Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1918-08-03
Little Talks by
Beatrice Fairfax

A young girl, about TO be married,
has written letter asking, What
type of woman holds her husbands S
affection longest?"
And while the question Is enough
to make Balzac or a Havelock Ellis
gasp at its magnitude, am going to
attempt a few generalities on the
subject.
In the first place, there are no cut
and dried rules about marriage, as
there are in regard to arithmetic and
spelling-and even those, If you re-
member, have a good many excep-
tions.
1t will depend largely on the type
of man you are marrying. and if he
fell in love with you because your
tastes are similar, or because they
are different. Though from the tone
of your letter, I imagine you and
your fiance share many excellent
tastes in common. books and music
you have mentioned.
Some men want a companion with
whom they can share convictions,
interests and hobbies. Others are
immensely attracted by their "op-
posites." AS witness the dry-as- ust
professor in the woman's college is
frequently a victim of the chief but
terfly in his class.
And there is, of course. the erudite
type of man who fees from a bril-
liant woman and frankly enjoys a sill
ly one. Such a man does not want
companionship, but utter relaxation
in the woman of his choice. 1t
would, perhaps, be a little unkind to
say he was not seeking a wife, but
bromide"
a Huyhn 10 of n hn
man sedative is invariably an egotist.
He is utterly self-sufficient, and feels
himself endowed with gifts, talents,
and opinions sufficient for both. His
theory works out beautifully unless.
as sometimes happens, his wife de-
velops a mind of her own.
Because your genuine egotist re-
CARDS any reflection of mind, about
his promises, as an effront. He wants
to play Hamlet, and he likes the
whole stage and spotlight to him
self, and if his wife is going to play
anything at all, he would prefer that
she play dead"
Ambitious girls with dreams of cul-
tivating their own talents. will do
well to avoid the. gifted egotist, un-
less they are satisfied to shine wholly
by reflected glory.
partner is largely a question of
temperament and personality-and
the pairing of two people who are
good mixers" Certain temperaments
are as antagonistic as oil and water,
and it seems superfluous to say such
people ought not to marry.
Yet couples whose individual diff
ferences must have been Incompatible
even during courtship have the hard
ihood to try the experiment for all
time.
What gives them the courage to
embark on such an adventure? Did
they imagine, in spite of all the warn
ings of rasped nerves, disagreements,
differences of opinion, that the read
ing of the marriage service would
bring about miracle?
The miracle seldom follows. and
the differences that before marriage
were a source of irritation after
wards become like pressure on a
bruise. The first essential of a sue
cessful marriage, it would seem, is a
certain harmony of character. And
there should be a complete absence
of temperamental antagonism.
man who enjoys home and wants
TO stay there after his days work,
would find himself married to a wo-
man who regards home. apparently,
as the very last resource. She would
be away the greater part of the day,
provide delicatessen or canned food
and insist on going out to movie"
or some place else everey evening.
The children, if there were any, ran
the streets.
or a woman would save to the
last penny to make the home attrac-
tive, only to find that her husband
had no interest in it. He would
prove to be what my friend calls
"the ragtime type" Anything for
excitement, noise, to keep going
anything but a quiet moment.
Marriage between people of such
opposite tastes is doomed from the
beginning. You cannot turn a wild
cat into a comfortably purring do
mestic animal. Yet the domestic
variety be on the alert for wild,
prowling symptoms before marriage,
just as the prowlers should be equally
wary of the basking, hearth-rug
species. The wild and the tame make
poor yokemates.
Granting the people have domestic
tastes not utterly opposed, there is
now the colossal question of food to
be considered. Food has oiled the
rebellious domestic machinery more
often than any other element.
But, alas, how few girls really
know anything about practical house,
keeping. The domestic science classes
in our schools are inadequate to teach
practical family catering. Susie is
taught how to make mayonnaise,
gingerbread, and she looks on while
meat IS roasted; but is she taught
how to get highly appetizing and
economical dishes out of the cheap
cuts of meat, the way the French
and Italian women do? Does she
know how to market and keep cash
accounts? No. why should she, isn't
the delicatessen shop right around
the corner?