Evening star., 1949-02-02
By Betty Miles


In the 1920's one Of the most
ardent battle cries of the feminist
was her maiden name. To relin-
quish it after marriage was to betray
her devotion to the emancipation of
her sex. The Lucy Stone League de-
voted itself to this end; and Doris
z. Fleischman (Bernays) was one of
the members of this league. In
"Notes of Retiring Feminist" in
this months American Mercury she
tells of the amusing and trying COM
plications that consequently dogged
her steps for quarter of a century.
by and large" the author states,
"using my own name has been like
swimming upstream through mo-
lasses." Every telephone call pre-
sents a hazard, she goes on and her
friends are frankly embarrassed
when introductions are in order. In
discussing the subject she has found
that people have been more BASH
full than Kinsey researchers asking
about sex"
Miss Fleischman's husband, Ed
ward Bernays. the noted public re-
lations counsel, did not object to this
arrangement. But her own family
refused to recognize it. and when
her daughters grew old enough to
understand such things they put it
down as nonsense, too.
Shutters clicked when Miss
Fleischman (then Mrs. Bernays)
travelled to Europe in 1925, using a
passport that bore her maiden name.
She succeeded in securing this, the
first of its kind to be issued, by
pointing out to the Secretary OF
State there is no law compelling a
woman to use any but her own
name, and I have never done SO.
Since it is apparent that the pur-
pose of a passport is to establish
identity, assume you will not wish
me to travel under false name" n
In the business world-she has
been her husbands partner for 26
years-and socially, her double
identity" provided many problems.
"Only one dealer" says Miss
Fleischman, has been a comfort to
my ego in all these troubled years.
The newsstand dealer always greets
my husband, Hello, Mr.. Fleischman.
MY husband honestly enjoys it."
This idea, that to today's young
seems inane, was very worth fight
ing for to her contemporaries, Miss
Fleischman declares. The symbol
Of individuality that the retention
of the maiden name suggested to
the feminists was mistaken, she be-
lieves, for the actual developing OF
their own personalities. She's ready
10 leave the Lucy Stoners' camp. and
adds that "since word at best can
reflect only a truth, there will be
no change in the inner life or ex-
ternaI motions of an ex-miss."
With a latter-day comment on
this business of the rights OF the
sexes, Coronet's THE Doctor Looks
at Men and Women" makes some |
points that might well have thrown
the most intense feminists into a
complete tizzy. Men and women
differ more than dogs and wolves,
DR.. ]. B. Rice, the author Of this
article, declares. They are built Tor
different functions. and he makes
no effort to hide his feeling that
the role of homemaker woman has
played traditionally is the one for
which she is biologically constituted.
Men have their troubles. he adds,
what with much of his instructive
belligerent behavior $4,000 years out
Of date. Twentieth century man"
SAYS he, "is like a prehistoric bull
barging around in the china shop
of modern civilization" He asks
for more attention to the problems
of the misunderstood male, with
greater domestic harmony a prob
able result.
In Today's Woman, Llewellyn Mil
Ter is the Angry Housewife (who)
Sounds OF on Luxury Taxes" The
article is an amusing one and II
you haven't given serious thought
to the problem in the past, you'll
probably find yourself being more
analytical on that score after
reading it.
Not for a minute, Mrs. Miller
points out, does she feel that Con-
gress Intentionally discriminates
against women and babies. But
that Is the end product. Further
more, she implies that some serious
thinking would have resulted in
fairer end product generally. Why, |
she wants to know, does Congress
not tax a $3.50 hat-or any hat for
that matter-but does place 20
per cent tax on a IS handbag-or
any other handbag?
"Cynics like to call marriage a.