A few posts ago, I wrote about the economic history of gender roles. A lot of that assumed the progression of human economics until the industrial age. But when that revolution happened, we started to cluster into cities (again). Steel and iron mills and factories became the backbone of the industrial age, and because they had to be near rivers for industrial cooling and for transport, we started to settle around urban river systems.
The steel mill probably reinforced the economic dominance of men, but the industrial age in sum may not have had that sole effect. In places like late 19th century America, women were also on the front lines of the labor force, (wo)manning textile production in places like the Triangle Shirt Factory in New York City, a fire in which revolutionized the labor rights movement. And it was women like Emma Goldman that led union organizing across the manufacturing sector and produced labor rights like limited work days, weekends, and safer working conditions. Arguably, manufacturing and industry gave a jolt to women's rights in the US.
The rise of the service sector brought about the White Collarization of much of mainstream America. I haven't watched it, but apparently shows like Mad Men portray much of the misogyny that women had to put up with to gain access to industries like advertising. My friend Suzanne Schwartz, who's an anthropologist of advertising culture (and general marketing and ad whiz) told me that despite the misogyny in the show, advertising was in fact among the first fields in which women truly excelled (and were more or less allowed to).
So what does the service sector and agglomeration (clustering) say about gender roles? Well, first the economic utility of children goes down outside of rural areas. Children are not needed to help plow the fields; they cost more to raise (per child) in cities; and because the cost of living in metropolitan areas is generally higher, many households require two incomes (the husband and wife) to get by and prosper.
To all this, add the fact that cities tend to be more politically, socially, and economically liberal than more sparsely populated areas. Where a lot of people share a little space, they need to learn to compromise in order to share it effectively and efficiently. And because of that density, there are greater returns to scale on investments: a short-distance bus in a city can carry lots of people, but a bus in the countryside would be relatively empty). Accordingly, people don't mind pooling resources to make those shared investments that benefit many people.
So these vectors---less economic utility of children, the need for a second income, and a more liberal political culture---arguably combined in cities to amplify the economic and societal role of women.
Thoughts?
The steel mill probably reinforced the economic dominance of men, but the industrial age in sum may not have had that sole effect. In places like late 19th century America, women were also on the front lines of the labor force, (wo)manning textile production in places like the Triangle Shirt Factory in New York City, a fire in which revolutionized the labor rights movement. And it was women like Emma Goldman that led union organizing across the manufacturing sector and produced labor rights like limited work days, weekends, and safer working conditions. Arguably, manufacturing and industry gave a jolt to women's rights in the US.
The rise of the service sector brought about the White Collarization of much of mainstream America. I haven't watched it, but apparently shows like Mad Men portray much of the misogyny that women had to put up with to gain access to industries like advertising. My friend Suzanne Schwartz, who's an anthropologist of advertising culture (and general marketing and ad whiz) told me that despite the misogyny in the show, advertising was in fact among the first fields in which women truly excelled (and were more or less allowed to).
So what does the service sector and agglomeration (clustering) say about gender roles? Well, first the economic utility of children goes down outside of rural areas. Children are not needed to help plow the fields; they cost more to raise (per child) in cities; and because the cost of living in metropolitan areas is generally higher, many households require two incomes (the husband and wife) to get by and prosper.
To all this, add the fact that cities tend to be more politically, socially, and economically liberal than more sparsely populated areas. Where a lot of people share a little space, they need to learn to compromise in order to share it effectively and efficiently. And because of that density, there are greater returns to scale on investments: a short-distance bus in a city can carry lots of people, but a bus in the countryside would be relatively empty). Accordingly, people don't mind pooling resources to make those shared investments that benefit many people.
So these vectors---less economic utility of children, the need for a second income, and a more liberal political culture---arguably combined in cities to amplify the economic and societal role of women.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment