New Britain herald., 1915-05-25
(By Doris E. Fleischman in New
 York Tribune.)

Is woman a martyr? Is she pulled
 by a brutal masculine sex into at tempting homework that Is far be- yond her capacity? Is sine sweated in the home, turning out more work, than is compatible with the health of her. self and her children and the upkeep of moral standards?
 These questions naturally arise as a consequence of forcible letters written to the chairman of the commission on industrial relations pleading for an investigation of the "unorganized worker" the homemaker, and asking that "a report be made on the condi- tions of housework considered as an element of the cost of living" And second, !" national maternity com mission be created to report to con- gress on the conditions of women's s work in the home considered as a cause of infant mortality. race suicide divorce and prostitution" The note further talked of the unpaid labor of wives as the underlying cause for in dustrial dissatisfaction and of the un- economic working to death of wives in the home.
 Mrs. Julian Heath, as head of the National Housewives league, was asked for an authoritative statement on the conditions of the housewife of today, and she granted. with Mrs. Flora Mcdonald Thompson, the writer of the note, which for the first time attempts to put on an official basis the accomplishments of the woman who works in the home, that certain facts are true.
 Housewives Are Organized.
 Organization is necessary for the housewife. But is not that just ex- actIy what my league has been trying to do? We are organized to the ex- tent of having 8O0,000 members And 1t is true, too, that files lot of great many housewives Is hard, very hard, and too hard for them. But that Is not because of the work that Is to be done. The housewife is not a martyr. She Is merely inefficient"
 ''Be businesslike about It." said Mrs. Heath, emphatically. Let women say that they are sick of sentiment as the basis for home labor. But if 1t is to, be a business let them really put it on business basis. Don't let them talk of being paid for their household duties, as this woman does. That will not alter the economic situation at all. Women don't want to be employees of their husbands. Not at all. They should be partners, and as such di- vide tie net profits of the concern. That is all there is to it. Let them carry their busin essltke attitude a bit further and see the woman the work ing partner of the concern. The hus- band Is the producer without tho home. The woman is not only the consumer, but she Is the producer as we'll, for she purchases and she man. ages. That is, If she has been taught properly. The woman should have entire charge of the finances in the home. The husband should have no more to do with that than she has to do with the disbursing of his business funds.
 Idea of Housewives Wages Absurd.
 ..T?1at, you see, makes the idea of a woman collecting wages absurd. What is a mans wager A living wage, more or less. And therefore the woman's Is the same. If she and her husband both spend judiciously from g. com
 mon fund, is she not getting her living wage to the same extent that her husband Is?
 "But the point which I wish to emphasize is that when women talk about the economic situation of the housewife, they are quite right in principle. for they should be of econ
 omic value. But in practice they are criminally inefficient and unworthy of their position.
 No Need for Maternity Boards. "But as far as q maternity board Is concerned, can see no need for it. Housekeeping cause of race suicide? That is a very old way of looking at matters. If there is not enough means, time or inclination
 to take care of a number of children the obvious remedy is to have less children. It is criminal, of course, to have more than one can care Tor, feed and educate properly.
 "No, can't see any use in either Of l the commissions suggested. The only way in which household labor would come under the consideration of the commission is if 1t attempts to stand 1 ardize the> labor and the hours of l household employ es.'
 l Mrs Christine Terhune Herrick, l for many years a writer on all l phases of the household question, and 1 her mother. Mrs. M. Terhune, better
 known perhaps as Marion Harland, writer, agree emphatically with Mrs. I Heath ..I have studied this question with i interest for great many years" " I said Mrs TIerrick "In the first
 place, what reason have women for ! stunning household work? am 1 alluding to the numbers of women who because of a sou1-agitation or I sn,,a at l,is9p If the s0rt 10 rllt into
 the $world, neglecting urgent duties, l to become-what? Stenographers, ] typists. shop girls who stand behind l a. cnunfAr Surely ffAre Is nothing