Women+Working

RIL The editor of the //South Side Democrat// was a hypocrite who vastly underestimated the problems facing working women. In a series of articles, he advocated hiring women in occupations they had not yet entered; such as store clerks, doctors, and typesetters. Even after publishing these articles, he made no efforts to employ any women in his newspaper’s business as typesetters. This is incredibly hypocritical. Since he urged hiring women in these fields, he should have hired some himself if that is what he truly believed. For not doing so, he was a hypocrite and he was in the wrong. By saying that the discrimination was “silly prejudice,” the articles published also implied that it was a simple problem that could be fixed easily. If it really was so simple, the question remains: why did he hire men instead of women? Because even he, the person advocating the changes, could not change, then how could he believe that others could change so easily? He has little basis for his assertion. Women entering the work force faced a lot more problems than just “silly prejudice.” They faced the competition of men. Women had dominated midwifery, but once male physicians became their competition, men were usually preferred over women. Women also maintained dominance in the field of teaching, but men were often in authoritative roles, such as principals. Taverns were also commonly run by women, but that business was displaced by the development of hotels which were usually operated by men. The few fields they did maintain authority over were ones that men had little or no place in, such as prostitution, millinery, and mantuamaking. Because women failed in fields once men became their competition, it stands to reason that women could not easily enter fields men already dominated. By implying that they could if everyone would just cast aside their “silly prejudice,” the editor of the //South Side Democrat// underestimated the real problem women faced. checked


 * week 3v** v