Source 4 is much more direct in any attempt to further the future for women. It writes to the Prime Minister who was known to express sympathy and thanks to women replacing men in industrial jobs prior to the date of the letter. The letter was written in March 2007, when he had been Prime Minister for 4 months. He expressed thanks on January 11th, which the NUWSS has reminded the Prime Minister of – women ‘have helped to win the war and without them we could not have done it. The NUWSS have made a whole argument for franchise with various points. Lots of statistics have been used in the letter to corroborate with the arguments – ‘more than a million women have directly replaced men in industry’. The letter includes a petition of ‘about 4,000’ influential people who support the idea, which is a ‘peaceful method’ that the society took pride in.
However, this letter was written to persuade the Prime Minister, whereas Source 3 was written to advise. Therefore source 3 is more useful in telling historians about the role the NUWSS had during the war. This is because source 4 was written near the end of the war, reminding the government about what the society was really about, however everything concerning franchise for women was called to a halt until the war had ended. Therefore source 4 doesn’t tell historians what they were doing during the mostly during the war. Source 3 gives more of an insight and infers they were still contributing to the rise of women, even if it wasn’t enfranchisement.
* * *
I disagree with the statement ‘sources 2 and 5 are forms of propaganda and tell us nothing about the work women did in the Great War’. Source 2 is a certificate that was issued to members of the women’s land army in 1915. This source is not a form of propaganda, in contradiction Source 5 is. It is an illustration from a newspaper printed in late 1917.
Source 2 says us that ‘every women who helps in agriculture…is as truly serving her country as the man who is fighting in the trenches or on the sea’, tells us that women were working in agriculture as an input to the war effort. It is a certificate to members, and therefore not a form of propaganda. Propaganda is a deliberate spreading of subjective information, ideas or rumours to help or harm people, organisations, a movement or a nation. The above statement could, however, been printed to encourage the women to work. Hence the provenance is reasonably reliable.
Source 5 is propaganda but subjective to women. It is a cartoon to inform and entertain the reader, because it is a cartoon, it is one person’s interpretation, but an interpretation that is shared. It has mini cartoons with different responsibilities that women were left with being in the WAAC. This included admin work, gathering, message sending as well as more practical jobs. The dominating picture shows many women, suggesting large numbers of women joining. All the women in all the pictures are in uniform, and this was very significant at the time. The women are all shown in a good light, and prove a changed attitude towards women by men.
By late 1917, women had taken on a whole variety of jobs, both, helping in the war effort and replacing men in industry as they had been called for by conscription. Source 5 shows this well, as it shows a wide variety of different jobs women were doing however source 4 only shows that women helped in agriculture. In conclusion, source 5 is better at showing what women did than source 2. However, both sources do tell us something about what work women did in the war, however little it may be. Therefore I completely disagree with the statement. I believe that this interpretation may have come about, because one of the sources is about propaganda and because it isn’t usually expected that a certificate could tell you much about the women working during the war.
* * *
I agree with the statement ‘sources 6a-c prove that women workers were valued by the government’. Sources 6b and 6c are propaganda posters calling for women to help in the war effort. Source 6a is a photograph. The year that they were made is not mentioned so this affects the reliability of the provenance.
6a is a photograph, it isn’t clear what it was for or the year. However, it is a good quality picture, accordingly it was probably taken by the media or by the government. If it were for the purpose of showing others, then it would have been made to look better than it actually was. Although, all this insignificant in telling us whether the government valued the work of women. The picture itself doesn’t say much about whether or not the government valued women working. It does, however, prove that women did work in munition factories, and is more useful to study other interpretations.
6b is a propaganda poster to encourage women to help the war effort by making aeroplane parts. This means that it must have been in or after 1916, when conscription was introduced, and women began to replace men in industries. Also at this time, women began doing direct war work such as munition factories. The poster is specifically for women as it says ‘women, come and help’. This is quite significant, because an argument against enfranchisement from the government was that ‘women don’t give an input in war, so why should they vote?’ Now the government was asking them for help in such a way that they asked men for help: through propaganda posters. This shows that the value of women was much more respected than previously. It says ‘more aeroplanes are NEEDED’, the government was relying on women to provide the much-needed aeroplanes that helped the conditions at the home front. Aeroplanes made during and after 1916, together with new weapon technology, made the sky much more dangerous for zeppelins. This trust was put into the fates of women, which gave them a huge level of responsibility, where previously they had none. However, perhaps they were only relying on women because most men where actually fighting because of conscription. By May 16th, all men between 18-41 could be called for. This meant that there wouldn’t be any more young men left to make aeroplanes. So possibly there wasn’t a level of value for women, but just a matter of elimination. This all is very similar to 6c.
