Superfluous women and the invisible economists of Langham PlaceABSTRACT
Based on the centrality that gender assumes for the construction of historical knowledge, this paper intends to contribute to the rescue of both economic problems sensitive to women and the works of women economists previously relegated to oblivion. The “superfluous women” and Langham Place’s “invisible economists” are, respectively, the question and the characters forgotten by the history of economic thought on which we will focus. Following the Foucauldian analytical approach proposed by the historian Joan Scott, our goal is to retell this history in light of the politics of the gender system.
KEYWORDS:
Women in the history of economic thought; female employment; gender and economics; Joan Scott
RESUMO
Baseado na centralidade que o gênero assume para a construção do conhecimento histórico, o presente trabalho pretende prestar uma contribuição ao resgate de problemas econômicos sensíveis às mulheres e aos trabalhos de economistas mulheres antes relegadas ao esquecimento: as “mulheres supérfluas” e as “economistas invisíveis” de Langham Place, às quais o título do artigo alude, são, respectivamente, a questão econômica e as personagens esquecidas pela história do pensamento econômico sobre as quais nos debruçaremos. Seguindo a abordagem analítica foucaultiana proposta pela historiadora Joan Scott, nosso objetivo será recontar essa história à luz da política do sistema de gêneros.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Mulheres na história do pensamento econômico; emprego feminino; gênero e economia; Joan Scott
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990s, several historians of economic thought have begun to focus more on the “problem of invisibility” of women in the intellectual community, particularly in the 19th century. The post-structuralist critique by American historian Joan Scott (1988, 1989, 1996) suggests that the invisibility of women in history is fundamentally a question of power. It is also important to consider how the history of economic thought itself may reproduce gender hierarchies.
The movement to highlight the ideas and works of intellectuals who were previously overlooked has become so significant that a new term1 has emerged in the history of economic thought. This term, “herstory”2, refers to the narrative told from the perspective of women economists and other intellectuals from the past. In contrast to traditional history, often referred to as “his-tory,” this approach critiques the prevailing male-centric perspective that tends to favor certain themes, issues, and authors (Kuiper, 2010, 2022; Rostek, 2021; Packham, 2022).
One of the primary objectives of the herstory movement is to investigate economic themes that specifically pertain to women, as well as to illuminate the contributions of women writers and economists from history who have been marginalized in the conventional narrative of economic thought. This paper aims to address the issue of “superfluous women” during the mid-19th century and to analyze the work of a collective of women economists who endeavored to confront this issue along with other economic challenges that specifically impacted women during that period.
The terms “superfluous women” and “invisible economists” at Langham Place refer to the questions and characters that have been neglected in the economic history we will examine. We will use Joan Scott’s framework, which suggests understanding the history of economic thought as intertwined with the politics of the gender system.
Women-specific economic issues and the corresponding solutions identified by women economists have been systematically marginalized in the historical narrative of official economic thought. It is essential to examine the underlying reasons for this phenomenon, as well as the ways in which hierarchical gender relations dictate what is considered worthy of documentation for future generations. According to Rostek (2021, p. 2-3), this investigation holds significance not only because “economic discourse is a privileged ground of political struggle,” but also because “the formation and diffusion of knowledge are intricately linked to power relations, impacting mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion and shaping the meanings we ascribe to the world - both historically and contemporaneously.”
To achieve the objectives of this study, this article is structured into three main sections in addition to this introductory overview. In Section 2, we will examine the phenomenon of “superfluous women” in Victorian England, analyzing how this social issue was perceived and articulated during that period from a traditional and conservative economic viewpoint. Section 3 will focus on the Langham Place collective - a group of women whom we designate as “invisible economists.” This collective sought to confront the challenges associated with the plight of superfluous women along with various broader economic difficulties faced by women in that era, adopting a more progressive perspective that aligns with contemporary feminist thought. Subsequently, we will engage in a critical analysis of the preceding sections through the framework of Foucaultian post-structuralism, as established by Scott (1986). This analysis aims to illuminate the invisibility of economic issues particularly pertinent to women and to acknowledge the contributions of women intellectuals and economists throughout history. Gender will serve as a key analytical lens to examine both the inclusions and exclusions present in the historical narrative of economic thought. In conclusion, we will provide a comprehensive summary of our argument, emphasizing the groundbreaking efforts of the Langham Place feminists in championing women’s interests. We will also explore the controversial and innovative solutions they proposed to address the challenges associated with the superfluous women, highlighting the dual layers of invisibility encountered by the economists of Langham Place.
2. THE SUPERFLUOUS WOMEN OF VICTORIAN ENGLAND
In the mid-19th century, alongside the significant political issue of women’s suffrage, which marked the beginning of the first wave of the feminist movement, women faced several important economic challenges in their daily lives. One of these challenges was the struggle for married women to have the right to own property in their own name. Unlike single women over the age of 21, who could enjoy their income and property, married women were subjected to legal limitations that treated them as if they were children, effectively merging their legal existence with that of their husbands. As a result, married women could neither be held legally accountable for crimes nor own property. Additionally, there was a growing demand to expand the range of socially accepted jobs for women and to provide them with access to higher education. This context highlighted the issue of “surplus women” - those who, often against their will, remained single and lacked the protection and economic support of a man. Consequently, these women faced social stigma and struggled to find jobs that paid a sufficient salary to support themselves.
There was a broad academic debate in 19th century England proposing ways out for so-called “superfluous” (Boucherett, 1869; Livermore, 1883; Hall, 2017), “redundant” (Greg, 1862; Simonsen, 1997) or “surplus” women (Worsnop, 1990; Levitan, 2008). Although there were some differences in meanings among the three adjectives, the terms were used as synonyms, since they all had in common the sense of abundant or numerous in the extreme, more than enough, without utility.
The heated debate was triggered by the 1851 British census, published the following year. The data revealed that, out of a national population of twenty million, approximately two and a half million were single women, with around 500,000 categorized as “superfluous women.” While the majority of young women would eventually marry, over one million women aged 25 and older - considered “old” for marriage - remained single. Additionally, there were about 750,000 widows, which represented roughly 9% of the population (Simonsen, 1997). These women were often referred to as “spinsters,” a pejorative term that reflected the social prejudice they faced. As Levitan (2008, p. 364) notes, “at the beginning of the Victorian period, the ideal life course for middle-class women consisted almost entirely of marriage, child-rearing, and home management.”
In 18th century England, women’s societal roles were largely circumscribed by the institution of marriage, which stood as their primary legitimate function. During this period, characterized by the belief that a burgeoning population was vital for sustaining Britain’s industrial, imperial, and military prowess, the roles of women as wives and mothers were increasingly glorified. This elevated status placed significant social pressure on women, and those who could not fulfill these roles - whether due to personal circumstances or societal constraints - were increasingly viewed as problematic. Specifically, women who remained single, particularly in an era marked by a dearth of eligible single or widowed men, were often categorized as “superfluous,” reflecting the prevailing attitudes toward their existence outside the traditional confines of marriage and family life.
The pronounced gender disparity prevalent in mid-19th century Britain can be attributed to significant migratory patterns of that era, particularly the mass exodus of young men seeking opportunities in regions such as North America, South Africa, and Oceania. This phenomenon resulted in a surplus of women within the population, thereby complicating the institution of compulsory marriage that characterized 19th century England. The demographic imbalance created by this migration rendered the societal expectation of marriage increasingly unattainable for a substantial number of women, highlighting the intersection of migration, gender dynamics, and social obligation during this period.
The 1851 census serves as a pivotal moment in history. It highlighted a significant issue: the considerable imbalance between the number of women and men aged twenty and older. As noted in the census report, “This disparity in the number of men and women aged twenty years or older is not natural” (Census, 1952, p. xxiv). This raised alarm about the decline of the family unit, which was viewed as the moral and reproductive foundation of British society. More than twenty years later, in 1873, British writer William Greg echoed these concerns, stating, “There is a huge and growing number of single women in the nation - an alarmingly disproportionate and abnormal number. This situation indicates an unhealthy social state and forebodes much misery and injustice...” (Greg, 1873, p. 276).
The census served as a significant catalyst for the evolution of women’s social and economic roles during this period. The discourse surrounding the phenomenon of “superfluous women” initiated what would eventually coalesce into a feminist agenda (Levitan, 2008). The findings from the 1851 census played a crucial role in transforming the status of superfluous women into a matter of public concern, thereby illuminating the inherent contradictions and conflicts related to women’s positions within society (Worsnop, 1990). This shift not only underscored the pressing issues faced by women of the time but also marked the early stages of a broader movement for gender equality.
