusses the positive
and negative consequences of the rise of the working woman.
I Zieger, America's Great War, VIII.
Ibid., VII.
213 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, XX.
214 Ibid.
211
212
45
Why women had to join the work force during the First World War
When the United States lifted its trading ban with European countries that
participated in the war, it immediately created new chances in American society.215
The trade with France and Britain became three times higher than it had been
before the war, because both countries were in need of weapons and other military
supplies, which were provided by the United States.216 In the beginning of the war,
America also still traded with Germany, but this ended in 1915 when Germans
attacked and sank a British passenger ship.217 127 Americans were killed in this
attack and while America tried to settle arrangements with Germany to keep out of
the war, Germany continued to threaten American lives when a few months later
again American passengers were killed on board of an English passenger ship,
leading to American military participation.218
This rising trade with France and Britain caused a labor shortage in the
United States, and therefore it created work opportunities for women.219 Therefore,
many scholars build on the idea that women joined the work force in massive
numbers during the war. Comparing numbers of 1900 and 1920 initially seem to
show this. In 1900, only around 17% of the entire work force was female. By 1920
this number had risen by 6.3%, and around 8 million women over the age of ten
were present in the work force, showing a a major rise.220 Furthermore, over one
million women were employed in war related jobs,221 which shows that a shift
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, XX.
Ibid.
217 John Horne, A Companion to World War I (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 509.
218 Horne, A Companion to World War I, 510.
219 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, XX
220 Ibid., 13
221 David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004), 279.
215
216
46
occurred in the types of jobs women worked in during the war compared to just a
decade earlier.
This would imply that the First World War was responsible for many changes
and opportunities for women in the work force. However, the role of women in the
American work force was already in transition before the war started, because since
1870 more women were already working for wages, and this rise was especially in
non-agricultural work, argues Maurine Greenwald.222 Nevertheless, the First World
War brought along many changes and innovations in the work force for women,
though most of them only temporarily, and therefore it did not cause a major change
of women in the work force in the 1920s.
However, in order to show the above statement is true, the changes during
the war need to be discussed. There were three reasons that caused job shortages
during the war, which influenced changes in the work force for women on several
aspects, such as what kind of jobs they performed, their working conditions, and
what kind of women worked. The first reason, which has been mentioned above,
was the war economy. The extensive trade with Britain and France caused an
employee shortage in American society.223 American factories focused their
production on warfare supplies. The demand from Europe for these resources was
so high, it created an employee shortage in the United States, and therefore better
opportunities for women.224
The second reason was the immigration stop from poor Eastern European
countries when the war started.225 Before the war, almost one million immigrants
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 12.
Ibid.,143.
224 Ibid., 15.
225 Ibid.
222
223
47
entered the United States annually to perform cheap labor, mostly in factories.226
After the war started in 1914 in Europe, immigration declined to almost zero
percent, therefore causing a shortage of cheap laborers.227
The third reason for the changes in the female labor market was the sending
of military aid to Europe. Until April 1917, the United States only sent ammunition
and supplies to help their European allies, but this changed in 1917 when the United
States decided to send military help as well. 228 Soldiers were sent abroad in great
numbers, a total of almost 4.5 million American men fought in the war, which
caused labor shortages in the United States. Women were, in the meantime, the ones
who kept American society and economy from falling apart.229
These three reasons for employee shortages were of influence on women in
the American work force. This shortage created new opportunities for women;
because they could join jobs they never had access to before, such as working in the
railroad system. They even earned higher wages than they ever imagined possible,
since they were often paid equally as the men performing the same jobs, whereas
before the war women were paid only around 55% of the wages of men.230
Consequently, employers hired workers from groups that were
underrepresented in the American labor system, such as white women and African
Americans.231 The media played an important role in getting African Americans and
white women to work. Newspapers were filled with slogans such as “WOMEN
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 15.
Ibid.
228 Ibid.
229 Ibid., 16.
230 Ibid.
231 Ibid., 20.
226
227
48
WANTED!,” and regularly the call for employees now involved the word “colored,”
meaning there was a rising demand for African American employees.232
African American men and white women took over some of the jobs of white
men in the industrial North, while African American women took over the jobs left
behind by white women.233 From 1914 on, white women took jobs in factories of
iron, steel, and metal, and after the military participation of the United States in the
war in 1917 the number of white women in these factories rose considerably. Often,
those women were already employed before the war, usually in domestic jobs.
During the war they left those jobs for factory work because the wages were higher.
These factories mostly produced supplies for their European Allies and the
American men fighting in Europe. One can think of wristwatches, identification tags,
barrack bags, pistol holders, and tools. Other women were responsible for the
production of goods for ships and airplanes, producing explosives and fireworks,
and preparing medications.234 Out of all the workers in the American country that
were responsible for producing these kinds of products, 20% was female.235 Women
made a huge step forward in the work force, they went from sewing clothes or
working in textile mills, to work in heavy factories where before the war only men
were allowed to work.
Furthermore, there was a considerable rise of married women in the work
force. Many husbands were sent abroad, and therefore the spouses had to provide
an income and were forced to take a job. More married women than ever before
were working in paid jobs.236 Therefore the war has been decisive in the war-time
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 20.
Ibid.
234 Zieger, America's Great War, 121.
235 Ibid.
236 Ibid., 128.
232
233
49
period for bringing married women into the work force, and as will be shown in
chapter three, this would prove to be a lasting change.
African American women filled the spots in domestic work, as they were not
allowed to work in those factories where white women now worked.237 The
subsequent migration of African American laborers from the South was a result of
these calls for employees.238 Between 1914 and 1920 the so-called Great Migration
of African Americans, that started around 1910, reached a peak and consisted of
750.000 migrated worker annually, while previously only 67.000 African Americans
had moved from the South to the North each decade.239
Even though African American women in the North now could take over
some of the jobs of white women, there were still restrictions in those jobs.240 Often
these women were trained for much better positions, but employers refused to hire
African American women as a typist or stenographer.241 Department stores did hire
African American women, but only as store maids, stock girls, or elevator operators.
They were not allowed to greet the customers or offer them their help, like white
women were.242 Some industries, however, were open for all women, such as the
railroad system. There were decent working conditions and high wages, but here
segregation also remained. Black women were only allowed to mop floors or wash
windows, but the working conditions and wages were much better than doing the
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 20.
Zieger, America's Great War, 128.
239 Ibid.
240 Ibid., 123.
241 Ibid.
242 Ibid., 127.
237
238
50
same work in domestic services.243 Yet the number of African American women
working in the North increased by 7% between 1910 and 1920.244
Where American women worked during the War
After the first American troups were sent to Europe to aid their allies, women
appeared in a wider range of jobs than ever before. In 1918, the government
published a list consisting of four pages of jobs in which women substituted for male
jobs.245 There were few popular sectors where women worked during the war, such
as working as switchboard operators, as streetcar conductors, in the railroad
system, in the military both at home and in Europe, and in the Navy.246 All these jobs
will be discussed below to show the important changes women in the work force
underwent during the First World War.
Despite the fact that women gained a lot more work opportunities due to the
shortage in labor, most women who worked in men’s jobs during the war, had
already been employed before the war started. Often they worked in typical female
jobs that were poorly paid, and they moved on to male jobs where they had the
chance for the better wages. African American women often filled the spots they left
behind.247 However, the rise of 6.3% between 1900 and 1920 cannot be solely seen
as a consequence of the war. There were no numbers available of the amount of
women working during the war or how much the employment of women had risen
during the war. Therefore, it is assumable that, based on the fact that most women
already worked before the war, the war did not bring important changes in numbers
Zieger, America's Great War, 125.
Ibid., 123.
245 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 298.
246 Ibid.
247 Ibid.
243
244
51
of female employment. But the fact that women were now able to work in male jobs
shows the important opportunities the war created for them nevertheless.