6c is also a propaganda poster probably made during 1916 or after for the same reasons as 6b, designed to encourage women to assist men in the army, by helping to make aeroplanes. Similarly, the government trusts the women to make aeroplanes that consequently help the women’s own circumstances. This is because it would improve conditions at the home front as it made it hard for zeppelins. Although there is a list of quite basic jobs, it is an improvement on the previous nothing.
In conclusion, 6b and 6c are more useful than 6a to show us that women were valued by the government. 6a shows us that the women were trusted to make munitions, however this isn’t actually inferred by the photograph. All the sources do have an input about telling us that some sense of value was given to women during the war. If the government hadn’t valued them, then they wouldn’t have been allowed to contribute to the war effort at all.
* * *
Source 7 contains news footage from the Great War about jobs woman tackled. It was probably from 1916 onwards when women began to replace men in industry. The news is to inform the general public but because it is a video, it would have been made to look much better than it was. Source 8 is an extract from the report of the board of agriculture. However it is written by a woman, so it is probably a subjective provenance.
Source 7 shows footage of young women in the munition factories which was common by 1916, in agriculture probably with the Women’s Land Army, working with cars and in trams to replace men. This is a wide variety of very different work, which doesn’t only focus on war related work, but also economic industry. Women are in uniform, which was quite significant at the time. Because it was made for the news, censorship from the government under DORA and just for publicity, it would be made to look much better than it really was.
Source 8 is an official document written by a woman. It is more likely be saying more truth, because it is an official document, but the truth could have been influenced and swayed because the woman who wrote it may have been biased. The document is about women working in agriculture during wartime. A lot of what is written is quite irrelevant to what women actually did but just talks about the organisation of the work.
Women did do a lot of work ranging from direct war related work, such as working in the munitions factories and nursing and cooking for the men in the trenches, to normal industrial jobs. These industrial jobs became more common after the introduction of conscription. These industrial jobs included office work, collecting bus fares, driving and so on. Source 7 is much better at reflecting this wide variety of roles. Therefore it is more reliable as source of information to tell us about the work women did during the war.
* * *
Source 9 is governmental document written after the war about women employment during the war and revealing statistics from the time. It is written to inform the reader. It proves that there was a large difference between the number of women employed in 1914 compared to 1918. It is very organised into different trades so it becomes easier to see where the input by women was going. With 792,000 women, most women worked in industry, compared to other trades such as education, agriculture and transport. The only industry that had a decrease in numbers was domestic services, such as cleaners. Comparisons were also made between men and women in terms of quality and quantity. Most industries felt that women’s quality was equal to men, however the shells and engineering industries thought that their work as good as or worse than a young boy and the sheet metal industry thought women were better than men. In terms of quantity women were much worse, with the exception of the cartridges trade, where women made 20% more in quantity than men. However, these comparisons aren’t very thorough and were probably concluded by the opinion, rather than qualitative tests, it is also possible that other factors are not take in account such as how long they had worked for and so on in terms of the quantitative data. However, it is an official document so it doesn’t reflect any attitudes of women, but has statistics and facts.
Source 10 is a cartoon from a popular magazine name punch. Punch contained some very influential and political cartoons, and the cartoon in this source concerns women’s enfranchisement. There is a women in rags on mountains holding a flag in triumph with the words ‘women’s franchise’, at the bottom of the cartoon it reads ‘free at last!’ The woman is wearing armour and holds weapons as if she has fought a battle, metaphorical for the fight for franchise. The woman is in rags to show the hard work and suffering they had to go through. The woman is holding a flag because it is a victorious sign. The woman’s hair is short, and the clothes she wears are quite boyish symbolising for the way woman had to become like men to get enfranchisement. All of this implies triumph. However this is an interpretation because it is a cartoon, and it is only the illustrators view. But this was generally the view shared at the time, and it does show an attitude towards women.
