However, Source F is also limited in several ways. Firstly, we have no figures as to how many workers actually enrolled as a result of this piece (and similar propaganda with similar aims). It is also limited because it has no indication as to whether women played roles in the war I other areas, besides munitions. In addition, the source is limited because it states neither the wages, nor the risks of the job of munition workers. Such risks include conditions that make the skin turn yellow. Also, the way the woman is posing is misleading because the jobs were not as easy as her pose suggests.
Source G is a table showing the employment statistics of women in Britain before and after the war. Source G comes from a textbook, it aims to show the least to most popular professions for women in the year 1914 and 1918 (pre and post war).
Source G is useful in several ways. Firstly, the source shows that the levels of employment rose in every stated profession. This is significant because it informs us to how many more women exactly, were working after the war. Secondly, the source is useful as it proves that propaganda such as the poster shown in Source F was successful in encouraging women to work. Thirdly, it is useful as it shows that women contributed greatly to the war effort by 1918. We know this as levels of employment in the stated professions skyrocketed; clearly women were playing a huge role due to the sheer amount of them who were contributing.
Although, Source G is also quite limited in several ways. Firstly, there is no data in the years 1915, 1916 or 1917; this is a limitation as we cannot tell whether there was a fluctuation of women’s employment in those years. If there was a fluctuation, it would greatly reduce our belief that women played such a huge role during the First World War. Secondly, the table has no data so to how many jobs women had later in the war or after the war. This is significant because there could have again been another fluctuation and it is not known as to how many women kept their jobs after the war. Their efforts could have gone extremely unrewarded and most if not all may have been fired, for all we know. Thirdly, the type of jobs which the women may have been doing is not stated, for all we know, women could have been doing low status jobs throughout the war. This is a very important limitation, because, if women were doing low status jobs such as being cleaners, they would not have really been making much of a difference during the war. Additionally, the source does not provide any of the attitudes which people had towards the women working. It was the men’s’ opinions that counted to decide whether women made a difference during the war, and since that is not present, we cannot know in detailed explanations, how women helped the war effort.
Both sources F and G are very useful when used as evidence to measure the extent to which women contributed during the First World War. In several ways, they are also very limited. Generally, I find Source G to be the most useful source, this is for several reasons. Firstly, Source G is more useful as it provides numerical data of the extent to which women aided the war effort. This is vastly superior to opinionated data as opinionated data can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, and therefore a misinterpretation is very likely; however statistical data can only be interpreted in a single way. Secondly, Source G is more useful as it show the extent to which women aided in the war effort. We know the exact numerical figures as to how many women aided in the First World War. Thirdly, Source G is superior, as it shows how propaganda as shown in Source F succeeded in encouraging women to work.
