Womens involvement in World War I.

History Coursework – Question 1

Source A is a secondary source, and is a letter, written in 1976. It is mostly fact with the only biased statement being “I hated every minute of it”. The woman it was written by lived through the actual events, which is an advantage, but with it having been written so many years later, she may well have forgotten some of the details. As the woman was not anyone famous, she probably didn’t write the letter thinking it would be published. Therefore the letter was probably written to inform, and as it is neither biased nor written with an eye to publishing then it is probably reliable.

From the source we can learn that in 1914 many women did domestic work earning as little as $2 a month. They worked long hours (“6am to 9pm”) and the work was very unpopular, the author herself “hated every minute of it”. It seems that many women saw war work as “their chance to out” and although the work was dangerous, they were better paid and worked fewer hours. The main reason for such high pay was the danger the jobs involved. The author started work “hand cutting shell fuses” for which she was paid $5 a week, ten times her wage as a domestic servant.

Question 2

Source B is an extract from a book written by Sylvia Pankhurst, daughter of Emeline Pankhurst, leader of the Suffragettes. It is a secondary source because although the author was an eye-witness, she did not write the book until eighteen years later. The article is fairly small scale, but was written by a very biased individual with a particular interest in women’s rights.

On the other hand source C is a primary source, being an extract from a book written in 1917, which was during the First World War, by a factory owner. His view of things would be very small scale, only relating to people and events in his one factory, it is also very biased, as he would not speak badly about a job he was trying to encourage women to do.

In source C, the factory owner is trying to say how much women enjoy their new roles. Source A supports this, admitting how eager she was to seize her “chance to out” from her domestic service.

Source C says that women found freedom, higher wages and better social life in factory work. This is supported by Source A, which says “as for wages I thought I was very well off, earning $5 a week”

The final sentence in Source C, talks about the benefits to the children of the women working in munitions factories. Although it isn’t directly supported or contradicted by either of the other two sources, Source B mentions that the workers were often “lying ill on the stones outside the workshop”, so it cannot have been good for children if their mothers were permanently tired an d ill. However source A indirectly refers to their being more money available for food, clothes and a generally higher standard of living

Question 3

Source D is an anonymous photo of two women in a First World War munitions factory. It is a primary source because it was taken at the time of the First World War. It gives information about the work place and appears to have little bias. On the board behind the women it says, “when the boys come back we’re not going to keep you any longer girls”. Having to work with this sort of feeling every day would make work very unpleasant, it might also have made the women feel unwelcome and used.

Source E ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Question 3

Source E is a primary source, produced in 1916 by the government to encourage women to do munitions work. It shows a young happy, pretty woman going into the factory and putting on her uniform as a man waves good bye in soldier’s uniform in the background. The poster is trying to tell women that although their male relatives are going off to fight, they can “do their bit” and make munitions. This phrase also suggests that not all women are helping the war effort by saying “these” women, it hints that there are women who are not helping are guilty of letting your country down. You can tell she is in a factory because of the machinery in the background.

Source E the shows the government wants women working in munitions. In source D, working men are clearly against having women as part of the work force. Yet Source E shows the government thinks that munitions work is vital war work. This is proven to be incorrect because we know of the women who did work in the women’s land army, the navy, the airforce and manufacture of aeroplanes (as shown in source B) and as drivers and messengers in all areas of the armed forces.

In summary both sources are useful for gaining information about the munitions work, however the focus they give is relatively narrow, only showing one aspect of the work done by women in each source, where as we know that women undertook just about every job from carrying coal to secretarial work. The only industrial work they did not do was in steel foundries and coal mines.

Question 4

Source G is an account of one woman’s experiences while working in a factory during World War 1. It is a primary source since it was written in 1919 which is shortly after the end of the war. The account was probably written to inform the reader of her experiences of working with men in a factory.

The source gives a small scale view of a private individual’s account, although it is supported by the hostility shown to women in Source D The woman is obviously working class, as upper class women tended not to take jobs in factories.

The man in the source who was giving the wrong information was the foreman, a man of responsibility, who should have helped and supported women’s work rather than “altering directions in such a way as to give me hours more work” This shows that the resentment of women in the factory was deep rooted if even men in a position of responsibility were causing problems for the women. The result of this was to embarrass the woman and to make other men think that if their foreman was treating the women like this, then it was all right for them to.

She also received “no help as to where to find things”.

The woman also mentions the shop steward who represented the unions, telling her they had no objection to her working there, provided she received the full men’s rate of pay. This was because if the woman was receiving the full men’s rate, then the men would not have to worry about their job security, as the employers would pick them over women because men are naturally stronger than women.

Even the ordinary men were against women doing war-work. They “nailed up her drawer” and “oil was poured over everything in it another night”. In 1919 many men believed that a woman’s place was in the home, but the main reason for the men’s objection was that they thought the over time their wages would be lowered to match the women’s. this was something they need not have worried about as the unions had agreed with the government that when the war ended all the women would be sacked.

In 1915 the shortage of shells became critical, which led to the “Women’s March for Jobs” organised with the help of Mrs Pankhurst. 30,000 women took part, it was a huge success and 100,000 women registered to start work, however many employers refused to take women on. The Military service act was introduced in 1916, it brought in conscription for men aged 18 – 41. It also brought an expansion of female labour, but the women rarely received equal pay. At the end of the war most of the women were sacked and the jobs given back to the men returning form the war. There was a huge government campaign to get women to go back to being housewives.

Despite this not everyone was against women war workers. The government saw the desperate need for shells and the potential for workers the women could provide, however they contradicted this stand by making an agreement with the trade unions to sack women a the end of the war. Many soldiers were against women working, as it was their wives, sisters and daughters doing the working, but on the good side they did get the shells and food they needed to fight. Employers disliked women because the men objected to them on the grounds that their employers might choose to employ women instead of them, this brought about the possibility of strikes. But, on the other hand the women were cheap and quick to learn new skills.

Dilution allowed unskilled and semi-skilled workers to do the jobs of skilled men by breaking the job down into smaller simpler jobs.

Most men objected to women working until they saw how well they did. So that by the end of WW1 most people had accepted that there was a place for women in the workforce.

History Coursework - Question 5

During the First World War, many women did war work, which was extremely important to the outcome of the First World War, however we cannot say for certain that Britain would have lost the war if it were not for women’s work. The women’s work played an important part as shown in source F. Source F is statistics showing the numbers of women doing various jobs in 1914 and 1918. We do not know who it was produced by, or when it was produced, but from the large increase in the number of women doing manufacturing work, we can probably assume that women working in factories was encouraged, if not by their fellow employees, then by the government. The purpose of the source is to show how numbers of women working in various areas of employment changed during the First World War. The changes are significant, in 1914 there were “2,178,600” working in manufacturing which rose to “2,970,600” in 1918, an increase of almost eight hundred thousand. Women working in transport rose from “18,200” to “117,200” and civil service rose from “262,000” to “460,000”. In contrast there was a sharp decline in the number of domestic servants from “1,658,000” to “1,258,000”. I think this is because the pay in domestic service was very low, as well as working long hours, as mentioned in source A. Sources F and A support the idea that women were important to winning the war.

Source H is very brief and extremely patronising. “Women can satisfactorily handle much heavier pieces of metal than had been previously dreamt of”. It is an extract from an article in the Engineer, published in August 1915, so it is a primary source. I think the article may have been intended to complement women on how well they’re doing, but that is not how it comes across. However the source does support the idea that women were valued and needed.

Source I is from a report on “Woman’s work in wartime” published in 1918, making it a primary source. It shows that many women worked in transport “there are girls at the wheels of half the cars that pass” and “if you choose bus or tram the conductress in her smart uniform has long been a familiar figure.” The source also shows that women were not afraid to do heavy lifting and carrying. “If you go by train, women will handle your luggage”. I think the aim of this article is to show just how many women are now working to help maintain “business as usual”. This is yet another source that indicates how important women were to keeping things on the home front running smoothly.

The final source is J a painting “for king and country” by E.F.Skinner, produced in 1917 therefore a primary source. It shows women working in a munitions factory, bent over their machines. There is a pretty girl in the foreground holding a shell. The title implies an act of bravery, possibly that by making the munitions, the women were risking their health and maybe their lives if caught in a bomb raid. The painting was probably intended to praise women and the work they did. All the women in the painting look happy, contradicting source D, which shows two miserable looking women with a board behind them saying “when the boys come back we’re not keeping you any longer girls”. However the painting does agree with the government poster in Source E, which shows a young attractive woman, donning her uniform with a smile to make munitions. Where sources E and J support women the idea of women being useful, source D shows that many men were strongly opposed to women’s work. This opposition to women is also demonstrated in source G, which describes the lack of help and assistance given to a woman, along with acts of outright vandalism. I would say that source G does not support the idea that women were wanted, nor does it show the importance of their work.

Source B shows that women were willing to do war work even if it was detrimental to their health. “It was common for six of the thirty dope painters to be lying ill on the stones outside the workshop, for half an hour, or three quarters before being able to return to their toil.” This source shows that women were expected to work in very difficult conditions. I think that the fact they did the work despite the difficulties helps to show their importance.

Source C is in favour of women and supports sources A, B, E, F, H, I and J. it shows that women were happy to join in the war effort even if they had children. This was partly helped by the nurseries set up by the government to care for children while their mothers worked.

In conclusion I would say that although the work of women during the First World War was vital, it was not the only thing that our winning the war depended on, therefore without the work of women, we would probably still have won the war, just not as quickly.

Christina Liston 11SW