One of the most popular male jobs women were employed in during the war
was the railroad system. “Had women been asked during the First World War which
industry offered them the most favorable wages and working conditions, they surely
would have chosen railroad work.”248 Before the war started, the railroad system
was privatized, but when the war raged on in Europe it became clear that the
railroads could not handle the pressure of the war and needed to be improved. The
federal government took over the railroad system and employed many women.
Therefore, the First World War was responsible for changes in the type of jobs
women worked in. At the end of the war over 100.000 women were in service of the
railroad system.249
Women were generally employed as clerks in the railroad offices, but
additionally they often repaired tracks, cleaned cars, or “operated mechanical
goods-lifting machinery.”250 Sometimes they even worked in repair shops, where
they were responsible for electric welding or cutting metal, tasks previously only
available to men.251 One of the guarantees the railroad system offered for women
was that their workdays were never longer than nine hours, and they were paid
decent wages. In other sectors women often worked up to twelve hours a day.
Furthermore, a grievance system was called into existence in case the husband or a
relative of the woman died in the war.252 Women were given the same working
Zieger, America's Great War, 87.
Ibid., 144.
250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.
252 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 87.
248
249
52
rights and the same wages as men, which attracted thousands of women who
wanted to work in this industry.253
Many of the female workers in the railroad system already had been
employed before the war, mostly in non-railroad clerical jobs.254 Other women who
were employed in the railroad system had previously worked in factories or in
service work. The most important reasons for this shift to the railroad were the
better wages and better job securities compared to factory or service work. As
Maurine Greenwald shows, between 1917 and 1919 the number of women in
railroad work rose by 43%. Women who worked in railroad offices earned between
85 and 10 dollars a month for working 48 hours each week. Station cleaners were
usually paid between 70 and 80 dollars a month and women who cleaned the train
cars earned around 90 dollars a month for a sixty-hour week.255 These wages seem
really fair once compared to the annual wages of the working-class in 1917, which
consisted between 1000 and 2000 dollars.256 A quote from an employer of the
railroad system shows why they were so keen on employing women:
“I prefer young women to young men and I am going to continue to employ
them. We have employed women since the 1880s. For our class of work they
are steadier than boys. They are not so damn anxious to get out and rustle
around. Women are more content with the detailed monotonous work
because they are filling in between school and marriage. They never think of
themselves general manager of a railroad and are content to work along.
Boys want to move on too quickly to perform out work well.”257
Other jobs that became popular among women during the First World War
and were revolutionary in the work force for women was the work as switchboard
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 87.
Ibid., 91.
255 Ibid., 93.
256 Treasury Department United States Internal Revenue, “Statistics of Income,” Washington 1919, 4.
257 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 97.
253
254
53
operators and working as streetcar conductors.258 Women were conducting on the
street and on elevated railways.259 Even though women working as ticket agents
were nothing new, a woman conducting on a streetcar was an improvement made
possible by the war.260 Between 1917 and 1918 hundreds of women were hired to
this manly work. Most women who were hired as conductor were, again, already
employed before the war. They switched jobs because working as conductor was
paid better.261 On average, they earned twice as much compared to what they
earned doing any female job. Cleaning earned around 35 dollars a month while
conducting paid around 75 dollars a month.262 In every major city in the North
women were conducting trolleys.263
The Military was another sector that hired many women, both in the United
States itself and to send them to Europe. In the United States,
many military training camps were established across the country to prepare the
soldiers for the war.264 In these military camps, hostess houses were established
where women worked as hostesses.265 These houses were created so military men,
and even women, could be visited by their relatives and spouses.266 During the First
World War, some fifty hostess houses were created and over a thousand women
were employed there. They were responsible for supervising the houses twentyfour hours a day and fulfill any needs of the visiting family members.267
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 97.
Ibid., 139.
260 Ibid.
261 Ibid.
262 Ibid., 140.
263 Ibid., 142.
264 Cynthia Brandimarte, “Women on the Home Front: Hostess Houses during World War I,”
Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 42, No. 4 (2008): 201.
265 Ibid.
266 Ibid., 201.
267 Ibid., 203.
258
259
54
Despite the fact that thousands of women were employed at such houses,
scholars have often ignored this part of history. Cynthia Brandimarte explains that is
because scholars “tend to follow popular stereotypes of American women during
World War I.”268 One of these stereotypes is that women were crying at home,
desperately waiting for the husbands to return, but this stereotype was not existent
in the hostess houses.269 The houses proved to be a great success and a great
opportunity for working women during the war, and even though women still did
their domestic chores like cleaning and waitressing, they were close to being a part
of the army life.270 For some women, however, this was not enough, and they
jumped at the chance to join the army for the first time in history.
It took the United States two and a half years until they joined the war with
military aid, but the army that was sent abroad brought profound change to
American society, especially to the work force. The first act of military aid from the
United States consisted of sending over a million men to Europe, and over 30.000
women joined these men during the final eighteen months of the war.271 However,
only limited research has been done about the women serving overseas, and often
not more than a part of a chapter in a book is devoted to the brave women which
served in Europe. Despite the fact that they were mostly volunteers and therefore
were not paid, their work was still extremely important.272 Especially in relation to
the new opportunities and changes women in the work force underwent, since it
was the first time in American history women were sent abroad as a part of the
Military.
Brandimarte, “Women on the Home Front,” 205.
Ibid., 203.
270 Ibid., 222.
271 Ibid.
272 Ibid.
268
269
55
Some women were deeply involved in the war. The Navy also hired women, a
total of 13.000 women were enlisted on their ships. They were official members of
the American army; they received full military rank and status.273 Their jobs were
mostly clerical and communicational, because it would free men from these tasks so
they could constantly be ready for combat. Nevertheless, women were equal to male
personnel and after their duty the women even received honorable discharges.274
However, women could not reach the status of officer, but some managed to become
chief petty officer, which is the highest non-commissioned rank in the Navy.275
The army was more skeptical about hiring women than the Navy, despite the
great need for non-combatant personnel, because they needed employers to operate
the telephone system and clean the ships. To hire non-combatant personnel would
be the best option for this, so the combatants could focus on the war itself.276 In
1898 the army established the army nurse corpse, but recruiting women in the
army was still a controversial issue, as they kept insisting the army was no place for
a woman, including nurses.277 Until the First World War, the army had never
recruited women.278 Eventually over 20.000 women were sent to Europe as part of
the army, but they were not official members of the army. They were registered as
volunteers and did not receive any of the credit women in the Navy did, while the
work they performed was just as important and they experienced horror of the war
as well. Often they were forced to treat wounded men at the front, because their
Goldstein, War and Gender, 124.
Zieger, America's Great War, 142.
275 Ibid.
276 Ibid.
277 Ibid.
278 Jill Frahm, “The Hello Girls: Women Telephone Operators with the American Expeditionary Forces
during World War I,” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era Vol. 3, No. 3 (2004): 274.
273
274
56
injuries were too severe to be taken back to camp.279 They worked long hours and
were surrounded by sickness and death. Over a hundred army nurses died while on
duty, although most of them from diseases, like influenza, and few were wounded by
fire.280
Besides working directly for the Navy or being an army nurse, women played
the important role of being telephone operators.281 Since women in the United
States were already accustomed to telephone work, it only made sense to hire them.
In the army there was a big need for employees who could fluently speak English
and French, therefore this job was only available for educated, white women.
Initially, French women were hired to do this job, but their limited knowledge of the
English language caused many communication problems.282 Then American soldiers
were given this task, but there was not a single American soldier who spoke both
French and was experienced as operator. The army was forced to find alternatives,
and they realized their only possibility was to hire American women who also spoke
French, since quite some American women already had experience as operator and
sometimes it was necessary for them to be able to speak more than one language.283
450 American women out of the 7000 applicants were accepted for the job. These
450 women were under the direct supervision of the AEF in France. The AEF is the
short term of the American Expeditionary Forces, which was the name of the armed
forces that were sent to Europe. Thus the army supervised those women.284 These
Zieger, America's Great War, 141.
Ibid.
