In “The ‘Girl Army’: The Philadelphia Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-1910,” Daniel Sidorick takes a closer look at the under-analyzed Philadelphia shirtwaist strike that has received little attention in scholarly work. He calls the strike a “pivotal moment” that deserves proper research. Sidorick claims that the strike was one of the most “thorough attempts to unite women across class boundaries.” However, Sidorick does not explicitly state his argument or form an organized thesis. It is unclear whether the essay will focus on discovering why the young women originally began the strike or whether it will focus on how class differences affected the strike. Both of these points are discussed in the essay but there is no direct statement unifying those two areas that Sidorick analyzes throughout the essay.
Sidorick believes that class differences played a significant role in the shirtwaist strike. In the beginning of this essay, he does not mention which classes he will be examining- is it class differences between the lower and middle classes or the middle and upper classes? Also, class differences between the strikers themselves or between the strikers and others groups? It is not until later in the essay that we realize he is talking about the class differences between the strikers and the wealthier women allies who aided the immigrant workers. On page 332, Sidorick writes, “these two factors, gender and ethnicity, were to affect profoundly the development of the class battle between capitalists and the workers in the strike.” At this point of the essay, a class battle between manufacturers and workers is brought into the picture, which is also not mentioned in Sidorick’s original introduction about class differences affecting the strike.
A great section of this essay is dedicated to explaining the rise of manufacturing companies and shirtwaist factories in Philadelphia. While this is important for background information, it also takes away from the main purpose of this essay (which is also unclear) about class differences affecting the strike and also the reasons for the strike. Sidorick also brings “union recognition” into the picture as the main goal of the strikers. It seems the essay then shifts to focusing on how the young workers fought for union recognition. Overall, the organization and flow of the paper was difficult to follow. It is ironic that the structure of this essay is unclear when there are distinct subheadings informing the reader what a specific section will focus on.
Sidorick could have strengthened this paper by clarifying his introduction and thesis. I believe it would have been in his best interest to directly state the factors he was going to discuss in the essay and also make a clearer argument that the reader could follow. If the purpose of this essay was to simply provide information about the strike or stimulate discussion regarding it, that message also should have been formally stated.
-Lea Millio