The phenomenon of surplus women in 18th century Britain raised significant concerns regarding their economic security, particularly in the absence of a provider husband. The sociocultural context of this era predominantly deemed most vocations outside the home as unsuitable for women. Only a limited number of occupations were considered “appropriate for ladies.” According to Worzala (1982, p. 134), the census identified six primary occupations for women: domestic service, cotton manufacturing, sewing, agriculture, laundry, and teaching. Of these, domestic service was the most prevalent, employing more than twice as many women as the other categories combined. Thus, it is not surprising that the occupations labeled as “feminine” in the 19th century largely mirrored the domestic activities women were already engaged in3.
The employment landscape for women in the 19th century was characterized by a notable imbalance between supply and demand, with a significant influx of single women vying for a limited number of job opportunities. This discrepancy not only curtailed the diversity of available positions but also constrained the overall quantity of employment options. The resulting high competition for scarce job openings contributed to the prevalent low wages associated with these roles. Moreover, two primary factors elucidate the salary disparities experienced by women during this period. Firstly, systemic barriers often precluded women from accessing the same educational resources as their male counterparts, thereby relegating them to occupations that required minimal qualifications, which inherently commanded lower compensation. Secondly, prevailing economic theories of the time positioned women as natural dependents of male providers - be they husbands, fathers, sons, or brothers - thus fostering an ingrained perception that women were not entitled to a living wage. This socio economic context succinctly illustrates the multifaceted nature of wage inequality faced by women in the workforce during the 19th century (Worsnop, 1990).
The discussion around wage inequalities between men and women dates back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as noted by feminist economist Cristina Carrasco (2008, p. 8). During this period, there was a widespread belief that men’s minimum wages should exceed the subsistence level. This belief arose from the expectation that men’s earnings would not only support themselves but also provide for a wife and a certain number of children. The era was marked by deeply rooted sociocultural stereotypes, resulting in significant resistance to women’s participation in the labor market. A common argument during this time was that the increased presence of female workers would lead to lower overall wage levels, threatening men’s incomes and, consequently, the financial stability of their families. These views not only reflected gender biases but highlighted the socioeconomic dynamics influencing labor policies and societal norms of the time (Perdices; Gallego, 2007). As Teixeira (2022, p. 50) points out,
“The inclusion of women in the workforce faced strong opposition at the time. Critics argued that allowing a large number of women to enter the labor market would create excessive competition, leading to a decrease in wages and ultimately harming family incomes. This argument was based on the belief that the combined income of a family, with both male and female earnings, would not exceed the original income when it relied solely on the male breadwinner.”
All these factors indicate that the issue of surplus women was not easy to resolve, which helps explain the prolonged discussions and debates surrounding it that lasted for more than half a century. These conversations began in the 1850s with the publication of the census and continued into the early 20th century.
The discussion about single women was framed within the same theoretical context as the debates concerning other populations deemed problematic. The 1851 census notably included counts of the blind, deaf, and mute, as well as individuals in nursing homes, prisons, asylums, and hospitals, categorizing single women among these various “unproductive” groups. The primary point of contention among commentators was whether single women could be made productive and, if so, how that could be achieved.
The debate at the time was polarized into two opposing viewpoints. On one side were conservatives who believed that women could never be productive and beneficial to society if they remained single. For them, the only solution was to encourage marriages, particularly with men in the colonies. On the other side were progressives who highlighted the lack of educational and occupational opportunities as the reason why single women were considered a burden to society. This second group, primarily made up of women - with a few supportive men - advocated for the expansion of these opportunities for women in Britain.
Greg (1862), along with several other authors of his time who adhered to traditionalist views, defended the sexual division of labor, which they considered more “natural.” In addition, “he considered the state of a single woman an aberration, celibacy an unnatural state, and the lives of the unmarried, both men and women, essentially unhealthy and unstable, and a source of immeasurable miseries and misfortunes” (Worsnop, 1990, p. 27).
They hold that there was one straightforward solution to the issue of surplus women: the mass emigration of women from Britain. In a 1862 article, Greg pointed out the “deficit” of women in Canada and Australia compared to the “excess” of women in Britain. He argued that this imbalance could only be resolved by relocating half a million women from Britain to areas where they were lacking. The emigration plan he envisioned was vast and ambitious: according to his estimates, sending 500,000 women abroad would require at least 10,000 ships (Levitan, 2008). Ultimately, the conservative solution proposed by Greg and his contemporaries was to actively encourage the migration of single women, so they could marry the male migrants, as they believed that “married life is the profession of women” (Worsnop, 1990, p. 26).
