Women have never been “missing” from economic life, Bateman writes in Economica (Seal, Sept.); they’ve simply been hidden from view by those compiling the history books. PW spoke with the author, who has spent 20 years teaching economic history at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, about the many jobs women have held across the centuries, and what happens when you obscure or obstruct the participation of half the population.
When did women begin participating in business life?
Women have always been at the very heart of the economy. Not just notable women, but also ordinary women—merchants, bankers, industrialists. We see women’s participation in the economy as a 20th century phenomenon; we assume that before then women were only in the home, and that there was a divide between women’s care work and men’s business. It isn’t true. Economies thrive when women are fully active in them, and I’m worried that we’re about to repeat the greatest mistake of human history by sidelining women’s contributions.
What artifacts have you found of women’s professions?
Through the British Museum, I discovered a collection of women’s business cards from the 18th century. They have these very old-fashioned fonts and symbols of what they were selling. Women were running all kinds of businesses. One wonderful card is from Ann Askew, a shoemaker. It’s from before there were street numbers, so the card says: you can find me between such and such pub and such and such church. One woman who ran a printing and stationery shop mentioned that in her spare time she painted watercolors, which were also sold in her shop. Another, from Priscilla Wakefield, advertises the first bank for women and children in the U.K., created so that women could be independent from men.
Why are these narratives so little known?
History books have been written by and for men. In the 19th century, we developed this myth that women were better off in the home, that the economy would prosper if men and women specialized: work for men and the home for women. The people at political extremes have politicized this popular myth, and it’s doubly worrying, because most ordinary people would struggle to name historical women traders, business owners, etc. Trying to break that assumption is the difficult thing.
What does this mean for women today?
Throughout history, women have been seen as a source of wealth, either through their work or through their wombs. And so laws have been passed to keep women constrained, and societies have worked to keep women in the home, to capture this wealth, either through their children or through money that was controlled by their husbands. This scheme has always ultimately failed, but the effort will be repeated, and it destroys the power that women have to create wealth for themselves. It’s only when women are in control of our own lives, when we can make our own decisions about where to work and what to do with our money, that we can make the most of our talent. If we want successful economies, women need to be free to make their own decisions to work, and work proudly, to keep the rewards and value of what we produce, and decide how to spend, save, and invest it. We can’t allow a situation where half the population is being controlled and constrained.
