The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-09-01
WHY SHOULD NOT MEN sEwq

WHY SHOULD NOT MEN SEW?
Mans inability to sew has been classed
among his great weaknesses; and if the
matter be sttentively considered, this
proposition will be found hardly SO alb
surd as it at first sight appears.
Sydney Smith, who often wished that
he could sew, gave as his reason for COM
ing to the conclusion that all men should
sew, that women are much more cheer
full generally then men. This, he said, is
because they can work and vary more
their employments. Scott also thought
that men should sew. "Ladies are, 1
think" wrote the Wizard of the North IN
letter to Lady Douglas Stewart, "very
fortunate in having resource in work at
time when the mind rejects intellectual
amusement. Men have no resource but
striding up and down the room, like a
bird that beats itself to pieces against
the bars Of its cage; whereas needlework
is a sort Of sedative, too mechanical to
worry the mind by distracting it from
the points on which its musings turn,
yet gradually assisting it in regaining
steadiness and composure."
That this was no hasty and heeting
idea of SCOTS is shown by an entry in
his diary, thirteen years after this express
sion of opinion, at a time when he was
"writing off" his great debt. He thus re-
turns to the subject: "Women, it is said,
20 mad much schooner than men.
fancy, if this be true, it is in some degree
owing to the little manual works in which
they are constantly employed, which reg
ulate in some degree the current of ideas,
as the pendulum regulates the motion Of
timepiece.'
As sedstive alone, then, much may be
said in favor OF needlework, or indeed, Of
all work of a like character. For the lit
erary man, the Merchant, the clerk-in
short, to any man who is obliged to use
his brain, a little neediework at home
would doubtless prove very beneficial,
since it would "refresh the machine" far
better than many Of those occupations or
amusements which are usually resorted
to by way of relief. Another argument in
favor of the adoption of sewing by man
is its utiIity-8 fact which should recon-
mend it to those who do not require it ss
a sedative.
To spite of what the conventional hui
morists say to the contrary. when at home
a mans buttons and button-holes are gen.
orally tended to with loving care. But
most men are obliged to travel occa-
sionslly. What annoyances might be
avoided during those absences if slight
knowledge OF sewing were general
amongst menl
Even If it were proved absolutely de-
sirable, however, it is not very probable
that sewing will be generally taken up
by men. Why it should not be it is diff
ficult to understand. But the stock jokes
of the valentines OF "Old bachelors strug-
Cling with button or rent in the trous-
ers, and, above all, the alleged difficulty
| which man experiences in threading a
| uoOOlSs EcOu W BctfO D4nNtC UnO AhdbOuAAGC
gender look upon sewing with disdain.
AS matter OF fact, in some parts of the
country sewing is taught in school to
boys and girls alike; and if this import
ant duty were generally made branch
of education, the advantage to men
even il they only wanted 20 avail them
selves of the knowledge at intervals
would be by no means uncomfortable.
On ell hands we find that women are
taking up work which, until few years
ago was considered as mans especial prov
ince, SO that really little can be urged in
favor OF considering sewing as an almost
purely feminine employment. If the
line of demarcation has been overstepped
by one sex, why should it not be by the
otherP Should the decrease in the mar
riage rate continue, there will be still
greater incentive for young men to learn
sewing, since it is obvious that man is
not equipped for going through the world
alone unless he is able to sew on his
own buttonsl-The Voice.