Evening star., 1933-01-13
Married Women and
Federal Employment
To the Editor OF The Star:

| TO the Editor OF The Star:
There was published In recent issue
Of The Star letter under the head
ing, Should Government Hire Both
Husband and Wife," which was in fact
challenge of the right Of women tc
be employed other than In a domestic
capacity, whether in the Government
service or elsewhere. The writer Of
that letter apparently allowed his
knowledge Of the legal phase to blind
him completely to other phases, such
as economic, social and moral.
Admitting that a man is required by
law to support his wife and children. 1t
does not necessarily follow that the
wife should be denied the privilege of
contributing to that support If she SO
desires by engaging in some gainful
occupation.
The tone Of the letter indicated q
presumption on the part of the writer
that women are women, that they are
all alike and should be held well within
the sphere Of domestic activity, ignor-
ing the fact that some Of them might
have an aversion to or an inaptitude
for domestic work, and in fact might
have inclinations and talents decidedly
in other directions. But we must rec
ognize that the same modern concep-
ton which has given to women the
right to suffrage also has freed her
from domestic slavery, and has given
her more or less freedom as to choice
OF occupation.
The reference made to the marriage
VOWS indicates that the writer of that
letter is better versed in law than in
matrimony. Any one who has attended
modern wedding ceremonies and lis
tened to the marriage VOWS knows that
| there is nothing expressed or implied
which obligates a woman to devote her
entire energies to domestic duties. On
the contrary, she may engage in any
gainful occupation and delegate the
household duties to servant or some
| one else. without any violation what
ever of her marriage VOWS. 1t cannct
| be denied that experience along busi-
ness lines helps to make woman a
better wife and mother for the reason
that such experience enables her to
sympathize with her husband and her
sons in their daily toll and also for
the reason that it gives her a better
realization Of the value Of money.
With particular reference to positions
in the government service: Is It fair to
prohibit the employment Of both hus-
band and wife when their combined
salaries may be less than the salaries
of some individual in the government
service, or when they may have rela-
tives dependent on them for support,
and at the same time permit the en-
ployment Of any number Of individuals,
other than husband and wife, cf the
same family? Why should married peo-
pie be penalized? 1t may be well to re-
call that some of our congressman have
employed their wives as secretaries
Why should such employment be lin
tied to the legislative branch of the
government? It seems that civil serv-
ice employees should not be discrirni-
mated against. Is it fair to dismiss
some women from the Government
service who happen to have husbands
employed also by the Government, and
to retain other women whose husbands
are employed outside of the Govern
ment service? Why should people in
the Government service be Disseminated
against and people outside the Govern
ment service be specially favored?
1t Is we'll known fact that some of
the women in the Government service
by reason Of long experience along GER
tain lines or by reason of natural apti-
tuce for accuracy, neatness. ETC., are
better qualified than men for certain
classes Of work. Is it in the interest
OF economy to dispense with the serv-
ices Of such women for the simple rea-
son that they happen to be married to
Government employees?
There are numbers of single women
employed in the Government service
who might be favorably inclined to
matrimony. Is it wise policy for the
Government to discourage them along
this line or to restrict their field of
search for husbands, and is there any
justice in discriminatory measures
which in this respect give to men out
side an advantage over those In the
Government service?
WILLIAM HALL.