Despite the significant social pressure faced by various populations deemed problematic - considered a “dead weight” by the productive members of society - according to the notable census of 1851, single women emerged as the most active participants in the public sphere. They were the ones who most vigorously challenged the labels of “superfluous” or “surplus” that were applied to them. Ultimately, they were the most successful in reshaping the conversation about unproductive segments of the population. In this context, the activities carried out by the Langham Group played a crucial role.
3. INVISIBLE ECONOMISTS OF LANGHAM PLACE
First, it is essential to clarify the title of this section, which mirrors the title of the paper: “Why Economists and Why Invisible?” Although they never attended college for economics - mainly because women were barred from studying at universities during that era - the Langham Place women’s collective (1857-1866) was an activist protofeminist4 organization formed in London in the late 1850s. This group advocated for various economic issues that were particularly relevant to women. We refer to these women as economists because they developed and articulated original ideas about the economy from a female perspective, highlighting how fundamentally gender shapes economic experiences, roles, and outcomes (Rostek, 2021, p. 2).
Furthermore, due to their privileged sociocultural circumstances, the women in Langham Place had an understanding of classical political economy, even without formal training in economics. They connected with influential figures in the field, particularly those who supported women’s rights, such as John Stuart Mill. It is important to note that this group of women utilized the concepts and conclusions of classical economic theory primarily to address the pressing issues they faced in their everyday lives as middle-class women. In this context, we can describe them as “plumber economists,” a term coined by Duflo (2017), or as “engineering economists,” as referred to by Mankiw (2006).
The term “invisible” is used for a reason that requires us to delve into the significant contributions made by the women of the Langham Circle. This group originated from the close friendship that formed in the late 1840s between Barbara Leigh Smith, who later adopted her husband’s surname, Bodichon (1827-1891), and Elizabeth Rayner Parkes, better known as “Bessie” (1829-1925). Both women were profoundly dissatisfied with the constraints of 18th century social conventions placed on women, and they often supported one another in their pursuits. Their interests included improving girls’ education, raising awareness about prostitution, and emphasizing the social responsibilities that middle-class women should have towards their working-class counterparts (Schroeder, 2015; Rendall, 2005). Additionally, Worzala (1982) identifies three other women - Anne Procter (1825-1864), Anna Mary Howitt (1824-1884), and Eliza Fox (1825-1898) - who were involved in the collective from its inception. Worzala also notes the significant role that Jessie Boucherett (1825-1905) played after joining the group in 1859, two years later.
The individuals under discussion share comparable socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. They are predominantly young, white, European women hailing from affluent families and possessing a level of formal and artistic education that exceeds the societal average for their time5. A notable aspect of their profiles is their affiliation with Unitarianism, a denomination that, as Anderson (2000, p. 62) asserts, uniquely recognized and supported non-traditional roles for women during the early 19th century. This group of women established connections between economic and religious issues. For instance, Barbara Bodichon (2013 [1857], p. 38) posited that, according to Christian principles, women could serve as divine instruments, asserting that “[...] as daughters of God, they should be trained to contribute meaningfully to the world.” In addition, Worzala (1982, p. 56) adds: “optimistic and confident in the progress and beneficial effects of education, [their families of origin and] they were more tolerant and democratic than most of their contemporaries.” The initiatives undertaken by the Langham Place collective must be contextualized within this framework. Understanding the broader implications of their activities is essential for a comprehensive analysis of their impact and significance.
In addition to various other initiatives, a pivotal development emerged with the launch of the English Woman’s Journal (EWJ) in 1858. This publication derived its name from the address of its office, which was established in December 1859 at Langham Place, 19, London. This location offered more spacious facilities than its predecessor, featuring a dedicated reading room and café (Rendall, 2005). The EWJ played a significant role in raising awareness about women’s legal rights and their advocacy for social and economic equality. Through its accessible discourse, the journal served as a platform for articulating women’s claims, contributing to the broader dialogue surrounding gender equality during the period.
At this point, we can partially address the question we began with: Why were the authors invisible? The authors did not sign their articles in the journal; they were published either anonymously or just with their initials. The sociocultural climate of the time created a hostile environment that necessitated this anonymity. The conservative backlash was so intense that remaining anonymous provided authors with a degree of safety, protecting their moral and physical well-being. This precaution stemmed from various concerns. As Worzala (1982, p. 115) notes, the magazine played a significant role in promoting a feminist press during the Victorian era in England.
