Gender bias in nineteenth-century England: Evidence from factory children

Abstract

Gender bias against girls in nineteenth-century England has received much interest but establishing its existence has proved difficult. We utilise data on heights of 16,402 children working in northern textile factories in 1837 to examine whether gender bias was evident. Current interpretations argue against any difference. Here our comparisons with modern height standards reveal greater deprivation for girls than for boys. Discrimination is measured in girls' height-for-age score (HAZ) falling eight standard errors below boys' at ages 11, 11.5 and 12 years of age, capturing the very poor performance of factory girls. But this result cannot be taken at face value. We query whether modern standards require adjustment to account for the later timing of puberty in historical populations and develop an alternative. We also test the validity of the age data, considering whether parents were more prone to lie about the ages of their daughters, and question whether the supply of girls was fundamentally different from that of boys. We conclude that neither proposition is justified. Disadvantage to girls remains, although its absence amongst younger children precludes an indictment of culturally founded gender bias. The height data must remain mute on the source of this discrimination but we utilise additional information to examine some hypotheses: occupational sorting, differential susceptibility to disease, poorer nutrition for girls, disproportionate stunting from the effects of nutritional deprivation, and type and amount of work undertaken. Of these we suggest that girls had to do arduous physical labour in the home alongside their factory work. The only (unsubstantiated) alternative is that girls were more likely than boys to be put into factory work below the legal age limit. Both represent forms of gender bias.

What explains the missing girls in nineteenth‐century Spain?

“…Johansson, ‘Deferred infanticide’; Humphries, ‘“Bread”’; Baten and Murray, ‘Heights’; McNay, Humphries, and Klasen, ‘Excess female mortality’; Horrell and Oxley, ‘Gender bias’. However, Harris, ‘Gender’, does not find evidence of a systematic gender bias in mortality rates.…”

“…Johansson, ‘Deferred infanticide’; Humphries, ‘“Bread”’; Pinnelli and Mancini, ‘Gender mortality differences’; Schofield, ‘Demographic response’; Baten and Murray, ‘Heights’; McNay et al., ‘Excess female mortality’; Horrell and Oxley, ‘Gender bias’. Recent research on medieval England also suggests excess female mortality, probably arising from discriminatory practices.…”

Living standards and inequality in the industrial revolution: Evidence from the height of University of Edinburgh students in the 1830s

“…Another striking aspect of the early Industrial Revolution was its use of child labour; Horrell and Humphries (1995) show how children were active participants in labour markets in early industrial Britain. Horrell and Oxley (2016) find clear evidence of stunting of children born in the 1830s compared to modern WHO (2007) growth standards. These reports are generally in line with Mokyr (1988) and Clark et al (1995) who find that increases in income in Britain during 1770-1850 did not coincide with higher food consumption.…”

Sample-Selection Biases and the Historical Growth Pattern of Children

“…Therefore, several surgeons began measuring height and tooth eruption as a way of predicting a child's age (Horrell and Oxley 2016: 52-3;Kirby 2013: 99-110). Horrell and Oxley (2016: Appendixes A-C) discuss how the legislation may have created age thresholds in their data but generally find that these were not too problematic.…”

“…Horrell and Oxley (2016: Appendix A-C) include an extensive discussion of age thresholds and their influence on the growth pattern of factory children in the 1830s. They do not believe that the Horner (1837) data is biased.…”