The most interesting part about this article was the American employers' different defenses for paying women watchmakers less than male watchmakers. “Men earn about double the wages of women, because, first, they do more difficult work, are more ingenious, more thoughtful and contriving, more reliant on themselves in matters of mechanics, are stronger, and therefore worth more, though not perhaps double, as an average; second, because it is the custom to pay women less than men for the same labor. (152)“ In London, though, women were often preferred for watchmaking and jewelry because of their delicate and smaller hands, implying that women are actually better craftsmen for the job. The wages women were being payed in American factories barely covered their room and board for the week!- Angie S.

I never considered how genderized the factory work place was until I started this class. One of our earlier readings talked about the paper-making industry and how machines were designed to mimic a feminine work. Women were seen as more meticulous. Penny's article further elaborates this by bringing watchmaking as another genderized industry. Women were sought to construct watches because of their “dexterity.” Women, as Angie describes above, were seen as valuable in this industry because of the 'feminine' attention to detail. While men were also watchmakers, often were were preferred because of the type of work. I also found interesting how only women who were “intelligent” were employed by these factories. While men were more “intelligent” which accounted for the difference in pay (221). — James, Emily B. 2017/02/15 12:56

“The principal objection to employing women is that they are very apt to marry just as they become skillful enough to be reliable; therefore, what does not require long apprenticeship or a great expense to learn, is most desirable for them.” (152) I found the lack of faith in women very interesting. The factories seemed to put women all under one stereotype of wanting to marry as quickly as possible, which wasn’t true for all women because some wanted to be independent. In this argument made, it can be seen from both sides of marriage and work; the manufacturers believed that women didn’t want to work because they wouldn’t be able to deal with a long apprenticeship but also that becoming married and raising children is their greatest desire and is natural for them. -Jessie Cavolt

“More than any other technological innovation, the railway embodied the great material advances associated with the first industrial revolution and dramatized the gap which that process had created between the Europeans and all nonwestern people” Everything came back to the railroad at this time. Not only did other countries not have railroads but America was getting even further using new materials to improve the railroad to make it even better. -Megan Liberty

I thought this article took a similar stance to several of our other readings in that women were viewed as lesser , interchangeable and noncommitted workers. This article mentions how women would leave work to go and start a family whereas men were “more thoughtful and do more difficult work”.(p152) This was not a fair statement then nor is it now, because women were never given the chance to do more difficult work due to them being viewed as interchangeable. Had employers viewed women as more permanent workers, maybe they would have received equal pay and treatment as the men as well as being assigned more difficult/challenging tasks. -Emma Baumgardner

I really enjoy reading this articular. Virginia Penny was the eldest of five children, the only female. She was raised in the Presbyterian Church and participated in Louisville literary circles. Penny attended the Female Seminary in Steubenville, Ohio, for two years and graduated in 1845. She taught there and also held teaching positions in Illinois and the public schools of Louisville. She served as principal of the Female Department at Van Rensselaer Academy in Missouri. Daryl Murray

I had a few questions that this reading answered. The first question was whether the industrial revolution was when women began to experience a wage gap. I was also curious about the roles of workers in more high end factory production jobs like watches and stylized metalworking like etching. this article answered my questions and showed that women were paid less at this time, but I don't think that this was when the wage gap started. In regards to my question on more detailed jobs, that question was answered fully, but it gave rise to another. Were children common workers to have in watch factories and artisan shops due to their small nature? they could be very useful in finding lost components and detailed work in the creation of items with delicate inner workings. -Thomas Lanier

I like how this article addressed how female workers were treated compared to their male co-workers in the factories. Virginia Penny argued that women were very much devalued when it came to working with the men in the factories. The assumption from the factor employers was that they “employ female labor, where we can, as being cheaper; but we find women do not reach the posts where a high degree of skill is needed” (152). Women were desired for simple and delicate tasks rather than more complex and heavy-weight tasks in the factory. Men were wanted more for the complex tasks because “of their being naturally more dexterous with their fingers, and therefore being found to require less training”(152). Its quite unfortunate that women were not treated as equals during these times and that the only way they were given work in the factory was through feminine tasks. If I was a woman working during this time period, I think I would be seriously offended by the judgements society put on women to bare and deal with on a daily basis. - Rachel Kosmacki