“From 1858 to 1864, the English Woman’s Journal was Britain’s largest feminist periodical. Primarily an advertising tool, the magazine also served as a meeting point for individuals interested in improving the female condition, as a catalyst for the formation of new organizations and projects, and as a forum to discuss the nature of women, their abilities, and their role in society.”
The primary focus of the journal was women’s employment, which was linked to the need for improved education for women across all social classes. The contributors advocated for the rights of so-called “superfluous women” to access a wide range of jobs beyond the limited roles typically accepted at the time, as well as to gain admission to higher education and vocational training.
In 1857, Barbara Leigh Smith published an article titled “Women and Work,” where she addressed the issue of superfluous women to argue that women should have the freedom to pursue any profession they desired. She stated, “Women want work, and girls should be trained for professions” (apud Worsnop, 1990, p. 24). Two years later, in her subsequent article How to provide for superfluous women”, Boucherett defended the same points:
“The plan I advocate for superfluous women is to allow them to engage freely in all occupations appropriate to their forces; [which] would put an end to superfluous women altogether, making them useful members of society. This is undoubtedly the plan intended by nature all the time, and it is by not fulfilling it that we fall into such difficulties.” (Boucherett, 1869, p. 76)
Boucherett critically addressed the arguments articulated in Greg’s influential article from 1862, which was subsequently republished in 1869. She systematically countered nearly all of his assertions, illustrating that the same data from the 1851 census, which he employed to substantiate his conclusions, could also be utilized to contest the conservative viewpoint. This analysis suggested that alternative interpretations and solutions to the issue - akin to those proposed by the Langham Place ladies - were indeed plausible (Worsnop, 1990, p. 28).
The contemporary notion of “feminism” has rekindled the discourse surrounding the sexual division of labor between men and women, while simultaneously challenging its validity. The Collective posited a progressive framework advocating for reforms across various social institutions that endorsed the ideology of domesticity and perpetuated the perception of women’s inferiority to men. Furthermore, prominent contributors to the journal articulated the paramount importance of girls’ education and the necessity for educational institutions equivalent to those available for boys. In addition to these advocacy efforts, they provided classes in subjects such as bookkeeping and arithmetic to facilitate women’s entry into the labor market.
In 1862, Barbara Bodichon was part of a committee that advocated for the registration of women for university exams. This initiative was initially aimed at supporting Elizabeth Garrett’s application to enroll at the University of London.
On the political front, Bodichon and Emily Davies prepared a petition that was submitted to the House of Commons in June 1866. They gained the support of notable figures such as John Stuart Mill and Helen Taylor. In the same year, they formed the first committee dedicated to campaigning for women’s suffrage.
The continuous effort of writing and publishing articles for the journal, as well as challenging the prevailing conservative views on women, produced significant outcomes. The widespread impact of both the published articles and the activism of Langhanians in the women’s cause attracted many women seeking advice and information. As a result of this influence, Langham’s circle also played a crucial role in expanding the variety of occupations available to women from different social classes. In 1859, Jessie Boucherett and Adelaide Proctor founded the Society for the Employment of Women (SEW), which functioned as an employment agency specifically for women. This organization still exists today under the name Futures for Women.
Despite the Langham Place Group’s numerous efforts and successful initiatives, Rendall (2005) notes that starting in the mid-1860s, the group began to fragment. Concerns regarding the financial future of their journal further fueled disagreements among its members. One significant point of contention was whether the work carried out at Langham Place should remain exclusively women-focused. In August 1864, the decision was made to close the journal. Looking back on the challenges posed by the so-called “superfluous women” and the solutions proposed by the Langham Place collective, it is evident that, despite their considerable efforts and the impact they had at the time, the issues of expanding job opportunities and education for women were not resolved.
As Worzala (1982, p. 462) highlights, it was paradoxical that the pursuit of employment led women into direct competition with men, which critics of the feminist movement feared. In fact, “more job opportunities for women violated male interests. Moreover, economic independence would grant women the most fundamental kind of power and freedom, thereby directly challenging the myth of domesticity.”
The limited success of early feminists in changing female occupational standards in mid-19th century England highlights the powerful social constraints that hindered feminist reforms during that period. However, these constraints do not fully account for the deeper “invisibility” of women’s issues and history. This question will be the focus of the following section.
