6 ms·

I'm not versed into the question, but 19th century 13 yo girls or even early 20th century women don't feel like having a lot of say on what job they will take a

I'm not versed into the question, but 19th century 13 yo girls or even early 20th century women don't feel like having a lot of say on what job they will take and won't be pounding the fist on the table when things don't go the way they want. Which makes it so much more poignant when they go on strike. My hunch would go towards poor families being ok with the girls working away somewhere for 14 hours, even for very low wages, as they won't have money to send them to school anyway, and won't benefit from having them stay at home either. My mental image of being a poor kid in that period,, especially a girl, is pretty grim to be honest.

eru 4y ago
> [...] won't be pounding the fist on the table when things don't go the way they want. I think what zokier was aiming at was that even meek people will quietly pick a better option, when it's available. Especially when it's available before you even sign up at the factory. Some people might have been surprised once by the working conditions in these factories. But news travels and people gossip, so people in general will have had reasonably accurate expectations: yet, they still accepted those jobs. Zokier asks: why?
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  My best guess would be a that lack of news traveling and general awareness, combined with horrible conditions all over the board, making other low level jobs not that much better. From the article: > The 1888 match girl strike [...] most tangible impact was perhaps the growing public awareness about the conditions, lives and health of some of the poorest in society whose neighbourhoods were a far cry from those of the decision makers in Westminster.