281 Joshua S. Goldstein, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001), 120.
282 Frahm, “The Hello Girls,” 275.
283 Ibid.
284 Ibid., 271.
279
280
57
women were called “Hello Girls.”285 This was an already existing nickname for
telephone operators in the United States before the First World War started, but
nowadays the term refers solely to these women who worked as telephone
operators in more than seventy places in France.286
Women were sent to Europe for a number of other jobs as well, such as
“canteen workers, doctors, physical therapists, clerical workers, journalists, and
ambulance drivers.”287 However, there is very limited information on these women
and their background, what they did in Europe, and their role in the war. As Jill
Frahm argues in her article “The Hello Girls,” historians often have a stereotyped
view of the women that served in Europe:
“The American women who served ‘over there’ were white, single, well
educated, and from an urban area of the Northeast or West Coast of the
United States. Most were gainfully employed before going to Europe, holding
a teaching, clerical, or other position suitable for respectable white women of
that period. Frequently, they were financially independent and lived on their
own which made it easier for them to leave everything behind and work in
Europe for a while.”288
Whereas there is some truth in Frahm’s argument about generalizations, she
fails to discuss what the true image of the Hello Girls is, according to her. When
looking specifically at the Hello Girls, it only makes sense that they were white,
educated women from urban areas. Hello girls were needed as translators between
France and the United States; therefore they needed to speak French fluently. Only
an educated woman would be able to do so. Since education on that level was only
available for white, middle- and upper-class women, it is the only obvious
conclusion that the generalized view is applied here. Furthermore, even if an African
Zieger, America's Great War, 146.
Frahm, “The Hello Girls,” 274.
287 Ibid., 272.
288 Ibid.
285
286
58
American woman would speak French, she still would not have been accepted as
Hello Girl due to segregation.289 Therefore the generalized view Frahm speaks of is
not generalized.
Positive and Negative Consequences of the Rise of Working Women
The war brought more changes along than different sectors in which women
worked. The right to vote became an even higher topic of discussion, and as shown
wages for women rose. But there were not only positive consequences for women,
the work force remained segregated and women were still victims of sexual
harassment and sexism, and the general view of women as homemaker and child
bearer remained.290
According to Joshua S. Goldstein, most women were against the war, but
within a few months of the war women became active participants of war support
since the war improved their societal opportunities:291 “Many feminists hoped that
patriotic support of the war would enhance the prospects of women’s suffrage after
the war.”292 Women entering new spheres, especially in the work force, gave them
hope for gaining voting rights.293 For the first time in history, women now worked in
munitions factories, on railroads, on streetcars, and a rising number of women were
offered jobs in factories producing explosives.294 This change already occurred the
moment the war started, but it accelerated when the United States joined the war in
Frahm, “The Hello Girls,” 274.
Ibid.
291 Goldstein, War and Gender, 110.
292 Ibid., 112-116.
293 Donna Crail-Rugotzke, “Women Workers during the First World War,” review of Rosie’s Mom:
Forgotten Women Workers of the First World War, by Carrie Brown, H-Minerva, March, 2005.
http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10266
294 Ibid.
289
290
59
1917.295 Moreover, many women now earned enough money to be able to fully
support themselves or their families without the income of a man.296 This was made
possible due to the rising demand for labor.
Because there was a rising need for employees, women could, for the first
time in history, claim higher wages and better working conditions, such as equal
wages between men and women and workweeks of 48 hours, when it was custom
for unskilled workers to work more than 60 hours a week.297 In 1915, the wages
already rose 5% compared to a year earlier, and 1918 the wages had risen as much
as 18% compared to 1914.298 Therefore, these numbers show that the war gave
women a voice to fight for better work conditions and wages, and they proved to be
successful in their fight.
Nonetheless, continues Greenwald, “the American labor force remained sexsegregated. Domestic and personal service still engaged the large numbers of
women workers, and the long-standing patterns of female employment in clothing
and textile manufacturing overshadowed the use of women machine-operatives in
the new industrial jobs.”299 Domestic work was still the dominant sector in which
women worked, but now that the war had started women were also found in new
businesses, such as streetcar conductors.300 This shift from women working in
female jobs only to women in male jobs was a direct consequence of the war.
However, women faced a lot of resistance from male coworkers when they
entered these jobs, and they were the victims of sexism and harassment.301 Male co-
Crail-Rugotzke, “Women Workers during the First World War.”
Ibid.
297 Ibid.
298 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 32.
299 Ibid., 12-13.
300 Ibid., 12.
301 Zieger, America's Great War, 146.
295
296
60
workers tried to make the working life of women miserable. “Women were often
shunned, their tools were hid and their work was sabotaged.”302 Men could not
handle women doing the same job as them and tried to ban them from the jobs. Men
used their unions to ban women from some occupations, and they proved to be
successful when Jett Lauck, Secretary of National War Labor Board said the
following: “Women are the mothers of the race… and cannot be dealt with on the
same terms as men workers.”303 This gave factories and occupations a reason not to
hire women. Moreover, men often saw women who participated in men’s work as
jokes or as pets.304 Harassment could be only verbal, but physical or sexual assaults
were not uncommon. The skirts of women were lifted, their breasts were pinched,
and men touched their necks. Furthermore, women were blamed for this, because
their provocative clothing supposedly asked for it.305 But women rarely took action
against such harassments, because they feared losing their well-paid jobs.306
However, when the war ended, most changes that occurred during it were
changed back to the situation of women in the work force before the war. Women
conductors were fired and men took over their jobs. This also happened in the
railroad industry and in all the factories previously only meant for men.307 The
soldiers came back from the war and not only did they expect to get their jobs back,
the employers were eager to give them their jobs back as well. While women did a
great job in keeping the economy flowing, employers still preferred men instead of
women. The idea that a woman should not perform heavy factory work remained.308
Zieger, America's Great War, 146.
Ibid.
304 Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 98.
305 Ibid.
306 Ibid., 99.
307 Ibid., 185.
308 Ibid.
302
303
61
This is a very important fact in relation to the thesis question, as it shows that the
war itself brought quite some changes in female employment, but they were only
temporary and when the war ended everything returned to how it was before the
war. One of the few jobs that women could keep was in the telephone industry, but
this already had been a femalely dominated job since the 1880s and 1890s.309
During the war, more than 140.000 women worked as switchboard worker, which
was almost 99% of the total switchboard workers, and this remained the same after
the war.310
Conclusion
In sum, women played a significant role in keeping American economy and society
running during the war. The often-assumed idea of women during the First World
War includes them being desperate at home and constantly weeping, but nothing
less could be true. While women often were forced to find a job or a job with a better
wage now that their husbands were absent, some women saw these opportunities
as a sign that gender relations in the United States were changing, and they hoped
for suffrage.
Even though many women took jobs in sectors previously only available to
men, gender relations and general ideas about gender did not change during the
war. Women were still seen as the general keepers of the house while men needed
to protect the country, and when war veterans returned, women were forced to
leave their work in male sectors and had to return to typical female jobs.
309
310
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 190.
Ibid., 185.
62
No complete statistics were available to see how many women actually
worked during the war. However, the consulted sources all agree on one thing, and
that is that the great majority of women who took the jobs of men during the war,
had already been employed in different jobs. This is of great significance for the
research question of this thesis, as there thus was no major rise in women’s
employment during the war. Therefore it cannot be argued that the war mobilized
women in great numbers in the work force during the war itself. Even though the
war changed the sectors in which women worked and caused their wages to rise,
these changes turned out to be only temporary. Nevertheless, there occurred a rise
of married women in the work force during the war, which continued into the
1920s.
The war brought another major change forth, as it made it possible that more
African American women could work in the Northern, urban areas. This is partly
because the rising migration of African Americans from the South, thus there were
more Africans Americans in the North than ever before. But the war also played a
role in this change. Jobs left by white women who left domestic work to work in
men’s jobs were taken over by African American women. This caused a small rise in
the number of employed African American women, but here too most of them
already had been employed before taking over these jobs. However, now they were
found in jobs that previously did not hire African American women, work was still
segregated as they still did not have the same chances as white women in the same
jobs. Furthermore, there was a rise of married women joining the labor force, but
they made up a very small percentage of the total work force.
