The Washington times., 1915-03-29

OMETIME ago we discussed! In
these columns the right Of a
married woman to her own saw
ings and the decision Of judge
that the money she earned by her own
efforts did not belong to her but to her
husband, unless a special agreement was
made to the contrary.
The discussion interested many read
ers who wrote that the crying shame OF
The age was that women-at least many
of them--are not economically tnde-
pendent when married, and that until
women achieve this desirable condition
Of financial freedom, women did not
have the same rights as men. 1t seems
worth while. then, to stop a moment and
consider just what is economic inde-
Dendence. as used so freely!
| have had difficulty in getting SIM
liar definition from any two women.
Most of them qualify the simple mean
ng l define it by, the right to earn
money (implying also the right TO
spend it without dictation from anoth-
err. Many women say that men have
this right to earn and spend money
but that women. particularly mar
ried women. do not. The whCle
aim of this group is to secure for the
women the same right to earn and
spend, that men possess ana nave pos
sessed through history.
Here Is the Question.
want now to discuss this aim. Let
us contrast the unmarried woman who
works with the unmarried man. Unless
either Is a minor Gin which case the par
ent has a right to appropriate their
earnings in many States), each has the
right to earn money and the right to
spend it as they please. This would
seem to be equal, fair economic inde-
pendence," and we will turn from the
case of unmarried adults to the more
complicated and burning question OF the
married woman's economic lndepeho-
ence.
When a woman marries and receives
from her husband any money she may
need, does she give up this much- :
cherished independence and become
dependent financial slave? DOES on
the other hand, her husband stu re-
tain this freedom even when he is OBJ
liRated by law and custom for the
family support? Here Is the question.
I cannot see how a husband who pays
and is responsible for all family debts
and who uses approximately his entire
salary for this purpose, ! say cannot
see how he is any more "economlcaliy
independent" or financially free than
his wife.
Position of Society.
BY law the husband Is responsible
for the maintenance of his wife and
family; by law he must support his
wife and pay her alimony even II she
ceases to live with him; by law he is
he sole, single, responsible financial
head of the family. must pay his
wife's debts, and satisfy his business
creditors. In other words. society
looks to the man only for financial
responsibility in the married state. In
my opinion, the mans economic in
dependence is only apparent, for this
independence involves the most close
Iy drawn responsibilities.
To 60 further, l think the married
man is not economically Independent
at all; by the most heavy chains soci
cty binds him to economic depend
cnce, a dependence which mans stand
ing as the sole responsible financial
head of the family and being respon-
ible not only for his own support, but
! for the support Of his wife and what
| ever number of children they may
! have.
The irresponsible husband who uses
the money he earns as he chooses.
selfishly, independently. without con-