Women helped out on the farm too, and they were basically considered free labor that would help their husbands do their work. If a husband's job sent them away the wife had to have some way to make/manage money, or else they would go hungry or become homeless. Many young poor/middle class girls would be craftswomen too, they would make things like lace or buttons. I am sure that each culture had something that young girls would create to make some kind of currency.
Such a great point! Throughout many cultures men worked a self employed trade, which was equivalent to a "family business" and the wives (and often children) would help with many aspects of that business. Income was a team effort!
Lace-making would be a gold-star level job for a woman, no matter her class or financial situation because it was a luxury good, that people were willing to pay for- they were also willing to pay for people to learn the art of lace-making, & to pass it on to others. If the employment choices in your village were, say; farmhand, kelp gatherer, milkmaid, dairymaid, general maid, & lace-maker- in order of attractiveness, they'd go: *lace-maker* - a delicate craft, one that was also considered suitable for 'gentry ladies' & women of the middle class (it was a way of making income that didn't diminish their social standing) *dairymaid* - they were quite well-paid, as women's professions went - a skilled dairymaid was worth her weight in gold, for the value she contributed to the household- & working with all that milk, cream, & butter might contribute to some soft hands (in the past, it was considered a marker of refinement)- & you got to work indoors in a naturally temperature-controlled environment, year-round {see: #TalesoftheGreenValley for Ruth Goodman's description of the construction of a dairy}. Also, as the dairy was traditionally considered a 'women's sphere', prior to industrialisation- any profits made from the sale of such produce went to the woman of the house- so she would take care to employ a capable dairymaid to help her. *maid* - depending on where you were, & what you were doing; housemaid was probably the 'best', relatively speaking- kitchen maids & especially scullery maids were the bottom of the pile for household servants- (girls as young as 6-9 started out as scullery maids) - they had among the longest hours, & some of the hardest jobs- the scrubbing of pots & pans, with the lye-based cleaners of the day ('dishpan hands' was a term for what was probably dermatitis, or some other associated condition that caused red, swollen hands) - however, living 'up at the big house' would also be considered a privilege, because you had opportunities for advancement- in towns & cities, you might be a shop maid- or, as travel became increasingly widespread- you could get work as a hotel maid - yet, as a servant, there was also chances of abuse- by other staff, members of the household, or guests... *milkmaid* - a bit lower down the scale than the dairymaid, & unlike the housemaids, your work was outdoors, where sunburn & chilblains were a hazard, depending on the season- & milking half a dozen cows, sheep, or goats a day, often twice a day _could_ get tiresome - however, milkmaids also had a reputation for attractiveness, because they rarely caught smallpox (as they were likely to catch the milder cowpox first, which would naturally inoculate them against the often-lethal, & frequently-scarring smallpox)- & in the Spring & early Summer, when the weather was good- it could probably be enjoyable, to sit by a lake & gather some flowers while the animals graze... *farmhand* - You usually didn't have to leave your home for this- therefore, unless you sold excess of kitchen garden produce, or eggs/ feathers from your chickencoop- you weren't getting any extra money - *&* often you were pretty much working year-round _just_ in order to have enough to pay your family's rent & buy seed-corn & animals in the new year. You considered yourself fortunate if you didn't suffer drought, or flood (or warfare, depending on when & where you were)- that could wipe out crops & herds & flocks- & manpower. During harvest & planting, especially- you were probably working from dawn- 'til dusk, for weeks 'til they were done - & outside of those, there was the 'daily grind' of dozens of jobs- some seasonal (animal breeding seasons, sheep-shearing), others everyday tasks - with a small break for big things like Christmas, Easter, the feast at the end of the Harvest, & market fairs. It would be best if your family owned their own land, many more were landed tenants- & a good portion of people were unlanded- which made that little kitchen garden at your back door even more precious... *kelp gatherer* - this would really only be if you were near the coast - it was work that was: seasonal, tidal (you had to run out while the tide was low, & gather what you could before the next tide turned), hard, outdoors- & smelly; once kelp & seaweed were gathered, it needed to be burnt- the remains made soda ash- essential for glass & soap-making, & thus making possible all that pristine & shiny glassware, laundering all the sparkling white tablecloths & white muslin dresses that predominated the later Georgian & Regency eras - however, after the Napoleonic wars were done- Continental advances in the making of soda ash collapsed the industry overnight- & thousands & thousands of people (especially in Ireland & even Scotland) were out of work- because the labour wasn't worth the market-price (in the later half of the 19th c, there was a revival in the industry- due to the need for iodine)... Sorry for the spiel - it all sort of just came to me (old research swirling around my head, lol)
My Grandmother made dresses to support her 3 children after her husband died in a boat accident. She didn't remarry, and instead supported all 3 kids on her own, with a little help from relatives. To this day, she's still remembered for the amazing dresses she made, and was considered the best seamstress in the island. She's retired now, and spends her days helping my mum take care of the housework and learning Arabic through online classes, at the ripe old age of 60.
I know the women in my family worked outside the home at least 5 consecutive generations because there's a family story that wouldn't happen if they hadn't. My great-great grandmother (I'm in my 30s) met her second husband through a work friend who introduced them. It's actually kind of a funny story. She had been widowed when some of her children were still small and another girl at work was trying to set her up on a date with a friend of hers. She was hesitant, because she thought no man would want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood for a bunch of children. But she was lonely and her friend would not shut up about this guy she insisted was perfect for her so she agreed to one blind date to make her friend happy. Much to great-great gran's surprise, they hit it off immediately and one date turned into two, three, etc. Around date 5 she decided that she wanted to make this serious. There was only one 'problem': she didn’t have 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5 kids from her first marriage- she had 10! And she hadn't told him yet (he knew she was widowed and that she had kids...just not how many) She was so worried that if he met all of them at once he'd turn around and run, so instead what happened was she'd invite him up to the apartment for coffee and one or two of the kids would pop into the kitchen to say hi and she'd introduce them. The next visit, the same would happen, but one extra kid or the same amount of kids but not one he'd met would be present. After a few introductions like this, he realized she had at least 5 or 6 kids and was introducing them one at a time so he asked her directly how many children. She fessed up and told him and once he got over the initial surprise that the lovely not-that-old window his friend set him up with had 10 children he decided he was fine with that. Anyway, they lived happily ever after (and also had 2 more children together).