4. JOAN SCOTT AND THE ISSUE OF WOMEN’S INVISIBILITY IN THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT
American historian Joan Scott gained prominence in the 1980s for her critical examination of the methodologies employed in the field of women’s history, or “herstory,” which emerged in the 1970s. In her seminal works, Scott sought to elucidate the reasons behind the limited impact of this approach. She contended that the prevailing strategy of presenting new information about women from the past, under the assumption that it would “balance the scales” in favor of women, proved ineffective. Rather than transforming the significance attributed to women’s contributions, this approach frequently relegated women to a marginal role in relation to dominant and universal male narratives (Scott, 1994, p. 14).
To address this issue, Scott proposed redefining gender by linking the concept of social construction to Foucault’s notion of power. She states that gender “is a constitutive element of social relations, based on perceived differences between the sexes [...] and serves as a primary way of understanding power relations” (Scott, 1992, p. 13). From her perspective, gender comprises social relationships formed around perceived differences between the sexes, which are established within power dynamics - specifically the domination of one gender over the other, such as the male gender over the female. Foucault’s analysis also reveals how power contributes to the invisibility of women in history, as they are often denied the status of historical subjects due to their subordinate position (Scott, 1998, p. 87).
Scott defends Foucault’s post-structuralist theory as the best framework for feminism to move away from the hierarchical conceptual schemes of traditional Western philosophy. These traditions have often constructed the world in terms of dichotomies that are widely accepted across various societies. The possibility of this shift is supported by the growing recognition and acceptance of the gender category among historians, who had previously dismissed it. This acceptance allows for a more comprehensive analysis that includes class, race, and gender relations, embodying what is known as the intersectional approach.
The author argues that women and their inquiries have historically been relegated to a marginalized position in comparison to dominant male themes, which are often viewed as objective and impartial. Although women have fought against their subjugation at various points in history - such as the history of women economists at Langham Place - they have generally struggled to achieve true equality, despite gaining political, legal, or economic rights.
The historical discourse that disregards the contributions of women not only perpetuates their subordination but also reinforces the perception of women as passive recipients of actions taken by others. This interpretation posits that history is intrinsically linked to the politics of the gender system. According to Scott (1989, p. 38-39), “Recent investigations have shown not that women have been inactive or absent from historical events, but that they have been systematically omitted from official records.” It is through this analytical framework that we can identify a second dimension of “invisibility,” which pertains to both the economic issues specifically addressed to women and the economists affiliated with Langham Place, topics that are examined in this paper.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The herstory movement highlights the critical examination of economic themes that specifically pertain to women and aims to recover the contributions of female writers and economists who have historically been marginalized in traditional economic narratives.
The Langham group brought together a small number of women from the middle and middle/upper classes to advocate on several fronts aimed at improving the economic situation of women then, especially of so-called superfluous women, beginning to set an agenda of what we now know as feminist politics. Defying the entrenched beliefs of the time about the sexual division of labor and female domesticity, the ideas and practice of economists at Langham Place affirmed the need for equal educational provision for girls and women, as well as claimed unrestricted access to the labor market for them in the middle of 19th century England.
Throughout the paper, we discussed two levels of “invisibility” experienced by women economists at that time. The first level referred to their inability to publicly defend their ideas by signing their articles, while the second level concerned their erasure from the history of official economic thought. Additionally, we utilized the concept of gender as a “useful category for historical analysis” (Scott, 1998) to highlight the necessity of further exploring this topic. We emphasized the importance of rigorously analyzing the processes by which women’s invisibility is reproduced in the production of historical knowledge.
REFERENCES
- ANDRESON, Bonnie. Joyous Greetings: the First International Women’s Movement, 1830-1860. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- BERIK, Günseli; KONGAR, Ebru. The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Economics, New York: Routledge, 2021.