Nevertheless, women in the labor force underwent some profound changes,
as they were employed in sectors previously unreachable for them. Women left
63
their typical feminine jobs to work for example in steel factories. However, men
resisted this progress and tried everything to make the lives of women at work
miserable. This included sexual harassment. Furthermore, as the war came to an
end, women were fired by great numbers so the veterans of the war could return to
their previous jobs.311 This implies that the participation of women in the labor
force did not bring as many changes to gender relations in American society as
many women had hoped. The following chapter will discuss whether or not the war
has been decisive for the changing role of women in the 1920s in relation to the
work force. It will look at the long-term effects of the war on women in the
American work force and investigate whether the changes were only temporary or
if the war played a decisive role in changing the labor market for women.
311
Zieger, America's Great War, 142.
64
Chapter Three:
Women in “The Roaring Twenties:” Changes or Continuities in the Work
Force?
Introduction
The Roaring Twenties, The Jazz Age, and the Age of Consumerism are just a few of
the many terms that have been used to describe the 1920s in the United States.
Fascination for this decade remains strong among historians.312 As Michael Parrish
describes the decade: “The decade between our two great wars saw the maturation
and temporary collapse of a full-blown, consumer-oriental society that profoundly
affected the physical welfare and moral sensibilities of men, women, and children
form all walks of life in every region of the United States.”313 This quote shows that
the consumer society affected everyone in American society, but it does not mean
that everyone profited from it. Consequently, the 1920s are seen as the beginning of
the modern age in the United States.314 Industrialization that had started in the
1870s was now in full bloom, the war was over, and the lives of men and women
had changed forever.315 At least this is the stereotypical image of the 1920s adopted
by many historians. Usually when women in the 1920s are discussed, only two
factors are mentioned: the ratification of the 19th Amendment that granted women
voting rights, and the Flappers.316 The work force is often only briefly mentioned in
relation to women in the 1920s.
Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S,” 7.
Parrish, Anxious Decades, X.
314 Ware, Modern American Women, 161.
315 Ibid.
316 Ibid., 162.
312
313
65
Many historians see the war as a starting point for cultural, economic, and
civic changes, and as a direct cause for the extraordinary decade that followed
directly after the war.317 Some scholars argue that the war also caused many
changes in the work force for women, while others disagree and argue that the
changes in the 1920s were already set in motion in 1900, or even earlier. In order to
study whether or not the war has been decisive for changes in the work force for
women, this chapter will focus on the 1920s and the changes that the war did or did
not cause, in particular relation to women in the work force.
Another popular image of the 1920s that has been often portrayed by
historians is the image of a new kind of woman, the Flapper.318 This is a very
stereotyped view of women in the 1920s and even some scholars use this view to
describe women in this decade. Women gained more freedom in politics and in the
public sphere, which was facilitated by the growing economy, and they fought for
equal chances in the work force.319 It is true that the 1920s provided many
opportunities for women and that there had been considerable changes when one
compares the 1920s to the previous decade. However, this image of the Flapper is
only valid for middle- and upper-class women. Working-class women could not
share in the decade’s growing economic wealth, and their working conditions had
not changed after the war had ended.320
The question that will be answered in this chapter is: What changes did
women undergo in the 1920s in the work force in relation to the First World War?
This chapter is divided in two subchapters. The first part will look at women in the
work force in the 1920s, and since changes in the work force are strongly connected
Brown, Setting a Course, 77.
Ware, Modern American Women, 162.
319 Ibid.
320 Ibid., 77.
317
318
66
with changes in politics, education, and public and private spheres, the second part
focuses on these changes. Both parts will analyse the changes that women
underwent in the 1920s and argue whether or not the war has been decisive for
changes.
Working Women in the Roaring Twenties
When one looks at women in the work force in the 1920s, it can be argued whether
or not the First World War really was a catalyst moment for the lives of women or if
not much had actually changed. Scholars do not have a singular view on this topic.
All the scholars consulted for this thesis also used different research methods and
sources, and most of them offer different percentages of how many women actually
were working. Some scholars use the age of fifteen as the minimum working age,
while others use sixteen or eighteen, which leads to changing percentages. With
these changing percentages it is hard to estimate how many women exactly worked,
but most scholars offer comparative numbers from which a conclusion can be
formed, namely that there was a rise in the number of women participating in the
work force in the 1920s. However, this rise will show to be very small compared to a
decade earlier.
Furthermore, some of the consulted scholars see the war as a catalyst
moment and argue that the war changed everything for women. Susan Zeiger argues
that the war “was a crucial catalyst for change, and women throughout the 1920s
searched for a way to exercise power.”321 Other scholars, like Robert Zieger, argue
that the success of women in the work force during the First World War was only
restricted to the war-time period, and after the war ended the work force had
321
Susan Zeiger, “Finding a Cure for War,”82.
67
changed mostly back to the traditions before the war.322 Both views will be
discussed in order to provide an answer to the thesis question: To what extent has
the First World War been decisive for the changing role of white, Northern, urban
women in relation to the work force in the 1920s?
As David M. Kennedy argues, “In reality, women’s employment in the war
was limited and brief.”323 He continues stating that around one million women were
employed in war related work, for example in steel factories, but only very few of
those women were actually new to the work force.324 Most of the employed women
in war-related jobs had already been employed in different sectors.325 After the war,
most women in war-related sectors lost their jobs, and due to the post-war
recession, it was hard to get other jobs. Therefore, claims Kennedy, employment of
women in 1920 was smaller than it had been in 1910, thus arguing that the war not
only changed nothing for female employment, the percentage of working women
had even declined.326 However, Kennedy does not provide any statistics to support
his argument, while many of the other consulted scholars do give statistics about the
employment of women after the war and show a small rise. Therefore his statement
that female employment in 1920 was smaller than in 1910 holds no grounds.
When looking at the statistics of female employment, at first it looks like the
war was responsible for a major rise, but when one compares these numbers to
other decades it becomes clear the war has not caused a major rise at all. In 1900,
17.2% of the total working force consisted of women.327 In 1920, 8.3 million women
older than fifteen participated in the work force, making up 23,6% of the entire
Zieger, America's Great War, 120.
Kennedy, Over Here, 285.
324 Ibid.
325 Ibid.
326 Ibid.
327 Flexner, Century of Struggle, 197
322
323
68
work force.328 In a two decade period there had been a rise of 6.4%, which is a lot in
comparison this to other decades, since from 1920 to 1940 the percentage had risen
from 23.6% to only 25.4%.329 Kelly Boyer Sagert argues that “This is an indicator
that women were gaining economic power,” Especially since after 1922 the postwar recession ended, and an age of prosperity started.330 But as Parrish describes,
between 1920 and 1930 the participation of women in the labor force only grew by
one percent, from roughly 23% to 24%, thus there was no major rise in female
employment in the 1920s. 331
Therefore, it is hard to argue the First World War had a decisive impact on
women in the work force in the 1920s. It is true that between 1900 and 1920
women’s employment rose 6.4%, but it is not clear how much of this change
happened before the war started or occurred during the war. Most of the consulted
scholars more or less agree that women employed during the war had already been
employed before the war started.332 As Zieger argues, only a small percentage of
women in the work force during the war worked for the first time.333 Furthermore,
Parrish argues that women who worked in male jobs during the war encountered a
lot of resistance and sexism, and they often lost their jobs after the war ended.334
Consequently, the war did not influence the number of women working in the
1920s, as the largest changes happened between 1900 and 1920s, and the
percentages of the 1920s itself show that there was no major rise in female
employment.
Sagert, Flappers, 53.
Jane Bingham, The Great Depression: the Jazz Age, Prohibition, and Economic Decline, 1921-1937
(New York: Checkmark Books, 2011), 18.
