‘The Best Job in the World’: Breadwinning and the Capture of Household Labor in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century British Coalmining

IF 3.3 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
J. Humphries, Ryah Thomas
{"title":"‘The Best Job in the World’: Breadwinning and the Capture of Household Labor in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century British Coalmining","authors":"J. Humphries, Ryah Thomas","doi":"10.1080/13545701.2022.2128198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the effects of gender inequality and women's disempowerment in the context of historical coalmining. Across the United States and Europe, ex-coalmining regions are characterized by significant deprivation. While there are many reasons for persistent problems, this study focuses on the restrictions imposed on women's involvement in economic life. Families in mining communities exemplified the male breadwinner structure, in which men's earnings supported wives and children who provided domestic services in return. Using evidence from Britain, this article exposes a different reality of household economics characterized by dominance and subordination: All family members were integrated into the coalmining production process and the creation of profit. Women's unpaid work did not simply provide domestic comfort; it transferred well-being from women and children to men and simultaneously contributed to the colliery companies’ profits. These findings revise accounts of mining families while explaining the intransigence of deprivation in ex-coalmining areas. HIGHLIGHTS Women's disempowerment in historical mining communities had adverse effects that persist today. Pit women's labor propped up profits and wages and discouraged infrastructure investment. Breadwinning secured increased leisure time and higher income for men not women. Hours and incomes of “double shift”” factory women compare favorably to pit women. Regeneration must confront the gendered identities embedded in ex-mining communities.","PeriodicalId":47715,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Economics","volume":"29 1","pages":"97 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2022.2128198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article explores the effects of gender inequality and women's disempowerment in the context of historical coalmining. Across the United States and Europe, ex-coalmining regions are characterized by significant deprivation. While there are many reasons for persistent problems, this study focuses on the restrictions imposed on women's involvement in economic life. Families in mining communities exemplified the male breadwinner structure, in which men's earnings supported wives and children who provided domestic services in return. Using evidence from Britain, this article exposes a different reality of household economics characterized by dominance and subordination: All family members were integrated into the coalmining production process and the creation of profit. Women's unpaid work did not simply provide domestic comfort; it transferred well-being from women and children to men and simultaneously contributed to the colliery companies’ profits. These findings revise accounts of mining families while explaining the intransigence of deprivation in ex-coalmining areas. HIGHLIGHTS Women's disempowerment in historical mining communities had adverse effects that persist today. Pit women's labor propped up profits and wages and discouraged infrastructure investment. Breadwinning secured increased leisure time and higher income for men not women. Hours and incomes of “double shift”” factory women compare favorably to pit women. Regeneration must confront the gendered identities embedded in ex-mining communities.
“世界上最好的工作”:19世纪和20世纪初英国煤矿的养家糊口和家庭劳动力的捕获
本文探讨了性别不平等和妇女权力被剥夺在历史煤矿背景下的影响。在整个美国和欧洲,前煤矿地区的特点是严重贫困。尽管造成持续存在的问题的原因有很多,但本研究的重点是对妇女参与经济生活的限制。采矿社区的家庭是男性养家结构的例证,在这种结构中,男性的收入支持提供家务服务的妻子和子女。本文利用来自英国的证据,揭示了一种不同的以支配和从属为特征的家庭经济现实:所有家庭成员都被整合到煤矿生产过程和利润创造中。妇女的无偿工作不仅提供了家庭的舒适;它将福利从妇女和儿童转移到男人身上,同时也为煤矿公司的利润做出了贡献。这些发现修正了对矿工家庭的描述,同时解释了前煤矿地区贫困的顽固态度。在历史上的采矿社区,妇女被剥夺权利的不利影响一直持续到今天。妇女的劳动支撑了利润和工资,阻碍了基础设施投资。养家糊口为男性而不是女性带来了更多的闲暇时间和更高的收入。“两班倒”的工厂女工的工作时间和收入都比矿井女工好。复兴必须面对植根于前采矿社区的性别认同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Feminist Economics
Feminist Economics Multiple-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Feminist Economics is a peer-reviewed journal that provides an open forum for dialogue and debate about feminist economic perspectives. By opening new areas of economic inquiry, welcoming diverse voices, and encouraging critical exchanges, the journal enlarges and enriches economic discourse. The goal of Feminist Economics is not just to develop more illuminating theories but to improve the conditions of living for all children, women, and men. Feminist Economics: -Advances feminist inquiry into economic issues affecting the lives of children, women, and men -Examines the relationship between gender and power in the economy and the construction and legitimization of economic knowledge -Extends feminist theoretical, historical, and methodological contributions to economics and the economy -Offers feminist insights into the underlying constructs of the economics discipline and into the historical, political, and cultural context of economic knowledge -Provides a feminist rethinking of theory and policy in diverse fields, including those not directly related to gender -Stimulates discussions among diverse scholars worldwide and from a broad spectrum of intellectual traditions, welcoming cross-disciplinary and cross-country perspectives, especially from countries in the South
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信