However, some of the supporting sources are questionable, namely A; it is extracted from an article by the Daily Mail, and was likely written simply to appeal to readers – it could possibly be exaggerated, for entertainment’s, and the tone of the source itself – ‘war time business girl’, ‘the meal, of course,’ , ‘with money and without men’ – can, from another perspective be seen as somewhat mocking, suggesting that women are behaving differently, as opposed to progressed. Source B is also from a newspaper – this time a letter written in, by a women – and can be considered reliable simply because of this- as it was penned by somebody who would know of any changes first-hand. However, it is also only the opinion of one woman, and hers may not be a viewpoint shared by many others. Although, the fact that a newspaper printed this shows that it was either very relevant or somewhat controversial – and was a piece to spark interest or agreement.
Sources C and F are both somewhat similar in terms of reliability. They are both official reports assessing the quality and quantity of work by women against the work of men and women’s employment rates, respectively, and, due to this, neither are likely to have been exaggerated, or altered, as there is simply no reason for anybody to do so, nor are official reports generally falsified, therefore, the information displayed in C and F can be considered reliable, as can it’s support of women’s progress.
However, other sources, D and E, suggest that, in fact, attitudes are still somewhat the same, and that war has changed little – source D is a report sent by the President of the Transport Union to the Home Secretary describing a ‘serious dispute’ that took place when ‘two women were being taught to drive tramcars.’ This ultimately resulted in women being disallowed to continue such work and their subsequent replacement by men. This shows that even during a time of war, women were still not accepted in some areas of work – here, transport – and that this same attitude – women are not meant for and should not do men’s jobs – is apparent. Source E is a newspaper article, urging women to leave ‘factory work’ and ‘return to their pots and pans,’ for the sorts of jobs they did during the war ‘will not be possible again.’ This again, shows the still-standing belief that a woman’s place is in the home, and not in the greater world; a notion widely supported before that war, and is (the source, the article, was published in 1919) still the same after the war.
Both sources are somewhat reliable, as D is a letter sent from one significant person to another, and E an opinion of the time. However, the President of the Transport Union, who wrote the letter in question, may simply have not been in favor of women working and used this as an excuse to put them out of work; possibly making a small tiff appear a ‘serious dispute’ in order to reinstate the men with whom he and his line of work were familiar.
In contrast, the article from the Southampton Times is likely to have expressed a widely shared opinion, as a newspaper’s purpose is to appeal to their audience and if they were to publish something many people did not approve of or found undesirable, they would likely lose a large percentage of their readership and this they would not want.
However, despite Sources D and E – quite reliably, in fact – suggesting that the war did not bring progress for women, several others support the fact that it did – hundreds of thousands more women were working after the war, that work was equal to and on some counts superior to that of men, woman were allowed out and about without chaperones – and, shortly after the war, most likely due to their efforts, some women were granted the vote, and this, along with the content and distribution of the sources, suggest the First World War did in fact bring great progress in the position of women.
