Living in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: Money



In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century men earned most of the household income in work outside of the household.  Thus the general assumption was that men were entitled to food, service (all household chores being done) and sex.  Yet the study outline in “Breadwinner” indicates that out of 662 autobiographies, in 491 cases the father died or deserted the family before the children became adults.  The evidence from the autobiographies suggest that 43% of the rest were reliable wage earners who shared their earnings with their families.  The amount of “pocket money” the man would take from the household income was determined entirely by the man.  Griffin’s study suggest that the autobiographies were not “misery memoirs” and so most of the stories whether good or bad reflections on the male are likely to have some basis in truth.
The male as the breadwinner for the family style approach to the household worked particularly well in the countryside where fathers provided adequately for their families. In an urban situation this provision was less likely to take place because although wages were higher, opportunities to spend were greater.  In addition in high wage jobs such as mining, quarrying and docking men could earn enough not to have to work full time.  This led to opportunities to pursue other activities that would cost money that would not end up in the household income.
Divorce was not freely available before 1914.  A household without a male bread winner was most likely to occur as a result of the death or desertion of the male. Sometimes the death of the male was a relief, but even if this was the case (such as when a father was a drunkard or abused the woman and children) then the woman would encounter a new economic burden.  A replacement figure could be found in certain instances, for example an elder son or the woman’s own father.  Some women would seek a second marriage, if widowed.
Paternal absence was often correlated with illegitimacy amongst children.  Greater than half of children who were illegitimate were taken away from their birth parents to grandparents, foster parents or institutions.  If deserted then there would be no possibility of divorce (due to a lack of money) thus ruling out the possibility of a second marriage.  The desertion or death of the male was less common in the rural areas.  There was less drinking and fewer occupations that risked accidents (like mining and plating).
After 1830 fatherlessness was split between mortality and desertion.  Levels of male mortality became lower as time passed but there was no corresponding decline in the number of single parent families.  So as the author of the study says “without a male wage earner, mothers had to step in and attempt to earn some income themselves”.  Think about how true that is today, in 2020? What has changed?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Oxford Movement and The Gorham Judgment of 1850

The Gothic Revival in the nineteenth century: Early work by A.W.N. Pugin

A.W.N. Pugin “Improving the taste of young England”