Based On Information From Your Textbook And Your Analysis ✓ Solved

Based on information from your textbook and your analysis of

Based on information from your textbook and your analysis of the primary source you chose (Hardenbergh, 1923), answer the following questions: What primary source did you choose and what event does it focus on? Why was this event important, and how does it fit into the conflicts and changes of the 1920s? What does your primary source tell you about the event? And what does it not tell you? How does the event you chose relate to your Final Project topic (women entering formerly male occupations)? How was your chosen group impacted by the Great Depression and New Deal? Provide an APA citation for your primary source.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This analysis uses a 1923 newspaper feature as a primary source to explore how expanding female participation in traditionally male occupations reflected larger social tensions of the 1920s and how those developments were affected by the Great Depression and New Deal policies. The primary source is Hardenbergh’s 1923 Atlanta Constitution piece about women moving into formerly male roles (Hardenbergh, 1923). This paper situates that article within the political, economic, and cultural shifts of the interwar era and examines what the source reveals and omits about women’s labor and social status.

Primary source and event focus

The primary source chosen is: Hardenbergh, M. (1923, Aug. 12). “Taking the hand off the cradle to catch devil fish: How modern woman is delving into the sacred precincts of male occupation and is now found in the role of bandit, judge, bricklayer, hunter, and race horse jokey.” The Atlanta Constitution, pp. 2–3. The article focuses on the cultural phenomenon of women entering occupations that had been overwhelmingly male, framing this as notable and even sensational in 1923 (Hardenbergh, 1923).

Importance of the event and connections to 1920s conflicts

The movement of women into nontraditional occupations was important because it reflected broader tensions in the 1920s around gender, modernity, and labor. The decade after World War I saw rapid urbanization, consumerism, and new technologies, and women’s cultural visibility expanded after suffrage in 1920 (Ware, 1992). Yet this greater visibility provoked anxiety about gender roles and workplace boundaries: debates over female "respectability," economic independence, and the appropriate division of labor were widespread (Goldin, 1990). Hardenbergh’s article both records and amplifies these tensions by treating women’s labor mobility as an unexpected cultural shift that challenges established norms (Hardenbergh, 1923). Scholars emphasize that the 1920s combined prosperity for some with profound social conflicts over immigration, race, and gender, and women entering male occupations became a flashpoint in those debates (Kennedy, 1999; Brinkley, 2016).

What the primary source reveals and what it omits

Hardenbergh’s reportage provides direct contemporaneous evidence of how mainstream media portrayed working women: often sensationalized, framed as novelty, and filtered through gendered expectations. The article supplies language, examples, and public sentiment that historians can use to trace cultural attitudes in 1923 (Hardenbergh, 1923). However, it omits critical contextual information: it rarely provides systematic data on numbers of women in each occupation, ignores differences by race and class, and focuses on exceptional stories rather than structural economic forces that pushed women into paid work (Hardenbergh, 1923). The article also lacks discussion of labor market conditions, wages, union responses, or the long-term consequences for married women—gaps that secondary sources must fill (Kessler-Harris, 2003; Goldin, 1990).

Relation to Final Project topic: women entering formerly male occupations

Hardenbergh’s piece directly informs a Final Project on women entering male-dominated jobs by offering contemporaneous framing and rhetoric that shaped public responses. It is useful as a cultural primary source showing how newspapers portrayed this trend as novelty or threat, thereby influencing public opinion and policy debates. When paired with labor statistics and New Deal-era policy analysis, the article helps build an argument about continuity and change: attitudes illustrated in 1923 persisted into the Depression era but interacted with new economic constraints and political responses (McElvaine, 1993; Rauchway, 2008).

Impact of the Great Depression and New Deal on the chosen group

Women who had entered nontraditional occupations in the 1920s faced a mixed fate during the Great Depression. Employment opportunities contracted sharply across the economy, and prevailing gender norms often prioritized male breadwinners for scarce jobs, pushing many women out of paid work or into lower-paid sectors (Goldin, 1990; Kessler-Harris, 2003). Nevertheless, the Depression also expanded certain public-sector and relief jobs where women—especially white women—found work, and New Deal programs created unprecedented federal roles affecting women’s labor (Kennedy, 1999; Brinkley, 2016). Scholars point out that New Deal policies were uneven for women: some programs reinforced traditional roles, others opened new employment avenues, and race and class shaped access to relief and jobs (Kessler-Harris, 2003; McElvaine, 1993). Thus, while the 1920s trend toward occupational expansion for women accelerated women’s visibility, the Depression often constrained mobility and the New Deal mediated those constraints in partial and unequal ways (Rauchway, 2008).

Conclusion

Hardenbergh’s 1923 article is a valuable primary source for understanding how mainstream media represented women breaking occupational barriers in the 1920s. It demonstrates contemporary cultural reactions and provides evidence of public discourse, but it must be supplemented by economic data and scholarship that explain structural forces and differences by race and class. The Great Depression curtailed many early gains and reshaped women’s labor opportunities, while New Deal policies produced mixed outcomes. Together, the primary source and secondary literature allow a nuanced account of continuity and change in women’s work from the 1920s through the 1930s.

References

  • Hardenbergh, M. (1923, August 12). Taking the hand off the cradle to catch devil fish: How modern woman is delving into the sacred precincts of male occupation and is now found in the role of bandit, judge, bricklayer, hunter, and race horse jokey. The Atlanta Constitution, pp. 2–3.
  • Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945. Oxford University Press.
  • Brinkley, A. (2016). The New Deal: A Modern History. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
  • Kessler-Harris, A. (2003). Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. Oxford University Press.
  • Goldin, C. (1990). Understanding the gender gap: An economic history of women’s labor force participation. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(2), 57–114.
  • McElvaine, R. S. (1993). The Great Depression: America, 1929–1941. Three Rivers Press.
  • Rauchway, E. (2008). The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Ware, S. (1992). Modern Women: Women and the Popular Imagination in the 1920s. University of Massachusetts Press.
  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1930). Employment and unemployment statistics, 1920–1930. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Cott, N. (1987). The Grounding of Modern Feminism. Yale University Press.

Related Assignments