Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: 12/07
Write a minimum of 100-200 words reflecting on the primary sources that you have read for homework. Your challenge is still to build on the responses of your peers. Posts that do not include a question for your classmates will not count.
A few things that stood out to me:
In the first reading, “An AFL View of Women Workers,” the author goes to some pretty far extremes when discussing his apparent hatred for women in the workforce. Just some words and phrases he chooses… “invasion,” “displacement of men by women,” “evolutionary backslide,” “menace to prosperity,” “insidious assault,” “the knife of the assassin,” “disruption,” “ruin,” “manhood loses its dignity,” “criminal design,” and my personal favorite, “never was a greater fallacy uttered of more poisonous import.” (all p. 93) With this kind of talk, you’d think he was talking about a serial killer terrorizing his family—yet he was only referencing working women.* My previously mentioned favorite quote appears right after the mini-paragraph that says, in short, “it has been proven academically that women working is a natural next step in our development, and that the economy needs it,” to which the author pretty much follows with “that is the craziest, most obscene thing I’ve ever heard! And it’s wrong!!” okay, crazypants.
Things I wondered: Why such a strong stance? Was he the only one with these views, or was this rejection of women working the norm?
*Side note: I was writing an Expos paper the other day, and my spellcheck told me that “landlady” was incorrect and that it should be “property owner.” How times have changed from 1897. Now it’s telling me that “working women” should be “working people” or just “workers”…
I found the fourth reading, “Why Strikes Are Lost,” both interesting and confusing. The whole concept of craft autonomy I only vaguely understand—is it just an abstract concept/social pattern or were there actual laws requiring different unions for different crafts? The example of the two street car workers’ strikes were similar to the airport example we talked about in class. Before that, however, Trautmann starts by criticizing other unions (I think): “In some cases the places of striking workers have been filled by other members of these so-called unions so as to suppress any rebellion against the leaders and the capitalist class whom they serve.” (p. 101) This brings me to my official question: How does IWW founder William Trautmann feel about other unions? Why? What makes the IWW different from the ones he talks about?
Yeah the AFL guy was kind of a nutso. I'm pretty sure that his main issue with female workers was actually that they tended to be willing to work for slightly lower wages than male workers, even though most of his shtick was about the destruction of the family and social norms etc. (Which is a pretty familiar argument that seems like it's always used by stupid people arguing for oppressive things)
Reading the William Trauttman thing reminded me of Sometimes a Great Notion again. Especially the part where he says, "No wage worker, if he has any manhood in him, likes to be a strikebreaker of his own free will. That there are thousands of strikebreakers in America is due to the discriminative rules of the AFL..." I'm not sure I totally agree with that. I'm not saying that any particular value ought to be associated with the traditional tenets of "manhood", but assuming that one thinks that "manhood" is important, it seems like providing for oneself and one's family are about the manliest things for a man to do. If a man (or woman) feels that they need to provide for their family, is it wrong for them to break a strike that might ultimately benefit all of the workers? I feel uncomfortably Ayn Rand-ish saying this, but I think their is something to be said for the idea that socialism requires that one skews one's priorities unnaturally. I'm not sure it's totally fair to ask that a worker produces for the common good rather than, directly, for his or her own family. No matter how altruistic and generous a person is, this doesn't really seem like a reasonable alignment of priorities. (This whole bit may have just betrayed my own flawed understanding of Socialism).
I think capitalism is bad too though, don't worry.
Trautmann thinks that disconnected unions based on craft rather than industry are bound to fail because any action by one of them puts very litte pressure on a specific employer. I also found it confusing about who was putting pressure on the workers to join craft unions instead of industry unions. Was it the AFL, or the government, or the employers?
O'Donnell was kinda crazy; probably had something to do with being insecure about losing his job to a woman? Or not having the exclusive right over the title "breadwinner" and hence losing some manliness.
I was also very confused on who was actually dictating that craft unions couldn't join together to perform strikes (obviously someone who wanted the strikes to fail, or not happen all together, but who exactly?)
I didn't really understand why Alice Henry needed to write up a formal protest as to why women deserved their own unions. It didn't sound like the men went through great pains to start up local unions (maybe proposals for local unions written by men just weren't included in the reading so I'm making things up). But couldn't the women who wanted their own union just break off from co-ed unions and start their own?
The first source was definitely extreme. His statements were over the top. He seemed to be saying that if women worked men would no longer be able to at all. Although I feel that perhaps this was not an uncommon way to feel as people are always afraid of every kind of change it does not always represent the way that they really feel about a subject.
