The Washington times., 1915-03-29
Does Right Of Woman to
Earn and Spend Money
Give Her Independence?
Household Expert Discusses Questions Raised by Recent
Judicial Decison-Some Unthought of Problems
Are Pointed Out.
By MRS. CHRISTINE FREDERICK
tCopyright 1915, by Mrs. Christine Frederick

sloering the support of his family is
oecried by society. In other words, we
DO not approve of permitting a man
economic independence IL at the same
time ne does not fulfill the obligations
and responsibilities of that economic
independence.
Spirit of Fair Play.
But these women say, Give me
economic independence similar to man."
1 am perfectly willing to grant any
woman this privilege, but should in
sist at the same time that she must
assume the economic responsibilities
which mans economic independence en-
tails. 1 have never met a woman will
ing to take this view of the case. AS
far as l can gather, women want eco
nomic independence, or the right to
work and keep money without assum-
Ing the burden-or half of it-which this
freedom brings to man. To put 1t con-
cretely, a married woman would like
to earn money and keep 1t for herself
that would be economic freedom! But,
does she or society permit the man to
earn money and keep 1t for himself?
No. We insist that he shall support
that family. In short the woman
keeping while at the same time she in
sists that the man must follow his re-
sponsibilities. Is this fair?
In my opinion. economic freedom en-
tails economic responsibility. IF women
want this freedom, they must accept
the accompanying responsibility. But
this is what women do not seem to want.
AS organized at present, the family is
the unit Of society. and man Is the head
of that family and responsible for it.
All our present laws are made to hit
this condition. The aim which so many
women are driving at Is to change the
unit of society and make 1t. not the
family but the individual. We see this
zItN 4, xYftf IA
religion: it is having its effect upon
education and other phases of our
modern life.
The tendency is to make the social un-
1t the individual. and we have no quar-
rel with this view.
one step further in making the indivSi-
ual the unit of society But this will en-
tail greatly changed laws to fit the new
unit. If woman wants financial free
dom, will she not have to assume as ma n
does now. financial responsibility? VIII
she not have to be responsible for her
own debts, and for the support of her
family, at least in part?
Who Is Independent.
Will it be any more fair to allow the
woman to use all her earnings selfishly
as she chooses than we now consider It
fair for the married man to use them
| selfishly? Does not economic independ
| ence Of the married woman lead unques-
tionably to a half support of any child
rem they may have? Does 1t not unques-
tionably entail making her legally re-
sponsible for her own debts and for half
Of the debts of the family? This view
of the case I feel sure Is not shared by
the groups OF women who arc seeking
this much-vaunted and desired freedom.
1t seems to me, half whimslcally, that
the married man is about the most un-
economically free individual in the
world. He is a street car on a steady
track. whose pay envelope is collected
weekly for his family's support. even
If the family ceases to live with him, and
oven If his wife's bills are unfair and
foolish.
The married woman often pursues her
course like new jitney bus-she need
not pay her own bills. she need not sup
| port her children; no law can step in
| and exact of her any required amount
of service. intelligence or thrift. So
| ciety does not demand of her any legal
, equivalent of the support it exacts from
the married man. Which Is the more
economically independent?