tradition. He argues that class difference was not the result of economic distinctions that separated individuals, rather part of human experience. Rather than focusing on structure as being the key driver of historical change, Thompson believes people themselves can be as well. His approach still possesses Marxian-like tendencies in terms of its analysis but the focus is on the historical process. ‘Class happens,’ Thompson posited, ‘when some men, as a result of common experience (inherited or shared) feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.’ The Making is a ‘history of ideas than of experiences,’ focusing on class-consciousness rather than real life experiences of gender for example. It does not rescue all parts of the process. He fails to satisfactorily understand gender as a constituent feature of class formation. Gender blindness is glaringly apparent in Thompson’s work, albeit touched on briefly but it is in a disjointed nature. Overall the structure of the narrative seeks to place emphasis on the role of men. Catherine Hall posits: The attempt to analyse the sexual division of labour and patterns of reproduction through Marxist categories sent us down many blind alleys. Clark is part of the broader feminist perspective alongside Joan Scott, Barbara Taylor, Sally Alexander. Clark does not want to force female labourers into the established narrative, she seeks to write privileging gender. She furthers Thompson’s definition of the ‘working-class’ and his historical writings, regarding the emergent of the British working-class-consciousness by honing on the effect gender roles had on the industrial regions. She intersects his approach by analysing the development of the working-class in terms of gender, arguing it played a “profound” role. She posits that the making of the working-class was closely a>