I think starting a union is more difficult than can be understood by the readings we have done on it. Probably it was harder for women as well seeing as there were less of them than men. Just the idea of organizing among one's selves to gain more rights from an employer especially at that time was difficult.
My favorite reading was the Preamble of the industrial workers of the world, 1908. Especially the line "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common" perhaps this is true because the employers do not have to deal with any of the problems the workers do.
My question is do you believe this line to be true. Why? and why would the employers be more valued in a company and be paid more and have more benefits?
I think that this question is partly true. While the working class and the employing class dont do the same work, they both want the same things (figuratively speaking) While one class might want better working hours and the other might want better conditions, they both aim to make money. They do, however, have big differences. While they want the same things in general, they actually have completely different desires. (I know thats confusing to read, i couldnt find a better way to phrase it) For example: Lets say the employing class wants more money per hour. This can be accomplished, but to do so the working class has to work more hours. Obviously the employing class would want this but the working class would not. So while they have some things in common, they also differ in many ways.
And to answer the next part of the question:
I think that they are more valued, make more money etc. because they usually have more to offer or are more educated. While a worker can have a very simple task, employers might not. However, I thinkanother reason this happens is because of what society has made "the normal way to do things". Throughout history there has been a main person with many people under him/her. While the workers may not do something harder than what the employers do, the workers need a boss. This boss needs to have more power than the workers so that he/she has authority. But usually, I think it comes down to job difficulty and usually, working with people, like a boss, is harder than pushing a button, like a worker.
AH i'm off my game this weekend! tomorrow night i will be first again. no worries
I agree with Alex's answer to Peter's question. I think the example he used about how the employing class wants more money which means more work but the working class doesn't want more work is a great way to put it.
To me, the craft autonomy section stuck out. WHen they stated the certain functions (on pg 101) I thought of our class conversation the other day. When we made the airplanes, we talked about how it would be more beneficial and productive to have each worker assigned to a certain task so that they could master the task. This seems to follow that system:
"the workers preparing the pattern are pattern-makers. The workers making cores are core makers." (pg 101)
The reading emphasized working together. Going back to the first day of the mod, we talked about how it takes a group of people to make a stronger arguments, and i think these sources are proof of that.
I have a few questions:
1. On page 99, it says: "The wholesale employment of women in the various handicrafts must gradually unsex them, as it most assuredly is demoralizing them, or stripping them of that modest demeanor that lends a charm to their kind..." what do you think of the word "unsex" in this sentence?
2. Right below that it says: "The employment of women in the mechanical departments is encouraged because of its cheapness and easy manipulation, regardless of the consequent perils; and for no other reason" (pg 99). If I was a woman- no.- If i was a woman at that time, I think I would feel used. Do you think the desire to have a job even if it was just for the convenience of others would push you to work?
Annabell’s side note really interested me. We had a discussion in WAR about the phrase “mankind.” Some students in our class think it is just a different way of saying human beings, but some other students find it offensive.
In the first primary source, we know how male workers see female workers, although the reading didn’t point out did the idea apply to a big portion of male workers or just a few, I believed that women working was still not widely accepted by men. That’s why it made them hard to be in a same union with men. However, I think starting their own union was hard too. Compare to men, women had very little free time. There was still house work waiting for them after working, which already made it difficult for them to attend a meeting, how would they be able to organize a union? I wasn’t saying that women didn’t have the ability to start and run a union, but they were restricted by taking care of their family in both making money and doing house work, while the men only need to make money.
In the last reading about the contracts between unions and employers, it sound like the contracts favor the employers more than the workers (at least in my understanding). Then why would the union signed these contracts with the employers? What the biggest benefit for the unions and the workers?
The first reading claim that women will take over men's jobs sooner or later in the future. And the shift during WWI and WWII proofs this situation. Becasue during the war time, most men go to fight in wars, and female start to work in factories in order to support the supplements to war. But later on, the paragraph about dignity cause a contradition between support or discourage of female workers. And the following reading use a lot of reasons to support famle workers seperate themslves from the union.
I really like the idea in the last reading becasue it totally reflect to the consiquence of being seperation of IWW. Form the previous readings, we conclude that after the big victory made by IWW. Those workers seperate themslves into small unions and fight for different rights. Such as, Martha's example about the baggage carrier and pilot, which shows how the result differs, once it was supported by less people.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
