[1D] Collection / Feminist Narrative
Click on miniatures to view full-size photo in a new window.
Almost all of the 146 workers who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911 were women - as, indeed, were most shirtwaist factory workers in general. However, their identity as women has often been overshadowed by their working class and trade union affiliations. This contestion over identities, whether to distinguish them as women first or as members of the working-class, is an echo of the divisions in the American women's movement early in the twentieth century.
The women's movement at the turn of the century was roughly divided into two camps: the first was composed of middle class relief organisations and suffragettes; the second were wage-earning women of the working class. Consequently the women's movement's approach to workplace safety standards tended to waver. Working class women, often unmarried, clashed with middle class matrons over the morality of entering the workforce at all. Meanwhile the split between the feminists and the unionists often manifested itself as a debate between the relative merits of protective labor legislation and union-brokered workplace agreements.
Often bitterly noted in hindsight is that the Triangle Shirtwaist Company building and workshops, despite the overcrowding, the locked doors and the lack of fire escapes, actually conformed to the legal standard. After the fire, public outrage caused the formation of the State Factory Investigation Committee, which had powers to propose "remedial legislation" and did so. The passing of stricter legislature on workplace safety standards is in retrospect seen as a victory. However, at the time not all members of the women's movement agreed - although there was general support for the safety laws that were passed because of the commission, many union leaders remained convinced that workplace problems could be resolved through union-employer workplace agreements. Some women trade unionists stood by that view, whilst others - particularly suffragettes - argued that lobbying for state and federal level legislation would be more effective in the long run.
In 1911 dissent remained, but the supporters of legislation had already begun to take the upper hand in organisations such as the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL) and International Ladies' Garment Union (ILGWU). The Triangle Fire was a strong Although both organisations had an avowed commitment to the cause of unionisation and supporting strikes, by World War I the bulk of their time and effort was spent on the campaign for protective legislation.
But protective labour legislation was in itself a point of contention for feminists because in practice the people being "protected" were women. Often the underlying assumption of protective legislation was that women were incapable of looking after themselves or had more cause to be protected than men due to their childbearing capacity, and thus had to be given special treatment under the law. This angered some women, who argued that laws should be the same for both the sexes. In practise, despite the intentions of many of its supporters, protective legislation often restricted and excluded opportunities for women to join the workforce on the grounds of safety issues.
In hindsight many latter-day feminist historians have argued that the push for protective legislation was a backwards step for the women's movement because it reinforced perceived notions of women as secondary to men in the workforce whose true role was in the home raising the next generation of Americans. While it is true that this was often the effect of protective labour legislation, other historians have contended that from the perspective of pragmatic campaigners in the women's movement at the time, special legislation was seen as the most effective and practical way of improving workplace conditions for women. The positive legislative-based outcome from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire would certainly have reinforced that impression.