330 Sagert, Flappers, 53
331 Parrish, Anxious Decades, 141.
332 Zieger, America's Great War, 136.
333 Ibid.
334 Parrish, Anxious Decades, 140.
328
329
69
When the war came to an end in 1918, American society had changed
profoundly. However, when the soldiers came back from Europe, much of the work
force changed back to how it had been before the war.335 Sectors that had hired
women in massive numbers during the war, the railroad offices and streetcar
conductors, and women in factories that were seen as men’s work, fired women in
great numbers.336 The reasons as to why women were fired varied, but all of them
were sexist. Some worked too inefficient; others used the wrong language on the
work floor, while others supposedly got drunk constantly. If the employer did not
want to use these reasons, he made sure the work atmosphere was extremely
uncomfortable for women, so that they would resign themselves.337 Furthermore,
marital status was also an often-used reason to fire women. Married women were
forced to work during the war, but now that their husbands had returned the idea
that married women were not supposed to work returned too and they were
unattractive for hiring or to have as employee.338
Another reason why many women were fired was the continuing migration
of African Americans from the South.339 Despite still being second-class citizens,
employers preferred having African American men working in factories over white
women. The idea that a man was supposed to work and was both physically and
emotionally better in the work force, was the main reason why employers hired
African American men instead of white women. Furthermore, African American
Greenwald, Women, War, and Work, 128.
Ibid.
337 Ibid., 130.
338 Ibid.
339 Kennedy, Over Here, 279.
335
336
70
women took the jobs that were unwanted by white, urban women, which were often
jobs with even worse conditions and the wages were even lower.340
Nevertheless, this does not mean that nothing had changed for white,
Northern, urban women in the work force after the First World War. Women who
did have a job were generally single, just like before the war.341 For example, before
the war started, married women in the work force did not even reach 10% of the
total of working women. But this changed in the 1920s, when the total number of
married women in the work force was over 25% at the end of the decade.342
According to Dorothy M. Brown, by the end of the 1920s, 11% of white married
women were working, while at the beginning of the decade the percentage had only
been 3%. Of the African American women in the work force 37% were married.343
Thus a very important change in women’s work occurred after the war, as in the
1920s marital status played a less important role in not hiring women, while
directly after the war married women were fired based on the fact that they were
married and the returned soldiers wanted their old jobs back.
The reason for the rise in employment of white married women was a direct
consequence of the war. Many soldiers returned from the war as a cripple, unable to
work, while other soldiers died, leaving behind a wife and children. Despite the fact
that many women who had been working in men’s jobs during the war were fired
when war veterans returned, in both of these cases the married, or widowed,
women were forced to find a job in order to take care of the household.344 Often
Kennedy, Over Here, 279.
Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920,” 81.
342 Ibid.
343 Brown, Setting a Course, 97.
344 Ibid.
340
341
71
these were again typical female jobs.345 Furthermore, in the early 1920s the
economy boomed again and there was again a rising demand for employees, which
gave married women more opportunities to find a job.
However, the largest number of married women were of African American
descent. Married African American women had already joined the work force in
large numbers ever since slavery had been abolished in the South.346 As Susan Ware
explains, employment of African Americans in the North was also deeply racialized.
Almost all African American men worked as unskilled workers, meaning they were
not paid enough to be able to support their families.347 Moreover, they had no
chances of moving up to better paid jobs, unless their employer was an African
American, which was highly unlikely.348 Thus their wives were forced to participate
in the work force in order to support their families, 349 but they were grossly
underpaid and often only made around one dollar a day.350 African Americans
needed the money the most, but they had few opportunities. Almost all African
American women worked in domestic service.351 Even so, an increase in white
married women in the work force took place too.352
Moreover, the post-war recession caused a decrease in the value of the
dollar, but wages did not rise. As a direct consequence, over 60% of the families
lived in poverty, and therefore often the wife was forced to find a job in order to
earn enough money to take care of the family.353 Any annually income lower than
between 1500 and 1900 dollars was too little to maintain a decent living
Brown, Setting a Course, 97.
Ware, Modern American Women, 120.
347 Ibid.
348 Brown, Setting a Course, 93.
349 Ware, Modern American Women, 123.
350 Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 79.
351 Ibid., 112.
352 Ware, Modern American Women, 60.
353 Ibid., 63.
345
346
72
standard.354 However, unskilled workers only made around 1200 dollars a year,
thus the wife was forced to get a job.355 The abolition of child labor was another
reason for married women to join the work force, as her children were now not able
to work until they were fifteen.356
Despite this rising employment of married women being a great
accomplishment from a feminist point of view, it also raised a lot of concern among
working men and employers.357 Most of the times a married or widowed woman
was also a mother, and when she worked she was unable to properly take care of
her children.358 She often had a workweek of fifty hours or more, and additionally
when she got home she was responsible for taking care of regular household
chores.359 Employers were still very hesitant about hiring married women.
Traditionally, a married woman had no place in the work force. As Henry Ford said:
“Their real job in life is to get married, have a home and raise a family. I pay our
women well so they can dress attractively and get married.”360 With this he
obviously meant the single women working in his factories, but it also shows his
stance towards the role women were supposed to fulfill. And this stance was still the
dominant view of women in the 1920s. As Ernest Groves, a marriage expert stated
in 1925: “When the woman herself earns and her maintenance is not entirely at the
mercy of her husband’s will, diminishing masculine authority necessarily
Brown, Setting a Course, 110. (State differences play an important role in this variation.)
Ibid.
356 Ware, Modern American Women, 67.
357 Ibid.
358 Ibid.
359 Brown, Setting a Course, 110.
360 Virginia Scharff, Taking the Wheel: Women and the Coming of the Motor Age (Free Print, 1991), 54.
354
355
73
follows.”361 Therefore, women were quite often dismissed of their job as soon as
they got married.362
Yet American society in the 1920s had become more open to marriage and
women in general, as women were now allowed to marry on a later age.363 Before
the war, it was custom for a girl to get married while she still was a teenager, but
now women often married when they were in their early twenties.364 It had become
acceptable for a girl to have a career before marriage.365 The number of women who
deliberately stayed single rose too. At the end of the nineteenth century there
already had been some women who stayed single on purpose in order to have a
career. But generally they had not been accepted by society at large. A woman was
supposed to marry and serve as child-bearer.366 However, the war changed the
views on single women to a less radical one since women had proven to be great
workers during the war and society still preferred single women in the work force
instead of married women, and therefore more women decided to stay single. The
participation of married women in the work force was therefore a direct
consequence of the war, but single women who stayed single was not. Nevertheless,
the rise of married women during the war did not cause a major rise in female
employment.367
The sectors in which women worked were not something that changed after
the war, except in the clerical position.368 Before the war started, the number of
women in clerical positions had already risen, but after the war it rose even
Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 122.
Brown, Setting a Course, 96.
363 Bingham, The Great Depression, 12.
364 Ibid., 11.
365 Ibid., 12.
366 Ibid., 14.
367 Ibid., 12.
368 Ibid., 19.
361
362
74
further.369 In 1930, 52% of the employees in clerical positions were female.370
However, the wages of women did not change, not even in clerical positions.
Employers saw the wages of women as unimportant.371 The husbands or fathers
were already working, so women did not need to earn much money.372 Many
believed women were just eager to have more money.373 Therefore, wages of
women were only around 55% of the wages of men.374 But Bingham provides
numbers that show that in most cases women did use their wage to support their
families, and around 25% of all the women working were the sole wage earners.375
Women showed a lot of resistance toward this wage inequality in the form of
strikes, but in the entire decade of the 1920s nothing changed.376
In 1920, the Women’s Bureau was founded to protect the working woman.
The law gave the Bureau the duty to “formulate standards and policies which shall
promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions,
increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable
employment.”377 This bureau fought for equal wages between men and women,
although without any success, because the percentage of working women was still
too low and the general idea that women worked a short time of their lives
remained a decisive factor.378 This was closely related to the fact that women still
mostly worked in domestic services. Namely 86% of all the women worked in only
Brown, Setting a Course, 95.
