Thomas Robinson

Women and Economics, written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a

feminist document used to describe womens independence. Gilman is
concerned with womens equality during the year 1898, when the document
was written. Gilman describes the economics of women as being dependent
on men. The document brings a call to action to ask for economic
independence and argue that women will be better off if they have the
economic freedom. Gilman says, When women stand free as economic
agents, they will [achieve a] much better fulfillment of their duties as wives
and mothers and [contribute] to the vast improvement in health and
happiness of the human race (554). This is Gilmans way of saying that
Economic independence among women will not only benefit women, but will
also benefit society. Gilman also describes how womens views have
changed and how they used to be fine with being house wives, but now the
majority of women want economic freedom. She says, The spirit of personal
independence in the women of today is sure proof that a change has
come (554). Women and Economics, is asking for economic
independence among women for the greater good of society.
In John Mitchells, The Workingmans Conception of Industrial Liberty,
he explains the significance of liberty and how industrial liberty does not yet
exist. Mitchell argues, Liberty means more than the right to choose the field
of ones employment. He is not a free man whose family must buy food
today with the money that is earned tomorrow. (555). Mitchell brings
attention to the fact that labor conditions are harsh and men fear hunger

Thomas Robinson

regarding their families. Mitchell brings attention to the fact that men are not
able to cater to their families with the long hours and low wages. He says,
He must be able to educate his children and to provide against sickness,
accident, and old age (555). Mitchell acknowledges the courts and the
justice system in the document and asks, Is it not natural that the
workingmen should feel that they are being guaranteed the liberties they do
not want and denied the liberty that is of real value to them? (555). Mitchell
is claiming that the government is not contributing to industrial liberty in any
good way.
Both of the articles have to do with some sort of liberty or freedom.
John Mitchells audience would be a broad audience of workingmen.
However, Gilmans audience is a little more specific and her work is
concerning women who what economic independence. The articles go
together fairly well because they are both addressing a similar issue. Gilman
wants women to be economically independent from men. She thinks that
something needs to be done in order for women to be happier and be able to
contribute to society. Mitchell thinks that workingmen need better wages and
lower working hours to be happier, healthier, and a better part of society.
Mitchells document offers a solution. He is claiming that industrial
liberty can be granted if the government was willing to step in and help a
little bit. He suggests that families cannot function well if the workingmen in
the family are treated poorly. Mitchell suggests the government take a role in

Thomas Robinson

industrial liberty. Gilman does not really offer a plan of how women can
achieve independence, but she does state the fact that it needs to be done.
Gilman explains how economic independence is not only good for women,
but also their families and the rest of society. Mitchells document focuses
on how granting more industrial liberty to workingmen will help families get
out of struggles and become more comfortable.
The articles go hand-in-hand with each other because both are asking
for freedom. Gilman focuses on women while Mitchell focuses on
workingmen. Even though the documents vary from each other a little bit a
solution is still clear. Mitchells solution of government assisting with more
legislation will benefit both audiences. Women will be able to gain economic
independence with more legislation. Workingmen will become better off and
will be able to support their families comfortably. Both authors could argue
that the period of government negligence during the progressive era was not
a good thing.