Women had gone through a great transition compared from 1914 to 1918. Woman were respected a lot more and thought of as a lot more valuable in society. However, the only difference between this time was the unravelling of the war, and the affects it had on the home front. The main affect for women was that women had to become employed. The fact that women were now working, and trying hard to get money, and helped in the war effort and sustaining of the economy made women much more respected that previously.
In conclusion, Source 10 is more reliable in terms of public attitudes towards the female suffrage by the end of the Great War. This is because source 10 is a public magazine, whereas source 9 is a private official document. The cartoon infers that the suffragists and suffragettes had to suffer a lot before gaining their victory. This is the attitude the public held about the women. However source 9, doesn’t really give an expressed view on suffragettes or suffragists to an extent where it shows their attitudes.
* * *
I disagree with the statement that ‘Women working in the fields and factories was the only important factor in women gaining the vote in 1918’. Women also tried from the 19th century to gain enfranchisement. I believe it was the suffragist and suffragette campaigns prior to the war that raised awareness to their cause, and allowed more people to join the movement. If the suffragettes hadn’t gone to the extreme measures that they had such as burning houses, stopping cars, starving themselves whilst held in prison as political prisoners and so on, their cause wouldn’t have been so widespread, and the government wouldn’t have thought it was a large issue. However women working during the war proves to be a large factor in why women got the vote.
Source 1 shows that woman did have to campaign just for the right to serve their country. It is a newspaper article about the ‘right to serve demonstration’. This shows women weren’t allowed to serve their country, but had to campaign for that too. It was only through desperation of the government that women were allowed to serve.
Source 2 is a certificate from the Woman’s Land Army for all members. It writes that they are serving their country just as much as men. This is quite significant, as this means that women did help to win the war, although it was more indirectly than the men were. Similarly, source 6 shows women working in factories and munitions trades as is implied by the above statement. Although, the sources contained within source 6 are forms of propaganda, they give an insight to the hard work of the women and number s of women who were contributing. Source 8, although it is quite subjective, is an example of a woman using persuasive language in a government official document, written to sympathise for women and their injustice through language such as ‘women, while giving so generously of their time and interest, and realising the responsibilities of public service’. Sources 2, 6 and 8 are all examples of field and factory work. However there were other types of work.
Women did do other work. For example Source 3 is a letter from the NUWSS suggesting to the minister of war to allow women to control the women. This meant that women were beginning to ask for more ambitious roles as hunger for work. It also means that women wanted to work in trades that weren’t limited to just fields and factories but also offices and public areas, as is the case in Source 5 which shows women doing a wide variety of work in a poster. Also source 7 is video news footage, which is set in environments outside of just fields and factories, but also offices, roads, public areas and garages. Also source 9 is filled with statistics of women’s employment during the war printed. It is organised into different trades at it is evident that women worked in other public sectors such as transport, education, public houses, hotels, theatres and so on. Therefore sources 3, 5, 7 and 9 all agree that work was done in other environments besides just fields and factories.
Source 4, is a letter asking for enfranchisement soon, with a petition of important and influential people. It was this kind of persuasive input that contributed to reminding the prime minister that women really did deserve enfranchisement now. It was this kind of reminding and appeals which helped women to gain the vote. Source 10 is a cartoon printed after the enfranchisement, and shows that the general attitude from the public was that women had suffered from unjust. If the prime minister wasn’t reminded of his priorities and responsibilities towards women, the enfranchisement would have probably been further delayed similar to how it had been prior to the war.
I believe that the huge media coverage and propaganda printed at the time concerning women and the awareness of the subject defiantly made it a thought that became a priority. If so many women hadn’t discovered this movement, and so many men weren’t affected then it wouldn’t have been such a big problem. I believe it was all the fuss made out of it which made the government aware. Also the suffragette’s violent campaigns contributed to the growing of awareness. Because women then went onto begin doing work during the war and for the war, men felt that they really did deserve the vote, much to do that this was their largest argument against enfranchisement.
However the representation of the peoples act 1918 only allowed women over 30 to vote, however It was the young women that had helped the most during the war. This may have been because this had been the case for men for so long, so it only seemed fair to start off women in the same condition.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement ‘Women working in the fields and factories was the only important factor in women gaining the vote in 1918’. This is because the only environments that women worked in weren’t fields and factories, but it was also the awareness raised and reminding and constant pressurising by women and their campaigns. I believe that this interpretation has come about because sufficient sources to study suffragette campaigns weren’t given, and most of the sources included women working in either factories or fields.