The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1911-12-22
LABOR OF WOMEN
Test by Which Occupations May
Be Condemned.
NO TOLL BEYOND STRENGTH.

w omahkIhd Must BE Safeguaroeo
Against Work That Shortens Life,
Retards Development or Units Them
For Motherhood.
For some years it has been apparent
that there was a growing disposal on
the part of some INSCRIPTIONS employ
ers to introduce female labor into
laborious occupations for the perform
ance of the work of which requires
the strength and endurance Of a strong
adult male.
Though we look upon ourselves as a
progressive and humane nation. this
tendency has gone on to some extent
unnoticed, and the recent exposure of
conditions existing in the employment
of female labor in the core rooms of
foundries and in other most laborious
and unfit occupations for women has
shocked a large percentage of our citi-
zenship who were not aware that such
conditions existed.
These details of rough work done by
women form unpleasant reading to
people not accustomed to seeing WON
en- in the attitude of the outdoor male
laborer and eXerting the muscles re
quired by his task. But 1t seems to us
that shock with genuine basis
might come to the observer who noted
the little reason that American women
tourists or readers of European letters
have for being shocked at any spec
tacle whatever of hard worked women
abroad.
Women certainly ought not to en-
gage in any labor that may endanger
the normal development of the human
race or any part of it. This is the
test by which occupations for women
may be approved or condemned. What
work shortens the lives of women
workers or stunts their growth or I'M
fits them for motherhood? This is the
question that goes to the point and
not whether a woman'S labor is what
we have been accustomed to regard as
mans.
Perhaps the shock to our tenderly
reared American women travelling
at outdoor labor over there might be
essened if before going to see the
strange countries they would take a
tour in some Of our home factories or
even make some inquiries as to the
conditions in which many of our shop
girls work. Is there anything in Eu-
rope much worse than the striking
orir.1 To-
day experience in some Of the big fac
tories? How as to conditions at stock
yards, in laundries, in textile mills!
How as to long hours in the big stores.
in the milliners' and dressmakers
workrooms? If we 60 to the extremes
of suffering at indoor work for women
we shall find results worse than those
to be found in the extremes at outdoor
work. Inquiries by the British gov
eminent into the deterioration of the
workers in certain factory industries
have brought to light menace to the
race such as could hardly be possible
at any outdoor labor.
We are far from Unfortunately
commencing all outdoor work for wo
men. But we are certain that we
have seen many happy women enjoy
ing garden and light field work, and
we have felt sure they were better off
physically, mentally and morally than
they would have been if compelled to
take up with the hardships and uncer-
taintes of factory life as it is seen in
most of our manufacturing centers
The objection to outdoor work for wo-
men does not lie in its resemble nee to
mans work The limit Of the sphere
for woman's labor comes when the
work to be done is beyond her strength
or her capacities or her powers for
self protection. Measured by these
standards, one may see why certain
outdoor occupations for women Are TO
be regarded as intolerable, while 9th
ers are not only acceptable to the well
wisher for womankind, but preferable
to many forms of indoor work. Be
cause bod carrying, railroad section
work and stone breaking on the high
way are beyond the limits of the toll
permissible to women, one need not
shiver and be shocked at seeing girls
handling the hay rake and the garden
hoe or even taking tickets on the
tram"
From the trade union standpoint
there is another question involved
aside from the relative health of out
door and indoor employment for wo-
men, and that is the protection of the
wage 1t cannot be maintained that
the manual labor of women is superior
to the manual labor of men, nor can
it be denied that the employment of
women in such strenuous work must
In many cases for reasons of sex be
prejudicial to their health and to their
progeny.
The only reason why women are so
employed is to economiZe in labor cost,
or, in other words, to reduce the wages
If labor.
The labor movement does not object
to the employment of women in voca-
tons suitable TO their physique and
consistent with good health and NOR
ais. but it does object TO their being
used for wage cutting purposes in any
line of work Whatsoever
I