And women in medieval Scandinavia had more rights than women in medieval France, too, since women whose husbands kept traveling everywhere else had the right to divorce them for not sticking around at home and helping out...
I once read/heard that before industrialisation a lot of women worked - they just weren’t always directly paid for it. Such as the wife of a smith. She would obviously help a lot in his work station so they wouldn’t have to afford paying another person to help and she would profit through her husband who would provide for the family. Wives of farmers would help on the field or sth too. Wives just typically didn’t get explicitly paid a wage for doing the work.
A lot of work is untracked in historical paperwork, because of the purpose of said paperwork. Rulers tracked units. They tracked farms, businesses, soldiers, etc. These were marked under the name of the husband. Brewing was often seen as women's work, but the pub was counted as husbands property. Both male and female servants were counted among the size of the property. Property could pass on to the widow, but it would still be counted as "widow of X". Prostitutes was mostly just only female only (or considered female only) job that couldn't be filed under any property owner.
The whole "a wife would earn" attack on husbands of housewives has always rang hollow because it ignored the benefits from the husband which was the mid-twentieth parallel to the smith's wife profiting through her husband. That having a partner means you were in partnership seems lost on a lot of people these days.
I sometimes think I'm going to need to write a historical fictuon series where all the protagonists are working women - I have this idea for one about a barmaid who ALSO works as a spy durung the English Civil War. And I won't have to leave out the romance as there will be plenty of young nobles and soldiers frequenting her tavern! And I have another about a queen and another about a 'professional companion' who is also a detective. I was recently debating on a Jane Austen channel that the Bennett sisters COULD have gotten jobs as governesses (like Jane Fairfax), instead of waiting for a husband, but everyone was protesting that was such an AWFUL job! And I'm thinking, 'it's the same as my job as a teaching assistant; what is WRONG wjth teaching as a profession?' You're right in that it was all about social staus; today teaching is (supposedly) a respected profession so people do it even though the hours are long and the pay atrocious; we prefer it to 'marrying for money' and losing our independence. Though that may change if people keep promoting it as a bad job; we're already struggling to recruit 🤷♀️
Beeing a Governess was awfull because you weren't a servant. The servants wouldn't want to gave something to do with you but you weren't a gentlewoman either. You were trapped in between and that was quite lonely I guess.
I would love to be a governess, but I honestly can't see any of the Bennet sisters in the position? Lydia and Kitty are just- no. Elizabeth has a much too fiery temper to work with snobby kids. Jane could maybe pull it off, but would let the kids walk all over her. Mary would try (and she is probably the only sister who has the proper knowledge) but the kids would bully her relentlessly. Someone with Jane's patience and kindness, Mary's knowledge, Lizzy's ability to say no, and Lydia and Kitty's nature for having fun would make a fantastic governess, but as it stands I doubt any of them would be any good at the job. Not to mention the fact that they've never had a governess themselves and are (besides Mary and maybe Lizzy) severely lacking in their schooling. They are missing the knowledge that they would be expected to teach the kids if they were to become governesses- unlike Jane Fairfax.
In germany a woman was not allowed to work without the persmission of her husband till 1977! And she was not even allowed to open a bank account of her own. There was a special law that said that the husband could even quit her job. Terrible... It was § 1356 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) Maybe in different countries there were similar laws...
Same in France but a bit earlier, it took till 1965 for women to have the right to open a bank account and take a job without a male authority (father, brother, husband) giving authorisation. 1944 for voting right and 1898 for driving licence (which was only for the wealthiests at the time). Funny how things go faster when only the wealthy are involved😅
@@etienne8110 At least on paper. There was still a lot of sexism going on - older women can confirm. But having a couple of laws in place that protect and support women already makes a big difference. For example the extra support for single mothers - both my grandmother and my mother benefited from that.
It is both a class and gender issue. And the issue for women is usually that once you start working, you've lost your upper class status and you're never going to get that status back. So you want to marry within that status ASAP before you get to the point where you have to get a job. From there, the "best" job with the most hope for ever getting your status back or having a decent status is usually governess. Sometimes this is a cover for prostitute. But when it's a good job, you're regarded as a learned and classy lady who can pass these skills on to the little ones. You're paid, but you're not quite a servant. You also potentially have middle class women who inherit family businesses. through death of a father or husband. And you can potentially do something with that and not lose class standing. And it's worth considering that Jane Austin technically had "a job" as a writer and got away with it. So the arts are also an acceptable career. You also have middle class ladies who open schools, and this is a respectable job. It's once you start taking in the washing or getting a job as a shop girl that you're probably SOL on the marriage market. Yes, you can work. But you have seriously lost class standing and you are never, ever getting that back. I'd say it's worth watching the Lydia Poet show on Netflix about the first female lawyer in Italy and the Gentleman Jack show on Max about a female landowner in the UK for some tales grounded in reality about what women did with their money and how they managed their lives.
Some women also worked in the trade of their husband. There is evidence of Early Modern English doctors (before the regency period) who advertised if a woman was uncomfortable talking to them they could get medical help from his wife.
When I hear lay people say things like “well back then people always …” really irks me and I have to ask them to clarify their statement with: 1)what time period are you talking about? 2)where in the world are you talking about? 3)what class of people are you referring? 4)what gender are they? (And when applicable) 5)what race are they? Their answer to any of these five questions can drastically change their absolute statement that they made about history pretty quickly. This is why history is a degree that people get doctorates in. It’s way more complicated than blanket simple statements.
I've been seeing some historical fiction that make it a point to say that it's a class issue. A webtoon I've been reading recently makes it very clear that men or women in noble social class "shouldn't work" for their money because it should come from their inheritance, social networking, or land management. It also has beautiful statements of women's values and abilities written into the romance and drama. Though that last part is a little at the expense of the men in my opinion, and I mean that because the men are always needing to "learn something" about women having agency. But to be fair two of the love intrests are the Crown Prince and a Millitary oriented Marquess who are relatively young and still unique in the ways that they learn their lessons so it's not so bad~
Very good video!!! Wish people came out of high school history understanding things like this! But that’s the consequence of a history education primarily focused on political and military history, rather than social and cultural history.
Hi! You made some good points here, I think it's really interesting how a woman getting a job was a mark of shame, to almost a mark of pride in our society now. Especially if that job is like a "high class job" On a different note I wanted to buy your audiobook, and I didn't know if you had a preference which platform I got it on. Ever since Brandon Sanderson talked about Audible paying its authors poorly, I wanted to find another platform that would pay you (and other authors) better.
Have you tried her website directly. There is a link to it in the channel page. I bought a book to download via the website. Not sure if it's the best method or not but audiobooks there too I believe.
For many periods in history a working class woman looking for a husband wasn't too different than job hunting, because she would likely join her husband in his line of work. Even in higher class occupations history is full of 'he died, so she took over'.
OH MY GOSH YOU REFERENCED GASKELL!!! AAA! And North and South!!! Thats my favorite book, both romance and social commentary novel! Also thank you, I've loved this breakdown!
Yes! Well put! I knit and there was a beautiful pattern based on a historical wool peddlers shawl I found in a book of patterns. The book I found it in was talking about how women who sold wool typically wore a specific color of shawl to stand out in the market. Don't remember country or era referencd. Historical Cos-Tube has a lot of info about women's fashion and how women worked to make the pieces through history. Seamstress, millner, stays maker - the types of work were highly gender based but they did definitely work.
Joining the British Army as an officer was an acceptable choice for the "gently born," but it absolutely could not solve your financial woes legally (though plundering was not unheard of). Commissions cost money, promotions cost money, and the necessary uniform, tack, and mess expenditures far exceeded the salaries. The Navy offered the possibility of prize money, but you needed a lot more technical know-how and to start much younger, generally speaking.
Fun fact that the term spinster-for an unmarried woman who is now “too old” came from ACTUAL spinsters-girls and women who spun wool and flax into yarn. It took a lot of spinsters to keep a weaver having enough yarn to weave cloth for clothes.
Thanks for the follow-up, and the extra info. I'm hoping this opens a lot of people's eyes to the complexity of the past, and how narratives don't HAVE to follow certain tropes, but also that the tropes exist for a reason, so you need to address those reasons when you want to break from them. It makes for more interesting reads, and hopefully makes the research/work that goes into writing romance more enjoyable for the author. Can't wait to see your next book!
Let's not forget that the inciting incident for Jane Eyre is her getting a new job. Key word - new. And she advertises for the position herself. *Gasp*
That was actually a very well thought out and articulated piece. A similar thing is seen in our perceptions of the fashions of various era, which differed greatly between class strata.
A modern book that kind of, sort of has this, though they don't directly tackle it, is "Blue Bloods", which yes, has vampires, but is also very very much how Old Money New York families work. The main female character is from a prestigious old money family, the "Van Alen"s, but they no longer have the financial standing they once did and are basically poor except for their big ol' house (that's in disrepair), and a small income from they don't explain where, but it's not much. Still, because they have maintained the social pretenses and mores of their class by not working and doing things like afternoon lunches in the Russian Tea Room (albeit on a budget) and volunteering with philanthropic/artistic institutions, they are given invitations to high society events with other families, allowed to attend a very prestigious and exclusive school on a discount, and maintain a deference and prestige in the city they certainly would not have if the matriarch had decided to get an office job or become a businesswoman to support her granddaughter. If you think about it, social groups form when a group of similar people are in a space. Getting a job would make you like those at your workplace, and create distance, social and literal, from those who have enough wealth not to need that. It's a pretty natural process: consider what happens when you have a kid. You're suddenly very different from your non-parent friends, and naturally start to gravitate to a new social group of parent friends. You might still interact with the non-parent friends, but now it takes more work, is less frequent, and can be awkward. Same thing happens when someone stops behaving like one class, and starts behaving like another.
As a history nerd, I would love to know what went into your research! (fully genuine here, I love history but am not sure where to start learning more that isn't just the college classes I'm already trying to get into) I especially am curious about medieval life and if you have any resources to point me towards I would be thankful.
I spent most of the video thinking about an the ladies maids and scullery maids and cooks in these books. Did these commenters forget that those were jobs? (Or did they forget to think of those women as people?)
Even during early industrialization women worked in factories. It was in some places in the US a normal stage between growing up and marriage. For one, moving to town and working in a mill increased the number and types of prospects for lower class women. Ironically, the push to a minimum wage that could support a family with the wife at home circa 1900 was a plank of the early progressives whose successors three quarters of a century later would push for those women to be working mothers as the next step in progress.
