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

dOWntrodden and unfortunate mem
bers of their sex under the patrl-
archiaI rule of the last century.
Consider the lot of the women
who had the twin misfortunes OF
being genteel and unmarried as ne
encounter them in the novels Of
saw. Jane Austen. They were prlm
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 watered
the flowers; they counted the linen
and tended the sick and Kept the
household budgets. And IN return?
Why, they got room a little
better than the chambermald's ana
a sound alpaca dress at Christmas
time. For these they we're expected
to show a lovely appreciation and
humility.
SubjugatiOn Was a Racket
It 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 terrlfled
at the prospect of going out into
the world among strangers.
They took advantage OF this fact
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 state of peOnage. Oh, 1t was
a lovely age, the Victorian!
When the businesses and profess
sions began to make a grudging
place for the woman worker these
mouseIike 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 far pleaSanter
reward than sufferanCe, too.
Oh. their lot was immeasurably
improved. They became known as
the independent wonderland,
compared with their predecessors
who had to ask dear brother for
their street car fare, they were. But
they never became the Selt-sutil-
cient. detached entities you might
suppose.
They went right on working Tor
their sisters and their brothers and
their parents, but less directly. In
stead of sewing on their buttons
they contributed to their support.
Government statistics 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
urrecognized. Employers have a
high handed manner of diSmisSlng
their women workers first in the
curious belief evidently inherited
from the farmers wife'S egg
money" tradition-thate every woman
is supported by some man and only
works to pay for luxuries.
once the spinsters' services were
not taken seriously because they
were not paid for. Nowadays they
are not taken seriously because there
Is something IudicrouS. to most men
employers. in the idea that the head
of the family or even a seriously
contributing member. should be a
woman Women work for pin
money, as any sound member of the
CID guard knows.
The maiden woman has been given
p 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.