The star. (Reynoldsville, Pa.) 1892-1946, 1907-12-25
The Proaress of Woman.

From a strictly economic, non-sen-
timental standpoint, doing ones own
work is the most wasteful possible
form-next to having man and woman
do it separately" writes Charlotte
Perkins Gilman in the Womans
Home Companion. This sounds
like nonsense no doubt, to the consci-
entious housekeeper, who knows that
she cannot afford servant, much less
an expert.
But instead of looking at the ques-
tion from a strictly personal stand
point, let her look at it for a moment
collectively. Wealth is made by hu-
man labor applied to materials. The
more expert the labor, the more
wealth It produces. The better organ
lied and specialized the labor, the
more wealth it produces. Society
grows in wealth, ense, leisure, power
and intelligence, as it develops from
self industry to world industry. Very
well. In fifty families we have fifty
men and fifty women-a hundred units
of wealth-producing labor. Now sup
pose-just for a contrast-that these
fifty women all work at some trade
earning a dollar and half a day
nine dollars a week, and that all the
men were only housekeepers to the
women-cooking, sweeping, washing,
caring for the children, for no wages.
The family income would be nine dol
lars week-and both parties work
ing all the time. We can see at a
glance what a loss of wealth is in
volved.
Those men, we cry, would earn
more than one dollar and fifty cents a
day if they were free to specialize, to
develop their various talents, to COM
bine, organize, serve one another and
their families at the same time. Let
the men earn the money and the wom-
Ell do the housework.
$50 we usually have the reverse OF
the picture; the men earning from one
dollar and fifty cents to four or five
dollars or more day, a much-in-
creased average income, and improved
service-the mems service, that is.
Now, these fifty women represent
potential wealth as well as the men.
While each of them works all day In
the house for no wages, sharing the
| income of her husband, Is 1t not posi-
BILE that she might be working at
some special labor she preferred? We
continually forget that all women do
not like home work nor all kinds OF
housework equally, and that each fam
lily is obliged to put up with inferior
service in some particular.
Some women have special genius
for general management; such might
manage in the housekeeping business
in this utopiap future we are looking
at and be well paid for it. Some like
to cook and can cook well. These
could learn the beautiful art to its
fullest, and cook for appreciative
numbers. Some like to clean, and
could learn the laundry business
learn 1t all-and provide for each
group of patrons beautiful laundry
work OF keep the house antiseptically
clean. Some have especial talent
with babies and children, and could
undoubtedly develop that talent, to
the probable advantage Of our some
times mfshandfed infancy.
by such division each woman, spe
cializing, would improve the quality oi
her labor and add to It's market value;
she would serve more people, serve
them better, and-be paid more.
But here we are pulled up short
against blank wall. Habits as old
as history are not to be over-ridden In
a day. Prejudices far older than his
tory cannot be blown aside like feath
ers. We object to such change al
this. We do not want It. We stern
lily disapprove of 1t. I honestly be
lieve. however, that social progress
along this line cannot be permanently
stopped. We can hang back and dil
our heels In like a sulky child. but
Mother Nature drags US on relent
! lessly."