Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1907-07-04
TIE PROGRESS OF WOMAN.

From a strictly economic, non-senti-
mental standpoint, doing ones own work
Is the most wasteful possible form-next
TO having man and woman do 1t sepa-
ratey," writes Charlotte Perkins Gilman
in the July Woman's Home Companion.
This sounds like nonsense, no doubt, TO
tho conscientious housekoeper, who
knows that she cannot afford a servant,
ruch less an expert
but instead Of looking at the question
from strictly personal standpoint let
her look at It for moment collectively.
Wealth is made by human labor applied
20 materials. The more expert the labor,
the more wealth It produces. The better
organized and specialized the labor, the
more wealth II produces Society grows IN
wealth, ease, leisure, power and intolll-
gence, as 1t develops from self Industry
to world industry, Very well: In fifty
families we have fifty men and fifty
women-a hundred units OF weath-pro-
ducing labor Now suppose-iust for a
contra st-that these fifty women all
worked at some trade earning a dollar
and a half D daytime dollars a week,
and that all the men were only house
Keepers to the women-cookIng, sweep
ing, washing, caring FOR the children, for
no wages. The family income would be
nine dollars week-and both parties
working all the time. We can see at a
glance what a loss Of wealth Is involved.
Those men. we cry, would earn more
than one dollar and fifty cents n day IL
they were free to specialize to develop
their various talents, to combine. or
ganlze, serve one another and their
families at the same time. Let the men
earn the money and the women do the
Homework
$50 We usually have tho reverse Of the
| picture; the mon earning from ono dollar
and fifty cents TO four or Ave dollars or
more a day. much-increasc sod average in
come. and improved service--the men.
| service that IS.
Now, those fifty women represent
potential wealth as we'll rs the men.
! While each of them works al day In the
| house for no wages. sharing the Income
of her husband. IS it not possible that
she might be working at sono special Ia
| Dor she preferred? We continually for
! get that all women do not like home
work nor al kinds Of homework equally
and that each family is Obliged to M,
up with inferior service in some parti.
! c,Iar.
! some women nave a special poniu'
! for general management; such Nigh,
manage in the housekeeping business. !r
this utopian future are looking AT
and be we'll paid for II. some like t.
! cook and can cook we'll These could
learn the beautiful art 10 its fullest and
| cook for appreciative numbers. Soma
like to clean and could learn the laun-
dry business-learn it all-and provide
! for each group Of patrons beautiful
/ laundry work, or keep the house anti
sep'ically clean. Some have especial tai
ent with babies and children. and could
undoubtedly develop that talent. to the
probable advantage of our sometimes
mshandled infancy.
by such division each woman. special
izing. would improve the quality OF hel
labor and add to its market value; She
would serve more people. serve then
! better, and be paid more
"But here We are pulled up sho-
against a blank wall. Habits as old a:
history are not to be over-rdden in
day. Prejudices far older than history
cannot he blown aside like feathers. We
object to such change as this. We &c
not want IT, We sternlv disa pprove of It
honestly believe, however, that soca!
progress along this line cannot be per
manently stopped. We can hang hacl
and dig our heels in like a sulky child
but Mother Nature drags us on relent.
lessly."