Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914) |
(→Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills. The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel | In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills. The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel | ||
| − | I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B. | + | I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B. |
| − | + | ||
| + | I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would've thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc. | ||
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 == | == Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 == | ||