-
BODICHON, Barbara L. Smith. “A Brief Summary, in Plain Language, of the Most Important Laws Concerning Women: Together with a few Observations Thereon” (1854). In: LACEY, C. A. (Ed.) Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon and the Langham Place Group. London and New York: Taylor & Francis, 2013, p. 23-35. Available at: https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/vwwp/view?docId=VAB7030&chunk.id=d1e450&toc.id=d1e450&brand=vwwp;query=
» https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/vwwp/view?docId=VAB7030&chunk.id=d1e450&toc.id=d1e450&brand=vwwp;query= -
BOUCHERETT, Elizabeth. “How to provide for superfluous women”. In: JEX-BLAKE, S.; BUTLER, J.E.G. Women’s Work and Woman’s Culture: a Series of Essays. London: Macmillan, p. 27-48, 1869. Available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/womans-work-and-womans-culture-a-series-of-essays/oclc/15559144
» https://www.worldcat.org/title/womans-work-and-womans-culture-a-series-of-essays/oclc/15559144 -
CARRASCO, Cristina. “Por uma economia não androcêntrica: debates e propostas a partir da economia feminista”. In: SILVEIRA, Maria Lúcia; TITO, Neuza Trabalho doméstico e de cuidados. Por outro paradigma de sustentabilidade da vida humana. São Paulo: SOF, 2008. p. 91-104. Available at: https://www.sof.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TRABALHO-DOM%C3%89STICO-E-DE-CUIDADOS-2008.pdf
» https://www.sof.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TRABALHO-DOM%C3%89STICO-E-DE-CUIDADOS-2008.pdf -
CENSUS of Great Britain, 1851. Population Tables. 1. Numbers of the inhabitants. Report, and summary tables. London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1852. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/b24751261_0001/b24751261_0001_djvu.txt
» https://archive.org/stream/b24751261_0001/b24751261_0001_djvu.txt - DIMAND, Robert. “Neglect of Women’s Contributions in Economics”. In DIMAND, Mary Ann, DIMAND, Robert and FORGET, Evelyn. (Eds.) Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Women in Economics, Aldershot, U.K. and Brookfield, 1995, p. 1-24.
- DUFLO, Esther Richard T. “Ely Lecture: the Economist as Plumber”. American Economic Review, v. 107, n. 5, p. 1-26, 2017.
- FERBER, Marianne; NELSON, Julie. Beyond Economic Man: feminist theory and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
-
FERNANDEZ, Brena. Teto de vidro, piso pegajoso e desigualdade de gênero no mercado de trabalho brasileiro à luz da economia feminista: por que as iniquidades persistem? Cadernos de Campo (UNESP), v. 26, p. 79-103, 2019. Available at: https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/cadernos/article/view/12951
» https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/cadernos/article/view/12951 -
GREG, William. R. Why are women redundant? London: Trübner, 1862. Available at: https://archive.org/details/whyarewomenredu00greggoog
» https://archive.org/details/whyarewomenredu00greggoog -
GREG, William. Literary and Social Judgments. Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1873. Available at: https://archive.org/details/whyarewomenredu00greggoog
» https://archive.org/details/whyarewomenredu00greggoog -
HALL, Lynda A. “Superfluous, Invisible, and Invalid”. In: Women and ‘Value’ in Jane Austen’s Novels. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017, p. 159-193. Available at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/english_books/23/
» https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/english_books/23/ - KUIPER, Edith. “A Herstory of the Notion of Exchange in the History of Economics”. In: BAUHARDT, C., ÇAĞLA, G. (eds) Gender and Economics. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2010.
- KUIPER, Edith. A Herstory of Economics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2022.
-
LEVITAN, Ketrin. “Redundancy, the ‘Surplus Woman’ Problem, and the British Census, 1851-1861”. Women’s History Review vol. 17, n. 3, July 2008, p. 359-376. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612020801924449
» https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612020801924449 - LEVITAN, Ketrin. “Marriage, the Family, and the Nation”. In: A Cultural and Intellectual History of the British Census. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2011.
-
LIVERMORE, Mary. What Shall We Do with Our Daughters? Superfluous Women, and Other Lectures. Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1883. Available at: https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=oNUrRB1QgY8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=superfluous+women&ots=g12DvZIXy4&sig=iKpqTthzOxsDn-Sn2sU1nHPleKM#v=onepage&q=superfluous%20women&f=false
» https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=oNUrRB1QgY8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=superfluous+women&ots=g12DvZIXy4&sig=iKpqTthzOxsDn-Sn2sU1nHPleKM#v=onepage&q=superfluous%20women&f=false - MADDEN, Kirsten; DIMAND, Robert. The Routledge Handbook of the History of Women’s Economic Thought. New York: Routledge , 2022.
- MANKIW, Gregory. “The Macroeconomist as Scientist and Engineer”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 20, n. 4, p. 29-46, 2006.