This excerpt addresses gender in the watchmaking factory workplace. It is consistent with the notion that women get paid less than men do for doing the same work just because they are women. I found it interesting how the author brought up how employers preferred women to work on the more delicate parts of the watches because they were more dexterous, yet they continue to be devalued. There were a lot of misogynistic tones in this article. In terms of wages “Men earn about double the wages of women, because, first, they do more difficult work, are more ingenious, more thoughtful and contriving, more reliant on themselves in matters of mechanics, are stronger, and therefore worth more.” (pg 152). -Nicole Spreeman

This article, naturally, frustrated me. To see a sentence such as “Men earn about double the wages of women, because, first, they do more difficult work….and therefore worth more, though not perhaps double, as an average; second, because it is the custom to pay women less than men for the same labor.”, (152) directly contradicts with the previous statement that the women were chosen to do the work that required more skill and a steadier hand. Women were still being seen as easily replaceable and nonpermanent workers which made it difficult for them to prove themselves. -Madison White

The gendered aspect of watch making was incredibly interesting. I think that the wage difference was interesting with men being paid more than women, but I also liked what it said about society and its values. It shows that women were only valued for their attention to detail (which could be seen as beneficial skills in the home, with cooking and cleaning) but women were kept from doing work which would have included thinking or problem solving or anything that required more than “simple skills.” This was reserved for the men. Men seemed to have the belief in only they were capable of this elevated level of thinking. - Helen Salita

The concept of gender inequality in factories isn't to surprising, especially considering that during the early nineteenth century women would get jobs in factories then go home and get married other wise career choices are rather limited for women in America. Since Women were more temporary workers and men were more permanent it is reflected in their wages. - Laura Downs

As technology and inventions boomed in Europe and the United states so did the sales of “cheap man made consumer goods” to African and Asian countries. With the sales of these items, Europe and later America was able to colonize these countries due to the industrialization of their military and their ability to produce goods on a massive scale. By having these good African and Asian countries were seen as invaluable to Europe and America, for they no longer needed them. The tools and inventions that Africa and Asia had were not comparable to those of Europe and America, making them have little to nothing to offer them. The material achievements of Europe and America made them superior to that of Africa and Asia. Though “skin color, fashions in or lack of clothing” were still important there was a shift in judgment. It was more valuable to Europeans and Americans to judge one by their “cranial capacity, estimates of railway milage, and the capacity for work, discipline, and marking time.” These became the “criteria” in which they judged other cultures. — Brooks Anna R. 2017/02/15 19:46

This idea of race superiority as a result of technology advancements coincidentally ties in perfectly with what I have been learning in my Business Communication class this week. In BComm we have been discussing the difficulty that sometimes presents itself in communicating to someone of a different culture. Either they might interpret things differently or they have different greeting customs or so on and so forth, but if we do not think about that when viewing how they respond to us, the responses could come off rude or ignorant. Similarly here, the Europeans view themselves as superior because they are finding faster ways to transport things, but the essay said that in Africa they weren’t as pressed for time and would rather go around a tree than cut it down for a faster route. It shows the importance of knowing cultural differences when you want to implement your ideas onto someone else.–Kelsey Dean

I think it’s interesting to consider the transition of trained artisans to wage workers and machines. Taylor’s method introduced a new kind of workplace efficiency. The article says, “now, among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade there s always one method one implement which is quicker and-better than any of the rest” (273). I think we now take advantage of the way that work “works” and the idea of being paid by the hour. I never before thought of this as a “scientific process” but it makes sense. Workers and management must work together to make this system work, the article says. “It is this combination of the initiative of the workmen, coupled with the new types of work done by the management, that makes scientific management so much more efficient than the old plan .. . .” (274). —Anna Collins

I thought Frederick's article/review (?) was very interesting. The idea of scientific management is very intriguing, because I feel like it's a natural part of our society today. From a 21st century point of view, it's strange that time management was not always something people tried to practice (which make sense when you realize how time used to be viewed/understood). The degree to which Frederick described applying scientific management to housekeeping was amazing. Her justification for using a meat grinder versus a chopping knife because half time you're chopping meat and the other half you're chopping air was way more detailed and specific than just saying it's faster and leaving it at that (p. 278). As some one who loves planning and scheduling, it's really fascinating to realize what we take for granted for today, like time management, has not always been around. - Shannon K.

I also thought her article was interesting. The way she discussed running a home in terms of making the work involved more efficient and streamlined shows just how much the increasingly industrial mind-set and culture of the US affected even the smallest tasks in the home. Also, the idea that at one time, “electric equipment” was “too expensive to supplant hand power in the operations of devices in the home” is incredible to me (279). Electricity, to me (and I'm guessing everyone in this class), is something that is just a given in today's society, so thinking about how it was once an expensive luxury is fascinating. - Megan P.

I find it interesting how Frederick compares completing housework to a train schedule. She commented that ” 'dispatching' consists in moving the train along so that it will reach every station at the right time. Applied to housework it would mean that there was a definite regular time for each task, so that each task was done at a certain time in relation to other tasks“ (277). The idea of mechanization and improving efficiency has suddenly become a part of the American lifestyle, not just a change in mindset for industry. Suddenly, the fact that “even the simplest one-process tasks may be standardized” has come to consume the way that Americans live their lives (277). They search for the fastest way of completing any task and the general idea of patience begins to wear iconically thin, leading to other industries such as fast food and self service in the future. This desire women have to complete tasks quicker also stems from their desire to do other activities besides chores all day. By completing their work faster, they can have more time for other activities they enjoy more. — Taylor Heather L. 2017/02/15 19:56

This letter from James O'Connell discusses a method of labor of management known as the Taylor System. This system is over strict and involves fining, or even firing workers who do not meet quotas(which are based on the ability of the best worker in the shop), and making smaller more specific jobs that you can have lower wages for (280). This work system is viewed as highly detrimental as it sets unfair and potentially unreachable standards and provide poor working conditions. At this time, the government was running a trial with this management method and O'Connell was deeply concerned with the impact this would have nationally. If the government supported this program then other employers would be quick to adopt this. This method generally only benefits the employer and could cause many problems for the workers. –Kasey Mayer

Workers, in the face of industrialized, “scientific” methods of increasing productivity, earned little more than stressful loads of work to complete before the end of their day at the expense of their paycheck (Smith and Clancey 273). Having an intensely long and detailed to-do list for each assignment made working at a reasonable pace impossible, and Taylorism didn't do much more than just threaten the workers' pay as opposed to increasing it. This letter is a good example of how industrialization hit workers hard, making them move faster and become more disconnected to their work. After all, if every piece of instruction is written out for any given day, then someone who can read can theoretically pick up the job. From the worker's perspective, this level of streamlining factory work is devastating to job security and health. — Lindsey McCuistion 2017/02/15 20:42

This excerpt is reflective of the shortcomings of scientific management theory. My impression after reading this petition is that employers treated their laborers as if they were robots or animals. The petition mentions laborers feeling “humiliated” by devices like the stop watch (282). The petition also mentions how the Taylor system had fostered distrust between laborers and their supervisors (283). If employers promote a system with promises of high wages (282), if those promises are not delivered upon, naturally human laborers will express their discontent. Several of the passages in this reading selection emphasize the importance of optimizing efficiency in the early 20th century. However, based on this passage, scientific management theory does not seem to have done enough to account for the human element of labor. – Yousef Nasser

Written by Nelson Algren, Highpockets is a short story written with the intention to bring attention to the newly industrialized America. Centered around a factory worker in Chicago, Highpockets is the dream factory worker: he dedicates all of his time and efforts to his company. He went above and beyond to make sure the company was processing and putting out as much as they could on his end. This short story reminds me of those about Horatio Alger, meant to inspire people but also force them to reconsider the changes society is undergoing. Highpockets is the ideal, work hard (sell your soul to the factory) and your bosses will take notice and just maybe you'll get promoted. - Danielle Howard

As Prof. Carlton's article laid out, I wanted to highlight his statement on workers' interest in shorter work days due to scientific and technological advances. Workers were willing to embrace new technologies in exchange for companies meeting their demand of less hours. This presented a few options to companies, including “less workers, more hours” or “more workers, less hours” (Smith and Clancey 288). This debate on labor persists in today's businesses as companies tend to have an ebb and flow in the amount of workers they have throughout the year, typically adding more workers around the holidays, which decreases the amount of money earned per worker.