| Occupation. | Numbers. | Percentage Change. | |||
| 1901. | 1911. | ||||
| Hotel, eating-house, etc. | 45,711 | 63,368 | +38·6 | ||
| Other domestic indoor servants | } | 1,285,072 | 1,271,990 | } | +0·8 |
| Day girls | 24,001 | ||||
| College, club, etc. | 1,680 | 3,347 | +99·2 | ||
| Hospital, institution, etc. | 26,341 | 41,639 | +58·1 | ||
| Caretakers | 13,314 | 18,633 | +39·95 | ||
| Cooks, not domestic | 8,615 | 13,538 | +57·1 | ||
| Charwomen | 111,841 | 126,061 | +12·7 | ||
| Laundry | 196,141 | 167,052 | -14·8 | ||
Textiles, which as a whole have increased exactly in proportion to population, show a great variety in movement. The following shows the movement in the numerically more important groups.
| Numbers. | Percentage Change. | ||
| 1901. | 1911. | ||
| Cotton— | |||
| Card-room operatives | 46,135 | 55,488 | +20·3 |
| Spinning | 34,553 | 55,448 | +60·5 |
| Winding, warping | 64,742 | 59,171 | -8·6 |
| Weaving | 175,158 | 190,922 | +9·0 |
| Wool— | |||
| Spinning | 35,782 | 45,310 | +26·6 |
| Weaving | 67,067 | 67,499 | +0·6 |
| Hosiery | 34,481 | 41,431 | +20·2 |
| Lace | 23,807 | 25,822 | +8·5 |
In “Dress” the most noticeable feature is that in a decade of rapidly increasing wealth and certainly of no diminution in the feminine tendency to adornment and display, the numbers of dressmakers decreased by a few hundreds. Tailoresses, on the other hand, increased considerably more than the increase in the whole group, and “Dealers” also show a large increase. The Census unfortunately throws very little light so far on the development of the various factory industries for making clothes, and the Factory Department statistics are now so considerably out of date as to be of little value. In default of further information we may guess that a very considerable economy of methods has been effected in the making of women’s clothes by the introduction of machinery and the factory system, and that some of the large mass of customers of moderate incomes are tending to desert the old-fashioned working dressmakers and buy ready-made clothes, which have noticeably improved in style and quality in recent years. But the older-fashioned methods probably hold the larger part of the field, even now.
The increasing employment of women in metal trades is certainly a very remarkable feature of the present Census, the numbers having jumped up from 63,000 to 101,000 in ten years. The cycle and motor manufactures, which employed less than 3000 women in 1901, employed not far short of 7000 in 1911. Nearly all the small groups and subdivisions of metal work show an increase of female employment. For instance, women employed in electrical apparatus-making increased from 2490 in 1901 to over 9000 in 1911.
The whole subject is one of great interest, as illustrating the progress of the industrial revolution in the trades affected, but is impossible to treat here at length.
The Reaction of Status on Industry.—In spite of the increased range of occupations open to women, it must be added that the position of woman is a highly insecure one, and that she is considerably handicapped by the reaction of status on occupation. We have seen that while most women work for wages in early life, their work is usually not permanent, but is abandoned on marriage, precisely at the time of life when the greatest economic efficiency may be looked for. On the other hand, the superior longevity of women and the greater risks to which men are exposed, leave many women widows and unprovided for in middle or even early life. Some women are unfortunate in marriage, the husband turning out idle, incompetent, of feeble health or bad habits, and in such circumstances women may need to return to their work after some years’ cessation. But factory industries and indeed nearly all women’s occupations make a greater demand for the young than for the middle-aged or old. Wages are supposed to be based upon a single woman’s requirements. Even if the destitute widow or the deserted wife can succeed in obtaining fairly well-paid work, there emerges the difficulty of looking after her home and children simultaneously with doing work for wages.
The ordinary view of the subject is that a woman need not be paid as much as a man, because her requirements are less, and she is likely to be partially maintained by others. The question of wages will be discussed in a later chapter, but it may here be pointed out that the facts revealed by the Census show that the status of women is a very heavy handicap to their economic position. Normally, women leave their occupation about the time when they might otherwise expect to attain their greatest efficiency, and those who return to work in later years are under the disadvantage of having spent their best years in work which by no means helps their professional or industrial efficiency, though it may be of the greatest social usefulness. If a woman cannot expect to be paid more than the commercial value of her work when she has children entirely dependent on her, it seems inconsistent that she should be expected to take less than the value of her work when she is partially maintained at home; surely the wiser course would be to strive to raise the standard of remuneration so as to benefit those who have the heavier obligations.
The same kind of thoughtless inconsistency is seen in dealing with the problem of married women’s work. Many observers of social life are struck by the fact that it is sad and in some cases even disastrous for a woman to go out to work and leave her infant children unprotected and untended. The proposal is constantly forthcoming to prohibit married women’s employment. But many persons, even those who dislike the employment of married women, think that when a woman is left a widow, the best thing is to take her children away from her and get her into service.[21] In point of fact, the young children of a widow need quite as much care and attention as those who have a father living; and neither a married woman nor a widow can give her children that care and attention if she is without the means of subsistence.