Nope, got a major correction to make. No such thing as "just" a class or gender issue before about 1990. Remember that, in Europe and Euro-generated American culture, class wasn't just a preference, it was a disability. It defined the structure of ypur life and relationships. Any mobility was just at the interface between 2 distinct layers, and, as anyone whos ever had to bridge different societies knows, that's a rough place to be. Nobody really wants you on their team. Being a governess was *nothing like* being a teacher or teacher's aide today. Heres why. A governess had to be well-educated and ladylike, which alienated her from the servants and their families. She was a member of staff, which alienated her from the employers and their friends. Her job involved teaching the employer's children. As a ladylike person, and as a social inferior, the limits of her authority were whatever her employers decided. Even with little to no power to enforce her will -- in a *highly* stratified & casually violent society, meaning the kids could well be free to hit, punch, and kick her and tear her hair and clothes, without effective reproof -- she was nevertheless normally held responsible for whatever trouble they got into, and couldnt expect any sympathy or support from the parents. The employers despised her as only the rich can despise those whove fallen from their ranks or, worse still, aspire to them. The servants and working people, at baseline, despised them for "putting on airs" (being ladylike). Their work was tortuous, repetitious, often unrewarding, and painfully dull. They had maybe half a day or a day off per week, during which they had to appear as cold and sexless and solitary a a nun carved out of ice. Or risk losing the job. Some governesses got a pretty good deal (like Mrs Weston in Emma, who drew the winning lottery ticket!) Most had a crappy job with no company, very few rights, and lousy (if any) perqs. A few got beaten, abused, destroyed in a thousand ways, made pregnant under vile circumstances for which she was, nevertheless, held to blsame... and so on. Read Charlotte Brontë on the subject. She was a governess in several families. The comparison of being a governess to beipng unfree and worked to death in Emma was not crazy. It was very apt.
One tiny correction; the governess or tutor, like the lady's companion (not lady's maid, that was different) was a retainer *not* a servant- they were paid a salary (or allowance/ stipend, in the case of the companion)- *never* a 'wage', which was meant for servants & labourers. It also why they actually ate with the family, or dined in their room- & not in the servant's hall. Companions & governesses could often come from the same (or higher) social class as their employers [so servants wouldn't have actually thought they were 'putting on airs'- they knew that they were born of a higher class - they were effectively in a separate middle-world, not staff- but not quite the same as family]- but they were on an unequal footing, by the very fact that they had to seek employment in the first place...
I'm ...baffled. Do people not know that Jane Eyre was a governess? Like the forbidden governess or companion/ lord romance has gotta be a whole tiny subgenre. Companion, Governess, seamstress, housekeeper, nanny, maid, shop keeper, shop workers, and tbh, positions like lady in waiting or whatever were actually jobs, though you didn't get wages in the traditional sense. How are people reading historical romances or even watching shows like Bridgerton and completely ignoring the working class?
And plenty of women were working in the factories too. some actually industries preferred them, because they could pay them less than a male worker, and/or their smaller size was an advantage (Ditto children).
Being a nun is respectable, but also cuts you off from most of society. Unfortunately it's also less of an option in a British historical setting, as there weren't a lot of Anglican nunneries in comparison to Catholic nunneries.
Its an interesting concept but the difference is that engish clergymen (see Mr. Collins of P&P ) can marry but nuns cannot. While becoming a nun would retain standing to a similar degree, it would be permanent which would not suit any who hope to have their own family.
Please be mindful that, when discussing what women have or have not done throughout the centuries, it is reductive and misleading to say “women” when one’s comments are actually focusing solely on white women.
I mean she did clearly say that she was talking about a specific social class, one that non-white women usually couldn't hold in the country she was speaking about. but you're right that at least mentioning that race played a major role in what it meant for a woman to have a job as well. Especially when she brings up that "these women are surrounded by servants" when, sure, some of those might be paid employees, but there's a decent chance many of them are indentured or enslaved and in that case probably PoC.
In the video she makes it pretty clear when she's talking about a specific class within a specific cultural era and when she's talking about this general topic of "women have worked," and that does include every woman. Not that statements can't be made more clear, but is this a statement that needs to be made exclusionary to "white women"? The segment about "regency/Victorian era women and men found it difficult to work while within the aristocratic sphere" was a spring board to develop the topic into "women in the past worked a lot and in a lot of different ways actually." That's true for all women: Egyptian, African, Native American, Greek, European, ect., women in these cultures have done more than work as "prostitutes and homemakers."
While I see where you’re coming from, she is talking about a specific class, location and era which implies white women. Requiring she specify would feel redundant
Sometimes, listening for context is more important than having all the wokism boxes checked. She was talking SPECIFICALLY about upper class Brittish Isles Regency/Victorian era women ... the topic didn't need qualifiers. If you want her to address minorities in that culture during that time frame, it would require a seperate video.
@@sourwitch2340Brittain abolished slavery by 1574. So there were legally no slaves by the Regency era. The Irish may have else to say about that, however. 2:16
This is going to upset you...but I guess I might try to hide behind the keyboard.😂😊😅 You not my type. Well. You not my classical type. But I think I'm turning... not gay...😂😂😂 Lol... I think I'm either turning more saposexual or I am/was always more turned on by logic than I thought. Could also be old age/ getting older and having absolutely no fucks no ... Foolishness! SO... THANK YOU, FOR THE MANY THINGS THAT CAME FROM THIS LESSON!❤🎉👌🏿✊🏿
Women helped out on the farm too, and they were basically considered free labor that would help their husbands do their work. If a husband's job sent them away the wife had to have some way to make/manage money, or else they would go hungry or become homeless. Many young poor/middle class girls would be craftswomen too, they would make things like lace or buttons. I am sure that each culture had something that young girls would create to make some kind of currency.
Such a great point! Throughout many cultures men worked a self employed trade, which was equivalent to a "family business" and the wives (and often children) would help with many aspects of that business. Income was a team effort!
re free labour, it still exists for farmers today. reason why they have kids 💀
Specifically talking about craft, spinning wool was a lucrative business for unmarried women. That's why they are called 'spinsters'.
Lace-making would be a gold-star level job for a woman, no matter her class or financial situation because it was a luxury good, that people were willing to pay for- they were also willing to pay for people to learn the art of lace-making, & to pass it on to others.
If the employment choices in your village were, say; farmhand, kelp gatherer, milkmaid, dairymaid, general maid, & lace-maker- in order of attractiveness, they'd go:
*lace-maker* - a delicate craft, one that was also considered suitable for 'gentry ladies' & women of the middle class (it was a way of making income that didn't diminish their social standing)
*dairymaid* - they were quite well-paid, as women's professions went - a skilled dairymaid was worth her weight in gold, for the value she contributed to the household- & working with all that milk, cream, & butter might contribute to some soft hands (in the past, it was considered a marker of refinement)- & you got to work indoors in a naturally temperature-controlled environment, year-round {see: #TalesoftheGreenValley for Ruth Goodman's description of the construction of a dairy}. Also, as the dairy was traditionally considered a 'women's sphere', prior to industrialisation- any profits made from the sale of such produce went to the woman of the house- so she would take care to employ a capable dairymaid to help her.
*maid* - depending on where you were, & what you were doing; housemaid was probably the 'best', relatively speaking- kitchen maids & especially scullery maids were the bottom of the pile for household servants- (girls as young as 6-9 started out as scullery maids) - they had among the longest hours, & some of the hardest jobs- the scrubbing of pots & pans, with the lye-based cleaners of the day ('dishpan hands' was a term for what was probably dermatitis, or some other associated condition that caused red, swollen hands) - however, living 'up at the big house' would also be considered a privilege, because you had opportunities for advancement- in towns & cities, you might be a shop maid- or, as travel became increasingly widespread- you could get work as a hotel maid - yet, as a servant, there was also chances of abuse- by other staff, members of the household, or guests...
*milkmaid* - a bit lower down the scale than the dairymaid, & unlike the housemaids, your work was outdoors, where sunburn & chilblains were a hazard, depending on the season- & milking half a dozen cows, sheep, or goats a day, often twice a day _could_ get tiresome - however, milkmaids also had a reputation for attractiveness, because they rarely caught smallpox (as they were likely to catch the milder cowpox first, which would naturally inoculate them against the often-lethal, & frequently-scarring smallpox)- & in the Spring & early Summer, when the weather was good- it could probably be enjoyable, to sit by a lake & gather some flowers while the animals graze...
*farmhand* - You usually didn't have to leave your home for this- therefore, unless you sold excess of kitchen garden produce, or eggs/ feathers from your chickencoop- you weren't getting any extra money - *&* often you were pretty much working year-round _just_ in order to have enough to pay your family's rent & buy seed-corn & animals in the new year. You considered yourself fortunate if you didn't suffer drought, or flood (or warfare, depending on when & where you were)- that could wipe out crops & herds & flocks- & manpower. During harvest & planting, especially- you were probably working from dawn- 'til dusk, for weeks 'til they were done - & outside of those, there was the 'daily grind' of dozens of jobs- some seasonal (animal breeding seasons, sheep-shearing), others everyday tasks - with a small break for big things like Christmas, Easter, the feast at the end of the Harvest, & market fairs. It would be best if your family owned their own land, many more were landed tenants- & a good portion of people were unlanded- which made that little kitchen garden at your back door even more precious...
*kelp gatherer* - this would really only be if you were near the coast - it was work that was: seasonal, tidal (you had to run out while the tide was low, & gather what you could before the next tide turned), hard, outdoors- & smelly; once kelp & seaweed were gathered, it needed to be burnt- the remains made soda ash- essential for glass & soap-making, & thus making possible all that pristine & shiny glassware, laundering all the sparkling white tablecloths & white muslin dresses that predominated the later Georgian & Regency eras - however, after the Napoleonic wars were done- Continental advances in the making of soda ash collapsed the industry overnight- & thousands & thousands of people (especially in Ireland & even Scotland) were out of work- because the labour wasn't worth the market-price (in the later half of the 19th c, there was a revival in the industry- due to the need for iodine)...
Sorry for the spiel - it all sort of just came to me (old research swirling around my head, lol)
My Grandmother made dresses to support her 3 children after her husband died in a boat accident. She didn't remarry, and instead supported all 3 kids on her own, with a little help from relatives.
To this day, she's still remembered for the amazing dresses she made, and was considered the best seamstress in the island. She's retired now, and spends her days helping my mum take care of the housework and learning Arabic through online classes, at the ripe old age of 60.
I know the women in my family worked outside the home at least 5 consecutive generations because there's a family story that wouldn't happen if they hadn't. My great-great grandmother (I'm in my 30s) met her second husband through a work friend who introduced them.
It's actually kind of a funny story. She had been widowed when some of her children were still small and another girl at work was trying to set her up on a date with a friend of hers. She was hesitant, because she thought no man would want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood for a bunch of children. But she was lonely and her friend would not shut up about this guy she insisted was perfect for her so she agreed to one blind date to make her friend happy.
Much to great-great gran's surprise, they hit it off immediately and one date turned into two, three, etc. Around date 5 she decided that she wanted to make this serious. There was only one 'problem': she didn’t have 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5 kids from her first marriage- she had 10! And she hadn't told him yet (he knew she was widowed and that she had kids...just not how many)
She was so worried that if he met all of them at once he'd turn around and run, so instead what happened was she'd invite him up to the apartment for coffee and one or two of the kids would pop into the kitchen to say hi and she'd introduce them. The next visit, the same would happen, but one extra kid or the same amount of kids but not one he'd met would be present. After a few introductions like this, he realized she had at least 5 or 6 kids and was introducing them one at a time so he asked her directly how many children. She fessed up and told him and once he got over the initial surprise that the lovely not-that-old window his friend set him up with had 10 children he decided he was fine with that. Anyway, they lived happily ever after (and also had 2 more children together).
And women in medieval Scandinavia had more rights than women in medieval France, too, since women whose husbands kept traveling everywhere else had the right to divorce them for not sticking around at home and helping out...
I once read/heard that before industrialisation a lot of women worked - they just weren’t always directly paid for it. Such as the wife of a smith. She would obviously help a lot in his work station so they wouldn’t have to afford paying another person to help and she would profit through her husband who would provide for the family. Wives of farmers would help on the field or sth too.
