>The invention of the cooking stove (around the time of
>industrialisation) removed much of the fire hazards an open hearth
>fire or brazier would cause, while simultaneously creating greater
>heat which would be conducted better through metal pots. That's all a
>question of technology... (and possibly would be better placed on the
>Gloranthan Cooking list.)
The cooking stove didn't appear until well into the industrial revolution and like all technology was at first restricted to the wealthy. I doubt it filtered down to poor homes before the second half of the 19th Century especially as most of the early ones were too big to fit in a small house. I'd agree open fires for cooking are hazardous but that's a modern attitude. Many working practices of the period were even worse..
>Assuming you have access to a secure fire place, affordable fuel, and
>suitable hardware to prepare your own food. Oh, and affordable raw
>food items, too.
>
>And a good light source - daylight hours are work hours. Possibly
>regulated by religious services defining day breaks.
You're assuming defined work hours. Not practical when there are children to bring up. The key to understanding this setup is to understand the economic unit is the family not the individual. Among the adults, often more than two, the tasks of earning money, raising children, cooking, cleaning and mending have to be done. Within that group one person will be responsible for keeping the fire going under the stewpot, watching the children and fitting bits of mending and cleaning as the opportunity arises. That's one person's full time job. Now it may take two other people earning money to support that economic unit but it's the model which has existed until recently.
And yes I recognise in the most crowded areas it's impossible for every family to have their own hearth. That's where you get a communal hearth for several families in the back yard or even the street.
>Or, put the other way around, it was the decrease in women's wages
>that led to the "male nurturer" situation. Rural women managed garden,
>children, and some cottage industry. Urban women worked in
>manufacturies, as house-servants, or as small peddlars, if they had
>learned no craft. I read that some crafts in medieval Paris had as
>many craft-mistresses as it had masters.
No need to go back that far. My mother was brought up in Nottingham where the best paid and most regular skilled work was lacemaking. Almost entirely done by women, often working from home. As a result it wasn't unknown for the husband to end up doing the housework and looking after the children although more commonly it was a female relative who hadn't learnt lacemaking or whose eyesight was no longer up to it.
>City life can be intriguing when you start exploring a bit.
Indeed.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail