The herald., 1893-11-12
WOMAN'S WORLD.
!: FACTS REGARDING THE lNFLu-
ENcE OF WoMAN's WORK.

fss Stevenson at NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
jirls Abroad--A Bats sunragist-Nev-
eitios In Bonnet Pins connccticut ws.
X. .ntn Voters.
A paper read lately by Miss Ada
Hoather- -BiSg before the british associa-
tion p~sented some new considerations
'$of the much debated topic Of woman's
8 work at home.
rc woman's home work, says Miss
Heather-Bigg, were attributed by some
persons. and especially by worlzinginen,
suck evils as excessive toll, starvation
wages and unsanitary surroundings.
3his assumption was based upon fun
dnmental nisconception. The popular
impression seemed to be that women
were taking d larger share Of the worlds
work than heretofore. But woman's
work has not changed in qnantity-only
in charactcr-and not even SO much iu
character rs supposed.
AS matter of fact, women of the
working classes had always been Joint
breadwinners with their husbands. AT
no time in the worlds history had the
mans labor alone sufficed for the main
tsnance of his wife, and children, and as
IN eminent French economist has said,
THE ideal society in which the man sup
plies all the wants of his family has never
existed yet" Moreover, from the begin
ming of the middle ages women had
worked at other industries than those
that were domestic, sometimes pursuing
such Industries in their homes, some
times outside Of them. This truth had
long been admitted and acted upon in
France. 1t was affirmed in England be-
fore the industrial remuneration confer
ence mot more than half the whole
number of working class families, . said
Miss Simcox, ARE maintained by the la
Dor of the father, assisted only by the
elder children"
1t had been shoY1 to apply even to the
United States, wherc, teough the total
family income wa higher than in Eu-
rope, and the husbands contribution to
it larger, there were only few indus
tries in which, unaided, he could support
his family. Even in the bar iron indus
try one-tenth had to be made up. In
Belgium it was calculated that the hus-
band earned three-fifths and the wife
two-ifths. Talk about the gradual sub
stitutiop of the woman for the man as
bread Garner was absurd. The womans
share in household maintenance was no
more than it ever was. The facts had
not altered. but the conditions of modern
industry enabled us to see what the facts
were. In short, revolution was going
on, not a substitution.
Formerly woman working for her
family in her home had to pick up fag-
OTIS, fetch water, bake bread, spin fax
and wool, cure, pickle, preserve, churn,
wash, knit, etc. Today, at any rate in
large cities, the wife's household work
meant only mending, washing, cleaning,
cooking-care of children being the same
in both cases. Even among working
men there were some enlightened enough
to see that the ideal to be aimed at was
not that the man should be the sole
breadwinner, but that breadwinping
should go on under circumstances which
should secure the most comfortable life
for the men, women and children Of the
family; which should permit the fullest
development Of all powers, and openly
substitute economic cooperation on the
part of the wife for economic depend
ence.-London Queen.