Wives just typically didn’t get explicitly paid a wage for doing the work.
A lot of work is untracked in historical paperwork, because of the purpose of said paperwork. Rulers tracked units. They tracked farms, businesses, soldiers, etc. These were marked under the name of the husband. Brewing was often seen as women's work, but the pub was counted as husbands property. Both male and female servants were counted among the size of the property. Property could pass on to the widow, but it would still be counted as "widow of X". Prostitutes was mostly just only female only (or considered female only) job that couldn't be filed under any property owner.
The whole "a wife would earn" attack on husbands of housewives has always rang hollow because it ignored the benefits from the husband which was the mid-twentieth parallel to the smith's wife profiting through her husband.
That having a partner means you were in partnership seems lost on a lot of people these days.
I sometimes think I'm going to need to write a historical fictuon series where all the protagonists are working women - I have this idea for one about a barmaid who ALSO works as a spy durung the English Civil War. And I won't have to leave out the romance as there will be plenty of young nobles and soldiers frequenting her tavern! And I have another about a queen and another about a 'professional companion' who is also a detective.
I was recently debating on a Jane Austen channel that the Bennett sisters COULD have gotten jobs as governesses (like Jane Fairfax), instead of waiting for a husband, but everyone was protesting that was such an AWFUL job! And I'm thinking, 'it's the same as my job as a teaching assistant; what is WRONG wjth teaching as a profession?' You're right in that it was all about social staus; today teaching is (supposedly) a respected profession so people do it even though the hours are long and the pay atrocious; we prefer it to 'marrying for money' and losing our independence. Though that may change if people keep promoting it as a bad job; we're already struggling to recruit 🤷♀️
I want those books. Please write them.
:)
Sounds amazing. I’m interested.
Beeing a Governess was awfull because you weren't a servant. The servants wouldn't want to gave something to do with you but you weren't a gentlewoman either. You were trapped in between and that was quite lonely I guess.
I would read the shit out of these books.
I would love to be a governess, but I honestly can't see any of the Bennet sisters in the position? Lydia and Kitty are just- no. Elizabeth has a much too fiery temper to work with snobby kids. Jane could maybe pull it off, but would let the kids walk all over her. Mary would try (and she is probably the only sister who has the proper knowledge) but the kids would bully her relentlessly. Someone with Jane's patience and kindness, Mary's knowledge, Lizzy's ability to say no, and Lydia and Kitty's nature for having fun would make a fantastic governess, but as it stands I doubt any of them would be any good at the job.
Not to mention the fact that they've never had a governess themselves and are (besides Mary and maybe Lizzy) severely lacking in their schooling. They are missing the knowledge that they would be expected to teach the kids if they were to become governesses- unlike Jane Fairfax.
In germany a woman was not allowed to work without the persmission of her husband till 1977! And she was not even allowed to open a bank account of her own. There was a special law that said that the husband could even quit her job. Terrible... It was § 1356 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)
Maybe in different countries there were similar laws...
Only in WESTERN Germany, though. ^ ^
Same in France but a bit earlier,
it took till 1965 for women to have the right to open a bank account and take a job without a male authority (father, brother, husband) giving authorisation.
1944 for voting right and 1898 for driving licence (which was only for the wealthiests at the time). Funny how things go faster when only the wealthy are involved😅
@@johannageisel5390exactly. One of the few good thing communism did was sex equality earlier than western countries.
@@etienne8110 At least on paper. There was still a lot of sexism going on - older women can confirm.
But having a couple of laws in place that protect and support women already makes a big difference. For example the extra support for single mothers - both my grandmother and my mother benefited from that.
It is both a class and gender issue. And the issue for women is usually that once you start working, you've lost your upper class status and you're never going to get that status back. So you want to marry within that status ASAP before you get to the point where you have to get a job.
From there, the "best" job with the most hope for ever getting your status back or having a decent status is usually governess. Sometimes this is a cover for prostitute. But when it's a good job, you're regarded as a learned and classy lady who can pass these skills on to the little ones. You're paid, but you're not quite a servant. You also potentially have middle class women who inherit family businesses. through death of a father or husband. And you can potentially do something with that and not lose class standing. And it's worth considering that Jane Austin technically had "a job" as a writer and got away with it. So the arts are also an acceptable career. You also have middle class ladies who open schools, and this is a respectable job.
It's once you start taking in the washing or getting a job as a shop girl that you're probably SOL on the marriage market. Yes, you can work. But you have seriously lost class standing and you are never, ever getting that back.
I'd say it's worth watching the Lydia Poet show on Netflix about the first female lawyer in Italy and the Gentleman Jack show on Max about a female landowner in the UK for some tales grounded in reality about what women did with their money and how they managed their lives.
I'm sorry- I'm very confused; did you read somewhere that a governess was a 'cover'- for a prostitute...?!
Some women also worked in the trade of their husband. There is evidence of Early Modern English doctors (before the regency period) who advertised if a woman was uncomfortable talking to them they could get medical help from his wife.
When I hear lay people say things like “well back then people always …” really irks me and I have to ask them to clarify their statement with:
1)what time period are you talking about?
2)where in the world are you talking about?
3)what class of people are you referring?
4)what gender are they?
(And when applicable)
5)what race are they?
Their answer to any of these five questions can drastically change their absolute statement that they made about history pretty quickly. This is why history is a degree that people get doctorates in. It’s way more complicated than blanket simple statements.
I've been seeing some historical fiction that make it a point to say that it's a class issue. A webtoon I've been reading recently makes it very clear that men or women in noble social class "shouldn't work" for their money because it should come from their inheritance, social networking, or land management. It also has beautiful statements of women's values and abilities written into the romance and drama. Though that last part is a little at the expense of the men in my opinion, and I mean that because the men are always needing to "learn something" about women having agency. But to be fair two of the love intrests are the Crown Prince and a Millitary oriented Marquess who are relatively young and still unique in the ways that they learn their lessons so it's not so bad~
Which webtoon? I am curious.
