Another group who campaigned to reform property laws was the Married Women’s Property Committee. In 1870, the Married Women’s Property Act was introduced, meaning that women were allowed to retain control of money they earned for themselves. This was a great boon for many, particularly working class women, as the likelihood of obtaining employment was greater for them than for the middle classes, as few middle class women were able to earn their own money. The act was amended in 1882, meaning that women were able to control some “separate” property; however, none of the bills stated property could be a woman’s “own,” a point which illustrates the obvious prejudices which were still rife amongst the middle and upper class members of parliament. Women’s liberty therefore remained limited as their opportunities, within marriage at least, often depended on the way they behaved. “Whiggish” historians argue that by 1914 women had advanced beyond the situation of “belonging” to their husband, as in 1800; their sole purpose being as wife and mother. However, this is a point which has been contested on the grounds of the law.
Opportunities for women were limited not only within marriage, but when filing for divorce. For both men and women, a Private Act of Parliament was needed prior to 1857 in order to obtain a divorce; this was expensive at £475, therefore was almost impossible for women. Grounds for divorce were far more difficult to obtain for women; where men had to prove only adultery, women had to prove adultery with incest, bigamy, or gross cruelty. Due to these obstacles, instances of divorce were rare. Between 1765 and 1857, 276 divorces were granted and only four of these were to women. Among the working classes, divorce was virtually nonexistent, largely due to cost ensued. Often, husbands would leave a wife and dependent children, and move away to avoid complications with the courts if they wished to remarry. One practice was wife-selling; between 1780 and 1880 there were 294 recorded cases of wife sales on England, however this was not a common occurrence. According to historian P. Bartley, when writing of one such recorded event, “this may well have been a working-class form of divorce and remarriage.” This shows increased opportunities for working-class women as it gave them the chance to escape an unhappy marriage if necessary.
A typical profession for a woman during the 19th Century was a factory worker or “mill girl.” These working-class women suffered from wage discrimination, and worked in abysmal conditions for hours at a time. However, it may be debatable to say that these were the only jobs available to women at the time, as evidence suggests that opportunity for employment for women increased throughout the 19th Century. Evidence shows that during and after the industrialisation period, the range of jobs for women greatly increased. More and more, machines were being designed with young women in mind, due to an ever-increasing number of women in the workplace. As stated by Professor Pat Hudson: “Female employment in the 1850’s, 60’s and 70’s appears to have been higher than any recorded again until after World War Two.”
In towns particularly, women were employed in a variety of petty trades such as seamstressing and laundry work. The impact of industrialisation was geographically varied across the country. Certain industries such as cotton and woollen textiles were concentrated in areas such as Lancashire and west Yorkshire, and occupations such as domestic service in major cities and London, with 50% of working women in London in 1851 working as some kind of domestic servant. However, despite these figures, and the variety of jobs available to working class women in particular, the effects of industrialisation were not as dramatic as sometimes thought. By the example of these statistics we can see that the effects on women’s employment were not uniform nationwide. The encouragement of the ideal of the “male breadwinner” being the norm discouraged women from working. Many people were against women’s employment as wage-earning ability gave women more influence over wider familial decision-making. In the workplace, women were rarely given supervisory roles, as men monopolised the higher status and higher-paid jobs. The 2nd of August 1911 saw the introduction of an amendment to the Coal Mines Bill, by the House of Commons Select Committee. This prevented women from working in pit-brows, and was introduced because this type of work was widely seen as unsuitable for women, depriving them of their femininity and being bad for their health. The Select Committee of 1911, according to historian P. Bartley, “just like the supporters of the 1842 Coal Mines Act, were no less concerned with women’s roles as wives and mothers than they were with women’s health,” showing continuity in the period. However, in the opinion of the same historian, “one of the most significant changes between 1842 and 1911 was perhaps the response of women to protective legislation.” Owing to the loss of approximately 6000 female jobs in 1911, working class women demanded the right to work, as opposed to the right to their so-called protection. The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies and the Women’s Freedom League denounced the amendment, labelling it as a male conspiracy to stop women’s right to work. The Women’s Social and Political Union, and its key figures such as Annie Kenney, were of great support to the female pit-brow workers. Due to this help, women won the right to remain on the pit-brows. This shows a change in women’s political influence in Britain during the period, although women were not given the vote until 1928.
For the middle classes, limited rights for women made it difficult for them to operate in business on their own, and many working women may have preferred to keep their income a secret from their husband. However schemes of charity work and philanthropy were popular among the married women of the middle classes. For example, the Ladies’ Associations for the Care of Friendless Girls, led by Ellice Hopkins were set up in order to provide help to working class girls in Britain. She has been unanimously seen by historians as crucial in the development of preventative work. For single women from middle class families, some employment would have been essential to support oneself. A prevalent occupation for such women was to act as a governess to daughters of other middle class families.
There were few exceptions within the women’s employment sector; however there were some examples of women who made an impact on male-dominated professions at the time. One of these was Florence Nightingale, whose success as a nurse in the Crimea earned her popular acclaim, allowing her to start a nursing school on her return. She was the first woman to introduce proper standards of training and professionalism into nursing; a career which had previously been highly unregulated. Another example in the field of employment was Sophia Jex-Blake, and her contemporary Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. They were the first women to become doctors in Britain, despite much male opposition. Garrett Anderson took the Society of Apothecaries exam in 1865, allowing her to practise, and Jex-Blake founded the London school of Medicine for Women in 1874, gaining the legal right to practise as a doctor in 1877.
Women’s work was often perceived to be less varied and it was persistently associated with certain occupations, for example the domestic sector. It remained, throughout the 19th century, characterised by long hours, low wages and poor conditions, despite the increased opportunities for employment in city factories and other industries. The industrialisation of many industries increased the demand for female labour, as it was cheaper.
Domestic service was the single largest employer of working class women in the 19th century. The majority of the workforce were under the age of twenty, and worked long hours of often 8am until 10pm, and were paid low wages of on average £15 per year. Due to low pay, many servants were forced to subsidise their income by prostitution. Throughout the 19th century, more jobs in the domestic sector became available as the number of people earning more than £150 per year, therefore the number of people who could afford servants, doubled.
An occupation which was, for many, a final option in the 19th century was prostitution. These women, often “fallen women” or immigrants, became prostitutes due to poverty or social situation. Some parents of young girls were in the trade of prostitutes, particularly virgins, as journalist William Stead revealed in his exposé of the virgin trade, “Maiden Tribute to Modern Babylon.” There was little resistance to this, due to the laissez-faire attitudes of the Victorian government at the time. For this reason, many middle and upper class men who held power frequently ignored prostitution, wishing to keep it a secret from their wives and daughters, yet habitually using just such women. Stead’s article sparked a campaign for reform, supported by various Christian and Women’s associations, which resulted, despite opposition from government officials, in a change in the law; raising the legal age of consent from 13 to 16, according to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Other legislation included the Contagious Diseases acts of 1864, 1866 and 1869, and a Brothels Suppression Bill of 1840; a puritanical movement against laissez-faire attitudes which campaigned on the idea that prostitutes did not want to sell themselves. The Contagious Diseases Act of 1864 meant all prostitutes were required to register with the police in naval towns, and subjected to internal examination. These acts became a feminist cause, as often innocent women found themselves being subjected to humiliating inspections. According to Megara Bell, a feminist author and historian, “the assumption as that, while men would be offended at the intrusion, the women were already so degraded that further humiliations were of no consequence.” The number of prostitutes in Britain was increased as a result of the industrial revolution, and an augmentation in the number of men working in or around naval towns. In a quote by Flora Tristan, a Spanish woman visiting London, “every window and doorway women were laughing and joking with their protectors. Half-dressed, some of them naked to the waist.”
Educational opportunities were limited throughout the 19th century, and were dominated by “male exclusivity,” particularly in higher education, where, according to Susan Steinbach, it was believed they were being educated as “leaders of the next generation”. As a result of poor nationwide school provision for the working classes, both sexes but especially girls received little or no education until the 1850’s. The systems of education that existed for working class children were often in the form of charity or Dame schools, but attendance was neither free nor compulsory. Sunday school was popular as it was primarily supported by donations from the middle class and did not interfere with work. It focussed on reading scriptures, and by 1861 there were 2.5million children enrolled nationwide. The Education Act of 1870 established, for the first time, publicly owned and funded elementary schools as a first step to ensuring that all children aged between 5 and 11 should receive a basic education. By 1880, education for this age group had become compulsory, and by 1891, it was also free. This greatly increased opportunities for younger girls in terms of education as it was more readily available; there is evidence of this in the changes in literacy rates for women, which increased from 73% in 1871 to almost 97% in 1900. Such a transformation for the working class could be construed to be impressive; however the changes in provision of education were not accompanied by a change in curriculum; girls still learned domestic skills as opposed to anything else, despite the new governmental scheme of the “Three R’s” of reading, writing and arithmetic.
Key figures in education for girls in particular in the 19th century were those aided the establishment of schools for girls, such as Dorothea Beale and Frances Mary Buss, both of whom were educational reformers and feminists, and above all, pioneers in the movement for girls’ education. Between them, they founded the North London Collegiate School for Ladies and the Association of Headmistresses, Cheltenham Ladies College and St. Hilda’s College, Cheltenham.
For the middle classes, home schooling by governesses was a popular form of education and an alternative to being taught by the mother of the family, however this had little regulation. In 1843 the Governesses Benevolent Institution was introduced. This emphasized teacher training and certification for women, and meant that education by governesses became more structured and less variable. Women also gained the right to run for school board positions. In the area of further and higher education, there was a gradual acceptance of women into higher education. One of the first institutions to offer higher education to women was Queens College, London; founded by F.D. Maurice in 1848, to educate middle class women to become governesses. Despite this, there was a continuing social stigma of being an educated woman, and it was very much a male dominated sphere. In the 1860’s, Barbara Bodichon and Emily Davies worked together to found Girton College, Cambridge, which in 1873 opened to it’s first students. In 1900, women made up only 3,284 out of a total 20,299 students in England and Wales; only 16%. In effect, women’s opportunities were still limited, if only due to popular belief as opposed to legislation.
The views of society and social stigma were one of the main limiting factors to women in the 19th century. There were many arguments against any kind of liberation of women, including the issue of women’s suffrage. Varied opposition existed, mostly in the form of disagreement for a multitude of reasons. In the opinion of many people, women did not need to vote as men looked after their interests, and it would lead to a loss of men’s jobs to women. A quote made in the House of Commons in 1906, in reference to female suffrage, suggests “Women are creatures of impulse and emotion,” deeming them irrational and unable to have an opinion. It was also thought that increased freedom would encourage women to devote less time to their families. Within the domain of women’s suffrage, there were numerous societies who campaigned for the extension of women’s rights. The original 1896 National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, or Suffragists, headed by Millicent Fawcett, argued that women who had money employed men who were able to vote, however were unable to do so themselves; this was an unjust situation. They made insignificant progress with regards to the plight of women, rendering their opportunities limited in this field until the 20th Century. In 1903, the instigation of the Women’s Social and Political Union, or Suffragettes, led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, saw the birth of a much more hard-line attitude regarding campaigns. Their actions included the burning of churches, disruption of parliament and hunger strikes. Historian A. Marwick describes them as “militant,” and believes they “destroyed the prospects of compromise by exacerbating the hostility.” In the quest for equality, they had hindered their own efforts and prolonged liberation for women. The irony of their protest was proven in the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913. Women whose hunger strike made them too ill would be let out of prison to recover, and then be re-arrested when well. This followed a minority defeat in parliament in 1912, where the quest for the franchise was lost by 14 votes. World War one was a significant milestone in terms of women’s opportunities as the economic involvement of women increased by about a third. As men went to war, employment opportunities for the female population expanded; doubled with new war industries such as munitions and the auxiliary services, these shifted women’s opportunities in terms of work away from the traditional domestic service. The war helped to ease the transition from the double standards for women and men, and was a seminal point in the fight for the vote, which was finally awarded to the over 30’s in 1928.