The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1907-08-30
American Women at Mems Work.
From Harper's Weekly.
Married women, of course, have a,wa

Married women. of course, nave ALWAYS
done their share OF the worlds work. In
deed, 1t is open to argument whether they
have not done more than their fair share
of 1T. 1t is doubtless true thai IL upon
men. as we now know them. were sudden
~ devolved the burdens of child~-bearing
and chtld-rearing, to say nothing OF the
cares of the household. families would be
considerably smaller than they now are.
1t IS certain that married women. who
have discharged the duties Of maternity.
have never been Supported by men In
any just sense Of the word support"
Nay, If all mon, married and single, were
TO labor every hour of the day. thev
could. not do all the work OF the world.
A few worthless women. married or single.
there may be. but even they are not 40
much supported by the men of their famIl.
les as by the overEork Of the "swea,ed,
women at the other end of the social lad
der. From Creations dawn women havo
performed their full quota OF the worlds
work; and usually they have not been
paid for 1t Unpaid work. however, sci.
dom commands respect. 1t Is the paid fe-
male worker who has brought home to the
public mind conviction of woman's worth
In the worlds economy. The spinning and
weaving done by our Observation-Disclosures
and by their great-grandmothers in their
respective homes were not reckoned as a
~ w AAS dlIO . NGdlIl until
the work was transferred to factories and
there organized: to factories, where the
women who pursued a particular calling
were remunerated according to the com.
mercial value Of their products. 1t ia nm
doubtedly the women of the Industrial
class, the wage-earners, reckoned no
longer BY units. but by hundreds of thou
sands. the women whose work has been
submitted to a money test, that have
been the means of bringing about the all
tered attitude OF public opinion toward
woman's work in every sphere of life.
From this point of view a singular in
terest attaches to the report recently is
sued by the census bureau, which sets
forth some belated statistics regarding the
number of feminine waRe-earners found
by the census enumerators seven wears
ago in occupations formerly regarded "a
exclusively suited to men. The number Of
women. indeed, engaged In agriculture and
the rougher kinds of labor Is small in the
United States. as compared with the num-
ber relesateo TO such toll in parts of con-
ttnental Europe. Nevertheless the sta
tistics now put forward show that in 100
there were no fewer that 1885, 900 women
farmers and farm laborers in this country.
indeed. there were more Of these by lis. 600
than there were who pursued the relative
ly feminine occupation OF dressmakine I,
VIII surprise many persons who look upon
.Ao S.An'e eeA as ny comparison physi-
cally feeble to learn that there were 1855
women engaged in blacllsmithing and COS
as "machinists." Indeed, there were eirht
employed In boiler-making, than which no
occupation imposes a greater strain upon
the muscular system. Forty-lve women
were classified in 1900 as locomotive engi-
neers and fremen: th!rty-one as brakemen
and ten as baggagemen on ALWAYS. MANY
more were earning a livelihood as SWITCH
men and fagmen. There were even six
women ship-carpenters and two slate
roofers. Indeed, one or more women had
invaded oil OF the 500 occupations once
~monopolized by male bread winners-ex-
cept nine. Among the very few %callin9s
as yet exempt from feminine competIt;on
were those Of United States soldiers. mn.
rines. and sailors. members of city fire de-
partments, or OF the 'lineman" depart
ment OF telegraph or telephone companies.