@@jonathanlochridge9462
I Raised Cinderella Preciously by Kiarne & Sunset
You can't just drop info without dropping source
The webcomic is "A Wicked Tale of Cinderella's Stepmom"/"I Raised Cinderella Preciously" by Kiarne & Sunset
@@isabeljackson1333 lol, okay I replied to my comment with the sauce
Very good video!!! Wish people came out of high school history understanding things like this! But that’s the consequence of a history education primarily focused on political and military history, rather than social and cultural history.
Hi! You made some good points here, I think it's really interesting how a woman getting a job was a mark of shame, to almost a mark of pride in our society now. Especially if that job is like a "high class job"
On a different note I wanted to buy your audiobook, and I didn't know if you had a preference which platform I got it on. Ever since Brandon Sanderson talked about Audible paying its authors poorly, I wanted to find another platform that would pay you (and other authors) better.
Not interested in buying an audiobook rn, but bumping this so she hopefully responds!
I suck at listening to audiobooks, but I'm bumping this too!
Have you tried her website directly. There is a link to it in the channel page. I bought a book to download via the website. Not sure if it's the best method or not but audiobooks there too I believe.
For many periods in history a working class woman looking for a husband wasn't too different than job hunting, because she would likely join her husband in his line of work.
Even in higher class occupations history is full of 'he died, so she took over'.
OH MY GOSH YOU REFERENCED GASKELL!!! AAA! And North and South!!! Thats my favorite book, both romance and social commentary novel!
Also thank you, I've loved this breakdown!
Having the means to support a whole family only by the workforce/income of the man was (and still is) a status symbol.
Yes! Well put!
I knit and there was a beautiful pattern based on a historical wool peddlers shawl I found in a book of patterns. The book I found it in was talking about how women who sold wool typically wore a specific color of shawl to stand out in the market. Don't remember country or era referencd. Historical Cos-Tube has a lot of info about women's fashion and how women worked to make the pieces through history. Seamstress, millner, stays maker - the types of work were highly gender based but they did definitely work.
Joining the British Army as an officer was an acceptable choice for the "gently born," but it absolutely could not solve your financial woes legally (though plundering was not unheard of). Commissions cost money, promotions cost money, and the necessary uniform, tack, and mess expenditures far exceeded the salaries. The Navy offered the possibility of prize money, but you needed a lot more technical know-how and to start much younger, generally speaking.
Absolutely!
As Sharpe & Hornblower would tell you...
Love this! It's such a different perspective than what is usually discussed. I havent read Gaskell yet, but now she will pribably be on my TBR 🙂
Fun fact that the term spinster-for an unmarried woman who is now “too old” came from ACTUAL spinsters-girls and women who spun wool and flax into yarn. It took a lot of spinsters to keep a weaver having enough yarn to weave cloth for clothes.
Thanks for the follow-up, and the extra info. I'm hoping this opens a lot of people's eyes to the complexity of the past, and how narratives don't HAVE to follow certain tropes, but also that the tropes exist for a reason, so you need to address those reasons when you want to break from them. It makes for more interesting reads, and hopefully makes the research/work that goes into writing romance more enjoyable for the author.
Can't wait to see your next book!
Let's not forget that the inciting incident for Jane Eyre is her getting a new job. Key word - new. And she advertises for the position herself. *Gasp*
That was actually a very well thought out and articulated piece. A similar thing is seen in our perceptions of the fashions of various era, which differed greatly between class strata.
A modern book that kind of, sort of has this, though they don't directly tackle it, is "Blue Bloods", which yes, has vampires, but is also very very much how Old Money New York families work. The main female character is from a prestigious old money family, the "Van Alen"s, but they no longer have the financial standing they once did and are basically poor except for their big ol' house (that's in disrepair), and a small income from they don't explain where, but it's not much. Still, because they have maintained the social pretenses and mores of their class by not working and doing things like afternoon lunches in the Russian Tea Room (albeit on a budget) and volunteering with philanthropic/artistic institutions, they are given invitations to high society events with other families, allowed to attend a very prestigious and exclusive school on a discount, and maintain a deference and prestige in the city they certainly would not have if the matriarch had decided to get an office job or become a businesswoman to support her granddaughter.
If you think about it, social groups form when a group of similar people are in a space. Getting a job would make you like those at your workplace, and create distance, social and literal, from those who have enough wealth not to need that. It's a pretty natural process: consider what happens when you have a kid. You're suddenly very different from your non-parent friends, and naturally start to gravitate to a new social group of parent friends. You might still interact with the non-parent friends, but now it takes more work, is less frequent, and can be awkward. Same thing happens when someone stops behaving like one class, and starts behaving like another.
Thank you!
As a history nerd, I would love to know what went into your research!
(fully genuine here, I love history but am not sure where to start learning more that isn't just the college classes I'm already trying to get into)
I especially am curious about medieval life and if you have any resources to point me towards I would be thankful.
I spent most of the video thinking about an the ladies maids and scullery maids and cooks in these books. Did these commenters forget that those were jobs? (Or did they forget to think of those women as people?)
Even during early industrialization women worked in factories. It was in some places in the US a normal stage between growing up and marriage. For one, moving to town and working in a mill increased the number and types of prospects for lower class women.
Ironically, the push to a minimum wage that could support a family with the wife at home circa 1900 was a plank of the early progressives whose successors three quarters of a century later would push for those women to be working mothers as the next step in progress.
this video is underrated.
Nope, got a major correction to make.
No such thing as "just" a class or gender issue before about 1990.
Remember that, in Europe and Euro-generated American culture, class wasn't just a preference, it was a disability. It defined the structure of ypur life and relationships. Any mobility was just at the interface between 2 distinct layers, and, as anyone whos ever had to bridge different societies knows, that's a rough place to be. Nobody really wants you on their team.
