1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Serhud [2]
3 years ago
6

How did women's roles change as a result of the industrial revolution in europe?

History
2 answers:
melomori [17]3 years ago
7 0

<u> A. they gained increased economic independence by working in factories</u>

The Industrial Revolution that took place between the late 18th century and mid-19th century in Europe, gave women new opportunities to increased her economic independence and gain a sense of pride by not relying completely on a man's financial support.

However, there were various difficulties. During this time, the majority of women who started to work did it out of necessity. The industrial revolution forced families to move from rural areas to the big cities, and the working-class, who were in a disadvantageous position, received low-pay, therefore women needed to work in order to support the family.

They became a major workforce of textile industries and coal mines mainly. Though their work conditions weren't good enough, having a paid job contributed change their role in society, showed them their abilities to be economically independent and later gave them the drive to push more for their rights as citizens.


Degger [83]3 years ago
5 0
I believe the answer would be A. they gained increases economic independence by working in factories

You might be interested in
What was an argument used in favor of dropping atomic bombs on japan
balu736 [363]

Answer:

It would put an end to the war.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Question 1 Unsaved
AveGali [126]

Answer:  It doubled the size of the country and guaranteed US control of the Mississippi River.

Explanation:  President Thomas Jefferson and those favoring the Louisiana Purchase justified it as an act done for the good of the country. Initially, President Jefferson had commissioned James Monroe and Robert Livingston to negotiate a deal with France to acquire New Orleans or all or part of Florida, as a means of avoiding the potential of an armed conflict in such areas.  Monroe and Livingston were authorized to spend up to $10 million.  What they found out was that Napoleon was already set to sell a much wider range of territory to the United States, to finance his European wars.  Napoleon was asking $22 million for the whole territory that became the Louisiana Purchase.  The US team negotiated the price down to $15 million.  But then there was a constitutional crisis back home.  Did the President have the authority under the constitution to make such a major addition to the nation's territory and spend the nation's funds to do so?  Jefferson himself considered pursuing a constitutional amendment, but his Cabinet members disagreed and the measure was sent to Congress for approval.  In a statement he made at the time, Jefferson justified the purchase with this analogy:  "“It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good." 

4 0
3 years ago
How has the north american free trade agreement affected the flow of manufacturing jobs in and out of the u.s.?
laila [671]
After the free trade agreement, the economy was stable and the unemployment rate was low until 2008. The agreement opened up jobs for not only American citizens, but citizens of other countries in their homeland as well. Sales profits were booming due to the amount of competition as well.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
If you were a small farmer in Western Europe, in the 18th century, why might you object to the enclosure
Luba_88 [7]

Answer:Land during the non-growing season was not available for grazing milk cows and horses used for transportation. They helped a big deal in transportation.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
What was the Three-Fifths Compromise about or mean?
aleksklad [387]

Answer:

Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • For this question, you will imagine yourself in the role of two individuals looking back on the revolutions in Latin America. Wr
    12·1 answer
  • What were the main reasons Jamestown survived and prospered?
    12·1 answer
  • Who were Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin?
    8·1 answer
  • In what year was the Albany Plan for union proposed? A. 1754 B. 1763 C. 1776 D. 1789
    9·2 answers
  • How did Egypt benefit from the Nile river
    10·1 answer
  • When was the battle of Shiloh start and end
    7·1 answer
  • What is documentary source<br>​
    13·1 answer
  • What is significant about the Gilgamesh Epic in relation to the account of the flood and the Bible?
    5·1 answer
  • Which of these map projections is the most accurate?
    10·1 answer
  • Use the word qualm in a sentence!!
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!