The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-03-17

I
downtrOdden and unfortunate mem
bers Of their sex under the patri-
archial rule Of the last century.
Consider the lot of the women
who had the twin misfOrtunes of
being genteel and unmarried as We
encounter them in the novels Of,
say, Jane Austen. They were a prim
little army Of gOvernesses and poor
relations who spent their lives TAX
ing over all the unpleasant duties
of married relatives households.
They fed the baby and wate-ed
the flowers; they counted the linen
and tended the sick and Kept the
household budgets. And III return?
Why, they got a room a little
better than the chambermaid's and
a sound alpaca dress at Christmas
time. For these they we're expected
to show a lovely appreciation and
humility.
SubjugatiOn Was a Racket
1t appears, indeed, that the spin
ster OF those unhappy days was the
victim of one of the neatest rack
cts of the time. Her relatives knew
well enough that she was terrified
at the prospect of going out into
the world among strangers.
They took advantage OF this fac:
to wiring from her far more in Serv-
ice that the poor little pittance
which they gave her deserved; they
had nerve enough to demand her
gratitude to them for keeping her
in a state of peOnage. Oh, it was
a lovely age. the Victorian!
When the businesses and profess
sions began to make a grudging
place for the woman worker these
mouselike gentlewomen ventured
forth. They found that they could
be paid in real money for their
services, instead of IN cotton dress
lengths.
They discovered that they could
command a measure of respect from
their employers tar pleasanter
reward than sufferance, too.
Oh, their lot was UNNECESSARILY
improved. They became known as
the Independent women'-and,
compared with their predecessors
who had to ask dear brother for
their street car fare, they were. But
they never became the self-Sufl-
Cient. detached entities you might
suppose.
rhey went right on working for
their sisters and their brothers and
their parents, but less directly. In
stead of sewing on their buttons
they contributed to their support.
Government StatiCtics show that
more than three-tOurthS of the
single working women in the coun-
try today have one or more depend
ents-that they contribute far more
to the support of their families than
the single sons.
Egg Money Fallacy Persists
OF course. this fact still is largely
urrecogni7ed. Employers have a
high handed manner of diSmiSSing
their women workers first in the
curious evidently inherited
from the farmers wifeS egg
money" tradiCiOn-1hat every woman
Is supporter DN SClllS iLdI anu Oi4S
works to pay Tor luXurles.
Once the spinSters' services were
not taken seriously because they
were not paid for. Nowadays they
are not taken seriously because there
is something ludicrOuS. to most men
employers. in the idea that the head
of the family" or even a seriously
contributing member. should be
woman. Women work for pin
money. as any sound member of the
CID guard knows.
The maiden woman has been given
a raw deal by her married relatives
for centuries. She would have been
quite justified. We believe. in walk
ing out when the opportunity Of
fered and leaving them cold.