Ibid.
371 Ibid.
372 Ibid.
373 Ibid., 92.
374 Ware, Modern American Women, 162.
375 Bingham, The Great Depression, 19.
376 Ware, Modern American Women, 162.
377 “About us,” Women’s Bureau, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.dol.gov/wb/
378 Sagert, Flappers, 10.
369
370
75
ten different sectors, and more than half worked in domestic service.379 Other
popular sectors where women worked after the war were the same sectors as
before the war, namely manufacturing and clerical work.380
The statistics, however, show that the war had a major impact on education,
as basic education was available, at least in the North, for every child, including girls,
and college attendance rose majorly.381 The number of women in colleges rose too.
In 1900, 85.000 women were in college. In 1920, this number had rise to 283.000,
and ten years later it was already 481.000.382 However, they represented only ten
percent of American women between the age of 18 and 21.383 Women who received
a college education were seen as professionals, but often the only job they could get
was that of a schoolteacher.384
However, in the rise of women in education regional differences played a
fundamental role too. Since there were fewer schools in rural areas it was
sometimes impossible for a girl to receive any education, because she would have to
travel too far.385 But in the North generally every white girl received a basic
education. For African American girls it was impossible to join a white school,
therefore special schools for African American children were established, but they
were inferior in all aspects.386
Nevertheless, higher education for women was very limited, as it was hard to
attend colleges, and they were only taught necessary household jobs. Education
Brown, Setting a Course, 112.
“About us,” Women’s Bureau, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.dol.gov/wb/
381 Ibid.
382 Brown, Setting a Course, 133.
383 Ibid.
384 “About us,” Women’s Bureau, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.dol.gov/wb/
385 Ibid.
386 Ibid.
379
380
76
mostly focused on women in the role of homemaker.387 It was impossible for African
Americans to receive a college education, but the number of white women who
received one grew considerably.388 However, the number of men who attended
colleges rose a lot stronger than the number of women. Compared to men, the
number of women declined by 5%.389 Therefore education not only changed for
women, but also for men. During the war women had shown that they were capable
of keeping the economy running and maintain their household jobs. Even though
after the war many women in men’s jobs were fired, the government thought it was
necessary to provide a basic education for women too, however only focusing on
women’s role as homemaker. The government thought that by providing women an
education, they would be more efficient in their jobs, and later in their marriage390
Women working as professionals also rose. In 1910, 9% of all the working
women were considered a professional, while in 1930 this number was 14%.391
Only middle- and upper-class women were able to receive college education and
partake in these kinds of jobs, like teaching and nursing.392 However, none of the
consulted scholars mention anything about the war in relation to education, while
the war made it possible for women to enjoy an education. This caused a rise in
female attendance in colleges. Nevertheless, only a small percentage of all American
women were able to receive higher education, and even their chances were limited.
Brown, Setting a Course, 132.
Ibid., 133.
389 Parrish, Anxious Decades, 141.
390 Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 123.
391 Ibid.
392 Ibid.
387
388
77
Women in the public in the 1902s: Voting and Flappers
The United States had entered the First World War with an army in 1917, and the
short nineteen months of military participation had a major impact on American
society.393 The years directly after the war experienced a recession. Many
employees, especially women who worked in men’s jobs during the war, lost their
jobs and prices of daily needs rose extremely. Food prices went up by 84%, prices of
clothes rose up to 115%, and wages dropped. The weekly wage of five dollars in the
car industry in 1914 was only worth half at the end of the war.394 Over 60% of the
families lived in poverty, especially because women lost their jobs to returning war
veterans. But the economy recovered and, for some Americans at least, by 1921 the
“golden glow” started, meaning an age of prosperity and consumerism and women
found jobs in old sectors again.395
Even though women in men’s jobs were fired from their jobs in great
numbers, a major change occurred for them after the First World War. In 1920 they
finally achieved the voting right. What started at Seneca Falls in 1848 came to an
end in August 1920, when Tennessee was the final state to approve national
suffrage for women.396 Scholars do not agree whether or not the voting right is a
direct influence from the First World War, since the fight for voting equality had
already started in 1848.397 According to Michael E. Parrish, “War hastened the
triumph of women’s suffrage,” but as Susan Ware argues: “Probably the main reason
women won the vote in 1920 was that it was now a far less radical demand than it
Zieger, America's Great War, X.
Brown, Setting a Course, 3.
395 Ibid.
396 Parrish, Anxious Decades, 136.
397 Ibid.
393
394
78
had been in 1848.”398 However, in 1920 more women worked than in 1848, and
those women wanted to be able to fight for better wages and working conditions
and have a saying in American politics, because now they were active members of
society. Therefore more women demanded the right to vote.
Nonetheless, if this was the case as Ware describes, why did President
Wilson not grant women the right to vote before the war?399 In 1913, when over
17% of the work force was female, women had already demanded the voting right
from President Wilson and a constitutional Amendment was proposed to him. He
rejected this proposal.400 However, after the war, his opinion changed considerably:
“Women had become full partners in a war to further democracy, but shall we admit
them only to a partnership of suffering and not to a partnership of privilege and
rights?”401 When the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, the Senate passed the
Nineteenth Amendment and in 1920 women officially had the right to vote.402
Therefore women suffrage can be seen as a direct consequence from the First World
War, especially because the quote from President Wilson directly relates the effort
of women in the war to the voting right.
The most important result of women suffrage occurred in 1921, when the
Sheppard-Towner Act was passed. This act entailed a funding for medical care for
women and children, as well as education. The reason for the act to pass was that
many babies died during childbirth and many pregnant women did not receive any
health care or advice. Additionally, child labor was abolished for any child working
under the age of fifteen, which gave more room for women to work as fewer
Ware, Modern American Women, 131.
Parrish, Anxious Decades, 136.
400 Ibid.
401 Ibid.
402 Ibid.
398
399
79
children could be hired for cheap wages.403 Ten of the biggest women’s rights
organizations were united in the Women’s Joint Congressional Committee, and this
organization played an important role in the passing of this act, based on the rights
of women in politics, but working conditions nevertheless did not change.404
On political level women did not achieve much more in the 1920s, especially
not for working conditions and wages, because the general idea that women only
worked for a short period of their lives made it unnecessary to make adaptions for
them.405 Furthermore, the moment women gained political participation, interest in
politics declined, just as voter participation.406 Besides, women did not have an
agenda of their own, and overall women followed the voting pattern of their
husbands or fathers.407 Nevertheless the right to vote and the economic prosperity
and consumerism made sure women were very optimistic about the new decade.408
Now that women had the right to vote, the Women Rights Movement
splintered in many smaller movements.409 The voting right was a cause for all white
women, and even African American women hoped to gain suffrage. They had voting
rights by law, but disenfranchisement methods withheld them from voting.410 Now
that the fight had ended, women were less united. Especially African American
women distanced themselves from the movement, as no white Women’s Rights
Movement included racial issues. They hoped that politics not only addressed issues
of women, but also racial issues. Nothing could have been less true. Only issues
related to white women were addressed, which led to the establishment of a
“Women’s History,” Library of Congress, accessed June 5 2014,
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/guide/women.html
404 Ibid.
405 Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 103.
406 Ibid.
407 Ibid., 24.
408 Ibid., 100.
409 Ibid., 102.
410 Ibid.
403
80
separate agenda that focused on racial issues.411 One association that was called into
life was the Universal Negro Improvement Association that focused on the minority
status of African Americans.412
All white women still wanted better working conditions, better wages, and
better opportunities in education and in the work force, but class differences led to
many smaller movements. Not all middle- and upper-class women fought for better
working conditions, because they often did not work. They usually focused on better
educational chances for women. Working-class women were the ones active in the
labor force, but they strongly relied on the middle- and upper-class for better
conditions. Women who worked did not have the time nor the money and resources
to fight for better conditions. Therefore they usually joined an organization started
by a middle- or upper-class white woman, often even started by Flappers.413
As stated, another factor of influence on the working women in the 1920s
was the continuing migration of Southern African Americans to the Northern states.