-
MATTOS, Laura V. J. S Mill’s Ethology and his Engagement with the ‘Women’s Cause’. Texto para Discussão. Universidade de São Paulo (FEA-USP), 2020. Available at: http://www.repec.eae.fea.usp.br/documentos/Mattos_21WP.pdf
» http://www.repec.eae.fea.usp.br/documentos/Mattos_21WP.pdf -
MELO, Raissa Vieira de. Vitorianas e ativistas: uma análise das ideias econômicas do grupo de Langham Place. 2022. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2022. Available at: https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/12/12138/tde-01072022-115350/
» https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/12/12138/tde-01072022-115350/ -
PACKHAM, Catherine. “Women’s economic thought in the romantic age: towards a transdisciplinary herstory of economic thought”, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, v. 29, n.2, 2022, p. 391-392. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672567.2022.2050011
» https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672567.2022.2050011 - PERDICES DE BLAS, Luis y GALLEGO ABAROA, Elena. (Coord.) Mujeres economistas: las aportaciones de las mujeres a la ciencia económica y a su divulgación durante los siglos XIX y XX. Madri: Ecobook, 2007.
- PUJOL, Michele. Feminism and anti-feminism ins early economic thought. Edward Elgar, 1992.
-
RENDALL, Jane. Langham Place group (1857-1866). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2005. Available at: https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-93708
» https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-93708 - ROSTEK, Joanna. Women’s Economic Thought in the Romantic Age: Towards a Transdisciplinary Herstory of Economic Thought. New York: Routledge , 2021.
-
SCHROEDER, Janice. Langham Place Group. The Encyclopedia of Victorian Literature, p. 1-3, 2015. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118405376.wbevl180
» https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118405376.wbevl180 - SCOTT, Joan. “El problema de la invisibilidade”. In. ESCANDÓN, C.R. (Org.) Gênero e História. México: Instituto Mora/UAM, 1989.
- SCOTT, Joan. “Igualdad versus diferencia: los usos de la teoría post- estructuralista”. Debate feminista, v. 5, 1992, p. 85-105. Available at: 1556-Texto del artículo-2627-1-10-20190225.pdf.
- SCOTT, Joan. Gender and the Politics of History, New York: Columbia University Press. 1998.
- SCOTT, Joan. Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
- SIMONSEN, Pauline. “Elizabeth Barret Browning’s Redundant Women”. Victorian Poetry, v. 35, n. 4, 1997, p. 509-32.
-
SIQUEIRA, Tatiana. L. “Joan Scott e o papel da história na construção das relações de gênero”, Revista Ártemis, v. 8, 2008, p. 110-117. Available at: https://repositorio.ufba.br/bitstream/ri/2857/1/2310-3525-1-PB.pdf
» https://repositorio.ufba.br/bitstream/ri/2857/1/2310-3525-1-PB.pdf -
TEIXEIRA, Marilane Oliveira. “O Papel das Mulheres no Contexto do Pensamento Econômico Clássico e Neoclássico”. In: FERNANDEZ, Brena (org.) Mulheres na História do Pensamento Econômico. Florianópolis: Editora Peregrinas, 2022, p. 41-71. Available at: https://www.amazon.com.br/Mulheres-Hist%C3%B3ria-Pensamento-Econ%C3%B4mico-Fernadez-ebook/dp/B0BR8RC36H/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_ BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=ETW6W3V8AU7Y&keywords=mulheres+na+hist%C3%B3ria+do+pensamento+econ%C3%B4mico&qid=1675353654&s=books&sprefix=mulheres+na+hist%C3%B3ria+do+pensamento+econ%C3%B4mico%2Cstripbooks%2C281&sr=1-1&asin=B0BR8RC36H&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1
» https://www.amazon.com.br/Mulheres-Hist%C3%B3ria-Pensamento-Econ%C3%B4mico-Fernadez-ebook/dp/B0BR8RC36H/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_ BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=ETW6W3V8AU7Y&keywords=mulheres+na+hist%C3%B3ria+do+pensamento+econ%C3%B4mico&qid=1675353654&s=books&sprefix=mulheres+na+hist%C3%B3ria+do+pensamento+econ%C3%B4mico%2Cstripbooks%2C281&sr=1-1&asin=B0BR8RC36H&revisionId=&format=2&depth=1 -
WORZALA, Diane M. The Langham Place Circle: the beginnings of the organized women’s movement in England, 1854-1870. Tese (P.H.D. em História). University of Wisconsin, 1982. Available at: https://archivesearch.lib.cam.ac.uk/repositories/19/archival_objects/375161
» https://archivesearch.lib.cam.ac.uk/repositories/19/archival_objects/375161 -
WORSNOP, John. “A Reevaluation of the Problem of Surplus Women in 19th Century England: The Case of the 1851 Census”. Women’s Study International Forum v.13, 1990, p. 21-31. Available at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230337602_6
» https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230337602_6
