The record-union., 1893-11-04
TREASON TO THE HOME.

IhEASON TO THE HOME.
Mr.. Wilbur Aldrich, in the Social
Economist, asks: "Is the domestic
Throne being subverted? Is housekeep-
ing being discontinued? That seems to
be the tendency" But the essayist adds
this remarkable statement, "and it is one
that is thoroughly economic"
That is not true; it is a dogmatic asser-
ton, warranted by no social truth. The
idea that housekeeping is an uneconomic
industry" is as false as it is dangerous to
the stability of the home.
When Mr.. Aldrich and the whole army
of social philosophers who are preaching
OF the independence Of women" tell US
that ''the mistress of the home is
drudge" and her work is "drudgery,"
they insult intelligence as they do when
they add it is Infinitely better ''that both
husband and wife should be wage-earners
and come home from labor with no house
hold duties to perform-come home even
to a single room; go out to dinner, and
on return don the dressing-gown and sit
down in equally easy chairs, and both
read the newspapers. each with feet upon
mantel or bureau to secure a pleasant
circulation of the blood to the brain.'
Pah! What insufferable nonsense this
social philosopher talks; but he is fair
representative of the class preaching
economy and morality and rightfulness
of women in business.
But hear him further: "How much
more often both would go out together
or social enjoyment, or to the theater,
lecture or concert, if one was not detained
or wearied by the duties Of housekeep-
ing''
This is rank treason to thei home; it is
flat insult to virtue. Hotel life is bad
enough; restaurant life is little better.
And this is the new home condition OF
which the modern social economists
pirate. For Mr.. Aldrich's pleading is pre-
eisely in line with that which would
make marriage a convenience, the home
mere Iodging-place, the domestic circle
thing to be avoided, and the wife mere
partner.
This same school Of incipient radica
socialists tell US, as does Mr.. Aldrich
that ''lf there are children"-well. thing.
adjust themselves to the new condition
coming on, in which 1.-THE hotel. th
restaurant and the boarding house vii
have to be developed
Yes, they will adjust themselves to tn
''if," and viii be to the suppression 0
child-life and the conservation Of appar
ent sterility. Motherhood will go out 0
fashion-as it is already going-and wit
st will 60 the most sacred function an
highest attribute Of true marriage.
AS to the children that may come, W
are told by this philosopher of domesti
economy, that "a little judicious selectio
in the matter of nursery attendants an
kindergarten teachers will fix all tina
for ''alI women are not adapted to IL
care of children or their training"
True. and 1t is because not all wome
are receiving that education and hom,
training which would adapt them to th
care nature intended for them, and it
because of just such twaddIe abol
"home drudgery" and business ind
pendence." and sex equality" even
the heels upon the mantel.
Go on, ye new school doctrinaires, wit
your pillage of the home and the destru
ton of all that nature, centuries of bell
and custom, human tendency and huma
experience have taught US attaches
true womanhood and to the home. II
freelovers never taught anything mo-
pernicious; the German socialists new
promulgated anything more abominabl
Presently you viii throw off disgui
and interpret the increase and null
ply' injunction to mean mere propag
ton of human beings, as we grow stoc
We should not be at all surprised
that. Indeed, the new school OF soci'
lists preach it openly. and plan for t
care Of children by government, in pu
lie nurseries, and naturally governme
viii then determine the breed of ths
dependents.
Paughl But it is the logical drift of I
argument about public nurseries and I
''drudgery of home" and the slavery
u,otharhnt,d -