However, this particular change cannot be seen as a direct influence from the war.
As Bogart describes, Industrialization had been long under way and the migration
from rural areas to cities too. The war just accelerated the process, because there
was a rising need for employees in the North, since many male employees left to
Europe to fight in the war.414 African Americans saw this as a good opportunity to
try to improve their living standards.415 This migration caused mixed feelings
among the white population in the cities. Some African Americans wrote poetry and
Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 102.
Ibid., 103.
413 Ibid., 102.
414 Sagert, Flappers, 15.
415 Ibid.
411
412
81
were active musicians, and some even studied medicine.416 This “new negro” caused
anxiety and fear among the white population in the cities, but the African Americans
were not the only ones stirring these feelings.
Similar anxious feelings were projected towards the emergence of the “New
Woman,” often called the Flappers, and many, especially men, were afraid of this
New Woman. She challenged traditional ideas of gender by wearing provocative
clothing and positioning herself in places she did not belong, for example, she often
went to bars to party.417 Furthermore, she was very active in politics and fought for
equal rights for women in the work force and in education and often organized labor
organizations for working-class women.418
The style of the Flapper is responsible for providing a stereotyped image
many people have of women in the 1920s. Not only historians have long used this
particular image to describe women, but also often regular people think of the
Flapper lifestyle as the lifestyle that characterizes American women in the 1920s.
Popular novelists from the 1920s, like Scott F. Fitzgerald, play an important role in
this, as in their works women of the 1920s are often described as Flappers, and their
works are still widely read.419 Young women embraced this style and caused lots of
resistance among women of older generations and among men.420 The Flapper style
included short, knee length skirts, and after 1926 the skirts were even above the
knee, their hair was cut in a bob, they smoked and drank in bars, they partied often,
and talked openly about sex.421
Parrish, Anxious Decades, 135.
Ibid.
418 Ibid.
419 Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 22.
420 Sagert, Flappers, XI.
421 Ibid.
416
417
82
The Flapper lifestyle was not popular among all women. Only a small
percentage of women were able to adopt it, namely young, single women of the
middle- and upper-class could embrace this style, because they had the time and the
money for it.422 Working-class women were too busy with their jobs and they could
not spend money on unnecessary means, such as the typical knee-length skirts
Flappers wore.423 Moreover, the lifestyle was very unpopular among the older
generation of women, and men feared this lifestyle.424 Despite the opposition of
many people against this popular style, not everyone worried about the Flappers.
Former judge Ben Lindsey predicted in the 1920s that “In a few years the lively
Flapper would become a happy, loyal wife with several children.”425 In most cases
this proved to be true, as marriage still was seen as the most important aspect in a
woman’s life.426 Furthermore, the Flapper lifestyle ended abruptly when the
depression started after the stock market crashed in 1929.427 Even though only a
small percentage of women actually embraced this style, it nevertheless remains a
popular image of the 1920s.
Whether or not this Flapper lifestyle is a direct result of the war is open for
discussion. A woman adapting a new lifestyle to provoke gender relations was not
something new. In the 1890s many single, middle- and upper-class women
embraced the lifestyle of the Gibson Girl. Nevertheless, the reason as to why women
were able to adopt this lifestyle was due to the changes in American society thanks
to Industrialization.428 Industrialization made life easier, as more and more
Brown, Setting a Course, 31.
Ibid.
424 Sagert, Flappers, XI.
425 Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy,” 515.
426 Ware, Modern American Women, 162.
427 Sagert, Flappers, XI.
428 Ibid.
422
423
83
machines took over household jobs, such as making clothes, and more machines
became available in the household, such as irons.429 This gave middle- and higherclass women more free time to embrace the style of a Gibson Girl. The First World
War had the same kind of influence on Flappers, and therefore it can be considered
as a direct influence on the lifestyle of the Flappers. When the war ended, all women
were positive and more secure in the belief that they could change American society
and improve their role in it. They already managed to get the right to vote, and the
Flapper lifestyle was also a sign that women’s roles in American society were
changing. The war opened American society and gave women this opportunity to
express themselves. However, not all women experienced this opportunity to
express themselves because they did not have the time nor the money for it, thus
protests for better working conditions were limited and the work force remained a
very limited place for women.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the work force for women in the 1920s did not change much when
one looks at statistics, but there were some changes. The changes were not as
drastic as during the First World War, but yet the war influenced the work force.
Women entered the 1920s with a positive feeling, since they just had been granted
the voting right. They were positive that much more changes could be accomplished.
And some things did change, as more married women joined the work force and
women received a better education. Nevertheless, the changes were not as profound
as women had hoped when they entered the century, and the views on women in
the 1920s outlined by scholars are also limited. Most of the consulted scholars only
429
Ware, Modern American Women, 120.
84
look at women in the 1920s itself, without comparing them to the decades before
the war, and then see many changes as specifically of the 1920s, while many
changes already were occurring before the First World War.
After the war, American society became more acceptable of working women,
and even married women gained more chances. However, the general view of
women as homemaker and child-bearer remained, and women still worked in
abominable conditions and their wages were still almost half of the wages of men.
Furthermore, the kind of jobs did not change either, and domestic work remained
the largest sector where women worked in. In education women did gain more
opportunities, but only middle- and upper-class women. They were also the ones
who embraced the Flapper lifestyle, which is presently the most popular view of
women in the 1920s. But, as this chapter has shown, this is a very narrow and
limited view of women in the 1920s. Over 60% of the families lived in poverty, and
those women had to work long days for low wages to be able to support their
families. To conclude, the work force underwent some changes in the 1920s, but in
general it continued the way it had been before the war.
85
Conclusion
This thesis has looked at white, urban, Northern American women in the work force
from the start of the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 until the crash of the stock
market in 1929. The purpose of this study was to look at the role the First World
War did or did not play in the changing role of women in the 1920s in the work
force, and whether or not the war can be seen as a catalyst moment for change.
The decade of the 1920s continues to fascinate many historians. Initially, this
period is seen as one with major changes and very distinct of other, earlier and later,
decades. Many stereotypes exist about this decade; it was the age of prosperity, the
New Woman erupted massively, and young Americans became a lot freer than
before. They partied, drank, and discussed openly about sex. However, these are
very limited and stereotyped views, especially when one looks at women in said
decade.
For too long scholars have focused on the changes the 1920s brought forth
without properly discussing for whom these changes were applicable. Especially
research of women in the 1920s is limited and often stereotyped, although in the
past few years more and more studies focus on the true image. The stereotyped
views of women in the 1920s are often women from the white, middle- and upperclass. These women rarely worked, but nonetheless they underwent changes
directly caused by the war. One of these changes was better chances for women in
education, especially college. Furthermore, the industrial revolution and the
production of many household products, like an iron, made household jobs much
easier and gave those women a lot of leisure time. American society became much
86
more open after the war, and many middle- and upper-class women resisted the
accepted image of women, hence creating the Flappers.
Most books about the 1920s in general only offer a short chapter or only a
short part of a chapter on women in the 1920s, and most of the time only two events
are discussed: the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women
the right to vote, and the Flappers. After the victory of the voting right, women were
not very active in politics. The lifestyle of the Flappers, however, is a lifestyle that
many people nowadays associate with every woman in the United States in the
1920s. This has two reasons: limited research of women in this decade, and images
portrayed by popular novelists that are still being read a lot, such as Scott F.
Fitzgerald. However, as this study has shown, only a very small percentage of
American women actually embraced this lifestyle and could partake in the
prosperity this age brought forward and many women, lived in poverty.
