JF Ptak Science Books LLC Post 842
In England, women
were welcomed to the (paid) workforce during the years of the First World War
(1914-1918)—their employment in traditionally male positions enabled those they
replaced to go out to the front and die for their country. Thus the women
seen here in the News Photo Service Agency photograph (taken in 1918), working
at spraying tar in the streets of London, were appreciated,
and tolerated. For women in England the War blasted away the contrivances of
formally scheduled employment: something like 12% of fall women in England were
working as servants and house cleaners. Come the War, women were
offered jobs of revolutionary stature in a wide range and variety of
work. The Civil Service employment for women went from 33,000 in 1911 to
102,000 in 1921, and trade union membership rose 160% (357,000 in 1914 to
1,000,000 in 1918 (with men showing a 44% increase at the same time); for the
most part, though, employers took advantage of the situation, and the women
still generally earned less than half of the salary as comparable male workers
did (or the men they replaced).
When the end of the War came, so did the appreciation for the women
replacement workers—there was bitter feelings in the post-war period because of
the weak British economy and a scarcity of jobs. So the women who took
the jobs of men to help the country’s war effort and free up hundreds of
thousands of men for war service became an atavistic action, “taking” the jobs
of men who had gone out to fight for their country. This of course cost many
women their jobs, but the damage had already been deeply done to the pre-1914
British world of the sexual politics of business-being-done, though it would
take World War II to really ingrain the appearance of women in the workforce
into the national psyche.
I've liked this photo for a long time, seeing things differently in it over the years. It struck me just yesterday that the woman in foreground-right--whose close-up reminds me too of a Madonna, a Mona Lisa of the Tars--looks like a Vermeer character from 400 years ago. Or at least the position of her body does.
I agree! Great eye.
Posted by: Elizabeth | November 21, 2009 at 08:18 AM
Yes, I think she has that motion-y, not-moving look all at once, like a long exposure of a little waterfall.
Posted by: John Ptak | November 21, 2009 at 08:31 AM
John, your insightful comparison reminds me of another one I recall from last year.
http://ow.ly/EqDp
Posted by: Rick | November 21, 2009 at 10:43 PM