Being a governess was *nothing like* being a teacher or teacher's aide today. Heres why.
A governess had to be well-educated and ladylike, which alienated her from the servants and their families.
She was a member of staff, which alienated her from the employers and their friends.
Her job involved teaching the employer's children. As a ladylike person, and as a social inferior, the limits of her authority were whatever her employers decided.
Even with little to no power to enforce her will -- in a *highly* stratified & casually violent society, meaning the kids could well be free to hit, punch, and kick her and tear her hair and clothes, without effective reproof -- she was nevertheless normally held responsible for whatever trouble they got into, and couldnt expect any sympathy or support from the parents.
The employers despised her as only the rich can despise those whove fallen from their ranks or, worse still, aspire to them.
The servants and working people, at baseline, despised them for "putting on airs" (being ladylike).
Their work was tortuous, repetitious, often unrewarding, and painfully dull.
They had maybe half a day or a day off per week, during which they had to appear as cold and sexless and solitary a a nun carved out of ice. Or risk losing the job.
Some governesses got a pretty good deal (like Mrs Weston in Emma, who drew the winning lottery ticket!) Most had a crappy job with no company, very few rights, and lousy (if any) perqs. A few got beaten, abused, destroyed in a thousand ways, made pregnant under vile circumstances for which she was, nevertheless, held to blsame... and so on.
Read Charlotte Brontë on the subject. She was a governess in several families. The comparison of being a governess to beipng unfree and worked to death in Emma was not crazy. It was very apt.
One tiny correction; the governess or tutor, like the lady's companion (not lady's maid, that was different) was a retainer *not* a servant- they were paid a salary (or allowance/ stipend, in the case of the companion)- *never* a 'wage', which was meant for servants & labourers. It also why they actually ate with the family, or dined in their room- & not in the servant's hall.
Companions & governesses could often come from the same (or higher) social class as their employers [so servants wouldn't have actually thought they were 'putting on airs'- they knew that they were born of a higher class - they were effectively in a separate middle-world, not staff- but not quite the same as family]- but they were on an unequal footing, by the very fact that they had to seek employment in the first place...
I'm ...baffled. Do people not know that Jane Eyre was a governess? Like the forbidden governess or companion/ lord romance has gotta be a whole tiny subgenre. Companion, Governess, seamstress, housekeeper, nanny, maid, shop keeper, shop workers, and tbh, positions like lady in waiting or whatever were actually jobs, though you didn't get wages in the traditional sense. How are people reading historical romances or even watching shows like Bridgerton and completely ignoring the working class?
Little women is also another example of this.
even after the industrialisation plenty of lower class women were working. Seamstresses and such were legitimate.
And plenty of women were working in the factories too. some actually industries preferred them, because they could pay them less than a male worker, and/or their smaller size was an advantage (Ditto children).
Dr Suzanna Lipscomb pointed out in a recent podcast that middle class women always had jobs.
If a man can go to the clergy , a woman can be a nun ?
Does it hurt her social standing
Being a nun is respectable, but also cuts you off from most of society. Unfortunately it's also less of an option in a British historical setting, as there weren't a lot of Anglican nunneries in comparison to Catholic nunneries.
Its an interesting concept but the difference is that engish clergymen (see Mr. Collins of P&P ) can marry but nuns cannot. While becoming a nun would retain standing to a similar degree, it would be permanent which would not suit any who hope to have their own family.
in the jewish community the women were traditionally the breadwinners while the man study the Tora 👋
Hi
If women couldn't have jobs, then who were the female servants working for the noble ladies?
Please be mindful that, when discussing what women have or have not done throughout the centuries, it is reductive and misleading to say “women” when one’s comments are actually focusing solely on white women.
I mean she did clearly say that she was talking about a specific social class, one that non-white women usually couldn't hold in the country she was speaking about.
but you're right that at least mentioning that race played a major role in what it meant for a woman to have a job as well. Especially when she brings up that "these women are surrounded by servants" when, sure, some of those might be paid employees, but there's a decent chance many of them are indentured or enslaved and in that case probably PoC.
In the video she makes it pretty clear when she's talking about a specific class within a specific cultural era and when she's talking about this general topic of "women have worked," and that does include every woman. Not that statements can't be made more clear, but is this a statement that needs to be made exclusionary to "white women"? The segment about "regency/Victorian era women and men found it difficult to work while within the aristocratic sphere" was a spring board to develop the topic into "women in the past worked a lot and in a lot of different ways actually." That's true for all women: Egyptian, African, Native American, Greek, European, ect., women in these cultures have done more than work as "prostitutes and homemakers."
While I see where you’re coming from, she is talking about a specific class, location and era which implies white women. Requiring she specify would feel redundant
Sometimes, listening for context is more important than having all the wokism boxes checked.
She was talking SPECIFICALLY about upper class Brittish Isles Regency/Victorian era women ... the topic didn't need qualifiers.
If you want her to address minorities in that culture during that time frame, it would require a seperate video.
@@sourwitch2340Brittain abolished slavery by 1574. So there were legally no slaves by the Regency era.
The Irish may have else to say about that, however. 2:16
This is going to upset you...but I guess I might try to hide behind the keyboard.😂😊😅
You not my type. Well. You not my classical type.
But I think I'm turning... not gay...😂😂😂 Lol...
I think I'm either turning more saposexual or I am/was always more turned on by logic than I thought.
Could also be old age/ getting older and having absolutely no fucks no ... Foolishness!
SO...
THANK YOU, FOR THE MANY THINGS THAT CAME FROM THIS LESSON!❤🎉👌🏿✊🏿
No one asked you if you're turned on by her? And volunteering that information is at least a little bit strange
"Progress is not a straight line. It's more of a big squiggle." I like it! 😄➿