The First World War is another much discussed topic among scholars, also in
relation with the 1920s. The war brought many profound changes to American
society, especially for women in the work force. As millions of men were sent abroad
to fight, women were forced to take over the work they left behind. For the first time
in history, women were found in men’s jobs and women were the sole wage earner
of the family. Some of the consulted scholars, like Zeiger, argue that therefore the
war was a catalyst moment for women. It gave them opportunities and society
accepted more women in the work force. However, other scholars, like Parrish, do
not agree with this. He claims that, even though women took over the work of men,
it was only for a limited amount of time, which is true, as this thesis has shown,
because many women were fired when the war ended. Furthermore, most women
87
who worked in men’s jobs already were employed in different sectors before the
war started, thus there was only a small influx of new workers.
Yet, by looking at women’s employment in the decades before the war,
during the war, and in the 1920s, it can be argued whether or not the war was a
decisive moment for women in the work force. None of the consulted scholars have
used this comparison. They either focused on just the war, the war and the 1920s,
just the 1920s, or only on the decades before the war. Some actually completely
dismissed the war and therefore arguing the war had not been an important factor.
Therefore, this thesis looked at women’s roles in the work force in three time
periods. The first chapter has looked at the period from 1848 to 1914, and the
question it answered is: What was the role of women in the work force between
1848 and 1914? This chapter served to provide an image of women in the work
force before the First World War. The second chapter looked at working women
during the First World War, in order to see what changed in relation to the period
before the war and to see if these changes continued into the 1920s. The research
question of this chapter was: What changes did American women experience in the
work force during the First World War? The third chapter therefore looked at
women in the labor market in that decade, and the question it answered was: What
changes did women undergo in the 1920s in the work force in relation to the First
World War? These three questions together have provided an answer to the
research question: To what extent has the First World War been decisive for the
changing role of white, Northern, urban women in relation to the work force in the
1920s?
First of all, in the nineteenth century major changes occurred for women in
relation to the work force. The Civil War and Industrialization were responsible for
88
bringing women into the work force, although they worked in typical female jobs.
The First World War changed this and women worked in men’s jobs. Most changes
that occurred in the work force for women during the war were only limited to the
wartime itself. One of these changes was women who worked in men’s jobs and
receiving, in some sectors, equal wages. However, when the war ended, and many
soldiers returned, women working in men’s jobs were fired in great numbers.
Those women were forced to return to typical female jobs, in which most of them
had already worked before. Thus, the war did not change the type of work that
women performed. Wages did not change either; only during the war women in
some sectors earned the same wages as men. When the war ended and women
returned to their typical female jobs, they again earned “female wages,” which was
around 55% of the wage of a man.
Secondly, unlike what scholars have implied, the war did not cause a major
rise in the participation of women in the work force. In 1900, 17.2% of the total
work force consisted of women. In 1920, 23,6% of the entire work force was female.
Even though this rise is much higher when one compares it to other decades, it is
not clear what role the war played in this. Most of the consulted scholars agree that
of all the women who worked during the war, only a small percentage were first
time employees. Furthermore, as shown in chapter three, many women lost their
jobs after the war ended. Therefore the war cannot be seen as bringing change in
this rising number of women in the work force.
Nonetheless, there is one change that can be directly related back to the war,
and that is the rising number of married women participating in the work force in
the 1920s. The war caused many soldiers to be crippled for life and many others had
died. The wives, therefore, were forced to take over the task of head wage earner of
89
the family. Furthermore, the war caused a post-war economic recession in which the
prices rose majorly but the wages did not. In order to be able to support the family
decent enough, the wives had to take jobs.
Thirdly, when one discusses the work force, the middle-and upper-class
women were only a small part of it. More than 60% of American families lived in
poverty, and often women were forced to take jobs to help supporting their families.
For middle- and upper-class women this was not the case, so generally it was not
necessary for them to get a job. But yet the middle- and upper-classes changed.
Education opened for women, and more and more women joined a college
education. With these educations, they could get higher status jobs and it became
more attractive for them to get a job. Nevertheless, the jobs they could get were still
limited, as they still mostly could work in the domestic sphere, or in other typical
female jobs, such as teaching. Furthermore, their wages were still half the wages of
men, because the idea of a woman as homemaker and child-bearer remained strong.
Thus the war did not change the role of the working-class women. The stereotyped
view the changes that women underwent after the war is only applicable on middleand upper-class women.
To conclude, the war did bring changes in American society for women, but
most of these changes were applicable on social and cultural life, and not on the
work force. For the working-class woman very little changed after the war.
Therefore, the war cannot be seen as decisive for the changing role of women in the
work force, because the only change that is directly related to the war is that of the
rising percentage of married women in the work force. The war itself brought many
changes for women and gave them hope and opportunities, but the moment the war
90
ended, the changed work force changed largely back to the period directly before
the war.
However, there are some shortcomings to this thesis, as it is entirely based
on secondary literature. Ideally, primary sources would have been used to
investigate the changes in the work force for women, but as these were not available
in the short amount of time, secondary literature provided all information.
Therefore, for future research, primary sources should be added. Nevertheless, this
thesis shows a comparison that has not been made before, and therefore gives
opportunities for further research.
91
Bibliography
Bederman, Gail. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in
the United States, 1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Bingham, Jane. The Great Depression: the Jazz Age, Prohibition, and Economic Decline,
1921-1937. New York: Checkmark Books, 2011.
Brandimarte, Cynthia. “Women on the Home Front: Hostess Houses during World
War I.” Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 42, No. 4 (2008): 201-222.
Brown, Dorothy Marie. Setting a Course: American Women in the 1920s. Boston:
Twayne, 1987.
Crail-Rugotzke, Donna. “Women Workers during the First World War.” Review of
Rosie’s Mom: Forgotten Women Workers of the First World War, by Carrie Brown, HMinerva, March, 2005. http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10266
Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New
York: Hill and Wang, 1994.
Flexner, Eleanor. Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United
States. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Frahm, Jill. “The Hello Girls: Women Telephone Operators with the American
Expeditionary Forces during World War I.” The Journal of the Gilded Age and
Progressive Era Vol. 3, No. 3 (2004): 271-293.
Goldberg, David J. Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s. Maryland:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Goldberg, David J. “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.”
OAH Magazine of History Vol. 21, No. 3 (2007): 7-10.
Goldin. Claudio. “The Work and Wages of Single Women, 1870-1920.” The Journal of
Economic History Vol. 40, No. 1 (1980): 81-88.
92
Goldstein, Joshua S. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice
Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Greenwald, Maurine. Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women
Workers in the United States. Connecticut: Praeger,1980.
Horne, John. A Companion to World War I. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
Kraditor, Aileen S. The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement: 1890-1920 . New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1981.
Library of Congress. “Women’s History.” Accessed June 5, 2014,
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/guide/women.html
McCammon, Holly J., Lyndi Hewitt and Sandy Smith. “"No Weapon Save Argument":
Strategic Frame Amplification in the U.S. Woman Suffrage Movements.” The
Sociological Quarterly Vol. 45, No. 3 (2004): 529-556.
McMillen, Sally. Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women's Rights Movement.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Parrish, Michael E. Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 19201941. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
Ruiz, Vicki L. The Practice of U.S. Women's History: Narratives, Intersections, and
Dialogues. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2007.
Sagert, Kelly Boyer. Flappers: A Guide to an American Subculture. Westport:
Greenwood Publishing, 2009.
Scharff, Virginia. Taking the Wheel: Women and the Coming of the Motor Age. Free
Print, 1991.
93
Sinclair, Andrew. The Emancipation of The American Woman. Washington: Harper &
Row Torchbook TB 1887, 1975.
Treasury Department United States Internal Revenue, “Statistics of Income,”
Washington, 1919.
Ware, Susan. Modern American Women: A Documentary History. New York: McGrawHill Higher Education, 2001.
Women’s Bureau. “About Us.” Accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.dol.gov/wb/
‘The Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls: A Lesson Plan,” OAH Magazine of
History Vol. 3, No. 4(1988): 53-56.
Zeiger, Susan. “Finding a Cure for War: Women's Politics and the Peace Movement in
the 1920s,” Journal of Social History Vol. 24, No. 1 (1990):
69-86.
Zieger, Robert. America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience.
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
94