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
Post a Comment