Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T07:43:24.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rise of the Male Breadwinner Family: A Reappraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Colin Creighton
Colin Creighton
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last two decades there has been intense debate over the causes of the domestic subordination of women within industrial-capitalist societies. A significant part of this discussion has involved attempts to understand the emergence of a form of family organisation in which the husband was expected to be the main, preferably the sole, bread-winner and his wife was to assume responsibility for running the household, preferably on a full-time basis. Established first among the middle classes, this pattern spread widely throughout the working class with increasing momentum from the middle decades of the nineteenth century. Although the outlines of this development, and the accompanying payment of a family wage to men, are now well-established, the factors responsible for its origins and expansion are still a matter of controversy. In this article I shall review some major explanations of the rise of this “male breadwinner” family and seek to identify a number of weaknesses in the debate as a whole.

Type
Playing Male Roles
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 310 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, S. 1984. “Women, Class and Sexual Difference in the 1830s and 1840s: Some Reflections on the Writing of a Feminist History.” History Workshop, no. 17, 125–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. 1971. Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. 1980. Women's Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. 1984. “Reply to Brenner and Ramas.” New Left Review, no. 146, 123–8.Google Scholar
Barrett, M.; and Hamilton, R., 1986. The Politics of Diversity: Feminism, Marxism, and Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Barrett, M.; and Mclntosh, M.. 1980. “The ‘Family Wage’: Some Problems for Socialists and Feminists.” Capital and Class, no. 11, 51–72.Google Scholar
Benenson, H. 1991. “The ‘Family Wage’ and Working Women's Consciousness in Britain, 1880–1914.” Politics and Society, 19:1,71–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. 1980. The Machinery Question and the Making of Political Economy 1815–1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. 1987. “Women's Work, Mechanisation and the Early Phases of Industrialisation in England,” in Joyce, P., ed.. The Historical Meanings of Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blewitt, M. 1988. Men, Women and Work: Class, Gender and Protest in the New England Shoe Industry, 1780–1910. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Bourke, J. 1994. Working-Class Cultures in Britain, 1890–1960. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bradley, H. 1986. “Work, Home and the Restructuring of Jobs,” in Purcell, K., Wood, S., Waton, A., and Allen, S., eds., The Changing Experience of Employment: Restructuring and Recession. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bradley, H. 1989. Men's Work, Women's Work. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Brenner, J.; and Ramas, M.. 1984. “Rethinking Women's Oppression.” New Left Review, no. 144, 33–71.Google Scholar
Burr-Litchfield, R. 1978. “The Family and the Mill: Cotton Mill Work, Family Work Patterns and Fertility in Mid-Victorian Stockport,” in Wohl, A., ed., The Victorian Family: Structure and Stresses. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Charles, N. 1993. Gender Divisions and Social Change. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Creighton, C. 1992. “Richard Oastler, Factory Legislation and the Working-Class Family.” Journal of Historical Sociology, 5:3, 292–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, C. 1946. Tory Radical. New York: Oxford. Reissued: New York: Octagon Press 1970.Google Scholar
Edsall, N. 1971. The Anti-Poor Law Movement 1834–44. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Gittins, D. 1982. Fair Sex. Family Size and Structure, 1900–39. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Goldin, C. 1990. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, R. 1987. “The Languages of Factory Reform in Britain, c. 1830–1860,” in Joyce, P., ed., The Historical Meanings of Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, R. 1993. “Factory Legislation and the Gendering of Jobs in the North of England, 1830–1860.” Gender and History, 5:1, 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R.; and Barrett, M.. 1986. The Politics of Diversity: Feminism, Marxism and Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H. 1979. “Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex,” in Eisenstein, Z. R., ed., Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H. 1981. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union,” in Sargent, L., ed., Women and Revolution: The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Hewitt, N. 1958. Victorian Working Wives and Mothers. London: Rockcliff.Google Scholar
Honeyman, K.; and Goodman, J.. 1991. “Women's Work, Gender Conflict and Labour Markets in Europe, 1500–1900.” Economic History Review, 44: 608–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrell, S.; and Humphries, J.. 1992. “Old Questions, New Data and Alternative Perspectives: Families' Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution.” Journal of Economic History, 52:4, 849–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, P.; and Lee, W.. 1990. “Women's Work and the Family Economy in Historical Perspective,” in Hudson, P. and Lee, W., eds., Women's Work and the Family Economy in Historical Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Humphries, J. 1977. “Class Struggle and the Persistence of the Working-Class Family.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1:3, 241–58.Google Scholar
Humphries, J. 1990. “Enclosures, Common Rights, and Women: The Proletarianization of Families in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” Journal of Economic History, 50:1, 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E. H. 1981. British Labour History 1815–1914. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M. 1980. The General Strike of 1842. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Jordan, E. 1988. “Female Unemployment in England and Wales, 1851–1911: An Examination of the Census Figures for 15–19 Year Olds.” Social History, 13:2, 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, E. 1989. “The Exclusion of Women from Industry in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31:2, 273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowitt, T. 1988. “The Retardation of Trade Unionism in the Yorkshire Worsted Textile Industry,” in Jowitt, J. A. and Mclvor, A. J., eds., Employers and Labour in the English Textile Industries, 1850–1939. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kessler-Harris, A.. 1990. A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1984. Women in England 1870–1950. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1985. “The Debate on Sex and Class.” New Left Review, no. 149: 108–20.Google Scholar
Liddington, J.; and Norris, J.. 1978. One Hand Tied Behind Us: The Rise of the Women's Suffrage Movement. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Mark-Lawson, J.; and Witz, A.. 1988. “From ‘Family Labour’ to 'Family Wage'? The Case of Women's Labour in Nineteenth-century Coalmining.” Social History, 13:2, 151–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, M. 1982. “The Historical Problem of the Family Wage: The Ford Motor Company and the Five Dollar Day.” Feminist Studies, 8:2, 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, M. 1985. “Bread before Roses: American Workingmen, Labor Unions and the Family Wage,” in Milkman, R., ed., Women, Work and Protest. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClelland, K. 1989. “Some Thoughts on Masculinity and the ‘Representative Artisan’ in Britain, 1850–1880.” Gender and History, 1:2, 164–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, R. 1980. “Organizing the Sexual Division of Labour: Historical Perspectives on ‘Women’s Work' and the American Labour Movement.” Socialist Review, no. 49: 95–150.Google Scholar
Milkman, R. 1983. “Female Factory Labour and Industrial Structure: Control and Conflict over ‘Woman’s Place' in Auto and Electrical Manufacturing.” Politics and Society, 12: 159–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B.; and Deane, P.. 1971. Abstract of British Historical Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Molyneux, M. 1979. “Beyond the Domestic Labour Debate.” New Left Review, no. 116: 3–27.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 1979. Working-Class Women and Labour and Social Movements of Mid-Nineteenth-Century England. PhD disser., University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Norris, J. 1988. “‘Well Fitted for Females’. Women in the Macclesfield Silk Industry,” in Jowitt, J. A. and Mclvor, A. J., eds., Employers and Labour in the English Textile Industries, 1850–1939. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Osterud, N. 1986. “Gender Divisions and the Organisation of Work in the Leicester Hosiery Industry,” in John, A. V., ed., Unequal Opportunities. Women's Employment in England 1800–1918. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S.Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinchbeck, I. 1930. Women Workers in the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1850. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, P. 1979. “The State and Early Industrial Capitalism: The Case of the Handloom Weavers.” Past and Present, no. 83 (May), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E. 1982. “Working Wives and their Families,” in Barker, T. and Drake, M., eds., Population and Society in Britain 1850–1980. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. 1984. A Woman's Place: An Oral History of Working-Class Women 1890–1940. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. 1988. Women's Work 1840–1940. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. 1971. The English Poor Law 1780–1930. Newton Abbott: David and Charles.Google Scholar
Rose, S. O. 1986. “Gender at Work: Sex, Class and Industrial Capitalism.” History Workshop, no. 21 (Spring), 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. O. 1987 “Gender Segregation in the Transition to the Factory: The English Hosiery Industry, 1850–1910.” Feminist Studies, 13:1, 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. O. 1988. “Gender Antagonism and Class Conflict: Exclusionary Strategies of Male Trade Unionists in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Social History, 13:2, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. O. 1992. Limited Livelihoods. Gender and Class in Nineteenth-Century England. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Savage, M. 1987. The Dynamics of Working-Class Politics: The Labour Movement in Preston, 1880–1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savage, M. 1988. “Trade Unionism, Sex Segregation and the State: Women's Employment in ‘New Industries’ in Inter–War Britain.” Social History, 13:2, 209–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzkopf, J. 1991. Women in the Chartist Movement. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seccombe, W. 1993. Weathering the Storm: Working-Class Families from the Industrial Revolution to the Fertility Decline. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1984. Resources, Values and Development. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 1984. Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Thompson, N. W. 1984. The People's Science, The Popular Political Economy of Exploitation and Crisis 1816–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, L.; and Scott, J.. 1978. Women, Work and Family. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Walby, S. 1986. Patriarchy at Work. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Walby, S.. 1990. Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whipp, R. 1990. “Kinship, Labour and Enterprise: The Staffordshire Pottery Industry, 1890–1920,” in Hudson, P. and Lee, W., eds., Women's Work and the Family Economy in Historical Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar